3 ms·

The amount of human effort, labor, and heartache put into squabbling over where someone was born or was naturalized is absolutely mind blowing.

axus 1y ago
The native Americans tolerated immigration, and we all know what happened to them. On the topic of the article, every hotel outside the US I've used has asked for my passport; I didn't know that a copy of the details exposed weaknesses on the electronic side.
- xhkkffbf 1y ago
  Tolerated? Some welcomed it and some actively fought several wars against it and lost. Many tribes conducted some kind of economic transaction that traded land for something else.
  - mistrial9 1y ago
    Various California native people practiced slavery and indentured servitude on each other before the arrival of Spanish Catholics. The Mayan people went further than that.
    - iso1631 1y ago
      Still do. Slavery is perfectly legal in modern day USA, it's enshrined in the constitution > Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Which is functionally the same as > slavery or involuntary servitude, as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
      - tatersolid 1y ago
        Actually the two are very much not the same logically. The real text quoted first allows for servitude in limited circumstances. Your second modified version requires it.
- Phemist 1y ago
  Yes, as this blog post doesn't mention it, the "password key" is specifically derived from your Date of Birth, the document's Date of Expiry and the Document Number. For the specimen document in the blog post these values are respectively 740812 (YYMMDD), 120415 (YYMMDD) and L898902C3. They are contained in both the MRZ and the VIZ (Visual Inspection Zone). Considering the Date of Birth and Date of Expiry are necessarily limited in entropy, one should take care in protecting their Document Number as it is the greatest source of entropy for the derived "password key".
- iso1631 1y ago
  > Every hotel outside the US I've used has asked for my passport Every hotel in the US and any other country has asked for my passport (and credit card), but I'm not American. The textual information on the page of my passport is basically public knowledge, like a phone number or an american social security number. It's rare that a hotel takes the passport out of sight (and potentially scan the chip), but a photocopy is fairly frequent.
- wat10000 1y ago
  The USA welcomed immigration and we all know what happened to them.
- ghaff 1y ago
  I very much doubt if every hotel I've stayed in outside the US has asked for my passport but certainly many/most have. Never really paid much mind. As a US resident, I have often been asked for a drivers license in the US and it was actually an issue at one point when I had lost it though I was able to work around with some difficulty. I suspect the details were some combination of local/state/and hotel policy.
  - stackskipton 1y ago
    Most hotels I’ve stayed at ask for ID. If you are foreign, they want a passport only. I have had issues with US hotels accept US passports and fought with one over it.
    - ghaff 1y ago
      I expect that quite a few hotel clerks in the US are just not familiar with anything other than a driver's license as government ID (or think a driver's license is the only acceptable ID). I'm pretty sure that I would have an issue with a global entry card at some point if I were to routinely use it outside of TSA (as I do after my driver's license issue) even though it's perfectly valid US government ID. Generally speaking, hotels in the US do seem to want government ID. Don't really know the requirement in general. This was a fairly low-rent chain that I was only using because last minute. I expect if it had been one of my major loyalty chains, a manager would have fixed things pretty quickly. ADDED: Normally I travel with a passport as well but, as I say, this was a last moment short trip so I didn't throw in all my travel pouches.
  - heavyset_go 1y ago
    Hotels/motels want your ID so they can come after you if you trash the room.
    - ghaff 1y ago
      The bizarro thing in this case was that I convinced them to just let me pay in cash. Which of course gave them no ability to chase after me if I trashed the room.
- hylaride 1y ago
  Passports are much more common in some countries, and for most of the others where it's not you were probably obviously a foreigner based on your appearance, accent, or the fact you were likely in a tourist area. Many countries also have mandatory registration of foreign visitors that hotels do automatically so they know the drill.
alphazard 1y ago
A democracy cannot function if the electorate is not well defined. They are vulnerable to Sybil attacks, same as the distributed ledgers and hash tables.
- Terr_ 1y ago
  Yeah: Determining voting eligibility (nearly synonymous with citizenship) is required unless "outsiders" simply don't exist. Even if one government spanned literally every sentient being, it'd still need to ensure no citizen votes twice.
Danjoe4 1y ago
Go to South Sudan and tell me if you still feel the same way.
xhkkffbf 1y ago
If you want to have "safety net" social programs, it can't be avoided. At least until there's only one government.
- iso1631 1y ago
  In the UK I don't need a passport to travel or move home, yet social programs and taxes vary not just between the constituent nations but also between smaller government areas. It's often decried as a "postcode lottery". I'm certain that it varies even more between American states. Presumably the social "safety net" assistance in California is different to that in Montana. In Alaska people get free money. Entitlement tends to be based on where you live
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
z2 1y ago
It is one of the core concepts of sovereignty--defining a territory and then deciding who or what gets to be inside. Along with a government with a monopoly on violence used inwards, and some foreign relations directed outwards, you have the recipe for a modern country.
- toomuchtodo 1y ago
  Also, access to nation state provided benefits, which is limited because resources are (currently) limited.
- Spooky23 1y ago
  No, it’s a core tenet of bureaucracy. None of this stuff existed outside of diplomatic circles as recently as a century ago. Nations and kingdoms have been able to assert sovereignty for eons.
  - zenmac 1y ago
    >Nations and kingdoms have been able to assert sovereignty for eons. by asserting monopoly on violence within a geographical region... and now we got private mercenaries, guess Treaty of Westphalia is kinda out of windows now or soon?
drsim 1y ago
It is a shame you are being downvoted, as it is an admirable ideology: why should someone be (dis)advantaged by the accident of where they were born. In reality though, 8 billion people hold a wide spectrum of beliefs. I would not want to live in a society with low taxation and low welfare for example. How can I live side-by-side with those that do? Of course, we all have limited choice to move if our society does not match our beliefs.
- lazide 1y ago
  It also essentially defines who is asserting ownership over someone (from the sense of ‘who gets the body if they die?’ to ‘who is going to go to war with us if we do something they really don’t like to this person’). Not to mention if someone gets hurt and ends up in a coma or something, who is responsible for the bills? Which may seem like hypothetical questions to the young or the inexperienced, but are very real concerns hidden behind a veil of generally maintained civility in most of modern society.
- morshu9001 1y ago
  Plenty of the 8B people will take you up on that high taxation and welfare offer
15155 1y ago
How do you offer entitlements and quality healthcare to the entire population of the world without money? Who should be allowed to participate in the decision-making process that allocates these finite resources?
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  Who said anything about "without money"?
  - 15155 1y ago
    Money is finite - where is this money coming from? Vacuuming the (imaginary - we're using feelings here, let's not split hairs on things like 'markets') accounts of every billionaire and redistributing these funds evenly amounts to singular thousands of dollars to just citizens. The overwhelming majority of actual taxpaying citizens don't pay enough tax to cover their per-capita share of government spending, is there some factual evidence to suggest that unlimited economic migrants would? (or could?)
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      Money is finite. So are basic survival needs. We certainly can't give everyone a Bezos yacht. But we can probably have a little less famine, as a treat.
      - gruez 1y ago
        >But we can probably have a little less famine, as a treat. Surely it's cheaper to do that via foreign aid in whatever country that's experiencing famine, where the cost of living is lower?
        ceejayoz 1y ago
        Yes, we should absolutely undo the USAID cuts.
wat10000 1y ago
The downvotes on this comment are wild. Like, you didn't even say we should definitely enact open borders right now. You just lamented how things are. And it is absolutely lamentable. All the responses are basically saying "but we need it!" Which isn't even addressing what you're saying. Plenty of necessary things are lamentable.
foofoo12 1y ago
I was going to respond, but when I looked in my bag of trollfeed I saw it contained fuck all.
blackcatsec 1y ago
The comments rebuking you appear to forget that by definition GDP and wealth are derived from the population. Wealth for social programs is not a finite resource as the general consensus is that over one's lifetime more wealth is created by one's work effort than is needed to sustain the individual. Capitalism by definition extracts this extra wealth for the private interests of a few. But there's no particular reason that this extra wealth can't be used to assist those that may not even meet the necessity of output of sustaining themselves. This is a difficult concept for people to understand because they look at their paychecks and go "I'm not deriving so much wealth!" well yeah. A huge, large chunk of your wealth is being extracted for capitalism. And in manners that will be very difficult for you to understand. I'll try to explain it, though, for the audience that peruses these forums. You're a software developer. You work for a public B2B software company. Your wealth is being extracted to: Pay for those company pizza parties, pay for the office you work in, pay in to the healthcare system that "your company is paying for" that isn't directly part of the premium you see on open enrollment, paying for the company holiday parties, paying into everyone's various insurance plans to reduce the out-of-pocket costs for everyone in those insurance plans (outside of your company, of course), paying for the CEO's multi-million dollar paycheck, paying for the bonuses of all of the management, paying for shareholder value and dividends, paying for the taxes your company pays, paying for the taxes you pay. If your existence at your job didn't pay for those things, most companies will tend to lay you off. And this goes for pretty much the vast majority of workers in the vast majority of jobs. So saying that more immigrants somehow puts a strain on the system is just by definition incorrect, even if a percentage of those immigrants don't generate the same level of value you do as an individual. Do you think every person in your organization generates the same relative value? Of course not. In most businesses in America, does the janitor generate the same wealth as the CEO? To be fair, there is a snarky comment to be made there about CEOs--but the objective reality is probably not. But the janitor is still generating some wealth by ensuring a safe, healthy, and comfortable workplace for the employees. Does that mean the janitor is not entitled to income? to healthcare? to benefits? to company holiday parties? to company pizza parties? Just convert this into a much larger scale of the entirety of a country's population--and well, the answer is that most populations have enough free money floating around somewhere to provide essential services to everyone: education, food, safety and security, health, and likely even housing, electricity, and pretty much any other public service we could provide. And this scales as a population grows.
IncreasePosts 1y ago
Do you treat your immediate family better than an absolute stranger? If so, why? Aren't they all just people?
morshu9001 1y ago
It's because generations/families are a thing. Even the countries taking the most immigrants like USA aren't expecting an immediate benefit, they're thinking 1-2 gens later.

axus 1y ago

The native Americans tolerated immigration, and we all know what happened to them. On the topic of the article, every hotel outside the US I've used has asked for my passport; I didn't know that a copy of the details exposed weaknesses on the electronic side.

xhkkffbf 1y ago
Tolerated? Some welcomed it and some actively fought several wars against it and lost. Many tribes conducted some kind of economic transaction that traded land for something else.
- mistrial9 1y ago
  Various California native people practiced slavery and indentured servitude on each other before the arrival of Spanish Catholics. The Mayan people went further than that.
  - iso1631 1y ago
    Still do. Slavery is perfectly legal in modern day USA, it's enshrined in the constitution > Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Which is functionally the same as > slavery or involuntary servitude, as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
    - tatersolid 1y ago
      Actually the two are very much not the same logically. The real text quoted first allows for servitude in limited circumstances. Your second modified version requires it.
Phemist 1y ago
Yes, as this blog post doesn't mention it, the "password key" is specifically derived from your Date of Birth, the document's Date of Expiry and the Document Number. For the specimen document in the blog post these values are respectively 740812 (YYMMDD), 120415 (YYMMDD) and L898902C3. They are contained in both the MRZ and the VIZ (Visual Inspection Zone). Considering the Date of Birth and Date of Expiry are necessarily limited in entropy, one should take care in protecting their Document Number as it is the greatest source of entropy for the derived "password key".
iso1631 1y ago
> Every hotel outside the US I've used has asked for my passport Every hotel in the US and any other country has asked for my passport (and credit card), but I'm not American. The textual information on the page of my passport is basically public knowledge, like a phone number or an american social security number. It's rare that a hotel takes the passport out of sight (and potentially scan the chip), but a photocopy is fairly frequent.
wat10000 1y ago
The USA welcomed immigration and we all know what happened to them.
ghaff 1y ago
I very much doubt if every hotel I've stayed in outside the US has asked for my passport but certainly many/most have. Never really paid much mind. As a US resident, I have often been asked for a drivers license in the US and it was actually an issue at one point when I had lost it though I was able to work around with some difficulty. I suspect the details were some combination of local/state/and hotel policy.
- stackskipton 1y ago
  Most hotels I’ve stayed at ask for ID. If you are foreign, they want a passport only. I have had issues with US hotels accept US passports and fought with one over it.
  - ghaff 1y ago
    I expect that quite a few hotel clerks in the US are just not familiar with anything other than a driver's license as government ID (or think a driver's license is the only acceptable ID). I'm pretty sure that I would have an issue with a global entry card at some point if I were to routinely use it outside of TSA (as I do after my driver's license issue) even though it's perfectly valid US government ID. Generally speaking, hotels in the US do seem to want government ID. Don't really know the requirement in general. This was a fairly low-rent chain that I was only using because last minute. I expect if it had been one of my major loyalty chains, a manager would have fixed things pretty quickly. ADDED: Normally I travel with a passport as well but, as I say, this was a last moment short trip so I didn't throw in all my travel pouches.
- heavyset_go 1y ago
  Hotels/motels want your ID so they can come after you if you trash the room.
  - ghaff 1y ago
    The bizarro thing in this case was that I convinced them to just let me pay in cash. Which of course gave them no ability to chase after me if I trashed the room.
hylaride 1y ago
Passports are much more common in some countries, and for most of the others where it's not you were probably obviously a foreigner based on your appearance, accent, or the fact you were likely in a tourist area. Many countries also have mandatory registration of foreign visitors that hotels do automatically so they know the drill.

alphazard 1y ago

A democracy cannot function if the electorate is not well defined. They are vulnerable to Sybil attacks, same as the distributed ledgers and hash tables.

Terr_ 1y ago
Yeah: Determining voting eligibility (nearly synonymous with citizenship) is required unless "outsiders" simply don't exist. Even if one government spanned literally every sentient being, it'd still need to ensure no citizen votes twice.

Danjoe4 1y ago

Go to South Sudan and tell me if you still feel the same way.

xhkkffbf 1y ago

If you want to have "safety net" social programs, it can't be avoided. At least until there's only one government.

iso1631 1y ago
In the UK I don't need a passport to travel or move home, yet social programs and taxes vary not just between the constituent nations but also between smaller government areas. It's often decried as a "postcode lottery". I'm certain that it varies even more between American states. Presumably the social "safety net" assistance in California is different to that in Montana. In Alaska people get free money. Entitlement tends to be based on where you live
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

z2 1y ago

It is one of the core concepts of sovereignty--defining a territory and then deciding who or what gets to be inside. Along with a government with a monopoly on violence used inwards, and some foreign relations directed outwards, you have the recipe for a modern country.

toomuchtodo 1y ago
Also, access to nation state provided benefits, which is limited because resources are (currently) limited.
Spooky23 1y ago
No, it’s a core tenet of bureaucracy. None of this stuff existed outside of diplomatic circles as recently as a century ago. Nations and kingdoms have been able to assert sovereignty for eons.
- zenmac 1y ago
  >Nations and kingdoms have been able to assert sovereignty for eons. by asserting monopoly on violence within a geographical region... and now we got private mercenaries, guess Treaty of Westphalia is kinda out of windows now or soon?

drsim 1y ago

It is a shame you are being downvoted, as it is an admirable ideology: why should someone be (dis)advantaged by the accident of where they were born. In reality though, 8 billion people hold a wide spectrum of beliefs. I would not want to live in a society with low taxation and low welfare for example. How can I live side-by-side with those that do? Of course, we all have limited choice to move if our society does not match our beliefs.

lazide 1y ago
It also essentially defines who is asserting ownership over someone (from the sense of ‘who gets the body if they die?’ to ‘who is going to go to war with us if we do something they really don’t like to this person’). Not to mention if someone gets hurt and ends up in a coma or something, who is responsible for the bills? Which may seem like hypothetical questions to the young or the inexperienced, but are very real concerns hidden behind a veil of generally maintained civility in most of modern society.
morshu9001 1y ago
Plenty of the 8B people will take you up on that high taxation and welfare offer

15155 1y ago

How do you offer entitlements and quality healthcare to the entire population of the world without money? Who should be allowed to participate in the decision-making process that allocates these finite resources?

ceejayoz 1y ago
Who said anything about "without money"?
- 15155 1y ago
  Money is finite - where is this money coming from? Vacuuming the (imaginary - we're using feelings here, let's not split hairs on things like 'markets') accounts of every billionaire and redistributing these funds evenly amounts to singular thousands of dollars to just citizens. The overwhelming majority of actual taxpaying citizens don't pay enough tax to cover their per-capita share of government spending, is there some factual evidence to suggest that unlimited economic migrants would? (or could?)
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    Money is finite. So are basic survival needs. We certainly can't give everyone a Bezos yacht. But we can probably have a little less famine, as a treat.
    - gruez 1y ago
      >But we can probably have a little less famine, as a treat. Surely it's cheaper to do that via foreign aid in whatever country that's experiencing famine, where the cost of living is lower?
      - ceejayoz 1y ago
        Yes, we should absolutely undo the USAID cuts.

wat10000 1y ago

The downvotes on this comment are wild. Like, you didn't even say we should definitely enact open borders right now. You just lamented how things are. And it is absolutely lamentable. All the responses are basically saying "but we need it!" Which isn't even addressing what you're saying. Plenty of necessary things are lamentable.

foofoo12 1y ago

I was going to respond, but when I looked in my bag of trollfeed I saw it contained fuck all.

blackcatsec 1y ago

The comments rebuking you appear to forget that by definition GDP and wealth are derived from the population. Wealth for social programs is not a finite resource as the general consensus is that over one's lifetime more wealth is created by one's work effort than is needed to sustain the individual. Capitalism by definition extracts this extra wealth for the private interests of a few. But there's no particular reason that this extra wealth can't be used to assist those that may not even meet the necessity of output of sustaining themselves. This is a difficult concept for people to understand because they look at their paychecks and go "I'm not deriving so much wealth!" well yeah. A huge, large chunk of your wealth is being extracted for capitalism. And in manners that will be very difficult for you to understand. I'll try to explain it, though, for the audience that peruses these forums. You're a software developer. You work for a public B2B software company. Your wealth is being extracted to: Pay for those company pizza parties, pay for the office you work in, pay in to the healthcare system that "your company is paying for" that isn't directly part of the premium you see on open enrollment, paying for the company holiday parties, paying into everyone's various insurance plans to reduce the out-of-pocket costs for everyone in those insurance plans (outside of your company, of course), paying for the CEO's multi-million dollar paycheck, paying for the bonuses of all of the management, paying for shareholder value and dividends, paying for the taxes your company pays, paying for the taxes you pay. If your existence at your job didn't pay for those things, most companies will tend to lay you off. And this goes for pretty much the vast majority of workers in the vast majority of jobs. So saying that more immigrants somehow puts a strain on the system is just by definition incorrect, even if a percentage of those immigrants don't generate the same level of value you do as an individual. Do you think every person in your organization generates the same relative value? Of course not. In most businesses in America, does the janitor generate the same wealth as the CEO? To be fair, there is a snarky comment to be made there about CEOs--but the objective reality is probably not. But the janitor is still generating some wealth by ensuring a safe, healthy, and comfortable workplace for the employees. Does that mean the janitor is not entitled to income? to healthcare? to benefits? to company holiday parties? to company pizza parties? Just convert this into a much larger scale of the entirety of a country's population--and well, the answer is that most populations have enough free money floating around somewhere to provide essential services to everyone: education, food, safety and security, health, and likely even housing, electricity, and pretty much any other public service we could provide. And this scales as a population grows.

IncreasePosts 1y ago

Do you treat your immediate family better than an absolute stranger? If so, why? Aren't they all just people?

morshu9001 1y ago

It's because generations/families are a thing. Even the countries taking the most immigrants like USA aren't expecting an immediate benefit, they're thinking 1-2 gens later.