The Schrödinger’s Border paradox.
The US is the victim of a 30 year long Distributed Denial of Reality attack.
I feel like we’re only getting farther away from the actual will of the people being affected. This whole border nonsense makes me want to pull my hair out.
Say you agree with the idea of harder immigration controls, how does a stupid wall and ice cruelty address the lure of jobs working for the likes of trump and his cronies? Why don’t the Rs ever talk about going after illegal employers?
(I mean, I think we all know why. )
I seem to remember there being an area in Texas where there were several employers all making a similar product, welded steel cargo trailers (for trucks and such).
There were ICE raids, and many of the welders were illegal. But you know how brutal welding as an occupation is? It pays really well though, and more job mobility than any other occupation in the world.
The companies (in Texas, mind you, where they are all just so tired of all them ee legals) were sobbing their eyes out that their workforce was being deported.
In Texas. Making serious 'Merica stuff.
Its not about immigration. Its about keeping low wages and a cultural superiority above one group of people, and not having to pay them benefits or taxes. Capitalism, after all. Its just good for business, you see.
…and that is something for folks to keep in mind when discussing the “effectiveness” of the wall.
If people argue that the wall is bad because it won’t work, they are implicitly conceding the argument that more border enforcement is a good and necessary thing. Which leads to things like Chuck Schumer’s attempts to offer Trump billions in funding for the Border Patrol so long as they spend it on drones and cameras and cops instead of walls.
The fact that the wall would be ineffective at stopping border crossings is one of the few good things about it.
The problem of the border is not that people are crossing it without paperwork. The problem is that the USA insists upon keeping its undocumented agricultural workforce in a state of powerless and exploitable serfdom.
US passports are issued in the name of the Secretary of State, not the President (unlike, say, British passports which are issued in the name of the Queen).
In terms of the direction the eagle faces, the eagle on the passport is the Great Seal of the United States, which has always been facing to its right (the viewer’s left, towards the olive branch). The Presidential Seal is slightly different- in that seal the eagle has sometimes been depicted facing to its left and/or towards the arrows. There was never any fixed reason for this (any claims that it is to do with the identity of the President or whether the US is at war are myths)- it simply wasn’t codified until 1945.
No, “affected” was correct.
Effect (verb) - Create
Affect (verb) - Modify, change, impact.
Effect (noun) - Outcome
Affect (noun) - Appearance of emotion (esp. false or put-on)
So the people were affected but the effect of the policies and they probably effected a negative affect.
Unrelated to affect and effect, I realize that P.C. must stand for “Probable Cause” but there was definitely a part of my brain that immediately thought it might indicate how border patrol deals with “People of Colour”
Just remember that the CANADIAN border patrol won’t let you into the country if you have a criminal record (DUI or a pot conviction,say.)
Now that pot is legal in Canada you can enter Canada with a pot conviction. We only exclude you if you have a conviction for something that is also a crime in Canada. The protects people who were convicted of crimes like “being gay” - since there is no equivalent crime in Canada, we don’t count it.
I have none. Which, again, is why this is goddamned Orwellian.
Careful! Trying to use logic on cross border rules is risky.
Yes, I should put a “never trust the law to protect you at the border” disclaimer on what I said. What I said will probably be true in 10 to 15 years.
This reminds me of a Canadian case (R v Chehil) case a few years ago which discussed the criteria police use when deciding whether to use a sniffer dog on someone’s checked luggage at the airport.
The presence of reasonable suspicion must be assessed in the context of a specific case. The officers testified that no indicator by itself was determinative, that the decision to deploy a sniffer dog was made based on the following factors: (1) the travel was on a one-way ticket; (2) the flight originated in Vancouver; (3) the appellant was travelling alone; (4) the ticket was purchased with cash; (5) the ticket was the last one purchased before the flight departed; (6) the appellant checked one piece of luggage; (7) the flight was overnight; (8) the flight took place mid- to late-week; and (9) drug couriers prefer less expensive airlines, such as WestJet.
Admittedly they did say that it’s only if you tick all of those boxes that they’ll assume you’re a drug courier. But considering I tick 6 or 7 of those boxes on almost every flight I take, that’s a little too close for comfort.
Pass the time on your flight trying to figure out who the actual drug couriers are.
As you probably aware, but other folks may not, the entire state of Michigan is in this “100-mile border” thanks to geography and Flint’s airport. I do find it interesting that CBP seems a bit wary of testing their “jurisdiction” beyond the shorelines. My suspicion is that they know the courts will totally throttle their authority if they try.
Am I right that this potential is arbitrary, and not always enforced?
Of course, somewhere in the redacted section is probably something about being suspicious due to having a “non-primary and/or non-app-enabled mobile device” and /or a laptop with insufficient data saved on it/social media activity. Like how your credit is “bad” because you never borrow and don’t have credit cards…
My last crossings, July north, August south, visiting Manitoba; it was smooth sailing.
Lots of engaging questions headed north through a rural one-man Control.
Few questions, but ~5 minutes of data-base exploration headed south. As a pyrotechnician with a licensed magazine (ATFE), and clearances for a couple state-run detoxes; I was found here & there. Watching the monitor’s color cast shift, I assume various ‘takes’, ‘snapshots’ of my dataset were utilized.
I did learn that an expunged record, had indeed been expunged. My negatory answer would have been challenged otherwise.
In the end, the officer wished me a safe evening, never got up from his seat; main road south out of Winnipeg.
Yeah, it’s a mess.
I don’t expect border agents to follow the actual law.
Where are you located that a flight to Australia is tolerable?