Webcams Allow Public to 'Patrol' the Border - Immigration and our Borders

Webcams Allow Public to 'Patrol' the Border

Immigration and our Borders Forum

Pages:  1Original Forum    Popular Forums    Search

Posted by: Marc Flemming

quote:
A US state is to enlist web users in its fight against illegal immigration by offering live surveillance footage of the Mexican border on the internet.
The plan will allow web users worldwide to watch Texas' border with Mexico and phone the authorities if they spot any apparently illegal crossings.

Texas Governor Rick Perry said the cameras would focus on "hot-spots and common routes" used to enter the US.

US lawmakers have been debating a divisive new immigration bill.

The Senate has approved a law that grants millions of illegal immigrants US citizenship and calls for the creation of a guest-worker programme, while beefing up border security.

But in order to come into effect, the plan must be reconciled with tougher anti-immigration measures backed by the House of Representatives, that insist all illegal immigration should be criminalised.

The issue has polarised politics and US society. Right-wing groups have protested against illegal immigrants, while millions of people marched in support of them last month.

Free number

The Texas governor announced his plans for streaming the border surveillance camera footage over the internet at a meeting of police officials on Thursday.

"A stronger border is what Americans want and it's what our security demands and that is what Texas is going to deliver," Mr Perry said.

The cameras will cost $5m (£2.7m) to install and will be trained on sections of the 1,000-mile (1,600km) border known to be favoured by illegal immigrants.

Web users who spot an apparently illegal crossing will be able to alert the authorities by telephoning a number free of charge.

Mr Perry, a Republican, is running for re-election in November.

Deployment dispute

Meanwhile, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has sent National Guard soldiers to his state's border with Mexico, ending a weeks-old dispute with US President George W Bush.

President Bush announced plans on 14 May for thousands of soldiers from the Guard to be sent to bolster security along the Mexican border.

Mr Schwarzenegger had opposed the plan, describing it as a "Band-Aid solution" - or a temporary fix.

He said he did not want to place his state's National Guard soldiers - many of whom would have already served in Iraq - under additional strain.

On Thursday, the governor said he would send the soldiers to the border and the cost of the deployment would be shouldered by the federal government.

Meanwhile, a group of US civilian volunteers that has been patrolling the Mexican border began last week building a fence along a section of the frontier.

The Minutemen group started erecting the fence on privately-owned land in Arizona on Saturday, saying it is "doing the job the federal government will not do".

The Minutemen are allowed to report illegal crossings to border police but have no right to arrest suspects.

Human rights groups have accused the group of xenophobia towards illegal immigrants - but the group denies this.

Source: BBC
Reply To this Message

Posted by: nikiTa

Ahh, technology replacing humans.

We will see much more of this in the future...much more than what is already in place.

Used to work for the company who designed this specific ablility.

Phone number is one way of communicating...another that will be used is paging a 2-way satellite pager. More efficient and response will be quicker that way.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: EUCLID

It will be very interesting to see if this surveillance actually happens and gets posted on the web. I would not be surprised if it is prevented from happening. The proposal will really step on some toes merely by documenting and web casting the illegal entry even if it does nothing to limit it.

It will specifically document and quantify the illegal entry. I wonder if there will be any way to correlate those incidences of reported illegal entry with the follow-up capture and process of the individuals reported.

If there is a way to correlate the reports of illegal entry with the enforcement response, it will show whether or not promises to enforce the border are genuine.

I predict that there will be MUCH criticism of the proposal to make the surveillance public on the web. I would not be surprised if Mexico sues the U.S. over that issue, claiming that it is a human rights violation of the people caught on camera.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: nikiTa

You may be surprised to know that this kind of surveillance is already being utilized at other locations throughout the U.S.

The knowledge of this technology was made public in 2004.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: EUCLID

quote:
nikiTa said this in post #4 :
You may be surprised to know that this kind of surveillance is already being utilized at other locations throughout the U.S.

The knowledge of this technology was made public in 2004.


Oh I understand that the technology is not new and that it is already being used. My concern is that this particular application is new, and I think that it will prove to be highly controversial.

I know there has been a lot of talk about a virtual fence, which implies the use of video surveillance among other things. But I believe that proposals about fences, real and virtual, as well as National Guard assistance, are disingenuous. There are a lot of Americans who don't want to enforce the border, and most of them are in charge of doing so at the highest levels. But there is a rising call from the public for border enforcement, so the ones not doing the job have got to promise that they will.

The ones who do not want to enforce the border are the ones whose toes will get stepped on by the video surveillance because they will not be in control of it, and it will force them to either be accountable or reveal that they are not.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: nikiTa

Yesterday's top news was about how they busted some illintentioned Muslims in Canada recently.

I am sure you know that border control in Canada is both nonexistent and virtually impossible to maintain. I mean come on, if someone wants into our country and are dead serious they wouldn't use the Mexican border anyway. If, and this is a big if, the reason for border control is for national security then yeah, I think bringing home the National Guard for an easy and safe job would be worth it. But somehow, I don't think that border control is about national security, I believe it is an issue of class and racism based on class.

India does the same thing with Bangladesh, they are building a wall, and Israel is helping them make it. In fact there are several walls placed all over the world for this very reason of class...

Reply To this Message

Posted by: EUCLID

quote:
nikiTa said this in post #6 :
If, and this is a big if, the reason for border control is for national security then yeah, I think bringing home the National Guard for an easy and safe job would be worth it. But somehow, I don't think that border control is about national security, I believe it is an issue of class and racism based on class.


One of the reasons to enforce borders is for national security, but I don’t think that is the issue for the most part in this current debate about illegal immigration. I also don’t think that most people who oppose amnesty or unlimited immigration hold that position because of issues about class and race.

When you say that it is about building a wall against class and race, what would be your remedy if it were up to you? Would you open this country to anybody who wanted to come? Or would you place a limit on it?

Mexicans have it easy to get here. All they have to do is walk across the land. There are probably ten times more people in all the countries south of Mexico who would walk in as well, but their biggest obstacle is Mexico, which won’t let them into their country. How many Haitians would come here tomorrow if we invited them in and they had a way to get across the ocean?

It’s nice to be compassionate, but I want to be realistic. Letting in a reasonable, absorbable number immigrants to share in the American experience is fine, but if you simply invite the whole world in, we will triple the population overnight, and the standard of living in this county will surely drop to equalize with the much lower standard introduced through massive immigration. If all of the people who wanted to come here could do so, we would not have a construction industry that paid $15-30 per hour, for example. The labor market is already brutal.

I work in mechanical design, and the whole field is being outsourced to India and China because the people do the same work for $7 per hour. It used to be that everybody thought just the blue-collar assembly manufacturing jobs were going to be outsourced, but not engineering. With all the work being done on cad and being shipped back and forth on the Internet, engineering is flying out the door. Many companies said they would not go to China, but when your competitor goes, you have to go. The bottom dropped out of engineering in 2000, and it’s only in the last year that it has begun to hire. And the wages are at early 1990s levels.

Outsourcing sends jobs to low cost labor overseas. Guest worker plans bring low cost labor to the jobs that can't be sent somewhere else.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: nikiTa

EUCLID: Mexicans have it easy to get here. All they have to do is walk across the land.

Actually, it really isn't easy. The trek that these people endure to come across the border has a fairly high attrition rate. Many have died of heatstroke and sunstroke in the process. That is why entire families do not normally migrate...only the strong survive.

E: If all of the people who wanted to come here could do so, we would not have a construction industry that paid $15-30 per hour, for example. The labor market is already brutal.

I mentioned before that unionized construction outfits do not have this problem. Even 9 years ago $16.00 an hour was normal for construction apprentices. And in Colorado because of unionization this dilemma has not affected our market. Some things like outdoor and indoor painting, yes I will admit there has been a high influx of illegals having employment in this field. But that is only because there is not a painters union in my state. I recommend folks who are in construction form unions and this would not be a problem.

E: Outsourcing sends jobs to low cost labor overseas. Guest worker plans bring low cost labor to the jobs that can't be sent somewhere else.

I work in the IT field. The IT field being all the way from helpdesk analysts, to systems designers. I wanted to clarify the parameters of IT because some are under the wrong assumption that the IT field is merely low level support. Not true. The outsourcing of jobs for my field is humongous. It has been a huge dilemma even from 10 years ago.

And I don't have a problem with outsourcing because I think that it requires more competition in the field. One job that I had outsourced their helpdesk to New Zealand, but that was not because of cheaper labor rates. It was because the subcontractor hired as helpdesk analysts did a lousy and I mean a lousy job!
Yes, people would complain that the accent was thick and they had a difficult job understanding the people on the line, but all in all they did a job far and beyond the quality that the original subcontractor performed.

Outsourcing of IT jobs has helped in many areas. There has been a flux of thousands and thousands of newbies trying to break into the field. Even workers who gave lousy performances for various reasons got jobs before year 2k. Outsourcing in my field is good because it weeds out those who cannot perform on the job. That used to happen with great frequency, people without skills getting a job. Not today. The ones with solid work experiences who have worked 10 years in the field like I have do not have a problem getting jobs.

For instance, I put my resume online today after a 2 year hiatus of not placing my resume online because I was fairly satisfied with my job. I put my resume up at 1pm and within three hours I got a call from a recruiter of an Indian based company in California. This job would be the same line of work the salary would be over $10,000 more per year than what I have made for the past 3 years. Guess what I am saying here is that outsourcing provides more competition. And in a capitalist economy, more competition really weeds out the deadbeats. This is because people want a quality product, not merely because of cheaper wages. And in this scenario, if the offshore companies do a lousy job, believe me the customers scream until they find a better company, be they internal U.S or offshore.

Yes, I want to get out of IT someday, but I have realized that I need to pay bills and need something that will tide me over until I can fulfill my dreams in another vocation. Much of what I have made in that other vocation is tied up in offshore accounts that I cannot touch.

And again I will reiterate. Who will do the landscaping, cooking, vegetable and fruit harvesting, and cleaning of the toilets if all the illegals are suddenly put in prison for felonies or deported? I doubt this work force will be miraculously filled by those Americans who are out of work.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: EUCLID

[QUOTE]nikiTa said this in post #8 :
[B]EUCLID: Mexicans have it easy to get here. All they have to do is walk across the land.

Actually, it really isn't easy. The trek that these people endure to come across the border has a fairly high attrition rate. Many have died of heatstroke and sunstroke in the process. That is why entire families do not normally migrate...only the strong survive.

And I don't have a problem with outsourcing because I think that it requires more competition in the field. One job that I had outsourced their helpdesk to New Zealand, but that was not because of cheaper labor rates. It was because the subcontractor hired as helpdesk analysts did a lousy and I mean a lousy job!

Outsourcing in my field is good because it weeds out those who cannot perform on the job.
QUOTE]


When I said that Mexicans have it easy to get here, I only meant relative to others who are not connected by land or face greater barriers. I agree that getting here even from Mexico is no walk in the woods.

I also agree that competition is good, and if outsourcing leads to higher quality, it is working perfectly. But in engineering, I have never heard of a case where the quality of outsourced jobs is better. It is always worse, but it is only a fraction of the cost, so it pays to do it. The competition on price alone is simply not fair competition when you have such a large basic disparity between the economic basees of two countries.

Eventually the prices will equalize as the standard of living rises in the low wage country (and drops in the U.S.). However, due to the large difference in population between China and the U.S. for instance, for that equalization to occur, the standard of living in the U.S. will need to make a large decline as the standard of living in China coresspondingly rises a much smaller amount. So the inevitable outcome is a rising standard of living in the outsource countries and a declining standard of living in the U.S.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: HECK!

EUCLID, even though you're trying to qualify your statement, saying it's easy is a gross overstatement.

And if you're talking about the standard of living in China, you can't really make a comparison because, despite what you hear or read, the innermost workings of Chinese life and society aren't well known, except they're commies.

-HECK!

Reply To this Message

Posted by: EUCLID

quote:
HECK! said this in post #10 :
EUCLID, even though you're trying to qualify your statement, saying it's easy is a gross overstatement.

And if you're talking about the standard of living in China, you can't really make a comparison because, despite what you hear or read, the innermost workings of Chinese life and society aren't well known, except they're commies.

-HECK!


I kind of thought that would happen when I wrote that sentence about Mexicans having an easy time getting here. I should have said relatively easy time. My point was that there are probably at least a billion people in this world who would immigrate to the U.S. tomorrow if we invited them in, and if they could get here. Certainly Mexicans and Canadians would have the easiest time getting here compared to all of the other countries in the world. My larger point is a question as to where we should draw the line. If it is compassionate to let needy Mexicans in, why not everybody else? Why should it only be the Mexicans just because they have the easiest time getting here?

I'm not sure what you mean by saying we can't compare our standard of living to that of the Chinese. Are you saying that they might be content with what we see as limited wealth, and therefore they have a high standard of lliving based on that contenetment? That may be true, but I am really talking only about their wage base and the stardard of living that reflects that. Their labor rate for the same amount of work done is only a small fraction of our labor rate. Some people say we simply need to compete better. How can an engineer in the U.S. compete with a Chinese engineer doing the same work for $7 per hour? The average standard of living in the U.S. is too high to live on $7 per hour.

But as the Chinese take on more of our manufacturing, their wealth will grow and ours will decline. Eventually the wealth will equalize, and be reflected in equal wages for engineers in both countries. But at the end of that process of equalization, they will be richer and we will be poorer.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: EUCLID

quote:
nikiTa said this in post #8 :


And again I will reiterate. Who will do the landscaping, cooking, vegetable and fruit harvesting, and cleaning of the toilets if all the illegals are suddenly put in prison for felonies or deported? I doubt this work force will be miraculously filled by those Americans who are out of work.[/color] [/B]




This is an interesting point, and as one of the foundations of the argument for amnesty and unlimited immigration, it is cited over and over. But what if Mexico had a high standard of living, paid good wages, and nobody from there wanted to come into the U.S.? Who would do these undesirable American jobs then? Would American toilets never get cleaned?

The fact is that there is no such thing as a job Americans won’t do. It’s a straw dog. Whether or not people are willing to do a job does not depend on their nationality. It only depends on the wage offered for the job. American citizens will do every job that needs doing if the pay is adequate. Donald Trump would clean toilets if the pay were high enough.

If the wage needed to get Americans to pick lettuce is so high that it pushes up the retail price past the point that people will pay, then they simply don’t get to eat lettuce. But it is morally and legally wrong to subsidize your cost of doing business by hiring illegal labor. It is no different than it would be to subsidize your business by holding up a liquor store once a week, for instance.

But there is an even larger issue here. There is an argument that it is racist and class discriminatory to limit Mexican immigration. But in a larger sense, is it not racist and class exploitive to bring in a particular race and class as “guests” merely to clean our toilets and do the other undesirable jobs?
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Dreamzwalker

Does the remote webcam come with a paint ball gun option?
I'll sign up if that's the case

Reply To this Message

Pages:  1 Free Forums    Chat Forum

Immigration and our Borders Forum: Webcams Allow Public to 'Patrol' the Border

Forum Forum Forum