I find this troubling. There is an obvious bias in the reporting here, of course, but the facts beneath that bias are evident. I'd be curious to know what people on the other side of the political spectrum think about this. Dag? Porter? Bev? Mothertree? Others on their end of the spectrum? What do you think about this? I'm off to try to dig up some more information about this. I'll post what links I can find, but everyone can feel free to jump in and beat me to the punch if they'd like.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I'm not terribly comfortable with it either. It seems to be an automatic "We don't trust you" to anyone who comes in.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Well, you can’t single out terror suspects so you have to do it to all. Sounds like a great idea. Even though I doubt most terrorists will be coming here legally. But with the way we give illegals so many rights I imagine it’ll be found unconstitutional soon.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I think everyone should read Do They Hear You When You Cry?, a book detailing the first-hand experience of a woman who came here to seek asylum. There are some really troubling attitudes to asylum seekers in this country. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I am an idealist, and I like the idea of welcoming immigrants with open arms. For instance, I really liked Bush's policy concerning the illegal immigrants from south of the border. I genuinely like the inscription on the Statue of Liberty.
Unfortunately, though, reality is more complicated than that. I try to err on the side of welcoming, though.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't really have that much of a problem with it. I don't think in the current climate, we're wrong to be cautious about people in this situation nor are we overstepping our rights to apply scrutiny to them. But then again, I also support an opt-in style of counter-terrorist racial profiling.
Posted by bunbun (Member # 6814) on :
I heard this story this morning, and I think it's horrible precedent to set. We tout ourselves to the world as being technologically and scientific front runners, but apparently our INS can't handle basic registration without employing drastic measures. These types of curfews and tracking are horrible hardships on people who have jobs and children.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Really Squick? Did you listen to the piece, or just read the text on the site? You think that all foreign visitors to the US should have to wear these things, abide by a 6:00 curfew, etc?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Curfew? I didn't see that. That's excessive. And you know what, looking over the additional information, it sounds like ther're taking the stupid but easy way out. So, boo I say, boo, even if I'm not necessarily opposed to the principle.
edit: I just read the front text when I posted before. On closer inspection, it sounds both pretty overboard and pretty stupid.
[ March 02, 2005, 11:32 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I understand what they are doing, and why, but it could be made to be a little less invasive; at that point I would think that it would be an excellent program.
I dont; have a problem with the bracelets, but I do with a 6pm curfew. That is a bit unreasonable...but lets not forget that we have the legal right to lock them up, so in reality the bracelet is a good compromise.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
It seems to be an automatic "We don't trust you" to anyone who comes in.