Free Technology Newsletters
» All 33 InfoWorld Newsletters
Technology & Business Daily
 
InfoWorld
 
   

Congress Moves Toward Weaker Identity Theft Laws

By Ed Foster, Section The Gripelog
Posted on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 01:34:39 AM PDT

While it appears unlikely our Congress is going to do anything about immigration, gas prices, or the deficit anytime soon, as early as this week it might very well take action on another sore point for many Americans: privacy and identity theft. But, wouldn't you just know it, the approach our elected representatives seem most attached to is one that -- instead of strengthening privacy protection -- will actually deprive consumers of the most effective privacy protections we now have.


With last Friday's disclosure of a long unreported Department of Energy data leak coming so soon after the massive Veterans Affairs security breach, the pressure on Congress now to do something about privacy and data theft will surely be irresistible. A wide array of bills have been kicking around in the Senate and the House for months, including some we discussed earlier that would replace strong laws in California and other states requiring that consumers be notified of security breaches involving their personal information. Instead, most of these bills would pre-empt the state laws with a much weaker disclosure requirement that would leave it up to the organization that exposed your data to decide if the risk of identity theft is great enough to bother notifying you.

As if that's not bad enough, observers expect a different bill that goes even further in weakening effective state privacy laws could be voted on by the House as early as this week. H.R. 3997, the Financial Data Protection Act of 2006, will deliver a new level of protection all right, but it is protection for the financial institutions whose security failures put us at risk for identity theft.

The really odd thing is that the House would consider H.R. 3997 a response to the VA case, as that theft is a good example of how the law's loopholes would let companies avoid notifying their customers of serious data breaches involving their data. "Under H.R. 3997, if a company does not know whether the theft puts individuals at risk for identity theft, it does not have to notify them," says Gail Hillebrand, senior attorney for Consumers Union. "Since the identity and purposes of the thief who took the VA laptop are unknown, the loopholes in 3997 would let a private company in a similar situation say they don't know if consumers are at risk, so they don't have to tell."

What's even worse, though, is that the law would also deprive citizens of some states of an effective countermeasure they can now take when they suspect they are a victim of identity theft. Seventeen states have already enacted security freeze laws that allow all consumers to put a freeze on their credit report files, thus stopping identity thieves from opening fraudulent accounts with the information they've stolen. It's one of the first things privacy experts suggest you do when you suspect your personal information has been exposed.

The Financial Data Protection Act specifically pre-empts these security freeze laws, instead limiting credit freezes to consumers who are already known victims of identity theft. That makes almost no sense as a way of protecting consumers, because the security freeze is a preventive measure that's best used before stolen information is abused. If 3997 were the law of the land right now, the 26 million veterans whose social security numbers were lost would not have the right to put a security freeze on their credit files. They would have to wait until they were victims -- what kind of "financial data protection" is that?

Now, if you're a little confused as to why Congress would be so attracted to the idea of replacing effective state laws on identity theft with weak federal ones, then you just haven't been paying much attention to how your government works. It is of course the banks, databrokers, and other financial institutions whose indifferent security practices keep exposing our personal information that don't want to have to notify us when it happens. And it is of course the credit bureaus, credit card companies, etc. who don't want us to be able to freeze our credit files just because identity thieves might have our information. So we're talking about a lot of big companies with a lot of influence -- i.e., money -- that they can spread around our nation's capital.

H.R. 3997 has a number of other problems that make it by far the worst of the bills Congress is considering. You can read more about what Consumers Union thinks of the different bills -- and how you can express your concerns to your federal and state representatives -- at CU's FinancialPrivacyNow.org website. You might also want to consider visiting their privacy campaign's donation page, just in case you'd like to provide a bit of counterweight to the financial institutions' lobbying dollars.

While Consumers Union believes that some of the bills before Congress might be close enough to make for a reasonable compromise with the tougher state laws, I personally hope that the feds will simply not pass any new laws. Our state privacy laws are already working pretty well, and they're getting more effective as more states catch on. So let's hope that Congress simply does nothing. Fortunately, along with sticking their palms out, doing nothing seems to be the one thing at which all our Congresspersons excel.

--------------------

Post your comments about this column below or write me directly at Foster@gripe2ed.com. To receive this column every week in my free e-mail newsletter, please go to my subscription page and follow the instructions to opt-in for the EdFoster mailing list.

< Hyperbowl DRM Still Making Kids Sad | A Lawyer's View of EULAs >


Display: Sort:
Congress Moves Toward Weaker Identity Theft Laws | 301 comments (301 topical) | Post A Comment
Milking the Consumer[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#1)
by srynas on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 05:49:37 AM PDT

We need stronger consumer protection laws. However, the current legislative approach is essentially a "smoke and mirrors" solution.  Identity theft can be significantly reduced if companies are required to actually protect customer data that includes a prohibition on giving, selling, renting customer data to their partners, affiliates, or anyone else. Finally, the default setting for many "offers" should be "opt-out" rather than "opt-in". The right to privacy belongs to the recipient (consumer) not the sender (vendor).

As an aside - Ed notes that weaker laws are being pushed because there is a lot of money to be made by these companies though data mining the consumer. That implies that each consumer has "value".  Given today's climate of generating fees by licensing "intellectual property", I would advocate that every time a company accessess/sells/rents your data that you should be paid a royalty. Wishful thinking on my part. :)

[ Reply to This ]



Credit card data[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#5)
by Anonymous User on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 12:18:48 PM PDT

What about completely outlawing any vendor from retaining someone's CC# once a transaction is complete? After all, if you pay $x for y, once they have the $x they don't need it any more, and until you buy something else from them (and enter your CC# into their form again) any use of that CC# whatsoever is unauthorized (read: fraudulent). The only possible effect of retaining it after taking their $x is to create temptation, both among their own employees and outside crackers.

A law like this would have the added benefit of ending various shady, but possibly-legal, scams involving recurring fees where the customer isn't expecting such. Because they would have to reenter their CC# for each monthly payment, companies couldn't just quietly deduct "evergreen" charges and hope you don't notice (we've seen numerous examples of this mentioned here. AOL is the most notorious source. Then there were the free magazine subscriptions that morphed into paid ones without any warning) -- the first attempt to ding the customer again takes the form of a request for their CC# and they will realize it's bogus and cancel the "service" instead of paying for next month.

Add laws against charging cancellation fees, not honoring cancellation requests instantly, and claiming the money is owed for the previous month rather than being the fee for having service through the next month, and we're golden.


[ Parent | Reply to This ]



But the NSA wouldn't like that![ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#9)
by Anonymous User on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 01:15:29 PM PDT

The NSA wants all ISPs (read companies) to retain all records for two years. I'm CC#'s would be as important to track down all those child pornos. er, I mean terrorists. er, I mean video pirates. er, I mean political oponents. whatever - anybody that doesn't think like them.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Screw that[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#14)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 07:02:49 AM PDT

The NSA can go to hell for all I care.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


yes[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#76)
by maderikapapa on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 03:02:58 AM PDT

出会い出会い系サイト出会い喫茶出会い掲示板ナンパ出会いカフェ人妻出会い無 009;系サイト優良出会い系攻略 完全無料。アダルトビデオアダルト動画アダルトアニメアダルト画像アダル 488;サイト無料DVDアダルト風俗サンプル無料風俗優良アダルトサイト比較海 806;。人妻画像人妻パラダイス知合い人妻援護会人妻コレクション風 439;告白。熟女画像東京熟女掲示板動画熟女ビデオおまんこオナニーエロ画像エロフラッシュアニメ 456;ロ動画エロゲームエロ漫画無料エロサイト。エッチ画像エッチ動画エッチ小説写真エッチ 450;ニメエッチ0930。セックスアナルセックス画像セックス動画セックスフレンドスワッピングSEX写真セックスボランティセ 483;クス体位東京セックス仕方 SEX。おっぱい画像おっぱい村長おっぱい楽園掲示板お 387;ぱい命おっぱいゲーム。巨乳動画巨乳画像アイドル巨乳 522;示板風俗。セフレ募集セフレ掲示板セフレ画像掲示板セフレの作り方出会い無料素人セフレ。童貞狩りエロ漫画童貞狩り童貞喪失童貞オークション素人童貞逆援不倫パートナー不倫出会い人妻不倫不倫を楽しみたい方にはお薦め 154;妻画像など満載出会いサイトを楽しむならココ無料出会いで一緒に遊ぼう出会いはLOVEアゲインで決まり

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


fvbh[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#94)
by Anonymous User on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 07:32:57 AM PDT

SEXlink1

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


fgbb[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#108)
by Anonymous User on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 10:06:31 AM PDT

,ff,,,f*f不倫

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


gfdd[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#135)
by Anonymous User on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 11:59:02 AM PDT

出会,,,ff,,素人

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


fgkk[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#149)
by Anonymous User on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 10:09:47 AM PDT

,fff巨乳熟女

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


fdmm[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#160)
by Anonymous User on Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 11:11:56 AM PDT

,ffff"f,,ff,,童貞

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


fbvd[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#174)
by Anonymous User on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 01:33:18 PM PDT

童貞,f*ffff`

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


gfmm[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#188)
by Anonymous User on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 09:07:18 AM PDT

,fff^,f不倫

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


fdgg[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#203)
by Anonymous User on Fri Oct 31, 2008 at 01:07:24 PM PDT

SEX,ff,,おっぱ,,

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


ffgb[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#214)
by Anonymous User on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 11:14:28 AM PDT

不倫熟女,fff風--

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


fkoo[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#228)
by Anonymous User on Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 12:53:20 PM PDT

,ff,,SEX逆援

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


okmm[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#242)
by Anonymous User on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 11:17:12 AM PDT

不倫童貞ff',

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


jdhh[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#256)
by Anonymous User on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 08:07:02 AM PDT

,f*f熟女,fff

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


mkoo[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#267)
by Anonymous User on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 01:20:28 AM PDT

人妻,f*f,ff,,

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


gfbb[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#281)
by Anonymous User on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 02:18:37 AM PDT

,fff^,f熟女

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


fvbb[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#295)
by Anonymous User on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 03:45:40 AM PDT

人妻,fff不倫

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


ggfd[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#309)
by Anonymous User on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 06:52:59 AM PDT

,fff^SEX逆援

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


fgbb[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#311)
by Anonymous User on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 02:16:28 AM PDT

童貞,f人妻

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


dsko[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#323)
by Anonymous User on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 12:09:23 AM PDT

,f,ff,,出会,,

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


yes[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#74)
by maderikapapa on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 12:16:28 AM PDT

出会い出会い系サイト出会い喫茶出会い掲示板ナンパ出会いカフェ人妻出会い無 009;系サイト優良出会い系攻略 完全無料。アダルトビデオアダルト動画アダルトアニメアダルト画像アダル 488;サイト無料DVDアダルト風俗サンプル無料風俗優良アダルトサイト比較海 806;。人妻画像人妻パラダイス知合い人妻援護会人妻コレクション風 439;告白。熟女画像東京熟女掲示板動画熟女ビデオおまんこオナニーエロ画像エロフラッシュアニメ 456;ロ動画エロゲームエロ漫画無料エロサイト。エッチ画像エッチ動画エッチ小説写真エッチ 450;ニメエッチ0930。セックスアナルセックス画像セックス動画セックスフレンドスワッピングSEX写真セックスボランティセ 483;クス体位東京セックス仕方 SEX。おっぱい画像おっぱい村長おっぱい楽園掲示板お 387;ぱい命おっぱいゲーム。巨乳動画巨乳画像アイドル巨乳 522;示板風俗。セフレ募集セフレ掲示板セフレ画像掲示板セフレの作り方出会い無料素人セフレ。童貞狩りエロ漫画童貞狩り童貞喪失童貞オークション素人童貞逆援不倫パートナー不倫出会い人妻不倫不倫を楽しみたい方にはお薦め 154;妻画像など満載出会いサイトを楽しむならココ無料出会いで一緒に遊ぼう出会いはLOVEアゲインで決まり

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


fvbh[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#92)
by Anonymous User on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 05:01:32 AM PDT

SEXlink1

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


fgbb[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#106)
by Anonymous User on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 07:10:39 AM PDT

,ff,,,f*f不倫

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


gbvv[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#120)
by Anonymous User on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 04:52:13 AM PDT

,fff,fff^出会,,

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


gfdd[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#133)
by Anonymous User on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 04:25:32 AM PDT

出会,,,ff,,素人

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


fgkk[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#147)
by Anonymous User on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 04:52:44 AM PDT

,fff巨乳熟女

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


fdmm[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#158)
by Anonymous User on Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 07:21:39 AM PDT

,ffff"f,,ff,,童貞

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


fbvd[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#172)
by Anonymous User on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 06:51:20 AM PDT

童貞,f*ffff`

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


gfmm[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#186)
by Anonymous User on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 06:37:12 AM PDT

,fff^,f不倫

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


fdgg[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#201)
by Anonymous User on Fri Oct 31, 2008 at 06:17:52 AM PDT

SEX,ff,,おっぱ,,

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


fkoo[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#226)
by Anonymous User on Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 07:14:20 AM PDT

,ff,,SEX逆援

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


okmm[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#240)
by Anonymous User on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 06:20:08 AM PDT

不倫童貞ff',

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


jdhh[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#254)
by Anonymous User on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 04:48:01 AM PDT

,f*f熟女,fff

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


mkoo[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#265)
by Anonymous User on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 11:05:31 PM PDT

人妻,f*f,ff,,

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


gfbb[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#279)
by Anonymous User on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 11:46:30 PM PDT

,fff^,f熟女

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


fvbb[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#293)
by Anonymous User on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 01:21:13 AM PDT

人妻,fff不倫

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


ggfd[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#307)
by Anonymous User on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 04:24:40 AM PDT

,fff^SEX逆援

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


dfgg[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#322)
by Anonymous User on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:22:15 PM PDT

不倫人妻ff',

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Proof of purchase[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#10)
by tscoff on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 06:38:41 PM PDT

The vendors need to keep the signed credit card slips for a certain period of time in order to defend themselves against chargebacks.  If they dispose of the credit card slip they have no signature to prove that you authorized the use of the credit card for a service.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


The slips yes.[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#13)
by TonyK on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 05:02:48 AM PDT

But not the number itself.

And they do not even need the entire number, only the last few digits are needed. The rest of the number is routing/identifying information for the financial instution that issued the CC.

I can see benefit in a law that requires destroying the CC# after a transaction is complete.

We should also be concerned about SS#'s. In TN, it is the law, made by a stage agency, that all medical providers get a patient's SSN. :( There are (or were) federal laws against the use of SSN, especially for identifying means. I worked for Oklahoma Department of Public Safety (programmer) when the state had to reprogram the drivers' license numbers because of the enforcement of the federal law.

Why do we make it easier for the thieves to get our information by making DUMB laws.

Peace,

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Maybe it's time...[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#2)
by Anonymous User on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 07:27:44 AM PDT

...for the Democrats to make a really concerted effort at taking back both houses of Congress. Personally, I'm a Republican, but I don't like the decisions that the party has been making recently, and Bush rubs me the wrong way. If the Democrats made an effort in unison, just like the Republicans' 1994 "Contract with America", promising to tackle the issues facing the US (illegal immigration, data theft, Iraq, Guantanamo, etc.), they could easily take Congress. Too bad that the Democratic leadership is incrediby inept with the only charismatic member being Barack Obama.

Change is a good thing every now and then...

[ Reply to This ]



Never happen[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#3)
by sconeu on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 09:07:40 AM PDT

Will Rogers said it years and years ago...

"I belong to no organized political party -- I'm a Democrat."

--
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the United States of America.
[ Parent | Reply to This ]



bug off it's a reply not a new thread[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#6)
by Anonymous User on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 12:25:10 PM PDT

What is wrong with letting Mexicans into the country? They would work hard and either spend or invest, so they wouldn't drag down the economy. The jobs they'd get would be the ones currently being offshored, so they wouldn't steal your job -- they might at least bring an already stolen job back to US soil. In any case, treating them differently smacks of an "us vs. them" rather than "we're all human beings whatever color our skin" mentality.

Trying to keep them out, OTOH, wastes resources, denies potentially lifesaving opportunity for upward mobility to people from a fairly poor country, and enables blatant exploitation of the ones that do get in because they dare not raise their voices in complaint.

Time you Americans realized that Mexicans are human beings, too.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



You have no standing...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#12)
by Anonymous User on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 11:57:17 PM PDT

...on this issue, since you're not a citizen of the U.S.

You have no grasp on the issue, anyway... illegals from Mexico have no education to speak of, and are an immediate net burden on our social services.

Do you let just anyone into your (unidentified) country? Of course not.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



The end may be near[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#15)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 07:21:58 AM PDT

I can say whatever I like -- we have free speech here, more than you do there.

The last time I checked, illegals from Mexico (or Cuba, or anywhere else) mostly work hard doing scut work and barely make ends meet. They're no more a burden on your social services (what social services? You have to pay for everything there, including basic medical care!) than any other blue collar worker.

But immigration laws (other than to restrict the entry of dangerous criminals and terrorists) in general strike me as questionable. We're all human beings, wherever we're from and whatever our education, color, or language. Immigration laws seem to be used essentially to create a hereditary birthright for certain (mainly white) people in several nations while disenfranchising most of the rest of the world. They contribute to the continued worldwide gap between rich and poor. And they probably are part of the motivation for the very terrorism that leads you to want to tighten them further, along with all the other power and wealth imbalances between most of the world's population and a few old rich white countries.

In fact, your attitude that non-USians don't have any standing and shouldn't even debate such issues is a big part of the problem. US actions and policies affect the world, not just the US. The immigration policies of any nation obviously do so, as do any foreign policies and war policies. Although I deplore the actions of the terrorists, they do have a valid point that in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere the US gets to do as it pleases without the locals having any input, and all nations that continue to deny the rest of the world population a voice in influencing their foreign and immigration policies are motivating these extremists. If you Americans want to win your so-called "war on terror", behaving less unilaterally in areas where others in the world are affected by your decisions would go a long way toward the achievement of victory -- yes, in a certain sense, that would be "letting the terrorists win" since that is one of the things they seem to want, but the best victory of all is the one that BOTH sides of a conflict can declare. Otherwise resentment festers on the losing side, and the conflict has really only developed a temporary cease-fire. And your own history is one where revolutionaries overthrew an imperialist power that was controlling them. They didn't massacre innocents, but they did have exactly the same concerns and they did choose to address them violently when it became clear that negotiation wouldn't work.

Soon we will all decide, implicitly or explicitly, which kind of world we want: a fortress of world aristocracy under perpetual siege, or a more open and democratic world where people of all ancestries work together for the betterment of all in a mildly regulated economy with widespread access to education. (One solution to uneducated people entering the country, which you didn't seem to consider, is to educate them rather than throw them back out. But then education isn't for non-whites, is it? Racist.)

If we collectively decide wrong, the "first world" countries will end up in the same situation as Rome, the day the Visigoths became visible over those distant hills scheming to put an end to the hoarding of knowledge and wealth. Only this time the Rome that falls will have nuclear weapons, and the Fall and following Dark Ages will kill not millions but billions.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Non-Americans[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#18)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 09:15:50 AM PDT

Obviously I can't speak for the poster you are responding to, but my interpretation is that he was saying that as a non-American, you have no say on immigration (which is an internal policy). Obviously you should have a say on American policies where we come into your backyard. (My opinion, not necessarily his.)

Does the US poke it's nose in where it shouldn't? Yes we do. Nor do I condone that in all cases, but our government rarely asks me.

As far as immigration policy: it may affect everyone, but I believe it is up to each country to decide how to handle that for itself. If unlimited immigration were allowed, who knows what the affect would be but I doubt it would be as benign as you would like to think. We could very well end up with more people here than our country could handle.

Is our current immigration policy fair? Probably not. Should it be changed? Definitely. In what ways should it be changed? I honestly don't know.

To address a few of your points:
Please, an example of how we have less free speech than you do? (which is totally irrelevant to the discussion, but I was interested if this was a valid point)

We do provide some social services. Is it as good as other countries? Perhaps not, although that would lead me to wonder why so many people want to come here if this is such a horrible place. One example is public education, such as it is, which _is_ provided for everyone. This is certainly a cost that must be borne by someone. There are also some social services for the needy. Bad as they are now, increasing the population dramatically only makes that worse.

Educating immigrants: A good idea, but well, gee, don't you think there would be a cost to that? Who would pay for it? But wait, you said previously that letting in anyone who wanted to come would not cost us anything. Besides, we have enough trouble educating current citizens; letting an unlimited number of people in only makes that problem worse.

And as far as the "racist" comment, you're putting words in the other poster's mouth with no justification from what he posted. He didn't say they shouldn't be educated, just that many who entered illegally weren't educated. (I'm not defending his point on that, since I don't know if it is true, but I don't believe it's as clear cut as he made it sound.)

The way you keep referring to "white" makes you sound more than a little racist yourself. You have no idea of the race of the poster, nor should it be relevant. If our country's policies are bad, it doesn't need to be because we're a particular race. There are lots of places than the US with questionable policies and they aren't all white.

The bottom line, though, is neither of us will agree on this discussion. You're on the outside and I'm on the inside, which biases both of us. You think I don't want to share and I don't think you should get what you want just because you want it.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



I said it's not a new thread dammit![ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#25)
by Anonymous User on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 03:54:21 PM PDT

"Obviously I can't speak for the poster you are responding to, but my interpretation is that he was saying that as a non-American, you have no say on immigration (which is an internal policy)."

And I'm saying it shouldn't be an internal policy, because it affects people outside of America, particularly vis a vis opportunity, not to mention the ability to easily escape from hostile regimes.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Internal[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#27)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 09:30:21 AM PDT

Let me get this straight. We should let anyone in who wants to, regardless of what impact it has on our society?

So if I happen to have a better TV than my neighbors, they should be allowed to come into my house to watch TV whenever they want, just because there's a better "opportunity" in my house to see the World Cup finals???

I'm sorry, but this is something we're never going to agree on. I'm not advocating locking our borders and letting no one in, nor am I advocating that we only let in people who look like me, but I am for limits on immigration.

As long as they're not criminals, I don't care who is allowed to immigrate into the country, but we can't just let in an unlimited number of people. Our social services system is not that great now; increasing our population at too great a rate is just going to put too big a strain on that system and probably break it.

Again, the right way to address the problem is to expand opportunities in other countries that lack good opportunities. Otherwise, what happens when we let in everyone who wants to come here and suddenly the opportunities here aren't that great anymore, because they've been all taken?

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



stop bugging me it's a reply[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#29)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 01:52:24 PM PDT

"Let me get this straight. We should let anyone in who wants to, regardless of what impact it has on our society?"

Yes, except criminals. And allow immigrants that commit crimes to be deported if the crimes are serious enough.

"So if I happen to have a better TV than my neighbors, they should be allowed to come into my house to watch TV whenever they want, just because there's a better "opportunity" in my house to see the World Cup finals?"

Your home and TV are your own private property, which makes this apples and oranges.

"As long as they're not criminals, I don't care who is allowed to immigrate into the country, but we can't just let in an unlimited number of people."

Then how about letting in a limited number, but without any discrimination about who they are, what they know, or what they look like, save that those who are serious criminals BY US STANDARDS are kept out and those who are in serious danger if they are left stuck where they are get priority. Despite the US being increasingly diverse in its population, I notice its current immigration policies seem to strongly favor whites (and that whites, and to a lesser extent men, are disproportionately the ones in positions of power and wealth there, relative to non-whites and women).

"Our social services system is not that great now; increasing our population at too great a rate is just going to put too big a strain on that system and probably break it."

Turning the $400x10^9/annum defense budget over to social services and education would go a long way toward keeping it running smoothly. It would also have the salutary effect of making the US safer and stopping the ongoing atrocities at Guantanamo, in Iraq, and at various "black sites". Yes, I said "making the US safer"; nobody wants to invade or conquer the US militarily right now, so it doesn't actually have much need for a big defense budget and large military force and arsenal. On the other hand, these, and the desire by those who benefit financially from defense expenditures (cough*Halliburton*cough) to continue to do so, create a huge temptation to misuse the military imposing US will on, say, Iraq...and misuse of US military force motivates terrorism that the US military is demonstrably unable to defend against (witness 9/11; why weren't those planes shot down once it became clear that everyone on them was doomed even if they didn't shoot them down? Can't the air force even protect 1 major port city and the defense headquarters itself at the same time?)

"Again, the right way to address the problem is to expand opportunities in other countries that lack good opportunities."

I think the middle east is sick and tired of the US "expanding opportunities in other countries that lack good opportunities" by now. Especially when the opportunities being expanded are for American oil companies to expand, not the locals to get educated.

"Otherwise, what happens when we let in everyone who wants to come here and suddenly the opportunities here aren't that great anymore, because they've been all taken?"

China has three times the US population in an equivalent land area. India has a comparable population to Chinas in a fraction of the land area. Both are modernizing rapidly; India even has some freedoms. I think the US could stand to share the wealth a bit more if they can. I also think it could stand to set a better example.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Reply[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#33)
by Anonymous User on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 01:50:23 PM PDT

>Your home and TV are your own private property,
>which makes this apples and oranges.

Well, since all property in the US is either owned by private citizens, corporations or government (IOW, it's all owned by someone), I don't see it being that much of an apples and oranges comparison. It's not like there are vast unclaimed expanses just waiting for someone to settle on them.

>Then how about letting in a limited number, but
>without any discrimination about who they are,
>what they know...

I'm all in favor of that (which you know since you quoted me saying that) and have said several times I'm in favor of immigration reform. It sounded like you were arguing for no immigration restrictions whatsoever, which I would be against.

>Turning the $400x10^9/annum defense budget over
>to social services and education would go a long
>way toward keeping it running smoothly

While I support our troops whereever they are, I am against the war in Iraq and would certainly like to see a large chunk of our defense budget used in more constructive ways.

>I think the middle east is sick and tired of the
>US "expanding opportunities in other countries
>that lack good opportunities" by now.

I was talking about working with interested countries to help them better develop their economies. I was not referring to Iraq or anywhere else where we have forced our "help" on someone and I think you know that but chose to use that for beating your drum again. If you have a _valid_ argument why helping countries improve their economies would not help with immigration issues, feel free to share them.

>China has three times the US population in an
>equivalent land area. India has a comparable
>population to Chinas in a fraction of the land
>area. Both are modernizing rapidly;

And the reason they are popular places for offshoring work is because their economy is so poor that they will work cheaper than we will. So we should aspire to have a larger, poorer population? Somehow that argument just doesn't seem very convincing.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



yes[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#70)
by maderikapapa on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 12:15:59 AM PDT