Our dear leader going after the kids

[migopod]

Which will lead to a new business: fake identity microchips.

Also a new crime: identity theft by stealing identity microchips. Criminals will slip date rape drugs into a person's drink and when the victim wakes up, the victim may not notice for a while that the identity microchip is missing.

Then again, one assumes that the microchips can be tracked much like cell phones and thus a suspicious wife can meet him at the door one day and demand to know why he was in Argentina last week when he swore he was hiking the Appalachian trail.

Actually the most likely form for an identity "microchip" would be similar to how we "chip" pets, with passive RFID antennae, which can be cloned under current technology sometimes even at a distance sufficient that the target could be unaware of the experience. It is interesting that depending on where the chips would be inserted, that a tinfoil hat may actually be effective in preventing this sort of thing.

Here's one way it would could done; a one-way hash of a social security number would be great for personal identification. Scan, enter SSN into a hashing algorithm and compare for identity verification. Until someone reverse-engineers the hash (which is inevitable) then can create their own RFID tags with SSNs stolen in any number of existing methods.

Probably the best security models are three-factor identity verification. Something you have (RFID chip), something you know (id/password pair or other secret identifier known only to you), and something you are (voice-print, biometrics, DNA, retinal-scan, etc). This seems a bit heavy handed for just getting health care tho'

[lindajdunn]

Probably the best security models are three-factor identity verification. Something you have (RFID chip), something you know (id/password pair or other secret identifier known only to you), and something you are (voice-print, biometrics, DNA, retinal-scan, etc). This seems a bit heavy handed for just getting health care tho'

I can see it now. I'm lying on the gurney and the hospital intake clerk is standing over me saying, "I'm sorry, but we cannot proceed with your life-saving surgery until you give me your password."

Last time I counted, I had 47 different usernames and passwords for different accounts. Some required at least 15 characters, some required 10-12 characters. Some required special characters. Some could not accept special characters. Some were program-generated, which means that the usernames and passwords were random things that had no meaning to me and thus I could never remember the username, let alone the password.

IT Security best practice says, never record your password information. Memorize it.

Reality is that I can turn over the keyboard at half the computers at many work places and find someone's username and password. At other places, they are written on post it notes and attached to the monitors.

I cannot remember 47 different usernames and passwords. Someone suggested putting that information onto an encrypted jump drive and then I'd only have to remember the encrypted jump drive username and password but jump drives are not allowed where I work due to being too easily compromised.

Of course, not all 47 different usernames and passwords are work-related. I have a username and password for my insurance account, another one for the newspaper, different ones for my bank account and -- since my husband would rather I handle the finances -- his insurance account access, his bank account access, his retirement account access, etc. The electricity is also an online account as are other utilities. Ebay. Amazon. The list goes on and on and while many of these can have identical accounts and usernames (a practice which IT security strongly discourages as once one is compromised, anyone who stole it now has access to the other accounts), there are at LEAST 47 different accounts which require different usernames and/or passwords.

MEMORY BUFFER FAILURE. BSOD!

[Slim]

re: healthcare and illegals: Obama has said on several occasions in stating that illegal aliens are excluded. His explicit statement here I do not believe we can extend coverage to those who are here illegally makes his intention on the topic clear. By saying "legals" should be covered like "everybody else" I have to infer "citizens", since he's previously excluded illegals. Otherwise it makes no sense: he's said "no" on illegals, and not just in that one quote. One may choose to disbelieve him or think he hasn't thought it through, but he's expressed himself clearly.

You can cling to this, but it's a not his intent as I am sure you know. Those illegals will become legal, and technically he's not lying.

There is still the question of enforcement, which is a legitemate question. In the several states that checked citizenship (via their state laws) it proved ineffective. I consider that neither here nor there: perhaps they could have done a better job and caught more illegals. Quien sabe?

Then what... deporting them? Ha. Like that will ever happen.

What I worry about is the US citizen or legal alien who shows up in ER (or even in non-emergency situations) without documentation and then is challenged to prove their citizenship or legal status. This would probably happen a lot more to Hispanics or people who "look Mexican". I find that problematic, and hope we don't have a society where based on (assume German accent from WW II movies) "You vill show me your papers!"

How do we prevent illegals from getting medical care while providing it to the "been here 200 years" citizen who made the mistake of being in an accident without carrying his passport or SS card?

If illegals were treated as illegals and shown the door (i.e. we actually enforced immigration laws already on the books), the number of them needing treatment like this would be in the noise. It would not be an issue.
This is similar to the death panel argument.

[lindajdunn]

The number of illegals in the country have decreased a a result of the economic downturn.

If employers wouldn't hire illegals (which they do NOT because they're willing to do jobs that Americans won't but because illegals can be exploited without fear) then the numbers would drop significantly.

[tchwojko]

You can cling to this, but it's a not his intent as I am sure you know. Those illegals will become legal, and technically he's not lying.

And the legalization will happen with the magic citizenship wand?

[jeff]

I don't believe Inq suggested "Implanted identity microchips" seriously, but I was thinking: can you imagine the outcry that would happen if the administration proposed that? The paranoids who got themselves in a lather over Obama telling the kids to "work hard and stay in school" would go absolutely bonkers. Oh, wait - they already did!

I don't like the idea because it's so Big Brotherish. An RFID system gives another way to track every citizen's activities and reduce privacy. Not just government: companies (and criminals) would be able to track you too - or steal your identity. And, if you're traveling overseas, it's another way for a terrorist to point a scanner at passersby and figure out who's an American (like with our new passports!)

Slim - I'm sorry you feel that way.

[Wetmelon]

imo, it is mildly creepy because it has a weird shadowing of BB. Can we do what BB wants us to do?

[jessicasimpson]

imo, it is mildly creepy because it has a weird shadowing of BB. Can we do what BB wants us to do?

we should never do what Bayou Bum wants

[Hauptman]

Here is a peek at what he's up to....

Mr. Obama added, "If anything, this debate underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all."

Please dont tell me you think this means sending them home.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009...cube_position1

Ok, but our last president didn't want to send them all home either.

Immigration reform is a big problem with no easy answers. I say that because there doesn't seem to be any concensus on what to do within either the Democratic or Republican parties.

[Slim]

Ok, but our last president didn't want to send them all home either.

Immigration reform is a big problem with no easy answers. I say that because there doesn't seem to be any concensus on what to do within either the Democratic or Republican parties.

Why is your favorite counter argument always "Bush did it too"? You sound like a broken record. Did I say anywhere I was pleased with the way Bush handled this? No, I didnt.

[I_luv_saber]

To back up for a second...

apparently I'm not the only one who thinks sensationalist journalism is the main problem:

He [President Obama] told "Face the Nation" host Bob Schieffer that cable news and blogs, operating on a 24/7 news cycle, "focus on the most extreme elements on both sides. They can't get enough of the conflict - it's catnip to the media right now."

Given this environment, the president bemoaned, "it is more difficult for us to solve the problems" Congress and his administration face.

The Story

Good interview, btw.

[Digital Analog]

Implanted identity microchips, of course!

Who wants to take a guess at the population percentage that would claim this as "The Mark of the Beast"?

[Hauptman]

Why is your favorite counter argument always "Bush did it too"? You sound like a broken record. Did I say anywhere I was pleased with the way Bush handled this? No, I didnt.

Maybe it's to counter your obvious bias against Obama; go figure.

But as usual you ignored the rest of what I said. Neither the Democrats or Republicans have come to any concensus on how to deal with immigration reform even within their own parties.

So if you have complaints about immigration reform proposals I would love to see what you think should be done, and then tell me how you can get your party leaders to see it that way.

It's all good to say, "just deport them", but there are so many practical considerations in the way that it is far from that simple.

[erik_blank]

Maybe it's to counter your obvious bias against Obama; go figure.

But as usual you ignored the rest of what I said. Neither the Democrats or Republicans have come to any concensus on how to deal with immigration reform even within their own parties.

So if you have complaints about immigration reform proposals I would love to see what you think should be done, and then tell me how you can get your party leaders to see it that way.

It's all good to say, "just deport them", but there are so many practical considerations in the way that it is far from that simple.

Just to throw another log on the fire so to speak, I wonder how most of these anti-immigration people would feel if most of these 'illegal aliens' were from europe instead of central and south america?
One of the things that I 'hear' most from people that are anti-immigration is that they want all these people that don't speak our language to go back to where they came from... each time I hear these complaints, I get the impression that they are mostly fearfull of what is different and unfamiliar.
Still, I can also remember quite clearly images of signs in various history books: "No Irish need apply" - protectionism and bigotry...

[Slim]

Just to throw another log on the fire so to speak, I wonder how most of these anti-immigration people would feel if most of these 'illegal aliens' were from europe instead of central and south america?
One of the things that I 'hear' most from people that are anti-immigration is that they want all these people that don't speak our language to go back to where they came from... each time I hear these complaints, I get the impression that they are mostly fearfull of what is different and unfamiliar.
Still, I can also remember quite clearly images of signs in various history books: "No Irish need apply" - protectionism and bigotry...

Nice attempt at promoting a stereotype.

There is difference between legal immigration and illegal immigration. Saying people that want something done about illegal immigration are "anti-immigration' is a liberal ploy, but this doesnt surprise me seeing this come from you.

You're either being disingenuous or ignorant if you think "most people" who have a problem with illegal immigrants are afraid of foreigners, which is what you are suggesting. Or you need to associate with a better crowd of people than trailer trash.

[Slim]

Maybe it's to counter your obvious bias against Obama; go figure.

So you use what is basically the Pee Herman "I know you are, but what am I?" rebuttal? Bwahahaahaha. Very good.

[Inquartata]

Ok, ok---no implanted microchips, then.

Tattooed barcodes?

There is a recent school of "economic behaviorists" who say that, counter the assumption that everyone works to their rational self-interest, people very frequently do NOT.

The criticisms of them are too numerous to treat, but suffice to say that what they take for instances of irrational behavior in maximizing utility can all be explained by rational expectations theory if one just realizes that utility is a thing which varies wildly and cannot be defined outside the context of the individual consumer's psyche. What you and I might take to be behavior contrary to an individual's self-interest are usually being filtered through OUR ideas of what OUR self-interest would be in like circumstances...



People, in general, are very bad at evaluating risk and reward, and tend to count less future outcomes - especially "might happens" against current rewards.[/quote]

But this does not mean that they are irrational or acting against their own self-interests. All self-interest is perceived self-interest. That perceptions can be faulty or can be led astray is not arefutation of the underlying principle of utility maximization.

For instance, I am frugal. This enables me to amass capital, which can be invested, not only to enhance opportunities for present consumption but hopefully to provide for retirement. However, it may be that my perceptions are incorrect---that in fact my self-interest would be far better served by giving away all that I have to the poor and going into a monastery. This will likely be the case should I find myself before a very real St. Peter after I die.

That does not mean either that my current behavior is opposed to my self-interest, or that Mother Theresa's was opposed to hers. It simply means that we as human beings are not only different and have differing utility maps, but that our perceptions are flawed in many different ways.

So, they're going to spend their paychecks instead of saving for 30 years down the road...

Because their personal utilities are served by so doing. They value beer and loud music now more highly than that power chair and Dentu-creme later. This does not make them irrational, unless we first arrogate to ourselves the power to decide what "rational" means and what "proper" utility is...


]

The number of illegals in the country have decreased a a result of the economic downturn.

And will increase again once the economy comes back. Recession is not a solution to the problem.

If employers wouldn't hire illegals (which they do NOT because they're willing to do jobs that Americans won't but because illegals can be exploited without fear) then the numbers would drop significantly.

Employers are acting in their own interests, just as economics tells us they will.

The law can be changed to make it in their best interest NOT to do so. But let's not do that; let's tinker around with details at the margins, and when we are sufficiently frustrated with our failure to fix the problem we can just pass another amnesty bill. You know, the way we've always done...

[erik_blank]

Nice attempt at promoting a stereotype.

Thank you. When one applies I try to keep it easy to understand for the rest of the people out there... (Note for the sarcastic impaired -> Sarcasm Alert!)

There is difference between legal immigration and illegal immigration. Saying people that want something done about illegal immigration are "anti-immigration' is a liberal ploy, but this doesnt surprise me seeing this come from you.

Are you trying to imply that I have some liberal leanings Slim? Wow, Thank you for pointing out the obvious! Does that mean that you might be inclined to the more... what is the word... 'conservative' spectrum? Always hard to tell on these message boards isn't it? Of course with ad hominem attacks it is always easier to prove your arguments...

You're either being disingenuous or ignorant if you think "most people" who have a problem with illegal immigrants are afraid of foreigners, which is what you are suggesting. Or you need to associate with a better crowd of people than trailer trash.

Slim: I am glad to hear that you are associating with a group of mostly non-xenophobes, and I am also glad to hear that you and your associated friends do not personally have an issue with large groups of legally immigrated persons.

I am curious who you feel are the "most people" currently making up the population of the US? Is it the "college educated elite" who frequent this kind of discussion board? Is it the independent business man who is trying to make an honest living while competing with other companies that pay 1/3 the wages s/he has to by hiring illegals? Or is it the very large group of the HS grads that have taken the low paying grunt jobs for $7.50/hour that help to keep our more educated assess in our comfy houses? And yes, I admit that I directly benefit from other peoples misery, especially since I continue to purchase a majority of my goods from places like Walmart.

Frankly it has not been my experience when talking to many people in my travels both in PA and other states (MN, IA, IN, CA, MA, VT, GA, NY, RI, ME, IL) that they are all that inclined to differentiate between illegal immigrants and legal ones.

I can say that many people that I have talked with who have a greater than high school education (and yes, I have a lot of friends and acquaintances who are college educated) are also for the most part comfortable around individuals who are non-us citizens. The number of HS graduates who hold this view are quite lower in my experience. When I start talking to people about their feelings about non-US groups, such as the Sikhs, immigrants from central America, Asia and especially from the middle eastern nations, their statements are often much more negative and often reactionary. Even people that have graduate and doctorate degrees have on occasion made statements to the effect of "they should all go back to where they came from..." Of course the majority of my acquaintances do NOT have doctorate degrees, and many may indeed be what you classify as "Trailer Trash" (some would even revel in that label), but that does not make their expressions of fear and xenophobia any less that what they are.

So yes, I will come out and say it a bit clearer for you. I DO believe that MOST people that are anti-illegal immigration are also simply anti-immigration. Many of these people are indeed ignorant (hence the fear of the unknown) of other people and culture, bu that simply feeds their reluctance to allow other peoples into our country, legally or not.

I distinctly remember a huge push back when a large number of Hmong refugees from Laos ended up in MN near the end of the Vietnam war. These people were indeed LEGAL immigrants, but very few people wanted them in the state. Many people wanted them to be sent back to the various killing fields because they were 'gooks' and should not be allowed to live. There was a LOT of anger and fear about how these people would be unable to integrate into our society and would bring their 'gook' ways with them. It was pretty ugly listening to this kind of talk in the halls of my high school then. Of course these people were all HS students then, but they were getting their attitudes from somewhere, usually from their parents, sometimes from their churches.

The reference to the Irish above was simply an attempt to show that this kind of attitude is not a new thing. Perhaps it was indeed a cheap shot. I still believe that it applies. The wish to have all the 'Paddies' or 'Wops' or Catholics just 'go home' is perpetual, whether or not these people are here legally. The label of "illegal" just makes it easier to hate.

[erik_blank]

Employers are acting in their own interests, just as economics tells us they will.

The law can be changed to make it in their best interest NOT to do so. But let's not do that; let's tinker around with details at the margins, and when we are sufficiently frustrated with our failure to fix the problem we can just pass another amnesty bill. You know, the way we've always done...

Errr... Are you suggesting that there should be Federal legislation, laws even, that would establish rules and restrictions on the free trade and practices of private companies and corporations?

[Inquartata]

Nope. I'm suggesting that there should be a framework of laws which establish the "rules of the game" for us all, but which don't get so stupidly detailed that they are actually attempting to dictate minute behaviors.

We started out with the former, and thanks to the incessant need of lawmakers to be forever making laws we now have the latter. ( And the courts are not innocent in the process, either. )

I'll give you an example of what I advocate, and of what we have.

I advocate laws which say that businesses must make public information that a consumer would need in order to make a rational decision about whether or not to buy the product of a given seller in the marketplace.

What we have is thousands of pages of regulations purporting to specify just what that information is, HOW it should be provided, by whom, to whom, how much may be charged for it, how it may be used, etc, etc, etc, see paragraph 379(111c) of subsection 18(A-3) of the Omnibus Bill for Sticking a Finger in Every Pie and Keeping the Lawyers Employed, 89th Revision...