Rio starts ID checks on US flyers

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Can't you see why a nation in a war might want to tighten up on the borders and know a little bit more about its visitors than the very possibly false name on the passport?

I can see why. Yet, I refuse to submit to it. Unless I have a work obligation to go to the US, I won't go there until they drop this measure.

[Berzerker]

Spiffor -

I remember this whole discussion between you and me started as you compared liberated European social democracies (including Germany, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands etc.) with "liberated" Kuwait.

That isn't what happened, you jumped into an ongoing discussion Sava and I were having about what the US has done during the past ~60 years to examine if his comparing the US with the Nazis was justified. I mentioned how the US had liberated dozens of countries during that time including Iraq and Kuwait and he dismissed Gulf War I based on the fact the US re-installed the Emir. I then asked why Kuwait doesn't count as a liberation when the liberation of France in WWII does count and he justified his selectivity by citing the ideology of the 2 countries, i.e., it's a liberation if the US re-installed "social democrats" but not a monarch. He made the ideology of France and Kuwait an issue, not me. That's when I made my comment comparing Kuwait with France wrt to evil deeds which you called "as stupid" as his comment comparing the deeds of the US with the Nazis.

Except for France, Netherlands and Belgium, which all had postcolonial wars to attend, with the horror that comes along, I don't believe there was any crime done by, say, Germany. Same thing for other countries that could escape both the nazi and soviet grasp, such as Sweden, Denmark or Norway (and even Austria).

And I wasn't asking Sava about all those countries, just why he considers the liberation of France to be a valid liberation while he dismisses the liberation of Kuwait. His reason is ideology, not whether or not the people in those countries were better off because of the US effort to remove the brutal thugs who had invaded them.

When I deemed your comment as being "as stupid" as Oncle Boris' one, I did not mean nor imply that the number of crimes done by Kuwait in comparison to social democracies was as impressive as the number of crimes of nazi Germany in comparison to the US' (what I call a "quantitative" comparison). You understood it differently, maybe due to poor wording, certainly due to our two completely different worldviews. This is a typical misunderstanding.

Yes, I'm aware you think I was making a statement about the comparative moral validity of social democracies and monarchies but I was merely comparing the amount of evil perpetrated by both countries to show that re-installing the Emir was not less valid than re-installing social democrats in France when the deeds of both are comparable (or, as you've pointed out, the deeds of the social democrats are worse). Consider that paradox, re-installing social democrats was preferable to re-installing a monarch even though the former continued to perpetrate the evils you've cited while no one here has cited evils committed by the Emir.

What I meant and implied is that you used the same faulty logic, in short that you compare apples and oranges.

Sava and I were debating evil deeds committed by 2 countries - USA and Nazi Germany - which can be compared to reach a conclusion about which is/was worse, that comparison was merely expanded to include 2 more countries - France and Kuwait.

To be clear: welfare systems in Europe exist because the populations wanted it - it ceased to exist where the population didn't want it anymore (UK). Or in your libertarian terms: the Europeans are free to decide to be economically free or not - I wonder who you are to criticize their free decision.

Are you free to vote for legalising the enslavement of %10 of the people in your country? The fact a majority voted for something has nothing to do with whether or not it was a moral thing to do. Now, I'm not equating welfare with slavery (although I do see at least one similarity), I am pointing out that 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner cannot justify the wolves voting to eat the sheep. You guys think majority rule is fine when it comes to welfare states, but I suspect you would reject the morality of majority rule if the majority wanted to commit genocide or practice slavery. That means y'all like majority rule as long as the majority either votes your way or the majority stays within limits you want in place. We just have different limits, so who are you to criticise their "free" decision? If the majority voted to abolish the welfare state, would you remain silent if you supported the welfare state? Would you say the majority was right to do what you believe is wrong?

OTOH, the Kuwaitis have no choice in their ruler, in the collective rules that bind them, etc.

Neither do I, nether do many people in France. Would slavery in the US be validated if slaves could vote and the majority voted to keep them enslaved? And I'm not sure Kuwaiti citizens have no voice regarding Kuwait's legislative body, I believe the King merely limits what the legislature can do as the US Constitution was supposed to limit what Congress can do. Obviously the King won't let the legislature abolish his rule, but I don't know if the King makes all the laws without regard to what the legislature and citizenry wants.

The fact that you consider welfare states to be dictatorships, although the decision to be in a welfare state lies by the citizen, makes you use a faulty logic, and this logic is exactly the same as Oncle Boris' (what I call a 'qualitative' comparison).

So what? People in Kuwait can leave too. In both countries people can leave or stay but if they choose the latter they will be subject to the rule of someone else. I'll repeat what Mel Gibson's character in the movie "The Patriot" said when his neighbors were voting on whether or not to rebel against the King of England, "why should I vote to replace 1 dictator 3,000 miles away with 3,000 dictators 1 mile away?" He was indicting both monarchies and democracies as dictatorships, the only difference was the number of people playing the role of dictator.
And it's not so much the welfare state I'm indicting as a dictatorship, but the system that allows the majority to impose it's desires on the minority. Welfare states are just one possible consequence of such a system ("democracy")... Slavery is another, and genocide is yet another...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I can see why. Yet, I refuse to submit to it. Unless I have a work obligation to go to the US, I won't go there until they drop this measure.

Well, don't hold your breath. As lefty pointed out earlier, they have reasons to continue with this simply from an immigration POV. I sincerely doubt that it is going to be abandoned any time soon. Actually, I rather think the practice will spread.

[Berzerker]

Spiffor -

I can see why. Yet, I refuse to submit to it. Unless I have a work obligation to go to the US, I won't go there until they drop this measure.

Ah, who are you to criticise "our free choice"?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


It is not necessarily because of shared intelligence and security efforts, but because of risk assessment. I would assume, as DanS mentioned earlier, that all countries on the Visa Waiver list are also on the "we don't fingerprint you" list.

As I recall, the Visa Waiver list was based on both security concerns (i.e. Norway is okay, SA isn't) and on immigration concerns (Canada is okay, Mexico isn't). IIRC one of the key requirements was that the previous calendar year saw a lower than 3% rejection rate at the border for citizens of the country in question travelling to the US.

Damn. Prepare to be finger printed, because Canada's border security is a poor joke. The obvious way for anyone to get into the States would be through Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, or Halifax first. Once you're past our joke for security, you're home free. Drive to the Prairies, and walk across the border in the middle of a farmers field. Or, join an old fashioned canoe trip somewhere around the head of the Great Lakes. Or, a lumber jack excursion in New Brunswick. Or...

One big bang traced across the 49th is all it will take.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Ah, who are you to criticise "our free choice"?

You can storage Americans taking a leak if you want, it is not my problem. However, I dislike the idea that it applies to foreigners (who are not associated in the decision or process), and to me in particular. There is a very simple way to avoid suffering from this measure, and I'll use it. That is, I'll avoid your country.

[The Vagabond]

It's surprising that Brazil had the balls to do that to the US. Will anyone else follow this example? But I suspect they won't last long -- they'll soon call off the measure.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Damn. Prepare to be finger printed, because Canada's border security is a poor joke. The obvious way for anyone to get into the States would be through Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, or Halifax first. Once you're past our joke for security, you're home free. Drive to the Prairies, and walk across the border in the middle of a farmers field. Or, join an old fashioned canoe trip somewhere around the head of the Great Lakes. Or, a lumber jack excursion in New Brunswick. Or...

One big bang traced across the 49th is all it will take.

What joke of security?

I call bullshit. If it was so easy then why hasn't it happened yet?

We had one guy try it and get caught at the 49th.

It seems like it's a lot easier to get in through Europe or Asia...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Damn. Prepare to be finger printed

Anyway, I think I will be. The exclusion for Canada almost certainly doesn't include me or any other F1

We'll see in a couple of weeks.

[The Vagabond]

As for Stalin being a war criminal, he was much more of a peace criminal than a war criminal.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
81% of people responding to the CNN poll think it's okay for the US to fingerprint foreigners

And I'm sure 81% of Brazilians think it's okay to fingerprint Americans.

[Berzerker]

Spiffor, that's all well and good, but that doesn't change the fact you've just criticised "our free choice".

However, I dislike the idea that it applies to foreigners (who are not associated in the decision or process), and to me in particular.

You mean countries now have to ask everyone in the world if it's okay for them to identify foreign visitors during a war?

[KrazyHorse]

I didn't realise the War on Illiteracy was that serious.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Spiffor, that's all well and good, but that doesn't change the fact you've just criticised "our free choice".

I'm not a libertarian, that makes it much easier to me
And actually, have the intraterritorial laws that you want, and let me whine about them if I want I will not have my personal info stored by the American government, that's all about it.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
What joke of security?

I call bullshit. If it was so easy then why hasn't it happened yet?

We had one guy try it and get caught at the 49th.

It seems like it's a lot easier to get in through Europe or Asia...

You aren't well aquainted with our immigration policies, are you?

[KrazyHorse]

We seem to be doing a pretty good job of filtering the legitimate from the criminal so far.

[KrazyHorse]

I'd say it's the US, UK, France and Germany that have to do a lot more worrying in that department, actually.

[notyoueither]

Oh no, you didn't say that, did you?

[KrazyHorse]

Why?

[notyoueither]

Dirty laundry. Do we want to air it in public?

[KrazyHorse]

Which case you thinking of?

[notyoueither]

The whole sordid mess with war criminals. Add to that that anyone who turns up on our borders can walk out onto the streets without even the thinest pretext of having a legitimate reason to be here. We do not detain refugee claimants, we release them and hope that they show up for the hearing.

[Oncle Boris]

Most terrorists involved in 9/11 didn't go through Canada first. They went to the US directly. The American accusations against Canada's customs are pure PR BS.

[notyoueither]

And when the US tightens up? What then will the bad guys do, oh enlightened one?

There was no point to skirt the US border before. It was wide open. As it closes, those so inclined will try to get around it. Let's see, Mexico in the South with tight controls and close surveillance of the crossings, or the largest undefended border in the world to the North, with nice fields to take a brief walk over? Oh, and what's this? The country to the North has a: the longest coastline in the world, and b: very little control of it's major ports for immigration, let alone patrolling the vast expanses of coast.

Gee, if they are serious about getting there, I wonder what they will do. *scratches head*

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
The whole sordid mess with war criminals. Add to that that anyone who turns up on our borders can walk out onto the streets without even the thinest pretext of having a legitimate reason to be here. We do not detain refugee claimants, we release them and hope that they show up for the hearing.

First off, most of the war criminals which were here entered ages ago (1950's-1970's?). Secondly, most countries in the world have found people like that living in their borders.

As to your claims wrt immigrants, not true. We detain many "high-risk" refugee claimants, and, IIRC are starting to detain a majority of the young adult male claimants.

As I recall the government just bought an old hotel in Toronto to detain refugee claimants in until their hearing...

[Berzerker]

Hey Boris, where in the definition of democracy do you see rights or free speech?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Most terrorists involved in 9/11 didn't go through Canada first. They went to the US directly. The American accusations against Canada's customs are pure PR BS.

None went through Canada. None had ever been in Canada at any time in their lives, to my knowledge.

Please don't spread **** that isn't true.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
And when the US tightens up? What then will the bad guys do, oh enlightened one?

There was no point to skirt the US border before. It was wide open. As it closes, those so inclined will try to get around it. Let's see, Mexico in the South with tight controls and close surveillance of the crossings, or the largest undefended border in the world to the North, with nice fields to take a brief walk over?

The US already has constant helo border patrols over the 49th, and has for a decade.

[notyoueither]

Oh good. I guess they stopped the cigarette smuggling that went on and is beginning to happen again, or not.

[Berzerker]

Where are you O Boris? I'm waiting for your proof that I advocated the mass murder of social democrats.