That's crazy. I don't like it at all. I wonder what the heck the people that dreamt it up were thinking...

link (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4519090)

Originally posted by Samuel Dravis
That's crazy. I don't like it at all. I wonder what the heck the people that dreamt it up were thinking...

link (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4519090)

That is ridiculous. I don't know, but that seems to be crossing the line. I mean remember in WWII, the Jews were made to wear the Star of David? I realize that this situation is different, but it bothers me just the same.

The article was quoted as saying, "The ankle bracelets are the same monitors that some rapists and other convicted criminals have to wear on parole."

This is also the same type of ankle bracelet worn by thousands of juvenile offenders (pre-adjudicated) to encourage and motivate their compliance.

I think its a good idea.

It is a relatively inexpensive method of ensuring compliance and will ultimately prevent deportations since the immigrant will be motivated to comply.

I just wonder how many poor, Vietnamese or Pakistani immigrants believe that the bracelet will blow off their foot if they run or try to remove it?

Sounds about the same to me. So if something goes wrong, you can just look for a bracelet and blame it on the foreigners. Kind of like with the jews in Nazi Germany.


I think we all know my opinion on this sort of thing, but for those that don't. I find this incredibly wrong. This is just another way to classify people into categories to control them. The power is getting to people and they're doing incredibly stupid things with it.

If you note in the article, however, this is only for immigrants awaiting hearings for things like assylum or probably VISA extensions and the like. It's not for all immigrants.

It's just a way to ensure appearance without having to hire an army of court officials to go to their homes and check on them. The bracelets will probably be on for a matter of weeks and up to 90 days or so.

Originally posted by SkinWalker
If you note in the article, however, this is only for immigrants awaiting hearings for things like assylum or probably VISA extensions and the like. It's not for all immigrants.

Oh, I figured this was the earlier discussion that was talked about for monitoring all immigrants that come into the country. I guess it makes sense, but I still don't like the idea of monitoring people.

Really should have checked the link though. :(

The extreme-conservative populist party here in Norway had the same suggestion some time back. And I'd say it still sounds pretty terrible.

Doesn't immigrants have the same right for privacy as you and me? Doesn't that type of electronical surveillance label all immigrants as criminals and evil-doers?

Sounds like something they would to to communists in the 1950s-60s.

In my eyes, this is both an anti-immigrant and inhumane practice.

I agree with my Norse friend here. Sounds too fishy to me.

Although I look at this sort of practice with a raised eyebrow, I must admit that their really isn't any better, more effective solution to enforce compliance for asylum seekers and other immigrants.

My concern with this ankle moniter is that it constantly reminds the wearer of his status in society as a monitered individual, even if many of these people have normal, stable lives in America. These devices are noticable enough that the wearer is reminded of it quite often (ie. putting on a pair of socks). Sure, it is without a doubt that this can have a significant psychological impact upon that they will be much less inclined to break certain rules. However, I'm concerned over the aspect that these people have to continually live in a certain degree of fear.

Perhaps a more inconspicuous tracking device, such as a internal implant chip, could be used? (or maybe that's just too sci-fi) :p

Originally posted by wassup
Perhaps a more inconspicuous tracking device, such as a internal implant chip, could be used? (or maybe that's just too sci-fi) :p Not at all - things like that have already been done. I think I remember something about parents putting chips in their kids to keep track of them (don't have a reference for this though)... I don't like that idea much better. Even if it is just used on special case immigrants, it's rather disturbing.

But critics say Cerda and other Homeland Security officials have exaggerated the extent of the problem. They point to a Justice Department study that put part of the blame on immigration officials, saying they'd failed to keep adequate records to track aliens.

So lots of them didn't run away, they just forgot where they put them :D

The "Alternatives to anklets" bit is worth a read too.

But on a serious note. I wouldn't be for this unless the anklets were concealed (otherwise you DO have a star of david type situation where they will be unfairly treated and singled out).

Still, with RFID tags for kids, soon in passports. Soon they'll require them to get medical attention. Then there will be an attack or something and they will want to track people more closely.

Just gotta hope the ones doing all the tracking are good, honest, efficient etc... :D :eek:

Hmmm... Considering that the alternative would most likely be to lock them up, I'd say that it's a rather good idea. Cheaper, less obstructive, more efficient.

And they don't need to be big and chuncky. You can put a GPS transciever in a cell phone - surely designing a discreet (and waterproof) bracelet can't be a problem