Take their DNA, o.k.; just don't check immigration status!

[Coito ergo sum]

House votes to expand national DNA arrest database
by Declan McCullagh

Millions of Americans arrested for but not convicted of crimes will likely have their DNA forcibly extracted and added to a national database, according to a bill approved by the U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday.
By a 357 to 32 vote, the House approved legislation that will pay state governments to require DNA samples, which could mean drawing blood with a needle, from adults "arrested for" certain serious crimes. Not one Democrat voted against the database measure, which would hand out about $75 million to states that agree to make such testing mandatory.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20005458-38.html

Sooooo... the same asshats that gave the President of Mexico a standing ovation yesterday for hypocritically lambasting an American law about merely checking immigration status under certain circumstances, just voted to mandate that people not convicted of a crime get DNA samples taken from them....and, no "reasonable suspicion" is necessary.

Obviously, the pissing and moaning about the Arizona law is all about pandering to the hispanic vote, and nothing about "civil rights."

[Feck]

Welcome to the new world .


And if they apply the same low standards to DNA matches that they do to fingerprints in the US then you will all be in trouble ...

Just wait until they give your DNA to the health insurance companies







They still haven't got my fingerprints or my DNA

[Coito ergo sum]

Welcome to the new world .


And if they apply the same low standards to DNA matches that they do to fingerprints in the US then you will all be in trouble ...

Just wait until they give your DNA to the health insurance companies







They still haven't got my fingerprints or my DNA

Good thing they're not going to check suspected illegal alien's immigration status, though. They'll stick a needle in their arm and pull out blood to take DNA samples, but thank the FSM they won't call the BCIS to verify immigration status. That would be going too far.

Three cheers for President Calderone! Hip Hip Hoo-ray! Hip Hip Hoo-ray! Hip Hip Hoo-ray!

[Feck]

cotton bud on the cheek not a needle FFS .

[Coito ergo sum]

cotton bud on the cheek not a needle FFS .

"By a 357 to 32 vote, the House approved legislation that will pay state governments to require DNA samples, which could mean drawing blood with a needle,"

Soo....apparently, the law allows extraction of blood samples....and, isn't a cheek swab still more invasive than a phone call or an online check of immigration status?


I like this part too:

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership scheduled Tuesday's debate on the bill--called the Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act of 2010--using a procedure known as the "suspension calendar" intended to be reserved for non-controversial legislation.
"Suspension of the rules is supposed to be for praising the winner of the NCAA championship or renaming Post Offices," Harper says. "Things like collecting Americans' DNA are supposed to be fully debated in Congress.""


Another example of this asshats not giving a shit about process, procedure, the rules - anything. We want this piece of legislation, they say, "so ram it through! No debate! Just sneak the shit through. We know we won't get serious criticism about it because we're the ones that "mean well" and the population is still in denial." Just suspend the rules and enact a law that seriously risks impinging on civil rights, but make a show by pissing and moaning about something every country in the world does routinely and without any issue (checking immigration status).

[Trolldor]

isn't a cheek swab still more invasive than a phone call or an online check of immigration status?

Nope.

[Coito ergo sum]

isn't a cheek swab still more invasive than a phone call or an online check of immigration status?

Nope.

Riiiiiiigghht....because a physical procedure where samples are taken is always less invasive than checking a document. That's why it's more invasive for a police officer to check you're identification at a traffic stop than to take a DNA sample.

Go ahead - try to be more of an apologist....

[Pappa]

isn't a cheek swab still more invasive than a phone call or an online check of immigration status?

Nope.

Riiiiiiigghht....because a physical procedure where samples are taken is always less invasive than checking a document. That's why it's more invasive for a police officer to check you're identification at a traffic stop than to take a DNA sample.

Go ahead - try to be more of an apologist....

I think he means a different kind of invasive - but BAA will disagree with anyone over anything, so it's hard to be sure.

[Coito ergo sum]

isn't a cheek swab still more invasive than a phone call or an online check of immigration status?

Nope.

Riiiiiiigghht....because a physical procedure where samples are taken is always less invasive than checking a document. That's why it's more invasive for a police officer to check you're identification at a traffic stop than to take a DNA sample.

Go ahead - try to be more of an apologist....

I think he means a different kind of invasive - but BAA will disagree with anyone over anything, so it's hard to be sure.

Well, I'd love to hear the argument about how verifying a document is as invasive as taking DNA samples and putting them in a government database.

In Florida, we have to prove that we are lawfully in the country in order to get a drivers license. So, I produced a social security card, and a US Passport, plus proof of residence. They took copies and scanned them. The officer can access this information from his squad car, or by phone to the division of motor vehicles. And, they indicate on the face of the drivers license whether immigration status has been properly documented.

So, every time I get pulled over for speeding, my immigration status is, in effect, being checked by the mere fact that they check my drivers' license. No "reasonable suspicion" of anything was necessary when I got my license. No "reasonable suspicion" is necessary when a police officer asks for my identification in a traffic or other stop.

But, people are bitching that in Arizona, the cops might seek to verify a person's immigration status. Nawww that's right...illegal immigrants should be exempt from having to comply with the law. The rest of us have to, though. That's not discriminatory.

[Martok]

Outside of this being over reaching, its costly to. At present thousands of rape kits have gone untested because most states can't afford to process them.

[Trolldor]

isn't a cheek swab still more invasive than a phone call or an online check of immigration status?

Nope.

Riiiiiiigghht....because a physical procedure where samples are taken is always less invasive than checking a document. That's why it's more invasive for a police officer to check you're identification at a traffic stop than to take a DNA sample.

Go ahead - try to be more of an apologist....

I think he means a different kind of invasive - but BAA will disagree with anyone over anything, so it's hard to be sure.

Much less intrusive, actually. What is a DNA sample? What does it reveal about you? At best, they use it to compare with samples at crime scenes. So no, it isn't intrusive at all.
Why is a sample of your blood more valuable than your private life?

[Feck]

Well considering that my DNA is the blue print for almost every protein in my body a record of my ancestry and potential guide to future health problems ,mental as well as physical. And that it can be copied, distributed and/or placed at the crime scene and that most jurors ARE convinced by an expert witness and the infallibility of DNA evidence I would much rather the Police didn't have a fucking sample of it .

I kept my old driving license as long as I could because I hate people having a photo of me ,how much less do I want my DNA in the wrong hands .

[Coito ergo sum]

isn't a cheek swab still more invasive than a phone call or an online check of immigration status?

Nope.

Riiiiiiigghht....because a physical procedure where samples are taken is always less invasive than checking a document. That's why it's more invasive for a police officer to check you're identification at a traffic stop than to take a DNA sample.

Go ahead - try to be more of an apologist....

I think he means a different kind of invasive - but BAA will disagree with anyone over anything, so it's hard to be sure.

Much less intrusive, actually. What is a DNA sample? What does it reveal about you? At best, they use it to compare with samples at crime scenes. So no, it isn't intrusive at all.
Why is a sample of your blood more valuable than your private life?

When a police officer "checks" your status, he's not taking anything from you. That's why it's less intrusive. If a person is in the country, the government is supposed to already have the information, which you would have already given them when applying for entry. If, however, you're not lawfully in the country, in which case there is simply an absence of information. The police officer merely has to ask for your identification, which in every other stop all over the country, thousands of times a day, police do now.

You get pulled over for speeding: license, registration and insurance, please. If he has that information, he can check your immigration status with the BCIS. No problem.

If you think that's somehow more invasive than a needle in your arm drawing blood, and adding it to a DNA database correlated to your name, then that's your view on it. It sounds totally ridiculous, of course.

Every other country in the world also allows law enforcement to check identification and verify immigration status when they stop or detain a person. France does it. The UK does it. Mexico does it. Belgium Does it. Spain, Italy, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, and many other "western" nations are "intrusively" asking for people's ID and running a quick check on immigration status. You're opinion is that that's more invasive than drawing DNA samples against the will of a person and without any "reasonable suspicion" that the person did anything wrong.

If that's your position. That's your position.

[Trolldor]

Well considering that my DNA is the blue print for almost every protein in my body a record of my ancestry and potential guide to future health problems ,mental as well as physical. And that it can be copied, distributed and/or placed at the crime scene and that most juries ARE convinced by an expert witness and the infallibility of DNA evidence I would much rather the Police didn't have a fucking sample of it .

All I can say is:
Paranoia.


Also, too much CSI is bad for you. A blood sample is a rather poor way of framing someone.

You get pulled over for speeding: license, registration and insurance, please.

That information contains your address, as well as the ability to look in to your financial situation. Much more intrusive than a blood test, and almost infinitely more dangerous to you.

[Feck]

I don't watch Csi I do have a Bsc in genetics though .