‘We know that these tags violate people's basic right to privacy and have devastating effects on people's mental health. There is also no evidence base for these intrusive measures as almost no one vanishes from the asylum system.’ - Sir Keir
Agree or Disagree: GPS Tagging for asylum seekers cause ‘significant psychological and physical suffering, despite no clear explanation or evidence’ of its utility.
- The Independent, 6th December 2022
In today’s news: GPS tagging for asylum seekers backed by Starmer. Agree or Disagree?
I agree, it is fine to keep tabs on them to make sure they show up. Although personally I'd rather the US, hire ten thousand more immigration judges to get through the back log so they can get their hearing the same day they come in and either be granted or deported that quick.
There is no mental issues with it, that the government causes, as this is better than a deep tissue implant GPS tracking device, that would be harder to remove and potentially leave a scar.
To me that is the best, the wait in Mexico or wait in their home country as they should not be able to come here and steal jobs and live free without working, especially if it is 5 or years to get their hearing.
After that much time, they now have anchor babies and liberals try to say you can't deport people with anchor babies. Which they can, just give the baby to adoption agency to be adopted by citizens or the parents can take it back with them willingly.
When you are in a country illegally you waive all rights to privacy. If criminals in the US are ok to use them, why not criminals from outside the US, especially since none of them will ever turn up for their hearings? Why is it our borders are not secure and our sovereignty as a nation seems to mean nothing anymore? Why should we pay taxes if we have no say how our money is being spent, or on who it is being spent on? Why should we allow all these people to run all over the US without supervision or knowing what they are up to? We allowed that in 2011 and you see what that brought us.
Real question is, do people have unalienable rights or just citizens? The constitution uses both "a person" and "a citizen" very intentionally. Anything regarding law justice is deliberately worded as "person." Imagine trying to prove citizenship with rights to a trial to cops that don't like your face.
Putting on a ankle gps would require a court case based on our constitution so why not just do the asylum case to begin with? It's clearly taking people's rights away that will become excuses to take away citizens rights. On top of that immigration is a good thing.
Those old ones were a different device and technology from these newer ones. So you're being facetious comparing the two equally.
Hell, you could just install a tracker on their phone, if it's what they want.
The problem with immigration is the Tory government making it a problem by not recruiting enough lawyers or civil servants to handle the caseload. Starmer is being a good politician in asserting his temporary fix.
Most criminals don't give a shit about them so I don't believe they cause suffering. A better method might be to give them a card to buy things with but set distant restrictions on where it can be used. This would keep them within a designated zone.
Being in a war torn country can cause significant psychological or physical suffering which is where they're supposedly from no? GPS tagging should be nothing compared to the explosion of bombs.
Then again, Western culture is all about having a bleeding heart and cutting your nose off to spite the face
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(25-29)
1 y
We do this to criminals all the time when they are under house arrest. Illegal immigrants are, by definition, criminals so this would make sense. If they deliberately chose to hop the border without going through security then it stands to reason that they have something that would lead them to be rejected.
