The obvious way to remove the power of the heavily armed drug cartels is to legalize the drugs. Then they wouldn't be making a lot of money by pushing the drugs, so they would have to find some other source of revenue. If they didn't have their product to push, why would they want to come in? And if they did, what difference would it make?

mpouraryan - My point is you don't have to envision robots possessing strong AI to find yourself deep into ethically problematic territory. Simple automation will get you there. 

If the US opens its borders, how would it prevent the heavily armed drug cartels from just walking in?

The challenge for us is to insure that we tame our ever growing desire to digitize and virtualize our World.    Drones, though, are becoming part of our evolutionary journey whether we like it or not.    The key is indeed to insure that we as humans maintain that sense of control and yes, be the master.   I hate to call it that..but that's the challenge.   

As for the Drone that automatically massacres, I hope never to see that day in my lifetime.    It goes back to what I talked about...what "battlestart gallatica" envisioned...the rise of the machines that ended up taking over the World and forced the survivors to start hunting for Mother Earth.     I am sure that Dr. Kurzweil will call me naive...but I can't help it--I still value the essence of humanity and its' need to insure that it stays in control of its' World and its' destiny.

That old-fashioned immigration policy had a lot going for it, Mitch. But we need to remember that not all "criminals" have actually committed crimes, and the whole question of "violent mental illness" is a topic much too complex to discuss here in any depth. Countries, including our own, make laws that provide a convenient basis for prosecution of those they seek to control, those who disagree with the plans of those in charge. Many people were turned away at Ellis Island and the other immigration facilities because they were on the wrong side in wars of oppression waged without declaration within various countries. What America stood for back then was honorable, but in practice there were a lot of good people that didn't get in.

Certainly there are some real criminals that I wouldn't want in my back yard. Murderers or rapists, for instance. But if someone lived outside the law, fighting back against a corrupt regime or just trying to keep their family alive, I say let them in right now! Those are the ones we want, because they understand who we are probably better than we do ourselves.

"If a drone flying automatically massacres a village, who gets prosecuted for the war crime?" Probably the programmer!

So many things could go wrong: a flaw in the program, a bad sensor, faulty data in the mapping, faulty information selecting the target...

But I'm convinced that an appropriate scapegoat, not the real culprit whoever that might be, would get the blame.

mpouraryan - You don't have to assume artificial intelligence for drones to become an independent threat. Right now they can automatically fire their missiles and kill a target -- it just requires a human to give the "go" order (press the button, so to speak). How long before the human is removed from the decision process and the machine just does it automatically?

If a drone flying automatically massacres a village, who gets prosecuted for the war crime?

chuckgregory - You know, you have a good point. 

But should the borders also be open for criminals and the violently mental ill?

I favor an immigration policy that would allow anybody willing to work hard and obey the law to come into the country. And after a few years of working hard and obeying the law, they can apply for and easily receive citizenship. 

Does that sound radical, far-left, Utopian? Well, it's the immigration policy that existed when my grandparents came to this country, along with millions of other immigrants who drove a century of American greatness. 

@Alison Diana, you say, "Not saying it shouldn't happen, just that I doubt it ever would, given the way people as a rule are so territorial." I, too, doubt it ever would, but my reasoning is different. I don't think people as a rule are all that territorial; I think that government, and big business, are highly territorial and see profit in keeping borders under their control. I think people are much more open to new ideas than we give them credit for. But the powers that be do not want us to consider alternatives to what they choose for us. They not only restrict information, they also prefer to train us as good little workabees rather than educating us as free thinkers. They also lie a lot. That's why a proposal such as mine won't even get to the point of discussion in major media or any legislature. The people will never get the opportunity to make such a choice.

That's a really interesting take on this issue, @Chuck, one that really goes back to the roots of this nation when you think about it. It seems utopian, though, and Lennon-esque. Not saying it shouldn't happen, just that I doubt it ever would, given the way people as a rule are so territorial.