|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 25 2019 08:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2019 06:09 IgnE wrote:On June 24 2019 20:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 24 2019 19:38 Nebuchad wrote:On June 24 2019 14:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 24 2019 09:44 Nebuchad wrote:On June 24 2019 09:32 KwarK wrote:
If this is all true she should allow the Democratic party to replace her. She's probably a good representative to her constituents but I doubt she's so much better than the next best representative that it's worth overlooking it all.
All the far worse cases on the other side should also resign too. That's fair, yeah. I guess I'm alone in not caring at all that she may have lied her way into citizenship. I'd take a congress full of people that allegedly lied to become citizens and do a decent job over the clownshow we have now. I don't care morally. But the rules are there today. Not a big fan of "the rules" either since they seem to largely be used to punish (some people more than others) and maintain oppressive systems rather than lead to a productive distribution of behavioral improvements. Or as MLK put it. You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all." So you think that the accusations about breaking campaign finance laws and about committing perjury in order to obtain citizenship are accusations about breaking fundamentally unjust laws? I confess I couldn't get through very much about the details of the accusations themselves (I saw a bunch about marrying her brother or whatever and lost interest) but yeah, that's the argument I was making.
So are all campaign finance laws unjust or just the ones she broke in the way she broke them?
And I suppose the same question goes for lying on tax returns (and whatever else comes out of this apparently fraudulent marriage).
|
Lol, directly adressing Danglars with facts - what a brave move.
I got several brick walls for your head to adress if your intressted.
edit: 2 hours till i got to fight so one of my underlings gets her 300 franks/dollar bonus that she didn't get for "reasons". Doing a stand for the "small" ones...
|
On June 25 2019 12:28 Velr wrote:
Lol, directly adressing Danglars with facts - what a brave move.
I got several brick walls for your head to adress if your intressted. Oh I know it's pointless. It's more intended for others as an FYI for others should they want to learn a bit more about how the Obama administration ended up handling the issue, and also to break the narrative that what the Obama administration did in 2014 was what they continued to do, because that was definitely not the case.
I mean, chances are the post will be ignored. That's kind of Danglar's MO a this point. We still have yet to hear a response from to this question Kwark directly posed a few days back. Several people pointed the lack of an answer out too but they too were ignored:
On June 19 2019 09:00 KwarK wrote:
Out of curiousity Danglars, do you see any kind of potential conflict of interest in Barr writing to Trump's legal defence team with an offer to defend Trump and an assertion that the Mueller investigation was a sham and Trump subsequently selecting Barr as the individual who decided what to do with the Mueller investigation?
Do you think that it looks terrible but Barr happened to independently draw conclusions that matched up with the conclusions he'd already assured Trump he would draw?
Or do you think, as every rational individual out there thinks, that he's not independent of Trump?
edit:
On June 25 2019 12:28 Velr wrote:
edit: 2 hours till i got to fight so one of my underlings gets her 300 franks/dollar bonus that she didn't get for "reasons". Doing a stand for the "small" ones... Good luck.
|
On June 25 2019 11:19 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2019 11:14 Danglars wrote:The great influx of family units claiming asylum was created by Trump’s separation policy? Secondarily, it’s as if Jen Johnson (Obama admin) didn’t want to detain families together, and courts declare that to be impossible. ( NYT) You're identifying two separate points of failure, the institution being overwhelmed and the deliberately malicious separation policy, and then deliberately switching the causes of each to prove that they didn't happen. It's like taking a house that caught fire and was then drenched with hoses and insisting that there's no way that the hoses caused the burned items or that the fire caused the water damage. I'm not sure why you're doing this though because it's such a stupid argument nobody would ever consider it for a moment. The separations were caused by the separation policy. The overwhelming of the resources was caused by the provision of inadequate resources.
You do know that Congress appropriates and authorizes spending on these things, right? And that many outspoken Democrats want to freeze, if not reduce, funding to these agencies? I have yet to see a single source for the bolded claim, despite the fact you've been making it for a few weeks at least (although the version presented above is correct only because of its vagueness). Attributing this to maladministration is a line so ridiculous not even the Democrats in Congress tried pulling it. In fact, right now Democrats in Congress are debating an (otherwise awful) bill that address the "humanitarian emergency." But I'm sure this is all administrative malfeasance. It's the duty of these agencies to anticipate historic levels of asylum claims, legitimate or not, and to magically make every dollar worth two dollars.
Late edit: and for the record, I have provided source after source, from different government officials of different parties in different administrations, saying that what is happening at the border unsustainable, that the "system is on fire," "it was never meant for this," etc etc. To claim it doesn't work because the Trump administration doesn't want it to flies directly in the face of the evidence and, dare I say, expert opinion. It doesn't even matter if some specific actions are being taken out of cruelty (I'll just grant that for the sake of it), but the system as a whole is too overburdened to function properly, and ultimately what the Dems currently want does nothing to fix the cause (or ultimate effect) of the crisis. They don't even want ICE to have more beds. They want as many people released into the country as quickly as possible, but realize, as a NYT piece from earlier points out, that right now they risk looking like they simply don't care.
|
I respond to Ayaz on the deplorable conditions of detention centers and I receive ... substantive criticism of Trump's court-mandated family separation policy. Interesting.
One other note is that programs for post detention management should not be confused with the detention itself.
|
United States42008 Posts
On June 25 2019 12:56 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2019 11:19 KwarK wrote:On June 25 2019 11:14 Danglars wrote:The great influx of family units claiming asylum was created by Trump’s separation policy? Secondarily, it’s as if Jen Johnson (Obama admin) didn’t want to detain families together, and courts declare that to be impossible. ( NYT) You're identifying two separate points of failure, the institution being overwhelmed and the deliberately malicious separation policy, and then deliberately switching the causes of each to prove that they didn't happen. It's like taking a house that caught fire and was then drenched with hoses and insisting that there's no way that the hoses caused the burned items or that the fire caused the water damage. I'm not sure why you're doing this though because it's such a stupid argument nobody would ever consider it for a moment. The separations were caused by the separation policy. The overwhelming of the resources was caused by the provision of inadequate resources. You do know that Congress appropriates and authorizes spending on these things, right? And that many outspoken Democrats want to freeze, if not reduce, funding to these agencies? I have yet to see a single source for the bolded claim, despite the fact you've been making it for a few weeks at least (although the version presented above is correct only because of its vagueness). Attributing this to maladministration is a line so ridiculous not even the Democrats in Congress tried pulling it. In fact, right now Democrats in Congress are debating an (otherwise awful) bill that address the "humanitarian emergency." But I'm sure this is all administrative malfeasance. It's the duty of these agencies to anticipate historic levels of asylum claims, legitimate or not, and to magically make every dollar worth two dollars.
How could it be anything other than an admin issue? The admin is responsible for ensuring that they have as least as much capacity as they have people they're trying to detain.
If someone brings a bus that can only take 20 people to move 200 that's an admin failure. If someone prepares camps that can only hold 100 people to hold 900 that's an admin failure.
I don't need to source it because it is by definition an admin failure. Admin are responsible for ensuring that they have adequate resources to meet the needs. If there are inadequate resources, and everyone agrees that the system is overloaded, then that is by definition an admin failure.
Do you disagree with any part of that? If so, why? Because it is completely self evident to me that the person responsible for ensuring there is enough of something is to blame if there is not enough of something. The system doesn't just happen to be overloaded, it's overloaded because someone didn't prepare for enough load.
|
On June 25 2019 14:09 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2019 12:56 Introvert wrote:On June 25 2019 11:19 KwarK wrote:On June 25 2019 11:14 Danglars wrote:The great influx of family units claiming asylum was created by Trump’s separation policy? Secondarily, it’s as if Jen Johnson (Obama admin) didn’t want to detain families together, and courts declare that to be impossible. ( NYT) You're identifying two separate points of failure, the institution being overwhelmed and the deliberately malicious separation policy, and then deliberately switching the causes of each to prove that they didn't happen. It's like taking a house that caught fire and was then drenched with hoses and insisting that there's no way that the hoses caused the burned items or that the fire caused the water damage. I'm not sure why you're doing this though because it's such a stupid argument nobody would ever consider it for a moment. The separations were caused by the separation policy. The overwhelming of the resources was caused by the provision of inadequate resources. You do know that Congress appropriates and authorizes spending on these things, right? And that many outspoken Democrats want to freeze, if not reduce, funding to these agencies? I have yet to see a single source for the bolded claim, despite the fact you've been making it for a few weeks at least (although the version presented above is correct only because of its vagueness). Attributing this to maladministration is a line so ridiculous not even the Democrats in Congress tried pulling it. In fact, right now Democrats in Congress are debating an (otherwise awful) bill that address the "humanitarian emergency." But I'm sure this is all administrative malfeasance. It's the duty of these agencies to anticipate historic levels of asylum claims, legitimate or not, and to magically make every dollar worth two dollars. How could it be anything other than an admin issue? The admin is responsible for ensuring that they have as least as much capacity as they have people they're trying to detain. If someone brings a bus that can only take 20 people to move 200 that's an admin failure. If someone prepares camps that can only hold 100 people to hold 900 that's an admin failure. I don't need to source it because it is by definition an admin failure. Admin are responsible for ensuring that they have adequate resources to meet the needs. If there are inadequate resources, and everyone agrees that the system is overloaded, then that is by definition an admin failure. Do you disagree with any part of that? If so, why? Because it is completely self evident to me that the person responsible for ensuring there is enough of something is to blame if there is not enough of something.
See my late edit and review the sources I gave you before. DHS officials are not prophets, and they do not have unlimited piles of cash. These two things aren't even debatable now, as the Democrats are fighting among themselves about how to deal with the "crisis" instead of pretending it didn't exist, as they were a few months ago. The resources they need quite literally do not exist. Congress makes the laws and gives out the money, and they ignored this in 2014 because Obama was president and everyone just let him handle a (much smaller) crisis on his own.
No executive could have dealt with this adequately given the current set of laws and resources (another thing I have sourced before), although I will agree with you that administration matters. But it is not the cause of these issues. Look at the graph Danglars posted again and tgry to tell me how someone was supposed to see that coming. This argument you present above feels very Motte-and-Bailey to me.
Maybe this will be my final edit: put it this way. The person responsible to know was not some bureaucrat at DHS, who could not have known, or, at least, you have not demonstrated that he could have known. Fault lies primarily with the Congress, which should have acted in a precautionary way after the 2014 wave, and is still refusing to act in any meaningful way.
|
United States42008 Posts
On June 25 2019 14:15 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2019 14:09 KwarK wrote:On June 25 2019 12:56 Introvert wrote:On June 25 2019 11:19 KwarK wrote:On June 25 2019 11:14 Danglars wrote:The great influx of family units claiming asylum was created by Trump’s separation policy? Secondarily, it’s as if Jen Johnson (Obama admin) didn’t want to detain families together, and courts declare that to be impossible. ( NYT) You're identifying two separate points of failure, the institution being overwhelmed and the deliberately malicious separation policy, and then deliberately switching the causes of each to prove that they didn't happen. It's like taking a house that caught fire and was then drenched with hoses and insisting that there's no way that the hoses caused the burned items or that the fire caused the water damage. I'm not sure why you're doing this though because it's such a stupid argument nobody would ever consider it for a moment. The separations were caused by the separation policy. The overwhelming of the resources was caused by the provision of inadequate resources. You do know that Congress appropriates and authorizes spending on these things, right? And that many outspoken Democrats want to freeze, if not reduce, funding to these agencies? I have yet to see a single source for the bolded claim, despite the fact you've been making it for a few weeks at least (although the version presented above is correct only because of its vagueness). Attributing this to maladministration is a line so ridiculous not even the Democrats in Congress tried pulling it. In fact, right now Democrats in Congress are debating an (otherwise awful) bill that address the "humanitarian emergency." But I'm sure this is all administrative malfeasance. It's the duty of these agencies to anticipate historic levels of asylum claims, legitimate or not, and to magically make every dollar worth two dollars. How could it be anything other than an admin issue? The admin is responsible for ensuring that they have as least as much capacity as they have people they're trying to detain. If someone brings a bus that can only take 20 people to move 200 that's an admin failure. If someone prepares camps that can only hold 100 people to hold 900 that's an admin failure. I don't need to source it because it is by definition an admin failure. Admin are responsible for ensuring that they have adequate resources to meet the needs. If there are inadequate resources, and everyone agrees that the system is overloaded, then that is by definition an admin failure. Do you disagree with any part of that? If so, why? Because it is completely self evident to me that the person responsible for ensuring there is enough of something is to blame if there is not enough of something. See my late edit and review the sources I gave you before. DHS officials are not prophets, and they do not have unlimited piles of cash. These two things aren't even debatable now, as the Democrats are fighting among themselves about how to deal with the "crisis" instead of pretending it didn't exist, as they were a few months ago. The resources they need quite literally do not exist. Congress makes the laws and gives out the money, and they ignored this in 2014 because Obama was president and everyone just let him handle a (much smaller) crisis on his own. No executive could have dealt with this adequately given the current set of laws and resources, although I will agree with you that administration matters. But it is not the cause of these issues.
There are individuals in the administration who are responsible for calculating how much of things they will need. That's a real job, I promise you. Can you at least agree that those individuals failed? You say they're not prophets but predicting the future is their job. They didn't succeed at their job this time, right?
Furthermore you don't actually need prophets to foresee some things. That's why we have budget analysts and make forecasts. Migration from central America is not unforeseeable, they simply didn't foresee it, or didn't prepare for it. I don't have to provide data for how they could have seen it coming, that's not my job, I don't work for the State Department. Challenging me to show that I would have done better from my computer at home is absurd. It's perfectly reasonable to assert that an expert being fed a stream of data for the purpose of fulfilling a specific job has failed if he fucks that job up, even if I'm insufficiently informed to point the the specific data that he missed.
As for claiming there just isn't enough money to pay for DHS so we just have to open concentration camps, I vaguely recall there being a massive tax cut to the rich pretty recently that was pushed through solely by one party. If you're now going to plead poverty as an excuse for why the US is doing concentration camps again then surely you must agree that giving back all that money to taxpayers was a pretty big mistake.
As for the Democrats saying the people should be released from the concentration camps, that's not really something I'm going to hold against them. Expand the resources as quickly as possible but in the interim keeping the people packed into the camps is by far a greater evil than letting them go. There's an old saying in my country, perhaps you have it in yours too, it goes "people shouldn't be put in concentration camps".
|
On June 25 2019 14:25 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2019 14:15 Introvert wrote:On June 25 2019 14:09 KwarK wrote:On June 25 2019 12:56 Introvert wrote:On June 25 2019 11:19 KwarK wrote:On June 25 2019 11:14 Danglars wrote:The great influx of family units claiming asylum was created by Trump’s separation policy? Secondarily, it’s as if Jen Johnson (Obama admin) didn’t want to detain families together, and courts declare that to be impossible. ( NYT) You're identifying two separate points of failure, the institution being overwhelmed and the deliberately malicious separation policy, and then deliberately switching the causes of each to prove that they didn't happen. It's like taking a house that caught fire and was then drenched with hoses and insisting that there's no way that the hoses caused the burned items or that the fire caused the water damage. I'm not sure why you're doing this though because it's such a stupid argument nobody would ever consider it for a moment. The separations were caused by the separation policy. The overwhelming of the resources was caused by the provision of inadequate resources. You do know that Congress appropriates and authorizes spending on these things, right? And that many outspoken Democrats want to freeze, if not reduce, funding to these agencies? I have yet to see a single source for the bolded claim, despite the fact you've been making it for a few weeks at least (although the version presented above is correct only because of its vagueness). Attributing this to maladministration is a line so ridiculous not even the Democrats in Congress tried pulling it. In fact, right now Democrats in Congress are debating an (otherwise awful) bill that address the "humanitarian emergency." But I'm sure this is all administrative malfeasance. It's the duty of these agencies to anticipate historic levels of asylum claims, legitimate or not, and to magically make every dollar worth two dollars. How could it be anything other than an admin issue? The admin is responsible for ensuring that they have as least as much capacity as they have people they're trying to detain. If someone brings a bus that can only take 20 people to move 200 that's an admin failure. If someone prepares camps that can only hold 100 people to hold 900 that's an admin failure. I don't need to source it because it is by definition an admin failure. Admin are responsible for ensuring that they have adequate resources to meet the needs. If there are inadequate resources, and everyone agrees that the system is overloaded, then that is by definition an admin failure. Do you disagree with any part of that? If so, why? Because it is completely self evident to me that the person responsible for ensuring there is enough of something is to blame if there is not enough of something. See my late edit and review the sources I gave you before. DHS officials are not prophets, and they do not have unlimited piles of cash. These two things aren't even debatable now, as the Democrats are fighting among themselves about how to deal with the "crisis" instead of pretending it didn't exist, as they were a few months ago. The resources they need quite literally do not exist. Congress makes the laws and gives out the money, and they ignored this in 2014 because Obama was president and everyone just let him handle a (much smaller) crisis on his own. No executive could have dealt with this adequately given the current set of laws and resources, although I will agree with you that administration matters. But it is not the cause of these issues. There are individuals in the administration who are responsible for calculating how much of things they will need. That's a real job, I promise you. Can you at least agree that those individuals failed? You say they're not prophets but predicting the future is their job. They didn't succeed at their job this time, right? Furthermore you don't actually need prophets to foresee some things. That's why we have budget analysts and make forecasts. Migration from central America is not unforeseeable, they simply didn't foresee it, or didn't prepare for it. As for claiming there just isn't enough money to pay for DHS so we just have to open concentration camps, I vaguely recall there being a massive tax cut to the rich pretty recently that was pushed through solely by one party. If you're now going to plead poverty as an excuse for why the US is doing concentration camps again then surely you must agree that giving back all that money to taxpayers was a pretty big mistake. As for the Democrats saying the people should be released from the concentration camps, that's not really something I'm going to hold against them. Expand the resources as quickly as possible but in the interim keeping the people packed into the camps is by far the greater evil than letting them go. There's an old saying in my country, perhaps you have it in yours too, it goes "people shouldn't be put in concentration camps".
The use of the phrase "concentration camp" is just as detestable as it was last time it was in vogue.
btw, DHS has been screaming for months that they need more resources, and told Congress what they thought they needed. Guess who hasn't given it to them, and guess who spent months telling them they didn't actually need it.
You look at the graph Danglars posted and think "yeah, someone should have had some idea that was coming!" based on...nothing. I will put this in the nicest possible way: your faith in the foreknowledge, power, and wisdom of the government, which includes Congress, is fascinating.
|
United States42008 Posts
On June 25 2019 14:28 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2019 14:25 KwarK wrote:On June 25 2019 14:15 Introvert wrote:On June 25 2019 14:09 KwarK wrote:On June 25 2019 12:56 Introvert wrote:On June 25 2019 11:19 KwarK wrote:On June 25 2019 11:14 Danglars wrote:The great influx of family units claiming asylum was created by Trump’s separation policy? Secondarily, it’s as if Jen Johnson (Obama admin) didn’t want to detain families together, and courts declare that to be impossible. ( NYT) You're identifying two separate points of failure, the institution being overwhelmed and the deliberately malicious separation policy, and then deliberately switching the causes of each to prove that they didn't happen. It's like taking a house that caught fire and was then drenched with hoses and insisting that there's no way that the hoses caused the burned items or that the fire caused the water damage. I'm not sure why you're doing this though because it's such a stupid argument nobody would ever consider it for a moment. The separations were caused by the separation policy. The overwhelming of the resources was caused by the provision of inadequate resources. You do know that Congress appropriates and authorizes spending on these things, right? And that many outspoken Democrats want to freeze, if not reduce, funding to these agencies? I have yet to see a single source for the bolded claim, despite the fact you've been making it for a few weeks at least (although the version presented above is correct only because of its vagueness). Attributing this to maladministration is a line so ridiculous not even the Democrats in Congress tried pulling it. In fact, right now Democrats in Congress are debating an (otherwise awful) bill that address the "humanitarian emergency." But I'm sure this is all administrative malfeasance. It's the duty of these agencies to anticipate historic levels of asylum claims, legitimate or not, and to magically make every dollar worth two dollars. How could it be anything other than an admin issue? The admin is responsible for ensuring that they have as least as much capacity as they have people they're trying to detain. If someone brings a bus that can only take 20 people to move 200 that's an admin failure. If someone prepares camps that can only hold 100 people to hold 900 that's an admin failure. I don't need to source it because it is by definition an admin failure. Admin are responsible for ensuring that they have adequate resources to meet the needs. If there are inadequate resources, and everyone agrees that the system is overloaded, then that is by definition an admin failure. Do you disagree with any part of that? If so, why? Because it is completely self evident to me that the person responsible for ensuring there is enough of something is to blame if there is not enough of something. See my late edit and review the sources I gave you before. DHS officials are not prophets, and they do not have unlimited piles of cash. These two things aren't even debatable now, as the Democrats are fighting among themselves about how to deal with the "crisis" instead of pretending it didn't exist, as they were a few months ago. The resources they need quite literally do not exist. Congress makes the laws and gives out the money, and they ignored this in 2014 because Obama was president and everyone just let him handle a (much smaller) crisis on his own. No executive could have dealt with this adequately given the current set of laws and resources, although I will agree with you that administration matters. But it is not the cause of these issues. There are individuals in the administration who are responsible for calculating how much of things they will need. That's a real job, I promise you. Can you at least agree that those individuals failed? You say they're not prophets but predicting the future is their job. They didn't succeed at their job this time, right? Furthermore you don't actually need prophets to foresee some things. That's why we have budget analysts and make forecasts. Migration from central America is not unforeseeable, they simply didn't foresee it, or didn't prepare for it. As for claiming there just isn't enough money to pay for DHS so we just have to open concentration camps, I vaguely recall there being a massive tax cut to the rich pretty recently that was pushed through solely by one party. If you're now going to plead poverty as an excuse for why the US is doing concentration camps again then surely you must agree that giving back all that money to taxpayers was a pretty big mistake. As for the Democrats saying the people should be released from the concentration camps, that's not really something I'm going to hold against them. Expand the resources as quickly as possible but in the interim keeping the people packed into the camps is by far the greater evil than letting them go. There's an old saying in my country, perhaps you have it in yours too, it goes "people shouldn't be put in concentration camps". The use of the phrase "concentration camp" is just as detestable as it was last time it was in vogue. btw, DHS has been screaming for months that they need more resources, and told Congress what they thought they needed. Guess who hasn't given it to them, and guess who spent months telling them they didn't actually need it. You look at the graph Danglars posted and think "yeah, someone should have had some idea that was coming!" based on...nothing. I will put this in the nicest possible way: your faith in the foreknowledge, power, and wisdom of the government, which includes Congress, is fascinating.
I am certain that if you gave me decades of education, experience, and billions of dollars to spend I could predict a migrant wave before they got here. Are you not certain of the same? It's not an earthquake. This isn't my job so it's not reasonable for me to solve this for you but presumably there are indicators like unemployment, changing demographics, gang violence, and civil unrest in the host countries that lead people to seek a better life elsewhere. I'm not an expert but experts in this field do exist and the US government is free to employ them.
Additionally whether or not you can point fingers at the other side for not providing funding is irrelevant to how the administration is responding to the lack of funding. Nobody is forcing them to concentrate all of the people into camps. If I didn't have enough resources to shelter people I wouldn't just say "fuck it, time to get out the old arbeit macht frei sign", I'd shelter the ones I had resources for and release the others.
|
On June 25 2019 14:33 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2019 14:28 Introvert wrote:On June 25 2019 14:25 KwarK wrote:On June 25 2019 14:15 Introvert wrote:On June 25 2019 14:09 KwarK wrote:On June 25 2019 12:56 Introvert wrote:On June 25 2019 11:19 KwarK wrote:On June 25 2019 11:14 Danglars wrote:The great influx of family units claiming asylum was created by Trump’s separation policy? Secondarily, it’s as if Jen Johnson (Obama admin) didn’t want to detain families together, and courts declare that to be impossible. ( NYT) You're identifying two separate points of failure, the institution being overwhelmed and the deliberately malicious separation policy, and then deliberately switching the causes of each to prove that they didn't happen. It's like taking a house that caught fire and was then drenched with hoses and insisting that there's no way that the hoses caused the burned items or that the fire caused the water damage. I'm not sure why you're doing this though because it's such a stupid argument nobody would ever consider it for a moment. The separations were caused by the separation policy. The overwhelming of the resources was caused by the provision of inadequate resources. You do know that Congress appropriates and authorizes spending on these things, right? And that many outspoken Democrats want to freeze, if not reduce, funding to these agencies? I have yet to see a single source for the bolded claim, despite the fact you've been making it for a few weeks at least (although the version presented above is correct only because of its vagueness). Attributing this to maladministration is a line so ridiculous not even the Democrats in Congress tried pulling it. In fact, right now Democrats in Congress are debating an (otherwise awful) bill that address the "humanitarian emergency." But I'm sure this is all administrative malfeasance. It's the duty of these agencies to anticipate historic levels of asylum claims, legitimate or not, and to magically make every dollar worth two dollars. How could it be anything other than an admin issue? The admin is responsible for ensuring that they have as least as much capacity as they have people they're trying to detain. If someone brings a bus that can only take 20 people to move 200 that's an admin failure. If someone prepares camps that can only hold 100 people to hold 900 that's an admin failure. I don't need to source it because it is by definition an admin failure. Admin are responsible for ensuring that they have adequate resources to meet the needs. If there are inadequate resources, and everyone agrees that the system is overloaded, then that is by definition an admin failure. Do you disagree with any part of that? If so, why? Because it is completely self evident to me that the person responsible for ensuring there is enough of something is to blame if there is not enough of something. See my late edit and review the sources I gave you before. DHS officials are not prophets, and they do not have unlimited piles of cash. These two things aren't even debatable now, as the Democrats are fighting among themselves about how to deal with the "crisis" instead of pretending it didn't exist, as they were a few months ago. The resources they need quite literally do not exist. Congress makes the laws and gives out the money, and they ignored this in 2014 because Obama was president and everyone just let him handle a (much smaller) crisis on his own. No executive could have dealt with this adequately given the current set of laws and resources, although I will agree with you that administration matters. But it is not the cause of these issues. There are individuals in the administration who are responsible for calculating how much of things they will need. That's a real job, I promise you. Can you at least agree that those individuals failed? You say they're not prophets but predicting the future is their job. They didn't succeed at their job this time, right? Furthermore you don't actually need prophets to foresee some things. That's why we have budget analysts and make forecasts. Migration from central America is not unforeseeable, they simply didn't foresee it, or didn't prepare for it. As for claiming there just isn't enough money to pay for DHS so we just have to open concentration camps, I vaguely recall there being a massive tax cut to the rich pretty recently that was pushed through solely by one party. If you're now going to plead poverty as an excuse for why the US is doing concentration camps again then surely you must agree that giving back all that money to taxpayers was a pretty big mistake. As for the Democrats saying the people should be released from the concentration camps, that's not really something I'm going to hold against them. Expand the resources as quickly as possible but in the interim keeping the people packed into the camps is by far the greater evil than letting them go. There's an old saying in my country, perhaps you have it in yours too, it goes "people shouldn't be put in concentration camps". The use of the phrase "concentration camp" is just as detestable as it was last time it was in vogue. btw, DHS has been screaming for months that they need more resources, and told Congress what they thought they needed. Guess who hasn't given it to them, and guess who spent months telling them they didn't actually need it. You look at the graph Danglars posted and think "yeah, someone should have had some idea that was coming!" based on...nothing. I will put this in the nicest possible way: your faith in the foreknowledge, power, and wisdom of the government, which includes Congress, is fascinating. I am certain that if you gave me decades of education, experience, and billions of dollars to spend I could predict a migrant wave before they got here. Are you not certain of the same? It's not an earthquake.
This is still just talking right past the problem. You are very confident that predicting this with adequate warning must be possible, but still have failed to demonstrate how or why. I have seen no evidence to contradict anything I have said or quoted from other sources on all these months. Maybe others find your argument appealing, but I find it wholly unpersuasive. It is, as I have said before, quite Kwarkian and perhaps I am not positively disposed to such an outlook.
|
United States42008 Posts
On June 25 2019 14:41 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2019 14:33 KwarK wrote:On June 25 2019 14:28 Introvert wrote:On June 25 2019 14:25 KwarK wrote:On June 25 2019 14:15 Introvert wrote:On June 25 2019 14:09 KwarK wrote:On June 25 2019 12:56 Introvert wrote:On June 25 2019 11:19 KwarK wrote:On June 25 2019 11:14 Danglars wrote:The great influx of family units claiming asylum was created by Trump’s separation policy? Secondarily, it’s as if Jen Johnson (Obama admin) didn’t want to detain families together, and courts declare that to be impossible. ( NYT) You're identifying two separate points of failure, the institution being overwhelmed and the deliberately malicious separation policy, and then deliberately switching the causes of each to prove that they didn't happen. It's like taking a house that caught fire and was then drenched with hoses and insisting that there's no way that the hoses caused the burned items or that the fire caused the water damage. I'm not sure why you're doing this though because it's such a stupid argument nobody would ever consider it for a moment. The separations were caused by the separation policy. The overwhelming of the resources was caused by the provision of inadequate resources. You do know that Congress appropriates and authorizes spending on these things, right? And that many outspoken Democrats want to freeze, if not reduce, funding to these agencies? I have yet to see a single source for the bolded claim, despite the fact you've been making it for a few weeks at least (although the version presented above is correct only because of its vagueness). Attributing this to maladministration is a line so ridiculous not even the Democrats in Congress tried pulling it. In fact, right now Democrats in Congress are debating an (otherwise awful) bill that address the "humanitarian emergency." But I'm sure this is all administrative malfeasance. It's the duty of these agencies to anticipate historic levels of asylum claims, legitimate or not, and to magically make every dollar worth two dollars. How could it be anything other than an admin issue? The admin is responsible for ensuring that they have as least as much capacity as they have people they're trying to detain. If someone brings a bus that can only take 20 people to move 200 that's an admin failure. If someone prepares camps that can only hold 100 people to hold 900 that's an admin failure. I don't need to source it because it is by definition an admin failure. Admin are responsible for ensuring that they have adequate resources to meet the needs. If there are inadequate resources, and everyone agrees that the system is overloaded, then that is by definition an admin failure. Do you disagree with any part of that? If so, why? Because it is completely self evident to me that the person responsible for ensuring there is enough of something is to blame if there is not enough of something. See my late edit and review the sources I gave you before. DHS officials are not prophets, and they do not have unlimited piles of cash. These two things aren't even debatable now, as the Democrats are fighting among themselves about how to deal with the "crisis" instead of pretending it didn't exist, as they were a few months ago. The resources they need quite literally do not exist. Congress makes the laws and gives out the money, and they ignored this in 2014 because Obama was president and everyone just let him handle a (much smaller) crisis on his own. No executive could have dealt with this adequately given the current set of laws and resources, although I will agree with you that administration matters. But it is not the cause of these issues. There are individuals in the administration who are responsible for calculating how much of things they will need. That's a real job, I promise you. Can you at least agree that those individuals failed? You say they're not prophets but predicting the future is their job. They didn't succeed at their job this time, right? Furthermore you don't actually need prophets to foresee some things. That's why we have budget analysts and make forecasts. Migration from central America is not unforeseeable, they simply didn't foresee it, or didn't prepare for it. As for claiming there just isn't enough money to pay for DHS so we just have to open concentration camps, I vaguely recall there being a massive tax cut to the rich pretty recently that was pushed through solely by one party. If you're now going to plead poverty as an excuse for why the US is doing concentration camps again then surely you must agree that giving back all that money to taxpayers was a pretty big mistake. As for the Democrats saying the people should be released from the concentration camps, that's not really something I'm going to hold against them. Expand the resources as quickly as possible but in the interim keeping the people packed into the camps is by far the greater evil than letting them go. There's an old saying in my country, perhaps you have it in yours too, it goes "people shouldn't be put in concentration camps". The use of the phrase "concentration camp" is just as detestable as it was last time it was in vogue. btw, DHS has been screaming for months that they need more resources, and told Congress what they thought they needed. Guess who hasn't given it to them, and guess who spent months telling them they didn't actually need it. You look at the graph Danglars posted and think "yeah, someone should have had some idea that was coming!" based on...nothing. I will put this in the nicest possible way: your faith in the foreknowledge, power, and wisdom of the government, which includes Congress, is fascinating. I am certain that if you gave me decades of education, experience, and billions of dollars to spend I could predict a migrant wave before they got here. Are you not certain of the same? It's not an earthquake. This is still just talking right past the problem. You are very confident that predicting this with adequate warning must be possible, but still have failed to demonstrate how or why. I have seen no evidence to contradict anything I have said or quoted from other sources on all these months. Maybe others find your argument appealing, but I find it wholly unpersuasive. It is, as I have said before, quite Kwarkian and perhaps I am not positively disposed to such an outlook.
Maybe it's to do with my genius level IQ but I've always been confident that given adequate resources and education there's no problem I couldn't solve. "How many people are going to come here next year" must surely just be a question of access to sufficient historical data, ongoing trends, and analysis. I'm currently employed in performing different kinds of predictive analysis but with the resources of the US government it can't be that hard. And if they didn't want to work it out for themselves it's the kind of thing that you can ask one of the big consulting firms to find out for you. They have a whole staff of people who think just like I do for exactly this reason.
Honestly your outlook is incomprehensible to me. Do you go through your life thinking that everything is beyond you?
|
On June 25 2019 14:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2019 14:41 Introvert wrote:On June 25 2019 14:33 KwarK wrote:On June 25 2019 14:28 Introvert wrote:On June 25 2019 14:25 KwarK wrote:On June 25 2019 14:15 Introvert wrote:On June 25 2019 14:09 KwarK wrote:On June 25 2019 12:56 Introvert wrote:On June 25 2019 11:19 KwarK wrote:On June 25 2019 11:14 Danglars wrote:The great influx of family units claiming asylum was created by Trump’s separation policy? Secondarily, it’s as if Jen Johnson (Obama admin) didn’t want to detain families together, and courts declare that to be impossible. ( NYT) You're identifying two separate points of failure, the institution being overwhelmed and the deliberately malicious separation policy, and then deliberately switching the causes of each to prove that they didn't happen. It's like taking a house that caught fire and was then drenched with hoses and insisting that there's no way that the hoses caused the burned items or that the fire caused the water damage. I'm not sure why you're doing this though because it's such a stupid argument nobody would ever consider it for a moment. The separations were caused by the separation policy. The overwhelming of the resources was caused by the provision of inadequate resources. You do know that Congress appropriates and authorizes spending on these things, right? And that many outspoken Democrats want to freeze, if not reduce, funding to these agencies? I have yet to see a single source for the bolded claim, despite the fact you've been making it for a few weeks at least (although the version presented above is correct only because of its vagueness). Attributing this to maladministration is a line so ridiculous not even the Democrats in Congress tried pulling it. In fact, right now Democrats in Congress are debating an (otherwise awful) bill that address the "humanitarian emergency." But I'm sure this is all administrative malfeasance. It's the duty of these agencies to anticipate historic levels of asylum claims, legitimate or not, and to magically make every dollar worth two dollars. How could it be anything other than an admin issue? The admin is responsible for ensuring that they have as least as much capacity as they have people they're trying to detain. If someone brings a bus that can only take 20 people to move 200 that's an admin failure. If someone prepares camps that can only hold 100 people to hold 900 that's an admin failure. I don't need to source it because it is by definition an admin failure. Admin are responsible for ensuring that they have adequate resources to meet the needs. If there are inadequate resources, and everyone agrees that the system is overloaded, then that is by definition an admin failure. Do you disagree with any part of that? If so, why? Because it is completely self evident to me that the person responsible for ensuring there is enough of something is to blame if there is not enough of something. See my late edit and review the sources I gave you before. DHS officials are not prophets, and they do not have unlimited piles of cash. These two things aren't even debatable now, as the Democrats are fighting among themselves about how to deal with the "crisis" instead of pretending it didn't exist, as they were a few months ago. The resources they need quite literally do not exist. Congress makes the laws and gives out the money, and they ignored this in 2014 because Obama was president and everyone just let him handle a (much smaller) crisis on his own. No executive could have dealt with this adequately given the current set of laws and resources, although I will agree with you that administration matters. But it is not the cause of these issues. There are individuals in the administration who are responsible for calculating how much of things they will need. That's a real job, I promise you. Can you at least agree that those individuals failed? You say they're not prophets but predicting the future is their job. They didn't succeed at their job this time, right? Furthermore you don't actually need prophets to foresee some things. That's why we have budget analysts and make forecasts. Migration from central America is not unforeseeable, they simply didn't foresee it, or didn't prepare for it. As for claiming there just isn't enough money to pay for DHS so we just have to open concentration camps, I vaguely recall there being a massive tax cut to the rich pretty recently that was pushed through solely by one party. If you're now going to plead poverty as an excuse for why the US is doing concentration camps again then surely you must agree that giving back all that money to taxpayers was a pretty big mistake. As for the Democrats saying the people should be released from the concentration camps, that's not really something I'm going to hold against them. Expand the resources as quickly as possible but in the interim keeping the people packed into the camps is by far the greater evil than letting them go. There's an old saying in my country, perhaps you have it in yours too, it goes "people shouldn't be put in concentration camps". The use of the phrase "concentration camp" is just as detestable as it was last time it was in vogue. btw, DHS has been screaming for months that they need more resources, and told Congress what they thought they needed. Guess who hasn't given it to them, and guess who spent months telling them they didn't actually need it. You look at the graph Danglars posted and think "yeah, someone should have had some idea that was coming!" based on...nothing. I will put this in the nicest possible way: your faith in the foreknowledge, power, and wisdom of the government, which includes Congress, is fascinating. I am certain that if you gave me decades of education, experience, and billions of dollars to spend I could predict a migrant wave before they got here. Are you not certain of the same? It's not an earthquake. This is still just talking right past the problem. You are very confident that predicting this with adequate warning must be possible, but still have failed to demonstrate how or why. I have seen no evidence to contradict anything I have said or quoted from other sources on all these months. Maybe others find your argument appealing, but I find it wholly unpersuasive. It is, as I have said before, quite Kwarkian and perhaps I am not positively disposed to such an outlook. Maybe it's to do with my genius level IQ but I've always been confident that given adequate resources and education there's no problem I couldn't solve. "How many people are going to come here next year" must surely just be a question of access to sufficient historical data, ongoing trends, and analysis. I'm currently employed in performing different kinds of predictive analysis but with the resources of the US government it can't be that hard. And if they didn't want to work it out for themselves it's the kind of thing that you can ask one of the big consulting firms to find out for you. They have a whole staff of people who think just like I do for exactly this reason. Honestly your outlook is incomprehensible to me. Do you go through your life thinking that everything is beyond you?
lol that's not what I said.
I'm glad you mentioned historical data, because I will keep referring to the graph posted on the previous page. I await your genius level IQ to actually make some sort of argument.
Moreover, even if they could see it coming, they have to ask Congress to give them whatever they need and/or change the law, and Congress refused and is still refusing. Knowing it's coming is only half the battle.
|
Why is it so hard to fathom that people who are presumably trained to interpret information and draw conclusions about potential outcomes related to that data should be able to create solid predictions based on their training and data?
If Mexico was projected to become obtusely difficult for human life to live in within a year wouldn't it seem logical to assume that the people from Mexico would seek to leave Mexico within that time frame and to assume at least some would come north to the US?
Hell even taking natural disasters into account like KwarK mentioned, we can kind of predict major storms by tracking pressure systems and stuff.
Humans are pretty good at predictions when they have information, even if they're not 100% accurate.
Even in situations like, for instance, a kitchen fire, which can't be predicted we have the ability to dynamically react to these situations which have the potential to cause serious problems for people, in this case, a fire department.
|
Well, Kwark, how do you know that DHS didn't predict this migration wave months before? Maybe they asked for more money but were denied it by appropriations? Like how long does it take to migrate? We are talking on the order of weeks here, right?
|
United States42008 Posts
On June 25 2019 14:51 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2019 14:46 KwarK wrote:On June 25 2019 14:41 Introvert wrote:On June 25 2019 14:33 KwarK wrote:On June 25 2019 14:28 Introvert wrote:On June 25 2019 14:25 KwarK wrote:On June 25 2019 14:15 Introvert wrote:On June 25 2019 14:09 KwarK wrote:On June 25 2019 12:56 Introvert wrote:On June 25 2019 11:19 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
You're identifying two separate points of failure, the institution being overwhelmed and the deliberately malicious separation policy, and then deliberately switching the causes of each to prove that they didn't happen. It's like taking a house that caught fire and was then drenched with hoses and insisting that there's no way that the hoses caused the burned items or that the fire caused the water damage.
I'm not sure why you're doing this though because it's such a stupid argument nobody would ever consider it for a moment.
The separations were caused by the separation policy. The overwhelming of the resources was caused by the provision of inadequate resources. You do know that Congress appropriates and authorizes spending on these things, right? And that many outspoken Democrats want to freeze, if not reduce, funding to these agencies? I have yet to see a single source for the bolded claim, despite the fact you've been making it for a few weeks at least (although the version presented above is correct only because of its vagueness). Attributing this to maladministration is a line so ridiculous not even the Democrats in Congress tried pulling it. In fact, right now Democrats in Congress are debating an (otherwise awful) bill that address the "humanitarian emergency." But I'm sure this is all administrative malfeasance. It's the duty of these agencies to anticipate historic levels of asylum claims, legitimate or not, and to magically make every dollar worth two dollars. How could it be anything other than an admin issue? The admin is responsible for ensuring that they have as least as much capacity as they have people they're trying to detain. If someone brings a bus that can only take 20 people to move 200 that's an admin failure. If someone prepares camps that can only hold 100 people to hold 900 that's an admin failure. I don't need to source it because it is by definition an admin failure. Admin are responsible for ensuring that they have adequate resources to meet the needs. If there are inadequate resources, and everyone agrees that the system is overloaded, then that is by definition an admin failure. Do you disagree with any part of that? If so, why? Because it is completely self evident to me that the person responsible for ensuring there is enough of something is to blame if there is not enough of something. See my late edit and review the sources I gave you before. DHS officials are not prophets, and they do not have unlimited piles of cash. These two things aren't even debatable now, as the Democrats are fighting among themselves about how to deal with the "crisis" instead of pretending it didn't exist, as they were a few months ago. The resources they need quite literally do not exist. Congress makes the laws and gives out the money, and they ignored this in 2014 because Obama was president and everyone just let him handle a (much smaller) crisis on his own. No executive could have dealt with this adequately given the current set of laws and resources, although I will agree with you that administration matters. But it is not the cause of these issues. There are individuals in the administration who are responsible for calculating how much of things they will need. That's a real job, I promise you. Can you at least agree that those individuals failed? You say they're not prophets but predicting the future is their job. They didn't succeed at their job this time, right? Furthermore you don't actually need prophets to foresee some things. That's why we have budget analysts and make forecasts. Migration from central America is not unforeseeable, they simply didn't foresee it, or didn't prepare for it. As for claiming there just isn't enough money to pay for DHS so we just have to open concentration camps, I vaguely recall there being a massive tax cut to the rich pretty recently that was pushed through solely by one party. If you're now going to plead poverty as an excuse for why the US is doing concentration camps again then surely you must agree that giving back all that money to taxpayers was a pretty big mistake. As for the Democrats saying the people should be released from the concentration camps, that's not really something I'm going to hold against them. Expand the resources as quickly as possible but in the interim keeping the people packed into the camps is by far the greater evil than letting them go. There's an old saying in my country, perhaps you have it in yours too, it goes "people shouldn't be put in concentration camps". The use of the phrase "concentration camp" is just as detestable as it was last time it was in vogue. btw, DHS has been screaming for months that they need more resources, and told Congress what they thought they needed. Guess who hasn't given it to them, and guess who spent months telling them they didn't actually need it. You look at the graph Danglars posted and think "yeah, someone should have had some idea that was coming!" based on...nothing. I will put this in the nicest possible way: your faith in the foreknowledge, power, and wisdom of the government, which includes Congress, is fascinating. I am certain that if you gave me decades of education, experience, and billions of dollars to spend I could predict a migrant wave before they got here. Are you not certain of the same? It's not an earthquake. This is still just talking right past the problem. You are very confident that predicting this with adequate warning must be possible, but still have failed to demonstrate how or why. I have seen no evidence to contradict anything I have said or quoted from other sources on all these months. Maybe others find your argument appealing, but I find it wholly unpersuasive. It is, as I have said before, quite Kwarkian and perhaps I am not positively disposed to such an outlook. Maybe it's to do with my genius level IQ but I've always been confident that given adequate resources and education there's no problem I couldn't solve. "How many people are going to come here next year" must surely just be a question of access to sufficient historical data, ongoing trends, and analysis. I'm currently employed in performing different kinds of predictive analysis but with the resources of the US government it can't be that hard. And if they didn't want to work it out for themselves it's the kind of thing that you can ask one of the big consulting firms to find out for you. They have a whole staff of people who think just like I do for exactly this reason. Honestly your outlook is incomprehensible to me. Do you go through your life thinking that everything is beyond you? lol that's not what I said. I'm glad you mentioned historical data, because I will keep referring to the graph posted on the previous page. I await your genius level IQ to actually make some sort of argument. Moreover, even if they could see it coming, they have to ask Congress to give them whatever they need and/or change the law, and Congress refused and is still refusing. Knowing it's coming is only half the battle.
I've made the argument, you haven't understood it. It's not reasonable to ask me exactly which indicators I would have used because I am not an expert and I am sitting at my computer without the full resources of the US state department at my disposal. But fortunately I don't need to be an expert to assess whether the problem would be solvable by an expert.
Consider a weatherman failing to predict a storm, despite having access to all the satellites, weather balloons, weather stations, computational power, teams of expert meteorologists, and historical patterns, he could wish for. I don't have access to those resources, nor do I have a team of experts, nor do I have his education. It's not reasonable to demand that I show exactly how he should have predicted it before I claim that he should have predicted it.
But off the top of my head unemployment, inflation, demographic shifts, cartel violence, the slow collapse of Venezuela, and so forth could all potentially have been indicators they could have used. If I were an expert in the field I could tell you more but as I keep saying, I'm not an expert. But these people are, and yet they failed.
Hell, consider a footballer. I don't need to be able to kick a field goal to say that a footballer fucked up if he missed an easy one. I can hold a professional to a standard of competence in a field greater than my own. Hopefully that metaphor is simple enough for you to understand.
edit: using historical data is a little more complicated than getting a graph and saying "it'll probably be like it was last year". Pointing to your graph and saying "no-one could have predicted that the output wouldn't be the same as the previous year" doesn't follow because the inputs have changed. Many people could have predicted that the output wouldn't be the same as last year. The way you use historical data is to take known historical variables and see how they combined to create the historical output. You create a model that fits the known data and then assess the predictions for the inputs in the current year. To give a basic example, it would not have been a good use of historical data to use 2010 Syrian migration to prediction 2011 Syrian migration because 2010 Syria did not have the compounding variable of a civil war. The historical data you'd want to use there would be looking at other countries with political instability in the middle east. But I can see why you'd think it completely impossible if your understanding of predictive analysis is looking at a chart of migrants over time and drawing a line of best fit into the future. A basic line of best fit assumes that y will change linearly with x which, when x is just the year number, isn't likely to be an important variable. The graph you're looking at is an informational graph intended to show the data in an easily understood way, it's not designed for predictive use.
|
On June 25 2019 14:55 IgnE wrote:
Well, Kwark, how do you know that DHS didn't predict this migration wave months before? Maybe they asked for more money but were denied it by appropriations? Like how long does it take to migrate? We are talking on the order of weeks here, right?
Then there should be a paper trail somewhere and I suggest you find it. DHS being thoroughly incompetent is p for the course. Them suddenly having a spark of brilliance and Congress being the twats would be out of character.
Not for Congress, btw. I'm happy to blame part of this crisis on a Congress that refused to adequately fund DHS requests, if such requests were made...
|
United States42008 Posts
On June 25 2019 14:55 IgnE wrote:
Well, Kwark, how do you know that DHS didn't predict this migration wave months before? Maybe they asked for more money but were denied it by appropriations? Like how long does it take to migrate? We are talking on the order of weeks here, right?
If they asked for money but were denied then it's a failure of a different part of admin. It's still an admin failure.
As for how long it takes, some indicators can be decades out. A spike in birth rates can predictably lead to a bunch of unemployed young men seeking better opportunities or causing trouble, both of which can lead to migration. Migration to Europe from North Africa could have been foreseen 20 years ago with that indicator.
|
The problems with illegal immigration begin and end with Congress. Congress funds border security. Congress is in charge of asylum laws. What DHS can do by comparison is mere window dressing. And let's get real about why Congress won't do anything: most democrats and a sizable chunk of republicans are pro-open orders and illegal immigration. There's no mystery here as to what's going on.
|
On June 25 2019 14:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2019 14:51 Introvert wrote:On June 25 2019 14:46 KwarK wrote:On June 25 2019 14:41 Introvert wrote:On June 25 2019 14:33 KwarK wrote:On June 25 2019 14:28 Introvert wrote:On June 25 2019 14:25 KwarK wrote:On June 25 2019 14:15 Introvert wrote:On June 25 2019 14:09 KwarK wrote:On June 25 2019 12:56 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
You do know that Congress appropriates and authorizes spending on these things, right? And that many outspoken Democrats want to freeze, if not reduce, funding to these agencies? I have yet to see a single source for the bolded claim, despite the fact you've been making it for a few weeks at least (although the version presented above is correct only because of its vagueness). Attributing this to maladministration is a line so ridiculous not even the Democrats in Congress tried pulling it. In fact, right now Democrats in Congress are debating an (otherwise awful) bill that address the "humanitarian emergency." But I'm sure this is all administrative malfeasance. It's the duty of these agencies to anticipate historic levels of asylum claims, legitimate or not, and to magically make every dollar worth two dollars. How could it be anything other than an admin issue? The admin is responsible for ensuring that they have as least as much capacity as they have people they're trying to detain. If someone brings a bus that can only take 20 people to move 200 that's an admin failure. If someone prepares camps that can only hold 100 people to hold 900 that's an admin failure. I don't need to source it because it is by definition an admin failure. Admin are responsible for ensuring that they have adequate resources to meet the needs. If there are inadequate resources, and everyone agrees that the system is overloaded, then that is by definition an admin failure. Do you disagree with any part of that? If so, why? Because it is completely self evident to me that the person responsible for ensuring there is enough of something is to blame if there is not enough of something. See my late edit and review the sources I gave you before. DHS officials are not prophets, and they do not have unlimited piles of cash. These two things aren't even debatable now, as the Democrats are fighting among themselves about how to deal with the "crisis" instead of pretending it didn't exist, as they were a few months ago. The resources they need quite literally do not exist. Congress makes the laws and gives out the money, and they ignored this in 2014 because Obama was president and everyone just let him handle a (much smaller) crisis on his own. No executive could have dealt with this adequately given the current set of laws and resources, although I will agree with you that administration matters. But it is not the cause of these issues. There are individuals in the administration who are responsible for calculating how much of things they will need. That's a real job, I promise you. Can you at least agree that those individuals failed? You say they're not prophets but predicting the future is their job. They didn't succeed at their job this time, right? Furthermore you don't actually need prophets to foresee some things. That's why we have budget analysts and make forecasts. Migration from central America is not unforeseeable, they simply didn't foresee it, or didn't prepare for it. As for claiming there just isn't enough money to pay for DHS so we just have to open concentration camps, I vaguely recall there being a massive tax cut to the rich pretty recently that was pushed through solely by one party. If you're now going to plead poverty as an excuse for why the US is doing concentration camps again then surely you must agree that giving back all that money to taxpayers was a pretty big mistake. As for the Democrats saying the people should be released from the concentration camps, that's not really something I'm going to hold against them. Expand the resources as quickly as possible but in the interim keeping the people packed into the camps is by far the greater evil than letting them go. There's an old saying in my country, perhaps you have it in yours too, it goes "people shouldn't be put in concentration camps". The use of the phrase "concentration camp" is just as detestable as it was last time it was in vogue. btw, DHS has been screaming for months that they need more resources, and told Congress what they thought they needed. Guess who hasn't given it to them, and guess who spent months telling them they didn't actually need it. You look at the graph Danglars posted and think "yeah, someone should have had some idea that was coming!" based on...nothing. I will put this in the nicest possible way: your faith in the foreknowledge, power, and wisdom of the government, which includes Congress, is fascinating. I am certain that if you gave me decades of education, experience, and billions of dollars to spend I could predict a migrant wave before they got here. Are you not certain of the same? It's not an earthquake. This is still just talking right past the problem. You are very confident that predicting this with adequate warning must be possible, but still have failed to demonstrate how or why. I have seen no evidence to contradict anything I have said or quoted from other sources on all these months. Maybe others find your argument appealing, but I find it wholly unpersuasive. It is, as I have said before, quite Kwarkian and perhaps I am not positively disposed to such an outlook. Maybe it's to do with my genius level IQ but I've always been confident that given adequate resources and education there's no problem I couldn't solve. "How many people are going to come here next year" must surely just be a question of access to sufficient historical data, ongoing trends, and analysis. I'm currently employed in performing different kinds of predictive analysis but with the resources of the US government it can't be that hard. And if they didn't want to work it out for themselves it's the kind of thing that you can ask one of the big consulting firms to find out for you. They have a whole staff of people who think just like I do for exactly this reason. Honestly your outlook is incomprehensible to me. Do you go through your life thinking that everything is beyond you? lol that's not what I said. I'm glad you mentioned historical data, because I will keep referring to the graph posted on the previous page. I await your genius level IQ to actually make some sort of argument. Moreover, even if they could see it coming, they have to ask Congress to give them whatever they need and/or change the law, and Congress refused and is still refusing. Knowing it's coming is only half the battle. I've made the argument, you haven't understood it. It's not reasonable to ask me exactly which indicators I would have used because I am not an expert and I am sitting at my computer without the full resources of the US state department at my disposal. But fortunately I don't need to be an expert to assess whether the problem would be solvable by an expert. Consider a weatherman failing to predict a storm, despite having access to all the satellites, weather balloons, weather stations, computational power, teams of expert meteorologists, and historical patterns, he could wish for. I don't have access to those resources, nor do I have a team of experts, nor do I have his education. It's not reasonable to demand that I show exactly how he should have predicted it before I claim that he should have predicted it. But off the top of my head unemployment, inflation, demographic shifts, cartel violence, the slow collapse of Venezuela, and so forth could all potentially have been indicators they could have used. If I were an expert in the field I could tell you more but as I keep saying, I'm not an expert. But these people are, and yet they failed. Hell, consider a footballer. I don't need to be able to kick a field goal to say that a footballer fucked up if he missed an easy one. I can hold a professional to a standard of competence in a field greater than my own. Hopefully that metaphor is simple enough for you to understand.
This argument is such garbage. I have quoted for you "experts" who have explained the problem. You reject them and supplant in place of their knowledge your own, now admittedly ignorant, opinion. You don't even know if they try to factor in and monitor everything you mentioned. Now you can say they have an interest in downplaying their role, but so far we can't find one person who actually knows about this issue who takes your line of argument. Moreover, you apparently think that money grows on trees and that DHS just needed more. What is the amount they need? You have no idea! But you are sure that such a number both exists and is reasonable. By definition, of course, if you were God Almighty you could have seen it. But even though you aren't, you are still very sure that such a thing is reasonably determinable to a useful accuracy.
And of course, finally, the big gorilla in the room, a Congress that would have ignored their warnings, as evidence by their current stubborn refusal to deal with the issue now.
On June 25 2019 15:00 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2019 14:55 IgnE wrote:
Well, Kwark, how do you know that DHS didn't predict this migration wave months before? Maybe they asked for more money but were denied it by appropriations? Like how long does it take to migrate? We are talking on the order of weeks here, right? If they asked for money but were denied then it's a failure of a different part of admin. It's still an admin failure. As for how long it takes, some indicators can be decades out. A spike in birth rates can predictably lead to a bunch of unemployed young men seeking better opportunities or causing trouble, both of which can lead to migration. Migration to Europe from North Africa could have been foreseen 20 years ago with that indicator.
If even this is defined as an admin failure then the term is reduced to meaninglessness, if only I had seen that before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
