Moms and kids tear gassed at southern US border

[J.C.MacSwell]

14 minutes ago, zapatos said:

What exactly about the logistics concerns you? That we won't be able to figure out how much water per day? Or how to transport tents to the border? Or where they will get that many towels and bars of soap? Possibly it is determining which roads the supply trucks should take on the way to the border. We mobilized Desert Storm from Illinois. I suspect we could arrange showers and cots. Hell, church groups in Mexico provided showers and even CLOTHES to the migrants. Citing "logistic concerns" feels like someone searching for problems rather than solutions. Especially given that we are discussing humanitarian efforts, violence, and international relations.

 

Did you read his post without assuming the worst? He clearly indicated that was something that could and should be managed.

[zapatos]

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Did you read his post without assuming the worst? He clearly indicated that was something that could and should be managed.

I did. He suggested we provide "drinking" water. Water for showers was a concern to him.

[J.C.MacSwell]

Just now, zapatos said:

I did. He suggested we provide "drinking" water. Water for showers was a concern to him.

OK. Fair enough. Yes. I would expect that would be more of a logistical problem, though less critical than food, water, and of course waste management. Water for basic hygiene before showers.

[Ten oz]

35 minutes ago, zapatos said:

What exactly about the logistics concerns you? That we won't be able to figure out how much water per day? Or how to transport tents to the border? Or where they will get that many towels and bars of soap? Possibly it is determining which roads the supply trucks should take on the way to the border. We mobilized Desert Storm from Illinois. I suspect we could arrange showers and cots. Hell, church groups in Mexico provided showers and even CLOTHES to the migrants. Citing "logistic concerns" feels like someone searching for problems rather than solutions. Especially given that we are discussing humanitarian efforts, violence, and international relations.

 

90,000 people on average cross the San Yside border into San Diego everyday. There are no logistical issues. The families at the border pose no appreciable spike in the amount of traffic officials at the border deal with on a regular basis. This year CBP as a whole has detained an average of 50,000 people a month. The logistics clearly are already in place. The current crisis level atmosphere is politically manufactured. Trump is using it to rally his base. That is all. 

[zapatos]

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

OK. Fair enough. Yes. I would expect that would be more of a logistical problem, though less critical than food, water, and of course waste management. Water for basic hygiene before showers.

Yes, it is of course more of a logistical problem to add showers and cots, and it would be an even bigger logistical problem if we wanted to also give everyone hats and sunscreen. But it is not as if we are talking about the logistics of keeping a moon base supplied. Citing logistics in this case is more of a red herring or completely missing the big picture.

[swansont]

55 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Yes, it is of course more of a logistical problem to add showers and cots, and it would be an even bigger logistical problem if we wanted to also give everyone hats and sunscreen. But it is not as if we are talking about the logistics of keeping a moon base supplied. Citing logistics in this case is more of a red herring or completely missing the big picture.

Indeed.

The military, in particular, deals with logistics like this on a regular basis. Humanitarian organizations likely do as well. (I'd add FEMA, but they botched Puerto Rico after the hurricane, and some of the same motivational issues are present in this case. Not going to do a good job if you've decided it's not necessary)

[Ten oz]

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

Indeed.

The military, in particular, deals with logistics like this on a regular basis. Humanitarian organizations likely do as well. (I'd add FEMA, but they botched Puerto Rico after the hurricane, and some of the same motivational issues are present in this case. Not going to do a good job if you've decided it's not necessary)

Custom Border Protection (CBP) detains 50,000 people on a monthly basis. The logistics are already in place. There are no additional support required temporary or permanent. This crisis is purely one of choice and will be milked through the budget negotiations as Trump demands money for his wall.  

[J.C.MacSwell]

59 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Yes, it is of course more of a logistical problem to add showers and cots, and it would be an even bigger logistical problem if we wanted to also give everyone hats and sunscreen. But it is not as if we are talking about the logistics of keeping a moon base supplied. Citing logistics in this case is more of a red herring or completely missing the big picture.

Again fair enough. Let's get to the big picture. Where is this set up and how long do they stay there? Is it kept secure? Are they essentially incarcerated, at least with regard to going further into the US? What happens to the ones that do not meet the bar for being accepted? Are they sent back across the border?

 

3 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Custom Border Protection (CBP) detains 50,000 people on a monthly basis. The logistics are already in place. There are no additional support required temporary or permanent. This crisis is purely one of choice and will be milked through the budget negotiations as Trump demands money for his wall.  

How long are they detained, on average? 

[dimreepr]

20 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Let's get to the big picture.

Indeed, arbitrary lines on a map.

[Ten oz]

30 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Again fair enough. Let's get to the big picture. Where is this set up and how long do they stay there? Is it kept secure? Are they essentially incarcerated, at least with regard to going further into the US? What happens to the ones that do not meet the bar for being accepted? Are they sent back across the border?

 

How long are they detained, on average? 

I don't know and doubt you really care. If you did your ability to research is probably just as good or better than mine. The U.S. has the highest prison population in the world with over 2 million people. The notion that we are not logistically equipped to hand them few thousand migrants which make up the caravan is absolutely ridiculous. We literally have millions housed long term in prisons. A few thousand is nothing. 

Edited November 27, 2018 by Ten oz

[dimreepr]

22 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, arbitrary lines on a map.

did the gold rush damage California?

[zapatos]

7 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Again fair enough. Let's get to the big picture.

The big picture I was referring to was not the logistics you refer to with the rest of your questions, but our overall vision at the border with respect to humanitarianism, professionalism, and optics in the international community. I've also been trying to convey the point that the logistics involved in with implementing an empathetic and professional approach at the border are a relatively minor detail. We already have the skills, experience, and professionalism needed to implement a more empathetic and less confrontational approach.

By changing our message from "invasion" and "responding to rocks as if they are guns" to "we'll get to everyone as fast as we can" and "why don't you get a meal and cleaned up while you wait", we decrease the likelihood of violence and soured international relations with minimal effort. Not to mention that it is the decent thing to do.

In a similar vein, when protesters visit a site, we expect our officials to try to defuse any potential conflict rather than incite, and we render aid even to those who are breaking the law. I don't know why we would't want officials at the border and in government to also strive for a peaceful and respectful outcome.

 

Quote

Where is this set up and how long do they stay there?

At the border, for as long as it takes to eat, shower, and rest their tired feet.

Quote

Is it kept secure?

Are you asking if we stop fights among the migrants, or if we take steps to keep them from illegally entering the US? If so, then yes, we keep it secure.

Quote

Are they essentially incarcerated, at least with regard to going further into the US?

Presumably there is an entry point to go further into the US already. As far as I'm concerned we can just put up a tent in front of it and let people rest and get cleaned up while waiting.

Quote

What happens to the ones that do not meet the bar for being accepted? Are they sent back across the border?

I'm not suggesting any changes one way or the other with respect to immigration policy. Only that we act with respect, kindness, and professionalism while we are going about our jobs.

[J.C.MacSwell]

47 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I don't know and doubt you really care. If you did your ability to research is probably just as good or better than mine. The U.S. has the highest prison population in the world with over 2 million people. The notion that we are not logistically equipped to hand them few thousand migrants which make up the caravan is absolutely ridiculous. We literally have millions housed long term in prisons. A few thousand is nothing. 

Why would you say that? (Maybe you think I'm a heartless conservative? Or maybe I don't care about the costs at the US border? This is the type of remark that feeds Trump supporters. I don't take it personally, but I think it is counterproductive)

I cared enough to ask. I was trying to get the 50,000 you quoted in perspective. If it is a couple hours it is a lot less significant than 3 months.

50,000 for an average of, say 2 days, would be less significant than 5,000 extra Caravan detainees for a month.

A few thousand is a lot. The fact that you have the highest incarceration rate of any country in the World does not make it any easier to absorb immigrants. There are no bulk discounts to apply from that.

21 minutes ago, zapatos said:

The big picture I was referring to was not the logistics you refer to with the rest of your questions, but our overall vision at the border with respect to humanitarianism, professionalism, and optics in the international community. I've also been trying to convey the point that the logistics involved in with implementing an empathetic and professional approach at the border are a relatively minor detail. We already have the skills, experience, and professionalism needed to implement a more empathetic and less confrontational approach.

By changing our message from "invasion" and "responding to rocks as if they are guns" to "we'll get to everyone as fast as we can" and "why don't you get a meal and cleaned up while you wait", we decrease the likelihood of violence and soured international relations with minimal effort. Not to mention that it is the decent thing to do.

In a similar vein, when protesters visit a site, we expect our officials to try to defuse any potential conflict rather than incite, and we render aid even to those who are breaking the law. I don't know why we would't want officials at the border and in government to also strive for a peaceful and respectful outcome.

 

At the border, for as long as it takes to eat, shower, and rest their tired feet.

Are you asking if we stop fights among the migrants, or if we take steps to keep them from illegally entering the US? If so, then yes, we keep it secure.

Presumably there is an entry point to go further into the US already. As far as I'm concerned we can just put up a tent in front of it and let people rest and get cleaned up while waiting.

I'm not suggesting any changes one way or the other with respect to immigration policy. Only that we act with respect, kindness, and professionalism while we are going about our jobs.

Thank you. That is a good post.

[Ten oz]

40 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

A few thousand is a lot. The fact that you have the highest incarceration rate of any country in the World does not make it any easier to absorb immigrants. There are no bulk discounts to apply from that.

CBP and ICE are federal law enforcement agencies. Law Enforcement in the U.S. detains and in prison millions of people long term. A few thousand people is NOT a lot. A few thousand won't even register against annual averages. This issue is totally fictious. 

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

Yes, it is of course more of a logistical problem to add showers and cots, and it would be an even bigger logistical problem if we wanted to also give everyone hats and sunscreen. But it is not as if we are talking about the logistics of keeping a moon base supplied. Citing logistics in this case is more of a red herring or completely missing the big picture.

Especially with all the additional troops, they could literally task each of them bringing each of the claimants food and water and still have folks left.

 

44 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I cared enough to ask. I was trying to get the 50,000 you quoted in perspective. If it is a couple hours it is a lot less significant than 3 months.

50,000 for an average of, say 2 days, would be less significant than 5,000 extra Caravan detainees for a month.

According to ICE reports the average detention time is ~34 days. Decision for cases takes an average of over 1000 days, though. While there are cases in which it has been argued that detention should not be longer than half a year, there are cases of folks held up to five years. Other key data from a recent ICE report: average daily population is 39k people, though the range is broad and increasing due to the desire to keep folks in detention. The latest daily numbers are at 42k.  They have limited capacity for juveniles, and in some facilities they have been held 100-240 days. Most of the folks are held by private companies (ca. 70%). 

[J.C.MacSwell]

18 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

CBP and ICE are federal law enforcement agencies. Law Enforcement in the U.S. detains and in prison millions of people long term. A few thousand people is NOT a lot. A few thousand won't even register against annual averages. This issue is totally fictious. 

 

2 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Especially with all the additional troops, they could literally task each of them bringing each of the claimants food and water and still have folks left.

 

According to ICE reports the average detention time is ~34 days. Decision for cases takes an average of over 1000 days, though. While there are cases in which it has been argued that detention should not be longer than half a year, there are cases of folks held up to five years. Other key data from a recent ICE report: average daily population is 39k people, though the range is broad and increasing due to the desire to keep folks in detention. The latest daily numbers are at 42k.  They have limited capacity for juveniles, and in some facilities they have been held 100-240 days. Most of the folks are held by private companies (ca. 70%). 

Thanks CY

[CharonY]

Actually I have to correct myself. A year prior the highest average number of detainees was close to 45k in June.  I do not have the time to dig through the data, but assuming an average detention of a month and using the averaged number of detainees, we are roughly talking about ~470k annual detainees.

[Ten oz]

18 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Especially with all the additional troops, they could literally task each of them bringing each of the claimants food and water and still have folks left.

 

According to ICE reports the average detention time is ~34 days. Decision for cases takes an average of over 1000 days, though. While there are cases in which it has been argued that detention should not be longer than half a year, there are cases of folks held up to five years. Other key data from a recent ICE report: average daily population is 39k people, though the range is broad and increasing due to the desire to keep folks in detention. The latest daily numbers are at 42k.  They have limited capacity for juveniles, and in some facilities they have been held 100-240 days. Most of the folks are held by private companies (ca. 70%). 

This being just averages under ICE's purview. Through The Department of Homeland (DHS), which ICE reports to, more individuals can be processed as needed. In my opinion you really shouldn't have to waste your time digging up such numbers. Logistically the infrastructure required to handle the caravan already exists and laws are already on the books for handling all this. I think the onus is on those ignorantly implying otherwise to do more than pose stupid questions.

[Phi for All]

16 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Most of the folks are held by private companies (ca. 70%). 

Making profit the priority, to the tune of $2B/year, which explains part of the unprofessional behavior. It looks like we pay private prisons more to house immigrants than we do to house prisoners.

https://immigrationforum.org/article/math-immigration-detention/

[CharonY]

22 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

This being just averages under ICE's purview. Through The Department of Homeland (DHS), which ICE reports to, more individuals can be processed as needed. In my opinion you really shouldn't have to waste your time digging up such numbers. Logistically the infrastructure required to handle the caravan already exists and laws are already on the books for handling all this. I think the onus is on those ignorantly implying otherwise to do more than pose stupid questions.

I am a firm believer in the use of data to contextualize discussions. Sure, it would be nice of folks who ask the questions would also make an effort to dig out the data rather than wait for someone else to do it. However, I think I also demonstrate that such info is very easy to find, making harder to use ignorance a viable argument. If one simply claims things for a fact, even if it sounds reasonable, it is easy to push back.

Moreover, while the numbers do not register much in the mass of detention, there is the larger issue that those privately run facilities are often in horrible shape with reports of suicide and abuse abound. It is not a good system and there is almost no desire to improve it.

[J.C.MacSwell]

42 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

This being just averages under ICE's purview. Through The Department of Homeland (DHS), which ICE reports to, more individuals can be processed as needed. In my opinion you really shouldn't have to waste your time digging up such numbers. Logistically the infrastructure required to handle the caravan already exists and laws are already on the books for handling all this. I think the onus is on those ignorantly implying otherwise to do more than pose stupid questions.

And you would like to see it maintained, and continue to pay for it?

 

41 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Making profit the priority, to the tune of $2B/year, which explains part of the unprofessional behavior. It looks like we pay private prisons more to house immigrants than we do to house prisoners.

https://immigrationforum.org/article/math-immigration-detention/

The link seems in favour of reducing the requirements and costs of the infrastructure for low risk individuals. Would this not increase and encourage the flow of economic migrants.

I am making the assumption that all here are in favour of those migrating and seeking asylum for fear of safety or persecution, and many wish to maintain current targets overall but keep the system as fair and economic as practical.

Edited November 27, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[Ten oz]

14 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

And you would like to see it maintained, and continue to pay for it?

WTF does that have to do with anything? Whether or not I'd like to see criminal justice reform or immigration reform in the future has  no barrier on the events unfolding. You've been pushing a line of agrument that the caravan posed some sort of logistical challenge. They do not. Nothing additional to what has previously been in place over the last few years was required to manage the caravan. 

28 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I am a firm believer in the use of data to contextualize discussions. Sure, it would be nice of folks who ask the questions would also make an effort to dig out the data rather than wait for someone else to do it. However, I think I also demonstrate that such info is very easy to find, making harder to use ignorance a viable argument. If one simply claims things for a fact, even if it sounds reasonable, it is easy to push back.

Moreover, while the numbers do not register much in the mass of detention, there is the larger issue that those privately run facilities are often in horrible shape with reports of suicide and abuse abound. It is not a good system and there is almost no desire to improve it.

I don't think it is ever useful to placate trolls. In fairness I also don't think it is ever useful to respond to them at all so shame on me. 

***I am not implying you are troll. Just re-read my post and realized it could be taken the wrong way. 

Edited November 27, 2018 by Ten oz

[Phi for All]

21 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

The link seems in favour of reducing the requirements and costs of the infrastructure for low risk individuals. Would this not increase and encourage the flow of economic migrants.

The requirements that need to be reduced in part are the number of beds, which lobbyists have seized upon to legislate more private profit for the industry, turning this into a jobs issue instead of an immigration issue. I don't see how fixing the problem of private profit wrt our immigration process increases the flow of migrants. Can you elaborate?

[iNow]

Meanwhile, while we chase the red herrings... Pictures are worth thousands of words. Such a sad situation:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/bigpicture/2018/11/26/chaos-border-mexico/m1Ze1NTyajTqBhwLZy2LvK/story.html

[J.C.MacSwell]

 

3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

The requirements that need to be reduced in part are the number of beds, which lobbyists have seized upon to legislate more private profit for the industry, turning this into a jobs issue instead of an immigration issue. I don't see how fixing the problem of private profit wrt our immigration process increases the flow of migrants. Can you elaborate?

From the link:

"Less wasteful and equally effective alternatives to detention exist. Estimates from the Department of Homeland Security show that the costs of these alternatives can range from 70 cents to $17 per person per day. If only individuals convicted of serious crimes were detained and less expensive alternative methods were used to monitor the rest of the currently detained population, taxpayers could save more than $1.44 billion per year—almost an 80 percent reduction in annual costs."

 

Do you not think allowing more migrants through (and not detain them) would encourage more migrants to come?