US Political Discussion: Trump Administration Edition (Rules in OP)

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by mongey, Mar 2, 2016.

  1. narad

    narad SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    7,144
    Likes Received:
    5,236
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Location:
    Tokyo
    Just realistically, are you telling me in the world of satellite surveillance, in a country that spends trillions on defense-related tech, that a big fence is the best strategy to securing a border?

    Honestly I think such walls could have gotten more traction previously because (a) no viable other options, (b) no spread of information to convey how bad a solution it is to the general population, or even that there were votes on it, who then become very vocally opposed, (c) just a general lack of respect for Mexicans/South Americans. When a huge part of America operates on a stereotype of lazy people from south of the border, it's maybe easier to think, "oh yea, big wall will stop'em". In 2019, it's easy to research all the super sophisticated ways people have been skirting all the attempts at securing the border.
     
    JSanta likes this.
  2. wedge_destroyer

    wedge_destroyer SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    102
    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2016
    Location:
    Fort Wasted, Indiana
    Well applying Occam's Razor might lead one to the conclusion that yes, it probobly is, regardless of politics.
     
  3. narad

    narad SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    7,144
    Likes Received:
    5,236
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Location:
    Tokyo
    That's not really how Occam's razor works. The simplest explanation is often the most likely one, but the simplest solution is not necessarily the best one, or in this case, even a viable one.
     
    vilk likes this.
  4. wedge_destroyer

    wedge_destroyer SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    102
    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2016
    Location:
    Fort Wasted, Indiana
    Best not by itself, but securing something without barriers isn't really viable. The fact that being simple it is less prone to failure, corruption ect.. when compared to the more complex options, which it is currently being used in unison with.

    However as to why I mentioned the razor, you must look at the core of the problem (with out thinking on the political football items) which is:
    The end goal is to control illegal immigration or entry, the most likely and simplest answer is a physical barrier.

    As opposed to overlappinng integrated sensor systems which are prone to failures mechanical, electrical and human.

    The less complex the item the lower the probability of failure.

    Nevermind the fact that sign telling someone they are trespassing and under surveillance doesn't stop them from paying coyotes to smuggle them through the desert or putting one foot in front of the other unless ICE respsonds. A fence atleast has a chance to stop or funnel them to a smaller, easier to police gaps.
     
  5. Randy

    Randy Sous Chef Super Moderator

    Messages:
    20,635
    Likes Received:
    4,133
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Location:
    The Electric City, NY
    I think the issue is that there ARE barriers that seemingly SHOULD BE funneling people toward rhe existing gaps, and yet we still have a flow of people crossing the border seemingly unabated in several areas.

    The issue with the physical barrier as opposed to high tech alternatives or increased patrols is that the wall is 'dumb' in that it doesn't call attention to itself if a person climbs over, crawls under, cuts through or crosses a few feet to the left or right of it the way a border patrol agent or drone would be able to supervise the same space. And the answer would be well, do both but 'both' is the kind of budget we haven't even seen considered so you're at an 'either/or' situation, where I think a wall is a less substanative proposition.

    And to the overall argument, ignoring the 'Trump derangement' and politicking, it's a few hundred years old and so treating it like it's an emergency that sprung up overnight or is an emergency AT ALL is beyond questionable.

    Also, divorced from the politics involved, I think any logical person would say a knowingly 'open' border with no vetting is a danger but the issue being framed like it's about terrorists or gangs or drugs, like they're the disproportionate volume of people crossing, is an argument tuned in a very political way that both feeds one group red meat, turns the other side off immediately and also doesn't accurately frame the reality of the situation.

    The immigration through Ellis Island was 10x the numbers we see at the Mexican border, and those people didn't come here 1.) knowing the language 2.) with high skills 3.) with all red tape handled for them before they left their country 4.) with any guarantees about their character/criminality (see: Irish and Italian mob). Yet we still handled then like human beings. If the current immigration situation were handled with the same demeanor, we'd be looking at ACTUAL solutions but instead it's all about a vanity project founded on a narrowly legitimate criteria, so that we can all fight with eachother while our pockets get picked.
     
  6. thraxil

    thraxil cylon

    Messages:
    992
    Likes Received:
    385
    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2008
    Location:
    London
    If we really wanted the simplest, cheapest, most effective way to reduce illegal immigration, we wouldn't spend billions and billions of dollars on pointless walls or technology. We would aggressively investigate and criminally prosecute the companies that employ the illegal immigrants. Send a few CEOs to prison and suddenly there would be no jobs for illegal immigrants and no reason for them to cross the border.

    The problem with that, of course, is that large parts of the economy would grind to a halt. The corporations that make the large dollar donations to both parties are the ones that rely on those cheap workers and wouldn't like it. So instead, we focus on less effective solutions that funnel large amounts of money to military-industrial contractors (aka donors) and demonize the people who cross the border trying to find a job to feed their family.
     
  7. Randy

    Randy Sous Chef Super Moderator

    Messages:
    20,635
    Likes Received:
    4,133
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Location:
    The Electric City, NY
    Yeah I think Occam's Razor applied in this case would be preventing people from trying to illegally cross your border in the first place (ie, convenient legal alternatives or having no reason TO want to enter your country [decent jobs and safety where they came from]) rather than addressing the problem after it's about trying to monitor a few thousand miles of space 24 hours a day
     
  8. Drew

    Drew Forum MVP

    Messages:
    28,058
    Likes Received:
    3,442
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    I mean, the simplest explanation would be if maybe we stopped buying drugs FROM mexico, and selling black market guns TO mexico, drug warfare wouldn't be so bad that we have a refugee crisis on our hands.

    But considering the war on drugs has mostly just fueled black marked demand and most black market guns start off in the white market and if you say "gun control" three times in front of a mirror the Ghost of Ronald Reagan will say three Our Fathers and then fire off an AK-47, that's not gonna happen.
     
    zappatton2 and Randy like this.
  9. StevenC

    StevenC SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    2,792
    Likes Received:
    1,254
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Location:
    Northern Ireland
    You're confusing simple an effective. Simple solutions aren't necessarily effective ones.

    For example, if a border wall were to stop all illegal immigration that involved walking across the border, it doesn't address the fact that more illegal immigration happens via visa overstays of people legally entering the USA.

    Also, that's Occam's razor is used for weighing explanations, not solutions.
     
    Explorer and vilk like this.
  10. wedge_destroyer

    wedge_destroyer SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    102
    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2016
    Location:
    Fort Wasted, Indiana
    Are you certain??

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
     
  11. MaxOfMetal

    MaxOfMetal Likes trem wankery. Super Moderator

    Messages:
    30,598
    Likes Received:
    10,267
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2008
    Location:
    Racine, WI
    Just to be clear, how is a simple solution such as a wall supposed to stop the 66% of undocumented immigrants from over staying thier visas and/or prevent the 90% of contraband that moves through ports?

    Stopping 34% of undocumented immigrants and 10% of contraband doesn't seem like a great ROI on $25B, IMHO.

    I'm all for simple solutions, but prefer ones that work. :lol:
     
  12. wedge_destroyer

    wedge_destroyer SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    102
    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2016
    Location:
    Fort Wasted, Indiana
    It's a simple method to slow and vastly decrease all kinds of cross border crime, look at San Diego.

    As pointed out this is a very old issue that should never have been turned into a political football. One could argue it goes back to the Mexican-American war or Pancho Villa.

    The issue at core when stripped of its politics is should we further secure southern the border, more heavily utilizing barriers.

    The idea of a full blown ocean to ocean wall is foolhardy at best. Even if it is OK'd tomorrow, it would function much the same way military defensive works funnel people into smaller areas. Where they can be easily detected and detained with the other assets. Who would in theory have smaller patrol areas, need fewer agents, some of whom could be retasked to deal with overstays.

    Not doing something that has been effective and is a tends to be low maintenance to stop that 10% and 34%, (I assume you mean per year) makes no sense IMHO.

    And beside in the grand scheme of government what's $25B? How many Trillions does the Pentagon not have account of? How far over budget are they on F-35?
     
  13. narad

    narad SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    7,144
    Likes Received:
    5,236
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Location:
    Tokyo
    This is some GAS style view of accounting. My credit card's already got $6k on it, what's another Butterslax?
     
    Ordacleaphobia likes this.
  14. wedge_destroyer

    wedge_destroyer SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    102
    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2016
    Location:
    Fort Wasted, Indiana
    Not at all it's pointing out that in the scheme of what the government does $25B is not that large. Gain some fiscal accountability from certain areas of the government and you might find 4 times that amount hidden under a rock or a torpedo development contract somewhere.
     
  15. StevenC

    StevenC SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    2,792
    Likes Received:
    1,254
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Location:
    Northern Ireland
    I think you're misunderstanding the two different usages of the word solution, and ignoring the importance of the word hypothesis. And then you're conflating "fewest assumptions" with simplest. The correct application is for explaining known phenomena, not predicting foreign policy.

    Like if it were the late 1800s and I was evaluating the structure of atoms, I might consider it to be some indivisible unitary particle, or like a plum pudding with negatively charged plums, or like a tiny dense divisible core surrounded by huge probabilistic clouds based on equations that haven't been developed yet and involving particles that haven't been imagined yet. The correct application of Occam's razor would select the first model. I'd be wrong, but I haven't made any assumptions.
     
    vilk likes this.
  16. wedge_destroyer

    wedge_destroyer SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    102
    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2016
    Location:
    Fort Wasted, Indiana
    You neglect that I began with response to a question that formed my hypothesis that: Yes even in a country that spends trillions on military and surveillance hardware, a large fence is a large part of any viable strategy, to secure our southern borders.
    That hypothesis leads to either
    A. It is.
    B. It is not.

    A. I don't have to assume fences/barriers/walls are good at stopping, slowing or controlling movements of people to the areas you want them.

    B. I have to assume that the sensors and drones are functioning, placed correctly, that someone who hasn't been bribed, is in charge, in range to respond and then to do so successfully over larger areas.

    Option A requires no assumptions as to the usefulness of what the hypothesis proposes.
    Option B requires several.

    This is a known phenomenon. The movement of people across places they are restricted from. Which would perhaps be anthropology, migration angle or criminology, crime/drug war angle. Since utilization of more fences and barriers meet the critera of answering the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions. So how would it not apply?
     
  17. narad

    narad SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    7,144
    Likes Received:
    5,236
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Location:
    Tokyo
    B. It is not.

    It's 2019. Adopt 2019 thinking, not 1029 thinking.

    (Also, again, the Occam's razor thing isn't working.)
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2019
    vilk likes this.
  18. wedge_destroyer

    wedge_destroyer SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    102
    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2016
    Location:
    Fort Wasted, Indiana
    I am using 2019 thinking, don't embassies, military bases, and many other government facilities all still use barriers or fences? Would you call those sometimes motorized sensor laden vehicle stopping barrier obsolete? I wouldn't.

    If I was thinking 1029 I would be saying dig the Rio Grande into a moat and throw up rock walls complete with porticullis.
     
  19. narad

    narad SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    7,144
    Likes Received:
    5,236
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Location:
    Tokyo
    I vaguely recall embassies, military bases, and many other government facilities not having thousand-mile-long perimeters.
     
  20. wedge_destroyer

    wedge_destroyer SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    102
    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2016
    Location:
    Fort Wasted, Indiana
    Perimeter fences they do have and it tends to keep people from wondering about. Some of the test ranges do have many miles of fencing as they themselves are many square miles.

    And again as I stated above a true full perimeter fence is foolhardy at best. It would still have to have gaps if for geographic and ecological reasons alone. To believe that any executed fence is going to be executed with out gaps, sensors, drones and manual patrols is willfully ignoring both physical facts and the core nature of our government surveillance and interdiction programs.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.