.
https://jennbudd9.medium.com/how-border-patrol-manipulates-media-300a976433cc
This is sadly believable to me, for it fits to how bureaucracies and especially LE bureaucracies appear to work all over the world. This case is but a minor extension on the ordinary. LE usually uses the mantle of a union speaker to manipulate public opinion.
It's telling that parties which supposedly mistrust bureaucracy (if not government as a whole) make an exception with those bureaucracies that can be used to bully people.
- - - - -
[German] "Mogeln ist ansteckend"
[German] https://blog.fefe.de/?ts=9eb7ee5f
S O
defence_and_freedom@gmx.de
.
Iraq and Afghanistan could be small fish that will soon be forgotten if the invasion of Iran happens, which is still on the original target list after the other countries were eliminated. 7 countries in 5 years. I have a hard time grasping what the opportunity costs of these wars mean for the American public. They could have navigated the current pandemic with much more support for their citizens. Do you think we'll see a US invasion of Iran in the coming years?
ReplyDeleteManipulating public opinion is essential in order to be able to fulfill the task of protecting the border at all. The refugee workers, social justice warriors and even the smugglers and narco cartels manipulate public opinion, as do politicians of all kinds. It is simply absurdly naive to assume that some group does not manipulate public opinion in the sense of its purpose. It is even imperative to do this. And the left activists, who have to embrace the entire overpopulation of the earth at the expense of others and take care of them, manipulate the public much more on average.
ReplyDeleteWithout such manipulation, the border cannot be protected. In addition, the arguments of the pro-immigration activist who is mentally ill, according to her own statements, can also be reversed here: today there is less immigration than before and more border guards, from which she concludes that there is no problem. in fact, there is less immigration today precisely because there is more border protection. The figures therefore prove the success of the border protection measures and the compelling logical conclusion is that with even more border protection one would have even less illegal immigration (actually self-explanatory).
I'm living on another continent, but even I know that most undocumented immigrants to the U.S. are overstaying a visa. More border guards does just about nothing to that.
DeleteThere are two open doors, and guarding one with three instead of two armed guards does almost nothing for overall transit control.
And then there's the issue of diminishing returns, but I have zero confidence that I could make you understand that concept.
The misuse of visas for the purpose of illegal immigration is certainly a bigger problem than the illegal border crossing, but that is a point that can be solved much easier than securing the border by no longer issuing visas so lightly. You could also have pointed out that the economic problems since 2009 have meant that many illegal immigrants have left the US again and there are significantly fewer illegal immigrants living in the US today than in 2007, and several million fewer.
DeleteRegardless of this, securing the border is by no means something that can be neglected. The fact that the number of visa abuses is greater today is also due to the fact that the border has been secured better and better and, as a result, fewer and fewer illegal immigrants have been able to cross the border. One should also think about the future here: Climate change, the further negative development in Mexico and the further increasing population and negative developments in many countries in Central and South America will make securing the southern border of fundamental importance in the near future. The then necessary structures cannot be pounded out of the ground overnight, they have to be set up in preparation now. Now you can tell again about scare tactics and scare tactics and that fear should be abused here to achieve any goals, but climate change and its consequences will make the southern border of the USA the line on which the USA as a state will fail or survive as a whole .
Conversely, of course, I am also of the conviction that this is just as difficult to make you understand because it does not fit into your (Grüne?) Worldview.
No, the overstaying visa issue cannot be solved easily, you're naive here.
DeleteThe immigration issue isn't a real problem. It's a bogeyman for right wing politicians to incite hate and fear among the electorate to gain support for their pro-rich policies. It's a racket, and solving the immigration issue would end this useful racket.
They never solved the work visa misuse issue, and never will. They (save for the outright fascists who are dumb enough to actually believe their own party's fearmongering and hatemongering) don't want to solve it, and it doesn't matter how easily parts of it could be addressed by legislative action in theory.
Besides, "solving" the immigration issue by very much reducing immigration (I'm not talking about net migration here) would cause great hardship in Central American/Caribbean countries where many people depend on the money transfers by workers in the U.S.. Urban Venezuelans would outright starve without such transfers.
So either the U.S. transfers jobs to Latin America instead of PRC & Vietnam or it has to maintain the uneasy status quo to avoid a much worse situation.
Last but not least, the immigration scare faction in the U.S. should look to its own country's past and how there were immigrations cares and hate about Italian and Irish immigration.
I'm convinced that many Latin Americans could pass as 'white' or 'normal' in 30 years if an effort was made to end the anti-Hispanic racism by the right wing. The Irish and Italians only turned 'white' and 'normal' after the 1950's in American culture, after all.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteI have noticed, that quite a number of bureaucracies, who are tasked to deal with certain problems are not only exaggerating them, but also dead set against any lasting solution, because it would put their job into question.
ReplyDeleteFor example drug legalization would free up many resources of the LE and justice systems, reduce incarceration rates, make it easier for addicts to seek treatments and insure a higher purity of drugs.
But it also would render the DEA superflous or at least vastly reduce their budget.
To quote Upton Sinclair:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
Have you noticed something similar?
It's predicted by theory that they don't want a solution, but undisputable examples are hard to come by.
DeleteThe exaggerating part is obvious and can also be explained by a tunnel vision. My submarine costs / human sacrifice blog post showed an example how tunnel vision bureaucrats demand expenses and declare them necessary without understanding the bigger picture at all. Never trust "the experts" when it comes to how much money should be spent on something.
You may ask them about prices, but asking them about necessary budget (price x quantity) is foolish. It's also being used to deceive the public intentionally. An example is the "combatant commander requirements" by the regional commands in the U.S: military. They "require" an xy quantity of carriers, so supposedly that's how many carriers you need. Easy solution: Order them to STFU. Voilà, suddenly you don't need as many carriers. Magic.