6 ms·

The problem with this is the mob too quickly concludes CBP provides no valuable service to the nation (i.e., service worth contract support) because of a policy

The problem with this is the mob too quickly concludes CBP provides no valuable service to the nation (i.e., service worth contract support) because of a policy I don't like. That really is unjustified, I think. The same is true of law enforcement generally. Police get a lot of hate on HN because of some obviously over-the-top policies that need to be corrected. But we would have major problems without law enforcement, including CBP. We should address the issues without taking them to the extremes. This applies pretty broadly in politics these days, sadly.

prolepunk 7y ago
I don't understand this all-or-nothing mentality your prescribing to 'the mob'. No police brutality, racial profiling and horrendous record on institutionalized racism is not the same as 'No police'. Everyone is for community policing. As for CPB. Fuck them. Abolish ICE. That branch, that puts children in cages, it doesn't provide any value -- nothing can justify there existence.
- ARandomerDude 7y ago
  > I don't understand this all-or-nothing mentality your prescribing to 'the mob'. Here's a good example: > As for CPB. Fuck them. Abolish ICE. That branch, that puts children in cages, it doesn't provide any value -- nothing can justify there existence.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    There is a quite rational position in determining that there is some point of no return at which something -- an organisation, company, government department, movement -- goes past the point of return or acceptance, and becomes dead to you. You'll want to be careful in applying that too liberally, but there are places where it applies. You've been trying to argue that point throughout this thread for "the mob" itself.
happytoexplain 7y ago
>Police get a lot of hate on HN because of some obviously over-the-top policies that need to be corrected. But we would have major problems without law enforcement This seems like a fantastic leap. I think there are zero or borderline zero instances of calls, even implicitly, for the abolishment of law due to individual horrors.
- tracker1 7y ago
  There are plenty of politicians and candidates advocating for abolishing CBP/ICE.
  - sachdevap 7y ago
    ICE, not CBP. Don't conflate the two.
    - makomk 7y ago
      The whole "abolish ICE" movement seems to revolve around conflating the two - an awful lot of the things people point to when justifying their calls to abolish ICE were actually done by CBP.
      - solidsnack9000 7y ago
        Like what?
        1111236112347 7y ago
        I recently saw this article presented as an example of how ICE mistreats people: https://www.latimes.com/nation/ct-children-border-patrol-facility-20180617-story.html https://www.latimes.com/nation/ct-children-border-patrol-fac... It's totally understandable that people are confused by the distinction between CPB and ICE. I certainly was baffled myself, until I spent a big chunk of time digging into it. And I still don't fully understand the multiple transfers of custody between those agencies, plus ORR which often ends up having custody of unaccompanied minors. It's hard to imagine how abolishing ICE alone would resolve the humanitarian issues. I think it's reasonable to assume "abolish ICE" is really referring to a broader reform encompassing all of ICE, CBP, and ORR.
temac 7y ago
You can't balance despicable policies by being merely competent in your other missions.
chris_wot 7y ago
I’m sure the East German Secret Police did some good work too. Same with the Gestapo. Want to fund them or provide services to them?
tfehring 7y ago
As is often the case, it's important to distinguish absolute value (the total net positive or negative created by, say, CBP or law enforcement in general) from marginal value (the additional net positive or negative created when you increase their funding). It's possible and rational to believe that agencies like CBP are (or would be at some level of funding) a net positive in absolute terms, while also believing that they're a net negative at the margin. This is approximately equivalent to the belief that these agencies should exist but should be smaller than they are today. Eliminating service contracts won't "bankrupt" CBP and prevent it from getting anything done, but it will reduce the amount that it can do at the margin. For anyone who believes that CBP funding is a net negative at the margin, including those who believe it's a net positive in absolute terms, this is a desirable outcome.
iamaelephant 7y ago
> The problem with this is the mob too quickly concludes CBP provides no valuable service to the nation (i.e., service worth contract support) because of a policy I don't like. That really is unjustified, I think. That's not at all the conclusion. At some point you stop thinking about what value is added by the contract work. For many people, that point is somewhere before "lock children up and separate them from their families".
dwild 7y ago
> The problem with this is the mob too quickly concludes CBP provides no valuable service to the nation (i.e., service worth contract support) because of a policy I don't like. That really is unjustified, I think. Nobody say they don't provide any valuable service. It's not a reason to support an unethical service though.

prolepunk 7y ago

I don't understand this all-or-nothing mentality your prescribing to 'the mob'. No police brutality, racial profiling and horrendous record on institutionalized racism is not the same as 'No police'. Everyone is for community policing. As for CPB. Fuck them. Abolish ICE. That branch, that puts children in cages, it doesn't provide any value -- nothing can justify there existence.

ARandomerDude 7y ago
> I don't understand this all-or-nothing mentality your prescribing to 'the mob'. Here's a good example: > As for CPB. Fuck them. Abolish ICE. That branch, that puts children in cages, it doesn't provide any value -- nothing can justify there existence.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  There is a quite rational position in determining that there is some point of no return at which something -- an organisation, company, government department, movement -- goes past the point of return or acceptance, and becomes dead to you. You'll want to be careful in applying that too liberally, but there are places where it applies. You've been trying to argue that point throughout this thread for "the mob" itself.

happytoexplain 7y ago

>Police get a lot of hate on HN because of some obviously over-the-top policies that need to be corrected. But we would have major problems without law enforcement This seems like a fantastic leap. I think there are zero or borderline zero instances of calls, even implicitly, for the abolishment of law due to individual horrors.

tracker1 7y ago
There are plenty of politicians and candidates advocating for abolishing CBP/ICE.
- sachdevap 7y ago
  ICE, not CBP. Don't conflate the two.
  - makomk 7y ago
    The whole "abolish ICE" movement seems to revolve around conflating the two - an awful lot of the things people point to when justifying their calls to abolish ICE were actually done by CBP.
    - solidsnack9000 7y ago
      Like what?
      - 1111236112347 7y ago
        I recently saw this article presented as an example of how ICE mistreats people: https://www.latimes.com/nation/ct-children-border-patrol-facility-20180617-story.html https://www.latimes.com/nation/ct-children-border-patrol-fac... It's totally understandable that people are confused by the distinction between CPB and ICE. I certainly was baffled myself, until I spent a big chunk of time digging into it. And I still don't fully understand the multiple transfers of custody between those agencies, plus ORR which often ends up having custody of unaccompanied minors. It's hard to imagine how abolishing ICE alone would resolve the humanitarian issues. I think it's reasonable to assume "abolish ICE" is really referring to a broader reform encompassing all of ICE, CBP, and ORR.

temac 7y ago

You can't balance despicable policies by being merely competent in your other missions.

chris_wot 7y ago

I’m sure the East German Secret Police did some good work too. Same with the Gestapo. Want to fund them or provide services to them?

tfehring 7y ago

As is often the case, it's important to distinguish absolute value (the total net positive or negative created by, say, CBP or law enforcement in general) from marginal value (the additional net positive or negative created when you increase their funding). It's possible and rational to believe that agencies like CBP are (or would be at some level of funding) a net positive in absolute terms, while also believing that they're a net negative at the margin. This is approximately equivalent to the belief that these agencies should exist but should be smaller than they are today. Eliminating service contracts won't "bankrupt" CBP and prevent it from getting anything done, but it will reduce the amount that it can do at the margin. For anyone who believes that CBP funding is a net negative at the margin, including those who believe it's a net positive in absolute terms, this is a desirable outcome.

iamaelephant 7y ago

> The problem with this is the mob too quickly concludes CBP provides no valuable service to the nation (i.e., service worth contract support) because of a policy I don't like. That really is unjustified, I think. That's not at all the conclusion. At some point you stop thinking about what value is added by the contract work. For many people, that point is somewhere before "lock children up and separate them from their families".

dwild 7y ago

> The problem with this is the mob too quickly concludes CBP provides no valuable service to the nation (i.e., service worth contract support) because of a policy I don't like. That really is unjustified, I think. Nobody say they don't provide any valuable service. It's not a reason to support an unethical service though.