4 ms·
That's fair. I tried to include this perspective as well. Personally I want to agree that this behavior is never ever justified, but do you know that being resp
by jmilloy 13y ago
That's fair. I tried to include this perspective as well. Personally I want to agree that this behavior is never ever justified, but do you know that being respectful has no impact on the number of actual violators that are caught? Instead, I expect there is a trade off, and I would sacrifice respect for increased efficacy, to an extent. Furthermore, the resources required to remove agents that misbehave compete with the resources to find violators. Ultimately, I think it's hard to tell from here if we're sacrificing too much respect given the results.
I'd rather not have to become an expert in border control; I pay taxes so that someone else can do that. I can see, however, that many people find it hard to trust that someone else might know more than them. I think it's a shame that there is not enough transparency; is assuming the worst and crying foul without proper data really the best we can do?
- juliob 13y agoThis just happened to my Aussie friend, although not to such a degrading degree. I don't think either event qualifies as a false positive. In either case, there was no evidence at all of an overstay. That's like a spam filter looking at your inbox and arbitrarily picking one email and putting it in your spam folder; would you call that a false positive? To have a false positive, there must be some sort of algorithm/procedure/heuristic, i.e. some sort of non-random selection mechanism. Otherwise, you don't have a spam filter, you have spam roulette. And that's how it is at the border with these immigration officers.