Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D) Introduces Bill: Border Patrol+ICE Must Document Every Stop

[waiguoren]

if they question 40 people, they do paperwork for 40 people. i have no problem with it.

I don't believe you know that.

The bill might require anyone stopped to be documented. Then all 40 people on the bus would need to be written up even if only 1/40 were questioned.

 

[Trotsky]

"No amount of data or oversight is enough to justify a government agency for which I can produce poorly supported anecdotes of inefficiency!" - American conservatives, 2010

"Yeah, we should empower the government to spend our money and potentially infringe on our constitutional rights absent oversight because the people we like are in power!" - American conservatives, 2018

 

[Trotsky]

I don't believe you know that.

For all we know, the bill could require anyone stopped to be documented. Then all 40 people on the bus would need to be written up even if only 1/40 were questioned.

Yeah, when I see a bill that I dislike for illogical partisan reasons, I too just invent and add on wasteful provisions to give me a reason to oppose it.

 

[Fawlty]

The devil is in the details.

A typical situation which happens on a daily basis: ICE/BP stops a bus of 40 passengers for which there is "reasonable suspicion" of illegal aliens on board. Do you think it's a good idea to force the BP/ICE agent to fill out 40 detailed reports for 10 minutes of questioning? It looks like a tremendous waste of manpower.

I agree with @Fawlty's perspective that it would be good to have more data on stops, but it appears that Gillibrand wants a detailed report for every single person on board. The cynical side of me thinks that this would be a means of preventing ICE/BP from doing their jobs, that Gillibrand knows this, and that she is pushing this as a means of getting ahead of the Democratic primary competition. It's red meat for the left-wing base.

Without trying to be a partisan or a dick about this, we do a bad job with law enforcement data. I understand that it's really expensive and we need more manpower to collect more data, but I would be happy paying taxes now to hire more agents and more support staff if we're going to end up with all of the information we need to make the best decisions.

The appeal to the left is that we will get increased accountability along with the increased enforcement. That shouldn't be appealing to just the left, that should be appealing to everyone. I can't call this hacky or red meat or anything. It's just smart and accountable government. It's the climate that causes this to seem like a stunt. (and Gillibrand is savvy enough to realize this, admittedly)

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Would require border patrol and immigration enforcement agents to document every instance when they stop, search, or interrogate people

Fuck yeah. If all my fucking phone data can be sucked up and stored by the NSA then the government can keep track of its every fucking move so that we the the fucking people can scrutinize our institutionalized yolk.

 

[spin]

I don't believe you know that.

For all we know, the bill could require anyone stopped to be documented. Then all 40 people on the bus would need to be written up even if only 1/40 were questioned.

thats why they should also have body cams

 

[waiguoren]

Yeah, when I see a bill that I dislike for illogical partisan reasons, I too just invent and add on wasteful provisions to give me a reason to oppose it.

You really aren't very bright. I should probably just block you at this point.

The text of the bill is not available yet. Therefore, we do not know if everyone questioned in a stop must be written up, or if everyone stopped must be written up. The wording we have so far suggests the latter, which would be absurd as in the bus example.

However---as the OP indicates---I am reserving judgment on the matter. This isn't a partisan thread. The fact that you see it as such says a lot about your mental state.

 

[Trotsky]

You really aren't very bright. I should probably just block you at this point.

The text of the bill is not available yet. Therefore, we do not know if everyone questioned in a stop must be written up, or if everyone stopped must be written up. The wording we have so far suggests the latter, which would be absurd as in the bus example.

However---as the OP indicates---I am reserving judgment on the matter. This isn't a partisan thread. The fact that you see it as such says a lot about your mental state.

The guy who thinks Clarence Thomas is a great jurist, that Pulp Fiction is a poorly made film, and Donald Trump is a good president doesn't think I'm bright?

The horror. Oh, my bruised and battered ego.

 

[waiguoren]

Without trying to be a partisan or a dick about this, we do a bad job with law enforcement data. I understand that it's really expensive and we need more manpower to collect more data, but I would be happy paying taxes now to hire more agents and more support staff if we're going to end up with all of the information we need to make the best decisions.

The appeal to the left is that we will get increased accountability along with the increased enforcement. That shouldn't be appealing to just the left, that should be appealing to everyone. I can't call this hacky or red meat or anything. It's just smart and accountable government. It's the climate that causes this to seem like a stunt. (and Gillibrand is savvy enough to realize this, admittedly)

I think this is a very charitable take on a bill whose text is not available yet. I think it's just wrong to call this "smart" when we don't know the details.

Here's my prediction, based on observing too many elections over too many years:

I think the likelihood that this passes is under 10%. That's because there will be a few provisions buried in it that are unacceptable to Republicans and a few Democrats---probably related to bogging down ICE/CBP in excessive paperwork but possibly something else. Gillibrand knows this. She will use the bill as a talking point in the primary debates.

 

[waiguoren]

The guy who thinks Clarence Thomas is a great jurist, that Pulp Fiction is a poorly made film, and Donald Trump is a good president doesn't think I'm bright?

The horror. Oh, my bruised and battered ego.

I have noticed that you failed to respond to my point, as you often do.

Clarence Thomas is a great jurist. I never wrote that Donald Trump is a good president.

 

[Trotsky]

I have noticed that you failed to respond to my point, as you often do.

Your point was that the full text was not available, so you were choosing to substitute in your own fears for a plain reading or sensible expectation.

Clarence Thomas is a great jurist. I never wrote that Donald Trump is a good president.

Calling Clarence Thomas a great jurist is substantially more idiotic than calling Trump a good president.

 

[Fawlty]

I think this is a very charitable take on a bill whose text is not available yet. I think it's just wrong to call this "smart" when we don't know the details.

Here's my prediction, based on observing too many elections over too many years:

I think the likelihood that this passes is under 10%. That's because there will be a few provisions buried in it that are unacceptable to Republicans and a few Democrats---probably related to bogging down ICE/CBP in excessive paperwork but possibly something else. Gillibrand knows this. She will use the bill as a talking point in the primary debates.

I can't account for a product that goes through the Washington lawyer gauntlet. It's a good idea on its own merits though. I hope that she's playing the politics of pushing good laws that happen to be good politically (completely fair play), rather than pushing a bill she plans on sabotaging. There is a lot of "talk" about how savvy she is, and I don't have an opinion on that yet. But so far I have no reason to suspect the worst in her.

 

[waiguoren]

Your point was that the full text was not available, so you were choosing to substitute in your own fears for a plain reading or sensible expectation.

False. A briefing of a long bill given to a media outlet is not sufficient to inform us as to the specific requirements that the bill will put on ICE/CBP. Gillibrand broke the story to Vox directly, and Vox went with the title:
Kirsten Gillibrand introduces a bill to crack down on immigration agents

The reasonable response, therefore, is to wait and see whether or not the bill actually does "crack down on immigration agents".

Calling Clarence Thomas a great jurist is substantially more idiotic than calling Trump a good president.

In our previous discussion on the matter, you failed to back up any of your criticism of Thomas beyond a link dump ("he is very unethical! Here are 10 news reports relating to Thomas and ethics!). Anyway, I'm happy to continue that conversation in a different thread.

 

[waiguoren]

I can't account for a product that goes through the Washington lawyer gauntlet. It's a good idea on its own merits though. I hope that she's playing the politics of pushing good laws that happen to be good politically (completely fair play), rather than pushing a bill she plans on sabotaging. There is a lot of "talk" about how savvy she is, and I don't have an opinion on that yet. But so far I have no reason to suspect the worst in her.

It's a bill to address a non-problem sponsored by someone certain to declare a candidacy for president within the next year. I'll go out on a limb: it's smart politics, nothing more.

 

[Fawlty]

It's a bill to address a non-problem sponsored by someone certain to declare a candidacy for president within the next year. I'll go out on a limb: it's smart politics, nothing more.

Accountability has to scale with the scope of enforcement, which is increasing. Perhaps even over-scale due to the nature of bureaucracy. I wouldn't be confident calling it a non-problem even if I suspected it might be.

 

[ens189]

thats why they should also have body cams

I volunteered to be part of the torture testing for those a few years back. They don't hold up to the terrain we work in unfortunately. Maybe it'll be revisited in the future.

 

[essie]

The guy who thinks Clarence Thomas is a great jurist, that Pulp Fiction is a poorly made film, and Donald Trump is a good president doesn't think I'm bright?

The horror. Oh, my bruised and battered ego.

One of those three things is correct though .

 

[Trotsky]

One of those three things is correct though .

The Pulp Fiction one, I presume?

Objectively silly take imo.

 

[waiguoren]

Accountability has to scale with the scope of enforcement, which is increasing. Perhaps even over-scale due to the nature of bureaucracy.

In what way is the scope of enforcement increasing?

I wouldn't be confident calling it a non-problem even if I suspected it might be.

I say it's a "non-problem" because I am unaware of a documented epidemic of human/civil rights abuses by ICE/CBP. The Vox article suggests that the impetus for Gillibrand's legislation is incidents like the following short clip, which shows CBP agents questioning people on a bus. This type of questioning has been occurring for many years and is exactly the sort of enforcement action that Gillibrand supported---yet Gillibrand never proposed this kind of legislation before.

Are you familiar with Gillibrand's background? She was an immigration hardliner when she served in the House. She opposed any and all pathways to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, supported the SAVE Act and opposed issuing drivers licenses to illegal aliens in NY. She voted to target sanctuary cities by withholding federal funds from them. Her views on immigration were indistinguishable from those of Jeff Sessions. She knows these views will make her an easy target in the upcoming Democratic primary contests.

From the article:

“Keeping our country safe cannot come at a cost to basic human rights,” Gillibrand wrote in a statement to Vox. “When border patrol agents stop and question people in New York and in many places across the country, they aren’t keeping data about why they targeted a particular person or what happened during their encounter.”

 

[waiguoren]

I volunteered to be part of the torture testing for those a few years back. They don't hold up to the terrain we work in unfortunately. Maybe it'll be revisited in the future.

Care to share more details?