According to the Vera Institute of Justice the cost of locking up prisoners in the US is $31,000-$60,000 per year which would work out as $85 - $165 per day.
Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
Without meaning to say money is the issue or stating my personal opinion on anything, I do want to chime in one thing: detention really isn't as cheap as you think. Mental health institutions average about 1:1 personnel:clients, and that's not counting the cost for security measures, building maintenance, etc etc. I've heard too many comparisons like that, and each and every time, actually putting them to the test reveals the falsehoods.
For starters, $300/day is a lot...For three people, in gross, with at least one of them being paid night shift bonuses? It wouldn't cover it by Belgian minimum wage standards. Even so, that would still mean 3 people working 8 hours a day, 7 days a week, without leave. realistically, to maintain a round-the-clock guard, you need a minimum of 4 full time employees. So, every guard is in charge of 4 kids. Let's add one teacher and one nurse for every group of children. Now every guard is guarding 6 kids if you're sticking to 1:1. Naturally, you need more than 1 nurse, but they can team up so that in practice each nurse has a group of 24 or so kids to take care of and every teach has classes of 16 or 20. Supplying 3 meals a day, 7/7, means you're going to need a chef, some people to buy or deliver the food, some people to help prepare, some to feed (not all children are healthy and/or of eating age). Don't forget the cleaning staff. Maintenance. HR, team leaders, coordinators, communications, oh shit do we really need all these people?
Yes, you do, and suddenly, your money really doesn't cover all that much. Overhead mounts surprisingly quickly for large organisations, especially government stuff.
To be clear, again, I'm not saying all the money is being spent wisely and all you need to solve these issues is more money - there's definitely misappropriations going on, money being funneled off, and a whole bunch of deliberate cruelty happening, and I think it's disgusting.
Claiming "oh, you can put them in a hotel for less, with a guard for every child!" is simply completely false, and makes your argument weaker because it's an easy argument to latch on to and disprove.
All of that said, I do think you're all ganging up on Eriol for little reason. He has never, ever, anywhere, stated he's a-OK with abusing children and placing them in inhuman conditions. He has stated that things should get better. As far as I can really tell, the main difference is that he thinks that with enough money and proper management/leadership, ICE could do better, while you think ICE is rotten to the core and needs to be disbanded and replaced by a new agency/organisation. Mixing up "ICE is horribly corrupt", "ICE is horribly inefficient", "our migration policy needs to change", "our border security needs more means and support", "immigration services need to be better integrated", etc etc arguments, forcing people who lean more towards one side on one of these to support what you deem to be "part and parcel" on all the others, is a bogus debate strategy.
For starters, $300/day is a lot...For three people, in gross, with at least one of them being paid night shift bonuses? It wouldn't cover it by Belgian minimum wage standards. Even so, that would still mean 3 people working 8 hours a day, 7 days a week, without leave. realistically, to maintain a round-the-clock guard, you need a minimum of 4 full time employees. So, every guard is in charge of 4 kids. Let's add one teacher and one nurse for every group of children. Now every guard is guarding 6 kids if you're sticking to 1:1. Naturally, you need more than 1 nurse, but they can team up so that in practice each nurse has a group of 24 or so kids to take care of and every teach has classes of 16 or 20. Supplying 3 meals a day, 7/7, means you're going to need a chef, some people to buy or deliver the food, some people to help prepare, some to feed (not all children are healthy and/or of eating age). Don't forget the cleaning staff. Maintenance. HR, team leaders, coordinators, communications, oh shit do we really need all these people?
Yes, you do, and suddenly, your money really doesn't cover all that much. Overhead mounts surprisingly quickly for large organisations, especially government stuff.
To be clear, again, I'm not saying all the money is being spent wisely and all you need to solve these issues is more money - there's definitely misappropriations going on, money being funneled off, and a whole bunch of deliberate cruelty happening, and I think it's disgusting.
Claiming "oh, you can put them in a hotel for less, with a guard for every child!" is simply completely false, and makes your argument weaker because it's an easy argument to latch on to and disprove.
All of that said, I do think you're all ganging up on Eriol for little reason. He has never, ever, anywhere, stated he's a-OK with abusing children and placing them in inhuman conditions. He has stated that things should get better. As far as I can really tell, the main difference is that he thinks that with enough money and proper management/leadership, ICE could do better, while you think ICE is rotten to the core and needs to be disbanded and replaced by a new agency/organisation. Mixing up "ICE is horribly corrupt", "ICE is horribly inefficient", "our migration policy needs to change", "our border security needs more means and support", "immigration services need to be better integrated", etc etc arguments, forcing people who lean more towards one side on one of these to support what you deem to be "part and parcel" on all the others, is a bogus debate strategy.
Your link leads to an article that links to Vera, which results in an error.
A little bit of googling says the average cost in Canada is about $115K/year, in the UK £80K/year, about €250/day in the Netherlands, and about €170/day in Belgium (some Belgian prisons still have "a bucket with a lid" as toilets, no electricity an no running water in rooms shared by 4 people, so we're not exactly a good example to take. it's improving, though!).
The Dems are making them do it, donchaknow?
Yes, because hotel rooms don't require staff, that's just for prisons (that are made of basically wire fences, and are likely less resistant then a normal hotel door.)
Weird, i could have sworn you where trying to tell us what you think by posting here... or are you just repeating someone else's opinions?
Post automatically merged:
Don't worry, this is about the US, no pesky livable minimum wage to get in the way.
No, he just claims the squalid conditions are just a result of democrats withholding money, even though there are literal videos of Trump admin ppl saying taking the kids away and being "tough" is meant to discourage immigrants.
The fact that he's defending it with those sort of statements is still pretty bad.
Last edited:
As someone who is frequently misunderstood around here, I know intimately what it feels like to discover that the impression other people have of you does not match what you are actually trying to say. If my assessment is inaccurate, please feel completely free to correct me whenever necessary. You've called out my inaccuracies before, so this shouldn't be any different, right? Especially since you would presumably be the most authoritative source for data about yourself.
Because you are definitely coming across as very "Let them eat cake" about the whole thing.
I would propose that Eriol is one of the most rational, logical thinkers on this board, and I do not for one moment think that he endorses torture, child abuse, etc. My primary puzzlement is that, when presented with evidence contradicting his position (whatever that position might be), he seems unwilling to accept the possibility that he might need to adjust his worldview.
--Patrick
Last edited:
Patrick, it's coming across as more than a little like "you say it's OK to eat babies. This shows what a horrible person... (etc, and stuff). Now speak up if that's wrong!" You're setting up the straw man, then knocking it down, THEN in a later post saying "well, you should explain yourself." As you said, you are attacked (Wrongly) routinely on communicating in a way others disagree with. I'd think you'd recognize it better when doing it yourself.
As for my opinion on this, the following applies. State I'm as horrible a monster as you wish on what is actually said below:
- The core responsibility for the tragedy is the people who are crossing illegally. Not the legitimate refugees, the 32,000 per month (so 360,000 per year, average, this is from the graph on the previous page), that less than a third of (the 90-some thousand in the article I linked are per-year) are even claiming refugee status. Resources spent on this can't be spent on more compassionate cases. Every cry of a child of somebody who was illegally trying to cross their parents are primarily responsible for. They put their own children in such a horrible state. They HAD a choice. This is not the same as the legitimate refugees that even those who claim such, only about 20% are accepted. You can claim that more are legitimate than are accepted, either way at least 2/3 of the problem are those who are knowingly breaking the law, and by a reading that the 20% isn't THAT far off, it's a lot closer to 80-90% are responsible for their own (and their own children's) suffering. I don't know about you, but if I put children in a bad situation, knowing it was a bad situation, I call that horrible parenting.
- The secondary responsibility are those who are in favor of de-funding and/or disallowing increases in funding to those at the border to cope with said tragedy. This means primarily democrats. As has been established here, there's over 15x the number of refugee claimants in the last 10 years. That means that facilities need to either be built, or temporary housing to deal with it. Temporary housing is expensive but you can't have lots of buildings around all the time either (at the least, more permanent capacity takes time to build). Either way, there's a funding problem, but few on the left will say they're in favor of funding those agencies. This tragedy on the border is bad for the current administration (Trump) so therefore it's good for those who oppose him. And it's worth it for them to perpetuate it. If you think ZERO of this is happening, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you.
- Being concerned with stemming the tide does not mean I don't care about those already there. But I DO think that if you don't stem the tide, whatever bad conditions can only get worse. Resources spent this way may be more worth it than spending it on those you already have. If $100 spent to stem the tide prevents 10 people from getting to the border, that's better than spending it on one you already have.
- Releasing people who at the least appear to be breaking the law by crossing illegally is the same as open borders. If you advocate for release, the only release I see as NOT open borders is releasing them back into Mexico, and if they're legitimate refugees, then arguably that's cruel as well.
- Concentration Camps = Death Camps in modern parlance. This is not a controversial opinion. Virtually everybody 5 years ago would agree with this. Bringing this language in is intended to evoke ideas of the Holocaust. This is not a parallel to what's happening. And neither is the broader definition of Internment either. That is by definition incarceration without trial. This is not that either (explicitly, anybody in the facilities on your southern border is waiting for trial). Nobody is being taken from their homes and being thrown into these facilities. Any parallels is by definition disingenuous, and probably also with more than a hint of antisemitism, since it's trivializing the Holocaust.
The current daily rate for a JCI in the state of Wisconsin is $397 per child.
If the State of Wisconsin, in all of its f'ed up splendor, can hold children (granted, from ages 11-25, but still) and at least give them toothbrushes, toothpaste, and TOILET PAPER, the Feds should be able to do it too.
If the State of Wisconsin, in all of its f'ed up splendor, can hold children (granted, from ages 11-25, but still) and at least give them toothbrushes, toothpaste, and TOILET PAPER, the Feds should be able to do it too.
They literally will not accept donations to improve conditions. That is NOT the democrats' fault.
Patrick countered this, graph and all. You either didn't see it or ignored it.
Because it makes logistical sense to try and have people deal with things being randomly donated. Riiiight.
That was politifacts' numbers, referencing official numbers as to claimants. That is NOT the same as the number arrested at the border. I referenced both sets of numbers, referring to them specifically, and even comparing the proportions of the two.
Oh since we've pussyfooted around it, let me make it clear:
If the only choices are really the current camps or just letting the families free, the latter is easily the right choice. If you want to claim you have the authority to detain someone, you have to show that you are worthy of that power.
If the only choices are really the current camps or just letting the families free, the latter is easily the right choice. If you want to claim you have the authority to detain someone, you have to show that you are worthy of that power.
I applaud you for actually saying it. That's really the main point I was trying to get out of people here. With no additional funding, you're right, it's one of those two choices. Or maybe auto-deport, but that'd break other laws and treaties.
They won't take money either, though.
Try to give $20 to your local government, but a specific department that doesn't usually deal in fees. So not the DMV where you say you want to overpay. Hell, even there I'd bet it'd be a challenge to "donate" to them.
I'm not unsympathetic, it's just that the means of actually getting change there would mean certain parties (mostly on the left) admitting that the border system is underfunded for what's actually happening. The point above about arrests vs numbers at the border Mind is that if you catch somebody on the border and they're like "ya, you got me" the system being engaged is much shorter and more "summary judgement" than saying "I'm a refugee." That's why the 15x (more) increase in claimants matters a lot more, even if the number of people trying to cross isn't dramatically different.
Or do you think it's adequate, and money is actually being stolen/embezzled away? That's a different discussion (and would require evidence). The "hotels" versus temporary housing thing is just a distraction. Of course if you actually have a building built for housing claimants (securely btw) it's cheaper. But when the buildings are full, the marginal cost per person goes up. I don't think that's hard to understand.
Making up an excuse without any data or information of your own is not an argument. I'm sorry, but that is weak sauce for what is a dire situation. "We need money. Sorry, we can't take that money, though."
There he goes again using the asylum seeker number increase and ignoring the overall numbers decrease...
I don't get how anyone can take him seriously after doubling down on that.
At least Gas comes up with something witty to avoid admitting he's wrong and then next time adjusts his argument accordingly.
I'll just re-post this since apparently you didn't read it:
And Mind:
Asking for more government funding and then getting a bunch of private individuals to try and give you money (and processing 10,000 donations of $20 is FAR different than one of $200,000) are two very different things to deal with. I find comparing the two disingenuous. You do not. We differ on that Mind.
Yeah, and you know why that is?
Because they don't want to deal with the paperwork for it when they've never done it before...
Aren't most of them giant warehouses with "room" made up of wire mesh fencing and bunk beds (or just those isolating blanket sleeping bags)?
And, unless you have to hire guards/personnel at a higher rate then before when you get more people, the marginal cost per new person would only be going down, since you usually get discounts for buying toothpaste in bulk....
Post automatically merged:
Now i'm even more convinced you're just arguing based solely on ideology without bothering to inform yourself better about the situation on the ground.
Did you miss the whole "catch and release" argument about Obama? Even the people who don't claim asylum they'd still go through the court system, since, you know, that's how laws work. Hell, the whole reason why they separate kids from parents is because of a '90's case during Clinton's era where a judge ruled they can't detain minors in "border jail" for more then X days...
Last edited:
Considering how the children we have in custody usually have families that are able and willing to take them but aren't being allowed by the Trump administration I'd say that no I don't really care about the premium we're paying above and beyond what we would pay to keep them in the same facility with their parents no I'm not particularly concerned about the preventing them from leaving surcharge.
Asylum isn't a binary of valid vs not valid. Even suggesting that is shorthand for "I don't know what I'm talking about."
You got
- people not claiming asylum who SHOULD, but rumor says if you do, you'll get deported
- people coming and should NOT, but rumor says if you do, you'll get into the U.S.
I highlight those separately because many of these people don't have access to Politifact or any other crap we take for granted. Like some states in the U.S., more weight is given to rumor than news. This is why the whole "discouragement" idea fails.
Then we got:
- people who claim asylum because they have a credible fear, but asylum officers say they don't (this requires a court hearing after)
- people who claim asylum because they have a credible fear, and the asylum officer agrees (also requires a court hearing)
- people who have a credible fear, but their case falls outside the parameters of asylum basis
- people who have a credible fear, have a claim to asylum, but the law is written in a way the Judge can fudge it on a whim
- people who have a credible fear have a claim, and are granted
This isn't even getting into withholding under INA, withholding under the Convention Against Torture, or deferral under the Convention Against Torture.
Here's the basic situation though:
Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala are varying levels of nightmare states right now. If you're from Mexico, you probably have the highest chance of a successful claim because there are so many situations where the police work with the cartel. However, that's unlikely to be an asylum claim, and will probably be Convention Against Torture.
The other three: it's largely gangs, and it's absolute chaos. There's almost zero chance of getting asylum because the gangs go after everyone and anyone, so even if you're part of a protected group, say, homosexual? You have to prove they're attacking you for that specific reason and not just any other, and even then the judge can just say it was for general violence, because it's largely going to be on your word. You have a better chance of asylum from the countries if you're the victim of an abusive spouse, because the police tend to treat those cases as not their problem, and even that is VERY recent case law.
But how to tell which case is which? You can't. Most of these people have a legitimate reason to fear return, it just doesn't sync up with our laws. There's no way to know without parsing through OR saying nobody from Central America gets in.
But that's just a region of four countries. We have refugees coming in from the Middle East, China, India, etc. Political refugees, religious refugees, on and on and on. I legally can't give examples of the many, many horror stories, but the vast majority of people coming here and claiming asylum? They have a horror story. That our country ultimately decides that's not good enough isn't a reason for them not to try.
You got
- people not claiming asylum who SHOULD, but rumor says if you do, you'll get deported
- people coming and should NOT, but rumor says if you do, you'll get into the U.S.
I highlight those separately because many of these people don't have access to Politifact or any other crap we take for granted. Like some states in the U.S., more weight is given to rumor than news. This is why the whole "discouragement" idea fails.
Then we got:
- people who claim asylum because they have a credible fear, but asylum officers say they don't (this requires a court hearing after)
- people who claim asylum because they have a credible fear, and the asylum officer agrees (also requires a court hearing)
- people who have a credible fear, but their case falls outside the parameters of asylum basis
- people who have a credible fear, have a claim to asylum, but the law is written in a way the Judge can fudge it on a whim
- people who have a credible fear have a claim, and are granted
This isn't even getting into withholding under INA, withholding under the Convention Against Torture, or deferral under the Convention Against Torture.
Here's the basic situation though:
Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala are varying levels of nightmare states right now. If you're from Mexico, you probably have the highest chance of a successful claim because there are so many situations where the police work with the cartel. However, that's unlikely to be an asylum claim, and will probably be Convention Against Torture.
The other three: it's largely gangs, and it's absolute chaos. There's almost zero chance of getting asylum because the gangs go after everyone and anyone, so even if you're part of a protected group, say, homosexual? You have to prove they're attacking you for that specific reason and not just any other, and even then the judge can just say it was for general violence, because it's largely going to be on your word. You have a better chance of asylum from the countries if you're the victim of an abusive spouse, because the police tend to treat those cases as not their problem, and even that is VERY recent case law.
But how to tell which case is which? You can't. Most of these people have a legitimate reason to fear return, it just doesn't sync up with our laws. There's no way to know without parsing through OR saying nobody from Central America gets in.
But that's just a region of four countries. We have refugees coming in from the Middle East, China, India, etc. Political refugees, religious refugees, on and on and on. I legally can't give examples of the many, many horror stories, but the vast majority of people coming here and claiming asylum? They have a horror story. That our country ultimately decides that's not good enough isn't a reason for them not to try.
Ur ugly
Last edited:
Are you Daenerys? Cause that shit's known.
(I was in the process of deleting that while you posted; that's why it's gone)
And it would be more than fair to say that this is actually the fault of the United States and it's drug policies... a lot of this is about protecting drug trade with the US because we pay stupid amounts for it here. Part of the legalization movement for a lot of drugs is about stopping the violence in the drug trade by strangling it's funding.
I am not comparing them. I understand there is a logistic hurdle, that they are not the same thing. I also know it isn't an impossible hurdle, or even a difficult one, especially when private companies are already a part of the equation.
We have people in great need and charity has been taken off the table. That flies in the face of fiscal conservatism and Republicans and Libertarians should both be utterly frustrated that our side of this situation is wrapped up in overpriced bureaucracy. Instead, conservatives like yourself are defending the choices made on the government side of things. There's no negotiation, no problem solving. Every solution except "the one", which ever side you're on, is all that anyone will accept.
It would be far cheaper and more humane to bring in a willing nonprofit to handle living conditions (but not security). That conservatives will not accept any solution except "gives us more funding" smacks of this situation being nothing more than a political football. Compromise is key here, but that hasn't happened for a long time. So people suffer while the two "teams" vie for supremacy. Maybe we'll get a solution after the next election. It is, frankly, deplorable.
You’d think, but not really. Board in my own eye, and all that. I’m also not sure it counts as a straw man argument unless I am deliberately misrepresenting you rather than just me reaching an incorrect conclusion based on incomplete information.
But, to address each of your points in turn:
- No argument here. If there weren’t so many people trying to cross the border illegally (and bringing their children along for the ride), it would definitely be easier (and less expensive) to process the smaller quantity of people. It would be easier to harvest grain if it didn’t come with so much chaff, too. But it does. Also, grain is a desirable thing, but the current wall-building administration has made it very clear that they don’t want any migrants, not even “good” ones.
- I don’t doubt that Dems see the negative PR for the Trump camp as a positive for them. But as I say above, I am (personally) not convinced that the current level of funding is insufficient. Sure, they SAY they need more money, but do they really? The various border organizations have repeatedly and famously been shown to be inefficient or even frequently ineffective, so to hear them begging for even more money does not fill me with confidence, exactly.
- I understand your POV and agree we should stem the tide. I just believe we have an obligation to treat the people like... people.
- I know you’re not a fan of catch-and-release, but if the budget doesn’t support holding everyone, then why try? Tossing the overflow back is not the same thing as having an open border, and is in fact less open border-y than keeping them housed, etc.
- They’re being labeled as concentration camps because they are places where these people are all being gathered together (i.e., “concentrated”) in one location for a particular purpose, which is the literal definition of the term. They are not “death camps,” but the people operating them certainly seem appallingly unconcerned about ensuring they don’t become that. In my opinion, the camps are actually “propaganda camps,” and their purpose is to serve as a warning to people considering emigrating to the US. They are hoping that word gets out about what happens there — “If you come here, this will happen to YOU. You will be tortured, your kids will be stolen, you might even die and WE WON’T CARE about any of it! Ha-haa!”
—Patrick
And to connect this with my post, this method shows our government lacks understanding of the cultures involved.
I agree that Straw Man usually is deliberate misrepresentation, but I don't think it needs to be. When people disagree, it's easy to put your own impression of the other side down, rather than respond to what they actually say. You're putting down what you heard. Still a straw man IMO, but not the same as deliberate misrepresentation either.
I guess it's just a warning to all of us when "implying" for people we hate the opinion of (or the person, depending) that we're not seeing what we want to see.
From a fully financial perspective, even wanting refugees doesn't always turn out great for employment/benefit (from Statistics Canada), but that's the cost of being humanitarian. But that's quite a different discussion of "wheat vs chaff" of legal immigration, versus what's happening at your southern border. The benefits of choosing who comes into your country, to a country's (hopefully) benefit is quite different than a "we need to accept refugees because of international treaties we've signed, but we're also getting a lot of illegals just rushing the border too."
And as for migration at all versus none, that's another discussion again. I think most would agree that unlimited incoming of any and all backgrounds is unlikely to benefit a country, but choosing some quantity could have benefits for filling jobs. Or it could be depressing wages. Or it could be stimulating economic activity, good for all. It's not a simple debate IMO.
The existing money isn't doing it. It's a decent measure that they don't have enough. You can argue about administration of it, but X money, Y result. And I think I demonstrated quite clearly that the 15x (or more) increase in claimants (even if not that much of an increase in attempted illegal crossings) is happening. Thus I'm convinced it's about funding, and given the "great concern" the left in your country has for them, that they wouldn't increase funding strikes of something else. But even on the "left/right divide, there's a couple of bills in both of your legislative houses trying to get more money there, I think that most legislators agree more funding is necessary.
But fair-minded people can disagree on this, and both inadequate funding and waste can be happening.
Any solution needs both IMO. You can't clean up flood damage while the water's still coming. I think it's a bigger factor than some others do.
I think this is a miscommunication between us. I don't think it's allowed to just "toss back" and I didn't advocate for such. Above I did say "Or maybe auto-deport, but that'd break other laws and treaties." I'm not sure you can just throw them out over the Mexican border, even if that's where they came from, especially if they're citizens of somewhere else. Thus it's a bit of "you have to deal with them somehow once they're over the border, and releasing them into the USA is a bad idea IMO.
I'm not debating the dictionary or historical definition Patrick (I linked the Internment wiki article a few pages ago), I'm just saying that the term is emotionally loaded from the Holocaust (correctly btw), so using it outside of that context carries similar baggage. The Uyghur camps in China are much closer to this, as they are places you're sent to because of race, political reasons, religion, and no hope of trial (let alone a fair one), and other horrific treatment that is the purpose rather than a side-effect of inadequate facilities. Nowhere that I've seen (not even the link that @jwhouk had above) claims that the bad conditions there are deliberate malice on the parts of those running the facilities. Higher administration is another topic.
Dunno, but I appreciate you trying to answer this, nobody else really has.
It's still there, it's just being subsidized by the website by removing ads.
Edit: and they can't even gild posts there. I'm actually surprised they did this rather than a full ban. T_D looooved to gild posts, which was the reason I assumed they'd be kept around so long. I kinda retract some of my cynicism.
Edit: and they can't even gild posts there. I'm actually surprised they did this rather than a full ban. T_D looooved to gild posts, which was the reason I assumed they'd be kept around so long. I kinda retract some of my cynicism.
Last edited:
figmentPez
Staff member
"Quarantined" but not gone. Doesn't sound like much is actually being done to address the problems.