Just following orders.

[Matthew Strongin]

If we can take a step back from the trees and focus on the forest they are both cases involving the same underlying issue:

To enforce or not enforce laws based on the well-being and humanity of children. In both cases the children's best interests were violently ignored to uphold the law. I am bewildered by the inability to see this.

And I am bewildered at your inability to see that separating children from their parents and putting them in cages is unrelated to returning a child to his remaining living parent who wants him back. It's a strawman attempt, but they're unrelated, both in substance and in the law in question.

[mjbabcock]

Can you give me one example of any Constitutional law that was/is based on data? (Since that is the most basic form of our law). I honestly can't think of anything even remotely resembling a data driven decision. Nor can I if I think about the few other countries (not many honestly) constitutions that I know of.

And it's not about my own feelings or not, its about keeping a level head and not letting blind anger blind us. I have a deep compassion for everyone, but I also believe Plato was mostly right about what it takes to uphold a society.

Dude, I'm sure there are others here that will chime in with much more elegant prose than me, but you're neglecting that our laws are based on morality, on guiding principles that are appropriated from cultures and civilizations all over the world. The laws themselves are not data, nor are they data based. They are founded on ideas like fairness and equity. As for not having data as a means of interpret these laws, I think you are either being argumentative or ignorant. Huge decisions like Brown vs. Board of Education are based on data...I could argue that any case law is based on data. As I understand it, law is wholly focused on trying to parse out if a particular instance (data point) violated the law.

Sometimes trying to play devil's advocate to folks who are arguing principle doesn't make you the smartest guy in the room...it makes you the guy in the room no one wants to talk to.

[jclay]

Border Crossings Have Been Declining for Years, Despite Claims of a ‘Crisis of Illegal Immigration’ - The New York Times

Making problems worse instead of finding reasonable ways to solve them is an existential battle strategy for the GOP, plain and simple.

In Donald Trump & Company we have a remarkably corrosive, destructive cabal running, if you can call it that, the country. They are pouring gasoline on every partisan, wedge-issue they can in an effort to maintain control. It's a rotten way to run things and if its maintained, the maggots will eat us up.

[bcm119]

Can you give me one example of any Constitutional law that was/is based on data? (Since that is the most basic form of our law). I honestly can't think of anything even remotely resembling a data driven decision. Nor can I if I think about the few other countries (not many honestly) constitutions that I know of.

I wasn't talking about constitutional laws based on ethics, morality and tradition. I'm talking about the vast majority of decisions made by governments at every level, every day, to develop policy.

One of the main reasons for policy is public safety. Safety policies and laws are usually based on statistics that quantify threats to safety; DUI laws are a good example. Remember, we were talking about the policy by Trump to suspend entry of people from 7 Muslim-majority countries, a perfect example of a government policy that should have, and usually would have, been based on data.

The quality of this discussion is degrading. Like I said, I understand how your experience affects your perspective and I'm not trying to invalidate that.

[theflashunc]

Can you give me one example of any Constitutional law that was/is based on data? (Since that is the most basic form of our law). I honestly can't think of anything even remotely resembling a data driven decision. Nor can I if I think about the few other countries (not many honestly) constitutions that I know of.

And it's not about my own feelings or not, its about keeping a level head and not letting blind anger blind us. I have a deep compassion for everyone, but I also believe Plato was mostly right about what it takes to uphold a society.

The Commerce Clause is one prominent example. The Articles of Confederation did not give the original Congress power to regulate interstate commerce. The result was a disaster for a whole host of reasons, but the experience and, yes, data gleaned from Articles of Confederation implementation is a direct reason why Congress now has the explicit power to oversee national commerce.

[monadnocky]

Do you even have a basic understanding of what this chart is telling you? Is this speaking to a lack of enforcement that ends in arrest or apprehension? Or is it proposing that the volume of illegal border crossing is reducing?

I didn't read the article, I just looked at the chart.

Perhaps you can fill me in about my basic understanding that appears to be lacking, but I'm guessing that the NPR graph is largely correlated with this graph as well:

chart-1-of-3-undocumented-immigrant-flows-from-mexico-to-the-united-states.png

But I'm guessing you're reading it as a lack of enforcement (which was ramped up significantly in the Obama administration)?

[woodworker]

[QUOTE=0nelove;913792]Can you give me one example of any Constitutional law that was/is based on data? (Since that is the most basic form of our law). I honestly can't think of anything even remotely resembling a data driven decision.

I want to respond to this part of your post, but I also want to understand what you mean when you say "any Constitutional law that was based on data." Do you mean a U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld a law as constitutional, or do you mean a constitutional law that was drafted and passed by Congress that was based on data, or do you mean a U.S. Supreme Court decision that made an important Constitutional holding that was based on data. I'm not sure that the distinction is important in terms of the answer (affirmative) to your question, but the basis of the response would be different.

I work as a lawyer. I'm not primarily an appellate lawyer, but I've done a fair amount of it and I'm familiar with the process. At all levels, the courts of appeal allow Amicus briefs, which are filed by non-litigants who nevertheless have a stake in the outcome of a case--think trade organizations, e.g. the AMA, or the insurance lobby. In order to persuade the Court, they filed briefs filled with data to support the pragmatic side of a decision. This occurs all the time and is important in terms of the Court's decision-making process. This goes on at all levels and definitely happens in a very sophisticated way with the U.S. Supremes. This is also done by the litigants. The Hollingsworth v. Perry case on gay marriage under the California Constitution is a good example, as there were extensive findings of fact re data on gay marriages, gay couples and children, and other issues that might be taken into consideration by the state in prohibiting gay marriage. I haven't looked at the parallel U.S. Supremes decision, but I'm sure that substantial similar data was used [clue: check the footnotes, which will cite to it]. Most cases, including those interpreting the U.S. Constitution at the highest levels will rely upon substantial data. No one would argue that data is the only driver in most Constitutional decisions, but it certainly has an important impact in many if not most decisions. Another example would be decisions re gun control under the Second Amendment. Many of the lower court decisions interpreting U.S. Supremes Heller decision will look at statistics. Many decisions interpreting the U.S. Constitution also have to balance state interests vs. individual interests. In doing so, Court's will look at impacts, i.e. data.

As to laws that are passed, and whether they conform to the Constitution, look in the Federal Record, and you will find in the legislative history similar data battles. The drivers (lobbyists) have their agendas, but the battles are often data-driven.

In other words, your assertion is an oversimplification that would seem to argue against the use of facts in debating important policy decisions. Certainly, I have a starting point of view (often based on N=1 experience), but in many areas those views have changed as I've examined the facts. For me, that's been true of gay marriage, immigration, climate change, etc.

A good litmus test is to ask yourself when you last changed your view on something because you examined the facts. Use the facts as a pin to prick the bubble.

[0nelove]

[QUOTE=woodworker;913809]

A good litmus test is to ask yourself when you last changed your view on something because you examined the facts. Use the facts as a pin to prick the bubble.

I read your whole post, so please don't take offense that I only quoted this part. My point, as with almost all of my points, has to do with the overlying aspect of law. That the law is made, enforced and upheld, by each according to his or her beliefs. A liberal scj, or senator or congressman will always sway towards liberal ideals, a conservative towards conservative, regardless of "data." The data supports this.

To believe that empirical data sways people beyond their beliefs is to believe in make believe and unicorns. It simply isn't the case in the real world. It isn't the case in this thread. And it won't ever be the case in the future. Impartiality and subjectivity are myths. Otherwise the election of people would make little difference except in their intelligence, because they would all be impartial. Obviously not the case.

And to Matt S. I seem to remember E. Gonzalez' father was a violent abuser- a large part of why the mother was fleeing. A cage? No. But maybe much worse.

[Mabouya]

And to Matt S. I seem to remember E. Gonzalez' father was a violent abuser- a large part of why the mother was fleeing. A cage? No. But maybe much worse.

Other than the accusations from the US-based folks who were clearly biased against the father, there's nothing here about the father abusing the son:

Elian Gonzalez - Wikipedia

In a September 2005 interview with 60 Minutes after being sent back to Cuba, González stated that during his stay in the U.S., his family members were "telling me bad things about [my father]", and "were also telling me to tell him that I did not want to go back to Cuba, and I always told them I wanted to."

[Matthew Strongin]

I read your whole post, so please don't take offense that I only quoted this part. My point, as with almost all of my points, has to do with the overlying aspect of law. That the law is made, enforced and upheld, by each according to his or her beliefs. A liberal scj, or senator or congressman will always sway towards liberal ideals, a conservative towards conservative, regardless of "data." The data supports this.

To believe that empirical data sways people beyond their beliefs is to believe in make believe and unicorns. It simply isn't the case in the real world. It isn't the case in this thread. And it won't ever be the case in the future. Impartiality and subjectivity are myths. Otherwise the election of people would make little difference except in their intelligence, because they would all be impartial. Obviously not the case.

And to Matt S. I seem to remember E. Gonzalez' father was a violent abuser- a large part of why the mother was fleeing. A cage? No. But maybe much worse.

So is your point just prove that people won't ever change their minds? If so, why bother participating. And why bother trying to suggest that we should be discussing solutions and not just complaining (as you did in an early post). If you want to engage in debate about the best way to address immigration in the US, stick around. But if you just want to use logical fallacies to prove that we believe in unicorns, please stop.

[zachateseverything]

If we can take a step back from the trees and focus on the forest they are both cases involving the same underlying issue:

To enforce or not enforce laws based on the well-being and humanity of children. In both cases the children's best interests were violently ignored to uphold the law. I am bewildered by the inability to see this.

Also, if the plural of anecdotes is not data, then everyone who has complained in this thread has just been completely undermined. I simply played devil's advocate and pointed that out. None of you have any empirical data whatsoever. And how could you? Ultimately we are talking about humanity and compassion and many other things that are not quantifiable and whether or not they supersede law.

But just go on ignoring this and yelling, "data!"

I'm not sure this follows any real logic. The recent separation of children from their parents had nothing to do with upholding the law. It had to do with upholding the policy decisions of the Trump administration. The Gonzalez case also had little to do with ignoring the best interests of the child.

and we have lots of data on this. We've gone from zero or near zero separation of children from their parents to ~65 children a day. We also know that instead of simply not treating asylum seekers as criminals the Trump administration is currently using the threat of not reuniting children with their parents in order to convince people to accept deportation.

Please stop trolling. You aren't playing devil's advocate. you're defending the indefensible and acting like a jerk.

[vertical_doug]

A more interesting question is there more bang for the buck by actually giving more foreign assistance to the country like El Salvador in trying to turn it around, than trying to build a wall on our southern border. Currently, US gives 45,700,000 / yr in assistance to the country. Compared to the $28 to 33 b estimate for the border wall, spending more and concentrating aid on el Salvador to try to change corruption, policing and gang violence is a viable long term solution.

The immigrant problem is not so much they want to go to America, it is they have decided to flee El Salvador. No wall stops that.

[colker]

A more interesting question is there more bang for the buck by actually giving more foreign assistance to the country like El Salvador in trying to turn it around, than trying to build a wall on our southern border. Currently, US gives 45,700,000 / yr in assistance to the country. Compared to the $28 to 33 b estimate for the border wall, spending more and concentrating aid on el Salvador to try to change corruption, policing and gang violence is a viable long term solution.

The immigrant problem is not so much they want to go to America, it is they have decided to flee El Salvador. No wall stops that.

That´s the way to go. "Imperialism"... which is how the left calls when US meddles w/ other countries internal affairs is much better than Trump´s isolationism.
I am all for the US taking democracy side on internal policies in central america.

[sine]

edit

The immigrant problem is not so much they want to go to America, it is they have decided to flee El Salvador. No wall stops that.

The Berlin Wall was pretty effective.

I'm not advocating for any such wall, just pointing out that if there is a will there is a way.

[woodworker]

[QUOTE=0nelove;913841]

I read your whole post, so please don't take offense that I only quoted this part. My point, as with almost all of my points, has to do with the overlying aspect of law. That the law is made, enforced and upheld, by each according to his or her beliefs. A liberal scj, or senator or congressman will always sway towards liberal ideals, a conservative towards conservative, regardless of "data." The data supports this.

To believe that empirical data sways people beyond their beliefs is to believe in make believe and unicorns. It simply isn't the case in the real world. It isn't the case in this thread. And it won't ever be the case in the future. Impartiality and subjectivity are myths. Otherwise the election of people would make little difference except in their intelligence, because they would all be impartial. Obviously not the case.

And to Matt S. I seem to remember E. Gonzalez' father was a violent abuser- a large part of why the mother was fleeing. A cage? No. But maybe much worse.

No offense taken--thanks for reading all of it.

I understand your point, but I guess I take issue with this: "To believe that empirical data sways people beyond their beliefs is to believe in make believe and unicorns." (BTW, my young daughters might disagree with you on the unicorns.)

Sure, we all view data through the lens of our own experiences. That's a given. What's currently in vogue, however, is disregarding the data or facts altogether, and doing so with panache, and people loving it. That's a problem. Not that it hasn't happened in the past, but in this country to this extent--not in my lifetime. Even Bush and his Administration realized that they had to mold the facts to justify their WOMD argument. They thought that they had to justify military intervention based on facts (purported facts), sending Colin Powell out to make their arguments. I didn't buy it, but I think that it was a different type of argument than what Trump is using. When Trump said that he could shoot someone and that his supporters would still follow him, what he was really saying is that the facts didn't matter. So far, at least, he's been proven right.

When you make the statement above about facts and unicorns, you seem to be pitching the facts to the side. The facts just don't matter--you won't persuade anyone with them. They're dull instruments. That's really not discourse, then. I might as well just throw in the towel and walk away.

Perhaps viewed from your lens, I'm on my daughters' side then. I think that there are many, many people for whom facts matter, and who can be persuaded. I think this every time (well, not every time) but most times that I walk into court--and many times I'm right. I'm rewarded for making the arguments, and basing them on evidence or facts. When you say that, "To believe that empirical data sways people beyond their beliefs is to believe in make believe and unicorns," one could easily infer that you don't care for the facts. Dunno. Hope not. But that's certainly the impression that you're likely to leave.

[fiveller]

edit



The Berlin Wall was pretty effective.

I'm not advocating for any such wall, just pointing out that if there is a will there is a way.

Not really:

"During this period (1950-94), despite an excess of births over deaths, East Germany's population declined by 2.9 million, numbering 15.5 million in 1994. This was the result of the substantial losses stemming from migration. Between 1950 and 1994 East Germany lost 4.9 million people to West Germany alone."

Changing Patterns of Immigration to Germany, 1945-1997 -- Rainer Munz and Ralf E. Ulrich - Research & Seminars | Migration Dialogue

The East/West German border was a lot shorter than the US/Mexico border with less hostile terrain. Still didn't work so well.

[doomridesout]

To believe that empirical data sways people beyond their beliefs is to believe in make believe and unicorns. It simply isn't the case in the real world. It isn't the case in this thread. And it won't ever be the case in the future. Impartiality and subjectivity are myths. Otherwise the election of people would make little difference except in their intelligence, because they would all be impartial. Obviously not the case.
.

I agree that psychology and personal belief plays a greater role in decision making than many people would care to admit. Such is the sad reality of a species whose societies have outrun the biology of their brains. But to say that facts don't matter because there is no objectivity is essentially a license to return to burning witches and believing mice come from hay. The use of facts and scientific data, the pursuit of reasonably reliable information on which to base decisions, is essentially an aspirational act. It is also completely necessary to run a modern society without descent into chaos. If you think policy makers, the judicary, etc. don't use facts to make decisions, you are being willfully ignorant.

Much of the right is willing to deploy dime-store versions of tropes of postmodernity to discount facts, and then scream endlessly about moral relativism. Or at least they used to before they descended into complete ethics-irrelevant whataboutism.

Data-driven policymaking is not about finding Truth, it's about finding the best available information to make decisions bounded in time. Throwing in the towel leaves us vulnerable to rule by fiat, which is what is happening now.

[vertical_doug]

Not really:

"During this period (1950-94), despite an excess of births over deaths, East Germany's population declined by 2.9 million, numbering 15.5 million in 1994. This was the result of the substantial losses stemming from migration. Between 1950 and 1994 East Germany lost 4.9 million people to West Germany alone."

Changing Patterns of Immigration to Germany, 1945-1997 -- Rainer Munz and Ralf E. Ulrich - Research & Seminars | Migration Dialogue

The East/West German border was a lot shorter than the US/Mexico border with less hostile terrain. Still didn't work so well.

Fortifications of the inner German border - Wikipedia

We can have a line of watch towers with rotating flood lights on top. An electrified fence, booby traps and anti-personnel mines.

Definitely cheaper to help rebuild the country. When you consider our backing of the military to prevent the leftist from taking over plunged the country into 12 years of civil war..... its the least we can do..... ( sin started by Carter, and accelerated by Reagan.)

[vertical_doug]

Data-driven policymaking is not about finding Truth, it's about finding the best available information to make decisions bounded in time. Throwing in the towel leaves us vulnerable to rule by fiat, which is what is happening now.

and the really bad stuff hasn't even started yet...

[woodworker]

Quoting from above--that's pretty much it: "Data-driven policymaking is not about finding Truth, it's about finding the best available information to make decisions bounded in time. Throwing in the towel leaves us vulnerable to rule by fiat, which is what is happening now."

That's where were at, and it's an aberration, at least in this country IMHO.