2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

[theprestige]

Why does she want to end private detention facilities? She says people shouldn't profit from cruelty. But if she changes how the facilities operate, doesn't that resolve profit from cruelty? Or is she saying her policies will include government ran cruelty?

These are good questions.

That part of Warren's plan doesn't make sense logically, unless we assume that the detention centers themselves are cruelty.

The idea of private citizens profiting from government detention centers is interesting, but obviously problematic. It does raise an interesting question, though: What if immigrant detention were outsourced to non-profits?

What if some progressive group, that takes immigration and border control seriously, but also has sincere humanitarian concerns about the people being detained, were to establish a non-profit NGO for operating immigration detention centers?

Could that work?

Presumably, such a non-profit would have higher costs, since they would not be inclined to cut corners on quality of life of the inmates. On the other hand, they might still be able to charge less because they wouldn't need to show a profit to investors.

It would be interesting to see what kinds of standards and guidelines such an organization would develop, for guaranteeing that their inmates were effectively detained, and enjoyed a reasonable quality of life while being detained.

 

[Aridas]

Why does she want to end private detention facilities?

There's a number of reasons to end private prisons.

She says people shouldn't profit from cruelty. But if she changes how the facilities operate, doesn't that resolve profit from cruelty?

You say that as if it's actually that easy to change or that there's particularly good reason to support that route.

Or is she saying her policies will include government ran cruelty?

Not in a relevant sense to the line of thought in play. Also, getting from the previous question to this one requires a strange contortion of logic.

 

[Aridas]

These are good questions.

That part of Warren's plan doesn't make sense logically, unless we assume that the detention centers themselves are cruelty.

Addressed in the section right before it, if one's actually paying attention.

End unnecessary detention. We already have the tools to effectively track and monitor individuals without shoving them into cages and camps along the border. As President, I’ll issue guidance ensuring that detention is only used where it is actually necessary because an individual poses a flight or safety risk. I will put additional layers of protection in place for certain groups, including asylum seekers, families and pregnant women, and LGBTQ+ people who are more vulnerable in a general detention facility. And I’ll enforce strict standards for remaining detention facilities, including for medical care and to end the use of solitary confinement.

It's likely worth pointing out that, for example, employing ankle monitors is much cheaper, pretty much just as effective (very possibly more effective in the long run if we include indirect effects), overwhelmingly more humane, and allows the people in question to actually contribute to the US, rather than being part of a skyrocketing drain on tax payer dollars.

ETA: And the section after, really, for good measure.

Expand the executive use of parole and invest in alternatives-to-detention. DHS has broad authority to parole individuals who are detained prior to their cases being heard in immigration court. Community-based alternatives to detention are safer, save money, and can be more effective at ensuring compliance. I’ll significantly expand successful programs, which include case management, referrals to legal and social services, and periodic check-ins and surveillance. These programs provide a measure of dignity for those in the system, and their expanded use would save over a billion dollars each year in unnecessary detention costs.

Incidentally, for reference about how much cheaper...

ATDs are more cost-effective than detention. ICE spends an average of more than $200 each day to detain someone in immigration detention, and, when detaining families, spends even more, as much as $319 per person per day. In contrast, low-cost ATD programs like community supervision or electronic monitoring programs can cost as little as $4.50 per day. In 2018, Congress funded ATDs at $180 million, an increase of $66 million from 2017, demonstrating its interest in funding these programs.

It's a tiny, tiny fraction of the cost.

The idea of private citizens profiting from government detention centers is interesting, but obviously problematic. It does raise an interesting question, though: What if immigrant detention were outsourced to non-profits?

What if some progressive group, that takes immigration and border control seriously, but also has sincere humanitarian concerns about the people being detained, were to establish a non-profit NGO for operating immigration detention centers?

Could that work?

Presumably, such a non-profit would have higher costs, since they would not be inclined to cut corners on quality of life of the inmates. On the other hand, they might still be able to charge less because they wouldn't need to show a profit to investors.

It would be interesting to see what kinds of standards and guidelines such an organization would develop, for guaranteeing that their inmates were effectively detained, and enjoyed a reasonable quality of life while being detained.

It would be better than the current system, but still pointlessly wasteful when there are distinctly better options at hand.

 

[BobTheCoward]

There's a number of reasons to end private prisons.



You say that as if it's actually that easy to change or that there's particularly good reason to support that route.



Not in a relevant sense to the line of thought in play. Also, getting from the previous question to this one requires a strange contortion of logic.

Is there any evidence that it is more.or less difficult to change public detention than a private one? Can she impose restrictions on a public facility she can't on a private one?

 

[Aridas]

Is there any evidence that it is more.or less difficult to change public detention than a private one? Can she impose restrictions on a public facility she can't on a private one?

You are aware, of course, of some of the fundamental issues with for profit businesses, in general, quietly reducing services to increase profits, right? Again, though, this entire line of questioning is somewhat wrong-headed, as I touched on further in the reply I had just made to theprestige. The private prisons part is part of a larger answer and singling it out as if it's not is to take it out of context.

 

[BobTheCoward]

You are aware, of course, of some of the fundamental issues with for profit businesses, in general, quietly reducing services to increase profits, right? Again, though, this entire line of questioning is somewhat wrong-headed, as I touched on further in the reply I had just made to theprestige. The private prisons part is part of a larger answer and singling it out as if it's not is to take it out of context.

I am not aware of that. I would like to see the research supporting your claim.

 

[Aridas]

I am not aware of that. I would like to see the research supporting your claim.

Yeah, I'm not going to bother trying to prove to you that common measures to maximize profits are common measures to maximize profits in a thread that should be focused on the 2020 Democratic candidates. So, moving on.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Yeah, I'm not going to bother trying to prove to you that common measures to maximize profits are common measures to maximize profits in a thread that should be focused on the 2020 Democratic candidates. So, moving on.

If it is so common, then gathering evidence to support your claim would be even easier. As it is, you are making a claim without presenting evidence to support it.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

While not specifically about the Presidential candidates, the party unity issue seems to be slipping beyond hope...

Yesterday William Lacy Clay went on Fox News and gave their audience a nice Jerry Springer show:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/de...2L_E7lOX5Mf1cGHqLstMKXsK5FUzf3x3NbT6O_WUZ_P3s

Speaking to Fox News on Thursday night, Clay hammered Ocasio-Cortez's suggestion.

"It was such a weak argument to say she was being picked on and that four women of color were being picked on by the speaker," he said.

"It tells you the level of ignorance to American history on their part as to what we are as the Democratic Caucus.

"It is so inappropriate. So uncalled for. It does not do anything to help with unity. It was unfair to Speaker Pelosi."

Clay continued his broadside, saying the comment exposed how much Ocasio-Cortez and Reps. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., and Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., have to learn when it comes to being "effective legislators".

"It’s going to take a process of maturing for those freshman members. They will have to learn to be effective legislators," he said.

"It shows their lack of sensitivity to racism. To fall back on that (trope) is a weak argument. It has no place in a civil discussion."

The lawmaker closed his remarks by suggesting the four freshmen could hurt Democratic chances in upcoming elections.

"It shows they have no sensibility to different members from our caucus. Some come from red districts and those are the ones who gave us the majority. We need them all," he said.

By the way, speaking of playing the race card, the Congressional Black Caucus is accusing Justice Democrats of specifically primarying their members:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campai...c-linked-justice-democrats-of-targeting-black

A senior House Democratic aide called it “ironic and funny” that Ocasio-Cortez is accusing Pelosi of attacking women of color, when Justice Democrats is targeting minority lawmakers.

“She’s only a woman of color when it’s convenient. None of the things she’s fought for aligned with communities of color and her group is funded only by elitist white liberals; she’s a puppet,” the top Democratic aide told The Hill in a phone call.

The aide then texted an image of a Goomba puppet from the Super Mario Bros. video game.

“I can’t tell you how pissed off people are” about the Justice Democrats, the aide added. “All these CBC members feel like they are under siege. But it’s offensive that these elitist white liberals feel like they can undermine the foundation of our party,” African American voters.

Got it. No infighting on Twitter.

Infighting is properly conducted by going to opposition inside-the-beltway press, I guess.

Yeah, I get they don't want a circular firing squad (they might be in harm's way, then). They just want progressives to line up against the wall, please.

Now Trump is jumping on board the "disrespectful to Pelosi" narrative.

Great, the party apparatus now has the same messaging as the President.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Why does she want to end private detention facilities? She says people shouldn't profit from cruelty. But if she changes how the facilities operate, doesn't that resolve profit from cruelty? Or is she saying her policies will include government ran cruelty?

Under Obama, a study found that private detention facilities were less safe, less humane, more dangerous to personell and inmates, more expensive and had higher rates of recidivism than state operated ones.
As a result, Obama stopped the use of private prisons for Federal offenses.

Trump reversed that as one of his first acts.


Warren is just applying the lessons learned: private detention facilities are objectively worse on every parameter. Until they can provide comparative service at competitive prices, they shouldn't get the job.
Simple as that.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Under Obama, a study found that private detention facilities were less safe, less humane, more dangerous to personell and inmates, more expensive and had higher rates of recidivism than state operated ones.
As a result, Obama stopped the use of private prisons for Federal offenses.

Trump reversed that as one of his first acts.


Warren is just applying the lessons learned: private detention facilities are objectively worse on every parameter. Until they can provide comparative service at competitive prices, they shouldn't get the job.
Simple as that.

She doesn't say this. If she did, I would have responded differently.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

She doesn't say this. If she did, I would have responded differently.

she doesn't need to. It's public knowledge.
Everyone studying the issue is well aware.

 

[BobTheCoward]

she doesn't need to. It's public knowledge.
Everyone studying the issue is well aware.

I can only respond to the argument someone makes.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I can only respond to the argument someone makes.

That's not our problem.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I can only respond to the argument someone makes.

she didn't make an argument - she presented a plan.

 

[BobTheCoward]

That's not our problem.

I mean, you are free to substitute an argument for a position that person is not making. But I don't think you will like it when people start doing it to you.

 

[Tero]

serious note: register to vote
Trump got 46%, Hillary got 48% and Jill Stein got some
It would not have been that way if Democrats had remembered to SHOW UP!
even 45% Trump and 49% Hillary would have avoided all this!
Forget Sanders if he does not get the nomination! Vote Sleepy Joe!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

serious note: register to vote
Trump got 46%, Hillary got 48% and Jill Stein got some
It would not have been that way if Democrats had remembered to SHOW UP!
even 45% Trump and 49% Hillary would have avoided all this!
Forget Sanders if he does not get the nomination! Vote Sleepy Joe!

See my sig.

 

[dudalb]

I am worried that members of the Bernie cult will sit this one out if Sanders does not get the nomination...which seems a probable outcome at this point.

 

[The Atheist]

I am worried that members of the Bernie cult will sit this one out if Sanders does not get the nomination...which seems a probable outcome at this point.

They didn't to any great degree last time, and that was in the face of being ripped off. This time in, I'd say they will suck it in and vote anyway, because he'll lose on his merits to a better candidate. (unless it's Biden, in which case, it wouldn't matter who they vote for)