The Jury Talks Back » 2011

7/30/2011

Dear Gregg Keller

Filed under: Uncategorized — Scott Jacobs @ 9:02 am

For officially deciding that GOProud can’t take part in an “official” capacity at CPAC, I would like to say to you the following:

Go fuck yourself.

A shame. I was actually hoping to attend this year.

Comments (6)

Recent Comments

Kman: One HOPES that Leopold burned that source and has learned a thing or two since 2006 (when he was apparently very green). But I suggest that caution is warranted ANYWAY because of the sheer size of this story ("cautious optimism" in my case). And I don't think we will have to wait until the Mueller report to find out if the Buzzfeed story holds water. Cohen is testifying on February 7, and he'll surely be asked to confirm and share specifics. And whatever one may think of Cohen's (supposed?) moral awakening, I don't think he is going to lie AGAIN to Congress. He simply has no incentive to lie.
DRJ: But a wall does nothing about the millions already here. That may be true in most states but not Texas. The border is very porous because migrants (legal and illegal) go back and forth to visit, trade, and work. It's why many Texans don't want a wall. Mexico is a big part of our culture from El Paso to Brownsville.
Dave: But let’s assume the government report is accurate for the entire border. What does it actually teach us? One lesson is that migrants decide when they want to come. Another lesson is that in the ports of entry where the government has put enhanced border security measures into place — walls/fencing, personnel, technology — security works. So shouldn’t we make sure the same things are done on the rest of the border, especially in West Texas where the drugs and migrants are now? I think the report supports quite different conclusions. Tightening security near populated and accessible areas is effective, and very few of the would-be immigrants turned back or deterred from those areas go to the most remote and dangerous areas. As the LA Times article notes, the Big Bend sector is 1/4 of the entire border. Due to its remoteness, the costs of building a wall here would presumably be the highest per mile. And the benefit of building a wall here would be the smallest per mile (only about 2% of the crossings occur in this 25% of the border) and (by far) the smallest in terms of crossings prevented per dollar spent. For the cost of building a 500 mile(!) wall here, we would (best case) increase the enforcement effectiveness from ~70% to 100% and stop a few thousand more attempted crossings per year.
Dave: ...that *what is important...
Dave: I guess we also don’t care if there are 11 million or 22 million of them already here. But a wall does nothing about the millions already here. In discussing the wall, it seems to me that is important is how many are getting past our current enforcement. But the Border Patrol statistics primarily deal with data from ports of entry, not the vast areas of the Texas border that have few resources and no wall, fencing, or similar security. We don’t have reliable statistics for those areas because we don’t know what is happening there. Further, we cannot reliably extrapolate what is happening in insecure border areas like West Texas based on statistics of what is happening in areas with enhanced security. This seems like a misinterpretation of the data to me. The Border Patrol statistics we have been discussing (in tables 3 & 4, for instance, and the figures in the same sections) are for the entire border, broken down into sectors. Data on Ports of Entry begins with Table 10. The Border Patrol patrols the entire border, but they (reasonably) put the most resources where there are the most attempted crossings. The more remote areas, like Big Bend, have far fewer attempted crossings. The LA Times article cites an increase in the Big Bend sector, but it is an increase in the sector with (by far) the lowest level of activity. As Table 3 shows, the BP is less effective there (70% effectiveness in 2016, down from 77% in 2015, as compared to closer to 90% in more accessible areas). But even if they were 100% effective in Big Bend, it would only stop a few thousand more people per year. This is why other sectors have a higher allocation of resources, and why the effectiveness here is lowest. Journalists look for "man bites dog" stories that will attract attention - hence this story is about a sector where the number of crossings is increasing while it is decreasing in most other places. But the sector has about *30 times* fewer crossings than the most active sector and represents something like 2% of the total illegal entries for the entire border. That doesn't mean we should ignore it, of course, but we should keep it in perspective.

SEARCH AMAZON USING THIS SEARCH BOX:

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.

- About Patterico
  - Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
    
    E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
    
    Profile
    
    Frequently Unasked Questions (FUQs)
    
    Contributor:
    Oh, That Liberal Media
    CaliforniaRepublic.org
    
    Linked by:
    Best of the Web
    The Corner
    How Appealing
    Hugh Hewitt
    InstaPundit
    Kausfiles
    Power Line
    The Volokh Conspiracy
    
    The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
- Categories:
- Archives:
- July 2011
  
  M T W T F S S
  
  « Jun Jan »
  
  1 2 3
  
  4 5 6 7 8 9 10
  
  11 12 13 14 15 16 17
  
  18 19 20 21 22 23 24
  
  25 26 27 28 29 30 31
- Blogroll
  - WordPress.com
  - WordPress.org
- Bear Flag League
- Homespun Bloggers
- Meta:
View My Stats

July 2011
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Jun				Jan »
				1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30	31

7/30/2011

Dear Gregg Keller

Blogroll