The Republican Utopia

[BigRedBuster]

Generally, in the case of businesses or organizations, you only conduct self-review like that in response to a lack of efficiency or success. You don't really spend the energy to ascertain whether a certain policy could be operating better if that policy is already at ~99% success rate.

Actually, no not really. Lean Manufacturing preaches continual improvement. You constantly should be evaluating processes to see if they can be improved on. At least good organizations do that.

We had a production process that has ran amazingly well for years. Sure, we improved here and there with little things. This year we went in and completely reevaluated the process and now we are seeing a 20-25% increase in production on that line. Most on our team thought that not possible when we started. If we had the idea of...."If it ain't broke don't fix it, we wouldn't have been able to do this.

 

[ColoNoCoHusker]

BRB/LOMS - Continuous improvement as a business practice is part of numerous certifications, audits, industry methodologies, etc. As you mentioned, the idea is to constantly evaluate if something can be done better. I have never seen it implemented in a way that halts the business or business function unless there is an actual egregious finding. The idea is assume success, check for failure.

If something is already at 99% efficient, how do you know that unless you are tracking based on a process of continuous improvement? If you have the key performance indicators in place, the evaluation is very easy to do real-time.

You are both correct from different sides of the coin, especially as comparing it back to our immigration policy ban. It could not more asinine ban based on a feeling nowhere rooted in fact.

 

[Beez]

Quick question, what's everyone's problem with enforcing our immigration laws?

You mean our current laws or whatever it is Trump's trying to do? Because those are two very different things.

For example - Trump's Muslim ban excludes countries where he has business ties. Do you agree or disagree with this selective enforcement? Do you think this is an ethics violation?

I'm talking about deporting illegal immigrants. As for the so called 'Muslim ban', you could look at it from a business interest or that those countries are war zones. How do you vet a refugee from Syria for instance? It's nearly impossible.

 

[knapplc]

Quick question, what's everyone's problem with enforcing our immigration laws?

You mean our current laws or whatever it is Trump's trying to do? Because those are two very different things.

For example - Trump's Muslim ban excludes countries where he has business ties. Do you agree or disagree with this selective enforcement? Do you think this is an ethics violation?

I'm talking about deporting illegal immigrants. As for the so called 'Muslim ban', you could look at it from a business interest or that those countries are war zones. How do you vet a refugee from Syria for instance? It's nearly impossible.

Who has expressed a problem with deporting illegal immigrants?

You can look at a Muslim ban from any number of angles. The best one would be the human angle, as in, they're humans, they're suffering, if we can help then we should.

It isn't impossible to vet refugees from a war zone. It just takes work. That's a small price to pay to help someone whose life is on the line.

 

[Beez]

Quick question, what's everyone's problem with enforcing our immigration laws?

You mean our current laws or whatever it is Trump's trying to do? Because those are two very different things.

For example - Trump's Muslim ban excludes countries where he has business ties. Do you agree or disagree with this selective enforcement? Do you think this is an ethics violation?

I'm talking about deporting illegal immigrants. As for the so called 'Muslim ban', you could look at it from a business interest or that those countries are war zones. How do you vet a refugee from Syria for instance? It's nearly impossible.

Who has expressed a problem with deporting illegal immigrants?

You can look at a Muslim ban from any number of angles. The best one would be the human angle, as in, they're humans, they're suffering, if we can help then we should.

It isn't impossible to vet refugees from a war zone. It just takes work. That's a small price to pay to help someone whose life is on the line.

People express problems with deporting illegal immigrants all the time. It was a part of the Women Marches.

So how would you vet the refugees? Would you ask Syria's government for information about them? I'm asking these questions because I don't feel it's possible at this point.

 

[ColoNoCoHusker]

Quick question, what's everyone's problem with enforcing our immigration laws?

You mean our current laws or whatever it is Trump's trying to do? Because those are two very different things.

For example - Trump's Muslim ban excludes countries where he has business ties. Do you agree or disagree with this selective enforcement? Do you think this is an ethics violation?

I'm talking about deporting illegal immigrants. As for the so called 'Muslim ban', you could look at it from a business interest or that those countries are war zones. How do you vet a refugee from Syria for instance? It's nearly impossible.

Who has expressed a problem with deporting illegal immigrants?

You can look at a Muslim ban from any number of angles. The best one would be the human angle, as in, they're humans, they're suffering, if we can help then we should.

It isn't impossible to vet refugees from a war zone. It just takes work. That's a small price to pay to help someone whose life is on the line.

It is not an insurmountable problem, nor has it been. I have seen a few different numbers of terrorist that passed the vetting but should not have. Both sets of numbers are single-digits out of hundreds of thousands of people. We are talking on the order of 0.000007% of the total.

By comparison, our judicial system WRONGFULLY convicts between 0.025% and 0.00017% of those convicted in any given year. The most conservative number is 100x as many as wrongfully passed immigration vetting. Given so many more people wrongfully convicted, should we suspend our judicial system while we determine the efficacy? It is ludicrous.

I am not saying changes should not be made but to ban immigration from certain countries despite the facts is crazy.

 

[knapplc]

Quick question, what's everyone's problem with enforcing our immigration laws?

You mean our current laws or whatever it is Trump's trying to do? Because those are two very different things.

For example - Trump's Muslim ban excludes countries where he has business ties. Do you agree or disagree with this selective enforcement? Do you think this is an ethics violation?

I'm talking about deporting illegal immigrants. As for the so called 'Muslim ban', you could look at it from a business interest or that those countries are war zones. How do you vet a refugee from Syria for instance? It's nearly impossible.

Who has expressed a problem with deporting illegal immigrants?

You can look at a Muslim ban from any number of angles. The best one would be the human angle, as in, they're humans, they're suffering, if we can help then we should.

It isn't impossible to vet refugees from a war zone. It just takes work. That's a small price to pay to help someone whose life is on the line.

People express problems with deporting illegal immigrants all the time. It was a part of the Women Marches.

So how would you vet the refugees? Would you ask Syria's government for information about them? I'm asking these questions because I don't feel it's possible at this point.

I haven't heard that deporting illegals was a theme of the Women's Marches. Can't really comment on that.

I don't have any idea how to vet refugees. That's why we have professionals in place doing that work. I understand why you say it wouldn't be possible, and I'm sure it's super hard, but I'm sure they have solid methods.

 

[Beez]

Quick question, what's everyone's problem with enforcing our immigration laws?

You mean our current laws or whatever it is Trump's trying to do? Because those are two very different things.

For example - Trump's Muslim ban excludes countries where he has business ties. Do you agree or disagree with this selective enforcement? Do you think this is an ethics violation?

I'm talking about deporting illegal immigrants. As for the so called 'Muslim ban', you could look at it from a business interest or that those countries are war zones. How do you vet a refugee from Syria for instance? It's nearly impossible.

Who has expressed a problem with deporting illegal immigrants?

You can look at a Muslim ban from any number of angles. The best one would be the human angle, as in, they're humans, they're suffering, if we can help then we should.

It isn't impossible to vet refugees from a war zone. It just takes work. That's a small price to pay to help someone whose life is on the line.

People express problems with deporting illegal immigrants all the time. It was a part of the Women Marches.

So how would you vet the refugees? Would you ask Syria's government for information about them? I'm asking these questions because I don't feel it's possible at this point.

I haven't heard that deporting illegals was a theme of the Women's Marches. Can't really comment on that.

Rooted in the promise of America’s call for huddled masses yearning to breathe free, we believe in immigrant and refugee rights regardless of status or country of origin. We believe migration is a human right and that no human being is illegal.

https://www.womensmarch.com/principles/

 

[NM11046]

Quick question, what's everyone's problem with enforcing our immigration laws?

You mean our current laws or whatever it is Trump's trying to do? Because those are two very different things.

For example - Trump's Muslim ban excludes countries where he has business ties. Do you agree or disagree with this selective enforcement? Do you think this is an ethics violation?

I'm talking about deporting illegal immigrants. As for the so called 'Muslim ban', you could look at it from a business interest or that those countries are war zones. How do you vet a refugee from Syria for instance? It's nearly impossible.

Who has expressed a problem with deporting illegal immigrants?

You can look at a Muslim ban from any number of angles. The best one would be the human angle, as in, they're humans, they're suffering, if we can help then we should.

It isn't impossible to vet refugees from a war zone. It just takes work. That's a small price to pay to help someone whose life is on the line.

People express problems with deporting illegal immigrants all the time. It was a part of the Women Marches.

So how would you vet the refugees? Would you ask Syria's government for information about them? I'm asking these questions because I don't feel it's possible at this point.

No, it wasn't at the Marches. The absolute opposite was though. ALCU and many others supporting immigration rights and protections.

 

[JJ Husker]

I think it is useful to examine how many folks wound up feeling the same way to Señor ED (still not used to you being JJ man!) does about immigration. JJ, I don't know your how your feelings on this subject evolved, so I'm not accusing you of falling for this by any stretch. But a heck of a lot of people did.

A "Big Lie" is a propaganda technique dating back, ironically, to Hitler himself in Main Kampf.

Basically, if you say something over and over and over again, people begin to think it's true. It doesn't matter if it's completely devoid of facts, and having a strong emotional component to what you're saying and a platform like Trump's helps.

He suckered a lot of people into believing this nonsense that "we have no way of vetting these people" or "our borders are open and people are just pouring in" or whatever else it is now. I understand the argument for tightening up immigration policies, though I disagree with it. But this guy got millions of people to believe we're in eminent dangerous from nonexistent vetting procedures, and he did it through a fear-laden lie.

My feelings have extremely little to do with anything Trump has done. If anything, the fact that Trump wants to do this makes me more skeptical. However, I do find it highly plausible that the previous administration did not place as high a level of importance on assuring that these vetting procedures were thorough and being fully implemented. I will acknowledge that what they have been doing must be fairly effective though. The flow chart that Q posted would appear to be a fairly thorough vetting but I am not opposed to reviewing it and making reasonable adjustments if any are identified as making it better. I am hopeful that all of these reset and review efforts will be temporary in nature. Maybe they (Trump) will discover that a lot of the nonsense he has been spewing is mostly baseless. Maybe it is all for show. It just strikes me that he may just being extremely thorough in his approach. I guess I do like that he's actually doing something visible. Seems too many of these characters get to Washington and just settle in to the status quo without questioning much of anything. And yes, I understand the elevated level of concern with manner in which he presents these things and that he may not be receiving the checks and balances with the R controlled congress. But I'm still holding out hope that it may not be all as bad as it potentially may end up being and hopefully nowhere near as bad as so many around here are fearing.

If my logic that people coming in record numbers from war torn countries that harbor large numbers of terrorists and ISIS elements is potentially more dangerous than allowing people from other more western friendly locales, then that is all on me and it has nothing to do with Trump spouting stuff. I feel no need to bend over backwards and ignore my common sense in an effort to prove that we're somehow better or more accepting than other countries.

 

[Landlord]

Generally, in the case of businesses or organizations, you only conduct self-review like that in response to a lack of efficiency or success. You don't really spend the energy to ascertain whether a certain policy could be operating better if that policy is already at ~99% success rate.

Actually, no not really. Lean Manufacturing preaches continual improvement. You constantly should be evaluating processes to see if they can be improved on. At least good organizations do that.

We had a production process that has ran amazingly well for years. Sure, we improved here and there with little things. This year we went in and completely reevaluated the process and now we are seeing a 20-25% increase in production on that line. Most on our team thought that not possible when we started. If we had the idea of...."If it ain't broke don't fix it, we wouldn't have been able to do this.

Did you miss the part where I referenced 99% efficiency? :lol:

I mean, yeah, if we can get to 125% efficiency of keeping terrorists out, let's do it.

So how would you vet the refugees? Would you ask Syria's government for information about them? I'm asking these questions because I don't feel it's possible at this point.

I would do it like this, since it seems to be incredibly effective:

 

[funhusker]

Disclaimer: Just going from memory, so please forgive me if I'm wrong. I'll try to find articles to add in edit to support this post.

ISIS and Terrorism are big deals and need to be considered by the Administration. I agree wholeheartedly with that. That said, I fail to see the connection (being somewhat facetious here) between refugees of these countries and terrorist attacks around the globe. Yes, violence in Syria or Iraq will more than likely be committed by Syrians and Iraqis. However, our "fear" is of terrorist attacks, not acts of battle in a civil war.

Instead of limiting the amount of refugees from Syria and Iraq, shouldn't the US focus more on limiting immigrants/tourists from France, Belgium, and Germany; since these are the national origins of the terrorists committing acts of terror in Europe? If we are going to base restrictions on immigration because of nationalities of terrorists that would be wise. But since most of the immigrant/tourists from these European countries aren't Muslim, they are okay?

 

[Danny Bateman]

Delete

 

[BigRedBuster]

Generally, in the case of businesses or organizations, you only conduct self-review like that in response to a lack of efficiency or success. You don't really spend the energy to ascertain whether a certain policy could be operating better if that policy is already at ~99% success rate.

Actually, no not really. Lean Manufacturing preaches continual improvement. You constantly should be evaluating processes to see if they can be improved on. At least good organizations do that.
We had a production process that has ran amazingly well for years. Sure, we improved here and there with little things. This year we went in and completely reevaluated the process and now we are seeing a 20-25% increase in production on that line. Most on our team thought that not possible when we started. If we had the idea of...."If it ain't broke don't fix it, we wouldn't have been able to do this.

Did you miss the part where I referenced 99% efficiency? :lol:

I mean, yeah, if we can get to 125% efficiency of keeping terrorists out, let's do it.

You obviously didn't understand my post.

 

[knapplc]

Quick question, what's everyone's problem with enforcing our immigration laws?

You mean our current laws or whatever it is Trump's trying to do? Because those are two very different things.

For example - Trump's Muslim ban excludes countries where he has business ties. Do you agree or disagree with this selective enforcement? Do you think this is an ethics violation?

I'm talking about deporting illegal immigrants. As for the so called 'Muslim ban', you could look at it from a business interest or that those countries are war zones. How do you vet a refugee from Syria for instance? It's nearly impossible.

Who has expressed a problem with deporting illegal immigrants?

You can look at a Muslim ban from any number of angles. The best one would be the human angle, as in, they're humans, they're suffering, if we can help then we should.

It isn't impossible to vet refugees from a war zone. It just takes work. That's a small price to pay to help someone whose life is on the line.

People express problems with deporting illegal immigrants all the time. It was a part of the Women Marches.

So how would you vet the refugees? Would you ask Syria's government for information about them? I'm asking these questions because I don't feel it's possible at this point.

I haven't heard that deporting illegals was a theme of the Women's Marches. Can't really comment on that.

Rooted in the promise of America’s call for huddled masses yearning to breathe free, we believe in immigrant and refugee rights regardless of status or country of origin. We believe migration is a human right and that no human being is illegal.

https://www.womensmarch.com/principles/

Interesting.

A couple of thoughts on that.

First, it's a bit Pollyannish to think that everyone is going to be good all the time. JJ/El Diaco has said as much with his comments about immigration, and he's right. There WILL be bad people amongst the good that we allow to immigrate or grant safe harbor to as refugees. There will be collateral damage in allowing people into this country.

Second - isn't bravery in the face of danger what makes America great? Don't we have to allow the "huddled masses, yearning to breathe free" into the country en masse, knowing that amongst those hordes will be bad guys, with the intention to save as many innocents as we can, damning the baddies?

I mean, are we or are we not "the land of the free" and "the home of the brave?"

Are those just words, or who we are? Because if those are just words... then who and what are we?