When Washington tries to fix immigration, it only gets worse

There were too many [immigration] cases for too few judges, and adding in the cases of the unaccompanied minors only made matters worse. There are currently more than 429,000 cases pending in the courts with just 223 judges. -NPR

http://www.npr.org/2015/02/23/387825094/immigration-courts-operating-in-crisis-mode-judges-say

During the Bush years, the Border Patrol went on a hiring binge, which led to more apprehensions. Immigration raids and roundups increased under Obama. But no one thought to consider the legal rights of all those extra detained persons. The population of immigration courts and lawyers remained about flat. So of course backlogs exploded, and now some individuals are given courts dates in 2019.

Recently with the Obama administration's programs like DACA/amnesty for the recent surge of unaccompanied minors from Latin America, the backlog is in upheaval, as youths are given priority status to have their cases heard first. But there are only so many immigration lawyers with expertise to handle such clients. With 60K minors being processed in the courts now, the pool of lawyers just can't serve them all in a short time window. Those overworked lawyers are already poorly compensated vs. other attorneys (or are doing it pro bono), so they just can't give any more. Therefore, over 70% of the minors will not have legal representation when their case is heard, making it highly unlikely that they will be able to stay in the US. So what was the point of those White House actions to try to help minors when the justice system can't do their part?

The Obama administration has been trying to advocate the no-brainer response of hiring more immigration judges, but of course Congress has not taken any action.

"What ISIS really wants"

http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201502251000

This Yale prof and Atlantic editor, Grame Woods, studied comms from ISIS and interviewed experts to try to understand the group better in order to recommend the best strategy to defeat them.

As before with the communists and the Axis of Evil, the US gov't and mainstream media (mostly FNC) have totally mischaracterized what ISIS is (and the actual threat they pose), which has led to some calls for stupid escalations. Fortunately we haven't gone off the deep end like with the 2003 Iraq invasion, but who knows what the future will hold?

I am not knowledgeable enough to really vet the author's conclusions, but from his interview he came off as extremely cogent and fair-minded on the issue. Basically, for Obama and some Muslim groups to dismiss ISIS as "un-Islamic" is a disservice to the cause of defeating them. In fact they are fanatically Islamic, and their playbook almost perfectly follows some Koranic verses about the end of times (or course they practice extremely militant/strict interpretations of Islam that most Muslims have eschewed). It's like if a fundamentalist Christian cult took over some land in Israel to try to bring about the events in Revelations. By trying to be PC and un-bigoted, these voices are ignoring a strategic opportunity that we can use against ISIS: if we know what they want and how they propose to get it according to their dogma, we can better deprive them of it.

It's also wrong to dismiss ISIS as just a bunch of murder and torture junkies who believe in nothing more than that. Yes they engage in those crimes, but that is not what motivates them (they are means to an end). Those atrocities are part of their larger vision for how to deal with the enemies of Islam (including "bad Muslims") and bring about the Apocalypse and afterlife rewards. Purge the Middle East, topple Rome, and bring about the end of days when the Crusaders fight back (and I guess Allah intervenes, vanquishes them, and rewards his loyal jihadists).

ISIS is not really a state (they don't care about land and political power), but more like a prolonged jihad (similar to the early days of Islam, historically). In fact they govern horribly (like most regimes in that region), and have promised recruits/residents a righteous welfare state that they can't possibly hope to deliver. The Taliban govern much better than them. They succeed through propaganda and battlefield exploits. As long as they are advancing, scaring the heretics, and struggling heroically, they look good. In fact the author compares them most similarly to the Nazis of the 1930s (the righteous chosen people are suffering due to the treachery of evil inferior oppressors, so they must rise up and settle the score). Western societies dangle the promise of freedom and a good life (but in order for some to have that life, many other poorer people in the world must suffer). Reactionary groups like the Nazis and ISIS sell the righteous struggle instead. They romanticize the hard life because it is worth it to fight the Crusaders/Zionists/apostates, and your reward for your sacrifice will be eternal glory. For marginalized, frustrated, and impoverished people in the Middle East (and some in the West), they are more likely to embrace that goal versus the democratic capitalist ideal that seems more foreign and unattainable to them than Star Trek.

So how do you beat them? Let their hollow and fragile marketing pitch blow up in their faces, and eventually their subjects and recruits will see through them and shun them. Take away their true strength, which is their propaganda built on their blitzkrieg victories and "mein kampf" narrative of righteous struggle against evil. "Contain, degrade, and wait it out" may be the best we can do. Halt their expansion, cut off their funding, and diminish their war capacity, similar to Obama's initial military response. It's even better if we help local moderate Muslim forces defeat them (well, if you can call the Syrian, Jordanian, and Iraqi regimes moderate). The worst thing we can do is fight conventionally, as that plays into their narrative of resistance against Crusader oppression. They can't wait to die fighting against Americans and Jews, as that could be used as glorious recruiting material.

America is not that good at waiting patiently, and unfortunately many innocents could die within ISIS lands while we wait for them to fail. But it is the least bad option of the ones we have in front of us. Or does anyone have a better idea? Clearly we could bomb their forces to the Stone Age if we wanted, but then what? We'd leave a vacuum in 2 nations facing civil war and lack of governance. The traces of ISIS would just return later, even more motivated because of our violent campaign against their predecessors. Remember that ISIS more or less emerged out of the ashes of the Ba'athists and Al-Qaeda in Iraq. They waited years for their chance, and they took it. We can't afford to give them another.

FBI Director Comey calls out systemic bias and data suppression in US law enforcement

http://www.thenation.com/blog/198009/fbi-director-police-violence-everyones-little-bit-racist

Resurfacing this thread again, after dozens more questionable police killings since Ferguson. FBI Director Comey recently called out the lack of police accountability in deadly force incidents, as well as the undeniable racial element in policing. That seems to be a big deal, and Obama/Holder have not been that explicit. Most high ranking police leaders have failed to acknowledge public concerns/anger over alleged misconduct, preferring to look foolish pretending that the boys in blue can do no wrong.

As D said earlier, it's unacceptable (and likely deliberate) that there is very little data on police killings - especially on a national level. That has to change - data access in the hands of capable, ethical people never hurt a society, but the lack of it has. Only people who stand to lose or get punished are opposing transparency. This isn't about censorship of controversial information, this is hard data - a set of facts and testimonials as the historical record (or the closest we can get to it). So anyone who claims to be on the side of right can't justifiably argue against the sharing of data to enable analysis and insights that will likely lead to improvements. And what do we have to lose - it can't get any worse, right? Anyone who has reasons to oppose access by other people evaluate his/her performance on the job probably shouldn't hold that job.

Comey also raised the issue that law enforcement policies and actions can result in unjust and racially biased outcomes, yet the agents of those policies and actions (the officers) may not actually be "racists with a capital R". Some of them clearly are, but for the majority of officers, I doubt that they would be classified as virulent racists (people who actually hate another group and work toward their marginalization/persecution). It's more like unconscious bias and heuristics. Officers assigned to at-risk neighborhoods may not have much sensitivity, context, and psychology training. Week-in, week-out they get dirty looks (or worse) from mostly minority residents. The suspects they interact with (and in some cases physically confront) are all "stereotypical" black and brown young men, possibly engaged in the stereotypical bad behaviors. After a while, even a non-racist will start to associate black/brown man with negativity/crime/violence/

danger/etc. What can be done about this? Maybe suspicion and the rules of engagement have to be based on objective, scientific signals - not necessarily appearance and circumstances. But most of the beat cops out there are not qualified to do this effectively, if it's even possible.

#MuslimLivesMatter

https://news.vice.com/article/three-muslim-students-shot-dead-in-north-carolina?utm_source=vicenewsfb

On Tues a lone gunman killed 3 Muslim university students in NC (all from the same family). Vice reported that the killings were possibly a hate crime because the alleged shooter had posted atheist, anti-religious commentary on social media. The shooter also turned himself in, so maybe we will get to hear his motives. FYI he was white and was not killed by the police.

There was some online criticism that major Western media outlets were not following this tragedy with as much concern (if at all) as they showed for the Charlie Hebdo massacre, or the ISIS executions. So the #MuslimLivesMatter theme emerged to counter this potential bias. And let's not forget that the vast majority of victims of Islamic terrorism (plus the innocents killed during Western anti-terror ops) have been Muslims.

It's not like the NC victims were vocally Islamic and critical of America. AFAIK, they were just dental students who actually helped a nonprofit that tries to provide dental care to the 100K's of Syrian refugees from their civil war. As usual, violent cowards target totally unconnected victims. This event is unusual though, because we haven't seen many incidents of "violent atheism" before. I am not sure if the shooter was opposed to Islam specifically, or all faiths.

The scary state of US campaign finance

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/shields-brooks-koch-brothers-near-billion-dollar-spending-plan-third-run-romney/

This Shields & Brooks segment touched on the recent GOP presidential candidates' "audition" to wealthy donors like the Kochs. Good ol' Mitt "seriously considered" another White House run, but after getting the cold shoulder from the deep pockets, he has decided against it. So effectively, a handful of billionaires can seriously influence at least half of the presidential ticket. Because if a prospective candidate can't get the Kochs and Adelsons of the world behind them, then there's no point to continue and compete against the guy who is getting their money.

And that money comes with a lot of conditions and a short leash. There's no contract guarantees or mulligans. If candidate X takes Koch cash, wins, but isn't governing up to their expectations, Mr. X will get the boot in the next primary challenge from the new stooge that the Kochs hand-picked. So that sends a message that leaders really have to toe the line on the big business/1%ers agenda, or they will be fired. Under that shroud, it makes the possibility of compromise and moderation even less likely.

Many citizens of HK took to the streets for months because they didn't want Beijing telling them which short-list of pro-CCP candidates they could pick from. That wasn't self-determination. Much of the world condemned China's activities. But isn't the exact same thing happening here?

Sure, mega-rich activists can't change what millions of Americans choose to do on Election Day, but if they can pretty much dictate which names are on the ballot, that is the next best thing. And of course this is completely legal. Some say that money is speech, and therefore shouldn't be restricted, but at least it should be out in the open (i.e. the public has the right to know who is giving how much to who). But due to a charity loophole, we don't know where half of the billions in indirect campaign funding came from. So is that really "speech" if a person wants to secretly donate huge sums for a covert agenda? Fine, influence elections with your money, but have the courage to tell the world what you stand for - and face the consequences for it. But no, they want to have their cake and eat it too. Because they are special, elite, and make their own rules.

What causes drug abuse and how to stop it?

http://chasingthescream.com/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/portugal-drug-decriminalization/

I saw this guy (J Hari) on Maher last night and was pretty impressed with his reporting on the Western approach to the drug war, and how we totally botched it. It's pretty well-established that the US method of heavy-handedly attacking the supply and harshly punishing the consumers is an utter, expensive failure. We need to address demand, but what is the right approach - education, medical treatment, intervention?

Hari is saying that those responses could help, but they don't get at the root cause. Drug abuse is mostly driven by psychological distress due to environmental-social factors. Racism, violence, lack of economic opportunity, low self-esteem, alienation, and other negative influences lead an individual to turn to drugs for escapism, pleasure, release, etc. If a person has a comfortable home, decent job, loving family and community, and safe/positive surroundings, there is a very low chance that they will abuse drugs (unless they happen to be the minority of us who truly have an addictive biology, but then they would likely become addicted to something legal like booze or shopping).

Why is it that US drug abuse is highest in lower-income, at-risk communities and the youth? I think Rx drug abuse (which is a much bigger problem than illegal drug abuse) could be a different story, because that might be driven by over-prescription of those drugs by our health system. And since they're synthetic compounds, it's possible that the drug companies have engineered them to be very potent (and potentially addictive). But I'm not sure. Heroin is unanimously seen as the most addictive illegal drug, yet people get it legally all the time in the form of medical morphine. Anyone who has had an operation doesn't become a heroin addict, so the drug itself is not inherently the problem.

Portugal used to be the European nation with the worst drug problem (an estimated 1% of the adult pop. using). It is also a fairly poor and underdeveloped nation by EU standards. They tried the "US way" for fighting drugs, and it failed of course. So in 2001 they decided to scrap it - decriminalize ALL drugs and use the law enf. money on rehab and social development instead. Of course the conservatives predicted that all hell would break loose. But a decade later, needle drug use was down 50%, and so were OD deaths and drug-related HIV infections. Abusers were given medical rehab, but also given access to jobs, education, housing, etc. The former abusers were treated like humans and given a life, not like American convicts who are labeled as junkies and thrown in with the murderers and rapists. The Portuguese who employed and housed addicts were compensated by the gov't. It can work. A lot of the previous detractors came around and admitted that they were dead wrong.

Look at the countries with the worst substance abuse problems:

• Iran (heroin) - crippling sanctions and a repressive, fundamentalist gov't
• Russia (booze) - huge wealth inequality, corruption, and poor life prospects for many (interestingly the UK is also a big booze abuser)
• Latin America (meth) - huge wealth inequality and gang-police violence
• Afghanistan (heroin) - war, poverty, corruption, and fundamentalism
• US (mixed) - fairly large wealth inequality, some communities with racism/violence

So maybe the solution for winning the war on drugs has nothing to do with drugs. Just fix society to be more just, inclusive, safe, and prosperous - even for the most lowly among us. Actually I think a lot of ills could be indirectly fixed with that approach.