Second ('Third') Trump Presidency Thread

zitothebrave said:
DEI is an ideal that has been used by businesses for a long time. It's not a gremlin that's ruining businesses that was created by the woke left in 2019.
Click to expand...
By buisnesses?

They created it?

You don't think there is a difference between DEI in its current form versus companies wanting to hire a few minorities 20 years ago?

You really have not spent any time in corporate America.
 
sturg33 said:
That's a clever way of not answering my question.

Africa is another example. They've been gifted trillions of dollars of tax payer money to improve their circumstances. What do they have to show for it? We can reasonably assume it's unlikely they will be sending us ballers, so why should we want them? Hell, id stop sending money yesterday bc it's clear it's being lit on fire (+ enriching NGOs)
Click to expand...
I think a logical first question would be - do we have information to determine who is a cannibal and who is not a cannibal? In that case, consider the individuals on their own merit. There would be no reason to punish the non-cannibal for the behavior of others.

If we don’t have the information, I’d have no problem with a ban until we can get the information.

I don’t see the relevance of the Africa piece. Of course I don’t want to continue throwing away aid money that ends up in the hands of corrupt governments. I also don’t want to deny Nigerian surgeons access to the US because they have low skill neighbors.
 
sturg33 said:
Absent of that system, I am comfortable with using data to make broadly informed decisions. I recognize this will lead to some ballers being excluded, and some bums making it in... but i would bet strongly the overall outcomes would be substantially better.

In this scenario, the "vetting" is based on the country. We know better talent on average comes from Japan than Somalia. So let's prioritize accordingly.
Click to expand...
I'll concede my desired merit based system isn't easy, and certainly isn't foolproof, but I feel like we're all yadda yadding the ease of this country of origin, thumbs up / thumbs down system.

We're going to use data. OK. What data? Thethe says we have plenty of "relevant data."

I'm assuming crime data makes it's way in. Just violent crime? White collar crime? Petty crime? Do we put different weights on each category? "Talent" is referenced. How do we quantify that? Is it talent based on their occupations, educational attainment, performance on standardized tests, something else? I'm assuming some sort of financial performance makes it's way in because we don't want "takers." How does that ultimately factor in? Religious data? Would someone's Islamic faith invalidate all preceding data?

I'm sure there are other variables we'd want to put in the stew ...once we have them all, how do you weight the variables to come up with a "country baller score?"

Now say you figure all of that out and come up with a scoring that you're satisfied with ...there's still the matter of how to apply it to actual people.

Are we just concerned with country of origin, or also, I'm assuming, the race of the actual person? In other words, is there a difference between a Swedish citizen of Swedish origin and a Swedish citizen of Iranian origin? Would the latter have some sort of modified score based on the country he was born/raised in as well as his racial makeup? Or does he sneak in as a Swede because all we really care about is country of origin?

And that brings up another point ...does the data we're collecting above reflect only the crime/talent/finances/etc. of people who are already in America, or also data from people currently living in the origin country? In other words, do we evaluate Italians based on Italian-American data, Italian data, or a blend of the two? How long does the data remain relevant? I'm assuming the performance of a 1st generation person gets included. What about a 2nd? 3rd? Does a person at some point become considered just an American, or do we end up evaluating a potential immigrant based on someone in America who is many generations removed from that country of origin and has no connection to it?

If we're worried about the race of people, how do we handle mixed races? Does the data of a 50/25/25 English, German, Norwegian get scored on a .5/.25/.25 basis? How deep do we go?

Then say you've settled your scoring system, and you've settled the all the issues as to how to apply the scores, what then becomes the standard where you give the thumbs up or thumbs down?

Is a score of 51% baller / 49% loser enough to get someone in? The "data" would suggest that on average, you'd be letting in more ballers that losers.

Should the threshold instead be 65/35? 78/22? 90/10? 99/1? Is there a level at which one is no longer considered to have suicidal empathy based on their inherent fear of being called a bigot, or is that only reserved for the folks who think this whole exercise is actually waste of time and we shouldn't have any immigration at all because there's always a non-zero chance of getting it wrong?
 
thethe said:
A Nigerian surgeon.....

Oh FFS - Talk about meaningless edge cases.
Click to expand...
They’re not that uncommon. Why would you want to exclude one who wanted to come here if you could verify he’s a surgeon, “edge case” or not? You’d rather deny entry just to satisfy the blanket ban that you yourself were against only a few years ago? For what exactly…to virtue signal?
 
If someone comes here, no welfare at all until they've paid taxes for a year or 2. Something to this effect. If you drain right out the gate, we don't need you.
 
acesfull86 said:
They’re not that uncommon. Why would you want to exclude one who wanted to come here if you could verify he’s a surgeon, “edge case” or not? You’d rather deny entry just to satisfy the blanket ban that you yourself were against only a few years ago? For what exactly…to virtue signal?
Click to expand...
Sure - Of the relative skill set to the doctors in Nigeria.

I have no comfort in the vetting system of Africa/Middle East/India.

You seem to believe they have accurate records. Cool
 
acesfull86 said:
I'll concede my desired merit based system isn't easy, and certainly isn't foolproof, but I feel like we're all yadda yadding the ease of this country of origin, thumbs up / thumbs down system.

We're going to use data. OK. What data? Thethe says we have plenty of "relevant data."

I'm assuming crime data makes it's way in. Just violent crime? White collar crime? Petty crime? Do we put different weights on each category? "Talent" is referenced. How do we quantify that? Is it talent based on their occupations, educational attainment, performance on standardized tests, something else? I'm assuming some sort of financial performance makes it's way in because we don't want "takers." How does that ultimately factor in? Religious data? Would someone's Islamic faith invalidate all preceding data?

I'm sure there are other variables we'd want to put in the stew ...once we have them all, how do you weight the variables to come up with a "country baller score?"

Now say you figure all of that out and come up with a scoring that you're satisfied with ...there's still the matter of how to apply it to actual people.

Are we just concerned with country of origin, or also, I'm assuming, the race of the actual person? In other words, is there a difference between a Swedish citizen of Swedish origin and a Swedish citizen of Iranian origin? Would the latter have some sort of modified score based on the country he was born/raised in as well as his racial makeup? Or does he sneak in as a Swede because all we really care about is country of origin?

And that brings up another point ...does the data we're collecting above reflect only the crime/talent/finances/etc. of people who are already in America, or also data from people currently living in the origin country? In other words, do we evaluate Italians based on Italian-American data, Italian data, or a blend of the two? How long does the data remain relevant? I'm assuming the performance of a 1st generation person gets included. What about a 2nd? 3rd? Does a person at some point become considered just an American, or do we end up evaluating a potential immigrant based on someone in America who is many generations removed from that country of origin and has no connection to it?

If we're worried about the race of people, how do we handle mixed races? Does the data of a 50/25/25 English, German, Norwegian get scored on a .5/.25/.25 basis? How deep do we go?

Then say you've settled your scoring system, and you've settled the all the issues as to how to apply the scores, what then becomes the standard where you give the thumbs up or thumbs down?

Is a score of 51% baller / 49% loser enough to get someone in? The "data" would suggest that on average, you'd be letting in more ballers that losers.

Should the threshold instead be 65/35? 78/22? 90/10? 99/1? Is there a level at which one is no longer considered to have suicidal empathy based on their inherent fear of being called a bigot, or is that only reserved for the folks who think this whole exercise is actually waste of time and we shouldn't have any immigration at all because there's always a non-zero chance of getting it wrong?
Click to expand...
How about IQ - Does that exist?

And yes there is a big differnce in your Sweden example. One country has the ability to produce verifiable records and one doesn't.

I still wouldn't accept Muslims without an incredible amount of vetting - something tot he effect of whereabouts the last 20 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top