[llamaimperative]

> The position is not that it does not work well enough. The position is that it would not be a viable solution regardless of the quality of execution.

That's definitely the implication, but it doesn't really substantiate this, as far as I can tell.

"Past iterations were filled with pork, therefore future ones must be as well, therefore this conceptually cannot work."

For example, the RAND study that they said showed "strong evidence" that IFTs were having no effect actually... doesn't say that at all.

IFTs actually lowered apprehension levels, to which RAND says, "we conclude that there is strong evidence for the presence of a deterrent effect as migrants choose to avoid areas surveilled by IFTs—a proposition for which there is also qualitative evidence outside the data."

Then it goes onto say that for every other technology type, they increased apprehension levels, i.e. they worked. They didn't seem clear on why IFTs behave differently.