The Trump administration now plans to pay Mexico....

Oh no 20 million dollars, how will the US ever recover?

Let Mexico deal with their problem, and stop the masses from hitting the US border. That’s easily worth 20 million, that’s a literal drop in a bucket

What substance do you think is worth $20 million for one drop, and why deliver something so expensive in a bucket?
 
Ooooh...sick burn!

Is that what you do after your sources have been undermined by logical criticism?

All of the figures you have cited to quantify the illegal alien population rely on the assumption that approximately 90% of illegal aliens living in the USA respond to census questionnaires. This fatal flaw has been pointed out to you multiple times. You never address it. I doubt you have even looked into it. Instead, you continually post the same claims over and over again. Posting them over again doesn't make them true.

Your simplistic objection is wrong (and your own link undermined it), but more to the point, it relates to the level, while you're trying to relate it to the rate of change. No doubt you'll find some new objection to apply to that (because your concern is not to know the truth but to advance a position).
 
Your simplistic objection is wrong (and your own link undermined it),

How so? Be specific.

t relates to the level, while you're trying to relate it to the rate of change
As I already explained to you, attempting to infer rates of change from from low-quality data is a fool's game. Please focus on that point. If the actual response rate is actually 5% (not 90%) with n=900, then the deduced trends have no statistical significance.

No doubt you'll find some new objection to apply to that (because your concern is not to know the truth but to advance a position).

Do you feel the slightest bit regretful when you infer the motivations of others in this way? Any rational truth seeker would. It's bad epistemology.
 
Do you feel the slightest bit regretful when you infer the motivations of others in this way? Any rational truth seeker would. It's bad epistemology.

I think my comment is very clearly correct. It is unfortunate, though. I can't see any other reason that you consistently dismiss all sources that attempt to answer the question on flimsy grounds (and no, I'm not going to go through it all--if you'd forward your complaints to, for example, Pew, I'd be interested in hearing their response, though) and then essentially claim that:

1) No knowledge is possible;
2) The numbers are more positive for your "side" than any data show; and
3) That no one but you should presume to know anything at all about the question.

IMO, it's a waste of time treating such an approach as if it is taken in good faith.

If you want to modify to simply, "Jack, you should acknowledge some uncertainty here, even though it *appears* based on all *available* evidence that your position is correct," I'd take that more seriously.
 
I think my comment is very clearly correct. It is unfortunate, though. I can't see any other reason that you consistently dismiss all sources that attempt to answer the question on flimsy grounds (and no, I'm not going to go through it all--if you'd forward your complaints to, for example, Pew, I'd be interested in hearing their response, though)

That sums it up right there. I will view you as a faux-intellectual until you gather the courage and the patience to actually dig into the data you parrot. Any rational truth seeker would do so.
 
I can't see any other reason that you consistently dismiss all sources that attempt to answer the question on flimsy grounds

Also, just lol at "flimsy grounds". There are no stronger grounds on which to criticize a data-driven argument beyond attacking the methodology through which the data were collected. Can you come up with a stronger, less "flimsy" approach than that?

1) No knowledge is possible;
2) The numbers are more positive for your "side" than any data show; and
3) That no one but you should presume to know anything at all about the question.

This is also a strawman.

1) I have presented alternative methods that would get us closer to the truth. Analyzing remittances, housing permits, and school enrollment would be a superior approach.

2) I did not claim this.

3) I did not claim this.
 
I like it.

Mexico doesn't give a shit about these people (let them pass through) because they know they will be crossing into the United States.

happily will pay to the deport the Central Americans.

We don't even have to worry about housing them, feeding them, medical attention, anchor babies, court battles.... nothing...they never get here.

In fact I don't like it, I love it.
 
That sums it up right there. I will view you as a faux-intellectual until you gather the courage and the patience to actually dig into the data you parrot. Any rational truth seeker would do so.

A rational truth seeker doesn't presume to be an expert in all areas of human experience (that actually is what a "faux intellectual" does). What I'm saying is that you're raising an objection that naturally would have occurred to the people studying the issue (who have no particular reason to favor one estimate over another other than believing that it is more accurate). And the description of the methodology given doesn't even fit that objection. I think it would be enlightening for you to raise it directly to one of the sources that produce an estimate that you don't like.

This is also a strawman.

1) I have presented alternative methods that would get us closer to the truth. Analyzing remittances, housing permits, and school enrollment would be a superior approach.

2) I did not claim this.

3) I did not claim this.

1) And what trend do we see from those estimates?

2 and 3, you're insisting that the available estimates are inaccurate (not merely that they are not as solid as you'd like), and that even repeating them is somehow dishonest. But it's perfectly honest to make claims that run contrary to all available data as long as you believe those claims help your political goals.
 
A rational truth seeker doesn't presume to be an expert in all areas of human experience (that actually is what a "faux intellectual" does).

I agree. That's why I think you're being a faux intellectual by parroting these statements about the flows of illegal aliens in the face of evidence that undermines those statements.

What I'm saying is that you're raising an objection that naturally would have occurred to the people studying the issue (who have no particular reason to favor one estimate over another other than believing that it is more accurate).

The "people studying the issue" (Pew, DHS) are all using the census data. The census data assume that about 90% of illegal aliens respond to census surveys. You're assuming that the Pew Hispanic Center and DHS are motivated to find the truth rather than to keep churning out reports. Why do you assume that? Pew's costs would multiply massively if they undertook an independent analysis. It's much easier to accept the census assumptions.

1) And what trend do we see from those estimates?

2 and 3, you're insisting that the available estimates are inaccurate (not merely that they are not as solid as you'd like), and that even repeating them is somehow dishonest. But it's perfectly honest to make claims that run contrary to all available data as long as you believe those claims help your political goals.

Again, no one is producing annual datasets using that type of analysis. The two Bear Stearns analysts did a one-off report.

2/3 no, I'm saying that they are highly questionable and should not be parroted. The best answer we have is "I don't know", not "net migration has been outward over the past x years." To go further than "I don't know" is to be epistemologically irresponsible.
 
I agree. That's why I think you're being a faux intellectual by parroting these statements about the flows of illegal aliens in the face of evidence that undermines those statements.

By "parroting statements" you mean "citing the findings of people who study the issue." You should do more of that and less pretending to be an expert and desperately hunting for reasons to reject the evidence simply because the conclusion upsets you.
 
By "parroting statements" you mean "citing the findings of people who study the issue." You should do more of that and less pretending to be an expert and desperately hunting for reasons to reject the evidence simply because the conclusion upsets you.
This response is trash. The methodology is public. The central flaw is right before your eyes. Unlike you, I refuse to speculate about your reason for failing to explore that flaw.
 
This response is trash. The methodology is public. The central flaw is right before your eyes. Unlike you, I refuse to speculate about your reason for failing to explore that flaw.

I haven't failed to explore the "flaw." I've explored your claims and found them wanting. What's more, I am pretty convinced that you have not even read about the methodology. Here's an interview that I posted earlier. See how it lines up with your claim:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...er-counts-unauthorized-immigrants-in-the-u-s/

Here's more detail:

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2016/09/20/methodology-10/
 
I haven't failed to explore the "flaw." I've explored your claims and found them wanting. What's more, I am pretty convinced that you have not even read about the methodology. Here's an interview that I posted earlier. See how it lines up with your claim:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...er-counts-unauthorized-immigrants-in-the-u-s/

Here's more detail:

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2016/09/20/methodology-10/

Why are you linking me to the site that I already linked you to?

We've been over this. Pew, like DHS, uses the "residual method". The "F" is taken from the ACS or the MSCPS. That "F" assumes that approximately 90% of illegal aliens respond to the surveys. If that assumption is incorrect, it's likely that none of the trends you are referring to are valid. It doesn't matter how nice the graphs look or how authoritative the researchers sound. It is that assumption I am attacking, and you have offered no attempt to refute it.
 
I haven't failed to explore the "flaw." I've explored your claims and found them wanting. What's more, I am pretty convinced that you have not even read about the methodology. Here's an interview that I posted earlier. See how it lines up with your claim:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...er-counts-unauthorized-immigrants-in-the-u-s/

Here's more detail:

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2016/09/20/methodology-10/

In Counting Illegal Immigrants, Certain Assumptions Apply
....

All three estimates were calculated in part by analyzing death rates and surveys about emigration patterns. But other researchers have criticized this approach, saying it leads to underestimates. Steven Camarota, director of research for CIS, acknowledges that the methodology used in the three main estimates is far from perfect. "I don't think we can be absolutely sure," he says. "We might be wrong, and that's bad."

Researchers at CIS and Pew and in the federal government use a decades-old technique that looks at the number of foreign-born people in the U.S., as counted by annual census surveys. Then they subtract the number of foreign-born people in the U.S. legally, based on immigration records and projections of deaths and outmigration. The remainder is believed to be the number of illegal immigrants.

There are several assumptions that underlie these estimates, including the figures for outmigration, which isn't tracked by the U.S. government. The biggest problem, though, is that no one really knows what proportion of illegal immigrants respond to census interviewers and how honest they are about their place of birth.

....

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704370704575228432695989918

 
Why are you linking me to the site that I already linked you to?

We've been over this. Pew, like DHS, uses the "residual method". The "F" is taken from the ACS or the MSCPS. That "F" assumes that approximately 90% of illegal aliens respond to the surveys. If that assumption is incorrect, it's likely that none of the trends you are referring to are valid. It doesn't matter how nice the graphs look or how authoritative the researchers sound. It is that assumption I am attacking, and you have offered no attempt to refute it.

Because your claim isn't correct and doesn't really get into the methodology at all. I suspect you just saw on Breitbart that it's flawed or something and repeated that without actually reading about the methodology.
 
In Counting Illegal Immigrants, Certain Assumptions Apply
....

All three estimates were calculated in part by analyzing death rates and surveys about emigration patterns. But other researchers have criticized this approach, saying it leads to underestimates. Steven Camarota, director of research for CIS, acknowledges that the methodology used in the three main estimates is far from perfect. "I don't think we can be absolutely sure," he says. "We might be wrong, and that's bad."

Researchers at CIS and Pew and in the federal government use a decades-old technique that looks at the number of foreign-born people in the U.S., as counted by annual census surveys. Then they subtract the number of foreign-born people in the U.S. legally, based on immigration records and projections of deaths and outmigration. The remainder is believed to be the number of illegal immigrants.

There are several assumptions that underlie these estimates, including the figures for outmigration, which isn't tracked by the U.S. government. The biggest problem, though, is that no one really knows what proportion of illegal immigrants respond to census interviewers and how honest they are about their place of birth.

....

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704370704575228432695989918

So here you're defending the uncontroversial point that assumptions are made in estimating the numbers. But earlier you claimed that a specific assumption was made (that was not, in fact, made) as a way to reject the evidence because you find it to be politically unfavorable (because an honest discussion would not inspire the kind of fear that white nationalists need to get people to act drastically).
 
Back
Top