CharonY

And there is a report indicating that Trump may have directed Cohen to lie to congress, which would be obstruction of justice:

Holy cow that is bad: I mean, one should not be surprised about the mindset but wanting to deprive US citizens from relief after a disaster of that magnitude is still shocking.

Not sure what you mean. Could you elaborate? Edit: do you mean the "bring crime" argument? If so, you are being silly here unless you really think that folks that state the immigrants bring crime are talking about lower than average baseline. If that is what you are saying then you are implying that folks like me need to add dozens of statistics and be super careful with semantics. Whereas folks who justify cruel behaviour to children only need buzzwords and are just misunderstood. In a way it is clever. Exhaust folks who actually try to be factual, then slide in some doubt and a heavy dose of buzzwords. Voila, a fresh serving of alternate reality. Why isn't it the other why round. Why shouldn't folks wanting a multi-billion dollar investment in concrete and land acquisition use data to justify it? Why should we assume that folks demonizing immigrants have a good point if they do not even inform themselves regarding immigration levels and trends?

Depends on application. Short PCRs, for example, are generally fine, they are fairly robust. Longer amplification tends to suffer.

I just assume that you argue in good faith here, as this is a common talking point. What is meant here is of course the underlying assumption that will affect crime rates and hence their influx should be limited. However studies using a variety of measures have shown that either directly immigrants have lower crime rates than native born Americans as well as that increasing percentages of undocumented immigrants is inversely correlated with violent crimes (recent paper by Light and Miller. 2018, Criminology 56:2). I.e. if anything it appears that more (undocumented) immigrants resulted in less violent crimes. But even a neutral assumption shows that worries about crime should be the primary guide to change immigration policies. If it was, there should be calls for more immigration.

What other action do you think should be made to address these concerns aside from informing folks about the actual situation? When have folks been here called racist for valid concerns? The big issue, of course is that among folks that are concerned there are misinformed folks (where informing them could help) but also a spectrum of people that feel their identity being eroded by the others. While most would object being called racists (and it would be counter intuitive to do so except in the extreme cases), there is the issue that the concerns do have a xenophobic root. I.e. folks feel less secure in their identity if folks show up that talk differently or appear differently. While language and other outward aspects can be changed, looks cannot to appease these fears. At the end of the day, certain folks need to get comfortable with the fact that we are not insular societies anymore. Even Germany, which for decades, despite a rising population of foreigners claimed and behave that they were not an immigration country (and having no obvious paths of immigration, compared to Canada and USA) is now slowly coming face the new reality (which, historically comes with a rise of far right attitudes). In that regard, despite all the issues we discuss here, as a whole far larger proportion of the US and also Canadian population have an easier time to embrace immigrants, leading to better integration outcomes than for certain visible minorities in Germany. I.e. what we are discussing in the US/Canada are less representative of broad fears, but rather those of a subset of the population. It is unfortunate that it is getting tainted and co-opted with certain elements that like to focus on culture wars regardless of the actual situation. The fact that a major party also plays this game is not helping. For example, despite the push of the administration to curb all immigration (illegal or not) over 75% of the US population according to a Gallup poll sees it as a net positive and while it is lower for Reps, it is still at 65%. Only 29% think it should be curbed, the lowest rate since the 60s. Unfortunately, it is aloud minority, and sees support from the government. Are they all racists? Not necessarily, but studies do have shown that perhaps unsurprisingly there is a significant overlap between folks who score strongly in racialized attitudes and those critical of immigration. As such I do not think it is wrong to request more detailed explanation on the reasons of opposition so that one can calibrate it against facts. For example, if one believes that (illegal) immigrants bring crime, the question is how do they change their attitude when confronted with the fact that they don't? If they keep believing it, what would you suggest to do? Increased crack down on folks who are actually less likely to commit violent crimes in order to appease and enforce unfounded attitudes?

Either. Your initial assumption is that folks feel a loss of control and hence, border security should reflect that. I mentioned that folks are uninformed on the levels and, as discussed throughout the thread, the trends of illegal immigration. Where the baseline is does not matter as there is no call to reduce it to a fixed number or below a certain threshold. Folks that call for closed borders have not indicated to be comfortable with any level and despite the claim that it is only about illegal immigration there is a curious intersection (including in the administration) that want to curb all immigration. Apparently. Most data sets are using census information and adjust for undercount. The calibration is usually what creates the spread, which ranges from ~10-12 millions. The numbers most would use are either directly from the DHS, or alternative from Pew, Center for Migration Studies, Migration Policy institute, to name the most common ones. They are also often calibrated against data e.g. from school records, Mexican census and so on. One measure that is outside the range which is based on Yale researchers. However, they do not use any external calibration and their model has a huge (10 million) spread where most folks involved in demographic modeling are skeptical about it (to put it very carefully). Others have used the same model and showed that the model is too unstable and by tweaking one assumption it would result in ~ 8 million estimate. There is a conservative think tank which has the explicit goal of reducing (any) immigration that has provided high numbers which is taken seriously by pretty much no one. So I suspect you have to be more careful in source selection. I hope that helps you sift data I think you are right and I apologize by furthering and assisting in that line of inquiry. I think we have posted enough in this thread to establish the overall trend and baseline numbers which pretty much unequivocally indicate a dip in the presence of unauthorized immigrants in the USA since 2005, driven by strong reduction of influx. As a reminder, most illegal presences by 2016 were most likely established by overstaying visas, not by border crossings. Moreover, the majority of unauthorized immigrants by now have been in the country more than 10 years (median 15 years). I think we can also assume that quite a few folks do not care about the factual situation.

There are numbers of documented immigrants that you can easily pull and almost all reputable estimates on undocumented immigrants are roughly within 2 mills of each other.

It certainly "feels" that way.

Why would that matter? If you are saying that what folks feel should guide policies and folks feel that more than half of all immigrants are illegal it clearly shows that folks have a skewed view on the actual situation. Chances are that those overestimating the presence of illegal immigrants also overestimate the presence immigration. But either way, it would not matter, as it essentially just means that the feeling is detached from the reality of the situation.

You could ask that question, but that would be asking a different type of purpose (e.g. how accurate can you estimate it). However, considering that folks are getting it wrong using even a high threshold (50% vs <25%) indicates that the perception is skewed, which is what the poll wanted to figure out. I.e. even among those that got it correct (which is only 45% to begin with) there will be subset that still overestimates it. In other words, the poll does provide a safety margin that still makes it clear that folks overestimate the presence of illegal immigrants.

I don't think that the feeling of loss of control is a good measure. Many are simply uninformed about the situation and any level of illegal (as well as legal) immigration can spark these types of feeling. To illustrate that point, according to Pew polls about 42% of the population thinks that most immigrants in the US are present illegally (in truth it is closer to 20%). Only 45% correctly assumed that most are legal I.e. many overestimate the presence of illegal immigrants. The biggest gap is based on education, only 26% of college grads think that, whereas 61 correctly assumed that there are more legal than illegal immigrants. This gap is also influenced by political leaning. 34% of conservative college grads incorrectly assumed a higher presence of illegal presence as opposed to 20% of democratic leaning grads.

Yes there are statistics about that. However, it is important to note that a) there is no statistics indicating that controlling the border would have any impact on terrorism risk (which is very small to begin with). b) too much of the discussion is framed specifically to see reduction of border crossings as a detriment per se. In my mind, a proper cost/reward assessment would need to take the costs of these illegal crossing into account and weight it against diminishing returns in enhanced enforcement. Most measures do seem to indicate either close to cost neutrality or even net benefit, of illegal immigration. That is not to say that there should not be considerations in enforcing the border. However, at some point one should need (as with all other measures) figure out how much it is really worth to put in. As we discussed above, there are statistics indicating that, including a sharp rise in the percentage of unauthorized immigrants from Mexico in the US after harder immigration enforcement in the 200s.

Typically, a research position requires a MSc at minimum (for a technician/analyst or equivalent job). While in the past there have been bachelors able to secure similar jobs by having a tonne of lab experience, it has become far more difficult to become competitive just with a Bachelor's degree. That being said, most technical work is going to be repetitive at some point.

It would have a significant economic impact to deport every unauthorized Mexican immigrant. Especially in areas where populations are dwindling they have become an important backbone for the economic well-being of locals. There were quite a few articles describing how crackdowns by ICE have resulted in devastated farming regions and small communities. I mean, even the Trump-run hotels have employed undocumented migrants (talking about hypocrisy).

Interestingly, that was one of the results of the initial border security measures. Influx was reduced slightly, efflux was reduced by a large margin, leading to a net increase of folks living unauthorized in the USA. You know what, that does not sound like a bad idea at all. As long he got something to brag about. I mean he does not really care for details too much, does he?

Well, it depends on the ultimate goal. If the goal is only to maintain immigration levels, and the efflux can be kept constant, then of course. However, if the goal is to reduce the population having higher efflux vs influx would be desired. Likewise, if influx is curbed the efflux can be also reduced to maintain levels. (And to be clear, DACA recipients were not excluded from the indicated numbers in the analysis). However, the bigger point is that current levels already indicate a reduced influx and under Obama the efflux has increased. I.e. there is no indication that a wall would really have any meaningful impact on current influx levels. Edit: I think I was overall somewhat unclear in my phrasing. What I was thinking about is that the population levels of unauthorized immigrants were always fluid, and a kind of equilibrium exist between incoming and exiting folks. For years there was a net flow inward. While now there are still incoming unauthorized entries, they are being more than offset by exits. I.e. if using the unauthorized population as measure (and just to be clear, asylum claimants do not fall under this group, regardless what the administration says) we really see the net effect of these two movements. As such, Ten Oz's mentioning of illegal border crossings, which is a contributing factor to influx of unauthorized immigrants (which is outweighed by simply overstaying visas) is a more direct measure of the entry part of the equation.

Think about where the content of ADP and ATP. Where do you think is more in each compartment and in which direction does it got? Another keyword to check is antiporter.

! Moderator Note Considering the highly speculative nature of OP I have moved the thread over here.

I think the confusion arises as it is not quite clear what you are asking and why. As Ten Oz mentioned, the topic of this thread makes it likely that it is about border crossing. If you read the links more carefully, you will also have noted that the Pew research center found a) a total decline of unauthorized immigrants which b) was driven by a decline in Mexican immigrants. They also accounted for DACA recipients. Those are still not legal residents, i.e. their status does not change by enrolling. There has always been a bit of a back-and forth across the USA-Mexican border, which was slowed down due increased border security since the 2000s. This has led to a stronger net migration to the USA but that has dropped following the recession. In the last years, the reduced immigration, voluntary returns and increased deportation have resulted in the net decline. While I hope that clears things up, I am not entirely sure what broader point would be. The main point that John made, i.e. that illegal border crossing is rather low and therefore there is a net reduction still holds. One would need to check the numbers to see how many returns are voluntary vs deportations, for example.

The bolded part has to be emphasized as its use has been often misunderstood. It is not a comparative range of values but, in its modern iteration, basically normalizes the range of a population to a normal distribution. Typically high values are of little diagnostic value whereas scoring low can be the first indicator of some learning or other issues. As such a better question would be how low would be prohibitive. Also note that by definition 2/3 of the population fall within 15 of either side of the median.

That is not a fitting analogy. So far folks appointed to head the EPA have not only roll back regulations, but actually weakened the ability of EPA to set standards and eliminated key positions that would normally alert folks of environment-related health effects. It is not a prioritization on other aspects, it is specifically a dismantling of the EPA itself. A more apt analogy would be to take a car and rebuild it to increase pollution (rolling coal?). While it may be a protest against regulations, it also means you do not care for the environment. And given the information that is available regarding environmental health, he would not only have to be misinformed but willfully misinformed.

Both are different conditions though they share similar features. Burnout is typically characterized in the context occupational stress and is strongly correlated with external factors. Depression on the other hand is more internalized and interventions aimed at treating burnout (e.g. taking time off) have little or no impact. In general trying to draw relationships between conditions and social factors are difficult and while it is stated as a question it implies there might be one. Specifically one related to social cohesion. But that is very vague. On the face on it the assumption is that a better social network may be beneficial (which it is), but at the same time the assumption is that secular folks have a worse social support. One would need to establish that specifically for a study group in order to draw conclusion from the given group. In the end, if we want to look at it, it requires a critical evaluation what parameters we actually look at (intersectionality becomes important in this context). For example, assuming that in your area depression rates are high (are they really above the local average)? There are dozens of factors other than secularism that characterize it. I.e. without a proper reference group (e.g. similar characteristics but different more religious) such observations strongly invite biased speculation. One way to look at it, is just take a rough view on religious affiliation and depression rates (I will leave out burnout as it would complicate matters more). Essentially there a studies showing either trend. E.g. one study showed that pentacostal members were at 4 times higher risk of depression than other or no affiliations, even after accounting for socioeconimic factors. However, if we look also into religious practice and spirituality, a bit more than half of the studies show some inverse correlation. Hypotheses are here focussed on practice which may have coping mechanisms, provide stress relief (like meditation) and general lifestyle decisions (e.g. alcohol use or lack thereof). Thus, the overall association (either way) seems to be weak. There is one huge caveat, however. Most of this studies are cross-sectional. I.e. at a single point in time and is sensitive to the composition of the study section. There are few longitudinal studies, which track participants over time. There is one study conducted in several countries showing that the secular group was at lower risk than religious and spiritual folks. Strong believers were the group with the highest risk. So with regard to the specific question in OP, based on our understanding on the relationship between depression and religiosity, there is no strong evidence that secular lifestyles in itself pose a higher risk.

It has been more than once that such parties have made gains in Germany post-war (I remember distinctly the years during the Yugoslav wars and the refugee situation back then). Though this time they made gains by not exclusively engaging the extremists and took on the umbrella of concerned citizens. Citizens that incidentally utilize language associated with the Third Reich rather uncritically. So you do have a point there...

It should also be noted that the various stages of closing off the border were originally connected to immigration reform. In essence it was a bipartisan thought that once the border was closed off somewhat, folks already in the US should get a path to citizenship. And idea that seems to have died with the current GOP. Also I wanted to comment on that: The argument seems to be based on the fact that a much larger segment was already build and thus the additional 200 miles are inconsequential. Here I should add that the fencing (not wall, as you mentioned) came with an initial budget of ~1.4 billions but it was already criticized at that time point that the upkeep would be substantial. It should also be noted that the 200 miles would include segments that already are fenced with ca. 100 miles of additional "wall". Ironically in the original fence bill, it was acknowledged that there is no one-size fits all solution and actually discouraged language for a particular type of barrier. Thus, if border security was really the point, generally funding for border security could be spent far more flexible and effectively. Instead it is difficult not to see it as more of a symbolic than factual relevance. But moving away from the minutiae of the various issues, the basic point is still that there currently is no overall rationale to adding a border wall. Some of the reasoning more than a decade ago have gone out of the window and what is left does not seem to be substantial in any way. Aside from the symbolism, what does it actually achieve?