The Border Wall or Fence

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

This is not a rebuttal of Trump's current request for funding. Trump has changed his position on most of this (not that he would admit it....if he got 10 feet of wall that proved effective, he would probably claim yet another "victory" and that he was right all along)

It is not a real time rebuttal but does show that this is a fight Trump and Trump alone has chosen to take on. As already stated by others in this thread Republicans in Congress wouldn't give Trump money for his wall either when they had control. This isn't a both sides issue. This is Trump (an individual) picking a fight. 

[Raider5678]

6 minutes ago, CharonY said:

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.

Shouldn't the study have been more of a percentage point thing? Instead of a binary "which is more" you could find out just how much each side was leaning.

[iNow]

9 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

As already stated by others in this thread Republicans in Congress wouldn't give Trump money for his wall either when they had control. This isn't a both sides issue.

Further to this point, there is only one GOP congressman with a district on the border, and even he opposes the wall:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/us/politics/will-hurd-border-wall-trump.html

Quote

Along the 2,000-mile border with Mexico, which sprawls across four states and nine House districts, a single seat is held by a Republican: Representative Will Hurd of Texas.

And Mr. Hurd, a former undercover C.I.A. officer of Texas’ 23rd District, the largest of the nine, has emerged as perhaps the most persistent critic in his party of President Trump’s wall.

Drawing upon his years undercover and his work in the private sector, Mr. Hurd has a starkly different vision for the southwestern border: fiber optic cables, sensors, radar, drones, increased staffing — but not the concrete or steel barrier that Mr. Trump has demanded before he reopens the government.

He has joined Democrats eight times this month to vote to reopen the government, without wall funding.

Eight times... This month alone.

Edited January 17, 2019 by iNow

[CharonY]

6 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Shouldn't the study have been more of a percentage point thing? Instead of a binary "which is more" you could find out just how much each side was leaning.

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.

[J.C.MacSwell]

7 minutes ago, CharonY said:

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.

 

With the extensive uncertainty in the numbers, all are at least somewhat uninformed.

Clearly the majority are legal, but what numbers are the educated working with? Closer to 12 Million or 20?

[CharonY]

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

With the extensive uncertainty in the numbers, all are at least somewhat uninformed.

Clearly the majority are legal, but what numbers are the educated working with? Closer to 12 Million or 20?

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.

[iNow]

It doesn’t. It’s a distraction from the actual point and one JCM could easily answer on his own with only a few mins on google

[CharonY]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

It doesn’t. It’s a distraction from the actual point and one JCM could easily answer on his own with only a few mins on google

It certainly "feels" that way.

[J.C.MacSwell]

Just now, CharonY said:

Why would that matter?

Why would any number of illegal immigrants matter? Or why would the uncertainty matter?

Just now, iNow said:

It doesn’t. It’s a distraction from the actual point and one JCM could easily answer on his own with only a few mins on google

Theres no consensus in the numbers.

[CharonY]

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Why would any number of illegal immigrants matter? Or why would the uncertainty matter?

Theres no consensus in the numbers.

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.

[J.C.MacSwell]

8 minutes ago, CharonY said:

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.

There must be a lot of irreputable ones that come up on google.

[iNow]

Can we please focus on the actual topic and not how sometimes if you're not careful you can land on inaccurate information using google?

[CharonY]

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Why would any number of illegal immigrants matter? Or why would the uncertainty matter?

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. 

4 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

There must be a lot of irreputable ones that come up on google.

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

9 minutes ago, iNow said:

Can we please focus on the actual topic and not how sometimes if you're not careful you can land on inaccurate information using google?

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.

[J.C.MacSwell]

26 minutes ago, iNow said:

Can we please focus on the actual topic and not how sometimes if you're not careful you can land on inaccurate information using google?

That was meant specific to illegal immigration. It was suggested I use google. I already had, and the information I got was unclear.

19 minutes ago, CharonY said:

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

My assumption is that, plus a focus on the concerns of those that feel illegal and/or legal immigration is to their detriment. Canada allows more immigration (as a percentage of population) than the US does. My hope is that this can continue. It won't happen if we ignore concerns of certain groups, and simply point out "net benefit" or insult people with racist accusations instead of addressing their concerns. (not that I expect everyone to be 100% happy with all of it)

Edited January 17, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[CharonY]

46 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

My assumption is that, plus a focus on the concerns of those that feel illegal and/or legal immigration is to their detriment. Canada allows more immigration (as a percentage of population) than the US does. My hope is that this can continue. It won't happen if we ignore concerns of certain groups, and simply point out "net benefit" or insult people with racist accusations instead of addressing their concerns. (not that I expect everyone to be 100% happy with all of it)

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?

[J.C.MacSwell]

56 minutes ago, CharonY said:

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?

Counter productive? I'm not sure what you mean there.

The bold includes an example of an assumption that should not be made.  How does it help to claim immigrants bring no crime? People commit crimes. Immigrants are no exception. They should be accepted with that understanding, while trying to limit immigrants with criminal histories.

I honestly think it helps if the facts, as best you know them, are stated without overreaching. Even if you suspect a racist component may be behind some of the concerns.

Overall I agree with the sentiment of the post. There is, hopefully at least, less racism in America than it might currently seem.

[Airbrush]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

What other action do you think should be made to address these concerns aside from informing folks about the actual situation? 

…….

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?

TV debates on these vital issues.  Wherever there are apparent discrepancies in FACTS, both sides of the issue should get together for televised debates.  Then the public vote on the issue like on "Dancing With The Stars." 

[CharonY]

51 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

How does it help to claim immigrants bring no crime? People commit crimes. Immigrants are no exception. They should be accepted with that understanding, while trying to limit immigrants with criminal histories.

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.

 

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

bold includes an example of an assumption that should not be made.  How does it help to claim immigrants bring no crime? People commit crimes. Immigrants are no exception. They should be accepted with that understanding, while trying to limit immigrants with criminal histories.

There is always a different way a stat could have been collected. Always some other stat which might be relevant. Other than attempting to insert doubt in the data available do you have any useful data which implies a higher number of illegal immigrants than generally reported or higher rates of crime? 

We should be using the best data we have to draw the beat conclusions we can. Not just using whataboutism to avoid conclusions all together. Crime will never be zero but that reality in itself supports nothing in particular. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

29 minutes ago, CharonY said:

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.

 

I knew you knew the difference. My point was with regard to making overreaching statements, which is all too common IMO. 

Aren't you more comfortable making an accurate statement that will hold up? Even if it isn't seemingly as strong a statement on the point you would like to make?

5 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

There is always a different way a stat could have been collected. Always some other stat which might be relevant. Other than attempting to insert doubt in the data available do you have any useful data which implies a higher number of illegal immigrants than generally reported or higher rates of crime? 

We should be using the best data we have to draw the beat conclusions we can. Not just using whataboutism to avoid conclusions all together. Crime will never be zero but that reality in itself supports nothing in particular. 

Where do you feel I did that? You are suggesting some motive that isn't there.

My point is properly addressing concerns of those that might feel disadvantaged by immigration. Do you want immigrants to feel welcomed by a few, or do you want them to feel welcomed by the vast majority?

...and I do believe that is a key element to maintaining immigration levels long term.

[CharonY]

47 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Aren't you more comfortable making an accurate statement that will hold up? Even if it isn't seemingly as strong a statement on the point you would like to make?

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? 

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Where do you feel I did that? You are suggesting some motive that isn't there.

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

My point is properly addressing concerns of those that might feel disadvantaged by immigration. 

Is this not a motive? Also how are you quantifying "properly"?

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Do you want immigrants to feel welcomed by a few, or do you want them to feel welcomed by the vast majority?

The vast majority do welcome Immigrants. So I don't understand what you are asking or what it has to do you "properly addressing" whatever it is you think you are "properly addressing".

"JUNE 21, 2018 - WASHINGTON D.C. -- A record-high 75% of Americans, including majorities of all party groups, think immigration is a good thing for the U.S. Gallup."

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

....and I do believe that is a key element to maintaining immigration levels long term.

The key is majority support you don't seem to realize is already a thing? 

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

Not sure what you mean. Could you elaborate?

 

It means your posted explanation was much more solid. One I would agree with.

It would stand up where the assumption in the other clearly would not. 

 

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

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? 

Wow. No to the bold. What the heck to the rest...you've attributed an awful lot to my comment. Stop reading between the lines...I wrote nothing between them.

How about I take something you say out of context, and go on a diatribe about it? I would say you wouldn't think much of it.

 

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Is this not a motive? Also how are you quantifying "properly"?

The vast majority do welcome Immigrants. So I don't understand what you are asking or what it has to do you "properly addressing" whatever it is you think you are "properly addressing".

"JUNE 21, 2018 - WASHINGTON D.C. -- A record-high 75% of Americans, including majorities of all party groups, think immigration is a good thing for the U.S. Gallup."

The key is majority support you don't seem to realize is already a thing? 

Short term thinking.

How would you properly address those with opinions different from yours? Tell them their wrong and insult them? Call them racist? Ignore them? Lie to them?

The key is not preaching to the choir. That's the kind of talk that gets you Trump...or after impeachment...Trump II.

 

 

Edited January 18, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[Ten oz]

54 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

How would you properly address those with opinions different from yours? Tell them their wrong and insult them? Call them racist? Ignore them? Lie to them?

Considering the situation I don't understand why "you" is in bold followed by things like "insult", "ignore" and "lie". It is Trump who can be shown doing such things daily. I fail to see how I owe an answer to these questions? I supported Obama's push for dreamers and pathways to citizenship. During Obama's time in office he didn't give his opposition insulting nicknames on social media, ignore or kick out reporters during press briefings, and didn't blatantly lie constantly. 

If you can qoute where I have lied, used known insults against those posters disagreeing with me, or ignore posted directed at me which request a response I will gladly do my best to answer the questions you asked. Otherwise I veiw them as rhetorical. 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

The key is not preaching to the choir. That's the kind of talk that gets you Trump...or after impeachment...Trump II.

I am not sure what you me. If preaching to the choir won Trump the White House and will which Trump II the White House than you appear to be imply in preaching to the choir works. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Considering the situation I don't understand why "you" is in bold followed by things like "insult", "ignore" and "lie". It is Trump who can be shown doing such things daily. I fail to see how I owe an answer to these questions? I supported Obama's push for dreamers and pathways to citizenship. During Obama's time in office he didn't give his opposition insulting nicknames on social media, ignore or kick out reporters during press briefings, and didn't blatantly lie constantly. 

If you can qoute where I have lied, used known insults against those posters disagreeing with me, or ignore posted directed at me which request a response I will gladly do my best to answer the questions you asked. Otherwise I veiw them as rhetorical. 

That wasn't my intent. You was bolded simply for emphasis. I wasn't sure why you put my "properly addressed" in quotes ...like it was some code for something. I wanted to know what it meant to you and asked in that manner.

The examples were how I see the right and left extremes (plus Trump) addressing concerns coming from the other side. Not very helpful IMO.