Diogenes
You have insufficient privileges to post here
BTW, it's illegal now, and has been for years.
8 U.S. Code § 1324a - Unlawful employment of aliens
What we need is enforcement of the laws already on the books.
Who do they round up for the deportation?
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
BTW, it's illegal now, and has been for years.
What we need is enforcement of the laws already on the books.
Daylight63
Verified User
Wow. I didn't realize you were that uneducated that you don't trust "studies". LOL.
If you don't like math and statistics it won't do much good to show you numbers and statistics. It would require more education than you have been able to amass but I'll humor you so you can go screaming about statistical manipulation while we all kinda know you don't know one foreign thing about statistics.
"The study found that undocumented immigrants are arrested at less than half the rate of native-born U.S. citizens for violent and drug crimes and a quarter the rate of native-born citizens for property crimes."
Undocumented Immigrant Offending Rate Lower Than U.S.-Born Citizen Rate
An NIJ-funded study examining data from the Texas Department of Public Safety estimated the rate at which undocumented immigrants are arrested for committing crimes. The study found that undocumented immigrants are arrested at less than half the rate of native-born U.S. citizens for violent and...
nij.ojp.gov
"Study finds over a 150-year period, immigrants have never been incarcerated at a greater rate than those born in the United States"
Immigrants are significantly less likely to commit crimes than the U.S.-born
A study co-led by Northwestern University economist Elisa Jácome provides the first historical comparison of incarceration rates of immigrants to U.S.-born citizens.<br />
news.northwestern.edu
"The study reveals that first-generation immigrants have not been more likely to be imprisoned than people born in the United States since 1880."
The mythical tie between immigration and crime
Research by Stanford’s Ran Abramitzky and co-authors uncovers the most extensive evidence to date that immigrants are less likely to be imprisoned than U.S.-born individuals.
" illegal immigrants were 26 percent less likely than native-born Americans to be convicted of homicide,"
Diogenes
You have insufficient privileges to post here
I'm hardly "screaming", and the reality of data manipulation is widely acknowledged by statisticians.
Studies are also later found to be flawed in many cases.
More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 alone
More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 — a new record
The number of articles being retracted rose sharply this year. Integrity experts say that this is only the tip of the iceberg.
www.nature.com
Daylight63
Verified User
You wouldn't be able to detect if it was happening. So you use this as a convenient "out" so you don't have to consider conclusions that don't comport with your world view.
I've seen it FAR too many times now.
Studies are also later found to be flawed in many cases.
More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 alone
More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 — a new record
The number of articles being retracted rose sharply this year. Integrity experts say that this is only the tip of the iceberg.
C'mon dude. All you are doing here is poisoning the well. Yes, bad people do bad things from time to time. So by your reasoning no one can say anything about anything ever.
If you THINK you can poke a hole in the statistics DO SO. But do it on the actual study you're talking about.
Diogenes
You have insufficient privileges to post here
Non sequitur.
Winston Churchill is said to have quipped: “I only believe in statistics that I have doctored myself”.
Daylight63
Verified User
I can't help but note that you have AVOIDED the actual study summaries I provided.
Is there a reason for that?
Daylight63
Verified User
Also: it is by definition NOT a "non sequitur" since it actually follows directly from your position.
Perhaps you mean it is an "argumentum ad absurdum" or some such.
(If you are going to try to sound more intelligent than you are, please put more effort into it).
Diogenes
You have insufficient privileges to post here
Didn't I already address that question?
I apply the same logic to "studies" (particularly those with political significance) that an investigator applies to crime.
Who has a motive, the means, and an opportunity?
Can you understand why I'm skeptical?
Diogenes
You have insufficient privileges to post here
Daylight63
Verified User
You didn't even fucking read them. How on earth could you know if the stats are monkeyed with?
You see, I was 100% right. You never have any plans to actually LOOk at what you demand because you know you don't understand it and it doesn't align with your preconceived notions of what it SHOULD say.
And then you go off on a tangent about a topic you know NOTHING about (statistics). As if your broad brush statement was meaningful.
You really are astoundingly uneducated
Daylight63
Verified User
I don't have the patience to teach you logic. You are clearly not an honest debator since you demanded I support my point and then IGNORED IT.
Sorry, Charlie. You lose. You showed your hand
Uneducated and dishonest....not a good combo. Just a pro-tip for you.
Diogenes
You have insufficient privileges to post here
I don't need to drink poison to know it's deadly.
If the data can be manipulated for political purposes, I presume that the likelihood is high that it was.
Diogenes
You have insufficient privileges to post here
Daylight63
Verified User
LOL. You really are not well educated. If you can't see the error in your thinking then you definitely had a tough time getting your GED.
Daylight63
Verified User
It followed. Sorry, your gambit of putting out a random latin phrase you don't actually understand is not going to cut it.
Diogenes
You have insufficient privileges to post here
So you say. You cannot prove it. Can you?
Daylight63
Verified User
OK, let me explain it to you in simple terms you can understand:
You cannot make a "blanket accusation" that since SOME statistics have been altered at SOME time that therefore ALL statistics are questionable.
If that were true then no one could speak authoritatively to ANYTHING because EVERYTHING can be altered and has been at some point in time.
Your EXCUSE for not liking statistics applies to EVERYTHING. Meaning no one can possibly prove any point because nothing is free of potential malfeasance.
NOW: How to save yourself: yes, statistics CAN be monkeyed with. But in any given study (which you could track down from the articles I posted) you can read HOW the statistics were done. If YOU KNOW anything about statistics you can CRITIQUE the statistical methods and point out the errors.
THAT is what an educated person does. Not what you are doing.
You are proving to be astoundingly stupid on a large number of topics. Please try to slow your roll.
Diogenes
You have insufficient privileges to post here
That's why I didn't.
I'll reiterate.
I apply the same logic to "studies" and data (particularly those with political significance) that an investigator applies to crime.
Emphasis added.
If said study/data has political ramifications, I presume it has been manipulated by those with the motive, means, and opportunity to do so.
Therefore ...
Won’t happen n America
Daylight63
Verified User
And then you ignored the studies I pointed to without any discussion of how the statistics were wrong.
Please stop this. The stupidity is really hard to read.