Quote:
Originally Posted by fd-guy
Your kudos are completely meaningless to me. Save them for someone that considers you worthy of looking up to.
The "both sides have bias" point is discredited straight off the bat. The Center for Migration Studies is an academic research institution. The Center for Immigration Studies was established by white nationalist John Tanton specifically as a spin-off of FAIR as a way of lending intellectual credibility to immigration restrictionist policies. Its methodology has been called into question by the Cato Institute, Urban Institute, PolitiFact, FactCheck.org, the Washington Post, and the National Academies of Sciences. Not exactly a leftist conspiracy.
Brookings criticized the claim based on the validity of its statistics. Using differences of differences calculated from surveys produces unreliable results. This is a matter of methodology, not politics. Separate the two.
The Fed, BLS, and Pew saw a drop in the foreign-born workforce. But that is not a confirmation of self-deportation numbers being accurate or even existing. Noticing a trend does not validate a particular number. Again, two distinct points.
The foreign-born population dropped. No one argued otherwise. But there was debate about whether the number cited by DHS was accurate. This is what they were debating.
I realize that distinction may be lost on someone purposely avoiding it. I don't have any interest in reading the other weighty tomes of misinformation you linked.
|
Question - If you're too lazy, uncurious and anti-intellectual to open and read my links, on what basis do you conclude they are "weighty tomes of misinformation"?
You seem highly defensive and close-minded. You should try opening yourself up to other arguments once in a while. You'll probably be happier. Most contrarians I know are. And you might learn how to disagree without being so disagreeable.
Speaking of a "distinction that may be lost on someone purposely avoiding it" - the CIS wants to restrict ILLEGAL immigration. It aggressively supports immigrants who enter the United States LEGALLY. That's a pretty important distinction, don't you think? And I gotta love the way you paint all of the thousands of CIS studies published over the past 4 decades as having the same identical faulty "methodology" lol. So if a single study is critiqued by, say, the Cato Institute, it means Cato is ipso facto calling into question every single study CIS ever published. Sorry fd-guy, but that's not the way it works. And here I thought you were intelligent.
Still too insecure to show us your link to the number ("about 200,000") you attributed to the Center for Migration Studies of New York City (why do omit the NYC part)? Still too insecure to provide a link to the Brookings critique of the CIS data? Why? Are you afraid I might have some methodology issues? Sorry, but I don't find your own blather to be very persuasive. "Using differences of differences calculated from surveys produces unreliable results" lol. Wtf are you trying to say? You're not helping anyone, least of all yourself. You'd be much better off letting the CMS-NYC and Brookings speak for themselves.
I'll take back the kudos. What makes you think I want you to "look up to" me? That's a weird deflection. I just thought you might turn out to be more worthy of and adept at debating than the usual lib suspects in this forum. You just proved me wrong.
No Soup, I Mean Kudos, for You!
