*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[MadMojoMonkey]

I said, "Refresh my memory on the last time you spent more than 1 post giving as much of a heated defense of any left-wing policy as you have to the wall issue, please."
re. your opening paragraph. That's cool and all, but it doesn't address what I said. Have you ever taken a pages long stand on any of those issues?
'cause I'm sorry if I painted you as more right-wing than centrist if that how you see yourself, but it's not the impression you've made here.


That's a very interesting study from Yale. I was wrong. Your number seems better.

Oh FFS.

Walls work
there's no nuance. Walls work.
FACT: Walls work.
I'm trying to build a wall.

he cries into the wind as the walls close in around him.

As if you saying a thing makes the facts on the table go away.
Fact: a wall doesn't stop someone, it slows them down, buying more time for law enforcement to apprehend them in the act.
Fact: an unmanned wall isn't even going to slow people down by a significant amount.

Information that you posted, which was contrary to my expectation drew these interesting conclusions:
The immigration population is roughly double what we've thought it's been for decades. It didn't suddenly double, it's just that our metrics for estimating a hidden population were not very good. However, our metrics for measuring crimes committed has been fine. We already knew that crime rates among illegal immigrants was lower than the citizenry, now we know it's half that still. So the crime committed by illegal immigrants is apparently a red herring. It needs to be dropped from a civilized discussion of why illegal immigration is bad for crime.
Same for jobs taken. Whatever the rate of jobs taken by illegal immigrants, that rate is from a population 2x the size we thought it was.

So these pressures on (these aspects of) American life are put to the test and come out not compelling.
I hadn't expected that. No, it doesn't change my opinion because I while interesting, my opinion was never rooted in these data.

Your opinion, on the other hand, is partially rooted in the criminal behavior of illegal immigrants, so at least that part I'm curious about.
Do you have anything to refute the validity of the source you just offered? (and does that mean you abandon the 25 M number for the 11.3 M number?)

I'm really over this ladder argument. Honestly, it's pathetic. First of all, if Trump was able to build the wall he wanted...ladders wouldn't work. You can't perch yourself on top while you lift the ladder over. Two ladders? Maybe. They would have to be really tall. They would have to be really strong. Picture it, would people orderly climb over one at a time? Or would they just all climb up the ladder single file? How many people are on the ladder at once? How strong does this ladder have to be? How much would that ladder weigh? How easily could something like that be carried through the desert?

Are you actually descending into dementia during this post?

Are you that much smarter than the average bear that you're the only one who would think of TWO ladders?
Well.. Again... at least you're on our side, huh?
You don't even need a saw to make a ladder. Just some sticks and twine and you're set. Bonus: Mr. Cayote's already got one stashed in a gully about a 1/4 mile from the wall.

As to the rest... just c'mon, man. One team borks a ladder and has to fix it with some sticks and twine on the fly and then everyone gets over and takes the rope down the other side ('cause they don't have your 2-ladder genius *wink*). The Cayote takes the borked ladder and stashes it back in the gully, 'cause he's not crossing. He don't give a fuck if they live or die. He got paid to get them across, and he did.
Those people are desperate, but they're still people. They're not stupid. They don't lack creativity and problem solving skills. They have a lot of time on their hands and motivation to not get caught.

How likely is it that someone would be able to approach the wall, set up the apparatus to get people climbing over it, herd people over it, and then move into america undetected? Without a wall, all they have to do is walk on through.

99%+ for an unmanned wall. 'bout the same as no wall. A manned wall is a totally different story, though, and not really answerable by me.

I don't get you. Would a wall would stop you, spoon, if you wanted past it, and were determined to break the law to do so. You think an unmanned 30 foot wall is "stopping" you? With your 2-ladder genius?
Naaaaaah.
You're a smart guy, but this doesn't require genius, man.

And locks are for honest people. So leave your front door open and stop locking your car.

You make it sound like crimes of opportunity aren't a thing. Or that illegal immigration is a crime of opportunity.
That's funny.
I wasn't going to go to Mexico, but I mean.. I was in Texas, and like, Mexico's right there, unprotected by a huge fuck-off wall... so I illegally immigrated. lolz. YOLO!

You on the populism thing still? You now telling me that asking a question in black and white is implying some position on my part? C'mon, man. Communication. You can do it real good when you want to. I've clarified my question had nothing to do with me making an assertion, rather just pointing out that by your own words, it's not so cut-and-dry as "everyone who voted for Trump did so because they totally support all of his policies, ergo a mandate on his campaign promises."


If I write it in all caps will you stop with the thing where you think I care about what have never mentioned?

I DON'T CARE WHY YOU WANT THE WALL.

I care why you think it's good for America's future. Subtle, but different.
You want the wall 'cause democracy. Fine.
Not interesting.

You said you not only want the wall 'cause democracy, but also 'cause it's best for America.
That's interesting.
What problems do you think a wall addresses?
Is a wall the optimal solution to those problems?

[TheSpoonald]

Have you ever taken a pages long stand on any of those issues?

What do you want from me? No one else here wants to talk about anything except ORANGE MAN BAD. Feel free to start a discussion on a left wing issue if you're curious about my position.

That's a very interesting study from Yale. I was wrong. Your number seems better.

Funny, now that illegal immigration is 2x the problem you thought it was, you don't seem any more concerned about it.

Fact: a wall doesn't stop someone

Actually, walls work.

Fact: an unmanned wall isn't even going to slow people down by a significant amount.

Walls work. and no one is advocating for an unmanned wall.

We already knew that crime rates among illegal immigrants was lower than the citizenry, now we know it's half that still.

First of all, we don't *know* that. And any arguments that even suggest that have to ignore the crime of illegally crossing the border before it even starts with math. So it's highly flawed. highly. Also, every stat I've ever seen shows the crime rate among illegal aliens in terms of crimes per 100K people. Or sort of per capita. So this new information you found doesn't affect the crime rate at all. It just means that the volume of crimes is 2x what you thought. Sleep tight.

Same for jobs taken. Whatever the rate of jobs taken by illegal immigrants, that rate is from a population 2x the size we thought it was.

Again, you have to understand what "per capita" means. If 12 million people took X million jobs. Then 24 million people take 2x million jobs. The problem is twice as worse as you thought it was, not half. Learn math please.

Ladders and a bunch of other crap that isn't very smart.

Walls work.

I care why you think it's good for America's future.

Walls work

[MadMojoMonkey]

What do you want from me?

Sorry. I thought you were someone else. Now I'm more certain that you have never spent more than lip service to support a left-wing issue, while you frequently spend days dropping walls of text in support of a right-wing issue.
I don't want anything but to understand who you are. Again. Sorry if me saying you're on the political right doesn't match your own vision of yourself.

No one else here wants to talk about anything except ORANGE MAN BAD. Feel free to start a discussion on a left wing issue if you're curious about my position.

Well... nothing get them worked up like having someone who has no data (reality) to back up what they're talking about, and you do that a lot. Add on top that your positions are not in line with theirs and everything gets exciting. I can't even remotely disagree with that much.

Oskar has repeatedly posted that Trump is not smart enough to understand grammar or string together a coherent sentence. That's probably the extent of the "orange man bad" talk here. Oskar's other opinions on political issues, Trump or otherwise, don't usually boil down to that.

Funny, now that illegal immigration is 2x the problem you thought it was, you don't seem any more concerned about it.

2x the people causing the same impact doesn't increase the problem, it shows that per capita, the problem is 1/2 what we thought it was.

In the post you linked with the 25M number, they made that clear. Do you want me to quote it for you, rather than summarize?
If you're using the data to support the 25M number, then you can't throw out the conclusions of the researchers whom collected and analyzed that data.
Either you show their methods are faulty, their conclusions false, or you accept their results.
If you accept 25M, then you have to accept, "same number of illegal aliens apprehended for crimes committed over the past XXX years we've been collecting data, but from a population that is 2x what our previous, bad estimates have guessed."

I wasn't concerned about it before. I'm not concerned about it now. It's never been a part of my line of questioning to assert an opinion on the matter. It's been a part of your line of reasoning vis-a-vis why you think a wall is good for America.

Actually, walls work.
Walls work. and no one is advocating for an unmanned wall.

"Shut up," he opined.

Forgot where you started with that goal post again, didn't you?
It was your assertions that an unmanned wall is effective at least as a speed bump and your use of the word "permanent" that was under question.
Since you've cleared up that by permanent you meant something like, "more resilient to re-boot if it ever gets cancelled and then reinstated," I'm fine with that.

At least admit that you wouldn't be "stopped" by a wall if you were already prepared to commit the crime of crossing it and there wasn't any personnel working that wall to swoop in and catch you. Sure... it will slow you down. The longer the manpower is gone, though, the less it slows anyone down.

Cayotes are unscrupulous assholes who can make a lot of money by assisting people in this crime. That means there are going to be professional wall-get-acrossers for hire before the entire wall is even finished being built, let alone the inevitable de-funding.

Nothing lasts forever. (My professional opinion with caveats involving event horizons and time dilation.)

First of all, we don't *know* that. And any arguments that even suggest that have to ignore the crime of illegally crossing the border before it even starts with math. So it's highly flawed. highly. Also, every stat I've ever seen shows the crime rate among illegal aliens in terms of crimes per 100K people. Or sort of per capita. So this new information you found doesn't affect the crime rate at all. It just means that the volume of crimes is 2x what you thought. Sleep tight.

We do know exactly how many arrests of illegal immigrants have been made, and for what crimes. What we didn't know what how many illegals there were total. So we were using a false estimate of 11.3 for the denominator in that equation. We have hard data on the number of arrests, so the numerator is static. The rate goes down if the numerator is static and the denominator increases.

Those per capita claims were based on the faulty estimate of 11.3M undocumented illegals. It's right there in the Yale link you posted.

Now, we could certainly postulate that if the number went from 25M (or whatever is current) to 50M (or whatever is 2x current), then we'd see a doubling in total crimes, at the same rate per capita. That is, you see, an entirely different topic, though.

Projecting an estimate about the future is not the same as incorporating new data into old data.

Again, you have to understand what "per capita" means. If 12 million people took X million jobs. Then 24 million people take 2x million jobs. The problem is twice as worse as you thought it was, not half. Learn math please.

The irony is that you're an accountant, right?

We don't have as good stats on jobs taken as we do arrests, but we do have some indication of the pressure those "taken" jobs has had on the economy and workforce. Again, that data hasn't changed, the number of people causing that data has changed.

Walls work.


Walls work

"Shut up," he opined.

If you're not prepared to discredit the entirety of the Yale study and its number of 25M, then you can't discredit the researchers other conclusions without getting into the nitty gritty about where exactly did they cross the line.
Else you're just being intellectually vapid, and you don't want that, do you?

[TheSpoonald]

We do know exactly how many arrests of illegal immigrants have been made, and for what crimes.

100% false and that pretty much destroys your whole argument.

The point is that we don't know how many arrests have been made. In most states, it's illegal to ask someone their immigration status when you arrest them.

[MadMojoMonkey]

100% false and that pretty much destroys your whole argument.

The point is that we don't know how many arrests have been made. In most states, it's illegal to ask someone their immigration status when you arrest them.

Ugh. OK, you have a point that the exact numbers are hard to come by. All I find is long ass report after long ass report about how it's hard to get good numbers on it.

Fine. We don't know the exact numbers. They're still the numbers from the past, which the new projection from Yale doesn't change.
It was a bad assumption on my part to say "we know the exact numbers." Seems like the kind of thing you don't really have to ask. One you got name, address, etc. to file the charges, you can pretty much figure out if they're a citizen of the US or not. I'd think by process of elimination, you eventually get to the illegal immigrant status, even if you never asked them. Just diligent background about who it is exactly that's getting their criminal record updated. Guess it's more complicated than that.

It's beside the point, though.

It's the Yale researchers who've said that the per capita rates are halved, not my dumb ass interpretation of it.

New data doesn't change old data. How ever many crimes were committed, that's a number. Whether or not we know it, it's a number from the past. New data can't change that number. How ever many crimes were committed, we thought it was from a population half the size we now think it is. Ergo, the rate is reduced by half, whether we know the exact value or not.

You follow?

[TheSpoonald]

You follow?

If there's something you want me to read in the yale study, just post the quote. I'm not going fishing.

The point is, you can't actually know what the illegal immigrant crime rate is. You don't know which criminals are illegal aliens, and which aren't. So you holding the numerator constant is flawed logic.

Let's say there are 3000 murders. And you have no idea the citizenship of the perpetrators. Then a statistician comes in and says "well, this bogus DHS study says there are 11 million illegal immigrants. And there are 330 million people in america. So 1/30 of the population is illegal aliens. 3000 murders x 1/30th of the population = 100 murders committed by illegals."

Now if the statistician had the Yale data he would say... There are 22 million illegals in a country of 330 million. That means 1/15 of the population is illegal aliens. 3000 murders x 1/15 = 200 murders committed by illegals

Notice I didn't change the number of crimes, I just changed the assumption about the citizenship of the perpetrators based on the Yale data.

Before the yale data, you could have deported everyone and expected to save 100 lives. But now you know that exporting all the illegals would save TWICE that many people.

You follow?

Also....let's be very very very very very clear about something. All of this math is hopelessly and illogically flawed. It presumes that an illegal alien starts out with a crime-count of -1 while every native born citizen starts at 0.

In other words, for this math to work, you have to ignore the fact that EVERY illegal alien has already committed a crime just by being here. For some reason folks think that's ok to dismiss from the math. I really don't get that.

[Poopadoop]

Before the yale data, you could have deported everyone and expected to save 100 lives. But now you know that exporting all the illegals would save TWICE that many people.

This is problematic for a number of reasons.

First, the assumption is made that the murder rate is equal among illegal immigrants and everyone else. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

But more importantly, assuming an equal murder rate, you could lower the total number of murders by reducing the population in any number of ways. E.g., deporting any number of randomly chosen people, deporting anyone over 50, deporting all legal immigrants, or (eventually) by lowering the birthrate to zero so the population dies off.

So, if you randomly deport half of the US, you will have half the number of murders. Half the murder rate!

This is why murder rates are typically reported as x per 100,000 people.

What you've also forgotten to do is incorporate the fact that the census-reported population of (let's say) 330 million doesn't count illegals. So either you have 330+11 =341m people with x number of murders, or you have 330+22 =352m people with x murders. And with the larger number, the murder rate/100k is actually lower than with the smaller number. That's not an argument in favour of illegal immigration, but it does make a difference in any arguments about how dangerous illegals may or may not be (which actually depends on their intrinsic murder rate, not the national murder rate, but w/e).

[MadMojoMonkey]

If there's something you want me to read in the yale study, just post the quote. I'm not going fishing.

Can't be bothered to actually read the link you posted as evidence for your own point?
What was that phrase going around? Intellectually vapid? I think that applies.

"You have the same number of crimes but now spread over twice as many people as was believed before, which right away means that the crime rate among undocumented immigrants is essentially half whatever was previously believed."


Now either criticize the methodology of this study, or accept the results. Don't try to re-phrase the findings to suit your agenda. The researcher's findings are spelled right out in black and white.
Now... since you said the wall is good for America 'cause it will reduce crime... this new data has already halved what you thought the crime rate was. Does your opinion on the efficacy of this wall to "work" at its stated purpose is still the best use of our tax dollars at reducing crime? Or are you so steeped in confirmation bias that new data comes in and your position is unwavering?

While we're on it. Look at how all those projections level off around 2008. The rate of illegal immigrants entering the country is about the same as the rate of illegals leaving the country and has been for over a decade.
If the crime rate is half what we thought it was, and if the number of illegal immigrants has been stable for over a decade, then where is all this hysteria coming from do you think?
Does it really seem like it's rooted in a realistic threat to our way of life?

The point is, you can't actually know what the illegal immigrant crime rate is. You don't know which criminals are illegal aliens, and which aren't. So you holding the numerator constant is flawed logic.

Dude. Whatever the number of crimes committed last year by illegal immigrants is not changed by our new understanding that there are more illegal immigrants than we thought there were last year.

You work with numbers. This is not hard. Whether or not we know the exact number doesn't matter. New data can't change last year's data. It can change the analysis performed on last year's data, but it can't change the history, only how we understand the history.

Let's say there are 3000 murders. And you have no idea the citizenship of the perpetrators. Then a statistician comes in and says "well, this bogus DHS study says there are 11 million illegal immigrants. And there are 330 million people in america. So 1/30 of the population is illegal aliens. 3000 murders x 1/30th of the population = 100 murders committed by illegals."

Now if the statistician had the Yale data he would say... There are 22 million illegals in a country of 330 million. That means 1/15 of the population is illegal aliens. 3000 murders x 1/15 = 200 murders committed by illegals

Notice I didn't change the number of crimes, I just changed the assumption about the citizenship of the perpetrators based on the Yale data.

Before the yale data, you could have deported everyone and expected to save 100 lives. But now you know that exporting all the illegals would save TWICE that many people.

You follow?

That's not what the Yale statistician did, though, and its not what he said.
We done on this, now?

You ready to accept that crime rates of illegal immigrants are already half what you thought they were when we started this conversation?
Do you still think this problem of illegal immigration poses a problem to Americans?

As poop pointed out. Given the assumption that murder rate is uniform across all members of society, legal or illegal, then the argument that you can ship 2x as many illegals and thwart 2x as many murders is equally true to any cross section of society. The assumption was that all members murder equally, so which subset you cull is irrelevant.

Also....let's be very very very very very clear about something. All of this math is hopelessly and illogically flawed. It presumes that an illegal alien starts out with a crime-count of -1 while every native born citizen starts at 0.

In other words, for this math to work, you have to ignore the fact that EVERY illegal alien has already committed a crime just by being here. For some reason folks think that's ok to dismiss from the math. I really don't get that.

True.
Do you think this is relevant? Are you equating a non-violent 1-time offense to a pattern of ongoing behavior that degrades our society?
Can you walk me through that one?

Saying that illegal immigrants are bad for crime because of a 1-time non-violent offense is not remotely the same as saying, "they're drug dealers, criminals, rapists, ..."
I don't understand if you're trying to say these are commensurately bad for America. (Yes, that's a Trump quote, not what you said, but just correct if it doesn't meet your standard.)