*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[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).

[TheSpoonald]

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

Yeah, but you can't do that unless you know how many 100,000's there are, which you don't. So the rate is bunk.

What you've also forgotten to do....

Census data does include illegals. It's currently illegal to ask citizenship data on the census. So the illegals are included in total headcount. We just don't know how to differentiate them from the native population. The 330M remains constant.

And even if your math is right, which it isn't, my point to MMM would still be correct. And that point was that the yale data means that the number of crimes committed by illegal immigrants is higher than you thought.

[Poopadoop]

Yeah, but you can't do that unless you know how many 100,000's there are, which you don't. So the rate is bunk.

Nor do you know the exact number of murders, so there.

So you estimate number of murders, then you estimate population, then you calculate murders / 100k.

Census data does include illegals. It's currently illegal to ask citizenship data on the census. So the illegals are included in total headcount. We just don't know how to differentiate them from the native population. The 330M remains constant.

There are definitely people who don't show up on the census though, right? Are these more likely to be legals or illegals?

And even if your math is right, which it isn't, my point to MMM would still be correct. And that point was that the yale data means that the number of crimes committed by illegal immigrants is higher than you thought.

Sure, and if there's more blue-eyed people in the country than you thought, the number of crimes committed by blue-eyed people is higher than you thought. Doesn't mean any given blue-eyed person is more dangerous than they were before you got better at counting them.

[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.)

[Poopadoop]

"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."

To be fair, and assuming I understand this correctly, I think they're using a bit of bananalogic here. You don't know what their crimes rates are to begin with, so whatever number of crimes you attribute to illegals is already a wild guess. Half of a wild guess isn't really an informative figure is it?

[MadMojoMonkey]

To be fair, and assuming I understand this correctly, I think they're using a bit of bananalogic here. You don't know what their crimes rates are to begin with, so whatever number of crimes you attribute to illegals is already a wild guess. Half of a wild guess isn't really an informative figure is it?

I never said any specific number, and neither did nanners. He said that crimes by illegal immigrants is a reason he thinks the wall is a "best" use of our money to solve crime problems.
Whatever the number was at the beginning of the conversation, it's now half that.

[TheSpoonald]

Whatever the number was at the beginning of the conversation, it's now half that it needs to be re-calculated incorporating the new population data

FYP

[Poopadoop]

I never said any specific number, and neither did nanners. He said that crimes by illegal immigrants is a reason he thinks the wall is a "best" use of our money to solve crime problems.
Whatever the number was at the beginning of the conversation, it's now half that.

I don't think it works that way, but w/e.

[TheSpoonald]

either criticize the methodology of this study, or accept the results.

Ok.

"You have the same number of crimes

^Bullshit. You never knew the number of crimes to begin with. You estimated it based on the size of population. Now that the size of population has changed, so has your estimate of the number of crimes. This is just an example of left-leaning academia confirmation biasing themselves into retardation. Let me know if the Yale guys explained how they are presuming to know the number of crimes committed by illegal aliens. Even you admitted no such data exists.

this new data has already halved what you thought the crime rate was.

Actually, no it didn't. And regardless of what the crime rate is numerically....I do know for sure that it's high enough for drug overdoses to cause a measurable downward effect on life expectancy. So you can play whatever mathematical magic you want. Even if I believed that the effect is only half as bad as I thought.....I still want the wall.

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.

Actually it does. You would be right if there was some mechanism by which we could know the citizenship of every offender. But we don't. SO we have to guess from population data. Then the population data changed. So we need a new guess.

It can change the analysis performed on last year's data

Finally you get it. It changes the analysis. Since we dont' know the number of crimes, we have to get it through analysis. And you just said the analysis changed. So the number of crimes changes.

We done on this, now?

God I hope so

Do you still think this problem of illegal immigration poses a problem to Americans?

Yeah

which subset you cull is irrelevant.

Only one subset is not protected by the constitution.

Do you think this is relevant?

Why wouldn't it be?

Can you walk me through that one?

Social programs for illegal alien led households (key descriptive phrase) cost $116B a year. Enough for 4 walls. And that doesn't include depressed wages. Are you really trying to tell me that an illegal border crossing is a victimless crime?

[Poopadoop]

Actually, no it didn't. And regardless of what the crime rate is numerically....I do know for sure that it's high enough for drug overdoses to cause a measurable downward effect on life expectancy. So you can play whatever mathematical magic you want. Even if I believed that the effect is only half as bad as I thought.....I still want the wall.

Back to blaming drugs on illegal aliens I see.

Social programs for illegal alien led households (key descriptive phrase) cost $116B a year. Enough for 4 walls. And that doesn't include depressed wages. Are you really trying to tell me that an illegal border crossing is a victimless crime?

Funny how you're so confident in this figure while admitting every other number related to illegal immigrants is virtually impossible to know.

[TheSpoonald]

Funny how you're so confident in this figure while admitting every other number related to illegal immigrants is virtually impossible to know.

Actually I didn't say "every" other number is impossible to know. Just the numbers where it's illegal to ask, like on arrests and census.

However, for stuff like medicaid, they can just tell by whether or not you have a social security number.