|
 Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
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?
 Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
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.
 Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
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.
 Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
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.)
|