Mexican Loyalties in the United States

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

How is it that you know who Borjas is, but don’t know the number of illegal immigrants, how they get into the country, or information about assimilation?

[/quote]

Again, that 45% figure you gave earlier, is that for ALL migrant workers? Because at the point you jumped in they were talking about those from “south of the border.” And, PR’s last comment, in your quote, only mentioned Mexicans. Though I realize the number he gave confused it.

Edit: Actually, from your link, it does appear to be ALL “unauthorized migrants” as they use the more commnon 12 million estimate.

“The Pew Hispanic Center has previously estimated that there are between 11.5 and 12 million unauthorized migrants in 2006”

142

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
…or why you won’t read material from these fields.
[/quote]

Never said that.

143

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:

Seriously, though, G_L. I’ll make a public apology for misreading the original article if it makes you happy.

I just try to keep down your bullshit levels PR. You want to make me happy why don’t you try reading Borjas. I’ll tell you in advance that he agrees with a lot of what you’re saying. Maybe you’ll come here making arguments that aren’t complete bullshit. Hell, after reading that other thread it seems you’ve picked up an econ book lately, perhaps you can learn.

You surprised me with this answer, young padawan. I was all geared-up for my public apology, humiliation, and rehabilitation, and now all I have is a mandate to cut back on the BS. Yessir!

It’s been awhile since I’ve read Borjas. I’ve seen some of the stuff he publishes through the CIS. He takes a dim view of low-skill immigration and illegal immigration in general, from what I remember.

Here’s some more hatefacts Borjas published on Los Angeles and welfare:
http://borjas.typepad.com/the_borjas_blog/2009/02/la-county-and-welfare.html

Pretty interesting, no?

Unfortunately I have to do some work tonight, but I’ll try to get to your link tomorrow.

How is it that you know who Borjas is, but don’t know the number of illegal immigrants, how they get into the country, or information about assimilation?

[/quote]

I’ll admit, I haven’t read all of Borjas’ books. I do read stuff from VDARE and the Center for Immigration Studies, where Borjas is often given a forum to speak his mind.

The number of illegals, in reality, is unknown. No one has done a hard count. They’ve done extrapolations based on flow rates and how many end up in INS bins.

As a general rule, it’s wise to double any bad number the government gives you. For example, the official unemployment rate is over 10%. We know that the way they calculate that rate now is different than how they calculated it pre-Kennedy. The U-6 rate is a much more accurate number, and it currently sits at (least) 17.6%: a Great Depression number

Now, as I mentioned earlier, the rate of illegal immigration was still ACCELERATING up through 2006 and has just now slowed back down. I posted an INS link dating back to 2003 earlier. I also posted the Bear Stearns report calling the official number into question. I’d say that, at the very least, there are 20 million here. Los Angeles county is 40% foreign born and we’ve got roughly 10 million people in this area, totaling roughly 4 million in this area alone.

I hate to be such a killjoy, I just tend not to believe people who don’t have my best interests in mind (the Feds) when they tell me something I know not to be true based on my own back-of-the-envelope calculations.

144

PRCalidude, take this youngster to East LA, Van Nuys, Sylmar, El Monte, Riverside County, or any of the other places where white people are a minority. He might find enlightenment there.

145

Check out the teen and unmarried birth rates. Wow!

146

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
…or why you won’t read material from these fields.

Never said that. [/quote]

That’s true. You said you wouldn’t read anything that proves you are in error or using faulty logic on this particular issue.

Are you trying to imply then that it is only on this particular issue where you are being purposefully ignorant?

147

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
…or why you won’t read material from these fields.

Never said that.

That’s true. You said you wouldn’t read anything that proves you are in error or using faulty logic on this particular issue.

Are you trying to imply then that it is only on this particular issue where you are being purposefully ignorant?

[/quote]

Never said any of that. I’ve repeatedly said you should make arguments in your words, providing the links to back yourself up.

148

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:

Seriously, though, G_L. I’ll make a public apology for misreading the original article if it makes you happy.

I just try to keep down your bullshit levels PR. You want to make me happy why don’t you try reading Borjas. I’ll tell you in advance that he agrees with a lot of what you’re saying. Maybe you’ll come here making arguments that aren’t complete bullshit. Hell, after reading that other thread it seems you’ve picked up an econ book lately, perhaps you can learn.

You surprised me with this answer, young padawan. I was all geared-up for my public apology, humiliation, and rehabilitation, and now all I have is a mandate to cut back on the BS. Yessir!

It’s been awhile since I’ve read Borjas. I’ve seen some of the stuff he publishes through the CIS. He takes a dim view of low-skill immigration and illegal immigration in general, from what I remember.

Here’s some more hatefacts Borjas published on Los Angeles and welfare:
http://borjas.typepad.com/the_borjas_blog/2009/02/la-county-and-welfare.html

Pretty interesting, no?

Unfortunately I have to do some work tonight, but I’ll try to get to your link tomorrow.

How is it that you know who Borjas is, but don’t know the number of illegal immigrants, how they get into the country, or information about assimilation?

I’ll admit, I haven’t read all of Borjas’ books. I do read stuff from VDARE and the Center for Immigration Studies, where Borjas is often given a forum to speak his mind.

The number of illegals, in reality, is unknown. No one has done a hard count. They’ve done extrapolations based on flow rates and how many end up in INS bins.

As a general rule, it’s wise to double any bad number the government gives you. For example, the official unemployment rate is over 10%. We know that the way they calculate that rate now is different than how they calculated it pre-Kennedy. The U-6 rate is a much more accurate number, and it currently sits at (least) 17.6%: a Great Depression number

Now, as I mentioned earlier, the rate of illegal immigration was still ACCELERATING up through 2006 and has just now slowed back down. I posted an INS link dating back to 2003 earlier. I also posted the Bear Stearns report calling the official number into question. I’d say that, at the very least, there are 20 million here. Los Angeles county is 40% foreign born and we’ve got roughly 10 million people in this area, totaling roughly 4 million in this area alone.

I hate to be such a killjoy, I just tend not to believe people who don’t have my best interests in mind (the Feds) when they tell me something I know not to be true based on my own back-of-the-envelope calculations. [/quote]

You seem to be implying that only the government has listed the lower figure of 12m. Other than the Bear Stearns report and the government’s numbers, what do other researchers believe?

149

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
…or why you won’t read material from these fields.

Never said that.

That’s true. You said you wouldn’t read anything that proves you are in error or using faulty logic on this particular issue.

Are you trying to imply then that it is only on this particular issue where you are being purposefully ignorant?

Never said any of that. I’ve repeatedly said you should make arguments in your words, providing the links to back yourself up.
[/quote]

Actually that’s exactly what you said above. I asked you if you would actually read links if I posted them, you said no. I’ll re-post the question. It’s a day later, maybe you’ll change your answer.

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Honest question: If I post information which proves some of the things you’ve mentioned here to be in error or calls your logic into question, will you simply dismiss it as “not science”?

All evidence that can possibly be brought in will be from economists and social scientists. Will you read the material? And have you at least skimmed the assimilation article I posted above?[/quote]

150

I have some major issue with most “social sciences”; the stats used to support their claims, the study designs, and the idea that most assume correlation to equal causation.

I read some study on CNN that foudn that a higher percentage of children who were spanked at age 1 were were in the higher aggressive range by age 3. The group used this information presented to say that spanking makes kids aggressive, let me know if you see any study or interpretation flaws there. First no baseline measure of aggression, second which causes which if there is any direct cause or t it is just a correlated emasure.

Secondly Gambit, I believe you are one of the ones that supports social sciences right, but would tell me I am racist if I said black americans are shown to have a statistically significant higher arrest rate than white americans, or that hispanics have a higher welfare rate. Both completely legitimate claims if you truly adopt the parameters in defining study of society as a science.

151

Really not taking into account people’s feelings or being PC, illegal immigrants in this country are nothing more than a parasite, and I mean that in a technical sense.

152

Actually, Gambit, on page 2 I asked two different questions concerning your links and didn’t get anything back from you. So, I’m not chomping at the bit for you to assign reading material. This is the last time I’ll say it to you, because this is now a repeat, of a repeat, of a repeat. If you mean to work links into arguments, exchanging in a back and forth, go ahead and do it. If you intend on just dropping off some links, no thanks. I don’t come here for that kind of engagement.

153

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Honest question: If I post information which proves some of the things you’ve mentioned here to be in error or calls your logic into question, will you simply dismiss it as “not science”?

All evidence that can possibly be brought in will be from economists and social scientists. Will you read the material? And have you at least skimmed the assimilation article I posted above?

No. I’d like to see you actually make an argument, backing it up with quotes from your material, if you’d like. But don’t come on here looking for a reading list war. The dropout rate for hispanics was in 2007 was 21.4, according to the NCES. This http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2009/section3/indicator20.asp, a look at status dropout rates, breaks it down to 34% (holy crap!) for foreign born, and 11% for native born. Even native born show a rate double that of whites, and worse than the 8.4% for blacks.[/quote]

This is the post that set it off. The original post came off as if you were going to drop some links and run. This should’ve been clear from my “reading list war,” comment. However I did invite you to use your material within your own arguments, “backing it with quotes from your material.”

From other responses…

[quote]Sloth:

  1. This is a forum. The only reason I participate in a forum is to make my viewpoints known. Or, to debate another member’s view. That is, we are both responding in our own words, using figures, sources, etc., where needed. This is not Gamibt’s (or anyone’s) personal link dump, where you get to drop off a reading list for the rest of us. State your case, and source where needed.

Sloth:
Never said any of that. I’ve repeatedly said you should make arguments in your words, providing the links to back yourself up.[/quote]

If you haven’t been paying attention, I tried twice to bring up discussion from your links, before this dustup. Once concerning the the figures for overstayers and illegal entry (from for your link!), another about dropout figures. Never heard back.

154

They took arr jobs!

155

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

They took arr jobs!
[/quote]

The biggest mockers always live in the whitest areas.

156

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Actually, Gambit, on page 2 I asked two different questions concerning your links and didn’t get anything back from you. So, I’m not chomping at the bit for you to assign reading material. This is the last time I’ll say it to you, because this is now a repeat, of a repeat, of a repeat. If you mean to work links into arguments, exchanging in a back and forth, go ahead and do it. If you intend on just dropping off some links, no thanks. I don’t come here for that kind of engagement.[/quote]

You asked two questions that could have easily been answered by (shock) opening the links and reading for 2-3 minutes. This is exactly what I mean when I say I’m not going to spoon feed you the answers. YOU have to put in the work.

I don’t come here for that kind of engagement.

157

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Sloth wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Honest question: If I post information which proves some of the things you’ve mentioned here to be in error or calls your logic into question, will you simply dismiss it as “not science”?

All evidence that can possibly be brought in will be from economists and social scientists. Will you read the material? And have you at least skimmed the assimilation article I posted above?

No. I’d like to see you actually make an argument, backing it up with quotes from your material, if you’d like. But don’t come on here looking for a reading list war. The dropout rate for hispanics was in 2007 was 21.4, according to the NCES. This http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2009/section3/indicator20.asp, a look at status dropout rates, breaks it down to 34% (holy crap!) for foreign born, and 11% for native born. Even native born show a rate double that of whites, and worse than the 8.4% for blacks.

This is the post that set it off. The original post came off as if you were going to drop some links and run. This should’ve been clear from my “reading list war,” comment. However I did invite you to use your material within your own arguments, “backing it with quotes from your material.”
[/quote]

Sloth, I’ve been making arguments throughout this thread. From “You misread (origional post)” to “your figures are wrong (visa overstayers)” to “your figures are wrong (number of illegals in the US)” to “evidence points to Hispanics are assimilating” to “proxy does not mean standard or hurdle.” Do you not think these are arguments?

You have asked questions that could easily be answered by reading the links and dismissed entire fields of study. When I asked you if you would read, you said, “no.”

This isn’t Immigration 101 with professor gambit. I’m not obliged to answer questions you could learn by reading the attached links, defend the methodology of studies, or defend entire fields.

If you want a debate, you’ll have to do a little work yourself. I’m not here to explain how or why something isn’t “snakeoil.”

158

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

You asked two questions that could have easily been answered by (shock) opening the links and reading for 2-3 minutes. This is exactly what I mean when I say I’m not going to spoon feed you the answers. YOU have to put in the work.

I don’t come here for that kind of engagement. [/quote]

I specifically asked you those questions to get you to answer, and from your answer, we’d go from there. Only one example, and then I’m done with you. When I asked you if the overstay/legal entry figure was for all migrants, I wanted your agreement (or disagreement, then we’d have to argue that) before making my point. The point being, at that time, Cockney and PR seemed narrowly focused on Mexicans. PR specifically said Mexicans, and Cockney said “south of the border.” That’s found in your quote, involving the two. Granted, as I’ve stated, the “30 million” mexicans number confused the issue. After not answering me, and showing no indication that you’d do so, I pointed out that your link calls the entire illegal population unauthorized “migrants.” It’d be better if we had an estimate of how many Mexicans enter illegally, and how many enter legally only to overstay. That would’ve been more relevant.

159

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:

You asked two questions that could have easily been answered by (shock) opening the links and reading for 2-3 minutes. This is exactly what I mean when I say I’m not going to spoon feed you the answers. YOU have to put in the work.

I don’t come here for that kind of engagement.

I specifically asked you those questions to get you to answer, and from your answer, we’d go from there. Only one example, and then I’m done with you. When I asked you if the overstay/legal entry figure was for all migrants, I wanted your agreement (or disagreement, then we’d have to argue that) before making my point. [/quote]

And I didn’t feel like playing your game so I didn’t answer. There is nothing special here.

You might have also taken into account that Cockney had said something like “virtually all” and this post was a response to that. I

Had you asked nicely instead of scoffing at entire fields of study, I might have tried to find these figures for you.

160

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

You might have also taken into account that Cockney had said something like “virtually all” and this post was a response to that.[/quote]

Actually, cockney said:

Oddly enough, your link, even when looking at the entire migrant pop. shows that more than half entered ILLEGALY.

“The rest of the unauthorized migrant population, somewhat more than half, entered the country illegally”

And his response, was to Maximus:

MaximusB wrote: