Border crossings down 70% since ending Title 42

I think the key here is word salad. Biden says unlawful crossings are down, while simultaneously telling you in small print that it is due to de-criminalization. The best way to lower arrest is not arrest people—which of course has no correlation with crime. We shall see what the actual numbers are.

 

In a more recent article they've stayed that encounters are down 50%.

 

Right wingers should claim this is because GOP governors are sending handfuls of state national guardsmen to the Texas border. Claim the W!!

 

I think word is getting around down south of the border that America may not really be a great place to live. Unless, of course, you want to get shot while just minding your own business. The irony is that these immigrants claim they're trying to get away from violence back home.

 

If the right was honest when they said immigrants are fine, they just need to come here legally, this wouldn’t matter. You’re right, should be interesting to see how this unfolds. They’re now entering legally yet seems some still have a problem with it.

 

It is still word salad. What is the basic number that matters for most Americans? How many people are crossing the boarder into the USA! Arrests, legal, illegal, encounters…are just distractions. They are all subsets of the important number. Both sides of the political isle use this deception.

 

"They're coming to replace us."

 

Baeic number that matters to most Americans? What in the world are you talking about?

 

Read the next sentence for your answer. You’re welcome.

 

So, the important number is the one you can use your imagination for, that's always been the case for the immigration panic. Arrests can be up, deportations sky high, crossings down, there will always be an uncountable mass of people still entering the country for the xenophobes and border security fanatics to obsess over, even though they cant quantify it themselves.

 

I would say "illegal" versus "legal" is an important distinction. But the federal government can just treat "illegal" crossings as "legal" crossings and that distinction becomes meaningless.

Why controlling definitions is so powerful. Orwell would be proud.

 

What a ridiculous, partisan, nonsensical response. Without the base number, which is the actual number of people crossing the boarder, the rest of the numbers are meaningless. Statistics can be manipulated, and are manipulated ever day. Raw data can’t be manipulated, unless you lie (which administrations would never do, right?). Take off your angry partisan beanie and have a real conversation.

 

How can they do that? Even decriminalization (which I dont see any evidence of as a policy) isnt 'legalization.' Controlling definitions are powerful, so maybe dont contribute to the "Orwellianism" by blurring the definitions.

 

If statistics can be manipulated, why are you saying we need to see other statistics? Seems incoherent. Also why cant "raw data" be manipulated to? Seems like it frequently is.

 

If the raw data is

Year 1: 1,000 crossings
Year 2: 2,000 crossings

Why is that more important than:

Year 1: 20% crossers arrested
Year 2: 80% crossers arrested

You could manipulate the raw data and just say "ooh look border crossings doubled," but in year one way more people entered the country illegally.

 

If a person crosses the border and requests asylum then they are not here illegally. If a million people walk to the border and requests asylum why do people care if they are not breaking the law?

 

Statistics do not mean anything without raw data. That is a fact. As I said, anything can be manipulated, including raw data. But it’s much harder to manipulate raw data. Raw data is not statistical by itself, it is used in comparison to other raw data or isolated from the raw data to create a statistic.

 

I told people this would happen. But the people who get the most worked up over "the border" are usually the people the least educated about it.
biden has a border scapegoat | Page 2 | Swamp Gas Forums

 

You are proving my point. Thank you. In your example you know the raw data, and as a result you have correctly concluded that less people actually remained in the country. It all starts with the raw data. You see, people can actually agree on this message board. We should grab a brew.