Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You realize 2 of these are complaints about the 2000 census and things were changed in 2010 right? I mean, they were aware of issues and they update the information quarterly I believe.
Oh and 2 of those 3 links have nothing to do with foreign born data anyway. Of course there is going to be a margin of error involved in counting a nation of people.
Last edited by huddledmasses; 07-24-2011 at 10:46 AM..
Hey some random people saying OTHER PEW studies are flawed. Are YOU, the person that started this thread to refute gov't studies and studies that rely on gov't data, ever going to refute the actual study I linked or even link to someone refuting it? Next you will be linking to how this PEW study is flawed because someone named Benicar who is an authority on the subject somehow said it on city-pages.
Yeah and they don't even pay sales taxes in Texas which really makes their contributions nil. All they have to do is run over to a manifestos office and get their sales taxes rebated.
Maybe you and Benicar need to go to Texas and have some words with their head of finance.
Quote:
A report by the top financial officer of Texas claims illegal immigrants are more a boon to the Lone Star State's economy than a drain, adding another layer to the immigration reform debate.Texas Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn found that illegal immigrants not only contributed more than $17 billion to the state's economy in the last fiscal year, but that they also pay more than enough in taxes and fees to cover the services they receive.
You realize 2 of these are complaints about the 2000 census and things were changed in 2010 right? I mean, they were aware of issues and they update the information quarterly I believe.
Oh and 2 of those 3 links have nothing to do with foreign born data anyway. Of course there is going to be a margin of error involved in counting a nation of people.
Yeah, that post was very funny. It looks like Beni just did a google search or two and just posted articles without actually critically analyzing what the articles were saying or how they possibly could strengthen the conclusion she is trying to prove.
Is this like where you tell me to do something but hope I don't?
Don’t play dumb. None of “THEIR” as in the agencies I referenced. But, keep trying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by huddledmasses
When you can tell me how anyone is determining the illegals not under ICE jurisdiction I'll stop trying. You haven't even been able to attempt that, in 2 threads now. Try again.
No, YOU are the one who claimed only those “under ICE jurisdiction” can be included in the illegal alien percentage.
Allow me to refresh your memory. . . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by huddledmasses
That is the same 27% figure benicar tried to claim was illegals. It is actually all foreign born legal and illegal. Only 1.6 percent of that 27 percent were under ICE jurisdiction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by huddledmasses
Sure, but the first person to use a GAO report in both threads so far was you. I just posted other relevant information you were leaving out. Try again.
Other “relevant info?” Such as flawed Pew reports?
Quote:
Originally Posted by huddledmasses
You realize 2 of these are complaints about the 2000 census and things were changed in 2010 right? I mean, they were aware of issues and they update the information quarterly I believe.
Oh and 2 of those 3 links have nothing to do with foreign born data anyway. Of course there is going to be a margin of error involved in counting a nation of people.
Apparently you don’t realize if the data from 2000 was incorrect, and obviously it was, as a reference point, it also has an impact on the 2010 data. Again, junk in, junk out. Also, perhaps you didn’t read the Atlanta report which clearly illustrates the negative impact of PRIOR data on current allocations.
Furthermore, if their “methodology” is flawed in other aspects of their reporting, why would you believe they’re accurate in estimating a phantom population? Plus, even if they have estimates on the illegal alien population, how does that change the devastating impact of their presence?
Quote:
Originally Posted by huddledmasses
Hey some random people saying OTHER PEW studies are flawed. Are YOU, the person that started this thread to refute gov't studies and studies that rely on gov't data, ever going to refute the actual study I linked or even link to someone refuting it? Next you will be linking to how this PEW study is flawed because someone named Benicar who is an authority on the subject somehow said it on city-pages.
Random people? Sorry, but I think you need to read the articles.
BTW, can I also assume your silence regarding the other agencies (SSA, IRS, USCIS) is an indication that you concur with my assessment?
Don’t play dumb. None of “THEIR” as in the agencies I referenced. But, keep trying.
LOLOL. You said you trust no gov't data. None. You capitalized NONE FFS. Glad to see that was such a thorn in your side for 1 day that you have reverted to refuting/accepting data on whims. In other words, if it suits your agenda or not.
No, YOU are the one who claimed only those “under ICE jurisdiction” can be included in the illegal alien percentage.
Allow me to refresh your memory. . . .
I didn't say it. The DoJ did. Keep making **** up though. Since we've addressed this in 2 threads now are you ever going to explain how we determine the other illegals? I'm betting not.
Quote:
A Department of Justice report from 2003 found (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/p03.pdf - broken link) that only 1.6 percent of the state and federal prison populations was under Immigration and Customs Enforcement jurisdiction, and thus known to be illegal immigrants.
Yeah, that post was very funny. It looks like Beni just did a google search or two and just posted articles without actually critically analyzing what the articles were saying or how they possibly could strengthen the conclusion she is trying to prove.
So, flawed data has no cumulative affect, even when said data is the reference point for current reports? Do tell.
Other “relevant info?” Such as flawed Pew reports?
So you are using the fact that their methodology was questioned in a few other of the 1000s of studies they've done to discredit this one? ROFL. Apparently you must not have a clue where to start.
I didn't say it. The DoJ did. Keep making **** up though. Since we've addressed this in 2 threads now are you ever going to explain how we determine the other illegals? I'm betting not.
I didn’t see a quote from DOJ, or a link. I guess I missed it. However, I DID see a post from YOU, which is exactly what I quoted. Now, are you denying ownership of your post on this thread that is in plain sight for all to see?
Such a potty mouth. Calm down, it’s only an internet discussion forum. You’re not competing in the Olympics.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
