The Trump administration now plans to pay Mexico....

[waiguoren]

But earlier you claimed that a specific assumption was made (that was not, in fact, made)

What assumption? The ~90% response rate assumption?


These studies presume that about 10% of illegal immigrants aren't counted by census takers. But that figure largely is based on a 2001 University of California-funded survey of 829 people born in Mexico and living in Los Angeles, in which individuals were asked, among other things, whether they responded to census interviewers a year earlier. Representatives of nearly two in five households refused to answer that survey, and those who didn't might have been more likely to skip the census count as well.

"Whether that's applicable to illegal immigrants today is far from clear," says George Borjas, professor of economics and social policy at the Harvard Kennedy School. "These are people who don't want to be found."


--------------

I think you should admit fault here.

 

[waiguoren]

"That "F" assumes that approximately 90% of illegal aliens respond to the surveys."

It's not correct because it doesn't correspond to reality. ???

It does correspond to reality. Again, ACS and MSCPS both assume this rate.

I think you should admit your mistake.

 

[Jack V Savage]

What assumption? The ~90% response rate assumption?


These studies presume that about 10% of illegal immigrants aren't counted by census takers. But that figure largely is based on a 2001 University of California-funded survey of 829 people born in Mexico and living in Los Angeles, in which individuals were asked, among other things, whether they responded to census interviewers a year earlier. Representatives of nearly two in five households refused to answer that survey, and those who didn't might have been more likely to skip the census count as well.

"Whether that's applicable to illegal immigrants today is far from clear," says George Borjas, professor of economics and social policy at the Harvard Kennedy School. "These are people who don't want to be found."

--------------

I think you should admit fault here.

It's interesting that you're quoting not the actual methodology (which I posted a link to, and I also posted a link to an interview where it's described), but a notoriously anti-immigrant economist (a very rare breed) talking about it. That suggests that my earlier thinking was correct--that you didn't read it yourself. What's more, do you have any reason to doubt that any of the actual assumptions are correct? You haven't provided any if you do.

 

[waiguoren]

It's interesting that you're quoting not the actual methodology (which I posted a link to, and I also posted a link to an interview where it's described)

"F" is taken directly from the Census Bureau. Pew's methodology page indicates no adjustments to "F". As I have pointed out to you repeatedly, "F" assumes that approximately 90% of illegal immigrants respond to their census questionnaires.

What's more, do you have any reason to doubt that any of the actual assumptions are correct? You haven't provided any if you do.

...and now the goalposts will start to be moved.

Do you think 90% of illegal immigrants respond to their census surveys? That would be an assumption totally at odds with common sense.

 

[Jack V Savage]

"F" is taken directly from the Census Bureau. Pew's methodology page indicates no adjustments to "F". As I have pointed out to you repeatedly, "F" assumes that approximately 90% of illegal immigrants respond to their census questionnaires.

OK, so note that the discussion here is that you claim that the methodology involves assumption X. I say it doesn't and cite it. What's the obvious next step if you're right? Hint: it's not "quote someone else say that it includes some assumptions" or "quote yet another person saying that it's bad." Can you take another stab at it?

...and now the goalposts will start to be moved.

Do you think 90% of illegal immigrants respond to their census surveys? That would be an assumption totally at odds with common sense.

The goalposts from the start were and are the reliability of the evidence. You've attacked it on the (inaccurate) grounds that it requires a particular assumption. What I'm also saying is that you have given no reason to question the assumptions. I wouldn't think that common sense plays into it at all. Who has intuition about what assumptions Pew should use when estimating the change in the unauthorized immigrant population? You do, only because you desire to discredit the evidence because you consider it unfavorable to your arguments, but most do not. My assumption is that researchers are going to make reasonable assumptions, and that fanatical tribalists are not.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

It's almost like the whole thing was a swindle to get votes.

You don't say!!!!!

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

I'm sure there's nothing more to this deal and Trump is just giving away money for no reason.

 

[glenwo2]

U.S. Plans to Pay Mexico to Deport Unauthorized Immigrants There

"WASHINGTON — President Trump has promised for years that Mexico would pay for a vast border wall, a demand that country has steadfastly refused. Now, in the Trump administration’s campaign to stop illegal immigration, the United States plans instead to pay Mexico.

In a recent notice sent to Congress, the administration said it intended to take $20 million in foreign assistance funds and use it to help Mexico pay plane and bus fare to deport as many as 17,000 people who are in that country illegally.

Immigrant advocacy groups called the deportation aid for Mexico a misguided and wasteful use of money that would fail to address the problems prompting migrants to travel to Mexico and the United States in the first place.

“We shouldn’t be paying another country to do our dirty work; we should actually be fixing our immigration system and helping these countries get back on solid footing,” said Ali Noorani, the executive director of the National Immigration Forum. “It smacks of desperation.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/u...d-immigrants-there/ar-BBNfUGc?ocid=spartanntp

So now we're paying Mexico to deport their unauthorized immigrants?

I don't get it.

Did you read the part where it's stating that they would use $20 million in FOREIGN ASSISTANCE FUNDS?

Looks to me like America STILL isn't really paying for the Wall in the grand scheme of things.

Sure, Mexico isn't either but at least it seems that progress is finally being made.