Trump's Border Wall and The Upcoming Elections

[Jack V Savage]

I've been familiar with Caplan's work for at least 15 years. Like you, he typically does not distinguish between illegal and legal immigration. In my view, that's a fatal error.

I distinguish between the two, but one is a subset of the other (and anyway, Trumpists and the Breitbart base oppose both). And you still didn't address the point.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Your reasoning is invalid at at least two levels.

First, you're admitting you haven't done the most basic research into how this number is determined, and yet you're doubling down in assuming its veracity.

There are different methods (your claim is wrong with regard to Pew, for example--can't say about the others). Your assumption seems to be, "the real number is hard to estimate, therefore, all estimates are too low, and the rate of change should be assumed to be whatever it is most politically expedient for waiguoren's party."

And beyond that, yes, I don't claim to be an expert in calculating the numbers, and I do defer to credible institutions that are. Again, your approach seems to be completely lacking in any rational basis.

 

[waiguoren]

I distinguish between the two, but one is a subset of the other (and anyway, Trumpists and the Breitbart base oppose both). And you still didn't address the point.

This is a better post, because you did not infer motivations.

You are making multiple implicit assumptions about differential crime rates (e.g., that illegal immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than the communities that they criminalize) and costs to taxpayers for public services. I do not accept these assumptions.

 

[ShadowRun]

he tried to get the wall funding passed a few times working with Dems if I remember correctly

 

[Jack V Savage]

This is a better post, because you did not infer motivations.

You are making multiple implicit assumptions about differential crime rates (e.g., that illegal immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than the communities that they criminalize) and costs to taxpayers for public services. I do not accept these assumptions.

Regardless, from an economic standpoint, you'd agree that "free money" is substantially correct, yes?

And you're again confusing "finding" with "assumption."

 

[waiguoren]

There are different methods (your claim is wrong with regard to Pew, for example--can't say about the others).

Let's start here.

You should have linked to this page instead.

There you will see that the estimate of the undocumented population uses an estimate of the foreign-born popuation (F), which depends on the results of the American Community Survey (ACS) or the March Supplement to the Current Population Survey (MSCPS). Both the ACS and the MSCPS assume a response rate of 90% for illegal immigrants. No matter which outfit (Pew, DHS, CMS) uses the Census Bureau data, the 90% assumption is embedded.

Now please admit your mistake so that I may move to respond to your next one.

 

[waiguoren]

he tried to get the wall funding passed a few times working with Dems if I remember correctly

That's not going to happen. The Republicans are his only hope. In my view, he could show real leadership by insisting on wall funding in the new spending bill, thereby standing up to McConnell/Ryan and the other "RINOs". They would back down. They would have to.

 

[waiguoren]

Regardless, from an economic standpoint, you'd agree that "free money" is substantially correct, yes?

For legal immigrants, if you take the standard assumptions from basic-intermediate microeconomics, then you'll get an expansion of total welfare.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Let's start here.

You should have linked to this page instead.

The information is pretty much the same (yours is more detailed, mine is an easier read). I also get the sense that you didn't read your own link if you think it supports both your specific claim and your general approach (rejecting the data completely in favor of making up numbers that you think will help the GOP politically).

 

[Jack V Savage]

For legal immigrants, if you take the standard assumptions from basic-intermediate microeconomics, then you'll get an expansion of total welfare.

In other words, "yes, Jack, you're right, but I think the guy I was talking to is stupid and I want him on my side so I presented your correct statement as something he should be outraged about."

 

[luckyshot]

Almost no one seems to be writing about it, but we have arrived at a key moment in the Trump presidency. Is Trump merely a master media manipulator.

Yes.

or does he have what it takes to be a courageous commander of consequence?.

No.

If the former, perhaps Trump is destined to be a transitional president, rather than a transformational president.

He's a conman. How did you not glean that from the first 70 years of his life?

He has followed through on many promises.

Slashing taxes for himself and his rich buddies?

 

[waiguoren]

The information is pretty much the same (yours is more detailed, mine is an easier read). I also get the sense that you didn't read your own link if you think it supports both your specific claim and your general approach (rejecting the data completely in favor of making up numbers that you think will help the GOP politically).

You just stated a falsehood about me (that I "make up numbers"). I'd like to see you link to a post in which I did that.

The link does support my claim---that the Pew data rely on an assumption that 90% of illegal immigrants respond to census surveys---but I don't think you realize that because you haven't dug into the census surveys. It's new to you, I understand, but you should take the time to do your research before making snarky comments.

More importantly, you're getting worse and worse with regard to inferring motivations. I scarcely if ever say to you that "you only say X because are shamelessly aligned with Y". Please extend me the same courtesy.

 

[waiguoren]

Yes.

No.

He's a conman. How did you not glean that from the first 70 years of his life?

In your mind, are "transformational president" and "conman" mutually exclusive?

 

[waiguoren]

More importantly, you're getting worse and worse with regard to inferring motivations.

In other words, "yes, Jack, you're right, but I think the guy I was talking to is stupid and I want him on my side so I presented your correct statement as something he should be outraged about."

Exhibit A, ladies and gentleman.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You just stated a falsehood about me (that I "make up numbers"). I'd like to see you link to a post in which I did that.

You reject all attempts to answer the question and then presume a different answer with no basis. Same thing, no?

Exhibit A, ladies and gentleman.

But you do agree with me, right? And you did present a view that you know to be correct as something to be outraged about to a lesser poster, right?

 

[waiguoren]

You reject all attempts to answer the question and then presume a different answer with no basis.

This is false.

But you do agree with me, right? And you did present a view that you know to be correct as something to be outraged about to a lesser poster, right?

No.

 

[Jack V Savage]

This is false.

No.

Explain.

 

[glenwo2]

In my view, there is no single issue that can rev up Trump's base more than illegal immigration. Trump's "wall" was the centerpiece of his platform. In national polls, Republicans cite immigration as the #1 most important issue facing the USA.

700 miles long, 30 ft. high. No need to build over mountains and other natural barriers for now.

So where is it?

Trump has been in office for nearly two years. His party has held the House and the Senate during this period.

Here we are, 20 days out from the budget deadline. It's the last budget deadline before the alleged "blue wave" could pour in and wipe out any chance for legislative implementation of the wall or any other part of Trump's agenda.

Two days ago, Ryan and McConnell supposedly went to the White House to try to convince Trump not to push for the wall until after the mid-terms. Unless I'm missing something, this would be a huge political mistake. A shutdown battle over the wall would rev up the Trump base like none other. Without the boost, losing the House is a major possibility.

If the Rs lose the House how much wall funding do you think Trump can get?

The answer is zero.

So what are McConnell/Ryan doing? My guess is they are suckling the teets of their wealthy donors, who don't want the wall primarily because their business interests depend on cheap labor.

Almost no one seems to be writing about it, but we have arrived at a key moment in the Trump presidency. Is Trump merely a master media manipulator, or does he have what it takes to be a courageous commander of consequence?

If the former, perhaps Trump is destined to be a transitional president, rather than a transformational president.

I agree but Obama's decision to join the fray and provide support for the Dems has given Trump the MUCH-NEEDED Life-line to galvanize his constituents, imo.

 

[waiguoren]

Explain.

I linked you to a 2005 report from two Bear Stearns analysts who thought the real figure was about 20 million at that time. They used school enrollments, housing permits, foreign remittances and border crossings to arrive at their estimate. I don't endorse their figure, but I think their approach is far more sensible than relying on census figures.

As for the "free money" thing, I don't think the simplistic assumptions from microeconomics are reflective of reality. I think they are closer to reality in the case of legal immigration than illegal immigration.

 

[waiguoren]

I agree but Obama's decision to join the fray and provide support for the Dems has given Trump the MUCH-NEEDED Life-line to galvanize his constituents, imo.

Well, the anti-Trump mob is throwing these lifelines out with great regularity.