Immigration at a NET LOSS, why all the fuss?

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: xuenchen

So where is the data showing otherwise?

This is the problem. Show data, claim data is irrelevant, or not accurate and then keep talking the same talking points you were.

Without any additional facts. This is what bothers me.

Multiple sources, report a NET LOSS or NET 0 immigration. Where are the sources claiming otherwise?

~Tenth

The wiki source in your OP is titled Economic impact of illegal immigrants in the United States

Most of the "data" is a couple of years old.

Perhaps we can look at this from a different angle.

Let's say 12 million illegal immigrants are in the U.S.

That seems to stay constant even after factoring in the deportation/return numbers.

The 11 or 12 million illegal immigrants is still there.

The point is, there's still 11 or 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S.

And border security is responsible for most of the illegal occupation. Some is from visa expiration and some is from people ignoring deportation orders that are not in custody.

The "net zero" simply means the problem is possibly stagnating, not reversing enough to solve the whole problem.

Here's two links from the same source.

Illegal Immigration

Deportation Numbers Unwrapped

I'm not really sure what you are looking for ?

Are you suggesting there are only 1 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. ??

a reply to: neo96

You're the only one doing fuzzy logic.

Allow me to clear this thread of your confusion.

11 million is the total illegal immigrants which still remain.

The NET is based on YEARLY flow. The difference between inflow and outflow.

To have a NET LOSS, would mean that 11 million figure is slowly decreasing.

Fuzzy, indeed. Sheesh!

a reply to: pl3bscheese

Here is the 'basic' math.

Still 10 million plus still here.

STILL more people coming across that border than get sent back.

THE END.

a reply to: neo96

Incorrect, and I just proved it to you.

On a yearly basis, more are leaving than coming in, hence the NET LOSS.

You're lying in this thread, and I'm sick of it.

Take your deceptive tactics elsewhere, I will call them out indefinitely.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: neo96

Incorrect, and I just proved it to you.

On a yearly basis, more are leaving than coming in, hence the NET LOSS.

You're lying in this thread, and I'm sick of it.

Hello ?

HELLO ?

STILL 10 MILLION in this country.( double or triple) for the real number.

What part of that is someone missing?

a reply to: neo96

I have 100 pieces of candy.

I piece comes in, two pieces leave.

There is a net loss, yet 99 remains.

If you can't comprehend what NET LOSS means, then butt out of this thread. Adults are speaking here.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: neo96

I have 100 pieces of candy.

I piece comes in, two pieces leave.

There is a net loss, yet 99 remains.

If you can't comprehend what NET LOSS means, then butt out of this thread. Adults are speaking here.

Adults are speaking ?

Where ?

Last time I checked 99 is greater than 2.

Which means 'net loss' is meaningless.

Even by that example.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: seasoul

With all due respect, it's extremely naive to believe for one minute that numerical statistics on a wiki page represent the reality of illegal immigration.

Oh now!

Government census workers go around to every city in the country, and knock on doors, and ask people if they are 'illegal'.

If so they check a box. Then they scan the results and emails them back where they get stored on a hard drive.

Hope it doesn't crash.

I was hired as a temporary census enumerator in 1999 by the U.S. Department of Commerce, and worked in San Diego, California. I assisted with conducting a door-to-door demographic survey, which involved collecting population data for the U.S. 2000 Decennial Census.

To be honest with you, from my experience this census was a complete joke. Many of the enumerators sat in their cars drinking coffee and fudging numbers. Even if every enumerator had abided by the sampling requirements, the ratio of enumerators to the actual sample space is probably a fraction of one percent. IMO, an accurate not to mention reliable count of a dynamic illegal immigrant population is virtually impossible.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

No. Anything above zero is still a net gain in this instance. We didn't start with 11 million illegal immigrants.

A better representation would be if you said, "I buy 100 pieces of candy" suggesting you start with zero. "1 piece comes in, two piecs leave, there is still a net gain from the baseline because 99 remains"

How far did you make it in school? Either you're trolling, or your reaching the limit of your intelligence or knowledge.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: neo96
[snip]!

Wouldn't be the one to judge there.

100-2 = 98 not 99 eh.

a reply to: Galvatron

So then a net loss would be negative immigrants? Are we now using imaginary numbers to represent reality? Do you see how nonsensical that would be?

There is NEVER a net loss in your reasoning. IT's IMPOSSIBLE.

Net LOSS ALWAYS involves contexts, and in this instance it's time based. Inflow vs Outflow over time.

There is absolutely net loss within this context.

There is bizarre cognitive dissonance going on from seemingly, otherwise intelligent individuals.

a reply to: Galvatron

But the baseline was AT 100 when Obama took office, now it is less than 100. so there has been a net decrease in illegal immigrants under Obama's watch. Is it Obama's fault that his predecessors were incompetent enough to let in 11-million+ illegals?

The whole point of using this context of inflow vs outflow on a yearly basis is to combat the PROPAGANDA that is "the borders are out of control"... that should be a huge, DUH!!

a reply to: pl3bscheese

Do you understand the word net?

Correct, you can't have a net loss. You can either have zero, or some positive number.

The qualifier, being time, diminishes the importance of the figure. The time qualifier is the propaganda, because despite that qualifier, and there being a decreasing trend, doesn't change the fact that there are millions and millions still here. That's the problem.

Addendum: The OP even says "why all the fuss" in the title. Suggesting that because there has been some exodus, that we should be all hunky dory about letting in more to turn that around?

a reply to: Galvatron

So you admit that your reasoning is not applicable to the term in this thread. It's impossible, and yet you claim that's what it's supposed to be.

Ridiculous.

Yes, I know quite well what NET means. I know what NET LOSS means. It means we look at an equation within context of inflow vs outflow, and cancel out the differences.

That's what this is doing. It's a NET tactic to cancel out the inflow of propaganda on this issue with the outflow of realistic perspective.

Net immigration from Mexico to the U.S. has stopped and possibly reversed since 2010.

Key word there ?

'Possibly' which doesn't mean 'definitive' proof that it has.

Still fuzzy math since people are trying to deal in absolutes with a 'possibility'.

a reply to: neo96

Oh neo, you deal in absolutely ALL THE TIME. Hypocrite.

I admit it MAY not be an overall NET LOSS, yet the reality is NOBODY knows for sure.

originally posted by: neo96

The Washington Times July 30, 2013

The Homeland Security Department has lost track of more than 1 million people who it knows arrived in the U.S. but who it cannot prove left the country, according to an audit Tuesday that also found the department probably won’t meet its own goals for deploying an entry-exit system.

The government does track arrivals, but is years overdue in setting up a system to track departures — a goal set in a 1996 immigration law and reaffirmed in 2004.

www.washingtontimes.com...