The Many Faces of US Politics...

[whitey]

How does this Pew data line up with Whitey's "hypothesis"? Two of the top three states by raw numbers of undocumented residents voted for Trump.  three of top seven by proportion did too.

And which came first? Did sanctuary cities come into being to attract illegals to pad the Democratic constituency a generation hence? Or were they policies that arose in response to problems with law enforcement and social problems involving illegals in the large cities to which illegals gravitated for opportunity?

http://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/unauthorized-immigrants/

By raw numbers:

1. California
2. Texas
3. Florida
4. New York
5. New Jersey
6. Illinois
7. Georgia
8. Arizona

By percentage of population that are undocumented:

1. Nevada
2. Texas
3. California
4. New Jersey
5. Arizona
6. Florida
6. Maryland

Haha....spin it whatever way you want.

Cherry picking data is the oldest trick in the book.... CA has close to double the population of the next closest state and if illegals weren't counted in the census they'd lose close to 6 congressional seats

Democrats are going to lose big time if they fight this question on the census form

They've painted themselves into a corner and once again have been outmaneuvered

[omochain]

Technically zero is not a number.

Delusion is however a medical condition

You may have come up with a "concept" there, boy from south of portydown.

[omochain]

How does this Pew data line up with Whitey's "hypothesis"? Two of the top three states by raw numbers of undocumented residents voted for Trump.  three of top seven by proportion did too.

And which came first? Did sanctuary cities come into being to attract illegals to pad the Democratic constituency a generation hence? Or were they policies that arose in response to problems with law enforcement and social problems involving illegals in the large cities to which illegals gravitated for opportunity?

http://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/unauthorized-immigrants/

By raw numbers:

1. California
2. Texas
3. Florida
4. New York
5. New Jersey
6. Illinois
7. Georgia
8. Arizona

By percentage of population that are undocumented:

1. Nevada
2. Texas
3. California
4. New Jersey
5. Arizona
6. Florida
6. Maryland

Haha....spin it whatever way you want.

Cherry picking data is the oldest trick in the book.... CA has close to double the population of the next closest state and if illegals weren't counted in the census they'd lose close to 6 congressional seats

Democrats are going to lose big time if they fight this question on the census form

They've painted themselves into a corner and once again have been outmaneuvered

Whitey ... read your constitution.. you know the document that you "originate" to. They are supposed to count all of the people who are in the United States. All of the people are not necessarily citizens. Should we ignore the written word in the constitution this time round.

[screenexile]

How does this Pew data line up with Whitey's "hypothesis"? Two of the top three states by raw numbers of undocumented residents voted for Trump.  three of top seven by proportion did too.

And which came first? Did sanctuary cities come into being to attract illegals to pad the Democratic constituency a generation hence? Or were they policies that arose in response to problems with law enforcement and social problems involving illegals in the large cities to which illegals gravitated for opportunity?

http://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/unauthorized-immigrants/

By raw numbers:

1. California
2. Texas
3. Florida
4. New York
5. New Jersey
6. Illinois
7. Georgia
8. Arizona

By percentage of population that are undocumented:

1. Nevada
2. Texas
3. California
4. New Jersey
5. Arizona
6. Florida
6. Maryland

Haha....spin it whatever way you want.

Cherry picking data is the oldest trick in the book.... CA has close to double the population of the next closest state and if illegals weren't counted in the census they'd lose close to 6 congressional seats

Democrats are going to lose big time if they fight this question on the census form

They've painted themselves into a corner and once again have been outmaneuvered

Whitey ... read your constitution.. you know the document that you "originate" to. They are supposed to count all of the people who are in the United States. All of the people are not necessarily citizens. Should we ignore the written word in the constitution this time round.

Also don't forget that in the first constitution a black man was only counted as 3/5 of a white man!!

[whitey]

How does this Pew data line up with Whitey's "hypothesis"? Two of the top three states by raw numbers of undocumented residents voted for Trump.  three of top seven by proportion did too.

And which came first? Did sanctuary cities come into being to attract illegals to pad the Democratic constituency a generation hence? Or were they policies that arose in response to problems with law enforcement and social problems involving illegals in the large cities to which illegals gravitated for opportunity?

http://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/unauthorized-immigrants/

By raw numbers:

1. California
2. Texas
3. Florida
4. New York
5. New Jersey
6. Illinois
7. Georgia
8. Arizona

By percentage of population that are undocumented:

1. Nevada
2. Texas
3. California
4. New Jersey
5. Arizona
6. Florida
6. Maryland

Haha....spin it whatever way you want.

Cherry picking data is the oldest trick in the book.... CA has close to double the population of the next closest state and if illegals weren't counted in the census they'd lose close to 6 congressional seats

Democrats are going to lose big time if they fight this question on the census form

They've painted themselves into a corner and once again have been outmaneuvered

Whitey ... read your constitution.. you know the document that you "originate" to. They are supposed to count all of the people who are in the United States. All of the people are not necessarily citizens. Should we ignore the written word in the constitution this time round.

Who ever said anything about not counting them.?  That is exactly what the addition of the question to the census is attempting to do......count them!

But legal residents need and have a right to know if their votes are being diluted by the presence of large numbers of illegal residents in other states,

https://www.thoughtco.com/should-us-census-count-illegal-immigrants-3320973

[J70]

How does this Pew data line up with Whitey's "hypothesis"? Two of the top three states by raw numbers of undocumented residents voted for Trump.  three of top seven by proportion did too.

And which came first? Did sanctuary cities come into being to attract illegals to pad the Democratic constituency a generation hence? Or were they policies that arose in response to problems with law enforcement and social problems involving illegals in the large cities to which illegals gravitated for opportunity?

http://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/unauthorized-immigrants/

By raw numbers:

1. California
2. Texas
3. Florida
4. New York
5. New Jersey
6. Illinois
7. Georgia
8. Arizona

By percentage of population that are undocumented:

1. Nevada
2. Texas
3. California
4. New Jersey
5. Arizona
6. Florida
6. Maryland

Haha....spin it whatever way you want.

Cherry picking data is the oldest trick in the book.... CA has close to double the population of the next closest state and if illegals weren't counted in the census they'd lose close to 6 congressional seats

Democrats are going to lose big time if they fight this question on the census form

They've painted themselves into a corner and once again have been outmaneuvered

Who the f**k is cherry picking?

I linked the data, I listed the top counts. You are so full of shit its getting boring at this stage.

We've been through the census question thing already a couple of months back  - my arguments stand, especially with no worthy counterpoints to date.

I don't really give a bollocks about the politics of it or the GOP supposedly outmanoevering the Dems. What's right is right. The sanctuary city policies are generally correct (and you're not arguing them - you're just posting bollocks about it all being a political football instead of addressing the merits of the policies - you know, the reason so many people support them). Leaving the citizenship question off the form to do a proper count of people in the country is the right thing to do, especially when the matter of citizenship is already addressed in other surveys. If you're reduced to arguing that the GOP is going to win the politics of these issues and not the merits of the issues themselves, I'll gladly concede you may be right. It doesn't make the GOP or your support of them correct however.

[J70]

How does this Pew data line up with Whitey's "hypothesis"? Two of the top three states by raw numbers of undocumented residents voted for Trump.  three of top seven by proportion did too.

And which came first? Did sanctuary cities come into being to attract illegals to pad the Democratic constituency a generation hence? Or were they policies that arose in response to problems with law enforcement and social problems involving illegals in the large cities to which illegals gravitated for opportunity?

http://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/unauthorized-immigrants/

By raw numbers:

1. California
2. Texas
3. Florida
4. New York
5. New Jersey
6. Illinois
7. Georgia
8. Arizona

By percentage of population that are undocumented:

1. Nevada
2. Texas
3. California
4. New Jersey
5. Arizona
6. Florida
6. Maryland

Haha....spin it whatever way you want.

Cherry picking data is the oldest trick in the book.... CA has close to double the population of the next closest state and if illegals weren't counted in the census they'd lose close to 6 congressional seats

Democrats are going to lose big time if they fight this question on the census form

They've painted themselves into a corner and once again have been outmaneuvered

Whitey ... read your constitution.. you know the document that you "originate" to. They are supposed to count all of the people who are in the United States. All of the people are not necessarily citizens. Should we ignore the written word in the constitution this time round.

Who ever said anything about not counting them.?  That is exactly what the addition of the question to the census is attempting to do......count them!

But legal residents need and have a right to know if their votes are being diluted by the presence of large numbers of illegal residents in other states,

https://www.thoughtco.com/should-us-census-count-illegal-immigrants-3320973

Yes, that data would otherwise be hidden in the American Community Survey and the like and on websites and research like the Pew one I linked a few posts up.

[seafoid]

https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/556505/

Minutes after the Stormy Daniels interview on 60 Minutes, Team Trump fired off a heavy-breathing lawyer's letter, bristling with phrases like "cease and desist" and "retract and apologize."

This is exactly the approach by which Donald Trump inadvertently made millions for Michael Wolff. Having so spectacularly backfired the first time, why do it again? The short answer is: Team Trump knows nothing else.

Back when he was a private businessman, Trump learned how to use law as a weapon. The lesson he took from that is that if your pockets are deep enough—and your conscience dull enough—it doesn't matter that you are wrong. The other party will go broke before you will lose.

USA Today tallied the heavy-handed Trump litigation strategy back in June 2016. Over three decades, Trump fought 3,500 lawsuits—and faced 200 mechanic's liens—mostly arising from disputes over unpaid bills. His strategy was to contest everything, and never quit: "The Trump teams financially overpower and outlast much smaller opponents, draining their resources. Some just give up the fight, or settle for less; some have ended up in bankruptcy or out of business altogether."

Trump's cease-and-desist letters no longer frighten. They function as virtual currency, denominated in the millions of dollars. One of those letters enriched Wolff; now it's Daniels's turn—and who knows next who else? Now it is Trump who cannot afford to litigate, not because of the monetary cost but because of the reputational risks. As a skeezy reality-TV star in a third marriage governed by a tight pre-nuptial agreement, Trump could shrug off those reputational risks. As president, he cannot. They show up in polls.

[whitey]

How does this Pew data line up with Whitey's "hypothesis"? Two of the top three states by raw numbers of undocumented residents voted for Trump.  three of top seven by proportion did too.

And which came first? Did sanctuary cities come into being to attract illegals to pad the Democratic constituency a generation hence? Or were they policies that arose in response to problems with law enforcement and social problems involving illegals in the large cities to which illegals gravitated for opportunity?

http://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/unauthorized-immigrants/

By raw numbers:

1. California
2. Texas
3. Florida
4. New York
5. New Jersey
6. Illinois
7. Georgia
8. Arizona

By percentage of population that are undocumented:

1. Nevada
2. Texas
3. California
4. New Jersey
5. Arizona
6. Florida
6. Maryland

Haha....spin it whatever way you want.

Cherry picking data is the oldest trick in the book.... CA has close to double the population of the next closest state and if illegals weren't counted in the census they'd lose close to 6 congressional seats

Democrats are going to lose big time if they fight this question on the census form

They've painted themselves into a corner and once again have been outmaneuvered

Who the f**k is cherry picking?

I linked the data, I listed the top counts. You are so full of shit its getting boring at this stage.

We've been through the census question thing already a couple of months back  - my arguments stand, especially with no worthy counterpoints to date.

I don't really give a bollocks about the politics of it or the GOP supposedly outmanoevering the Dems. What's right is right. The sanctuary city policies are generally correct (and you're not arguing them - you're just posting bollocks about it all being a political football instead of addressing the merits of the policies - you know, the reason so many people support them). Leaving the citizenship question off the form to do a proper count of people in the country is the right thing to do, especially when the matter of citizenship is already addressed in other surveys. If you're reduced to arguing that the GOP is going to win the politics of these issues and not the merits of the issues themselves, I'll gladly concede you may be right. It doesn't make the GOP or your support of them correct however.

Haha...oh gee....how convenient

One of the unintended consequences of sanctuary cities and states and inviting in even more illegals is that you get more congressmen and more electoral college votes........

[J70]

How does this Pew data line up with Whitey's "hypothesis"? Two of the top three states by raw numbers of undocumented residents voted for Trump.  three of top seven by proportion did too.

And which came first? Did sanctuary cities come into being to attract illegals to pad the Democratic constituency a generation hence? Or were they policies that arose in response to problems with law enforcement and social problems involving illegals in the large cities to which illegals gravitated for opportunity?

http://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/unauthorized-immigrants/

By raw numbers:

1. California
2. Texas
3. Florida
4. New York
5. New Jersey
6. Illinois
7. Georgia
8. Arizona

By percentage of population that are undocumented:

1. Nevada
2. Texas
3. California
4. New Jersey
5. Arizona
6. Florida
6. Maryland

Haha....spin it whatever way you want.

Cherry picking data is the oldest trick in the book.... CA has close to double the population of the next closest state and if illegals weren't counted in the census they'd lose close to 6 congressional seats

Democrats are going to lose big time if they fight this question on the census form

They've painted themselves into a corner and once again have been outmaneuvered

Who the f**k is cherry picking?

I linked the data, I listed the top counts. You are so full of shit its getting boring at this stage.

We've been through the census question thing already a couple of months back  - my arguments stand, especially with no worthy counterpoints to date.

I don't really give a bollocks about the politics of it or the GOP supposedly outmanoevering the Dems. What's right is right. The sanctuary city policies are generally correct (and you're not arguing them - you're just posting bollocks about it all being a political football instead of addressing the merits of the policies - you know, the reason so many people support them). Leaving the citizenship question off the form to do a proper count of people in the country is the right thing to do, especially when the matter of citizenship is already addressed in other surveys. If you're reduced to arguing that the GOP is going to win the politics of these issues and not the merits of the issues themselves, I'll gladly concede you may be right. It doesn't make the GOP or your support of them correct however.

Haha...oh gee....how convenient

One of the unintended consequences of sanctuary cities and states and inviting in even more illegals is that you get more congressmen and more electoral college votes........

The consequences don't make the policy wrong.

Just like the fact that Dems will potentially lose votes by advocating that illegals be treated as human beings, NOT statistics, doesn't make them wrong either.

Do you have any arguments on the merits (or otherwise) of sanctuary city policies themselves?

Are you opposed to them PURELY on the basis that you perceive they'll inflate Democratic representation (of course ignoring the data I linked earlier)?

Are you not aware that the census and the population data is creates is used for a hell of a lot more than just congressional representation, that those numbers have real, every day consequences for local communities?

We debated all this previously, of course, but as usual with you lads, its like water off a duck's back and pretty much a waste of time.

[Eamonnca1]

Did it ever cross your mind that the number of undocumented people in California has something to do with the massive agricultural sector?

No, didn't think so. You just stick to your tinfoil hat conspiracy theory about deliberately attracting people to gain more representation. Or something.

[seafoid]

Did it ever cross your mind that the number of undocumented people in California has something to do with the massive agricultural sector?

No, didn't think so. You just stick to your tinfoil hat conspiracy theory about deliberately attracting people to gain more representation. Or something.

The GOP used to love non unionised immigrants driving down labour  costs and enriching the donor class.

[whitey]

How does this Pew data line up with Whitey's "hypothesis"? Two of the top three states by raw numbers of undocumented residents voted for Trump.  three of top seven by proportion did too.

And which came first? Did sanctuary cities come into being to attract illegals to pad the Democratic constituency a generation hence? Or were they policies that arose in response to problems with law enforcement and social problems involving illegals in the large cities to which illegals gravitated for opportunity?

http://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/unauthorized-immigrants/

By raw numbers:

1. California
2. Texas
3. Florida
4. New York
5. New Jersey
6. Illinois
7. Georgia
8. Arizona

By percentage of population that are undocumented:

1. Nevada
2. Texas
3. California
4. New Jersey
5. Arizona
6. Florida
6. Maryland

Haha....spin it whatever way you want.

Cherry picking data is the oldest trick in the book.... CA has close to double the population of the next closest state and if illegals weren't counted in the census they'd lose close to 6 congressional seats

Democrats are going to lose big time if they fight this question on the census form

They've painted themselves into a corner and once again have been outmaneuvered

Who the f**k is cherry picking?

I linked the data, I listed the top counts. You are so full of shit its getting boring at this stage.

We've been through the census question thing already a couple of months back  - my arguments stand, especially with no worthy counterpoints to date.

I don't really give a bollocks about the politics of it or the GOP supposedly outmanoevering the Dems. What's right is right. The sanctuary city policies are generally correct (and you're not arguing them - you're just posting bollocks about it all being a political football instead of addressing the merits of the policies - you know, the reason so many people support them). Leaving the citizenship question off the form to do a proper count of people in the country is the right thing to do, especially when the matter of citizenship is already addressed in other surveys. If you're reduced to arguing that the GOP is going to win the politics of these issues and not the merits of the issues themselves, I'll gladly concede you may be right. It doesn't make the GOP or your support of them correct however.

Haha...oh gee....how convenient

One of the unintended consequences of sanctuary cities and states and inviting in even more illegals is that you get more congressmen and more electoral college votes........

The consequences don't make the policy wrong.

Just like the fact that Dems will potentially lose votes by advocating that illegals be treated as human beings, NOT statistics, doesn't make them wrong either.

Do you have any arguments on the merits (or otherwise) of sanctuary city policies themselves?

Are you opposed to them PURELY on the basis that you perceive they'll inflate Democratic representation (of course ignoring the data I linked earlier)?

Are you not aware that the census and the population data is creates is used for a hell of a lot more than just congressional representation, that those numbers have real, every day consequences for local communities?

We debated all this previously, of course, but as usual with you lads, its like water off a duck's back and pretty much a waste of time.

Do you think criminal illegals should be handed over to federal law enforcement officials for processing and deportation? 

[whitey]

Did it ever cross your mind that the number of undocumented people in California has something to do with the massive agricultural sector?

No, didn't think so. You just stick to your tinfoil hat conspiracy theory about deliberately attracting people to gain more representation. Or something.

Believe whatever you want.....it's a free country

https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/09/illegal-immigration-american-farming-economic-myths-debunked/

[omochain]

How does this Pew data line up with Whitey's "hypothesis"? Two of the top three states by raw numbers of undocumented residents voted for Trump.  three of top seven by proportion did too.

And which came first? Did sanctuary cities come into being to attract illegals to pad the Democratic constituency a generation hence? Or were they policies that arose in response to problems with law enforcement and social problems involving illegals in the large cities to which illegals gravitated for opportunity?

http://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/unauthorized-immigrants/

By raw numbers:

1. California
2. Texas
3. Florida
4. New York
5. New Jersey
6. Illinois
7. Georgia
8. Arizona

By percentage of population that are undocumented:

1. Nevada
2. Texas
3. California
4. New Jersey
5. Arizona
6. Florida
6. Maryland

Haha....spin it whatever way you want.

Cherry picking data is the oldest trick in the book.... CA has close to double the population of the next closest state and if illegals weren't counted in the census they'd lose close to 6 congressional seats

Democrats are going to lose big time if they fight this question on the census form

They've painted themselves into a corner and once again have been outmaneuvered

Whitey ... read your constitution.. you know the document that you "originate" to. They are supposed to count all of the people who are in the United States. All of the people are not necessarily citizens. Should we ignore the written word in the constitution this time round.

Who ever said anything about not counting them.?  That is exactly what the addition of the question to the census is attempting to do......count them!

But legal residents need and have a right to know if their votes are being diluted by the presence of large numbers of illegal residents in other states,

https://www.thoughtco.com/should-us-census-count-illegal-immigrants-3320973

The point Whitey is that The census is about getting an accurate head count. The addition of a citizenship question militates against the accuracy of the count. It is also messing with the constitution.