Thanks much Larry!

You Da Man when it comes to statistics!

You were referring to this thread:

                Kamala Harris flips on her Guatamala comments            

                            54 responses |             

                Started by GunterK - June 13, 2021, 1:04 a.m.            

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/70937/

you 2 really think because the "catch" numbers were different it could only mean 1 thing?

Let's ignore the fact that the housing market, and the economy was collapsing during much of Obama's tenure leading to the most sluggish recovery in the history of economics.   There was far less incentive to come.

Once the numbers got back to a semblence of normal, say around 2014,  (5-6 years into his admin),  the date of the referenced article,  we once again had an influx that niether Obama, nor NPR, could ignore. Prior to that,  no one really wanted to come.

The Clinton years saw some of the strongest eco-growth of the last 50 years due to Dot.Com. 

So, a collapsed economy can go a long way towards controlling illegal entry,  but it's probably not the best solution.     

mc said: “you 2 really think because the "catch" numbers were different it could only mean 1 thing?”

————————

mc,

  Well, the catch numbers are the ones that have been getting the most attention, including the very high last 3 months which are being used to criticize the Biden administration. So, why wouldn’t I look at the catch numbers’ history to get a general idea of how things were during previous administrations? They make Clinton the worst by a good margin. Do you disagree? If so, why?

Tim,

 Good point about the US economy being a factor to consider, including the strong economy during Clinton. Also, that may have upped the numbers during Reagan. 

 So, are the last 3 months of very high encounters due in part to the strengthening US economy?

 Regarding 2014, that was the highest of any year during Obama other than 2009. But this 487K was still well under the highest for Carter-Trump, which were all 859K+.

Fighting facts and data without having more powerful facts and data is usually not a winnable position, especially when the facts and data are coming from 2 people with an extensive background in statistics.

Why keep fighting the authentic facts and data?

We are not the enemy. We are generously providing OBJECTIVE and authentic facts and data to enlighten all about a realm we should all learn the most that we can about....even if our one sided political sources didn't give us the big/entire picture.

Break free and use your freedom and right to think for yourself.

There is more out there than what CNN and FOX tell us and way more than some of the one sided internet sites give us.

Larry is very objective and sincerely and seriously dialed in your comments Tim.

Authentic facts and data include more than what supports your argument MM.

What is your argument?

Are you disputing economic numbers during the years mentioned?  I can certainly provide a plethora of authentic facts and data, even if you don't like them.

Are you disputing the strong corelation between economic numbers and illegal entry to the states?  I can provide a plethora of autherntic facts and data to suport that.  Correlation does not prove cause/effect,  but it certainly supports looking into cause.

If you limit yourself to one metric and decide "Yes, this is the truth",  you may end up being right,  but you stand a real good chance of being partially, or competely wrong.

WX,  we have some pretty decent numbers in hoursing starts and retail,   two industries that can certainly attract unskilled,  or low skilled labor.  I think coupling that with Biden's welcoming message and encouragement certainly contributed strongly.

There are lots of factors that contribute.   The current politial climate is a big one.   The incentive of opportunity is another. Conditions at home, including hurricaines, can certainly set them in motion, but there has to be a draw at the destination. There was a severe lack of opportunity for unskilled and low skilled labor during the majority of Obama's tenure. 

"What is your argument?"

Tim,

If you remember from our previous conversation on this, I withdrew ( 2 times) because it was becoming so counter productive. 

Larry brought it up again because HE has more relevant, authentic facts that we should all acknowledge(which is what I posted) and MY withdrawal was only MY withdrawal, not telling anybody else what to do. I think this thread can go on as long as it wants to with you guys but I will give you my "crying uncle" signal again.

I actually made every single point I can think of on this topic, including some 4 times in the previous thread, so no need to make it number 5. 

(-:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/70937/#71312

                By metmike - June 20, 2021, 12:27 p.m.                               

(-:

Just to remind mcfarm and others............that means "crying uncle" from the moderator..........and I should have gone with my instincts with that 2 days and 18 posts ago..........but we live and learn (-:

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/70937/#71221

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

metmike: In case this is confusing to anybody. I am a person expressing my views on MarketForum as well as being the moderator. I am trying to be more of the moderator in this new thread, started by WxFollower(not me) where I was a person expressing their views in the previous thread.

apparently although I never bought into the theory, hurricanes must of been at a very low tide for Obama and co. Of course Tim nailed with economic factors, both positive and negative.  And there are more than I know about. But it seems the drug cartels have really ramped things up also. Not to mention whether your future President repeats that if you come we will welcome you with free stuff and lots of it. So I guess the major factor in "catch" numbers could be politics and if your administration is really trying to enforce out boarders as required by law or not.

MM,

Larry  displayed numbers.  I offered explanations for those numbers.   No one, including you,  has supplied any argument in opposition to those explanations. They are reasonable explanations and have solid data to back them up. 

Larry's "More Relevant Facts"  (your words),  show a trend with absolutly no explanation,  but it would seem to disprove the "Hurricaine Theory" to which you so adamantly and blindly cling as there were no hurricaines of significance  until very late in the Clinton years, (1998) which  by Larry's numbers,  was the busiest time for illegal border crossings.

remember,...

the number of "apprehensions" is not the same as the number of people who are trying to come into the country.  

Tim,

(-:

(-:

(-:

You enter an exchange to snipe a bit, and then cry Uncle?   That's about as genuine as a sucker punch.   Choose one or the other.

Be careful with what you believe those "stats" are certifying.

My favorite professor ,long before (circa 1967) the phrase became popular, cautioned we students with a phrase:

Figures don't lie but liars sure can figure!

  John

John said: 

Be careful with what you believe those "stats" are certifying.

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

John and others,

  I understand that stats can be deceiving. However, these are the stats that are most often quoted, including recently to criticize Joe Biden's immigration policy. And they go way back to 1925. So, I'm sharing my interpretation of what these stats suggest. My main point now is that if someone criticizes Biden for the recent high monthlies (which I think is fair even with the recent hurricanes), they should be consistent and not also criticize Obama from the same set of stats since his numbers were so much lower and the lowest of any POTUS back to Carter. Or if one doesn't want to put much weight on the low Obama numbers, then be consistent and not put lots more weight on Biden's high numbers since that wreaks of partisanship and hurricanes would then be a factor to consider.

 I hate it when people pick and choose/apply a double standard, especially in politics.

"That's about as genuine as a sucker punch.   Choose one or the other."

Tim,

I gave my reasoning, then I even went farther to clarify it again. 

Telling the moderator that they are not genuine because you were deprived of a battle that feeds your obsession to argue relentlessly and unproductively and I'm just trying to not be part of such arguments here is a disappointment to me.

You can respect my sincerity and feelings above or you don't have to but if your choice is to not accept a decision and attack me, then of course I will respond.

No big deal Tim. My feelings for you and your status here are still at the very top and I greatly appreciate and look forward to more of your wonderful, value packed and generous contributions.

But you are even trying to turn my attempt to end an argument into an argument.

(-:

That is a smiley face which is also intended to mean good will between us with no hard feelings.......but I'm out of this particular discussion between you and me(as a poster) but am always in as the moderator.

Please accept that decision and look back at my previous posts on this topic to get my well defined positions. 

  Kamala Harris flips on her Guatemala comments            

                            54 responses |             

                Started by GunterK - June 13, 2021, 1:04 a.m.            

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/70937/

"Figures don't lie but liars sure can figure!"

This is true John!

The trick is to know enough about something to tell the difference and to know/trust the credibility of the source if you are unable to fact check it yourself.

WxFollower has blown me away with his amazing, accurate figures and the world class analysis that comes with it. He's in an elite class.  We are honored to have him post figures here. 

And this is coming from somebody that uses figures for a living to communicate much of everything and usually knows the real deals from the fakes/liars.

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/70798/#71068

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/70798/#71071

Going back to the original statistics the data changed in March of 2020 as per these footnotes:

¹ Beginning in March FY20,  OFO Encounters statistics include both Title 8  Inadmissibles and Title 42 Expulsions. To learn more, visit: Title-8-and-Title-42-Statistics. Inadmissibles refers to individuals encountered at ports of entry who are seeking lawful admission into the United States but are determined to be inadmissible, individuals presenting themselves to seek humanitarian protection under our laws, and individuals who withdraw an application for admission and return to their countries of origin within a short timeframe.

² Beginning in March FY20,  USBP Encounters statistics include both Title 8  Apprehensions and Title 42 Expulsions. To learn more, visit: Title-8-and-Title-42-Statistics. Apprehensions refers to the physical control or temporary detainment of a person who is not lawfully in the U.S. which may or may not result in an arrest.

Regardless IMHO 423,00 / year is still way to many. And the President at the time called it a crisis. 

Thanks MM  :-)