> Since the Democratic party is the one that wants to let in US as many illegal immigrants as possible
I love to see your source on this one. I personally haven't seen this policy stance from any Democrats.
I love to see your source on this one. I personally haven't seen this policy stance from any Democrats.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charted-u-s-net-immigration...
Just look at net migration, the numbers speak for themselves; Biden & Obama allowed in a lot more people
If anything, it proves that point completely wrong tying higher immigration numbers to better economic conditions. Bush had more immigration than Obama (who deported more people than Trump). Trump had higher levels of immigration than Obama, until COVID happened and basically shut things down. As the economy recovered, immigration went back up under Biden.
How you interpret it: tHaT dOeSn'T pRoVe AnYtHiNg
Sure, buddy
A sentence saying that the number of immigrants went up is not proof of the claim you made that: "the Democratic party is the one that wants to let in US as many illegal immigrants as possible."
Then you claim again "tHaT dOeSn'T pRoVe AnYtHiNg"
Let's look specifically at the tally of illegal migrants under Biden: +7.3 million net illegal migrants
And during Trump's first term? It's -34,000 (yes, that's a negative number)
How about the tally for Obama's second term? That's +493,000 net illegal migrants
Numbers and facts speak for themselves, but you speak a different language
And during Obama's first term it was -653,000 (yes, that's a far larger negative number).
Bush's full 8 years had higher immigration than Obama's 8 years. Obama also deported more people than Trump [1]. Do you allow those numbers and facts to speak for themselves? Because when I read them, I don't hear them saying: "the Democratic party is the one that wants to let in US as many illegal immigrants as possible." Your initial claim that you still haven't backed up in any meaningful way.
[1] https://www.wlrn.org/government-politics/2024-01-04/desantis...
Somehow you believe that evidence that's more than 15 years old should take precedence to what happened after that? Biden's term ended less than 20 months ago, I think that's far far more relevant.
My claim is very well proven by the most recent data, you keep insisting you want some sort of official statement "we the Dems want at least 30 million more illegal immigrants". Even other leftist that commented here agree with me that the numbers look bad for the Dems.
As I said, numbers and facts speak for themselves. You keep claiming "tHaT dOeSn'T pRoVe AnYtHiNg", which is funny. Shows you're brainwashed.
Your logic is basically "someone that rapes women without officially declaring he's a rapist, is not really a rapist, because he didn't officially declare it".
I never said any data should take precedence over any other data. I simply used the data in your provided source to prove your point incomplete.
> You keep claiming "tHaT dOeSn'T pRoVe AnYtHiNg", which is funny. Shows you're brainwashed.
Does making up quotes with alternating capital and lowercase letters, while insulting me, prove any legitimate point?
> Even other leftist that commented here agree with me that the numbers look bad for the Dems.
The numbers do look bad for Biden, but not at all for Obama. It might be valuable to have an actual discussion about why those differences exist (COVID, Dem policy changes, South American politics/economy, etc.). Instead, you make false claims and insult.
> Your logic is basically "someone that rapes women without officially declaring he's a rapist, is not really a rapist, because he didn't officially declare it".
It's truly ironic that you use this argument in defense of Trump, an actual rapist. Judge Kaplan in New York clarified that the jury's finding of forcible digital penetration "constitutes rape as commonly understood outside New York penal law" (as well as under definitions used by organizations like the FBI/DOJ and American Psychological Association) [0]. Do you believe Trump is a rapist even though he didn't declare it?
The flip-side is your argument that anything which happens while you are President, is your policy by default. Using this logic, Trump had a pro-pandemic by policy by allowing COVID to start and rapidly spread. Trump had a policy of increasing murder rates, based on overseeing the largest single-year percentage increase in U.S. murders ever recorded in modern statistics.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-car...
What are you even "saying" then? If you don't even admit what you clearly imply. Should this last statement of yours be an admission that you're saying "nothing" with many words?
> The numbers do look bad for Biden
Finally we get to admitting the obvious
> Dem policy changes
Ding ding ding, finally we're getting somewhere. 1996 Democratic Party platform says: "We cannot tolerate illegal immigration and we must stop it.[...] We continue to firmly oppose welfare benefits for illegal immigrants." [1]
The current direction of the Dems is a far cry from their stance 20-30 years ago
> argument in defense of Trump
I'm not defending Trump, I'm not his lawyer. I'm discussing the different results of immigration policies in recent years between Dems and Reps, that's it. Since you've proven your invincible ignorance on this issue and I've proven that my stance is substantiated by the statistics, you've changed the subject to something unrelated.
> your argument that anything which happens while you are President, is your policy by default
Straw man fallacy.
[1] https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/1996-democratic-pa...
I have no idea what this means, I was just using the data that you provided. The takeaway is to use my actual words, not the words you want me to use to build your strawman.
> Finally we get to admitting the obvious
I never denied the data, that is an argument you had in your head. I denied that the data is proof of a specific policy. Just like the historic rise in murders during Trump's first term is not proof that he had a policy of wanting as many murders as possible.
> 1996 Democratic Party platform says: "We cannot tolerate illegal immigration and we must stop it.[...] We continue to firmly oppose welfare benefits for illegal immigrants."
I can't go back 15 years in your own provided dataset, but you readily pull an example from 30 years ago and it somehow explains why Obama deported more people than Trump. This is what I mean by not engaging in an honest discussion, you are all over the map. If you are saying the party changed policies between Obama and Biden, let's see the evidence.
> I'm discussing the different results of immigration policies in recent years between Dems and Reps,
You haven't discussed one policy, which was my entire point you missed in your first retort. You apparently missed that to focus on putting words in my mouth and insulting me. You shared a link to data and said that it was defacto proof of a policy. You have still never shared the policy that you claimed in the first place.
Obviously if someone provides an argument in a debate, the assumption is that they want to persuade the audience. My question was, what's the point to even bring up an argument (the old data) if you are ready to just fold like that by saying you didn't actually believe the argument is relevant?
> I never denied the data
Direct denial, no. You were just ignoring the last 2 Dem administrations (Obama 2 and Biden) and focusing exclusively on Obama's 1st term, from almost 18 years ago.
> I denied that the data is proof of a specific policy
If consistent results are not proof of a policy, then I don't know what is - see POSIWID [1]. Dems have proven a strong velocity towards unrestrained immigration. Obama 2 and Biden's administrations are the most recent Dem administrations, very strong evidence in my opinion. If you don't accept those obvious facts as proof, in my opinion you've proven invincible ignorance [2].
> Just like the historic rise in murders during Trump's first term is not proof that he had a policy of wanting as many murders as possible.
POSIWID applies when we can observe consistent results. You point out 1 year of elevated crimes or a global one-off like COVID say "that's proof of a policy, just like 8 years of high illegal immigration".
By the way, regarding the crime rate, a second reason why it's a bad argument is that during Biden's first 2 years in office the U.S. Murder/Homicide Rate was even higher than the "historic rise" of 2021. Average U.S. Murder/Homicide Rate was overall worse during Bidens years.
> I can't go back 15 years in your own provided dataset, but you readily pull an example from 30 years ago
It was not an example against your argument, it was actually in favor of what you said, "Dem policy changes". I was agreeing with you, I was saying yes, that's what happened.
> You haven't discussed one policy
I said "I'm discussing the different results of immigration policies", where "different results of immigration policies" is the direct object of the sentence and "results" is the head noun. I believe you misunderstood my sentence.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincible_and_invincible_ignora...