This argument would be valid if people were illegally immigrating via visa overstaying. But since we know the large majority are doing it via crossing the border this argument is crap.
The article talks about 700k overstayed visas, so it would be less than that by some amount, and there was something like 2.5 million crossed the border last year. But even if the visa overstaying was less a wall would still be effective in stopping part of the crime. I am not even making a judgement on if a wall is good or not, but it would stop a significant portion of the illegal immigration.
You should take everything you read with varying degrees of skepticism. Some things warrant more skepticism than others. For example, which of these two should you be more skeptical of?
An article written by someone paid to write things. Their actual name is on the article, thus so is their reputation. And if they’re worth their salt, they’ll also link to direct sources for data shared in their article.
some random dude on a forum who consistently fails to provide sourcing for the numbers, this failing to price they didn’t pull those numbers out of their ass.
Now, I don’t have to accept any of the options at face value, but one is more convincing than the other.
I would say they are both similarly credible. People that are paid to write articles and put their “reputation” on the line constantly write misleading articles or direct lies. The random person on a forum is motivated by something but they could be a complete idiot or a genius. Everything everyone says is very suspect.
You should be able to look back at the credible corporate media sources and realize how they not reliable sources, shoot just take the CNN show with that name for a great example.
Man it’s nearly impossible to find an unbiased source on this. I even found one with a .gov extension, but then saw it was a Republican anti immigration site in fine print.
Best I could do was one from a news station in Arizona that has citations within it. I did not go so far as to check each citation in the article.
Anyway, it’s from December 2023 which maaaaaaybe would be recent enough for your antagonist and it says that of ALL illegal immigrants currently living in the US, 40% of them entered on a visa and overstayed.
Another thing I kept seeing on all sources of immigration was the word “encounter”
When we hear of many millions of immigrants each (insert opinionated time period here - year, month, week, whatever), it uses the word encounter rather than the word crossing, and especially not the word presently residing.
I’m replying to you with this rather than your antagonist, because I feel it would be useless to say anything at all, regardless of recency or veracity, to the latter.
Yeah. This was the same issue I was having. And it’s frustrating as hell when politicians are running on “millions of illegals” and we don’t have anywhere close to an accurate number. The 2019 article seemed the most recent actually accurate study.
This argument would be valid if people were illegally immigrating via visa overstaying. But since we know the large majority are doing it via crossing the border this argument is crap.
You are exactly opposite of reality.
You know that not all undocumented immigrants are brown right? That there are white Europeans who just never left?
Okay, but what does that have to do with anything? Do you guys ever think that you are the ones fixated on race, so maybe you are racists?
I hope you’re being sarcastic, because visa overstays IS the most common form of illegal immigration into the country. https://rollcall.com/2019/02/01/border-wall-debate-ignores-biggest-source-of-illegal-immigration-visa-overstays/
Did you notice the year of your article?
Well show us your article then, current year preferably.
The article talks about 700k overstayed visas, so it would be less than that by some amount, and there was something like 2.5 million crossed the border last year. But even if the visa overstaying was less a wall would still be effective in stopping part of the crime. I am not even making a judgement on if a wall is good or not, but it would stop a significant portion of the illegal immigration.
Oh hey that was a nice article you shared to source your information.
Do you actually just believe something if its in article form? I am open to those numbers being wrong, but they seem in the ballpark.
Let’s have a quick lesson in credibility:
You should take everything you read with varying degrees of skepticism. Some things warrant more skepticism than others. For example, which of these two should you be more skeptical of?
An article written by someone paid to write things. Their actual name is on the article, thus so is their reputation. And if they’re worth their salt, they’ll also link to direct sources for data shared in their article.
some random dude on a forum who consistently fails to provide sourcing for the numbers, this failing to price they didn’t pull those numbers out of their ass.
Now, I don’t have to accept any of the options at face value, but one is more convincing than the other.
I would say they are both similarly credible. People that are paid to write articles and put their “reputation” on the line constantly write misleading articles or direct lies. The random person on a forum is motivated by something but they could be a complete idiot or a genius. Everything everyone says is very suspect.
You should be able to look back at the credible corporate media sources and realize how they not reliable sources, shoot just take the CNN show with that name for a great example.
Man it’s nearly impossible to find an unbiased source on this. I even found one with a .gov extension, but then saw it was a Republican anti immigration site in fine print.
Best I could do was one from a news station in Arizona that has citations within it. I did not go so far as to check each citation in the article.
Anyway, it’s from December 2023 which maaaaaaybe would be recent enough for your antagonist and it says that of ALL illegal immigrants currently living in the US, 40% of them entered on a visa and overstayed.
Another thing I kept seeing on all sources of immigration was the word “encounter”
When we hear of many millions of immigrants each (insert opinionated time period here - year, month, week, whatever), it uses the word encounter rather than the word crossing, and especially not the word presently residing.
I’m replying to you with this rather than your antagonist, because I feel it would be useless to say anything at all, regardless of recency or veracity, to the latter.
Yeah. This was the same issue I was having. And it’s frustrating as hell when politicians are running on “millions of illegals” and we don’t have anywhere close to an accurate number. The 2019 article seemed the most recent actually accurate study.