Stephen Miller schools a regressive NYT reporter

[Norman]

Yep, what's most amazing about it is how the obnoxious far left reporter acts like a 3-year-old and won't let Miller answer. Miller of course, doesn't care and answers over the brat's whinery anyway.

What a ****. The reporter's rights to these engagements should be revoked immediately, the frothing at mouth gamma man can't control himself. The scandalous lack of common sense is also noted.

 

[usmbguest5318]

OT:
I haven't anything to say about the repartee between Miller and the reporter. That is what it is. I'm certainly not going to engage in a discussion about a WH pressroom "debate" two other people had.

On the specific topic of immigration in the U.S., there's no denying that George Borjas is the nation's foremost expert on the topic. Accordingly, I will point readers to the summary Borjas published about the net impact of immigration.

• Immigration and the American Worker (This document is a summary of Borjas' study, which was published in book form rather than as a journal article. In the second link below, one will find a link to Borjas' book-length study.)
  "...immigration makes the aggregate economy larger..."

I have previously directed readers to that document along with other Borjas immigration studies.

• Liberal & Conservative Think Tanks Agree on The Net Economic Impact of Illegal Immigration (A)
  
• Liberal & Conservative Think Tanks Agree on The Net Economic Impact of Illegal Immigration (B)

Is the economy larger by a lot as a result of immigration? Not by "a lot," but it is made larger, thus not smaller. In other words, the net impact of immigration is positive. So while one can talk about the various ways in which immigration creates losses, and while another individual can discuss only the benefits, the fact of the matter is that discussing only the losses or only the gains is duplicitous for upon netting the costs and gains, the net result is a gain. Any net outcome is likely to have both costs and gains. The question is whether the costs or gains predominate.

In altering immigration policy, one has three sound tacks from which to choose:

• Alter (sabotage) immigration policy so as to convert immigration's gain into a loss.
• Build upon the gain to make it larger.

Of course, one might also opt to do nothing.

 

[Norman]

OT:
I haven't anything to say about the repartee between Miller and the reporter. That is what it is. I'm certainly not going to engage in a discussion about a WH pressroom "debate" two other people had.

On the specific topic of immigration in the U.S., there's no denying that George Borjas is the nation's foremost expert on the topic. Accordingly, I will point readers to the summary Borjas published about the net impact of immigration.

• Immigration and the American Worker
  "...immigration makes the aggregate economy larger..."

I have previously directed readers to that document along with other Borjas immigration studies.

• Liberal & Conservative Think Tanks Agree on The Net Economic Impact of Illegal Immigration (A)
  
• Liberal & Conservative Think Tanks Agree on The Net Economic Impact of Illegal Immigration (B)

Is the economy larger by a lot as a result of immigration? Not by "a lot," but it is made larger, thus not smaller. In other words, the net impact of immigration is positive. So while one can talk about the various ways in which immigration creates losses, and while another individual can discuss only the benefits, the fact of the matter is that discussing only the losses or only the gains is duplicitous for upon netting the costs and gains, the net result is a gain. Any net outcome is likely to have both costs and gains. The question is whether the costs or gains predominate.

In altering immigration policy, one has three sound tacks from which to choose:

• Alter (sabotage) immigration policy so as to convert immigration's gain into a loss.
• Build upon the gain to make it larger.

Of course, one might also opt to do nothing.

The 'net' impact of illegal immigration is positive?

Yeah sure, to criminals. And the Democrat voter rolls.

The 'net' economy would also be larger if we just united Mexico with the United States. Brilliant ideas, non-stop.

 

[toobfreak]

First you get the typical liberal who asks questions not to get answers, but to try to steer the conversation to a desired outcome. They don't want reality, they want justification for the bubble they try to live in. Therefore, they hide from the facts that conflict their worldview, and given answers which don't lead to the conclusion they seek, they either deny its validity or try to change the topic.


Normal people start out in life where they are then do their best for the rest of their life trying to get as close as they can to their goals.
The liberal is that rare, sentient being that begins life already thinking it is living its goals, then spends the rest of its life trying to convince others, or fighting with all that won't buy into it, and when they know they've lost the argument to a smarter person, NEVER concede defeat or acknowledge the validity of the other's point, but rather then throw bombs and start the name-calling like an impudent child.

 

[usmbguest5318]

OT:
I haven't anything to say about the repartee between Miller and the reporter. That is what it is. I'm certainly not going to engage in a discussion about a WH pressroom "debate" two other people had.

On the specific topic of immigration in the U.S., there's no denying that George Borjas is the nation's foremost expert on the topic. Accordingly, I will point readers to the summary Borjas published about the net impact of immigration.

• Immigration and the American Worker
  "...immigration makes the aggregate economy larger..."

I have previously directed readers to that document along with other Borjas immigration studies.

• Liberal & Conservative Think Tanks Agree on The Net Economic Impact of Illegal Immigration (A)
  
• Liberal & Conservative Think Tanks Agree on The Net Economic Impact of Illegal Immigration (B)

Is the economy larger by a lot as a result of immigration? Not by "a lot," but it is made larger, thus not smaller. In other words, the net impact of immigration is positive. So while one can talk about the various ways in which immigration creates losses, and while another individual can discuss only the benefits, the fact of the matter is that discussing only the losses or only the gains is duplicitous for upon netting the costs and gains, the net result is a gain. Any net outcome is likely to have both costs and gains. The question is whether the costs or gains predominate.

In altering immigration policy, one has three sound tacks from which to choose:

• Alter (sabotage) immigration policy so as to convert immigration's gain into a loss.
• Build upon the gain to make it larger.

Of course, one might also opt to do nothing.

The 'net' impact of illegal immigration is positive?

Yeah sure, to criminals. And the Democrat voter rolls.

The 'net' economy would also be larger if we just united Mexico with the United States. Brilliant ideas, non-stop.

The 'net' impact of illegal immigration is positive?

Did I stutter? Yes, the net impact of immigration is positive.

Read Borjas' book that Miller explicitly referred to in his press conference, or read Borjas' paper summarizing it and you'll find that to be so. Miller cited some of the costs Borjas identified in his book, yet he cited none of the gains.

Miller merely presented some of the facts. Doing so, and then developing/presenting enthymemes, standard syllogisms, and examples to support one's thesis does not constitute having delivered a sound argument; it's but a "good" incomplete telling of facts. i.e., an effective eristic argument perhaps, but not a sound peirastic or a sound scientific one. [1] Thus, if one cares to accept Miller's argument, one who's read Borjas' study/paper must necessarily accord that Miller, in his remarks at the press conference, is in fact not valid because he's presented only a portion of the "story" of immigration's complete impact.


Note:

• To obtain a fuller understanding of why this is so, refer to the following:
  • Eristic Arguments --> On Sophistical Refutations
  • Peirastic Arguments --> Topics
  • "Rhetoric"

 

[Norman]

OT:
I haven't anything to say about the repartee between Miller and the reporter. That is what it is. I'm certainly not going to engage in a discussion about a WH pressroom "debate" two other people had.

On the specific topic of immigration in the U.S., there's no denying that George Borjas is the nation's foremost expert on the topic. Accordingly, I will point readers to the summary Borjas published about the net impact of immigration.

• Immigration and the American Worker
  "...immigration makes the aggregate economy larger..."

I have previously directed readers to that document along with other Borjas immigration studies.

• Liberal & Conservative Think Tanks Agree on The Net Economic Impact of Illegal Immigration (A)
  
• Liberal & Conservative Think Tanks Agree on The Net Economic Impact of Illegal Immigration (B)

Is the economy larger by a lot as a result of immigration? Not by "a lot," but it is made larger, thus not smaller. In other words, the net impact of immigration is positive. So while one can talk about the various ways in which immigration creates losses, and while another individual can discuss only the benefits, the fact of the matter is that discussing only the losses or only the gains is duplicitous for upon netting the costs and gains, the net result is a gain. Any net outcome is likely to have both costs and gains. The question is whether the costs or gains predominate.

In altering immigration policy, one has three sound tacks from which to choose:

• Alter (sabotage) immigration policy so as to convert immigration's gain into a loss.
• Build upon the gain to make it larger.

Of course, one might also opt to do nothing.

The 'net' impact of illegal immigration is positive?

Yeah sure, to criminals. And the Democrat voter rolls.

The 'net' economy would also be larger if we just united Mexico with the United States. Brilliant ideas, non-stop.

The 'net' impact of illegal immigration is positive?

Did I stutter? Yes, the net impact of immigration is positive.

Read Borjas' book that Miller explicitly referred to in his press conference, or read Borjas' paper summarizing it and you'll find that to be so. Miller cited some of the costs Borjas identified in his book, yet he cited none of the gains.

Miller merely presented some of the facts. Doing so, and then developing/presenting enthymemes, standard syllogisms, and examples to support one's thesis does not constitute having delivered a sound argument; it's but a "good" incomplete telling of facts. i.e., an effective eristic argument perhaps, but not a sound peirastic or a sound scientific one. [1] Thus, if one cares to accept Miller's argument, one who's read Borjas' study/paper must necessarily accord that Miller, in his remarks at the press conference, is in fact not valid because he's presented only a portion of the "story" of immigration's complete impact.


Note:

• To obtain a fuller understanding of why this is so, refer to the following:
  • Eristic Arguments --> On Sophistical Refutations
  • Peirastic Arguments --> Topics
  • "Rhetoric"

That's an absolutely dishonest idiotic proposition.

The economic effect of attaching Mexico to United States would also be positive GDP wise, but to draw from that the "net effect" is somehow positive, is at best, a ridiculous word game.

But sure the net effect is positive to you, as you favor any policies that increase the numbers of idiotic leftist voters voting for 3rd world policies. It takes an obscene amount of cognitive dissonance to not recognize that the rest of us prefer living in a first world country

 

[usmbguest5318]

OT:
I haven't anything to say about the repartee between Miller and the reporter. That is what it is. I'm certainly not going to engage in a discussion about a WH pressroom "debate" two other people had.

On the specific topic of immigration in the U.S., there's no denying that George Borjas is the nation's foremost expert on the topic. Accordingly, I will point readers to the summary Borjas published about the net impact of immigration.

• Immigration and the American Worker
  "...immigration makes the aggregate economy larger..."

I have previously directed readers to that document along with other Borjas immigration studies.

• Liberal & Conservative Think Tanks Agree on The Net Economic Impact of Illegal Immigration (A)
  
• Liberal & Conservative Think Tanks Agree on The Net Economic Impact of Illegal Immigration (B)

Is the economy larger by a lot as a result of immigration? Not by "a lot," but it is made larger, thus not smaller. In other words, the net impact of immigration is positive. So while one can talk about the various ways in which immigration creates losses, and while another individual can discuss only the benefits, the fact of the matter is that discussing only the losses or only the gains is duplicitous for upon netting the costs and gains, the net result is a gain. Any net outcome is likely to have both costs and gains. The question is whether the costs or gains predominate.

In altering immigration policy, one has three sound tacks from which to choose:

• Alter (sabotage) immigration policy so as to convert immigration's gain into a loss.
• Build upon the gain to make it larger.

Of course, one might also opt to do nothing.

The 'net' impact of illegal immigration is positive?

Yeah sure, to criminals. And the Democrat voter rolls.

The 'net' economy would also be larger if we just united Mexico with the United States. Brilliant ideas, non-stop.

The 'net' impact of illegal immigration is positive?

Did I stutter? Yes, the net impact of immigration is positive.

Read Borjas' book that Miller explicitly referred to in his press conference, or read Borjas' paper summarizing it and you'll find that to be so. Miller cited some of the costs Borjas identified in his book, yet he cited none of the gains.

Miller merely presented some of the facts. Doing so, and then developing/presenting enthymemes, standard syllogisms, and examples to support one's thesis does not constitute having delivered a sound argument; it's but a "good" incomplete telling of facts. i.e., an effective eristic argument perhaps, but not a sound peirastic or a sound scientific one. [1] Thus, if one cares to accept Miller's argument, one who's read Borjas' study/paper must necessarily accord that Miller, in his remarks at the press conference, is in fact not valid because he's presented only a portion of the "story" of immigration's complete impact.


Note:

• To obtain a fuller understanding of why this is so, refer to the following:
  • Eristic Arguments --> On Sophistical Refutations
  • Peirastic Arguments --> Topics
  • "Rhetoric"

That's an absolutely dishonest idiotic proposition.

The economic effect of attaching Mexico to United States would also be positive GDP wise, but to draw from that the "net effect" is somehow positive, is at best, a ridiculous word game.

But sure the net effect is positive to you, as you favor any policies that increase the numbers of idiotic leftist voters voting for 3rd world policies. It takes an obscene amount of cognitive dissonance to not recognize that the rest of us prefer living in a first world country

That's an absolutely dishonest idiotic proposition.

The economic effect of attaching Mexico to United States

What? Did you not notice that only remark of your on which I commented is this one:

The 'net' impact of illegal immigration is positive?

I include the remainder of your earlier post solely for the sake of completeness so that readers who want to confirm for themselves whether I've taken out of context your remarks upon which I chose to comment.

Where you came up with this counterfactual notion of merging the U.S. and Mexico is beyond me. It's a notion you, not I, introduced. I have nothing to say about the idea of annexing Mexico.

The 'net' impact of illegal immigration is positive?

My remarks have only to do with (1) that the net impact of immigration is positive and (2) the dissembling nature of Miller's argument in the press conference he gave.

I'm not going to summarize or restate Borjas' findings -- on legal immigration, illegal immigration and two combined -- for you. I provided links to those documents; avail yourself of them and you'd know the researcher I'm citing, George Borjas, and his work that I'm citing is the very same content Miller explicitly cited. Reading either of those documents, you will find that the "bottom line" remark I quoted from Borja's paper is exactly that: the immutable conclusion that resulted from Borjas' analysis of immigration.

But sure the net effect is positive to you

What I think or want regarding immigration has nothing to do with it. All I've done is cite the empirical conclusion Borjas arrived at. I don't take exception with Borjas' methodology, so I have no choice but to accept the conclusion. Nobody can, but many people can dislike it or, as Miller did, not fairly present Borjas' findings.

The man didn't publish an opinion piece; he published the findings of his empirical research whereof quite literally, he tallied the costs and gains of immigration and subtracted one from the other to arrive at the net impact. Quite simply, in the determination of the net economic impact of immigration, X - Y = the same thing regardless of one's ideology and preferences.

If you object to Borjas' methodology, by all means, do share with us (and Borjas too, frankly, for it'd be worth his knowing precisely where he made his mistake...I'm sure he'd appreciate your input to that end) exactly what it is you find wrong about his equations.