Drawings by immigrant children

[_Markk]

Markk -

Connect these two dots for me.

1) It's easy to get into the US with coaching.

2) On the best of days, a CBP staff member is able to process 8 people of the 10's of thousands seeking asylum.

I'm assuming those 8 are the number who made it past his first interview, so those are the ones who knew the minimum standard to get started. You know, were coached to claim they were fearful, etc., etc. So there were others who didn't. Either way. 8 a day = easy to get into the US.

Thanks.

First, you assumed wrong, he was shipped down here from Montana, and is the first line...he generally is in the field, in places like the oil fields of Montana where illegal immigrants seek employment. He is back home now, because according to him...”they have a strong Union,” and 30 day stents, or so, are the maximum they can impose.

Second, this is him alone, I have no idea how many people work around the clock processing paper work, the net said they have 4200 regulars at the Yuma sector, and that does not count those like my nephew they brought in from other areas. What I do know is that if a person is well coached, and says the right things, they can gain access to the US...whether they show up after that is another story. And I know that the detention centers are much safer than wandering through the desert, being lead by a paid Coyote. Both of which you disagree, I guess.

You pretty much are out of rabbit trails to go down Honor...let it go...or simple keep showing you need to follow the narrative you swallowed.

[_honorentheos]

... - .... I have a bit more than a news surfers knowledge on this subject.

You translated that ....

Naw, i took it at face value, but since then your posts have fallen well short of confirming your claim.
And yep, i guess i will have to settle for "having at it" , because you have left me with no other choice.

I suppose no one should be surprised you would translate having professional overlap with certain border issues translates automatically into knowledge of specific demographic information you weren't knowledgeable enough on to even phrase a question around properly. Markk made the accusation that this discussion essentially consisted of people dredging news articles for information that supported their prior held beliefs, mostly derived from emotionally manipulative news articles. It really doesn't matter to me one way or the other what you or Markk think about that. I do find it telling that neither of you ever really make substantiated points or actually seem to understand how to support a position with evidence. Telling.

[_honorentheos]

Markk -

Connect these two dots for me.

1) It's easy to get into the US with coaching.

2) On the best of days, a CBP staff member is able to process 8 people of the 10's of thousands seeking asylum.

I'm assuming those 8 are the number who made it past his first interview, so those are the ones who knew the minimum standard to get started. You know, were coached to claim they were fearful, etc., etc. So there were others who didn't. Either way. 8 a day = easy to get into the US.

Thanks.

First, you assumed wrong, he was shipped down here from Montana, and is the first line...he generally is in the field, in places like the oil fields of Montana where illegal immigrants seek employment. He is back home now, because according to him...”they have a strong Union,” and 30 day stents, or so, are the maximum they can impose.

Second, this is him alone, I have no idea how many people work around the clock processing paper work, the net said they have 4200 regulars at the Yuma sector, and that does not count those like my nephew they brought in from other areas. What I do know is that if a person is well coached, and says the right things, they can gain access to the US...whether they show up after that is another story.

So you are bearing your testimony you know that immigrants who are well coached and say the right things can gain access into the US. Cool. I also hear people who are born to the right parents, go to the right schools and know the right people can find it easier to get good jobs. And that is preferable to being born into poverty in a tough neighborhood where coyotes may attack you on your way to school...or whatever.

So, the Remain in Mexico policy/Migrant Protection Protocols, Markk. Heard of them?

I know that the detention centers are much safer than wandering through the desert, being lead by a paid Coyote. Both of which you disagree, I guess.

I have to assume you are just playing the troll at this point.

[_Markk]

:) Pride is a funny thing.

[_Kevin Graham]

Migrant kids in overcrowded Arizona border station allege sex assault, retaliation from U.S. agents

[_honorentheos]

:) Pride is a funny thing.

It sure is. Especially when it's balls deep in ignorance.

Just a reminder: MPP applies to aliens arriving in the U.S. on land from Mexico (including those apprehended along the border) who are not clearly admissible and who are placed in removal proceedings under INA § 240. This includes aliens who claim a fear of return to Mexico at any point during apprehension, processing, or such proceedings, but who have been assessed not to be more likely than not to face persecution or torture in Mexico.

[_Markk]

:) Pride is a funny thing.

It sure is. Especially when it's balls deep in ignorance.

Just a reminder: MPP applies to aliens arriving in the U.S. on land from Mexico (including those apprehended along the border) who are not clearly admissible and who are placed in removal proceedings under INA § 240. This includes aliens who claim a fear of return to Mexico at any point during apprehension, processing, or such proceedings, but who have been assessed not to be more likely than not to face persecution or torture in Mexico.

And????

When you say assessed...LOL...you mean those that did not convince the US, they were persecuted, or a credible fear of being persecuted or alike.

You act like MPP is a long standing policy, it is actually part of the deal that Trump made with Mexico to avoid a trade war...I see nothing wrong with it...do you think we should just let every one that is seeking asylum, whether or not they meet the criteria, in? Or as before the deal should we fly them back to Central America on our dime?

So now instead of us sending them back on our dime, the Mexican Government is offering a way home, or they have to wait in Mexico for their "day in the legal system"...why is that bad? We have three choices here...we pay to send them back...or, Mexico pays to send them back because they allowed them to come through their country...or we just let them all in our country, what is your choice? Please answer this question.

You complain when our detention centers are extremely over crowded, and now you are complaining that we are holding Mexico accountable for their part of the crisis.

Like I wrote, pride is a funny thing.

The Mexican government unveiled on Tuesday a new program to transport asylum seekers turned back by U.S. border officials back to their home countries in Central America.

Under the controversial policy known colloquially as "Remain in Mexico," the Trump administration has required more than 16,500 migrants to wait in Mexico while their asylum cases are adjudicated in U.S. courts. With its new program, known as the "Temporary Program of Voluntary Returns," the Mexican government is offering to help these migrants — most who have been stranded in Mexico's border cities — go back to their native countries if they choose to do so.

Mexico's National Migration Institute, a government body, announced that a bus carrying nearly 70 migrants left Chihuahua, a city in the country's northwest, on Tuesday morning and headed towards destinations in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, collectively known as the "Northern Triangle." The trip is the first one under the new program, in which Mexican officials are collaborating with international and local groups taking care of migrants subject to the "Remain in Mexico" policy.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mexico-off ... countries/

I can P-hack also

1. Shall we just let them in?
2. Shall we put them is over crowded, understaffed detention centers?
3. Shall we pay to fly them back to central America, even though Mexico let them come through their country?
4. Or should we hold Mexico accountable, and let them pay to take those that want to go back home, and make them care for them until we can handle their plea?
5. Or should we go back to the way it was under the past four or five administrations and let them wander through the desert. Accuse each party of not caring, and make it a issue only during every election cycle?

[_EAllusion]

What is p-hacking Markk?

[_Markk]

In the context I am using it, it is simply surfing the net, and finding a source, narrative, or specific data, and quoting it, or re-organizing it, to make it fit ones ideology or agenda.

More specifically it is taking numbers and statistics and making it work in "your" favor. You can call it anything you like, but for me...P-hacking works well.

It is what we do here...we all do it. Yet you know that, and you were just asking a leading question after you surfed the net on "P hacking" to look for a argument, because I did not use the term in the purest sense

You do it, in the context I put it in, maybe more than anyone here, I don't know who you think you are fooling, just like with your trolling question.

[_EAllusion]

In the context I am using it, it is simply surfing the net, and finding a source, narrative, or specific data, and quoting it, or re-organizing it, to make it fit ones ideology or agenda.

More specifically it is taking numbers and statistics and making it work in "your" favor. You can call it anything you like, but for me...P-hacking works well.

It is what we do here...we all do it. Yet you know that, and you were just asking a leading question after you surfed the net on "P hacking" to look for a argument, because I did not use the term in the purest sense

You do it, in the context I put it in, maybe more than anyone here, I don't know who you think you are fooling, just like with your trolling question.

That's not what P-hacking is. I asked because you saying you can p-hack too, as if p-hacking had just occurred, suggested you didn't know what p-hacking was.

P-hacking refers to data dredging to get mathematically correct, but misleading conclusions of statistical significance. You're hacking p-values, in other words. Hence the name. Your specific definition doesn't' quite get it either. The idea that this notion could be used to refer to finding sources that can be construed to agree with an argument is severely abusing the concept.

That I support my assertions with sources leading you to accuse me of "p-hacking" in your confused version of what the term means is essentially a compliment.