What like Mumps that shows up in Wisconsin, iowa and Pennsylvania? Or the NHL?
Not exactly immigrant-central.
Same thing to diseases carried in by ticks and animals.
Further qix, thanks to this hippy trend of people who don’t like vaccinations, immigrants are more likely to be vaccinated than the average American.
When it comes to Herd immunity, they enhance our chances. Because surprisingly, they’re less dumb than us about this.
Probably because they’ve seen within their lifetimes what these diseases do, so they know **** gets real when you don’t vaccinate.
Be it upon “This looks like an excuse to me”.
Or it’s another case where people don’t know how to put numbers into context.
Black people getting shot by police look bad, until you put that in context to the general murder rate among Black Americans.
Homicides by guns look bad, until you contrast against falling murder rates, and danger escalating in places with more gun control.
You haven’t done the 2nd part here. You’re speaking to numbers in a vacuum, and treating them as preventable.
Then change the rules; it’s happening with birthright citizenship.
Quit blaming other people for our ******* system. They didn’t build it, we did.
And realize, California’s voter base is 60% white, native born, home owners. And Republicans lose that demographic there. Californians, made California what it is. There’s no denying that, no matter how hard RET wants to avoid acknowledging it.
This is part to why your “La Raza” fears don’t concern me. La Raza is a largely Mexican movement, yet Mexicans are falling by the wayside. We’ve been getting majoritively Asian migrants since 2010. So says PEW.
No, like the tuberculosis, cholera and typhoid showing up in L.A. in the migrant and homeless encampments.
You mean like “One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic”? That’s your context, right there.
Is there a vaccine for tuberculosis, Slim? Cholera? Typhoid fever? How about ebola, since were getting illegals across our southern border from the ebola belt?
And yet the vast majority of illegals still live in those urban states.
Right, when law abiding citizens get screwed by criminals, the obvious solution is to change the law to protect the criminals. Why haven’t you changed the immigration laws you think are unfair?
It’s 100% completely irrelevant to how many representatives they are allowed in congress based on population data that includes 2.2 million illegals. That’s 3 extra votes for the liberal agenda in California, 1 in New York, 2 in Texas (helping turn it purple), 1 in Florida. That shifts the ‘overton window’ in congress a looong way. No telling how many more congressional races have turned blue on district lines drawn up to include the presence of illegals.
Uh-huh. Funny, they don’t tell you whether their numbers include illegals. It doesn’t say “all Hispanic immigrants”, nothing at all about the methodology in arriving at their numbers, so I’m going to take that with a truckload of salt. “lies, d@#*&% lies, and statistics”. GIGO
There’s no outbreak of TB, and the CDC says incidence of the disease has declined consistently since 1993. 2018 was the lowest year yet.
Finding people with it =/ outbreak. Because TB never went away.
And you’re overlooking something.
We don’t have one way travel; over ~25 million Americans travel south each year to Mexico, even more to South America and the Caribbean. The vast majority are not screened coming back.
When the CDC was asked about the Measles outbreak, the only disease that would seem to fit what you’re speaking to, they said this:
“No, it is not immigrants or refugees causing these outbreaks… It has to do with travel and people who are not vaccinated or under-vaccinated. It has nothing to do with illegal immigrants.”
– Amy Rowland, CDC’s Global Health Division
The hippies strike again.
You don’t know what’s normal. You don’t know what trends for the disease have been for the past 20 years. Or if we’re getting better or worse.
That’s the context. This is why liberal get gun deaths wrong, and this argument fairs no better under the same test.
What about ebola qix? It’s only a pandemic if you live in a 3rd world country that doesn’t know how to respond. Ebola is difficult to transfer, and it requires direct contact. It’s a flame that quickly burns itself out for that reason.
Nearly all the deaths that occurred, occurred in West Africa. Y’know how many cases, cases now, not even deaths, happened outside of Africa? 36.
And it wasn’t because people were being careful.
Yet 1/3 still live on the move, and they’re going more to growing rural areas where there are labor shortages.
Not the urban areas with lucrative public benefits, but no jobs.
It’s as if working is their priority, not public support. Which is something economists attest to.
… What? Changing the law so that they aren’t counted in a census does nothing to protect the illegal.
If anything, it makes them more marginalized.
You just switched your claim there. That’s not simply a question of representative partitioning, that pretends they both vote, and vote democrat.
Yet, poor Hispanics are the least likely person to vote, and an illegal even less.
And the primary source of voter fraud is vote tampering. Natives pulling a fast one. Not illegals.
Uh, yeah they do:
Why don’t you ask a question before making an accusation? Or try looking it up?
Thought you didn’t trust the government, Slim? I sure don’t. And we also would have to trust all the people who aren’t part of the cdc but are part of the reporting system for diseases. Do you think California liberals are fully reporting things that would bring illegals federal attention? I don’t. Do you think the cdc would hesitate to conceal information to ‘prevent public panic’ or just to keep itself from looking bad? I don’t.
I will agree that antivaxxers are idiots, but we’re not talking about them.
Your an expert on what I know? Are you trying to tell me that because extremely low incidence of disease has been the norm for decades, and declining rates have been the trend for 20 years (I would argue that those are actually desirable conditions, mind), that those conditions are permanent? Immutable? Parts of California have become ideal incubators for disease outbreaks, and some of the most concerning diseases are already present. I am not making the claim that illegals are the entire problem, they are ‘merely’ a large contributing factor. And as you observe elsewhere, 1/3 of them are highly mobile… Nothing to see here, move along
So, since only 36 people have been sick with ebola through lack of caution, we don’t need to be cautious…? Brilliantly reasoned. How can I argue with such intellect?
No it does not. If the state’s voting base is liberal regardless of illegals, counting the illegals as population awards the liberal legal voters 3 more representatives whether the illegals vote or not!
You linked to a different article, Slim, one with a whole different claim. Again with no information about sources or methodologies by which their numbers were derived… So your claim amounts to “Pew is right because Pew says they’re right”.
I probably had more to say on this, and I may even remember what it was later. Believe it or not, I have other things to do with my life than point out a few of the ways Alaska Slim is wrong.
In an age where we all have cellphones and social media to count the bodies, and at a time where the left is watching the migrant hold centers for anything that supports their “these are internment camps!” meme?
I trust the military to know if Iran shot a missile at us.
I trust the NTSB to know what happened to TWA 800.
Pretty sure you do too qix, and it’s no different.
Yet they’re at the center for why outbreaks for Measles are occurring. Read here.
You tipped your hand the moment you tried to leverage Ebola as a threat. That was a big “No” qix.
And either you were trying to say something you didn’t know wasn’t true, or you did, and you were trying to trick me.
And this is something I can reject qix, because…
26 Million Americans, crossing the border every year.
26 Million who are not native to those places, and are more susceptible to diseases for that reason.
26 Million, the vast majority of whom are not checked.
26 million, which is far and away larger than the ~2 Million illegals you get crossing the border each year.
Put into context, your concern is noticeably disproportional.
Yes it does. That’s the only way you can link your reasoning for Texas turning purple. Simply having more representatives state-wide doesn’t do that.
That doesn’t matter, it proves what I said about PEW was right. Further, unauthorized numbers has nothing to do with your La Raza theory, that just comes down to raw demographics.
Which means you need to count both the illegal and legal population. which the original article did.
Since you wanted something just discerning the unauthorized population, I gave that to you. But I didn’t need to do that.
Let’s go through the track record qix:
Disease is made complicated, if not made moot, by bilateral travel.
There have been no outbreaks of the diseases you listed; at best, you can only claim the threat of one.
La Raza isn’t the threat you claimed it to be, because Mexicans are shrinking as a demographic source. Outpaced by others.
I was right about Illegals forming the bulwark of thinly populated rural workforces.
PEW said exactly what I claimed. And they did indeed list their sources. They even list their methodology.
There may be some baby here you’re still trying to save from being thrown out with the bath water, and I’ll patiently wait for that if needed, but you’ve yet to show how anything I said in this exchange was wrong.
Try arguing with what I post, not what you want to pretend I posted: that conditions exacerbated by illegal immigrants are incubation zones for inevitable disease outbreaks.
Got it, can’t happen here, can it? Do you know how many African from the Ebola belt have crossed the border illegally, Slim?
That’s only the ones who got caught in one area of the border in one week, Slim.
The DRC at the time this was written was experiencing the worst Ebola outbreak in its history, second worst ever recorded.
But nothing to worry about, Slim says “It cant happen here”, so no need for any form of border security to help mitigate the spread of diseases. Any diseases will just… abandon their hosts at the border, I guess? Because…Slim says so?
Does it guarantee more democrat seats in Texas? No, but by your own reasoning it does in California and New York and it is definitely going to change the way the district lines get drawn, isn’t it? And I’d bet dollars to donuts at least one of those districts of illegals would go blue (1.6 ish million people is 2 full congressional districts and considerable change). Hell, even if it didn’t effect the balance of R/D power within the state, the number of representatives is fixed, so those two seats are taken from other states.
It didn’t prove Pew right, and what Pew claims is contrary to the reality I see and live every day of Hispanics congregating largely in cities. More on that in a minute.
The track record:
If you mean it’s transmission across international boundaries, of course it’s complicated. There is still such a thing as “due diligence”. It only takes one vector.
Better look again. L.A.s homeless population has all kinds of nasties going on. (There’s only about 10000 articles about it) Not just the homeless. Other diseases aren’t far behind. According to most reports I’ve read, 2/3 of the homeless in L.A. do not have mental health or drug problems, their rents have exceeded their incomes. While none of the articles I read have any estimate of how many of L.A.s 50000 homeless are illegal, (latino homelessness exploded by 63%, but latino =/= illegal) you think maybe two and a half million illegals just might have driven the price of rent a little higher, or does the law of supply and demand not apply to illegal populations? Yeah, slim, I can only claim the “threat” of outbreaks…but damned if it ain’t a serious threat.
They really shouldn’t be a threat. But when you think about it, Hitler and the brown-shirts shouldn’t have been able to take over Germany, and nobody took them seriously either…
Says who? Not my eyes. Pew does,right? And speaking of…
Hoo-boy, where to start? You linked to a methodology on a different study published 16 months after the first one you linked. It was in no way included with the first link. If we just assume (something Pew makes quite the habit of, it seems from reading their methodology) that the methodology was the same in both studies, we still note that:
That tells us exactly NOTHING except that they changed the raw numbers for the study of total illegals, which isn’t even the one you originally linked.
Picking up something from earlier to which I should respond:
I’ve worked in construction my entire adult life, and it’s full of latinos. Native born, naturalized, legal immigrant, illegal immigrant. Some are among the finest human beings with whom I have ever had the pleasure of dealing. Some were lazy. Some were contemptuous, resentful, gringo hating racists. (Heck, I just left a job partly over that, tbh.) They are people, neither universally good nor bad. They have good days and bad days. So you don’t get to pretend you’re the only person who is exposed to them.
This is the argument. It’s hard to maintain that CDC would completely miss an outbreak for as long as a year, when detection is literally a text or phone call away.
It would take a convoluted conspiracy theory to explain how they wouldn’t.
Which is based on the idea that they are inoculated less than we are. Which isn’t true.
If the rates are no worse than the general population, then this is the spotlight fallacy.
Seeing one or a handful of people pointed out to you who are sick, and presuming it must then be representative of the whole. All the while, the situation was not unique. The only thing that was, was in how your attention was focused.
Qix, the the DRC is having this outbreak because of the collapse in their civil constitutions, which itself due to the serial wars there. As mentioned by your own article.
That is not an apples to apples comparison to us. It’s the farthest thing from us.
Ebola out of all the diseases you’ve listed, has the least chance of coming here. The others are airborne, Ebola is not.
Ebola has a low infection rate, and requires contact with bodily fluids. The infected are disproportionately not random, but family members, medical personnel, and burial workers of other patients.
With the right equipment and infrastructure, this is easily contained. It’s not in Africa due to lack of trained medical staff, and a culture that shames victims, encouraging them to hide and not self-report.
Neither of which we have here.
Claiming ebola is a threat, looks like a blanket statement to me, with no attention paid to how that disease
progresses. You’re treating it as interchangeable with the rest.
This is a strawman, and you’ll have to admit that Qix if you’re being honest with me.
I never once said to do this. I never once said to not check people.
My point is that these people are not a disproportionate source of disease.
There have been no outbreaks in South America of the diseases you’re speaking to, and their populations are just as vaccinated, if not more, than ours. So there’s no reason for me to suspect this anymore than of our own Americans traveling abroad.
That’s all qix, that was the point. You conjoined two points in one, I pointed out that this doesn’t work.
And I’ll say it again; Demographics is king. We need people; the consequences of living in a dying populace are far more dire than anything you’ve talked about here.
I don’t want what the Japanese have. I don’t want what the Russians have. If you followed them the way I have, you wouldn’t either.
You started this with query of “what does Pew think”, you set that bar.
They do list their sources, that’s what the orange lettering in the articles are; hyperlinks. I found the methodology link inside one of them.
Look at the next paragraph:
“_The estimates for the U.S. unauthorized immigrant population presented in this report are based on a residual estimation methodology that compares a demographic estimate of the number of immigrants residing legally in the country with the total number of immigrants as measured by either the American Community Survey or the March Supplement to the Current Population Survey. The difference is assumed to be the number of unauthorized immigrants in the survey, a number that later is adjusted for omissions from the survey (see below). The basic estimate is:_”
So you are told how they do this.
Their other sources looks to be border apprehensions, IPUMS, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, and State-level estimates.
All of which they also talk about, in that same link.
Read the article again qix; the main incubator of this disease is rats. Not people, rats.
Rodents living in LA’s giant garbage piles.
Unless you’re saying Latino migrants keep infected rats as pets, it seems more like LA brought this on themselves through poor city management.
Just like their traffic, and exiting population.
Says farms like this one:
It’s no secret which industry is the biggest user, in % if not absolute terms, of immigrant labor.
Please point out where I made that claim…? You can get Dorothy, the Tin Man and the Cowardly Lion to help you look.
What have I claimed?
That is to say, [because I obviously need to spell this out (though the meaning is absolutely obvious) to prevent you from attaching all sorts of nonsensical strawmen to it] that the unchecked influx of ILLEGAL immigrants (aside from avoiding any form of screening for God-knows-what) is creating and worsening the conditions under which diseases incubate, spread and mutate.
It isn’t necessary for the diseases to come with the illegals, though that is a distinct possibility, and not a trifling one. You say “demographics is king”, so tell me about the demographics from which the ILLEGALS come. (To be clear, I’m in general referring to Latin Americans crossing the southern border.) Are they stable middle or working class urbanites, or from impoverished isolated villages? Are they (ILLEGALS), perhaps, from the least inoculated segments of their home countries? DO YOU KNOW? Would not lack of immunization be an incentive to avoid the legal immigration process?
So we don’t need to exercise any kind of caution. 'MURICA!
Uh-huh. Contained, not prevented. How many lives will be lost in “containment”, Slim? How many dead Americans would it take to make you rethink your opposition to every form of border enforcement anyone has ever proposed? 1000? 1,000,000? 10,000,000?
So what kind of border security do we need, Slim? Since you’re all big on that and stuff…
No, you just oppose every strategy for reducing the avenues by which ILLEGALS can cross the border, meaning they can cross freely without being checked. The border will not enforce itself. You can’t have it both ways.
Better go back and look again. I asked if you believe Pew that the more rural states have tiny illegal populations.
I notice the page to which this link ( it fell in more urban states ) directs has changed. I wonder how that happened…? It now directs to a page that does, indeed, support your claim…but contains NO METHODOLOGY OR LINKS TO THAT INFORMATION. None. I’ve checked fifteen or more times. IT. AIN’T. THERE. Maybe it’s just the NSA using its orbital mind control lasers on me, I dunno, but it sure as $#!* don’t show up here.
(IIRC, that link originally directed here, but I could be confusing Slim’s links to Pew. Hey, lookee there, no methodology on that page, either…)
Now lets talk about the numbers on the map at the (presumably corrected?) link. It finds a positive “statistically significant change” in 5 (count 'em, a WHOLE 5!) states: Louisiana, North and South Dakota, Maryland and Massachusetts.
That makes Massachusetts #3 in population density.
Louisiana is #23, South Dakota #46 and N.D. #47. According to this Pew map from February, illegals in Louisiana comprise 1.5% of their population of, with a net change of +15k out of 4.6 million that’s…(mathing for a moment…)… + .32~% of the total population. Huh doesn’t seem real impressive, does it?
North Dakota was a little more than twice that impressive, for + .66~% change in the total population, and South Dakota (I’m guessing about the same? mathing…) + .57~% change. Huh, I thought (not really) “statistically significant” would be, I’da know, more significant?
Yep those illegals are bulwarking the $#!* out of those rural work forces, ain’t they, slim? With that influx, the state wide totals are 1.5% illegals for Louisiana, .7% for North and South Dakota. (bet the ones in the Dakotas are there for the frakking boom) The two Dakotas are the only two states showing a huge % increase in total numbers of illegals (something like 500%), but those numbers are TINY compared to just California (something like 12,000 compared to 2,200,000, or just over .5%), let alone the rest of the blue states. Compared to the total numbers of illegals (according to Pew, and I think they’re low balling) in the U.S.? The Dakotas have ~.12% of them. That’s both Dakotas together, Slim. Really, really bulwarking the %@#* out of those rural work forces…
Meanwhile, California, New York, Massachusetts? Huge numbers of illegals. Almost like they want to live in the BIG BLUE CITIES.
Somehow all of that really fails to impress me with the numbers of ILLEGALS working in rural counties as opposed to living in the big blue cities.
The very first thing they tell you is “We didn’t agree with the raw numbers so we changed them.” They don’t tell you from what to what or what metrics they used to determine the changes that ‘ought to be made’. Not to mention that information not being on the same links as your claim about rural illegals. The link with the map that utterly and completely destroys that narrative is the ONLY ONE THAT INCLUDES METHODOLOGY. Now either “statistically significant” doesn’t mean what you think it means (because it really means something very very small, Slim), or you (and perhaps Pew as well) are using the phrase disingenuously. And that’s the rosiest picture they can paint without shooting their credibility all to hades.
Typhus is one symptom of the larger problem, and a contributing factor to other, worse diseases. As I said, ‘canary in the coal mine’. You said that I “don’t know what’s normal”. Are typhus outbreaks ‘normal’ in 21st century American cities? If that’s going to be the new normal, I don’t want any, thanks.
Well, duh to that being a contributing factor.
You know what you, personally, call that when someone else does it? Anecdotal evidence. Go back to that map link up there and crunch the numbers yourself. You will find that, despite a “statistically significant” shift, they still live largely in heavily urbanized states (22% in California, alone), at first glance (no time to dig deeper right now) significantly moreso in the most liberal ones (except for Texas, a border state with a vibrant economy and a long history with latinos). And Nevada’s percentage is pretty high (the highest, in fact. Cant say I get that, I don’t find much to recommend Nevada, myself), though the absolute numbers aren’t huge. I don’t think of Nevada as much of a farming state, either? (Dammit, now I’m curious and here we go down the internet rabbit hole. Back later with an update)