You claimed that there was an outbreak of TB, and it was somehow in conjunction to the people feeding the current border crisis.
Hence a year.
You would need a conspiracy theory to explain how the CDC would miss it.
You made an error. You asserted the existence of outbreaks that haven’t happened.
You did this. And you made a similar mistake with Typhus. Something that had nothing to do migrants, you tried to pin on migrants.
It means you weren’t discerning by trying to assert it as a threat. You treated Ebola interchangeably because you didn’t have details surrounding it in mind.
It’s just throwing a disease name against a wall. That’s how you treated this.
And this is the true straw man. I’m not against border enforcement.
I’m against adding more manpower and resources, when you don’t have the laws straight.
You need to get the laws straight first; otherwise, you’ll have enforcement chasing the consequence. Like the police during Prohibition.
Grover Norquist explained this in his Speed Limit example; I’ve referenced the same thing. So I qualified myself here well in advance.
I don’t know how links work. If you’re trying to say I did something to re-route it, you’re being paranoid.
That was a picture I isolated from the article it came from. An article which is also linked at the picture link in the top right:
And at the bottom of the source article is this link:
I can find “methods” listed on virtually every PEW page (protip: Ctrl + f), and a methodology section in at least 2 of their links.
So qix, I’ll buy that that I’m just more use to finding information on PEW’s site, and I’m taking that literacy for granted, but even if that was an error on my part, it still means I was acting in good faith.
I did everything I said I did. So did PEW.
The methodology report I gave before comes from this link ( posted before) point #2, the second link.
You talk about raw population, not work force participation? Not an industry workforce by demographic?
And equally not… who shows up for the job?
I already posted a study, where there are neighboring urban and rural counties, the rural county can have a shortage, and the urban county can have high unemployment, but Americans will not move to take jobs in the former. Americans who do take them, don’t last long.
"For perspective, the NCGA was looking for about 6,500 workers in 2011. Even if every single referred applicant had been hired and finished the growing season, that would have filled only 4.1 percent of the slots available. As a consequence, the vast majority of the workers who start work at NCGA farms are Mexican H-2A visa holders:
And Mexican workers are far likelier to stick through the season than native-born workers. About 90 percent were still working five months along, compared to less than 10 percent of native-born workers:"
Immigrants are the backbone of rural workforce jobs.
That’s why industries there fight to have them. That’s not just an “anecdote”, that’s the measured reality.
No attention to outflows/inflows? are these populations growing or shrinking?
A net loss tells me they want to be somewhere else.
They did that in the very. next. paragraph.
Why didn’t you read it qix?
Answer: you were skimming. Your desire to see methodology got caught up in an attempt to manufacture a “gotcha!” moment, that’s what you were doing.
This was an error.
You skipped over a detail, and made an error.
Let’s see you be honest about this.
No misdirection, no deflection, be honest qix, you made a mistake.
If I’m capable of admitting my mistakes, then so should you.