1. #25601
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    You are framing the history of immigration to the United States as if it was open for years and suddenly now it isn't. Anyone who took APUSH in high school knows it has been cyclical based on what the population supported at a given time. Except until the 60s when LBJ decided to open the flood gates by killing quotas and the last five presidential administrations decided to put off dealing with illegal immigration.

    You might need to revisit your history books where it concerns immigration.

  2. #25602
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    You might need to revisit your history books where it concerns immigration.
    I'm a grown ass man, I don't have my high school textbooks sitting around.

  3. #25603
    Quote Originally Posted by thimonos View Post
    Could have fooled me.
    Says the guy who doesn't have A and D hotkeys.

  4. #25604
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    63,005
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    You are framing the history of immigration to the United States as if it was open for years and suddenly now it isn't. Anyone who took APUSH in high school knows it has been cyclical based on what the population supported at a given time. Except until the 60s when LBJ decided to open the flood gates by killing quotas and the last five presidential administrations decided to put off dealing with illegal immigration.
    It would help if you checked the facts first, and then posted.



    There was a dip in immigration from 1930 until around 2000, but the value in 2010 is a return to historical immigration rates from 1860-1930.

    Note that the important line, there, is the "percent of total population" line, not the absolute number.

    Even if you want to argue "it's cyclical!", then you're on an upswing and should be expecting immigration to continue to climb and then maintain that rate for the next 50-70 years or so. That'd be the "cycle" that the data suggests.

  5. #25605
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    It would help if you checked the facts first, and then posted.

    It would help if you knew the difference between "foreign born population" and "number of immigrants entering the country in a given year"



    My point stands. You can almost see the very moment the melting pot died.

  6. #25606
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    I'm a grown ass man, I don't have my high school textbooks sitting around.
    Uhm... you posted this comment on the internet. Trump hasn’t banned online books or encyclopedia due to their liberal bias... yet... their window to update them all with Trump being the most persecuted, with the most accomplishments, stable genius of a president... ever... is closing soon.

    Stupid liberal bias wants you to think other presidents did more or were better than Trump... sad.
    Entropy won't yield to you.
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    Don’t click random links on forums.

  7. #25607
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    It would help if you knew the difference between "foreign born population" and "number of immigrants entering the country in a given year"

    My point stands. You can almost see the very moment the melting pot died.
    Uhm... you guys posted the same exact data, in two different graphs.
    Entropy won't yield to you.
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    Don’t click random links on forums.

  8. #25608
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    Uhm... you posted this comment on the internet. Trump hasn’t banned online books or encyclopedia due to their liberal bias... yet... their window to update them all with Trump being the most persecuted, with the most accomplishments, stable genius of a president... ever... is closing soon.

    Stupid liberal bias wants you to think other presidents did more or were better than Trump... sad.
    I don't know about all that but I'm pretty sure I had to read Howard Zinn's shitty Marxist history book back in high school or college so a little less bias would have been appreciated.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    Uhm... you guys posted the same exact data, in two different graphs.
    Mine manipulates the data in a way that is more favorable to my argument.


    Infracted.
    Last edited by Flarelaine; 2019-08-15 at 09:17 AM. Reason: Trolling

  9. #25609
    Quote Originally Posted by thimonos View Post
    Always entertaining when the racist claims to have a read a book.
    what if I was reading racist books

  10. #25610
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post

    Mine manipulates the data in a way that is more favorable to my argument.
    They show exactly the same thing. Look at the data points, they match exactly. What are you trying to say? Yours just uses a blue line instead of bars.

  11. #25611
    Quote Originally Posted by Nellise View Post
    They show exactly the same thing. Look at the data points, they match exactly. What are you trying to say?
    A line graph is much more scary than a bar graph. I'm just trying to save some face here.

  12. #25612
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    I don't know about all that but I'm pretty sure I had to read Howard Zinn's shitty Marxist history book back in high school or college so a little less bias would have been appreciated.
    If you can’t even remember when you were supposed to read it... does it really mater?

    Mine manipulates the data in a way that is more favorable to my argument.
    No, dude... take a look at the data points. Both graphs go with 40 million vs 12.9% for 2010... They are exactly the same. The distinction you are suggesting, doesn’t exist in the two graphs. Yours goes to 2020, while his stops at 2010. His is also using 10 year increment, while yours at 20. Otherwise, the data is the same. It doesn’t make any sense that you two are disagreeing...

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Nellise View Post
    They show exactly the same thing. Look at the data points, they match exactly. What are you trying to say? Yours just uses a blue line instead of bars.
    It took me so long to reply, because I was triple checking... I thought I was being dumb, but nope... there is no reason for them to argue.
    Entropy won't yield to you.
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    Don’t click random links on forums.

  13. #25613
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    If you can’t even remember when you were supposed to read it... does it really mater?

    No, dude... take a look at the data points. Both graphs go with 40 million vs 12.9% for 2010... They are exactly the same. The distinction you are suggesting, doesn’t exist in the two graphs. Yours goes to 2020, while his stops at 2010. His is also using 10 year increment, while yours at 20. Otherwise, the data is the same. It doesn’t make any sense that you two are disagreeing...
    Because what I said is factually correct and both charts show it. After Hart-Celler, immigration sky rocketed. Before that it was low and before that it was higher. Forming what you might call... a cycle.

  14. #25614
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    63,005
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    It would help if you knew the difference between "foreign born population" and "number of immigrants entering the country in a given year"



    My point stands. You can almost see the very moment the melting pot died.
    That's the same graph. Kudos for that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    Mine manipulates the data in a way that is more favorable to my argument.
    Admitting to bad faith in multiple distinct ways, on top of that.

    The data's the same. The facts are that immigration in the USA is not particularly high right now, historically speaking. Despite your claims otherwise.

  15. #25615
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Admitting to bad faith in multiple distinct ways, on top of that.

    The data's the same. The facts are that immigration in the USA is not particularly high right now, historically speaking. Despite your claims otherwise.
    How does either graph show that? You know when the line or bar goes up that means the number of people has gone up right?

  16. #25616
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    63,005
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    Because what I said is factually correct and both charts show it. After Hart-Celler, immigration sky rocketed. Before that it was low and before that it was higher. Forming what you might call... a cycle.
    Again, if you're seriously going to claim that data shows a "cycle", then you're going to have to admit that it's a 50-70 year "cycle", and the USA is just entering a higher-immigration cycle period, meaning you should expect immigration to step up even more and remain at that high for the next half-century or so, before declining again.

    I assume you're making this argument to argue for significant increases to immigration, then?

  17. #25617
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Again, if you're seriously going to claim that data shows a "cycle", then you're going to have to admit that it's a 50-70 year "cycle", and the USA is just entering a higher-immigration cycle period, meaning you should expect immigration to step up even more and remain at that high for the next half-century or so, before declining again.

    I assume you're making this argument to argue for significant increases to immigration, then?
    No, right now it should be entering a low-immigration period.

  18. #25618
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    Because what I said is factually correct and both charts show it. After Hart-Celler, immigration sky rocketed. Before that it was low and before that it was higher. Forming what you might call... a cycle.
    But... the difference is less than 1.9% from the peak...
    Entropy won't yield to you.
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    Don’t click random links on forums.

  19. #25619
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    63,005
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    How does either graph show that?
    Because the immigrant population hovered around a solid 13-14% for decades, then dropped and is now cycling back up. The graph shows immigration being higher than current levels for nearly half the period it covers.

  20. #25620
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    No, right now it should be entering a low-immigration period.
    But... it still has 1.9% from the peak... at best you can say it should cycle down soon. But, it has yet to match the previous peak.
    Entropy won't yield to you.
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    Don’t click random links on forums.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •