Are Illegal Immigrants Good Or Bad For Economy?

[Ramius]

we have HA, molson goldfish, and pdh in here...who called the X-morons to unite?

[molson_golden2002]

I'm sorry you're bitter about your lot in life and jealous of mine.

Ya! You are amazing! LOL, not only are you a traffic expert but you can analyze how happy people are with their lives, too. Gosh, I'm so jealous!

[Alaska Darin]

Ya! You are amazing! LOL, not only are you a traffic expert but you can analyze how happy people are with their lives, too. Gosh, I'm so jealous!

Could you contradict yourself a bit more in this thread? First my take was wrong. Then it was correct but waved off as "common sense". Now you sarcastically call me an "expert" based on you stepping on your own dick.

 

At least you and Holcomb's Arm provide the rest of us with some comic relief.

[Chef Jim]

Is there any particular reason why you think the Allstate stats "proved" that immigrants are average or good drivers? I'm not sure how those stats could go about "proving" such a point actually. But I'd like to know which particular thought process led you to that rather interesting conclusion.

 

Ok, let me restate that. It didn't PROVE that immigrants are average or good drivers but it also didn't prove your theory that it proved they weren't. So back to my ORIGINAL question to you which you so conveniently avoided. What statistics/study are you using to prove that immigrants are worse drivers other than your in depth study of southern Florida driving patterns?

[DC Tom]

Is there any particular reason why you think the Allstate stats "proved" that immigrants are average or good drivers? I'm not sure how those stats could go about "proving" such a point actually. But I'd like to know which particular thought process led you to that rather interesting conclusion.

 

No one said the study proved they're good drivers. You, however implied the study proved they're bad drivers. The fact is: the study didn't prove anything. Quoting something to support your position that doesn't actually say ANYTHING about the position you're using it to support is...well, par for the course for you, actually.

[Chef Jim]

No one said the study proved they're good drivers. You, however implied the study proved they're bad drivers. The fact is: the study didn't prove anything. Quoting something to support your position that doesn't actually say ANYTHING about the position you're using it to support is...well, par for the course for you, actually.

 

What that survey does prove is that anyone who uses Allstate probably pays more for their insurance due to the company spending gazillions of dollars on worthless studies such at that one that demonstrates the obvious: there are people who get into accidents.

[Ramius]

Ok, let me restate that. It didn't PROVE that immigrants are average or good drivers but it also didn't prove your theory that it proved they weren't. So back to my ORIGINAL question to you which you so conveniently avoided. What statistics/study are you using to prove that immigrants are worse drivers other than your in depth study of southern Florida driving patterns?

 

To be truthful, there are a number of terrible hispanic drivers here in tallahassee. its probably because they are illegals...oh wait...they arent illegals, they are in-fact american born college students. And now that i think about it, there are plenty of white bad drivers too, also college students.

 

But i'm sure the link to bad driving is more likely due to their ethnicity, NOT the fact that they are 18-22 yr old college students...

[Taro T]

To be truthful, there are a number of terrible hispanic drivers here in tallahassee. its probably because they are illegals...oh wait...they arent illegals, they are in-fact american born college students. And now that i think about it, there are plenty of white bad drivers too, also college students.

 

But i'm sure the link to bad driving is more likely due to their ethnicity, NOT the fact that they are 18-22 yr old college students...

Puhonix is gonna get you for that one!

 

[Orton's Arm]

They are great for the economy, depending on who you are. The business community loves them because they are easy to exploit in terms of low wages, unsafe working conditions, etc.

The super rich love them because of the above, and the fact that they are able to design school districts that are built primarily to keep their little darlings away from illegals, and of course African Americans. Btw, many of these rich racists pose as "liberals."

 

For working people they are a problem, and not only because of gang violence. They drive down wages, increase the price of health care, lower the quality of health care (in terms of waiting at emergency rooms and hospital closures). The Social Security Fund is used a piggy bank for illegals, this while the rest of us worry about the solvency of the fund.

Oh, I think that I would like some of the tax dollars back for the jails that illegals populate in disproportionate numbers.

They are also receiptients of, you guessed it.....affirmative action.

 

In summary, if you are part of elite Corporate America (or one of their stooges), yes; it is great that our nation is being invaded daily by illegal aliens. If not, you are simply left to pick up the check, and live with the consequences.

Now this is a post!

[Orton's Arm]

No one said the study proved they're good drivers. You, however implied the study proved they're bad drivers. The fact is: the study didn't prove anything. Quoting something to support your position that doesn't actually say ANYTHING about the position you're using it to support is...well, par for the course for you, actually.

It's amazing to me that someone who can write as intelligently as you do about military matters can be this stupid when dealing with the subject of driving. You've managed to write a post in which almost every sentence is a major error.

 

You: "No one said the study proved they're good drivers."

Chef Jim: "Still haven't seen any proof of your cities with high levels of immigrants have poor auto safety records theory. Molson's Allstate stats proved otherwise actually."

 

At least one poster felt those stats proved that immigrants are at least as good at driving as those born here.

 

You: "You, however implied the study proved they're bad drivers."

Me: "The apparent correlation between having lots of immigrants and worse driving doesn't prove my point. On the other hand, that correlation is completely consistent with my point."

 

You: "Quoting something to support your position that doesn't actually say ANYTHING about the position you're using it to support is...well, par for the course for you, actually."

Me: "What I found interesting about that link is that the safest drivers tend to be in Midwestern states such as Kansas or Iowa. Meanwhile, immigrant-heavy cities (such as Miami, other Florida cities, Texas cities, etc.) are correlated with worse driving records."

 

Your crusade against me has severely clouded your judgment.

[DC Tom]

It's amazing to me that someone who can write as intelligently as you do about military matters can be this stupid when dealing with the subject of driving. You've managed to write a post in which almost every sentence is a major error.

 

You: "No one said the study proved they're good drivers."

Chef Jim: "Still haven't seen any proof of your cities with high levels of immigrants have poor auto safety records theory. Molson's Allstate stats proved otherwise actually."

 

At least one poster felt those stats proved that immigrants are at least as good at driving as those born here.

 

You: "You, however implied the study proved they're bad drivers."

Me: "The apparent correlation between having lots of immigrants and worse driving doesn't prove my point. On the other hand, that correlation is completely consistent with my point."

 

You: "Quoting something to support your position that doesn't actually say ANYTHING about the position you're using it to support is...well, par for the course for you, actually."

Me: "What I found interesting about that link is that the safest drivers tend to be in Midwestern states such as Kansas or Iowa. Meanwhile, immigrant-heavy cities (such as Miami, other Florida cities, Texas cities, etc.) are correlated with worse driving records."

 

Your crusade against me has severely clouded your judgment.

 

You didn't even read the study, did you? Bakersfield, CA is mid-western?

 

You're just - again - pulling nonsense out of your ass. The study doesn't correlate anything to immigrant population, and you don't have a shred of evidence to make the correlation. But then, you don't even know what a correlation is, so why bother?

[Alaska Darin]

You didn't even read the study, did you? Bakersfield, CA is mid-western?

 

You're just - again - pulling nonsense out of your ass. The study doesn't correlate anything to immigrant population, and you don't have a shred of evidence to make the correlation. But then, you don't even know what a correlation is, so why bother?

Not for nothing, but Bako is packed to the gills with "illegals".

[Taro T]

So, is Boston not even listed because it's off the chart bad driving, and must accordingly have a ton of illegals?

[Orton's Arm]

You didn't even read the study, did you? Bakersfield, CA is mid-western?

 

You're just - again - pulling nonsense out of your ass. The study doesn't correlate anything to immigrant population, and you don't have a shred of evidence to make the correlation. But then, you don't even know what a correlation is, so why bother?

Given that you got so very much wrong in your last post, I can't exactly blame you for using still more accusations to detract attention from your own egregious errors. But once again you're off the mark. Had I written that "every single last safe city was in the Midwest," your Bakersfield example would have been a good rebuttal. But I merely noted a tendency for the safer cities to be in the Midwest; and a tendency for cities with high immigrant populations to be in the lower, less-safe part of the list.

 

Your statement that I "don't even know what a correlation is" is just stupid. But you've yet to contribute anything intelligent to this thread, so why start now?

[DC Tom]

Given that you got so very much wrong in your last post, I can't exactly blame you for using still more accusations to detract attention from your own egregious errors. But once again you're off the mark. Had I written that "every single last safe city was in the Midwest," your Bakersfield example would have been a good rebuttal. But I merely noted a tendency for the safer cities to be in the Midwest; and a tendency for cities with high immigrant populations to be in the lower, less-safe part of the list.

 

Your statement that I "don't even know what a correlation is" is just stupid. But you've yet to contribute anything intelligent to this thread, so why start now?

 

Let me guess: you didn't even bother to look up the immigrant population data for those cities in the US Census database, and defined correlation as "Well, this is what I THINK it should be" without doing any further research?

 

Want to borrow my spreadsheet with the US Census information in it for those cities? Think you can calculate a correlation from that?

[Orton's Arm]

Let me guess: you didn't even bother to look up the immigrant population data for those cities in the US Census database, and defined correlation as "Well, this is what I THINK it should be" without doing any further research?

 

Want to borrow my spreadsheet with the US Census information in it for those cities? Think you can calculate a correlation from that?

Given the appropriate data, of course I can calculate a correlation. That's not exactly brain surgery. So yeah, if you want to send me that spreadsheet, I'd be delighted.

[Orton's Arm]

Could you contradict yourself a bit more in this thread? First my take was wrong. Then it was correct but waved off as "common sense". Now you sarcastically call me an "expert" based on you stepping on your own dick.

I think Molson's point was that the quality of driving varies from place to place, and that there's more at work than just population size. The data he's provided certainly support his point.

[DC Tom]

Given the appropriate data, of course I can calculate a correlation.

 

That would be a first for you. Can't do that without defining variance, WHICH YOU STILL CAN'T DO.

[Orton's Arm]

That would be a first for you. Can't do that without defining variance, WHICH YOU STILL CAN'T DO.

If you give me the data, I'll calculate a correlation for you. If you just sit there and pretend I don't know the meaning of some word you've picked out of a hat, then we'll get nowhere.

[DC Tom]

If you give me the data, I'll calculate a correlation for you. If you just sit there and pretend I don't know the meaning of some word you've picked out of a hat, then we'll get nowhere.

 

In other words...you didn't look up the census data for foreign-born population of those cities, you just assumed a correlation.

 

 

I'm in the middle of doing the calculation myself...along with correlating it with state, population size, population density, and the first letter of the city name. Anyone want to place bets on which has the strongest correlation? Hell, just doing CA was enough to show HA is full of sh--...again. Still.