Talk:Myths and facts about immigration to the United States
Center for Immigration Studies[edit]
This edit by @McLaghing cites the "Center for Immigration Studies" (CIS). CIS has been identified as an extreme-right hate group and questionable source by mediabiasfactcheck.com. Hopefully this was an honest mistake by McLaghing. CowHouse (talk) 10:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- First, the study of the CIS uses data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, and that survey has been done by the United States Census Bureau (USCB), the principal agency of the U.S. Federal Statistical System. I hope that we agree that the USCB is not a questionable source. Of course, it could be that CIS bended in some way the data of the USCB to support a false claim. But then, instead of reverting immediately my the edit, it would have been better to read (on the talk page or on the article page itself) how the CIS made a wrong analysis; and this should be very easy if CIS is such a blinded by hate organization.
- Second, if we have to believe to mediabiasfactcheck, then according to it RationalWiki has a left-center bias and in particular "often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation." McLaghing (talk) 13:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- They also stated that RW's factual reporting was high.GrammarCommie (talk) 13:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- Do you have some comment on the actual problem with CIS study? McLaghing (talk) 13:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- I was merely added something that you omitted when you accused MFC of being against RW. GrammarCommie (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- "...when you accused MFC of being against RW" I did not. McLaghing (talk) 14:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- "...:Second, if we have to believe to mediabiasfactcheck, then according to it RationalWiki has a left-center bias and in particular "often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation."" Actually you did indeed accuse MFC of dislike and/or distrust of RW, intentionally or not. GrammarCommie (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- "...when you accused MFC of being against RW" I did not. McLaghing (talk) 14:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- I was merely added something that you omitted when you accused MFC of being against RW. GrammarCommie (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- Do you have some comment on the actual problem with CIS study? McLaghing (talk) 13:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- If the information is accurate, you should not need to go to a hate group with little credibility for a citation.
- Of course, it could be that CIS bended in some way the data of the USCB to support a false claim. Yes, that is exactly what they are accused of doing. From Wikipedia
: "The Center for Immigration Studies has been criticized for periodically publishing reports deemed to be misleading and using poor methodology by scholars on immigration"
- The description you copied is how mediabiasfactcheck.com describes every left-center source, so I don't see your point (other than whataboutism). More importantly, RationalWiki is rated "high" for factual reporting, whereas CIS is not. CowHouse (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- I have found, in a few minutes, a good objection to the CIS study. It looks at the data and explain why CIS overestimated the usage of welfare by immigrant (although it agrees that immigrants still use more welfare than citizens). Now, that is the kind of rebuttal which I would like to hear on RW, not a "it's a hate group so it must be surely wrong, never mind the data..." By the way, almost a week ago, I have posted a lot of detailed comments of why I think the page has a lot of issues: nobody said nothing. Today I have cited CIS: reverted without explanation. I do not think there is really some kind of constructive conversation here... McLaghing (talk) 14:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- "it's a hate group so it must be surely wrong, never mind the data..." I never said this. You're trying to twist this to make it seem controversial for me to object to using hate groups as sources of fact.
- "reverted without explanation" False. My edit summary said "See talk" where I explained my edit.
- In short, you cited a study that you now acknowledge was not accurate. You should investigate your sources more thoroughly in the future. CowHouse (talk) 14:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- I wrote "without explanation" because just saying that some study comes from a "hate group", without looking at the data, in my opinion is not a valid explanation. I would have accepted a rebuttal of the data analysis, which I have later found by myself. McLaghing (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- Look, if someone cites a study and their source is a hate group, I'm just going to revert. It hurts the credibility of RationalWiki if we cite sources like CIS. Is your position that it's totally acceptable to cite a study by a hate group if the study in question has not been criticised? CowHouse (talk) 14:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- Any White people that advocate for a standard immigration policy are a "far right hate group" according to these anti-White liars. Wangmeister (talk) 14:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- Perhaps if you were to actually focus on immigration as a whole instead of focusing on migrants from countries with predominantly less than pale skin tones (countries such as Canada and Russia send immigrants too) we would not accuse you of racism, merely xenophobia and generic bigotry.
- PS The "anti-racist is code for anti-white" dog whistle won't work here. GrammarCommie (talk) 14:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- Did you ever push fake statistics to argue for immigration to Turkey or China? They're pretty much 100% non White aren't they? Where's the immigration and diversity? Wangmeister (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- You do realise how many Syrian refugees are in Turkey, right? CowHouse (talk) 15:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- But do you ever push fake statistics on Turks to try to confuse them into accepting White economic immigration? The Turks massacred and deported all of the Whites after they invaded right? Where's the diversity? Shouldn't you be practicing your fake statistics on them? Wangmeister (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- "But do you ever push fake statistics on Turks to try to confuse them into accepting White economic immigration?" Have you stopped beating your wife? CowHouse (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- You see how dishonest you are? That isn't an analogous question at all. We already established you push fake statistics, hide relevant statistics, and only to promote immigration to White countries. Very suspicious behavior. Wangmeister (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- Debate manual for cranks and pseudoscientists;
- Lie.
- Double down on your lie.
- Accuse your opponent of lying.
- Rinse and repeat.
- GrammarCommie (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- "But do you ever push fake statistics on Turks to try to confuse them into accepting White economic immigration?" Have you stopped beating your wife? CowHouse (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- But do you ever push fake statistics on Turks to try to confuse them into accepting White economic immigration? The Turks massacred and deported all of the Whites after they invaded right? Where's the diversity? Shouldn't you be practicing your fake statistics on them? Wangmeister (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- You do realise how many Syrian refugees are in Turkey, right? CowHouse (talk) 15:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- Did you ever push fake statistics to argue for immigration to Turkey or China? They're pretty much 100% non White aren't they? Where's the immigration and diversity? Wangmeister (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- I wrote "without explanation" because just saying that some study comes from a "hate group", without looking at the data, in my opinion is not a valid explanation. I would have accepted a rebuttal of the data analysis, which I have later found by myself. McLaghing (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- I have found, in a few minutes, a good objection to the CIS study. It looks at the data and explain why CIS overestimated the usage of welfare by immigrant (although it agrees that immigrants still use more welfare than citizens). Now, that is the kind of rebuttal which I would like to hear on RW, not a "it's a hate group so it must be surely wrong, never mind the data..." By the way, almost a week ago, I have posted a lot of detailed comments of why I think the page has a lot of issues: nobody said nothing. Today I have cited CIS: reverted without explanation. I do not think there is really some kind of constructive conversation here... McLaghing (talk) 14:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- They also stated that RW's factual reporting was high.GrammarCommie (talk) 13:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Today’s immigrants are different than those of 100 years ago[edit]
The myth Today’s immigrants are different than those of 100 years ago is too generic.
Of course today's immigration is different than that of 100 year ago: different countries, different cultures, different economic situation, different jobs... So what should be disproved? In the section in question it is argued that there are some (weak) analogies between the two waves of immigration, but analogies do not meant that two things are not different.
I have removed that section as meaningless.
McLaghing (talk) 10:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Sourcing[edit]
This might help for the purpose of sourcing. https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:EgWstl9mj74J:https://www.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/documents/files/022851_mythsfacts_2016_report_final.pdf
Try to be more rational about this[edit]
This article is mediocre compared to the rest of the wiki which is very good.
- Illegal immigrants, as well as legal immigrants with little job skills or language skills often take the work seen by most Americans as "beneath them."
Where is the evidence of this? It's not a matter of Americans thinking those jobs are beneath them, it's the fact that the employers don't want to pay a living wage for those jobs.
Neoliberalism combined with open borders is just plain stupid and it's great that both the left and the right are beginning to come to terms with this. — Unsigned, by: 174.91.101.90 / talk
New section[edit]
Possible new section debunking the myth of immigrants arriving to the U.S to commit mass voter fraud for a party/candidate. — Unsigned, by: 152.26.89.233 / talk / contribs