Which, allow me to answer that for them. No. Obama didn’t “confuse” the numbers. He lied about that. Because that’s what he does.
In last night’s debate, Pres. Obama repeated the claim that the number of illegal aliens entering the U.S. is at a 40 year low, apparently citing a DHS report of the number of arrests. But, saying arrests equal crimes is like saying people didn’t drink during Prohibition because the cops looked the other way.
“Number two, we do have to deal with our border. So we’ve put more Border Patrol on than anytime in history, and the flow of undocumented workers across the border is actually lower than it’s been in 40 years,” Obama said during last night’s presidential debate.
The “40 year low” claim has been widely reported sourcing a DHS report on the number of arrests actually made – not the number of illegal border crossings.
Pres. Obama made a similar claim on June 15 of the year when he announced a plan to use “discretion” to stop prosecuting some illegal aliens and to grant them waivers to avoid deportation:
“Today, there are fewer illegal crossings than at any time in the past 40 years.”
But, using the number of arrests as a proxy for the number of crimes committed is dubious:
- If a football referee misses or ignores a foul and neglects to throw a flag, that doesn’t mean the player didn’t commit an infraction – just that he wasn’t caught and punished for it,
- Arrests only equal illegal border crossings if 100% of the people illegally crossing the border are all arrested. Obviously, this is not the case.
- Decriminalizing something may decrease the number of arrests for doing something, but that doesn’t mean fewer people are doing it.
[…]
Besides, even the Government Accountability Office reports that the border patrol lacks actual “outcome-oriented measures” and, thus, must rely on arrest data:
“In the interim the Border Patrol is using the number of apprehensions on the southwest border as its primary performance measure, which is being reported out in the department’s annual performance report.”
And, Rand says no reliable methods of measurement even exist:
“Commonly reported border control measures, such as numbers of illegal migrants apprehended or miles of border under effective control, bear only an indirect and uncertain relationship to the border control mission, making them unreliable management tools. Fundamental to the question of border control effectiveness is the proportion of illicit border crossings that are prevented through either deterrence or apprehension. Estimating these proportions requires knowing the total flow of illicit goods or border crossings, but compelling methods for producing such estimates do not yet exist.”
So, claiming that illegal border crossing are at a 40 year low because arrests are at the low is a little dicey, especially when the federal government is fighting tough state immigration laws and eschewing prosecutions.
That last point is the most important: first, to base the claim of a decreased flow of illegals on arrests — having first worked to make sure there are fewer arrests, even going so far as to sue border states for trying to enforce immigration law — is not only statistically absurd, but it is rhetorically and intentionally dishonest. It is meant to create an impression of competent border security while simultaneously allowing for a compromise of that security insofar as a defense of the current Administration policy, coupled with such massaged (and irrelevant) numbers, argues aggressively for the status quo. Which the border states are finding it increasingly difficult to live with.
If Obama wanted to be honest — and he doesn’t, because to do so would reveal his policy failures and expose him for the faculty lounge radical demagogue he is — he would point out that any decrease in the number of illegal border crossings would more likely be attributable to a bad economy here in the US. But even on that account, Obama and the left have worked to recruit illegals by actively soliciting them, often through foreign governments, to join the welfare rolls in the US, this despite extant immigration laws that require immigrants to show an ability to provide for themselves.
And that’s for legal immigrants.
So again, no, Obama didn’t “confuse” anything: he obfuscated and he lied. And because he has some Republican backers for his immigration policy (with Jeb Bush being among the most notable), he understands that he can get away with many of his lies and distortions by pointing to bi-partisan support for his quasi-amnesty policy.
Which is why establishment Republicans like Jeb Bush are so particularly harmful to a free country: they provide cover for constitutional oversteps in the name of demographic pragmatism.
Somebody really should smack Jeb across the face with a bag of rancid churros.
“he would point out that any decrease in the number of illegal border crossings would more likely be attributable to a bad economy here in the US.”
Hell yeah. He feels free to do this with gasoline prices, he can do it with the labor market.
Agreed that it’s an iffy proxy.
I think he’s actually probably right, though, from all I’ve heard from people more deeply interested in the subject than I am.
Of course, the reason is thought to be “the incredibly shitty economy means Mexicans don’t want to come here for work”, which is not something I’d be bragging about if I was President…
So, boo on the President for the implication that he somehow stopped illegals from entering the country by caring a whit about our borders, or that he wants fewer illegals, because both of those implications are, to put it charitably, un-evidenced at best.
– Are we left to assume that Issa is not going to pursue F&F or Libyagate any further?
– Both scandals just seem to be fading into the noise.
Hey, Romney, you dumbass — enthuse your base! Fire all your idiot “election consultants”, then go campaign your ass off in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Michigan, California and Minnesota (leave Wisco to Ryan). Win in a walk, fool. Or keep your consultants and waste a pile of money and good will.
– Apparently the majority of voters didn’t get the memo:
– Gallup today: R 51% , O 45%
What’s the margin of error BBH?
I’m honestly confused here. Is the administration claiming that illegal entries are down because arrests are down (presumably to a forty year low), or are they claiming that entries are down (to a forty year low) because arrests are up?
I’d rather know the D oversample than the margin of error on that poll.
My interest in the margin of error goes partly — well, mostly — to figuring the more probable top-end Romney advantage as the actual differential at election day — which maybe that’s a perversion: one takes ones vices where one can find them. As I mentioned to geoffb t’other day, the newsreaders like to apply the low-end of the margin to insinuate to their listeners the poll is closer than it looks, ignoring that it’s equally likely the marginal difference is at the upper end.
I believe Obama is using the same formula that allowed him to arrive at the conclusion in last night’s debate, that we had cheap gasoline when he took office because he hadn’t started saving the economy.
We need a recession/depression in order to have cheap fuel.
Or something.
My last was to Ernst.
O is repeating what Sibelius told him. I’m just confused about how they’re arriving at 40 year low from the arrest # proxy.
sdferr:
10 pts is lookin’ about right.
The reason I’m interested in what I presume is a D oversample is that earlier this week Rush reported Gallup had them within the margin of error —2 point differential— with a sample that was D +9. I don’t remember who was leading, but if the sample was D +9 and it’s within the margin of error, Romney is going to win on election day.
If Romney is up by 6 in the latest poll, and the sample is still D +9, Romney is going to win 400+ electoral votes. Hard as that is to believe.
I’ve been playing with the electoral college maps and keep coming out with him around 320 to 35oish.
Margin of error is statistical mumbo jumbo. In this case it means that if they modelled the electorate correctly, the result will be within two points of their sample.
IF the model is still D +9 and Romney is up by 6, that means Democrats aren’t planning to vote for Obama, which means California is in play.
Obviously I’m running my mouth here, as I haven’t bothered to go looking for internals.
Obama wins Hawaii! Obama wins Hawaii! Obama wins Hawaii! oh, and DC.
There’s a headline at RCP (written by RCP I reckon) on a Kevin Drum Mother Jones piece I won’t bother to read. It says: Obama Put an End to Questions on Libya.
heh, it isn’t even necessary to make the shit up – it gets served out on a platter.
And probably Illinois too.
On the other hand, if they’ve gone to a R +9 model, say, then the poll is equally junk, and probably deliberately so, in order to show Romney cratering ahead of the election.
Obama Put an End to Questions on Libya
– To which I would just say:
“No, we’re not in Kansas anymore Dorothy….”
– Sorry sdferr. I was AFK for a bit.
– So, both CBS and CNN do their ‘who won’ bit giving it to Obama, or at least a tie, then they do the internals of the flash respons on the 4 major categories, ie. economy etc, and Blitzers jaw hits the floor.
“sdferr says October 17, 2012 at 12:50 pm
Obama wins Hawaii! Obama wins Hawaii! Obama wins Hawaii! oh, and DC.”
RI Red says, “And Rhode Island. By a landslide!”
[…] Jeff dismantles another one. It may be unfair that Romney has both Ogabe and Court Media as his opponents, but it’s […]