Comment by hagbard_c
1 month ago
What you describe is part of, but not the entire reason why tensions arise around migration. There are at least two main drivers for tension which are missing, very broadly defined those related to cultures and social security systems where the latter is often related to the former. Taking the recent revelations about fraud in Minnesota as an example - which encompass both mentioned factors - it becomes clear that the tension is not so much about the fact that about 80.000 people from Somalia moved to this region but that these people:
(culture) by and large did not integrate into local Minnesotan culture but remain focused on their Somalian culture and traditions including clan culture which now has a marked influence on the local political climate with people voting along clan lines
(social security) for a large part are and remain dependent on the social security systems: 81% of Somali immigrants are dependent on some of the welfare systems, 78% of those who have lived for more than 10 years in the area remain dependent on these systems [1]
Combine this with the practice of calling out any criticism of these facts as 'racist' and tensions quickly arise.
The rhetorical and alarmist tone of your comment and the absurd sounding statistics you quote were what prompted me to check the background and bias of the resource you cited: CIS (Center for Immigration Studies) [1]. And oh boy! Isn't that an interesting and fun find!
Here is what Wikipedia says [2]:
> The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) is an American anti-immigration think tank . It favors far lower immigration numbers and produces analyses to further those views. The CIS was founded by historian Otis L. Graham alongside eugenicist and white nationalist John Tanton in 1985 as a spin-off of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).
> CIS has been involved in the creation of Project 2025
> Reports published by CIS have been disputed by scholars on immigration, fact-checkers and news outlets, and immigration-research organizations. The organization had significant influence within the Trump administration, which cited the group's work to defend its immigration policies . The Southern Poverty Law Center designated CIS as a hate group with ties to the American nativist movement .
All emphasis are mine. So to explain the reason behind a problem, you chose a resource that caused the problem in the first place. Hilarious! That too, an organization with a known history of hatred and bigotry against the population you're 'criticizing', and of producing fake research.
At this point, that resource alone is enough to suspect that everything you argued is false - especially the statistics. There is no better way to discredit yourself than to choose such a pathologically biased source.
Media Bias/Fact Check service [3] rates them with 'low' factuality (7.0), 'extreme right wing' bias (8.9) and an overall 'low credibility' rating. Here are some quotes:
> Overall, we rate CIS a questionable source based on publishing misleading information (propaganda) regarding immigration and ties either directly or indirectly to the John Tanton Network, a known White Nationalist.
> A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing of credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news.
Whenever we look for sources to quote for some facts, we try to find well known publications or at least something that turns higher up in the web search, so that nobody will outright reject our claims for lack of credibility. How do you all instead find such obscure sources on such specific topics? Do you refer some resource list or similar?
> Combine this with the practice of calling out any criticism of these facts as 'racist' and tensions quickly arise.
This really is the cherry on the top! You might as well just say "I'm going to say some racist nonsense, but don't you dare call me a racist!" Preemption by gaslighting?
> ... tensions quickly arise.
The tensions due to hateful behavior are already so high that the minor inconveniences caused by calling it out are well worth it.
[1] https://cis.org/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Immigration_Studies
[3] https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/center-for-immigration-studie...
If I or some neutral party were to go to the effort to learn how to pull up the information they used from the American Community Survey [1] and it matched what CIS published would you be open to changing your mind on either the absurd sounding statistics of the rate of Somalians using welfare or the reputation of CIS in general?
[1] https://www.census.gov/data/developers/data-sets/acs-5year.h...
> would you be open to changing your mind on either the absurd sounding statistics of the rate of Somalians using welfare
I'm never completely closed to changing my mind on anything. I don't have any confidence that anything that I know is set in stone. I only have a reasonable confidence in anything I say. You can see that in my original comment too. Those weren't my judgments, those were my assessments based on available evidence that I quoted.
However, this debate started with the quoting of a source with extreme conflicts of interest and bias that wasn't declared. That's academic dishonesty, if you know how reaserch is evaluated. The proper way to debate this was to either quote a reputable source or at least give a heads up about the data and the source. Once that trust is breached, the readers have every justification to be very skeptical and prejudiced about any further claims. That's how debates work. Resorting to these tiring meta debates about the source instead is just shifting the goal posts and inverting the responsibility again.
And as for the counter evidence, I hope you see what others have been saying. Statistics can be used to lie about reality. I don't know who said this, but 'there are lies, damned lies and statistics'. It takes extra context to interpret it properly - a fact that's persistently used by some to spread lies. Because of this, these claims are now going to need a lengthy scrutiny.
> or the reputation of CIS in general?
CIS was started by a eugenicist and they still are a hate group connected to a hate movement. Their motive isn't even in question here. The simplest trick in the book they can use is to cherry pick data that supports their claims from a valid research and neglect everything else. So even if their data turns out to be true in however narrow sense, I don't see how that should give them any more legitimacy.
>> Combine this with the practice of calling out any criticism of these facts as 'racist' and tensions quickly arise.
> You might as well just say "I'm going to say some racist nonsense, but don't you dare call me a racist!" Preemption by gaslighting?
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
Instead of hyperventilating the usual 'racist, racist, racist' mantra and shooting messengers - '...Project 2025! ...Fact Check!' - it would be enlightening to hear your reaction on the facts presented by those maligned sources.
Are they wrong? Not so much according to you but according to the cited sources - the Census bureau et al, see the end notes in the article. Show where they are wrong, don't just act like so many others who join in the chorus when prompted by their leaders.
If you can not show they are wrong you should really retract the above diatribe. Facts, after all, don't care about anyone's feelings?
Dumping an information capsule and demanding that it be debunked upon challenge is an age old misdirection tactic, that takes advantage of the fact that debunking statistics-based narratives take a lot of additional context. That's why the lack of credibility of the source is considered a valid reason to reject an accusation. If you didn't have a motivated agenda in this, you would have avoided this kind of singular source of such reputational dearth, instead of resorting to the tactic of inverting the burden of proof.
I never expected a meaningful response to a criticism of your comment. But I find it disturbing that you slipped in such an obscure and malicious source here without disclosing their conflict of interests. That's a genuine misdirection. The real intent of my reply was to point out this problem to the other readers. Having done that, your rhetoric and weak insults are a misguided effort that I don't find any value in addressing.
2 replies →
Famously statistics cannot be used to misrepresent reality. Incredible stuff, we should get this to Nick Shirley!