Boy, I guess my phone must be doing a lot of misspelling. Where is the post that I’m talking about hypothesis testing. What I meant to say was he is high on pot. Siri is crazy. Where’s that post again. Seriously, I swear, reading comprehension is either a lost art, or they are teaching how to win arguments with BS and make believe.
I doubt you can blame "boarder" on your phone. Regardless, what you described is hypothesis testing. Just because you don't know the term for it and tried to substitute the definition of hypothesis testing for a definition of the more general term of "statistics" doesn't make your point better. In fact, quite the opposite. Perhaps you should stick to topics on which you have basic knowledge, because you clearly know nothing about statistics.
There are like 5-6 posters who consistently spell it that way, and I really cant comprehend how it happens, border is not a hard word to spell.
There is no line, either or real or metaphorical, for immigrants to wait in to enter legally. And one way to enter legally is to cross at an official crossing area and surrender yourself to ICE while saying you are seeking asylum. A person entering this way is undocumented, but is not illegal, as they have broken no laws. Entering illegally would be crossing in areas that aren't official crossing while not having permission to enter the country.
Again, spend more time reading my responses to a specific sudject, and less time on trying to argue with me on a point I never made. That works in 6th grade debate class, not in real life.
Yes, you have so little understanding of statistics that you don't even know what you are actually saying. That was my point. You attempted to dismiss and deflect from a descriptive statistic that you didn't like (because it doesn't back theories that you would prefer to be true) by showing that you have next to no knowledge about statistics in real life. BTW, not understanding statistics is okay. It is the attempt to dismiss things you don't like with a very confidently stated bit of nonsense involving statistics that is just wrong that is the problematic part here. You clearly have no idea what the terms "statistics" or "raw data" even mean nor how they are related.
Right wingers trust numbers until they don’t. Trump admin around here the right wing loved employment data until it looked good under Biden and suddenly like Law here they start dissecting them. There are less, far less unlawful enteries last month. That is a good thing.. or least it used to be.
I agree, and that's by no means a shot at you. I think you're wrong on almost everything, but I can't say that you don't "know" the law.
I didn’t dismiss or deflect anything. I simply stated an obvious “fine print point” in the WH statement that illegal crossing were down (statistical summary) in part because the WH expanded the scope of legalized entry. It’s right there in the F’ing statement. I also suggested, correctly, that the only way to make proper sense of government proclamations, both Pub and Dem, was to see all the data. Statistics are voo-do science. There is literally an entire genre of books written on the subject. I have no theory I am promoting, other than maybe you are bloviating here because you need a hug or something. I am not sure why you are unable to comprehend the written word and/or like to wrongfully attribute words, ideas or feelings to people, but you do you brother.
That is a whole bunch of bloviation meaning nothing. You clearly still have no idea what statistics are. And you were clearly trying to deflect from the fact that there are less illegal encounters on the border by making a series of nonsensical claims.
If they are traveling north, and aren’t from Mexico, then they are likely here illegally, unless they first sought asylum from Mexico. They cannot seek asylum in the United States by passing through another country. I don’t do immigration, and I know Trump tried to enforce the rule, court battled occurred, and now Biden is trying the same approach. US to limit asylum to migrants who pass through a 3rd nation
Oh, you said clearly 2x in your post. It must be clear. LOL. Is this another one of those instances where you’re taking a word, and changing the definition to suit your needs. Like many before you here on this forum, you are engaged in mental masturbation. I decline to participate with you. It’s boring to me. Good luck.
That's not correct. The rule you're citing still allows them to seek asylum. It creates a rebuttal presumption against asylum that they must overcome.
What is not true? The part where I say they are likely here illegally or they can’t seek asylum? Perhaps I could have been clearer and pointed out there are exceptions to the rule (hence the rebuttable presumption). I should be spanked for not making that point clearer by underlying the word “likely.” But as I noted, I don’t practice immigration law.
