Tomas McIntee

@kasumi_girl Yes and no - Japan is distinct enough that it might go strongly to one party rather than swinging back and forth. That would be like the old “Solid South” (southeastern US 1880-1944), a reliable weight on one side of the scale rather than where the scale tips.

これはそのとおりです。 日本がアメリカの51番目の州になった場合、日本州は大統領選において、120人ほどの選挙人が割り当てられる計算になります。 これは「swing state」どころの話ではなく、日本州での勝敗がそのまま大統領選の勝敗になるレベルです。 つまり、「日本州が大統領を決められる」と言っても過言ではありません。

@AlexNowrasteh @CatoInstitute In this case, the annoying and boring reality is that crossing borders doesn’t alter criminality much if any. My annoying and boring belief is “immigration has a mixture of positive & negative effects & immigrants are very heterogeneous.” Some immigration is good. Some isn’t.

@AlexNowrasteh @CatoInstitute Lots of replicable social science fails to replicate. There are a lot of social scientists getting a lot of things wrong. Your proxy has flaws. Those flaws are relevant to the topic. Good social science is annoying, boring, and correct, rarely surprising and satisfying.

Legal and illegal immigrants have a lower incarceration rate than native-born Americans of the same race or ethnicity, the 2024 data show. Learn more in the new study by @AlexNowrasteh and Michelangelo Landgrove, “Illegal Immigrant Incarceration Rates, 2010–2024: The Demographics of American Imprisonment.” ow.ly/k7fJ50YyR6y

@Dr_mac2 @Hstlinghosptlis Aggressive affirmative action in medical school admissions started over half a century ago. Bakke was decided in 1978. The first generation of affirmative action recipients have grandchildren old enough to be in the application pool. A few have great-grandchildren in the pool.

@Hstlinghosptlis You don’t care because it doesn’t affect you. But for my grandparents AND parents who lived through it, it is very much a reality. And it’s funny because now that you are perceiving something as affecting you (or your children) you’re the loudest in the room.

Listen, if you hatin from outside the club (i.e have never been to medical school) idc about your opinion on medical topics (excluding specific patient experiences). Even more so if your anon. Your basically talking to yourself.

@Dr_mac2 @Hstlinghosptlis Bakke was denied admission for being white in 1973 under a quota system deemed illegal by SCOTUS in 1978. That was 53 years ago. SFFA v. Harvard (2023) settled that all racial affirmative action is illegal racial discrimination.

@Hstlinghosptlis I agree however, this take that minorities get more “perks” doesn’t account for the decades of discrimination past (and present in some cases) etc. Any “DEI” programs were seen as corrective not a punishment as some here would have you believe.

@DebHaalandNM That exception under "jurisdiction" was intended at the time. American Indians got citizenship later through law. I do find it hard to see how the Constitution can be taken to grant rights to illegal aliens that it doesn't grant to American Indians born on American soil.

This is appalling. Indigenous people are the original inhabitants of this continent and, here in New Mexico, we live that truth every day. The fact that the Solicitor General of the United States would hesitate on our citizenship is outrageous and horrific. He doesn’t understand basic American history or the law, and he has no business holding this position.

@TheHistoryOfTh2 It's hard to see how "occupying army" and "American Indians" are both non-controversial exceptions to that clause while illegal aliens who crossed the border without permission clearly fall under it. The 14th does not carve out "Indians not taxed," it's just "jurisdiction."

I believe I am almost alone in holding the following two opinions: 1. 14/A is clear, if you're born here and your parents weren't diplomats or in an occupying army, you are a citizen. 2. In today's world, it is unfortunate the birthright provision was written so expansively.

@brianknotts The discussion of why and how it excluded American Indians is informative. Which is not a transient or legally controversial exception, that was both discussed during adoption and affected implementation.

If "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" simply means "diplomats," why didn't they just say that? I just can't get past that question.

@jbcarmody I think this misses the key outrages. If you accepted applicants on a random basis, 10% of rejections would go to top 10% applicants. If 17% of the rejection pool is in the top 10%, it means that the system is actively selecting less competent applicants. Probably illegally.

Sigh. Hate to spoil the party, but… We really DON'T want a system in which the number of U.S. medical graduates equals the number of residency positions - and the reasons why should be obvious if you think about the practicalities and second-order effects. (🧵)

@AlexNowrasteh @CatoInstitute If you are now opposed to sanctuary policies, & instead you support 287(g) jail partnerships to deport criminals & the tight border control required to prevent the return of previously deported aliens, my apologies for misconstruing your position. x.com/AlexNowrasteh/…

@MathIntee @CatoInstitute It’s not difficult, your comment is just neither here nor there. It’s orthogonal. Tell me again, “Hey Alex, immigrant incarceration rates are lower because of a policy you support.” Please tell me again.

@AlexNowrasteh @CatoInstitute Most people care more about rates of actual criminality than incarceration rates, btw. So, if you were trying to use incarceration rates as a proxy for criminality, adjusting for differential sentence length across states would be indeed be appropriate.

@AlexNowrasteh @CatoInstitute Cato has always advocated for an open immigration system. That means discarding that leverage. Which means that for the purpose of evaluating the policy changes that Cato supports, adjusting for recidivism opportunities & current lack thereof is informative.

@MakeUSAVAT @CatoInstitute @AlexNowrasteh (1) Your numbers are completely different from the Cato numbers. (Which proves my point about their research being crap.) (2) Felonies & serious misdemeanors are DACA-disqualifying, deportation should still select out of recidivism.

@MathIntee @CatoInstitute @AlexNowrasteh If you look at immigrant men who came here before 15(thus no recidivism problem) that are aged 15-29(the prime demographic for crime) from 2006-2024 they have lower incarceration rates than natives and are close to that of Native Born Non-Hispanic Whites.

@AlexNowrasteh @CatoInstitute Which is still above legal immigrants, who in turn are not measurably lower than native-born when you account for the likely scale of bias due to selection out of recidivism alone… and likely higher after accounting for misclassification, flight prior to incarceration, etc.

@MathIntee @CatoInstitute My research actually inflates illegal immigrant incarceration rates because the ACS data include those in immigration detention. Womp womp.

@pirooooon3 IMO, Taiwan has been a distinct country for the whole of the 20th and 21st centuries but for an extremely brief and contentious period (c. 1946-1949).

アメリカ人に聞きたい 台湾は中国の一部ですか？ 台湾は独立国ですか？

The reorientation of Cato from being pro-Reagan partisan hacks to anti-Trump partisan hacks has been interesting to watch. To be fair, they stayed put on many issues (they've been open borders since at least 1981), but their methodology is still bad. mcintee.substack.com/p/the-cato-ins…

@CatoInstitute @AlexNowrasteh mcintee.substack.com/p/the-cato-ins…

@CatoInstitute @AlexNowrasteh There is very little reason to believe, based on your numbers, that immigrants commit less crime than natives. You could argue that legal immigrants are not provably more criminal, but recidivism and misclassification are each large enough to put your figures within MOE.

@EvelinaHahne Ich habe es auf Englisch gesehen 👍

Skriv en kommentar om du ser det här inlägget på ett annat språk än svenska!🇸🇪 X ska tydligen numera automatiskt översätta inlägg till andra språk och det vore intressant att veta om det fungerar!😊