First, Happy Bastille Day.
Now to some highlights.
Reliable Sources: How Wikipedia Admin David Gerard Launders His Grudges Into the Public Record
Tracing Woodgrains, July 10, 2024.
Excerpt:
Unsurprisingly, Gerard’s slash-and-burn, no-questions-asked policy has led to more than a few conflicts on Wikipedia. Editors who object to his indiscriminate removals have raised the issue multiple times to Wikipedia administrators, on talk pages, and elsewhere around the site. Each time, Gerard defends the approach of indiscriminately removing everything from Unreliable Sources, generally carrying on with removals as the disputes carry on. Each time, the arguments peter out with nothing in particular changing. In one case, another Wikipedia administrator, Sandstein, pushed to ban a user for repeatedly criticizing Gerard’s judgment on the matter.
In other words, whatever Wikipedia’s written policy, the practical day-to-day reality is that Gerard will remove Unreliable Sources en masse with terse explanations and with little consideration for actual content, digging in with elaborate justification when pressed. Given that, it’s worth examining the reliability battles Gerard picks.
The article is very long, very detailed, and very persuasive.
Childcare Regulations May Be Stifling Fertility, New Paper Finds
by Peter Jacobsen, Foundation for Economic Education, July 12, 2024.
Excerpt:
In other words, states with more childcare regulations tend to have larger fertility gaps—women are less able to have as many children as they’d like. The fascinating implication, of course, is that reducing or eliminating childcare regulations could help facilitate higher birth rates.
One of the persistent drawbacks associated with pronatal policies is that they tend to be high-cost. But the implication of this new paper is that they need not be. By allowing parents to regulate childcare with their purchasing decisions, rather than relying on politician-assigned standards, it seems possible to lower the cost of childcare and, as a result, support parents in having larger families.
A Foreign-Born Terrorist Could Cross the Southwest Border
by Alex Nowrasteh, Alex Nowrasteh’s Deep Dives, July 9, 2024.
Excerpt:
Since 2016, my research on foreign-born terrorism has shown that the threat is relatively minor. During the 1975-2023 period, foreign-born terrorists murdered 3,046 people on U.S. soil in attacks committed by a total of 230 terrorists, which includes attackers, those who planned attacks, or who were convicted of terrorism offenses where they plotted an attack. The annual chance of being murdered in an attack carried out by a foreign-born terrorist during that time is about 1 in 4.5 million a year. By comparison, the annual chance of being murdered by a common criminal in the United States was about 1 in 13,767. In other words, the annual chance of being murdered in an ordinary homicide was about 323 times as great as dying in an attack committed by a foreign-born terrorist on U.S. soil.
Alex, as usual, brings some nice numeracy to the discussion.
READER COMMENTS
steve
Jul 14 2024 at 1:54pm
Dont find the paper on child care regulations very believable. First, just to be pedantic it claims women say want to have more kids but they have fewer kids than they claim they want. In other areas this would be called revealed preference. Why isn’t that the case for fertility?
That aside, in countries where child care is heavily subsidized so that costs are low you still have low fertility rates. What you do tend to see is an increase in female LFPR. Also, several countries have tried giving couples a lot more money if they have kids and it has had minimal success. Finally, its nearly universal that as wealth increases people have fewer kids.
My takeaway is that we dont understand this issue all that well. That its probably more cultural than an economic issue. That there is too much concentration on women and not enough on men and as the couple as an entity when looking for cause and remedy.
Steve
Mark Z
Jul 15 2024 at 2:17pm
I’m guessing the states number of preferred children correlates pretty well one’s actual number of children, just minus 1 or 2. In that case, it’s the difference in the gap rather than the gap itself that matters for the purpose of the study. Unless there’s reason to think women in some states exaggerate the number of kids they want more than in others (which is possible), the conclusion seems reasonable.
And I strongly suspect paying men to have more kids would be much more unpopular than paying women to have them, so naturally the topic is mostly going to focus on women.
TMC
Jul 15 2024 at 9:09am
Wouldn’t the correct comparison by murder by a foreign terrorist vs a home grown terrorist? Either way, if this is an allusion to illegal immigrants to legal, given they have no right to be here, the math is as follows: Chance of murder by an American vs the chance of murder by an American + the chance of murder by an illegal immigrant.
David Henderson
Jul 15 2024 at 8:52pm
What you say doesn’t change the fact that, as Nowrasteh says, “the threat is relatively minor.”
Jon Murphy
Jul 16 2024 at 11:26am
If this is a minimization problem, then the formulation you put forth implies it would be better to increase immigration (both legal and illegal) and reduce the natural-born population.
After all, the chance of getting murdered by an American is significantly higher than being killed by an illegal immigrant. Thus, if we want to minimize murders, one should target the group where reduction will do the most good.
By way of metaphor: if your boat springs two leaks, one is a big hole and the other is a pinprick, it wouldn’t make sense to focus on the pinprick and claim you’re addressing the problem of taking on water.
Jon Murphy
Jul 16 2024 at 12:23pm
Strictly speaking, I do not think that’s accurate. I think illegal immigrants have several rights to be here:
If someone agrees to hire them, they have a right to be here
If someone invites them in to their home, they have a right to be here
If someone agrees to educate them, they have a right to be here
There are lots of ways illegal immigrants can have rights to be here.
Rather, the problem is that Americans often aren’t allowed to exercise their rights to deal with immigrants. In this particular case, the right goes both ways: saying illegal immigrants have no right to be here necessarily implies Americans do not have the right of peaceful association with those they wish.
Jon Murphy
Jul 16 2024 at 12:26pm
I hasten to add to my comment that appealing to process is insufficient to solve this problem. Many immigrants (potentially legal or otherwise) are rejected from entering America for reasons unrelated to process (such as due to a quota, insufficient level of education, or bad luck in a lottery).
Monte
Jul 15 2024 at 12:20pm
Mr. Nowrasteh seems possessed of the notion that statistics alone is sufficient to adjudicate all policy recommendations arising from the open borders debate. The small risk of foreign-born terrorists aside, how do we cope with the recent spike in murders, rapes, assaults and other crimes that have accompanied the tsunami of illegal immigrants? Rather than resolving our differences, the use of statistics in policy-making has become a weapon in partisan squabbling, selectively mobilized to bolster each side’s position.
We need to take a broader, more normative view of illegal immigration and it’s long-term implications rather than looking at it strictly through the lens of statistical significance.
Jon Murphy
Jul 15 2024 at 1:16pm
I don’t think he is making that claim at all. Rather, he is refuting the very notion you put forth: that illegal immigrants are uniquely dangerous.
Statistics alone cannot adjudicate. But they do provide context and help us consider problems. When policy proposals are built off incorrct or misunderstood facts, then those policy proposals can be safely tossed.
Monte
Jul 15 2024 at 8:55pm
I’m not arguing that illegal immigrants are uniquely dangerous, but they do add to the level of crimes being committed than would otherwise be the case in their absence, particularly given the vast numbers at which they’ve been crossing unvetted into the U.S. under this administration. And I’m not suggesting that we should ignore statistical evidence in formulating immigration policy, but I think pundits like Nowrasteh rely too heavily on statistics and remain too narrowly focused on just the economics in advocating for open borders. The potential risk?
As a self-described “radical advocate for open borders”, you can’t convince me that Mr. Nowrasteh doesn’t suffer from some degree of selection bias in crunching his numbers. There are myriad problems associated with the use of statistical modeling in formulating open borders policy that fail to take into account. For instance, how might the political and cultural dynamics of unrestricted immigration play out over time. Nowrasteh has little to say here.
In the study referenced above, the authors suggest combining Quantitative Storytelling (QST) with statistical modeling in charting a course forward on immigration policy that might be a better predictor of future events than strict reliance on economics alone.
Jon Murphy
Jul 16 2024 at 9:27am
There are two claims here both of which are enchanted by statistics:
1) Immigrants add to crime
2) they have unfettered entry
The first, as Alex and countless others have shown, is overstated. Immigrants commit crimes at way lower rates than natives. If the rate justifies keeping people out, it more than justifies forbidding births of citizens. After all, all population increases will increase the amount of crime in the society.
In a related manner, now the question arises whether the benefit of reducing a small amount of crime is worth the cost of significant economic losses, losses of freedom, human dignity, and so on. Statistics help us answer that question as well.
The second point, statistics show is factually incorrect. A popular talking point, but as accurate as saying the Sun rises in the West. The US has insanely strict immigration rules. This is not a border one can just waltz over as evidenced by the stat that the majority of illegal immigrants are those who came legally but overstayed. Another relevant statistic is the size of the black market for snuggling illegal immigrants. Of the border crossing was unfettered, no such market would exist.
We need statistics to help understand the scope and extent of problems. Otherwise, we just get poor policy.
David Henderson
Jul 15 2024 at 8:57pm
I started to answer and then I saw what Jon Murphy wrote. I agree with him.
If someone makes the claim that we should be afraid of foreign-born terrorists crossing the southern border, then it makes sense to ask “how afraid?” The way to do that is with statistics.
You write:
Every tool can become a “weapon in partisan squabbling.” That doesn’t mean that the tool is at fault. Your charge would be more serious if you could point to how Nowrasteh “selectively” mobilizes statistic to support his case. I’ve read his work over many years and I haven’t seen that. Have you? If so, please give a cite or cites and I’ll reconsider.
Monte
Jul 16 2024 at 11:24am
Sure, but strictly relying on statistics to answer the question and formulate policy can be problematic. Instances of where statistical or mathematical modelling has been applied to failed policies abound.
Mr. Nowrasteh is an expert in immigration studies. He’s also a crusader for open borders. Like all experts, he has a built-in bias towards his own theories and causes (unless he possesses the same characteristics of a robot subject to an algorithm like ChatGPT).
Jon Murphy
Jul 16 2024 at 11:28am
Monte-
You are being frustratingly vague. “Mays” and “Maybes” are far, far worse to build policies on than statistical analysis.
Monte
Jul 16 2024 at 12:44pm
Fair enough. I’ll try to be more specific.
Among other shortcomings, statistics lacks the nuanced understanding necessary to take into account the political, economic, and cultural contexts crucial to effective policy formation. A more holistic approach, including QST, can help avoid the pitfalls associated with a strict reliance on statistical modeling in formulating immigration policy.
We face several challenges and problems with unrestricted immigration. In addition to the security concerns, (which, IMO, Mr. Nowrasteh has not adequately addressed), we have public opinion and backlash, political instability, brain drain, unequal distribution of and strains on public resources, labor market disruptions, etc.
My apologies for venturing too far into the weeds here. A foreign-born terrorist could cross the southwest border. The risk that one will commit a terrorist act is not nearly as small as it was prior to the last couple of years, and to me and many other Americans, that’s a big problem
Jon Murphy
Jul 16 2024 at 6:15pm
Just the opposite: statistics help us understand better those very nuances. Minimizing or tossing out undesireble facts (such as the ones Alex brings up) obscures those nuances.
Now, it is of course true that statistics may be misused or abused. But, to make that claim, one must show the statistics are indeed being misused or abused. You’ve been asked for cites to support your claim that Alex is abusing statistics. I’ll second the question. Please provide.
Monte
Jul 16 2024 at 11:30pm
Please show me where I specifically accused Nowrasteh? I made a general statement about how statistics today is often used as a weapon in an attempt to influence policy. I have my doubts, but Mr. Nowrasteh’s statistics may very well be flawless. But his conclusions amount to nothing more than professional opinions, not gospel.
I respectfully disagree that illegal immigrant crime and the threat of terrorism is overstated in today’s environment and that statistics is the best predictor for understanding the many nuances associated with pursuing an open borders policy.
Thanks for the response.
Jon Murphy
Jul 16 2024 at 11:41pm
You said:
and
and
nobody.really
Jul 17 2024 at 4:51pm
And as we all know–and no one has even tried to deny–this only contributes to unemployment among American-born terrorists.
Monte
Jul 17 2024 at 1:18pm
The first comment doesn’t constitute an accusation of statistical abuse. The second is an opinion. And the third is generally true of anyone who has agenda, which Nowrasteh clearly has.
Jon Murphy
Jul 17 2024 at 1:24pm
And you are being asked to justify your opinion and accusation with something concrete rather than through vague assertions of “bias.”
Monte
Jul 17 2024 at 2:02pm
I remain skeptical of Nowrasteh’s neutrality concerning immigration policy based on a series of discussions that took place between him and representatives of the CIS found at link below. Beyond that, I base my “vague assertions of bias” on the following:
Experts with an agenda are vulnerable to personal biases. To wit:
Personal Bias: Experts, like anyone else, can have personal beliefs, values, or interests that influence how they interpret information or data. These biases can stem from various factors such as their upbringing, cultural background, personal experiences, or professional affiliations.
Agenda: An agenda refers to a specific goal, motive, or interest that an expert may have in promoting or defending. This agenda could be related to advancing a particular theory, supporting a certain policy position, or advocating for a specific outcome.
Impact on Analysis: When experts have a personal bias or agenda, it can affect their analysis in several ways:
Selective Interpretation: They may selectively interpret data or evidence that supports their preconceived beliefs or desired outcomes.
Confirmation Bias: This is the tendency to favor information that confirms their existing beliefs while disregarding or downplaying contradictory evidence.
Interpretive Bias: They may interpret ambiguous information in a way that aligns with their agenda or overlook nuances that complicate their position.
Advocacy: Experts with an agenda may engage in advocacy rather than neutral analysis, promoting their viewpoint rather than presenting a balanced assessment.
Mitigating Bias: To mitigate bias, experts should strive for objectivity and transparency in their analysis. This includes acknowledging their own biases, being open to different perspectives, and rigorously evaluating evidence without predetermined conclusions. Peer review and critical discourse within the academic or professional community also help to challenge biases and ensure that analyses are thorough and balanced.
In summary, while experts generally aim for objectivity, personal biases and agendas can influence their analysis. Recognizing and addressing these biases is crucial for maintaining credibility and integrity in scholarly and professional endeavors.
In light of all of this, and in my unqualified opinion, I do not believe Nowrasteh’s analysis is above reproach.
Center for Immigration Studies
Jon Murphy
Jul 17 2024 at 2:18pm
Note that you have made a very different claim than your original. It’s very different to go from “he’s biased and cherry picks” to “he’s not above reproach.” You failed to support the former. You didn’t support the latter, either (falling back into vague “maybes”) but the latter is much more defensible from a presumptive point of view: no person is above reproach.
Monte
Jul 17 2024 at 3:57pm
I disagree that this differs materially from my original position. I never used the term “cherry picked.” And it’s not debatable that Nowrasteh is biased in favor of open borders. Whether or not I failed to support my positions as you define them is a matter of opinion.
Did you even bother to read through any of the debates I linked to at CIS? Or would you care to comment on any of the other points I made aside from those concerning Nowrasteh?
nobody.really
Jul 17 2024 at 4:46pm
Francis Yeats-Brown, Lancer at Large (1937), attributing the usage to Andrew Lang, a Scottish novelist and folklorist; but see https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/01/15/stats-drunk/
Aaron Levenstein, Professor of Business Administration at Baruch College
Thomas L Hutcheson
Jul 15 2024 at 3:48pm
Just imagine if we not only reduced child care regulations but also provided a child allowance, preferably as an explicit benefit out of the VAT-funded safety net, not as a “tax credit” and not restricted to expenditures on institutional child care.
If that works we coud expand to public education.
john hare
Jul 16 2024 at 4:04am
Reducing the regulations on child care would be a good place to investigate. One of my guys has a stay at home wife as the cost of day care for one child is comparable to her salary at a new job. They were not planning to become a one income family.
steve
Jul 16 2024 at 10:12am
In countries where they have cheaper child care you dont see much of a change in fertility. What you see is more women working. Again, revealed preference.
Steve
Comments are closed.