May 24, 2007
Facts are facts, but numbers rule!
How many illegal aliens are there in the United States?
If border-enforcement can be made to work (and the implausible premise of the "grand bargain" is that it can--indeed, that it will work so well it can hold off a new wave of illegals lured by amnesty) the problem of the 12 million diminishes gradually, steadily over time. Eventually, it disappears. The Bush administration, which always gins up a "crisis" before its big policy pushes, doesn't like to dwell on this point...I don't mean to dwell on a point on which George F. Will and Mickey Kaus seem to agree, but I just can't ignore it.
That's because many organizations and activists insist that there are more than 12 million.
Far, far more. According to Newsmax.com the number is 20 million.
According to a spokesman for the Minutemen Project, there are 30 million, and that was last summer.
So what is it? 12, 20, or 30?
Or (from Newsmax this month) "more than 30 million"? (A jump of 10 million in a single year!)
Of course, there's also a much lower figure given by the US Citizenship and Immigration Services:
As of 2003, the US Citizenship and Immigration Services put the number at 7 million. Since then, United States immigration officials have said the number has grown by as much as 500,000 a year.This would give an adjusted 2007 number of 9 million.
Quite a range.
Now, if we look at this logically, there has to be an actual, accurate number. It's just that not only is it impossible to determine it, but there there's no way to achieve a consensus on what that number might approximately be, because there is no method of independently verifying any of the proffered numbers in a manner which would satisfy everyone. Facts are not opinions, but when opinions vary as to what the facts are, it strikes me as rather pointless to refer to numbers as if they are facts.
Is this a sort of "numbers popularity contest" in which the numbers depend more on which side you're on? I strongly suspect that liberals would tend to prefer the lower numbers, while conservatives would prefer the higher numbers.
But even there.... Is "prefer" the right word?
I wrote about political tastes yesterday, and tastes are of course preferences.
But can numbers be a preference?
If so, then should the numbers to be determined by a sort of numbers democracy, in which the number which get the highest number of votes wins? Or should only "experts" be allowed to decide these things? The problem with that is that the experts would inevitably be selected by people who are elected or who have to answer to people who are elected, so democracy (and things like political disagreements) always end up being involved.
I don't know how much any of this really matters, but I thought it over, and it occurred to me to apply some basic democratic logic. Numbers ought to be determined by numbers, right?
So I've written a democratic numbers poll.
And may the best numbers win!
UPDATE: Because an alert commenter pointed out that my poll was not democratic enough, I've added the "no freakin' clue" category.
Sorry for the inconvenience, but anyone who was inconvenienced, feel free to vote again!
No voter will be turned away!
(At the time I closed the first poll, there were only four votes: 2 for 20 million, 1 for 30 million and 1 for 12 million, so I don't expect the change to affect the poll in a major way.)
posted by Eric on 05.24.07 at 12:07 PM
Search the Site
Classics To Go
See more archives here
Old (Blogspot) archives
A knee sock jihad might be premature at this time
People Are Not Rational
No Biorobots For Japan
The Thorium Solution
Radiation Detector From A Digital Camera
This war of attrition is driving me bananas!
Attacking Christianity is one thing, but must they butcher geometry?
Are there trashy distinctions in freedom of expression?
Please Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood