43/
Was it figure 12, @AlexNowrasteh ?
No, probably not. That shows that immigrants are much more likely to want government to spend more on welfare.pic.twitter.com/9kgGsvGCUA
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
54/ Look at your own figure 18. Left cluster: 20% of natives want government to reduce income differences, 23% of citizen immigrants so. Right cluster: 14% of natives prefer no gov action. 7% of citizen immigrants do These gaps are noticeable and have real policy implications!
55/ Second objection: this is selection bias! You have not proven that waving a wand at an immigrant makes them only 23% likely to want income redistribution (as compared to a native at 20%).
56/ You have proven that THOSE IMMIGRANTS WHO have the means / patience / education / lawyer fees to become citizens are only slightly more socialist than natives. A South African doctor is not a Mexican farm worker. "becomes citizen" is a filter.
57/
I didn't misread anything, @AlexNowrasteh .
YOUR OWN GRAPHS show that immigrants - even the non-representative sub-sample that choose to become citizens - vote for more taxes and more welfare than do natives.
You muted me because you got embarrassed and couldn't refute.https://twitter.com/AlexNowrasteh/status/993572462016303104 …
58/ Issue is that Alex's data is cohort data, not a time series. He's picking the 30-40% of immigrants who do choose to become citizens and showing that they're SLIGHTLY MORE SOCIALIST than natives...and ignores the other 60-70%. Also >>> https://twitter.com/ap_janakiraman/status/993575223411654656 …
59/ In other tables he shows that 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants (who are citizens by birthright) are markedly more socialist than natives. So immigration tends to create 2-3 generations of socialists citizen voters.
60/
I liked to it three different times, @AlexNowrasteh.
Let's go for four, shall we?
https://www.cato.org/publications/economic-development-bulletin/immigrants-assimilate-political-mainstream …https://twitter.com/AlexNowrasteh/status/993575236883886080 …
61/
In his last 6 tweets, Alex has complained:
- he's muted me because I tweet too much
- I "rarely" link to his URL (just 3 times in 55 tweets)

62/ Alex, I read the OED for fun. I am able to answer nerd questions like "what's a trigraph in the C programming language?" because I read the appendices. I read your paper. I READ THE DAMNED FOOTNOTES and went off and looked up some of the sources.https://twitter.com/AlexNowrasteh/status/993583047118413824 …
63/ So you're saying that my point that ON AVERAGE immigrants are markedly more socialist than natives is in your paper? Yes, agreed. I found it at several points in there. The only thing I'm asking is: given that, why do you support immigration? >>>https://twitter.com/AlexNowrasteh/status/993585292325064704 …
64/ ...and why do you title your paper "Immigrants Assimilate into the Political Mainstream" when your own data shows that they don't, their children don't, their GRAND children don't...and their great grandchildren do?
65/ Also, on a tangent: it's kind of tautological to say that "the 4th generation assimilates into the political mainstream", because by the fourth generation the ARE the polity. The great grandkids of Irish in 1920 are mainstream? OF COURSE WE ARE, we make up 10% of pop.
66/ So in the same way, I am absolutely sure that the great grandchildren of Syrians brought into the US in 2018 will be part of the mainstream culture in 2090 Who knows - they might support clitorectomies, which - by dint of popular support - is on the platform of both parties
67/ Or perhaps they'll support socialism...which might very well be in the mainstream with 50% of people in 2090 supporting it. Your paper is titled "Immigrants Assimilate into the Political Mainstream" and NOT "Immigrants Assimilate into the Small Gov / Pro Liberty politics"
68/ No, I didn't. I spoke over and over of "immigrants". I didn't say anything about "citizens" or "non citizens".https://twitter.com/AlexNowrasteh/status/993586359079227395 …
71/
@AlexNowrasteh I was reviewing the thread and realized I still haven't gotten an answer to the one question I was asking.
Care to answer?https://twitter.com/MorlockP/status/993506396758073344 …
72/
They matter because their CHILDREN are citizens and vote, and @AlexNowrasteh
's data shows that they vote for bigger government and more taxes.
Not until the FOURTH generation do they vote like natives
So every immigrant creates 100 years of D voteshttps://twitter.com/mandatum1979/status/993662202329620480?s=19 …
73/
It's not a 3% difference; it's more like 20+%.
...and I'm not asking for a "safe space" free of bad opinions.
I'm asking that @AlexNowrasteh
and @CatoInstitute
not import socialist voters who will raise my taxes and increase gov.
Different thing.
https://twitter.com/charliesixtwo/status/993678936428204032?s=19 …
74/
You keep saying that, @AlexNowrasteh, but it's not true.
My criticisms were all entirely correct. See figures 9, 12, 18, and 20 in your whitepaper.
cc @DaytimeRenegade, @kaijubushi, @mgcat, @ne_8686https://twitter.com/AlexNowrasteh/status/993865679643299841 …
75/
@AlexNowrasteh your one defense is "look at figure 18, and look ONLY at the immigrants who become citizens...they're not so bad".
My rebuttal: that's a subset of all immigrants. ON AVERAGE, immigrants want much more taxation and redistribution...AND SO DO THEIR CHILDREN!
76/
@AlexNowrasteh let's refer back to YOUR OWN WHITE PAPER again, specifically figures 3 and 4.
Figure 4 shows that about 16% of natives are "strong democrats".
Figure 3 shows that 11% of non-citizens natives and 20% of citizen natives are strong dems.pic.twitter.com/esQZT0JtzV
77/ You keep arguing as if this is time-series data, not cohort data (which it is). Fine. I give up on explaining the difference to you, but let's just assume you're correct. If so, then your policy of giving immigrants citizenship makes them MORE socialist, not less!
78/ So we have natives who are 16% "strong Dems". And then we have your 1st generation citizen immigrants who are 20% strong Dems...even three generations later. The difference between 16% and 20% means that these people are 25% more likely to be hardcore socialists.
79/ Don't want to look just at the hardline leftists, but at the softer Hillary-Clinton mainstream lefties? YOUR OWN DATA shows 16% of natives in the "not strong (D)" category. 1st gen citizen immigrants? 23% 2nd gen? 22% 3rd gen? 17% 16 vs 23 is 43% increase.
80/
So, @AlexNowrasteh YOUR OWN DATA shows that:
* 1st generation citizen immigrants are 25% more likely to be "strong D"
* 1st generation citizen immigrants are 43% more likely to be "not strong (D)"
* 2nd gen are 40% more likely to be "not strong (D)"
* 3rd gen are 8% more
81/ In short, YOUR OWN DATA shows that immigrants push the electorate to the left for 3+ generations. Point blank question: do you agree or disagree with this? Don't tell me "read the report" Don't say "you misunderstand" Just answer the question: do immigrants push us left?
82/
yes or no
simple question, @AlexNowrasteh and @CatoInstitute
Does the data from the GSS that you use in your whitepaper demonstrate that immigrants, their children, and their grandchildren vote further left than natives?
yes or nohttps://www.cato.org/publications/economic-development-bulletin/immigrants-assimilate-political-mainstream …
83/ You are incorrect. If X is 1% likely to happen and doing thing Y changes that to making it 2% likely, we say that Y "doubles the chances". When I said that X's are "25% more likely to Z than Y's are to Z", I was using the correct phrasing.https://twitter.com/SpikerIsAwesome/status/993880410269585408 …
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.