You're confusing me with a libertarian. I'm a pragmatist.
I'm all for keeping out dangerous criminals. That's why we have a thorough and reasonably effective screening process for refugees.
As for immigrants from Mexico, if we build the wall as Trump suggests, we will prevent the net emigration back to Mexico from the US that has been occurring, resulting in more of them being in the US than would be here if we don't build a wall. But don't worry, a lower percentage of them are criminals compared to your fellow illegal descendants of anchor babies, so keeping them on this side of the wall should benefit us with respect to crime. Indeed, we have waves of immigration that have occured to thank for lower crime rates. Only problem is, immigrants who stay often start families, and after a generation or two of pumping out "native born" illegal Americans, their descendants (being natives) would be expected to be more crimey. We could pass a law to require vasectomy as a prerequisite for citizenship, but eventually that would drive population down so much we would have even more problems with filling job openings, and would have to expand work visa programs, I imagine.
At the 2015 general election the pollsters got it completely wrong. It destroyed their reputations. Yet you have linked a Telegraph news story that is based on these pre-election polls. The news story and predictions within have no credibility now.
It may very well have been wrong, but we don't know because we don't have the actual numbers. There was a decline from 2005 to 2010 in Labour votes (68%) among migrants and it may have persisted. Or it may not have.
I didn't say they preferred Tory, merely that the Tories won and that migrants were moving away from Labour. Indecisiveness, along with the rest of the electorate, would have to mean less loyalty to Labour, no?
At the 2015 general election the pollsters got it completely wrong. It destroyed their reputations. Yet you have linked a Telegraph news story that is based on these pre-election polls. The news story and predictions within have no credibility now.
So I take it that you will not mind us all referring to you as an illegal American?
Sure, why not. I bet that most are thinking of me as a nazi since I support Trump based on what has been posted earlier.
Doesn't change the issue however. Seeings how your an open border guy an all, I bet that you have long ago removed all the locks on your doors to show support for that cause.
The part you quoted was not from the conclusion section and cannot be described as the conclusion of the report. Also crucial part of your quoted section is as follows:
There is no evidence that BAME support is shifting decisively in the direction of a different political party. Rather, many BAME voters are now as unsure about which way to vote as the rest of the electorate.
It is a prediction of INDECISIVENESS and nothing more.
There is no evidence or data to show that migrants now prefer to vote Tory.
You're right, it was from patterns and intentions, just before the conclusion. I didn't say they preferred Tory, merely that the Tories won and that migrants were moving away from Labour. Indecisiveness, along with the rest of the electorate, would have to mean less loyalty to Labour on their part, no?
No, I already pointed out that the report reached a different conclusion then you did. I did not and would not say they no longer vote for Labour. The majority probably still does, but the report, once again, makes the case that the trend is away from Labour. The tables (as well as the list of minority MPs) already showed there is some (limited) variety.
Well, the BBC does make up stuff on occasion, but that's not really relevant here.
The part you quoted was not from the conclusion section and cannot be described as the conclusion of the report. Also the crucial part of your quoted section is as follows:
There is no evidence that BAME support is shifting decisively in the direction of a different political party. Rather, many BAME voters are now as unsure about which way to vote as the rest of the electorate.
It is a prediction of INDECISIVENESS and nothing more.
There is no evidence or data to show that migrants now prefer to vote Tory.
The first two sets of data were from the report that YOU linked. Are you trying to say your report is no good? The BBC report used 2010 election data. Do you accuse the BBC of making stuff up? The fourth set of data came from the electoral commission after the 2005 election. Again are you trying to say they got it wrong? This smacks of desperation.
Now. Produce 2015 data that shows migrants no longer vote Labour. Until you do the figures that we have are those of the 2005 and 2010 general election that show migrants overwhelmingly voting for Labour. If you are going to say they no longer do you have to back it up with figures that show it.
No, I already pointed out that the report reached a different conclusion then you did. I did not and would not say they no longer vote for Labour. The majority probably still does, but the report, once again, makes the case that the trend is away from Labour. The tables (as well as the list of minority MPs) already showed there is some (limited) variety.
Well, the BBC does make up stuff on occasion, but that's not really relevant here.
So you consider a single photo which may well have been photoshopped as comprehensive data to establish the voting habits of a certain class of people?
EDIT: Richard caught this as well.
They were screenshots of the report that Richard himself linked in the first place. Read it.
