While driving to work, I listen to classical music. Since they are supported by government grants, I also end up hearing NPR news. On Friday I heard the most interesting statistics:
From the time period March 2007 to March 2009, “unauthorized immigration” was two-thirds less than 2000-2005.
With that powerful statistic, why would any government need more thorough immigration enforcement? I suppose that is what they want you to think.
Even True Data Can Be Manipulated
Even if I take the data as 100% true, it can be manipulated to support one position or another. I have some important questions about the stats above:
- Is the two-thirds a reduction in “unauthorized immigration” numbers per month or total? March 2007 – March 2009 is a 2-year period, while 2000-2005 (inclusive) is a 6-year period.
- Why don’t the time frames match I style and run up against each other? They seem awfully specific and arbitrary. Could it be that the data has been cherry-picked to support e desired argument?
- Is there a regional sample bias? If the stats were recorded for San Diego, then the reduction would be explained by the double-layer fence installed in that region.
- Where did they get this data? How do they know if somebody is an “unauthorized immigrant”? Are the data collectors sympathetic to the “unauthorized immigrant”, if not, then how do they know the original data is accurate?
Be careful of the statistics that you trust. They can be easily manipulated to support a position and get you to take action. That action might be to vote a certain way or buy something or worse. Just be careful of the statistics you trust.
On that note, reading this blog makes you 70% more attractive. So keep reading!