The Wall

[JKDS]

Btw, I suspect the research article itself of heavy bias. When they do things like allege that States would take a big hit to tax revenue if illegals were all deported, they are engaging in dishonesty by omission. By ignoring that State costs would also drop simultaneously, they paint a one sided picture. We're left to guess whether the article accidently, through incompetence, painted that picture...or if they acted intentionally due to bias.

When they go on to explain their methodology with vagueness, and nice but meaningless words like "sophisticated", I gain further doubts

[wufwugy]

Btw, I suspect the research article itself of heavy bias. When they do things like allege that States would take a big hit to tax revenue if illegals were all deported, they are engaging in dishonesty by omission. By ignoring that State costs would also drop simultaneously, they paint a one sided picture. We're left to guess whether the article accidently, through incompetence, painted that picture...or if they acted intentionally due to bias.

When they go on to explain their methodology with vagueness, and nice but meaningless words like "sophisticated", I gain further doubts

Yep. It's so bad that the more I know about this stuff, the more I ignore projections regarding the macro economy. Getting anywhere close to reliable takes so much more than is put into estimates. Even then, projections would still likely be unreliable. A good macroeconomist discusses effects of policies regarding incentives and unintended consequences; a bad macroeconomist releases projections.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Btw, I suspect the research article itself of heavy bias. When they do things like allege that States would take a big hit to tax revenue if illegals were all deported, they are engaging in dishonesty by omission. By ignoring that State costs would also drop simultaneously, they paint a one sided picture. We're left to guess whether the article accidently, through incompetence, painted that picture...or if they acted intentionally due to bias.

When they go on to explain their methodology with vagueness, and nice but meaningless words like "sophisticated", I gain further doubts

All of this rings true to my sensibilities as a skeptic and a scientist.

I have yet to see data on this issue which doesn't scream of a foregone conclusion being confirmed through bias.
Both sides have yet to describe the situation in a way which isn't blind to the complexity and nuance in the whole situation with glaring omissions in the data they report.