Slashdot Mirror
Top DNC Staffers Leave Following WikiLeaks Email Scandal (usatoday.com)
An anonymous reader writes from a report via USA Today: Following the leak of nearly 20,000 Democratic National Committee emails and the resignation of DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, several more staffers are leaving their positions. USA Today reports Amy Dacey, the chief executive officer of the DNC, Luis Miranda, the party's communications director, and Brad Marshall, chief financial officer, are all leaving the DNC. The statement announcing the staff changes praises the outgoing aides and makes no mention of the email issue. "Thanks in part to the hard work of Amy, Luis, and Brad, the Democratic Party has adopted the most progressive platform in history, has put itself in financial position to win in November, and has begun the important work of investing in state party partnerships. I'm so grateful for their commitment to this cause, and I wish them continued success in the next chapter of their career," said Donna Brazile, the party's interim chairwoman. Some of the leaked emails from party staffers depicted officials favoring now-Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton over Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders during their primary campaign.
> What other things do they get wrong, and do they have a hidden agenda?
*cough*
Sessions said: "...there are about 350,000 people who succeed in crossing our borders illegally each year..."
Polifact says:
"...Sessions said that 350,000 'succeed in crossing our border.' The apprehension numbers represent people who did not succeed."
So, it's clear that Sessions has failed to understand the data he's trying to use to support his statement. His statement is plainly false.
Polifact goes on to say:
"Border apprehension data is what is frequently used as a measure of illegal entry, though it represents events, not individuals, the Department of Homeland Security notes.
As a result, apprehension numbers during a specific period will be more than total number of unique individuals, because some immigrants may be apprehended more than once, the department points out."
So -worst case-, each one of those failed border crossings is a unique individual who tried to cross and failed to do so. Likely case is that many of those people who attempted to cross and failed to do so tried multiple times. This means that one must reduce the number of failed crossings by some factor in order to determine how many _people_ have tried and failed to cross in a given year.
Polifact goes on to say:
"The most common way federal officials track illegal entry is border apprehensions. In fiscal year 2015, the border patrol had 337,117 apprehensions nationwide, a decline from previous fiscal year and a significant drop from peaks in 2000. But those numbers represent people who are unsuccessful in crossing the border. Sessions said the opposite.
Also apprehension numbers do not necessarily represent number of people crossing borders, since they track events, not individuals, according to Department of Homeland Security. The number of immigrants illegally in the country is staying the same or getting smaller. We rate Sessions’ statement False."
Session's implied statement (that the population of illegal immigrants is growing year over year, and -thus- is a threat to our jerbs) is not supported by the evidence. The population of illegals is either stable or declining year over year.
There is no hidden agenda here. Sessions made a claim that was _obviously_ false. His claim had connotations (chiefly, that the number of illegal residents is increasing year over year, and that they're taking our jerbs) that are _also_ unsupported by the evidence. Polifact went to great lengths to explain both the source of their numbers and the line of thinking behind their analysis of the same.
If you decide to ignore the line of thinking that lead to their conclusion and choose to claim that Polifact's statements are broader than they actually are, then that's your problem, not Polifact's. No amount of hedging and fencing will prevent _everyone_ from drawing incorrect conclusions from what one writes. The best one can do is to write clearly and succinctly, and make sure you've said everything you need to say to make your point.