# Trump's Executive Order on Immigration - Let it Rip Dopers **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 29, 2017, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-executive-order-on-immigration-let-it-rip-dopers/778468 "2017-01-29T01:44:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 25
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-executive-order-on-immigration-let-it-rip-dopers/778468/481 "2017-02-01T00:31:02Z")
From your link: > [@](#): > > The draft order provides no evidence to support the claim that immigrant households are more likely to use welfare benefits, and there is no consensus among experts about immigration’s impact on such benefits or on U.S. jobs. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-executive-order-on-immigration-let-it-rip-dopers/778468/482 "2017-02-01T00:36:16Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > From your link: Pfft. “Facts”. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-executive-order-on-immigration-let-it-rip-dopers/778468/483 "2017-02-01T00:38:25Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > There are those in the United States who would be personally very happy to man the guard towers in the camps where their fellow citizens were being gassed, as long as they got to wear an arm band with the American Flag emblazoned on it. You’re right. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-executive-order-on-immigration-let-it-rip-dopers/778468/484 "2017-02-01T00:39:34Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > Here is a reality confusion for you. Just saw a few posts on another forum. Couple of posters there have an odd take on this executive order. They are convinced that Obama wrote the executive order and that “Trump is merely enforcing it”. > > How do you reason with such people? Scorn, and ridicule? ---
**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-executive-order-on-immigration-let-it-rip-dopers/778468/485 "2017-02-01T00:50:40Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > Kudos for disobeying your President? And most legal experts agree that the President is acting quite legally and that the stay order by the federal judge won’t stand up to scrutiny. > > … A boatload of federal prosecutors disagrees with you. > [@](#): > > Washington (CNN)A bipartisan group of more than 70 former federal prosecutors – including 50 who served in Republican administrations – issued a harshly worded statement Tuesday in support of former acting Attorney General Sally Yates. > > President Donald Trump dramatically fired Yates Monday night for “refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States,” the White House said. > “(Yates) has betrayed the Department of Justice,” the White House statement said. > > The former prosecutors also said they could not have defended Trump’s order had they been asked to do so. > > “Struck by one stunning headline after another, we stopped to think: If we were called upon to defend the executive order, could we do it within the guidelines we learned and lived by as lawyers for the United States? We could not,” the letter said. > > “Acting Attorney General Yates was right to refuse to do so. If her successor wishes to follow in the finest traditions of the Justice Department, he will reverse course and do the same,” it added… [Cite](http://www.cnn.com//2017/01/31/politics/sally-yates-firing-prosecutors-letter/index.html) ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-executive-order-on-immigration-let-it-rip-dopers/778468/486 "2017-02-01T01:24:44Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > No, you can’t say that any of the pundits were wrong **about the event happening** , because they did not predict whether or not the event would happen. They assigned a **probability** to its happening. That’s not the same as making an “unfalsifiable prediction”. I didn’t ask about whether any of the pundits were wrong about the event happening. I asked which of the pundits was wrong about the probability of the event happening. 'cuz all three could not be right. Only one could be. Which one? How can you tell? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-executive-order-on-immigration-let-it-rip-dopers/778468/487 "2017-02-01T01:58:49Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > I asked which of the pundits was wrong about the probability of the event happening. 'cuz all three could not be right. What do you mean, “wrong about the probability”? We’ve already established that the occurrence of an unlikely outcome doesn’t necessarily make the estimate of its probability “wrong”. In order to know which of several competing probabilistic models best represents the relevant real-world conditions, we’d have to look at the specific details of the models. But since the numbers in your made-up example presumably don’t have any actual mathematical models as their source, there’s no way to choose among them. However, just because your made-up example of probability estimates isn’t mathematically meaningful doesn’t imply that **actual** probability estimates can’t be analyzed mathematically. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-executive-order-on-immigration-let-it-rip-dopers/778468/488 "2017-02-01T02:05:27Z")
Yes, that much is clear. As a mathtard, I appreciate your effort to reduce this to a level that I can fully absorb. It was clearly a sincere effort, hence, laudable. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-executive-order-on-immigration-let-it-rip-dopers/778468/489 "2017-02-01T02:12:22Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > What do you mean, “wrong about the probability”? We’ve already established that the occurrence of an unlikely outcome doesn’t necessarily make the estimate of its probability “wrong”. Each one of the pundits said the probability of the event happening was different. Wildly different. Which one estimated it correctly? Or were they all right? How can you tell? > [@](#): > > In order to know which of several competing probabilistic models best represents the relevant real-world conditions, we’d have to look at the specific details of the models. This is a one-time event. It is not weather, where you can check a 1000 probabilistic predictions someone made about it and compare it to reality. This event does not re-occur. So how could you tell that the model for that one-time event is valid? There is no way to prove it wrong. Or right. It is unfalsifiable. That is, meaningless. There were “mathematical models” of Trump’s elections galore. Nate Silver had one (30% or so probability). Sam Wang had one (2% probability). NYT Upshot had one (10% probability). And [Richard Charnin](https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/11/03/2016-election-model-nov-3-trump-98-win-probability/) (whoever he is) had a mathematical model that gave 98% probability of Trump’s winning the popular vote. So - whose probability estimate was right? How can you tell? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-executive-order-on-immigration-let-it-rip-dopers/778468/490 "2017-02-01T02:33:50Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Each one of the pundits said the probability of the event happening was different. Wildly different. Which one estimated it correctly? Or were they all right? How can you tell? You do remember that these wildly divergent estimates whose plausibility you’re attacking were part of your own entirely made-up example, right? I completely agree that attempting to mathematically analyze numbers that you pulled out of your ass for a made-up example is fruitless and meaningless. What I don’t agree with is your attempt to claim that that implies anything about the mathematical meaningfulness of **real** probability estimates. [QUOTE=Okrahoma] There were “mathematical models” of Trump’s elections galore. Nate Silver had one (30% or so probability). Sam Wang had one (2% probability). NYT Upshot had one (10% probability). And [Richard Charnin](https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/11/03/2016-election-model-nov-3-trump-98-win-probability/) (whoever he is) had a mathematical model that gave 98% probability of Trump’s winning the popular vote. So - whose probability estimate was right? How can you tell? [/QUOTE] Show us the models, and let’s take a look. Naturally, elections are a very complex phenomenon and no mathematical model describes them perfectly, but that doesn’t mean that mathematical models of them are meaningless. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-executive-order-on-immigration-let-it-rip-dopers/778468/491 "2017-02-01T03:11:59Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Show us the models, and let’s take a look. Naturally, elections are a very complex phenomenon and no mathematical model describes them perfectly, but that doesn’t mean that mathematical models of them are meaningless. They show you the models. Lots of pretty equations, with various weights assigned to parameters, all different of course between the models. Maybe a Monte-Carlo simulation in one case. You cannot repeat the event. It never happened before - so the weights that are assigned to different variables in the model could not have been backtested in any way. How do you decide which estimate was the most accurate one? If you have ONE match. Just one. No other match like this one exists or can be made again. And I tell you that I calculated, laboriously, that striking it against a particular surface will ignite it with the probability of 30%. Another “expert” says no, the probability is 70%. You strike it. It ignites. Was my probability estimate right? Was the other expert’s? I can show you all kinds of calculations, based on my estimate of what materials the match was made of. So can he (with different materials of course). Of course, the match is burned, with nothing left, so you have no way of checking. Were our probability estimates meaningful in any way? ---
**Author:** ![Superdude](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/superdude/32/13450_2.png) [@Superdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superdude)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-executive-order-on-immigration-let-it-rip-dopers/778468/492 "2017-02-01T03:17:01Z")
Look, **Okrahoma** , if you’d like to continue this hijack, please take it to another thread. I’m here to read about how horrible Trump is (which I knew would be the case). But I didn’t open this thread to learn. Especially not math, probability, and statistics. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-executive-order-on-immigration-let-it-rip-dopers/778468/493 "2017-02-01T03:19:58Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > If you’re the AG, you don’t listen to “most legal experts”, you do what you think is legal and she was not sure the order was legal and wouldn’t defend it. It’s time you worshippers of the orange dick stopped trying to defend everything your Fuhrer does by stretching similarities to Obama’s actions beyond all recognition. Actually if she wasn’t sure, she should probably have tested it by defending it. It’s more I think that she was sure it wasn’t legal. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-executive-order-on-immigration-let-it-rip-dopers/778468/494 "2017-02-01T04:27:12Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > Actually if she wasn’t sure, she should probably have tested it by defending it. It’s more I think that she was sure it wasn’t legal. :dubious: You have never entered a Courtroom sure you were going to get shot down? Its part and parcel of being a lawyer; putting forth a case you think is unlikely to succeed; once instructions have been received. And if you get a precedent like this, what’s to say someone in the future might not use it to refuse to defend a policy you do agree with? Like say a future DoJ refusing to defend Abortion rights? ---
**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-executive-order-on-immigration-let-it-rip-dopers/778468/495 "2017-02-01T04:51:10Z")
Sean Spicer: “Hey media, stop calling this ban a ban. Only we are allowed to call it a ban! But it’s not really a ban, even though we keep calling it that.” :smack: Sad! > **[Tapper uses Spicer's own words to nail Trump administration's ironic...](https://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/tapper-uses-spicers-own-words-to-nail-trump-administrations-ironic-objection-to-the-word-ban/)** > > Jake Tapper cornered Sean Spicer on Monday over the White House Press Secretary’s insistence that Donald Trump’s immigration executive order is not a Muslim ban, using the president’s—and press secretary’s—own words against that administration... ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-executive-order-on-immigration-let-it-rip-dopers/778468/496 "2017-02-01T05:16:47Z")
It’s going to get worse — [http://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/world/national-security/trump-administration-circulates-more-draft-immigration-restrictions-focusing-on-protecting-us-jobs/2017/01/31/38529236-e741-11e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d\_story.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/world/national-security/trump-administration-circulates-more-draft-immigration-restrictions-focusing-on-protecting-us-jobs/2017/01/31/38529236-e741-11e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html) ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-executive-order-on-immigration-let-it-rip-dopers/778468/497 "2017-02-01T06:21:00Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > It’s going to get worse — [http://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/world/national-security/trump-administration-circulates-more-draft-immigration-restrictions-focusing-on-protecting-us-jobs/2017/01/31/38529236-e741-11e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d\_story.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/world/national-security/trump-administration-circulates-more-draft-immigration-restrictions-focusing-on-protecting-us-jobs/2017/01/31/38529236-e741-11e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html) If true and if signed, would any of these be stepping on the toes of any large corporations? If so, the likelihood of them coming into effect and staying that way are slimmer. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 9:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-executive-order-on-immigration-let-it-rip-dopers/778468/498 "2017-02-01T09:47:34Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > :dubious: > You have never entered a Courtroom sure you were going to get shot down? Its part and parcel of being a lawyer; putting forth a case you think is unlikely to succeed; once instructions have been received. > > And if you get a precedent like this, what’s to say someone in the future might not use it to refuse to defend a policy you do agree with? Like say a future DoJ refusing to defend Abortion rights? Your post seems confused. As to your first paragraph, I’m a lawyer in private practice. If my client tells me to defend something then I’ll do so at least up to the point where I feel I can’t put forward _any_ honest argument. But an A-G is not just a paid gun of the President. If the A-G thinks a law is unquestionably unconstitutional, they have a duty to say so, as I understand it. As to your second paragraph, it’s not a matter of refusing to defend a policy the A-G doesn’t agree with, it’s a matter of refusing to try to uphold a law that even the A-G believes is unquestionably unconstitutional. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 10:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-executive-order-on-immigration-let-it-rip-dopers/778468/499 "2017-02-01T10:15:35Z")
There is a big difference in refusing to support something because you disagree with it; that’s a normal part of lawyering, and actively sabotaging your clients case. The remedy is to say"_I don’t think I can in good faith put forward what you are instructing me to, please find someone else_". Not say," _my client’s case is bullshit_" to the relevant forum. And in the case of the A.G she is not just a lawyer, she is also an (acting) Cabinet member. Its a long stated convention that a Cabinet member who personally disagrees with a policy must keep those views to him/herself or resign. If she had resigned, citing her inability to support this Order; even calling a press conference to do so, no one could have faulted her. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 10:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-executive-order-on-immigration-let-it-rip-dopers/778468/500 "2017-02-01T10:19:00Z")
Horse-shit. This yet another case where if it were a Republican doing it, we’d be hearing about what balls she has for standing up for American principles. And if she would have resigned, we’d hear nothing about what a precious snowflake the little miss was. Don’t insult me by pretending that’s not true. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-executive-order-on-immigration-let-it-rip-dopers/778468.md?page=24) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-executive-order-on-immigration-let-it-rip-dopers/778468.md?page=26)