CC announces: "Immigrants are people, living in the nation to which the statistics occur."
End of argument for any leftist."
Their remain agitational and propaganda and organizational/tactical
issues, but there is no question of fact or principle at issue here --
unless you don't count immigrants as people."
Carrol
>>>>>>>>>>>
Maybe for 'any' leftist, but for those interested in inequality, which often entails the use of numbers, the fact of two different populations raises issues of comparability underlying a statement like 'inequality has gotten worse (or better)'.
that's what the question was about. Not -- duh -- whether immigrants are people.
In fact, to follow your manner of speaking, I would proclaim that anyone not interested in equality can hardly be considered a leftist of any sort.
Actually the question was premised on counting immigrants as people, not the converse. The analytical problem, since this is a list primarily for those interested in things analytical, in the abstract actually has nothing to do with immigrants per se. The same issue would arise from a change in the rate of births minus deaths. Or look at it this way. Suppose you have Tom, Dick, and Harry. Tom has $100, Dick $80, and Harry $50. They are then joined by Moe, Larry, and Curley, who each have $20. The distribution of income is less equal, but Tom, Dick, and Harry are no worse off in a particular sense, nor is their relative income distribution any different. Get my drift?
The phrase 'often in error, never in doubt' comes to mind. [Reminds me of 'black people are not quintiles,' another historic moment in political-economic discourse.]
mbs