STEAM GROUP
Forum Regulars Connected frcco
STEAM GROUP
Forum Regulars Connected frcco
11
IN-GAME
88
ONLINE
Founded
11 January, 2016
Language
English
Location
Singapore 
Showing 201-210 of 341 entries
7
Expect flight prices to go up - UN deal to cut aviation emissions
37
Countries that you want to visit
52
Countries you have visites besides your own
15
Christmas Trees
3,116
Introduce yourself!
163
Democracy is bad.
Next up, immigrants and crime rates.

There is plenty of papers about this but first we should just look at this in a sane and rational way.

Consider this. Violent crime has been going down for years. Immigration in the same period has exploded.

How can you even begin to say that immigration causes violent crime?? I mean, it makes no sense to begin with, I think it's even called the base load fallacy, or the baseline fallacy.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ramiro_Martinez_Jr/publication/227702497_DOES_IMMIGRATION_INCREASE_HOMICIDE/links/0fcfd50b7e6cea5934000000.pdf

"Does Immigration increase homicide? - Negative evidence from three border cities"

Abstract.

Understanding the complex relationship between immigration and crime was once a
corc concern of American sociology. Yet the extensive post-1965 wave of immigration
to the United States has done little to rekindle scholarly interest in this topic,
even as politicians and other public figurcs advocate public policies to restrict immigration
as a means of preventing crime. Although both popular accounts and sociological
theory predict that immigration should increase crime in areas where
immigrants scttle, this study of Miami, El Paso. and San Diego neighborhoods shows
that, controlling for other influences, immigration generally does not increase levels
of homicide among Latinos and African Americans. Our results not only challenge
stereotypes of the “criminal immigrant” but also the core criminological notion that
immigration, as a social process, disorganizes communities and increases crime.

Below is in fact a paper that set out to prove that immigration causes higher crime rates, and ended up with the result that it actually LOWERS crime rates.

THat's gotta hurt, right? Still, science is science, and it progressed.

Ousey, G. C., & Kubrin, C. E. (2009). Exploring the connection between immigration and violent crime rates in US cities, 1980–2000. Social problems, 56(3), 447-473.

http://socpro.oxfordjournals.org/content/56/3/447.abstract

Abstract
A popular perception is that immigration causes higher crime rates. Yet, historical and contemporary research finds that at the individual level, immigrants are not more inclined to commit crime than the native born. Knowledge of the macro-level relationship between immigration and crime, however, is characterized by important gaps. Most notably, despite the fact that immigration is a macro-level social process that unfolds over time, longitudinal macro-level research on the immigration-crime nexus is virtually nonexistent. Moreover, while several theoretical perspectives posit sound reasons why over-time changes in immigration could result in higher or lower crime rates, we currently know little about the veracity of these arguments. To address these issues, this study investigates the longitudinal relationship between immigration and violent crime across U.S. cities and provides the first empirical assessment of theoretical perspectives that offer explanations of that relationship. Findings support the argument that immigration lowers violent crime rates by bolstering intact (two-parent) family structures.

What about Europe?

Bianchi, M., Buonanno, P., & Pinotti, P. (2012). Do immigrants cause crime?. Journal of the European Economic Association, 10(6), 1318-1347.

Abstract

We examine the empirical relationship between immigration and crime across Italian provinces during the period 1990–2003. Drawing on police administrative records, we first document that the size of the immigrant population is positively correlated with the incidence of property crimes and with the overall crime rate. Then, we use instrumental variables based on immigration toward destination countries other than Italy to identify the causal impact of exogenous changes in Italy’s immigrant population. According to these estimates, immigration increases only the incidence of robberies, while leaving unaffected all other types of crime. Since robberies represent a very minor fraction of all criminal offenses, the effect on the overall crime rate is not significantly different from zero.

And so on and so on, ad nauseaum.

But let me guess, you have mere raw statistics "proving" something from the FBI.

Well, you can get all manner of statistics, but without further analysis, their usefulness is doubtful at best.

But I'm interested in what kind of rebuttal you'll make, no doubt relying on non-peer reviewed raw statistics from government agencies ignoring the correlation-causality fallacy.
"The fiscal impact of immigration in OECD countries"

Liebig and Mo 2013

http://www.globalmigrationgroup.org/sites/default/files/Liebig_and_Mo_2013.pdf

This is to my knowledge the most comprehensive study about the impacts of immigration to developed countries, and it reads like a review on the whole matter but then it does plenty of data analysis on top of that.

Let's start with this then.

The impact of immigration on future tax burden can be seen in Table 3.3

https://1drv.ms/i/s!Arc42E89VvHWjQ1-rLIG-gDIV77h

Note how much less taxes are required to be paid for fiscal sustainability, when immigration is doubled or kept at a high rate per annum.

It's massive. What does this mean? Due to the maintenance ratio problem, the debt is 'diluted' amongst the greater population, and the burden lessened.

Moving on.

Figure 3.3 clearly shows that despite immigrant households having a smaller fiscal contribution than native born, it is still positive for say Sweden and Finland.

What is striking though is that "Mixed" households contribute far and beyond the nativeborn households.

https://1drv.ms/u/s!Arc42E89VvHWjQ7QxpLs4Y5L8-D1

At the end the total fiscal impact of immigration is shown.

If it were such a burden on everything, we would expect to see big %GDP negative numbers, something at least like -2% or so.

https://1drv.ms/i/s!Arc42E89VvHWjQ8FJZv6ms1H2z14

In reality what we see is a slight gain, depending on scenario, for Sweden for instance.

That really boggles the mind doesn't it? WHAT? THOSE LAZY IMMIGRANTS AREN"T ALL ON BENEFITS AND JUST STEAL OUR MONEY???!!??

Now here comes the clincher.

The study did not look at the maintenance ratio problem in detail, which we know already to be a massive crisis.

Couple the fact that the fiscal impact of immigration per annum in current year is slightly positive, with the fact that many more people are needed in the workforce in the coming decades and this positive impact, we have ourselves an equation.

Two positives add up to positive, in my book.
Originally posted by Shadowcon66:
I have been "arguing the points", all you've really done is say "nu" and resort to shit like crying "forum filth" or "alt-right", which was really what you've been doing with me in here.
Yes I have provided an example being the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and there's also a whole lot of other palpable examples for this as well; meanwhile you haven't even cited anyone at all; yet you bring absolutely nothing from your supposed "science journals" or "respectable media outlets" that would support your case.

Well then, if you want me to start quoting science, I will. But you asked for it.

Originally posted by rojimboo:
THe major problem with blindly believing statistics without any comprehension or any actual science done unto them, is that they confuse simple-minded folk. It's like magic. Except it's by the FBI so it must be true.
So you'd much prefer us to listen to media channels like MSNBC over the FBI?
That's even weaker than I thought, since those are the most likely to be distrusted.
Of course, the story would be completely different if the FBI supported you; but I'd really love if you went and showed us some citations made by your favorite peer-reviewed articles or some other science journals too; even a link to a /leftypol/ thread should be fine at all since you're at least providing something for anybody to work with.

The whole point of questioning statistics (and that's ALL that they are from the FBI) is the correlation causality fallacy.

I was saying that it is time to move beyond mere statistics into the realm of scientific analysis, not take a step backwards and listen to MSNBC's woefully science illiterate reporting.

Originally posted by rojimboo:

The abortion rate is about 20/1000 women in Sweden, so 2%. That 2% obviously clearly didn't want a baby, and probably had no means to support said baby. It also in no way means that those 2% of women, cannot have children in the future. So your whole assertion about how abortion cripples birthrates is completely unfounded.
Finally, you're popping up with some numbers yourself. They look pretty too.
Although like I've just asked, I'd wish you'd do us a favor and make some referrals.
Even I understand that Abortion itself isn't the sole defining factor of declines in birth-rates; but rather it's an additive element to our birth-rate decline.
I would heavily agree myself that forcing women to take care of their children is wrong; and their only alternative shouldn't be based on deciding to have an abortion.
This segment is probably the only strongest part of your reply, and it honestly made me feel a little less ill-willing after having tolerated you this far.

Sorry but you haven't referenced a single piece of your purported statistics so far, other than that they came from the FBI. I was just following suit. If you want to turn this into a proper debate with references, I'm all for that, nothing could make me happier.

And your assertion was that abortion rates 'crippled' the birth rates. So far we've yet to see any proof of that, and then again, you shifted goalposts by pretending that wasn't what you said.

I call that progress.

Originally posted by rojimboo:
Next I am to believe the US gifted Sweden military assets for free. This is bordering on ridiculous.
Did you forget that "foreign aid" is actually a thing?
Mexico has received foreign aid from the United States, as have countries like Sweden.
Although if you'd like to hear something really ridiculous, hear about the Israeli lobbies.
The United States loves their "greatest ally" Israel.
So that's a no then on the US giving free fighter jets to Sweden? Thought so.

Originally posted by rojimboo:
THis is called the maintenance ratio problem. And the only solution is increased immigration into the workforce. Prove me wrong.
>the only solution
That's a nice meme, but we're much better off treating factors of declining births, while also including the additions of immigrants with career portfolios that we would want to have included in our workforce (especially for STEM fields), where we also have the opportunity to make the immigration process for people on visit passes for either job-related vacations or educational vacations; and then offer them discounts for the process of the immigrative procedure; which also highly incentivizes young people in excellent fields to come and operate inside of our countries for great chances to bloom.
We're able to achieve a whole lot of opportunities with what's been given.
We should begin with lowering the high costs of childcare and education, since that is perhaps the greatest reason for not having kids at all, or just not the ideal amount.

Points based immigration works in some countries sure, with a huge demand to get into the country. It does not work so well for others where there is not such a huge demand.

My point was that for maintenance ratio problem, the solution is increased mass immigration.

We are talking about an impending crisis that will put a severe fiscal burden on the population, due to the age pyramid. Imagine GDP growth at minus 10% for a few decades. That's what we are talking about.

As much as you think increasing birthrates will in any way cope with that, it's already too late, unless you can magically triple the rates overnight. Considering these countries have tried for decades, good luck with that.

Originally posted by rojimboo:
Again, absolutely no link between ethnicity and violent crime, in the history of science.
Not even once have I even mentioned race/ethnicity at all.
I've been making those claims based on regionality only.
You've made the mistake of thinking that "Muslim" is a race, nice job.
You are basically saying immigrants commit more crimes than native-born. Again, no such link that has endured the test of time and scrutiny and statistical analysis.

Prove me wrong.

At this point the burden of proof is on the one making the claim "Immigrants are more violent than native-born", rather than the person saying "Prove it, that has never been conclusively shown".

In my next post, I will expand on my points, and refer to the science in the matter.
Showing 201-210 of 341 entries