Why are you so afraid to see that immigrants are over represented in this category of crimes?
Source please? Because the available data, at least for Germany, does not support this claim at all.
Latest BKA report from first quarter of 2016 puts the amount of "offenses against sexual self-determination" for migrants at 1.10%. [1]
As somebody who's lived over 10 years right next to Bavaria's biggest initial reception center, in Zirndorf, I'm always amazed by all those claims as to how insanely criminal these people supposedly are. I've never witnessed anything like that, Zirndorf is actually quite peaceful town with barely anything ever happening.
[1]- https://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/Themen/Siche...
That depends. If you are looking for excuses for racism, it obviously is not relevant. But if you claim that the Swedish society has turned dangerous because of the immigrant crimes, it should be highly relevant for the discussion.
Why is the conclusion that immigrants dominate the statistics of violence against women racist? I don't think there are many people who believe the cause of this statistic is genetic.
I thought women should be safe regardless the perpetrator but there is this weird dual standard where the whole company Uber (correctly!) gets the blame because of it's douchebag culture even when some of it's key executives don't directly partake in denigrating women, yet when migrants dominate negative statistics in far worse crimes against women all of a sudden imagined racism is the worst crime instead of actually abuse of women.
I think the problem with that particular violent subset of the Muslim subset of immigrants is exactly what you try to blame other people for: right-wing asshole mysogonist gay jew or "soft men" (i.e. respectful mostly left wing so yes you) hating retards. With absolutely no ground for respect let alone a chance of a better life in a modern society. And you should fight them with the same energy you fight "native" right wing hate groups.
People fleeing from that kind of violent and oppressive people should not go to Sweden only to be confronted by exactly the same people they were trying to get away of.
Because it appears to be a made up conclusion for the purpose of stoking anti-immigrant sentiment. You have yet to provide a source. OP has sources. GP has sources. You have fear mongering.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_crime#Sweden
If you don't think WikiPedia is correct feel free to change the lemma, I bet they can use a certified statistician like you with all kinds of sources to prove them wrong. But until then:
Five times as much
And now I need to believe that I'm the one that needs to be corrected?
And another thing: once you split it up to region there's a bigger difference. East Asian and Western immigrants generally have lower or similar statistics compared to natives, meaning there are also groups that exceed the five times average.
Your original claim was:
> immigrants dominate the statistics of violence against women
Let's see what "dominate" means [1]:
to be predominant in
And further, predominant [2]:
being most frequent or common
There is simply nothing to discuss here. Your original claim was wrong, even using your own statistics. (Of course, you may have tried to say or you meant that immigrants are over represented, which would be correct. But you did not say that. Thus you are the one to be corrected.)
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dominate [2] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/predominant
First, if the very first sentence of wikipedia article of racism[1] tells that racism can be against a race or ethnic group, it should be accepted that the word "racism" is used not only to genetically different groups, but also against ethnic groups.
Second, your claim that immigrants dominate the statistics is wrong. They are over-represented. But even if we take that as your claim, no, the conclusion in itself is not racist. However, if you read what I wrote more carefully, that conclusion can be used as an excuse for racism.
That is again another discussion where it may be relevant.
I took a quite specific discussion ("Sweden has turned dangerous because of crimes by immigrants") and in that discussion the fact(?) that total crime numbers have not increased is very relevant.
Not necessarily the case because demographics are never homogeneously distributed across territory. If the rape/crime numbers didn't fall uniformly across the whole population, then you could have scenarios where crime fell by 20% in some regions and increased 25% in others, and overall it would be constant. I'm making up the numbers to illustrate.
More data would make your point much more convincing.
Segregation of areas is however becoming stronger, as many minorities like to live in their own ethnic enclaves.
It's possible that Sweden became safer because Swedes commit fewer crimes, and this decrease outweighed a crime increase caused by immigrants. Crime-by-nationality data would help resolve this question. Why is the Swedish government hiding it?
> People from foreign backgrounds are suspected of crimes more often than people from a Swedish background [...] In a later study, researchers at Stockholm University showed that the main difference in terms of criminal activity between immigrants and others in the population was due to differences in the socioeconomic conditions in which they grew up in Sweden.
So it seems that whilst immigrants are suspected of more crimes than average, they commit the same amount of crime as poor deprived members of indigenous populations.
"Commit the same level of crime as the subset of the population who commit the highest level of crime" does not sound very reassuring.
"In a later study, researchers at Stockholm University showed that the main difference in terms of criminal activity between immigrants and others in the population was due to differences in the socioeconomic conditions in which they grew up in Sweden."
That means that the most important factor in terms of criminal activity is that immigrants are largely poor and poor commit more crimes. Not that rich immigrants perform as much crimes as the poorest of non-immigrants.
Or do you disagree with that assesment of what the study said?
This is when your biases are walking uninvited into a discussion about data.
Pointing us to "per-country religious belief surveys" is incredibly simplistic.
Which facts? What do you base this belief on? Any sources to any studies?
Swedens tiny population of 10 million can't handle immigration of tens of thousands? That's laughabale, it's been doing exactly that for decades now. Iraq, Iran, Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Iraq again, Ukraine, Syria. Only recently has a resistance to these policies been seriously challenged...
Upwards mobility will happen, even during the worst conditions, like the slavery in US, did they manage to break free. This is not about when but how, true solidarity or true civil war and tragedy..
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religi...
You should think very carefully about why you had an incorrect model of these people. You may be making similar mistakes in other areas.
> Swedens tiny population of 10 million can't handle immigration of tens of thousands?
Depends how you define "handle". If by "handle" you mean "avoid cultural erasure", then maybe not.
I'd also like to point out that it's tens of thousands per year. There are almost 100,000 Syrians in Sweden.
> Upwards mobility will happen
On what do you base this claim? Has upward mobility happened in the countries from which these refugees originate?
This is reasonable, unless the theory is that when an immigrant arrives in Sweden, a person already in poverty gets 'promoted' and the immigrant takes their poverty space, thus keeping poverty levels constant.
People have a hard time believing that because the current migration does not bring in more but less working people - the migrants have a worse dependency ratio than native population, i.e. the proportion of migrants who have a job is lower than proportion of people already in country. Among OECD countries, migrants in Sweden have the largest difference in dependency ratio to native population.
Thougt many argue both in favor and against further immigration for various reasons.
* Stop immigration.
OR
* Integrate poor people into society, the workforce, etc.
Immigration of more poor people from a different culture makes the already difficult task of integrating poor people even more difficult.
The discussion is not about what should be done, only about Sweden's claim that there is no problem. If they say "yes there are criminals, but only because they are poor", they are dodging the issue.
-----
edit: Hacker News doesn't let me post more comments. So here is the comment I wrote, but I'll probably refrain from further ones:
"poor swedes could be deported and rich immigrants could take their place"
This is already happening in a way - it is called gentrification (not replacement with rich immigrants, but in general rich people will cluster together).
But Swedes formed a "state" and endowed some people with citizenship, but also giving them responsibility for their own people. So their responsibility should be to their own people first. Of course you can argue that forming such a state is immoral, but I think there are some practical arguments in favor of it.
As history has shown, states are very well capable of deporting significant fractions of their citizens, though. But presumably atm Swedes rate the ensurance to not be deported higher than the inconvenience of living with poor people.
The gender angle: yes, that is a popular argument in Germany, "but the refugees are only criminal because they are all men". But it should be possible to take that into account statistically. And even if the higher proportion of males would be the only issue, it still wouldn't change the fact that immigrants are causing problems. After all, they have a higher proportion of males.
This could be achieved in a number of ways. For example, poor swedes could be deported and rich immigrants could take their place - this would actually be more effective than halting immigration altogether.
Another form of issue dodging is when people suggest that immigrants are the issue without admitting that the situation is a complex combination of factors. One of the best predictors of criminality from a statistical viewpoint is gender. Of course, excluding all men from immigrating into our countries probably strikes most as inhumane :) To say the immigrant status of a person is to be specially focused on seems particularly convenient, but not humane.
edit: Its funny you're willing to accept taking gender into account statistically, but not the wealth of most immigrants.
So why not take being an immigrant "into account statistically"?
It seems like the anti-PC folk have some things they think we should be PC about and take into account (like being a man) while being an immigrant is fair game. It doesn't make any sense to blame crime on one demographic factor, and ignore the others.
Its a matter of anti-PC folk selectively ignoring evidence that doesn't fit their worldview.
As for male criminal citizens, they should be sent to jail. In any case, as I mentioned before, they are already citizens, so the state has a special obligation towards them.
The point is also not to consider every immigrant a criminal just because some of them are, but to deal with life in one's country. If for example you could devise a test that would tell with 100% certainty if an immigrant will become a good, law-abiding citizen, a lot of immigration discussions would become a lot easier.
Btw suppose your suggestion would be followed, and male citizens would be deported because they are such a high risk for crime. Who would do the deporting? The world feminist army? Or should men just pack up and leave by themselves, admitting their own tendency to become criminals?
It should be possible to statistically distinguish the factors of being poor and being poor+immigrant. Or education level+immigrant or degree choice+immigrant. Point is, focusing on immigrants demographically makes no sense when there are plenty of other demographic factors that are better indicators of criminality.
This is a classic red-herring.
'They were poor therefore they have bad behaviours'.
The failure of the logic is the assumption of correlation/causation.
One might argue that 'bad behaviour will lead one to being poor'.
I have no doubt that immigrants from Somalia will have a harder time than 'Sven Swede' growing up. At the same time, there are some truly terrible behaviours among specific immigrant groups.
This is the hardest part: the pro and anti immigrant camps are speaking past each other.
Important note: For some reason, ethnic minorities in Europe are considerably more marginalized then they are in the US - it's completely different.
Europe has a 'strong social safety net' - and 'social policy' of welfare etc. - BUT - they have very strong sense of ethnic identity, and very close social circles. A young Somalian may have very few Swedish friends.
In the US - people are far more gregarious and open personally. It's nothing to see a table of people of different ethnic backgrounds - but the social safety net is usually much weaker, no health insurance etc..
I live in Montreal, we have a good chunk of Muslims. They don't look too 'out of place'. You can't tell they are Muslim by looking. They could be Indian, Southern Italian, Greek.
But go to Belgium - the various Muslim communities are distinct, and ethnic identity is obvious. I've never seen a Burqa in Montreal, and Hijab not too often. In Belgium they are all over. Muslims live in 'broad areas' in Montreal, but in Belgium very specific communities.
It's a little bit of a mystery to me but I think it has everything to do with 'very traditional and conservative' social culture in Europe - even though paradoxically they are 'intellectually liberal'. Example: if you drink with a nice, well educated, open minded and kind Belgian - you may hear an 'African joke'. It's not considered as racist as it would be in America. Yet the Belgian will likely be more supportive of giving refuge and social services to the Africans than the average American. It's weird.
Sweden has a notorious degree of censorship in their press - they self-censor to control information in terms of what they 'deem is best for Sweden'. They will absolutely suppress information if it may cause some populist sentiment. It's just part of their culture.
The problem, of course, is that by suppressing real dialogue, then the loudest and craziest right-wing voices are the one's that get hard, and they cause a fuss, which is bad, and it may come to a breaking point.
I suggest that more transparency on the issues would be better for all involved.
I sense a similar difficulty in my native Germany, where so much of the current national identity is defined by feeling bad for something your grandparents maybe did (or by violently refusing to do so), that the absence of it in non-descendants of that generation is causing a noticeable "identity gap" even generations after immigration. This kind of stuff causes zero problems for those who have goals and education and achievement, but everybody else occasionally leans on group identity and will take whatever fits best.
P.S. I've actually come tho think that whatever ridiculous (from the German perspective, yes, totally ridiculous, if not outright scary) business Americans do with flags does serve a purpose after all. It gives both established and new Americans confidence that the new ones can belong, easing the process for everyone involved.
I live in Montreal and immigrants have the same problem: English or French? There is a 3rd category here (we use linguistic categories) - called 'Allophone' - meaning essentially neither English nor French, but 'multi' or 'something else'.
Despite the self-loathing of the past few generations - Germans are generally very German. A flag is a national symbol, not an ethnic one. Even the Nazis didn't use the flag of Germany - totally unnecessary!
'American' is not an ethnicity. All Americans have is the 'idea' of America. Which is represented by the flag.
In a way - 'nationalism' is more essential and necessary in a place like America.
Germany would be German with or without even the state of Germany.
America would disintegrate without national symbols.
In Canada - we are less nationalist because we are a British colony. Canadians had British passports up until very recently, just before I was born!
Mass migration is a new issue for Germany though - if it were just a few immigrants, it would be a non-issue. But the sheer scale of it makes it an existential issue, one that is akin to changing the Constitution - in fact - even stronger. A constitution can always be re-written. A nation can be rebuilt. But once a people decide that they are a 'nation' but not an ethnicity - and 'go multicultural' - there is no going back. I think that's a decision that should require a 'supermajority' vote type thing, not a decision made, de-facto in a 'crisis' policy by Merkel & Co. - obvious humanitarian issues notwithstanding.
I lost friends for dating outside my own percieved race. Folks seperate based on the color of their skin and background quite often. It isn't that folks don't break from the molds, but they are definitely there.
The little town didn't have many Muslims, so that wasn't as common, but it did have a fair amount of Mennonite communities in the area. Women with heads covered and conservative, long-sleeve dresses even during the hot summer months and men with beards. They generally kept to themselves, most likely due to cultural similarities. Some areas in the US have some section of Jewish coursts that handle some things and conservative Jews have a network within their communities (friend of mine, American, nearly went through an arranged marriage through them). These are probably much like many of the conservative Muslim communities you spotted - they are simply a different sort of conservative religion.
On the other hand, the majority of immigrant Muslims went to language class with are fairly progressive women. Lawyers and nurses and such. They stand out about as much as I do here in Norway.
I totally agree. America is a big place, so is Europe. It's varied.
But I would say, on the whole that EU is far more 'enclave-ish' than the US.
In fact, Europe is a big patchwork of ethnic enclaves.
America is not. People identify a lot less with their identity.
And yes, for sure, some people, i.e. Orthodox Jews, Mennonites etc. are different.
Can I just share my belief that this is polite fiction? It's certainly the view of America that we Americans have for ourselves, but can you honestly say you see evidence of it in day-to-day-life - and can you compare it to western Europe?
In my personal experience no, EU migrants are no more marginalized than they are here, and no, American migrants are no more "integrated". Vast swaths of SoCal and Texas is basically Mexico. Huge parts of Florida are basically Cuba. The Somali influx in Minnesota is real and highly separated from the rest of white society there. You don't need to look for ghettos to find large areas of extremely insular immigrants, often 2nd or 3rd generation still with no intention of or interest in immigrating in any sense other than physical location.
I'm not even commenting on if it's a good or bad thing, but ultimately I don't think we've EVER been the melting pot we claim to be, certainly the evidence around us doesn't suggest we are.
Had the melting pot not grown cold, we'd have a lot less internal conflict today.
That's probably why people want to stop importing them en masse.
In contrast, Syrian refugees seem to be among the most law-abiding foreigners you can find (followed by Iraqi refugees, as I recall).
"Immigrants" is a fairly useless category for criminological purposes, as it combines several other categories with vastly different profiles, some with outsized crime rates, some below that of natives.
This makes you a "right wing thug" for many people in Europe. Europe is lost. They lost their immunity for enemies of their open society. Uneducated immigrants from violent tribal societies will first make the social system implode, then the society.
This claim is false,
> (as confirmed by Sweden's most famous crime professor GW a couple of days ago)
and this attribution is also false.
He says that "if you look across the board on all convicted crimes it's half-half between natives and immigrants. But if you look at the more 'sensitive' crimes there is a significant over representation of immigrants"
Leif GW Persson is famous for writing books and being on tv shows - not for being a crime professor (and he is no longer a professor of criminology). There's a reason googling his name comes up with breitbart first, and goodreads second.
On the other hand this guy was in a relevant position. Is being a former professor of criminology different to currently being a professor?