6 ms·

I'd say THAT is irrelevant. If I become victim of a crime, it doesn't console me if the perpetrator is poor. I just don't want to become a victim of a crime.

croon 10y ago
The point isn't to console you. The point is to explain why crime happens, so it can be mitigated. Ie: * Stop immigration. OR * Integrate poor people into society, the workforce, etc.
- leereeves 10y ago
  Those aren't in conflict. Immigration of more poor people from a different culture makes the already difficult task of integrating poor people even more difficult.
- facepalm 10y ago
  The question was "is there a problem with immigration". How to mitigate crime is only the second step. And it will be difficult to mitigate it if you don't accept the causes. Of course leftists believe that rich countries like Sweden are to be blamed for the poverty of people from other countries. I am also not saying poor people shouldn't be helped. But there doesn't seem to be a universally working formula available. Just as there doesn't seem a formula for making strict Muslims tolerant of homosexuality and freedom of women. If you are hanged by a radical Muslim because you are gay, it doesn't help you that he wouldn't have hanged you if only he had received the right educational interventions beforehand. ----- Edit: sure, Christians can be dangerous radicals, too. If they were a significant part of refugees, that would be topical, too. The problem seems, rather, that many refugees come from countries that skipped the enlightenment and are stuck in the middle ages in some things. I don't have statistics on radical muslims, but there are whole countries where gays are being hanged. You can google the pictures yourself. Here is a list of "Ehrenmorde" in Germany: http://www.ehrenmord.de/doku/2016/doku_2016.php http://www.ehrenmord.de/doku/2016/doku_2016.php Ehrenmorde are cases were people are being murdered by family members (usually brothers murdering their sisters, but sometimes also men are the victims) for bringing "shame" to the family - like having extramarital sex, leaving the religion, stuff like that. Some of the freedoms we take for granted are simply not taken for granted in other cultures. And I don't think there exists a formula for convincing people from such cultures of our values.
  - tomlock 10y ago
    Got any numbers on how many Muslims are "radical" compared to Christians? Christians also perform exorcisms on gay children and in some cases lynch gay people. Keep in mind that deporting radical christian swedes would also be a good move if retaining a cultural tolerance for gay people is a goal.
brown9-2 10y ago
It is relevant to the topic of how to prevent crime - it tells you that eliminating immigration won't help, but that addressing poverty will.
- aaron-lebo 10y ago
  Cutting off immigration is not some kind of autosolution, but if immigrants commit higher levels of crime compared to the rest of the population, eliminating immigration would help.
- nmeofthestate 10y ago
  Well, except some immigration adds to the number of people in poverty, so avoiding immigration that does that would address poverty and by extension crime. 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.
  - Voloskaya 10y ago
    One of the reason Sweden is welcoming migrants is because the birth rate is becoming really low, so there is need for new workers paying taxes. They are accepting more poors (and by extension statistically more crime-prone) people today, to hopefully have a still sane and stable economy in the future (thus with less poors).
    - facepalm 10y ago
      That may be their theory, but where is the validation of the theory? What are the reasons to assume it will work out that way? --- Edit: reason for assuming it won't: there are many countries with a huge population that are nevertheless poor. So number of people alone doesn't seem to help against poverty. Also, there still seem to be poor native Swedish people, so apparently Sweden does not have a working formula for lifting people out of poverty (except giving them government money, but that wouldn't scale in the way you propose - that wouldn't yield more taxes and riches in return).
tomlock 10y ago
So you think it would be fair to suggest the same restrictions on poor people as people are suggesting we place on immigrants?
- facepalm 10y ago
  I think it would make sense to reduce the number of poor people. If taking in immigrants is likely to increase the number of poor people, there is a problem. 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.
  - tomlock 10y ago
    >I think it would make sense to reduce the number of poor people. 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.

croon 10y ago

The point isn't to console you. The point is to explain why crime happens, so it can be mitigated. Ie: * Stop immigration. OR * Integrate poor people into society, the workforce, etc.

leereeves 10y ago
Those aren't in conflict. Immigration of more poor people from a different culture makes the already difficult task of integrating poor people even more difficult.
facepalm 10y ago
The question was "is there a problem with immigration". How to mitigate crime is only the second step. And it will be difficult to mitigate it if you don't accept the causes. Of course leftists believe that rich countries like Sweden are to be blamed for the poverty of people from other countries. I am also not saying poor people shouldn't be helped. But there doesn't seem to be a universally working formula available. Just as there doesn't seem a formula for making strict Muslims tolerant of homosexuality and freedom of women. If you are hanged by a radical Muslim because you are gay, it doesn't help you that he wouldn't have hanged you if only he had received the right educational interventions beforehand. ----- Edit: sure, Christians can be dangerous radicals, too. If they were a significant part of refugees, that would be topical, too. The problem seems, rather, that many refugees come from countries that skipped the enlightenment and are stuck in the middle ages in some things. I don't have statistics on radical muslims, but there are whole countries where gays are being hanged. You can google the pictures yourself. Here is a list of "Ehrenmorde" in Germany: http://www.ehrenmord.de/doku/2016/doku_2016.php http://www.ehrenmord.de/doku/2016/doku_2016.php Ehrenmorde are cases were people are being murdered by family members (usually brothers murdering their sisters, but sometimes also men are the victims) for bringing "shame" to the family - like having extramarital sex, leaving the religion, stuff like that. Some of the freedoms we take for granted are simply not taken for granted in other cultures. And I don't think there exists a formula for convincing people from such cultures of our values.
- tomlock 10y ago
  Got any numbers on how many Muslims are "radical" compared to Christians? Christians also perform exorcisms on gay children and in some cases lynch gay people. Keep in mind that deporting radical christian swedes would also be a good move if retaining a cultural tolerance for gay people is a goal.

brown9-2 10y ago

It is relevant to the topic of how to prevent crime - it tells you that eliminating immigration won't help, but that addressing poverty will.

aaron-lebo 10y ago
Cutting off immigration is not some kind of autosolution, but if immigrants commit higher levels of crime compared to the rest of the population, eliminating immigration would help.
nmeofthestate 10y ago
Well, except some immigration adds to the number of people in poverty, so avoiding immigration that does that would address poverty and by extension crime. 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.
- Voloskaya 10y ago
  One of the reason Sweden is welcoming migrants is because the birth rate is becoming really low, so there is need for new workers paying taxes. They are accepting more poors (and by extension statistically more crime-prone) people today, to hopefully have a still sane and stable economy in the future (thus with less poors).
  - facepalm 10y ago
    That may be their theory, but where is the validation of the theory? What are the reasons to assume it will work out that way? --- Edit: reason for assuming it won't: there are many countries with a huge population that are nevertheless poor. So number of people alone doesn't seem to help against poverty. Also, there still seem to be poor native Swedish people, so apparently Sweden does not have a working formula for lifting people out of poverty (except giving them government money, but that wouldn't scale in the way you propose - that wouldn't yield more taxes and riches in return).

tomlock 10y ago

So you think it would be fair to suggest the same restrictions on poor people as people are suggesting we place on immigrants?

facepalm 10y ago
I think it would make sense to reduce the number of poor people. If taking in immigrants is likely to increase the number of poor people, there is a problem. 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.
- tomlock 10y ago
  >I think it would make sense to reduce the number of poor people. 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.