5 ms·

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. T

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.
- facepalm 10y ago
  What do you mean by "willing to take into account"? Male or poor, the problem is still that if immigration imports many male and/or poor, crime levels rise.
  - tomlock 10y ago
    >But it should be possible to take that [being a man] into account statistically. 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.
    - facepalm 10y ago
      By "take into account" I meant it should be possible to statistically distinguish the factors of being male and being male+immigrant. So that it can be seen if being male is really the only factor driving increase of crime. 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?
      - tomlock 10y ago
        As the world feminist army sweeps the nation - the alt-right will form a guerilla force - middle-aged white men will rise up to fight - I can see it now. 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.

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.

facepalm 10y ago
What do you mean by "willing to take into account"? Male or poor, the problem is still that if immigration imports many male and/or poor, crime levels rise.
- tomlock 10y ago
  >But it should be possible to take that [being a man] into account statistically. 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.
  - facepalm 10y ago
    By "take into account" I meant it should be possible to statistically distinguish the factors of being male and being male+immigrant. So that it can be seen if being male is really the only factor driving increase of crime. 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?
    - tomlock 10y ago
      As the world feminist army sweeps the nation - the alt-right will form a guerilla force - middle-aged white men will rise up to fight - I can see it now. 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.