4 ms·

I also think that the main fear - at least where I live - is not job loss but national identity and crime. At least that's what the anti-immigration political m

by nicbou 13d ago

I also think that the main fear - at least where I live - is not job loss but national identity and crime. At least that's what the anti-immigration political messaging is about. I haven't seen the job loss argument in the decade I've lived here. Facts are much lesd helpful here because half of the perceived problem is emotional.

watwut 13d ago
I mean, people worry about crime even in places where study after study shown that immigrants have lower crime rates. People see immigrant and assume crime. And I intentionally put "in places" in there, immigrant crime rates do differ between places. And as similar data point, you see certain Americans scared of going to UK assuming some super high crime levels there ... while it has overall smaller crime levels then where they like. And you see rural people feeling super afraid the moment they step into a low crime city, because they are predisposed to think city = immoral crime.
- kakacik 13d ago
  You got it reverse - people look at prison populations and deduce criminality rate from there. Switzerland almost 3/4 are foreigners, Germany its 50% and so on. Unless given country has similar % of foreigners (and of course they don't), you get where they come from and where the emotion 'foreigners bad' stems from. Even if one ignores flashy news about high profile attacks/criminality, which of course are impossible to ignore. Right or not, this statistics is primary level math that anybody can do in their head and even folks following populists will do. Now what would you say to these people in such case? Bear in mind the topic is in western Europe, ie Germany so toxic that even saying above got high ranking people like police chiefs fired on spot. Exactly kind of dumb over-corrected setup that makes things like ADF thrive quietly, till election come and then folks are 'shocked' that they don't understand their own population at all.
  - weatherlite 13d ago
    > Now what would you say to these people in such case? The honest thing would have been to tell them - you're right, yes there's an overrepresenation in crime - but we're working on it , it will get better in the 2nd and 3rd generation (it does but very slowly), etc. But lots of the establishment doesn't seem able to even do that - they have to completely deny the problem, by for example pulling tricks like counting immigrants from India, Thailand and MENA together, or by not allowing the collection of data at all. This is really bad policy imo.
    - npstr 13d ago
      2-3 generations? why should we import criminal foreigners that will make our cities and villages unsafe for decades? it is not said honestly out loud, because it is absolutely insane, and would be rightfully rejected.
      - weatherlite 13d ago
        > it is not said honestly out loud, because it is absolutely insane, and would be rightfully rejected I don't think not saying it out loud is helping the current policy makers; the right and the far right understood right away this was their biggest point. By not engaging them in the discussion , or engaging with hand wavy trickery, you kinda lose the debate I think.
    - cucumber3732842 12d ago
      >it will get better in the 2nd and 3rd generation (it does but very slowly) What about african americans? What about african amercians? It's like I'm the stupid goose in the meme. African americans were on track to be more wealthy and less crimey, same as every other poor ethnic group in the US has done before. Irish, Italians, Poles, etc. Something went off the rails. What happened? It ain't the skin or some societal factor that gets applied because of the skin. We got plenty of African and Caribbean immigrants to use as control groups. (I don't expect you to answer this question, I expect this question to make a lot of people around here uncomfortable.) >by for example pulling tricks like counting immigrants from India, Thailand and MENA together, or by not allowing the collection of data at all. This is really bad policy imo. Agreed
  - watwut 13d ago
    > people look at prison populations and deduce criminality rate from there. They don't do that. They do not do that for local population either. > Exactly kind of dumb over-corrected setup that makes things like ADF thrive quietly Yeah, the far right exists only because of supposed left claim pops up again. The fact it, far right fans themselves tend to be more criminal and more violent then general population. And you make that claim in relation to Germany from all the places. AfD has large popularity roughly where Hitler was popular and roughly where communists led the country for years. And their big things are more into "Russia should be our friend, actually", "we dont like modern art" and "the retirees will have super large pensions if we win".
weatherlite 13d ago
> Facts are much lesd helpful here because half of the perceived problem is emotional. Well in countries like Denmark and Sweden the facts do show over representation of MENA immigrants (and their descendants) in violent crime. I don't think it's something that could or should be wished away. But I also don't think it's the main issue , it's for sure also a cultural/religious clash.
- nicbou 13d ago
  I work with immigrants for a living. It's a wonderfully complex issue, but one that I rarely enjoy discussing because it either makes racist people go mask-off, or makes progressive people think you're a racist person going mask-off. I think that the issue is less cultural and more socioeconomic. Being "other"ed your entire life sucks. Making it in another country with far more limited resources sucks. It's hard to ignore the toll it takes on the people I interact with.
  - weatherlite 13d ago
    > I think that the issue is less cultural and more socioeconomic. Being "other"ed your entire life sucks. Making it in another country with far more limited resources sucks. It's hard to ignore the toll it takes on the people I interact with. You can look at it like that. Another way to look at it is those accepting countries possibly saved your life (if you're claiming you're a refugee) or in the very least gave you a much much safer existence and better healthcare and standard of living. And it's really quite a big expense on the hosting countries who aren't doing that great themselves lately. The socioeconomics explanation irks me - when you accept a refugee / low skilled worker they are almost by definition going to be poorer than the locals. There's absolutely no way you could equate their wealth to the locals. This is no one's fault, just the reality of taking in people from poorer countries and/or with low skills. I'm also not sure it's fair to say poorer immigrants are always more violent (you didn't say this but it was implied); immigrants from Thailand, India, Philipines into Europe are actually underrepresented in crime. So yeah , this is complex I agree.
    - 13d ago

by nicbou 13d ago

watwut 13d ago

I mean, people worry about crime even in places where study after study shown that immigrants have lower crime rates. People see immigrant and assume crime. And I intentionally put "in places" in there, immigrant crime rates do differ between places. And as similar data point, you see certain Americans scared of going to UK assuming some super high crime levels there ... while it has overall smaller crime levels then where they like. And you see rural people feeling super afraid the moment they step into a low crime city, because they are predisposed to think city = immoral crime.

kakacik 13d ago
You got it reverse - people look at prison populations and deduce criminality rate from there. Switzerland almost 3/4 are foreigners, Germany its 50% and so on. Unless given country has similar % of foreigners (and of course they don't), you get where they come from and where the emotion 'foreigners bad' stems from. Even if one ignores flashy news about high profile attacks/criminality, which of course are impossible to ignore. Right or not, this statistics is primary level math that anybody can do in their head and even folks following populists will do. Now what would you say to these people in such case? Bear in mind the topic is in western Europe, ie Germany so toxic that even saying above got high ranking people like police chiefs fired on spot. Exactly kind of dumb over-corrected setup that makes things like ADF thrive quietly, till election come and then folks are 'shocked' that they don't understand their own population at all.
- weatherlite 13d ago
  > Now what would you say to these people in such case? The honest thing would have been to tell them - you're right, yes there's an overrepresenation in crime - but we're working on it , it will get better in the 2nd and 3rd generation (it does but very slowly), etc. But lots of the establishment doesn't seem able to even do that - they have to completely deny the problem, by for example pulling tricks like counting immigrants from India, Thailand and MENA together, or by not allowing the collection of data at all. This is really bad policy imo.
  - npstr 13d ago
    2-3 generations? why should we import criminal foreigners that will make our cities and villages unsafe for decades? it is not said honestly out loud, because it is absolutely insane, and would be rightfully rejected.
    - weatherlite 13d ago
      > it is not said honestly out loud, because it is absolutely insane, and would be rightfully rejected I don't think not saying it out loud is helping the current policy makers; the right and the far right understood right away this was their biggest point. By not engaging them in the discussion , or engaging with hand wavy trickery, you kinda lose the debate I think.
  - cucumber3732842 12d ago
    >it will get better in the 2nd and 3rd generation (it does but very slowly) What about african americans? What about african amercians? It's like I'm the stupid goose in the meme. African americans were on track to be more wealthy and less crimey, same as every other poor ethnic group in the US has done before. Irish, Italians, Poles, etc. Something went off the rails. What happened? It ain't the skin or some societal factor that gets applied because of the skin. We got plenty of African and Caribbean immigrants to use as control groups. (I don't expect you to answer this question, I expect this question to make a lot of people around here uncomfortable.) >by for example pulling tricks like counting immigrants from India, Thailand and MENA together, or by not allowing the collection of data at all. This is really bad policy imo. Agreed
- watwut 13d ago
  > people look at prison populations and deduce criminality rate from there. They don't do that. They do not do that for local population either. > Exactly kind of dumb over-corrected setup that makes things like ADF thrive quietly Yeah, the far right exists only because of supposed left claim pops up again. The fact it, far right fans themselves tend to be more criminal and more violent then general population. And you make that claim in relation to Germany from all the places. AfD has large popularity roughly where Hitler was popular and roughly where communists led the country for years. And their big things are more into "Russia should be our friend, actually", "we dont like modern art" and "the retirees will have super large pensions if we win".

weatherlite 13d ago

> Facts are much lesd helpful here because half of the perceived problem is emotional. Well in countries like Denmark and Sweden the facts do show over representation of MENA immigrants (and their descendants) in violent crime. I don't think it's something that could or should be wished away. But I also don't think it's the main issue , it's for sure also a cultural/religious clash.

nicbou 13d ago
I work with immigrants for a living. It's a wonderfully complex issue, but one that I rarely enjoy discussing because it either makes racist people go mask-off, or makes progressive people think you're a racist person going mask-off. I think that the issue is less cultural and more socioeconomic. Being "other"ed your entire life sucks. Making it in another country with far more limited resources sucks. It's hard to ignore the toll it takes on the people I interact with.
- weatherlite 13d ago
  > I think that the issue is less cultural and more socioeconomic. Being "other"ed your entire life sucks. Making it in another country with far more limited resources sucks. It's hard to ignore the toll it takes on the people I interact with. You can look at it like that. Another way to look at it is those accepting countries possibly saved your life (if you're claiming you're a refugee) or in the very least gave you a much much safer existence and better healthcare and standard of living. And it's really quite a big expense on the hosting countries who aren't doing that great themselves lately. The socioeconomics explanation irks me - when you accept a refugee / low skilled worker they are almost by definition going to be poorer than the locals. There's absolutely no way you could equate their wealth to the locals. This is no one's fault, just the reality of taking in people from poorer countries and/or with low skills. I'm also not sure it's fair to say poorer immigrants are always more violent (you didn't say this but it was implied); immigrants from Thailand, India, Philipines into Europe are actually underrepresented in crime. So yeah , this is complex I agree.
  - 13d ago