You're reading the statistics wrong. Whatever group has the lowest status in society is over-represented in crime statistics. It's because they have relatively harder to get jobs. But immigration swells the overall economy. So the effect is that it lifts non-immigrants out of poverty at the expense of immigrants. So crime-rates of non-immigrants drop (if you have immigration).
So, conservation of criminality? Judging from the charts I linked for your major cities, the crime rates of non-immigrants aren't dropping fast enough to keep up with the rise of immigrant crime. It doesn't look like the poor Swedes your immigrants somehow made richer by displacing them out of their lowest-status status had been committing much crime.
There's just too many factors to prove cultural tendencies for certain crimes. We just don't know. Most studies show that the biggest factor is poverty. Which has nothing to do with culture at all.
[Consults the linked chart...]
Your immigrants from Vietnam and India are committing crimes at only a little above the rate of locals. In fact, they commit less crime per capita than immigrants from Denmark and Norway. Do you think Danish and Norwegian immigrants are poorer and have a harder time getting jobs in Sweden than Vietnamese and Indians?
There is no culture FOR poverty.
Why do you believe that? All over the world we find communities living side by side where one does a far better job than the other of keeping themselves out of poverty. Chinese fled from war and Mao to all over Southeast Asia, and typically wound up a lot richer than the locals after a few generations.
2. I think this immigration will pay for itself pretty quickly.
Why do you think that? How will it pay for itself when you have cops whose job it is to try to catch refugees getting jobs and stop them?
I've already linked to the study once and I know you've read it.
Are you still talking about the study of the Mariel Boatlift? As you pointed out yourself, the U.S. didn't stop Cuban refugees from getting jobs. How will this immigration pay for itself when you have cops whose job it is to try to catch refugees getting jobs and stop them?
Incidentally, there's
a more recent study of the Mariel Boatlift available that didn't broadbrush its effects the way the original study did. True, the arrival of the Cuban refugees didn't suppress wages overall; but it had a brutal effect on the wages of the people they were most directly competing with for jobs: local high-school dropouts.
Yes, it is expensive for Sweden. But in the big picture it's not particularly expensive. And there is a war in Syria. To me it's just the right thing to do
Do you have an argument for why it's the right thing to do that isn't an ad hominem argument? What moral theory says it's the right thing to do? How did the Swedes incur this liability for the problems of the world? Does being lucky enough to be born to ancestors who didn't screw up their country create a debt to people who were unlucky enough to be born to ancestors who did?
Ehe? I live in Viking country. Vikings only went to heaven if they died in combat. Our highest virtue was revenge. Do you think Viking society was peaceful?
When we became Christian we engaged in almost constant wars making the country desperately poor. We only stopped with the wars (19'th century) because we were broke. Sweden became rich just in the very last generations. I have very little to be proud about when it comes to ancestors. Sweden is pretty nuovo riche
Hmm, that's funny, sounds like you used to have "a culture FOR poverty". I wasn't inviting you to feel proud of your ancestors. (Why people regard ancestors as something to take pride in is beyond me, even when their ancestors were awesome.) I was inviting you to explain whatever moral theory it is that implies subjecting your own citizens to the negative externalities of bringing into your country hundreds of thousands of refugees, some half of whom are de facto Nazis, is the right thing to do. I don't see how being lucky enough to have 19th-century ancestors who didn't screw up their country puts your citizens on the hook for the obligation to underwrite the human damage of the war in Syria -- not even if you had 9th-through-18th century ancestors who did screw up their country and your 19th-century ancestors had to start by unscrewing-up an already screwed-up country.
And while we're on the subject of your moral theory...
Only a socialist would say that theft is not theft.
ha ha libertarians and their natural rights. Ownership is a made up concept that isn't self evident. Any ownership at all is pulled out of someone's ass.
Nationalization always involves paying far below the true value of what's taken. Even if they pay market value of what they actually seize that doesn't count the other costs. (For example, the cost of dry holes that were drilled.)
If the state decided private ownership of something is wrong then any price is a bargain for the prior owners. So I'm not sure what your argument is? Again... I reject natural rights. ... A market where some players have more money than others is inherently unfair.
Can you explain how the moral universe you live in -- a universe where natural rights don't exist, ownership is a made up concept, and you'll call the Chinese government bulldozing a family out of their home and paying them 5 cents on the dollar "a bargain" for no better reason than that the Communist Party says it is -- is able to contain anything whatsoever that's "inherently unfair"?!? What on earth do you perceive the semantic difference to be between saying "The Wu's have a natural right to be compensated dollar-for-dollar for the destruction of their house." and saying "The government destroying their house and paying them only enough for them to buy a twentieth of a replacement house is inherently unfair."? Is the correct meta-ethical theory nihilism when others make moral claims, but moral realism when you make moral claims?
