US Immigration Crisis

Except you're wrong about a link between immigration (the subject of this thread) and crime, as I know from my previous research in exchanges with another anti-immigration poster, Elrazor, who despite being adamant that immigrants = crime had his arse handed to him on a plate:

Previous post

Summary:

Most immigrants migrate because they want to work for a better life, not because they want to commit crime.

immigrants in all continental European countries have a much higher crime rate than natives (even when controlling for age), on average, with some populations being at native levels or under , and others being through the roof high.

trend of violent crime in Europe is going well because we are getting older and basically only young male adults commit violent crimes.

but we would all be at japanese levels of violent crime (ie levels at which the police literally has nothing to do at all more often than not) without unskilled immigration and that's obvious to everyone who has eyes and can read stats.

pretty sure the same applies to the UK although you have better quality immigration than we do so it has to be lower as an effect.

pretty sure you can also read very well and so you have read I wrote importing POVERTY, it's very mischievous to use stats based on quality immigration to deny that low quality immigrants increase crime vs a counterfactual where you keep them out of your country.

now for the USA it is technically true that even unskilled immigrants commit less crimes than natives but that's because of the detail of the black crime rate in the USA being absurdly over any number in the west for any ethnic group.

low skilled immigrants commit more crimes than American whites or Asians.

you can still decide the tradeoff can be worth it in some cases (some unskilled immigration can be useful for some jobs in the economy anyway and enough to offset the higher crime rate although that's debatable because it delays automating those jobs away which would be the optimal endgame ) but not by denying the crime rate is higher than it would otherwise be without having accepted those poor, low skilled people in the country

jalfresi basically it's like if you take the huge number of eastern European middle aged women which came to Italy in the last 20 days to work as housekeepers and in elder care, and average them with the young uneducated subsaharian male adults who have no skillet useful for our job market, and claim immigration creates 0 problems in aggregate so why do we whine

btw I am not exaggerating with "police has nothing to do" in Japan

and given Japan has a demographic pyramid, and a post tax income distribution, that is virtually identical to Italian natives in Italy, everything suggests we would have the same non existent level of violent crime in Italy if we had never imported non-europeans

https://www.economist.com/asia/2017/05/1...

Let me set the link out for you so you can easily access it:

Migration Observatory

Are you aware that governments favour immigration because it's an easy way to boost GDP per capita as another country's already paid for their education and pre/post natal care?

That extra revenue could be spent on better social care to ensure that people across the population don't fall into poverty, but sadly many governments prefer to cut taxes as a bribe to win votes then, like you, blame crime on immigrants.

I fully expect it could be down again after the diplomatic brouhaha. Which won't change the fact that your implication that a "dramatic and radical move to the left of Canadian society" is having a major impact on immigration numbers from India is nonsense.

The idea that a good starting point for your ideas to lower crime is to eliminate “criminals” is one of the most heinous ideas.

Hey, it has a double benefit - it eliminates criminals, and some of those pesky wrongful conviction lawsuits!

I had originally written "religious zealot" instead of "anti-choice extremist and it turns out this freak thinks the temple should be rebuilt in Israel so the Messiah can come/return. Lol.

Laughing at people's religious beliefs

Im disappointed

Do you realize that the impact of immigration and the profile of immigrants is very different for different countries?

Because in Italy and Spain i can assure you immigrants significantly decrease per capita gdp. Otoh they don't make natives poorer, they (the immigrants) are the poor ones.

For Italy the numbers are literally absurd and probably you had no idea it was SO insanely skewed wrt poverty:

This is "incidence of absolute poverty in households" , 2021-2022. Blue line is households entirely made of italian citizens, red is househoulds with at least one non italian citizen

Keep in mind that albeit slowly, and with no ius soli, we do naturalize people, so the blue column includes some househoulds with foreign born italian citizens.

And also keep in mind a portion of our immigration is from well off european countries (and some american and british retiree in tuscany and the like).

So do you understand the above image implies something like 35-40% of households with african born individuals in them are in absolute poverty in Italy? vs like less than 2% of center-north italians with 3+ italian grandparents?

Given this data do you understand my pov a little better, than we are importing poverty, objectively?

In Italy like in Germany we have wages set at the national level with unions contract applying by law to everyone, including non union members.

I've spent a week in Naples and walked through the back streets which are full of very poor black people, so this isn't about me not understanding the situation in some countries.

"Importing poverty" is an emotional phrase used for propaganda purposes. You've imported humans keen to work if they had opportunities denied to them by neo-liberal policies and now demonised by the far right keen to blame them for the ills of your stupid country and its obsession with corruption and fascism.

How many governments has Italy had since WW2? Is it 50 yet?

Maybe if your political leaders were less corrupt and more focussed on doing better things for the population instead of cosplaying macho fascism you wouldn't be in this mess.

With "neoliberal policies" you mean international treaties from like the 40s and the 50s making it illegal for asylum seekers to work for many months while waiting for an answer to their asylum claims?

"obsession with fascism" after we had 10 years of the last 12 with leftist governments which allowed massive arrivals of people completly unable to participate in our work force... i mean italy in the last 40+ years has been one of the most consistently left wing countries around, we are like 6th worldwide in fiscal revenue as a % of gdp, what else do you want us to do to be "truly to the far left of the distribution worldwide"?

Italy has by far the highest payroll taxes in the roll with a huge margin, we are talking 33% of gross income (including nominal "company side" of that, which is all coming out of workers pockets at the end for obvious reasons) for workers going for pensions, with France at 23% at everyone else in the world afaik lower than that.

USA is at like 12% (6+6 company side) for SS iirc.

I mean describing what is consistently one of the most leftwing countries in the history of the planet outside actual communist dictatorships as "obsessed with fascism"... i mean if like me you consider fascism a variant of socialism so a far left platform of central state power and lack of individual economic freedom then sure, but i don't think that's what you had in mind.

It's funny because he's touted as a rational dude and his idea is insane and someone who thinks like that as a world leader is a theocrat and people who think they are libertarians supporting theocrats is funny. I'm not really laughing at Milei. He's not even here is he?

But, yeah, of course religion is obviously absurd.

An awful lot of blue on the chart I posted for a socialist country, and conveniently you don't mention Berlusconi.

If people arrive on Lampedusa by boat I'd like to see their asylum applications processed speedily so they can join the workforce. What is your suggestion?

Ye i mean whomever wrote that chart is someone who puts cultural issues ahead of economic issue to decide if something is leftwing or not.

Democrazia cristiana , the dominant party for decades, was leftwing on economic issues.

My suggestion is that you get blocked in the sea outside Italy and never put foot here until we granted you asylum, given that you aren't a libyan fleeing from war, you aren't a neighbour so we owe you absolutely nothing at all asylum-wise.

You should stop the first moment you enter a country without a war, and if there is no war in your country you can't be a refugee to begin with (unless you can prove political or otherwise heavy discrimination , and you have to prove it before you come here).

The whole concept of people from bangladesh or nigeria asking for asylum is a complete joke, a fraud

That's a pretty terrible test for left vs. right. Kuwait is obviously right-wing and at 60% fiscal revenue as % of gdp is one of the highest in the world and Venezuela at 6% is one of the lowest.

Kuwait Wat?

https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/...

Ye maybe you should learn the difference between government revenue and fiscal revenue.

Venezuela dodges the stat because of strange definitions (for gvmnt owned companies), normal countries don't so Kuwait gvmnt has a big intake from what they own, but they don't take the property of citizens or residents violently (=taxes)

Where do they live until Italy has granted them asylum? That could take months.

Not my problem.

Supposedly in the first place they reach where their lives aren't directly threatened unlike in their original country.

Asylum is an institution that exists to provide assistance in case of direct imminent threat to life, not a generic worldwide welfare system for people who live in poor countries.

We can make exceptions for people we consider particularly valuable and aligned with western values, but with no moral mandate in that regard (I would personally make exceptions for right-wing people fleeing communist countries, and of course for anyone who helped western militaries in our efforts, and their families).

Btw a main point you might be missing as well is that we refuse asylum to 70-80% of them, and then we can't even send them away lol.

What's your proposal to guarantee anyone refused asylum is sent away? Because no solution seems to exist under current laws, once they are here we are screwed and forced to spend money on them