Legal/illegal immigration and crime: should they be seen as related?

[ahinton]

Here's another new thread for Thal and anyone and everyone concerned with the above issue.

It is clearly a serious subject worthy of intelligent discussion - sufficiently so, indeed, not to be confined to occasional posts in a thread about Brexit, which is a quite different, though equally important, topic.

Who'd like to start?

Best,

Alistair

[Bob]

Maybe a bit in terms of immigrant = low income, low income = more crime prone; therefore, immigrant = more crime prone.  I could see that to some extent.

[ahinton]

Maybe a bit in terms of immigrant = low income, low income = more crime prone; therefore, immigrant = more crime prone.  I could see that to some extent.

That's all very well, but it raises the question as to the proportion of those in a country whose incomes are substantially below the national average might be immigrants. Obviously, refugees are likely to be among the poorest but one then has to question what proportion of a nation's population are refugees.

Furthermore, is it really especially likely that, of those poor people who might be more prone to commit crimes than others because of their relative poverty, immigrants will feel more criminally motivated than non-immigrants?

It seems to me that where Thal's understanding of this situation falls short is in his implication that, should people commit crimes as horrendous as the Swedish one to which he drew attention, their gravity and the problems that they cause are somehow less if the criminals do so in their own countries rather than in someone else's; I fail, for example, to see how a Somalian gang raping a vulnerable disabled person in Somalia (whether or not that person is Somalian) is any less atrocious than one doing so in Poland or Ireland - or, for that matter, than an Irish or Polish gang raping a similarly vulnerable disabled Somalian in Somalia (whether or not that person is Somalian).

The undue emphasis that some people try to foist on racism and immigration factors when considering crimes that are not necessarily of racist origin is, to me, as distasteful as it is dangerously misleading.

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

A crime is a crime irrespective of who commits it. I think a lot of reporting is deliberately manipulative and designed to incite. There is plenty crime committed by, for lack of a better term, indigenous trash, but you don't see it reported as non-immigrant crime. It is correct to be appalled by some of the high profile cases and no amount of culture clash can explain away or forgive such disgraceful behaviour. People who seek refuge in our country should be grateful and I'm sure the vast majority are. Unfortunately a minority are spoiling that. Liberals often forget that the onus should be on such people to conform, not on the native population to adapt. Most Britons are very tolerant, possibly too much so. I think this is changing because people feel, rightly or wrongly, that their society is under threat.

[thalbergmad]

Anything here is a waste of words as Hinty's left wired brain would never accept a link even if confronted with a mountain of evidence.

His only experience with immigrants is probably one of his poncy musical friends from Bulgaria coming over here to do a concert tour.

Thal

[ahinton]

Anything here is a waste of words as Hinty's left wired brain would never accept a link even if confronted with a mountain of evidence.

His only experience with immigrants is probably one of his poncy musical friends from Bulgaria coming over here to do a concert tour.

I do not have a left wired brain (whatever if anything that might be), I listen to, read and assess all manner of evidence when confronted with it or when finding it of my own volition and, since you have no idea what my experience of immigrants is, you would be wise to refrain from speculating upon it.

As I am an immigrant myself, which you are not, I ought to have some idea about that subject from personal experience, none of which happens to be adverse. Why Bulgaria in any case, when over the years I have encoutered musicians performing in UK from more countries than I can even remember? I would hate to think that anyone anywhere expressed such suspect sentiments about UK musicians performing in their country; would you?

Best,

Alistair

[Bob]

I would think poor people are more likely to commit a crime out of need or from being less ration/mental stable, at least in terms of a "blue collar" crime.  The rich would commit legal (or not), white collar crimes.

[ahinton]

I would think poor people are more likely to commit a crime out of need or from being less ration/mental stable, at least in terms of a "blue collar" crime.  The rich would commit legal (or not), white collar crimes.

So people of different levels of wealth would be inclined to commit different kinds of crime, then? Even if so, that would not obviously account for a part allegedly being played by immigrants in any of this. Crimes can be committed by immigrants, poor and wealthy, against other immigrants and against the citizens of the countries into which they have immigrated, just as crimes can be committed by the citizens of those countries against other citizens of those countries as well as against immigrants into them, again irrespective of the levels of wealth of the criminals. When one considers all of that, the immigration factor seems to be of less and less obvious significance overall.

The question as to whether illegal immigrants are more likely to commit crimes than legal ones remains, however and one could perhaps try to argue that, as illegal immigrants have already broken the law simply by virtue of being such, that fact might impact upon such possible likelihood.

Best,

Alistair

[iansinclair]

Well!  That should keep Alistair and Thal going for a while!

Couple of things to add to the stew... by definition, as Ronde noted, an illegal immgration is a crime.  So we have a bit of a logical problem right away here.

However, on a more general level I think one can legitimately enquire as to whether immigration -- legal or otherwise -- is related to crime, but only if one takes into account that "crime" is a legal creation of the society to which the immigrant is coming.  At which point it becomes necessary to consider the process by which the immigrant becomes familiar with, and accepting of, the legal, moral, and ethical conditions of the society to which he has moved, and what latitude -- if any the new society is willing to allow the immigrant while he or she adjusts.

It really can be a problem, as the entire framework under which the immigrant lived prior to emigrating can be and often is radically different from his or her new society.

[ahinton]

Well!  That should keep Alistair and Thal going for a while!

Couple of things to add to the stew... by definition, as Ronde noted, an illegal immgration is a crime.  So we have a bit of a logical problem right away here.

However, on a more general level I think one can legitimately enquire as to whether immigration -- legal or otherwise -- is related to crime, but only if one takes into account that "crime" is a legal creation of the society to which the immigrant is coming.  At which point it becomes necessary to consider the process by which the immigrant becomes familiar with, and accepting of, the legal, moral, and ethical conditions of the society to which he has moved, and what latitude -- if any the new society is willing to allow the immigrant while he or she adjusts.

It really can be a problem, as the entire framework under which the immigrant lived prior to emigrating can be and often is radically different from his or her new society.

That's a good point and one that's not previously been mentioned. I'm not sure that many societies would willingly turn blind eyes and deaf eras to gang raping the disabled, thoguh...

Best,

Alistair

[Bob]

I suppose illegal immigration would be instant crime.

[iansinclair]

I suppose illegal immigration would be instant crime.

My point in my first previous paragraph exactly.  Which, however, begs the question of whether it should be a crime or not. 

As I noted, "crime" is a construct of a particular society or group, and is, therefore, an exceedingly slippery concept.

Even "crimes" which, to the western world, are exceedingly obvious -- such as murdering your daughter because she ran off with a man from a different sect -- are not quite so obvious in some other societies.  It is not at all uncommon for lesser actions to be deemed criminal in one European country, but not in another, or in one US state or Canadian province and not in another.

Should an immigrant -- legal or otherwise -- be required to obey all the laws of the society to which he or she has moved, however arcane or bizarre they may seem to him or her?  I happen to think so -- but at the same time I recognize that even for crimes I would consider major -- such as homicide or rape -- the immigrant may not be familiar with the standards of his or her new society, and may have quite a different view.

Which, of course, raises the obvious question again -- how much latitude should be given?  Any?  And how is the immigrant to learn the standards of his or her new society?

[chopinlover01]

Personally, I don't think we should be giving them leeway.
Take, for instance, wearing the Nazi flag, or doing the Nazi salute. Here in the states, while it's viewed as deplorable, it is perfectly legal to do so. In Germany? Less so.
But, if I (or any other person of any other nation) wish to immigrate to Germany on their good will (we're assuming legal immigration here, bear with me), I must be willing to accept the rules of the society which is offering me residence.
As such, if we're going to allow citizens of radical Islamic nations like Syria, or Iran, or Iraq, or Saudi Arabia, we first should obviously do as much screening as possible, but secondly, if as a nation, we (whoever that may entail) allow you to come to our society because yours is destroyed, then you must agree to at least conform to the standards which we expect of our other citizens.

[ahinton]

Good points here.

When people immigrate into a country, they do so on the basis of knowingly abandoning the country from which they're coming in favour of that to which they're immigrating, for whatever reasons (including situations in which the country from which they're is coming has abandoned them); it is therefore reasonable to expect that they abide by the law of their new country as they'd be expected to abide by those from which they've come (even though there may be differences between those laws) and that they make every effort to acquire at least a basic grasp of those laws and those differences.

This, however, can become very complex indeed when people have to go through other countries in order to arrive at their intended destination, especially when their journeys get gravely delayed in those countries.

Not only that, though, each nation's own laws change all the time and, whilst rape and murder are unlikely ever to be considered other than as serious crimes in many countries, the punishments that they attract can vary not only from case to case but also from time to time.

The Nazi flag issue is an important one; yes, there are differences as to whether or not waving one is regarded as a criminal act in certain countries, but this might beg the question as to whether it might be a reasonable expectation that it becomes a criminal act where it is not currently regarded as such. The crucial determining factor should, I think, be whether such flag waving is intended to cause grave offence; waving swastikas around is generally done for that very specific inflammatory purpose, whereas waving he US flag would not be so - unless done in Iran or other heavily Islamic or otherwise strongly anti-American countries. So it's the intent that counts - but that's not always as easy to prove as it might be should a large group of Western builders manage to get into Mecca and start building a synagogue, for example. One might say the same for waving the IS flag; that is likely to cause offence or worse in many countries, even those in which IS still operates.

Even rape is another grey area. Widely deplored in the West, it can be overlooked in certain excessively paternalistic societies, but then what's acceptable in certain Western nations has also changed somewhat over the years; rape within marriage is now increasingly being regarded similarly to other rape, for example.

Likewise, US has different degrees of murder and other Western nations have laws to distinguish between murder and manslaughter; not every country regards the taking of a life in the same way and, for example, not every nation recognises the phenomenon of mercy killing, any more than those that do so necessarily treat it identically.

So, when immigrants come to another country, they need to bear in mind not only the ways in which that country's laws and judicial requirements, processes and expectations might differ from those of their own but also that their new country's laws will also change from time to time. Such understanding is to some extent dependent not only upon their will but also upon their fluency in the new country's language; this is not dissimilar to the absorption factor that we note in immigrants generally, in which it is clear that some make efforts to merge with their new societies whereas others remain more aloof from it and try to stick with their own kind. One way to help in trying to overcome that problem is to persuade those who are not integrating well that the country already hosts many immigrants from many other countries; in many cases that will be a novel experience for them, since there is unlikely to be as large a proportion of immigrants in, say, Somalia, Yemen or Iraq as there is in most Western countries. This kind of thing can be something of an issue even between Western countries; I have noticed, for example (albeit not as an immigrant or would-be immigrant) that, in certain areas of rural France, for example, the proportion of immigrants is very low indeed and the number of countries from which immigrnats have come is similarly low, which is something that I had not anticipated and therefore found rather disconcerting on realising that almost everyone there is French.

Even issues that affect Islamic countries are not so black and white; radical Islam, which has been mentioned (much of which is arguably anti-Islamic in any case) is not subscribed to by everyone living in them any more than it is among Muslims who have already emigrated to Western countries - one has only to spend some time among the better educated young people in Iran's major cities to recognise this, although hard-line authorities there take a dim view of it and regard it suspiciously as incipient Westernisation.

So yes, it's a very complex set of issues, the best hope in respect of which is that immigrants at least make reasonable efforts to integrate into their chosen new societies. They will in any case make subtle changes to those socities over time merely by being present in them, without deliberately behaving as though they've not left the countries from which they've emigrated.

This is perhaps hardest of all for genuine refugees who have had everything taken away from them in their own countries, in some cases for a long time, before they emigrate. For example, an Afghan living not far from where I do had lost all of his family and been dispossessed in his own country for years before coming to UK, yet he has made sterling efforts to integrate not only with British people but also with immigrants from other countries. He has learnt English well, has managed to land a decently paid job and now regards himself as the UK citizen that he has legally become; he has also helped and encouraged other similarly dispossessed immigrants from Afghanistan and elsewhere to integrate into UK society. OK, he's been well educated before his tgerrible fate befell him in his country, so that has helped. It is people like him who have done so much despite having had nothing but his life for a very long time that make extremist statements such as "all immigrants are a drain on society" and the like all the more deplorable.

Best,

Alistair

[j_tour]

Well, you've caught me on a day I've allowed myself a little online frittering-around time.

I am French-Irish, and in the US, I I think in very harsh terms of my country's anti-Catholicism, and I submit that today's attempted purge is shameful and worthy of contempt.

I don't give a sh*t about Mexico, and having visited and had tea at Paris's Institut du Monde Arabe many times, I frankly don't give a sh*t either.

I object strongly to America's long-standing, latently-racist anti-catholicism, and, while not a believer, I am a proud "cultural Catholic," and it makes me sick.

Yeah, well that's my thoughts.

[chopinlover01]

We're racist towards 22% of our population? News to me.

[Bob]

Another general one ("yes" for ahinton's question above I think.  I haven't been following the thread that closely)....

Low class people commit low class crime.
High class commit high class crimes.  I would imagine there's less incentive at a high class level if your needs are meet.  At that point, it might be something like raw greed.  For lower class, it might be something like hunger.

I see articles about idiots robbing banks (lower class people).  They're on camera though so a few weeks later they get caught.  I also imagined someone on the other side of the teller window might be embezzling funds or doing something shady (but maybe legal) that's essentially a crime (or screwing people over, same as a crime).

[pianoplunker]

I would think poor people are more likely to commit a crime out of need or from being less ration/mental stable, at least in terms of a "blue collar" crime.  The rich would commit legal (or not), white collar crimes.

How about call it what it is  GREED   yes even poor people can be greedy. Anecdotally, there are probably plenty of rich people who have mental problems one example is ............

[pianoplunker]

Here's another new thread for Thal and anyone and everyone concerned with the above issue.

It is clearly a serious subject worthy of intelligent discussion - sufficiently so, indeed, not to be confined to occasional posts in a thread about Brexit, which is a quite different, though equally important, topic.

Who'd like to start?

Best,

Alistair

I am mad at Donald Trump for not offering to build a wall across the Canadian border as well. Why only go half way ?  From Blaine to Niagra Falls, it needs to be done. Keep them out! They drive way too slow.

[ahinton]

I am mad at Donald Trump for not offering to build a wall across the Canadian border as well. Why only go half way ?  From Blaine to Niagra Falls, it needs to be done. Keep them out! They drive way too slow.

Perhaps Mr Trump thinks (Mr Trump thinks? - now there's new!) that the sheer length of the two borders between Canada and US is too great in proportion to the Canadian population figure (compared, that is, with the border between Mexico and US and the Mexican population figure) that he's decided to put that one on the back burner until some time during his second term in office.

Best,

Alistair

[chopinlover01]

Assuming he gets a first.

[ahinton]

Assuming he gets a first.

Quite. I was being sardonic. Putin thinks that he will, so I suppose that he will.

Best,

Alistair

[chopinlover01]

Oh of course; no hard feelings, Alistair! I'm just disgusted with this election. You have a fascistic, Mussolini-esque character on one end, and a notoriously corrupt Democrat on the other who's known to be one of the biggest hawks in her party, and among the most bought.

[j_tour]

Oh come now, it's hilarious.

(i) Instead of like in the movies there's a "Purge Day" everybody in the US gets a "Purge Election."
(ii) Even if DT "wins" some faithless electors, there's a ready-made insult for everyone who annoys you.  Just call him or her a "Trumper," and it's done!  So LGBT, musicians, punk-rockers, and the intellectually-disabled whatever get put off the hot seat and there's a ready-baked insult for pretty much everybody.

Yes, there's an enormous downside -- national security, civil liberties, and so forth, but insults are hilarious.

And that, people, is how you turn behaviors adaptive.  The best.

[pianoplunker]

Perhaps Mr Trump thinks (Mr Trump thinks? - now there's new!) that the sheer length of the two borders between Canada and US is too great in proportion to the Canadian population figure (compared, that is, with the border between Mexico and US and the Mexican population figure) that he's decided to put that one on the back burner until some time during his second term in office.

Best,

Alistair

Now that I think about it, if Trump has a first term I will be glad there is not a wall across Canada!  Oh Canada! Here we come. Anyhow back to the title of the thread, I dont have any stats but I have known many legal and illegal immigrants who are only trying to make a wage. Crime happens because of so many other factors that have nothing to do with immigration. Criminal elements exist in all parts of society including ...uh ...Presidential candidates.

[ahinton]

Oh of course; no hard feelings, Alistair! I'm just disgusted with this election. You have a fascistic, Mussolini-esque character on one end, and a notoriously corrupt Democrat on the other who's known to be one of the biggest hawks in her party, and among the most bought.

Indeed. As somone pointed out recently, the US election campaign is like the UK/EU in/out referendum campaign only on a vastly grander scale, characterised as it is by acrmimony, lies, deceit and misinformation by the bucket-load and the only positive outcome would be if Clinton and Trump lose...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Now that I think about it, if Trump has a first term I will be glad there is not a wall across Canada!  Oh Canada! Here we come.

!!!

Anyhow back to the title of the thread, I dont have any stats but I have known many legal and illegal immigrants who are only trying to make a wage. Crime happens because of so many other factors that have nothing to do with immigration. Criminal elements exist in all parts of society including ...uh ...Presidential candidates.

Quite right. Crime is crime and immigration is immigration; I won't add "never the twain shall meet", of course - that would be absurd - but to accuse people of commission of crimes simply by reason of being immigranta achieves nothing beyond stoking the fires of xenophobia. Yes, some are driven to crime by desperation and some of those are immigrants but, even then, their criminal motivation arises from that desperation rather than from their immigration; what some people forget is that some of those immigrants who commit crimes out of sheer desperation (being dispossessed, &c.) would do so wherever they were and irrespective of having immigrated. Of all the (often rather different kinds of) crime committed by the wealthy, hardly any are the actions of immigrants.

Best,

Alistair