Taking a snapshot of incarceration has another flaw: It’s affected by “restorative justice” judges handing out shorter sentences to their client groups.
Comparing averages to averages does not even make sense in the first place. Who cares what effect immigrants have on our average crime rate? Are we optimizing for common national statistics or are we actually trying to consider what the overall impact of immigration is on the current citizenry?
If Somalians commit 100 crimes against citizens, that is equally bad for citizens if these crimes are committed by 100 Somalian immigrants or by 1 million of them. We can just measure the total amount of crime they add and compare to the benefits they provide.
"In countries such as Denmark and Norway, which have more thorough record-keeping than the United States does, Somali immigrants are convicted or formally charged at several multiples of native rates. If the U.S. truly had crime rates near parity, it would represent an extraordinary and unexplained divergence. What’s in the water in Minneapolis?"
Aren't native born Americans much more likely to commit crimes than native born Danes, or Norweigans? I'd have guessed that if Somali immigrants committed crime at the same rates regardless of where they immigrated to, you'd still see big differences in the ratios of Somali crime rates to native born rates based on differences in crime in the places they're immigrating to. Am I missing something?
It would be more honest, I think, to compare incarceration rates for the first and second generation immigrant groups across time: Irish in the 1820s to 1860; Italians between 1880 and 1920; Russians between 1970 and 2010; etc.
The original post by Alex makes no sense, but neither does the correction in this article. A pointless game, and this post doesn’t even realize what it is trying to measure.
There are roughly two kinds of crimes, crimes of passion conducted by individuals and organized crimes by communities. At best all this statistical analysis can measure crimes of passion maybe. Yes, maybe some groups are more prone to it, and that divide is likely racial not national. We could probably just use existing stats we have in plenty and estimate Somali rates from that.
But organized crime has no use for these statistics. Were Italians more prone to crime than the average European or were they just more likely to be a part of a Mafia, a social institution, almost a secondary state which was engaged in criminal activities. It’s the same but more concentrated with the Somali case, they’re likely to be a part of a social network that’s defrauding the government, we have plenty of evidence of this problem. If we import another Somali, there is a high chance he will directly or indirectly contribute to this phenomena, we are not importing an atomized, isolated individual, who wakes up one day and decides to act on his impulses. To do so, we would have to import only 100s and spread them across US. But we have a 100k, all in one specific location, clearly we are importing a community that seems to make money by government fraud. I can guarantee almost every new Somali who comes to Minnesota will probably benefit this scheme, if not directly, they indirectly know people who are in on this, but they won’t report them to the government, or they play politics with the democratic base etc etc.
Once you understand that the Cato Institute favors open borders, you see that all their "analysis" on immigration can only lead to one conclusion - the more the better, legal or illegal, and without regard to skills or culture. 'Don't believe your lyin' eyes, believe our Koch-funded propaganda.'
This is absurd and not at all representative of their work on immigration. They've calmly and firmly stated where immigration can increase costs and burdens on natives, and accompanied said claims with policy recommendations to avoid or begin to mitigate issues where population increases OF ANY KIND present harsher tradeoffs or costs to nativists.
I had once been doing some research on anecdotal accounts ot the weather. (There was a heat wave in New York in the 1920’s in which something like a hundred a twenty people died. Top temperature: 93 degrees.) Anyway, I stumbled on a story in the New York Times in the 1890’s that warned about the denizens of a certain neighborhood- these people were causing most of the crime in the city. Advertisements for jobs said that racial group wasn’t wanted. You know who we’re talking about.
Taking a snapshot of incarceration has another flaw: It’s affected by “restorative justice” judges handing out shorter sentences to their client groups.
Comparing averages to averages does not even make sense in the first place. Who cares what effect immigrants have on our average crime rate? Are we optimizing for common national statistics or are we actually trying to consider what the overall impact of immigration is on the current citizenry?
If Somalians commit 100 crimes against citizens, that is equally bad for citizens if these crimes are committed by 100 Somalian immigrants or by 1 million of them. We can just measure the total amount of crime they add and compare to the benefits they provide.
"In countries such as Denmark and Norway, which have more thorough record-keeping than the United States does, Somali immigrants are convicted or formally charged at several multiples of native rates. If the U.S. truly had crime rates near parity, it would represent an extraordinary and unexplained divergence. What’s in the water in Minneapolis?"
Aren't native born Americans much more likely to commit crimes than native born Danes, or Norweigans? I'd have guessed that if Somali immigrants committed crime at the same rates regardless of where they immigrated to, you'd still see big differences in the ratios of Somali crime rates to native born rates based on differences in crime in the places they're immigrating to. Am I missing something?
It would be more honest, I think, to compare incarceration rates for the first and second generation immigrant groups across time: Irish in the 1820s to 1860; Italians between 1880 and 1920; Russians between 1970 and 2010; etc.
“Lies, damned lies and statistics”
The original post by Alex makes no sense, but neither does the correction in this article. A pointless game, and this post doesn’t even realize what it is trying to measure.
There are roughly two kinds of crimes, crimes of passion conducted by individuals and organized crimes by communities. At best all this statistical analysis can measure crimes of passion maybe. Yes, maybe some groups are more prone to it, and that divide is likely racial not national. We could probably just use existing stats we have in plenty and estimate Somali rates from that.
But organized crime has no use for these statistics. Were Italians more prone to crime than the average European or were they just more likely to be a part of a Mafia, a social institution, almost a secondary state which was engaged in criminal activities. It’s the same but more concentrated with the Somali case, they’re likely to be a part of a social network that’s defrauding the government, we have plenty of evidence of this problem. If we import another Somali, there is a high chance he will directly or indirectly contribute to this phenomena, we are not importing an atomized, isolated individual, who wakes up one day and decides to act on his impulses. To do so, we would have to import only 100s and spread them across US. But we have a 100k, all in one specific location, clearly we are importing a community that seems to make money by government fraud. I can guarantee almost every new Somali who comes to Minnesota will probably benefit this scheme, if not directly, they indirectly know people who are in on this, but they won’t report them to the government, or they play politics with the democratic base etc etc.
Once you understand that the Cato Institute favors open borders, you see that all their "analysis" on immigration can only lead to one conclusion - the more the better, legal or illegal, and without regard to skills or culture. 'Don't believe your lyin' eyes, believe our Koch-funded propaganda.'
Thank you for debunking Nowrasteh’s claim.
This is absurd and not at all representative of their work on immigration. They've calmly and firmly stated where immigration can increase costs and burdens on natives, and accompanied said claims with policy recommendations to avoid or begin to mitigate issues where population increases OF ANY KIND present harsher tradeoffs or costs to nativists.
From Jeffrey Miron, writing in his capacity as VP of research at the Cato Institute:
"Forget the Wall Already, It’s Time for the U.S. to Have Open Borders."
did you compute standard errors?
In the logit regression where the comparison group is US-born males 18-64 years old, the coef on Somali-born is 1.004 (SE 0.125).
Compared to non-Hispanic whites, the coef is 1.569 (SE 0.126).
These are log-odds ratios, you need to exponentiate to get odds ratios.
Hope this helps.
If they have lower incarceration rates it is simply because alien judges just let them go.
So you are fine with Somali women?
I had once been doing some research on anecdotal accounts ot the weather. (There was a heat wave in New York in the 1920’s in which something like a hundred a twenty people died. Top temperature: 93 degrees.) Anyway, I stumbled on a story in the New York Times in the 1890’s that warned about the denizens of a certain neighborhood- these people were causing most of the crime in the city. Advertisements for jobs said that racial group wasn’t wanted. You know who we’re talking about.
Can you add error bars? Hard to say what to make of this without them.
What I can easily do is tell you the SEs in the regressions.
In the logit regression where the comparison group is US-born males 18-64 years old, the coef on Somali-born is 1.004 (SE 0.125).
Compared to non-Hispanic whites, the coef is 1.569 (SE 0.126).
These are log-odds ratios, you need to exponentiate to get odds ratios.
Hope this helps.