Immigration

[prisonermonkeys]

Does it not strike you as odd that these are reported in very different ways?

So long as it tells you what you want to hear ... no.

 

[tarnheld]

@tarnheld, don't we need per capita type numbers? Of course there are way more Germans than immigrants?

Hmmm, it's all in the data but if it helps your case, there are 0.06% of german rape suspects out of all germans and 0.15% of non-german rape suspects out of all non-germans in Germany. I leave the sensationalization to you, too lazy for that.

Not to mention according to tarnheld, the immigrants are 2.5 times more likely to commit the offence.

Carving out a career at the big tabloids, eh? But you should better check your sources: you are quoting from a random forum stranger's paper napkin calculation. Seems it's not so easy to get per-capita figures out of the crime statistic as i did (take the german foreigner-proportion) since 'non-germans' cannot be compared to the foreigner-proportion of the german demographic, as 'non-germans' include for example tourists. So please don't quote me on that, i got it all wrong.

BTW google yields many studies such as this http://euc.sagepub.com/content/12/6/681

Be careful what you ask for:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Correlates+of+immigrant+youth+crime

There are several papers discussing the higher immigrant percentage involved in crime, several papers dicussing the positive correlation between increase of immigration and decrease of crime, and serveral finding no significant correlation at all. But correlation doesn't imply causation. Finding the causes is much harder than finding correlations, and doesn't make that much of a headline.

 

[VolkswagenX]

That immigrants are the majority commiting (sexual) crimes. Here are some facts from the german crime statistics: non-germans (people with other nationality, not just immigrants) were suspects for 28.7% of all crimes and 22.2% of all sexual crimes -- hardly a majority.

What is the percentage of immigrants in Germany? According to wiki it's about 12%. 28.7% of all crimes being committed by on 12 % of the population seems like a lot. Must not be reading it right and hope I can get a better explanation.

 

[Spurgy 777]

What is the percentage of immigrants in Germany?

The percentage of non-Germans (I.e. Foreign born German citizens and foreign nationals) in Germany is about 20%, and the average number of tourists in Germany at any one time as a percentage of total population is about 0.7% from my rough calculations. Making a total of about 21% of the population of Germany being non-German on average. I'm on my phone atm so will edit sources in shortly. Here's my tourist calculations though;

Average stay of tourists from Europe is 6.1 nights, assuming international tourists stay a bit longer I rounded that up to 7 days. So to find the average number of tourists in Germany at any one time you do (7/365)*total number of tourists in a year which is around 30 million and you get a number of 575,000 tourists a day, which is about 0.7% of the total population.

 

[Scaff]

What is the percentage of immigrants in Germany? According to wiki it's about 12%. 28.7% of all crimes being committed by on 12 % of the population seems like a lot. Must not be reading it right and hope I can get a better explanation.

Its suspects not convictions (which would be required for it to be "all crimes being committed"), nor does the source say immigrants, its non-Germans, which is wider than the 'immigrants' I suspect are in peoples minds in this thread.

 

[Dotini]

The white races of Europe must perpetually bear the guilt and shame of colonialization and empire. Due to great wealth, liberalism, materialism, individualism and probably a certain amount of narcissism, Europeans have inchoately decided to stop breeding children. But according to the tenets of capitalism, perpetual growth of debt and economic output are absolutely essential; accordingly immigration is an essential feature of modern Europe. Whinging over crime, foreign religions, sexual identity and cultural changes must taper off and come to a halt. The crucial choices were made long ago and there's no going back.

 

[tarnheld]

What is the percentage of immigrants in Germany? According to wiki it's about 12%. 28.7% of all crimes being committed by on 12 % of the population seems like a lot. Must not be reading it right and hope I can get a better explanation.

The 28.7% figure for all crimes is skewed in some ways. Because there are crimes included that can only be commited by non-germans, like breaking asylum law. If you take out all asylum related cases, it's about 21% (assuming the asylum case suspects are not counted twice in the data). Then factor in that only suspects are included and not actual convicted criminals and assume the police is more likely to suspect foreigners and you are slowly getting away from data analysis and into politics. See here for an explanation of the analysis problems. Make up your own mind with the data, i just wanted to show that it is reasonable to assume that foreigners don't make up for more sexual related crimes than they do for overall crimes.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The 28.7% figure for all crimes is skewed in some ways. Because there are crimes included that can only be commited by non-germans, like breaking asylum law. If you take out all asylum related cases, it's about 21% -- just a guess. Then factor in that only suspects are included and not actual convicted criminals and assume the police is more likely to suspect foreigners and you are slowly getting away from data analysis and into politics. See here for an explanation of the analysis problems. Make up your own mind with the data, i just wanted to show that it is reasonable to assume that foreigners don't make up for more sexual related crimes than they do for overall crimes.

Add to that that just over 12% of the German population are either EU-legal citizens originating from nearby EU countries or from Russia/former Bloc countries. Easy to see how some selective stats can skew things

 

[Johnnypenso]

The 28.7% figure for all crimes is skewed in some ways. Because there are crimes included that can only be commited by non-germans, like breaking asylum law. If you take out all asylum related cases, it's about 21% (assuming the asylum case suspects are not counted twice in the data). Then factor in that only suspects are included and not actual convicted criminals and assume the police is more likely to suspect foreigners and you are slowly getting away from data analysis and into politics. See here for an explanation of the analysis problems. Make up your own mind with the data, i just wanted to show that it is reasonable to assume that foreigners don't make up for more sexual related crimes than they do for overall crimes.

Just reading the table of contents in that "study", it's quite obvious there's a political agenda in play and neither the data nor the "conclusions" can be trusted.

 

[FoRiZon]

Just reading the table of contents in that "study", it's quite obvious there's a political agenda in play and neither the data nor the "conclusions" can be trusted.

Also does the news sources people on the other side come up with.

 

[tarnheld]

Just reading the table of contents in that "study", it's quite obvious there's a political agenda in play and neither the data nor the "conclusions" can be trusted.

That is the case for most immigration studies, but the first two chapters give a nice overview over the statistical data distortions and data analysis problems. The data we are talking about is the german federal crime statistic.

 

[Barra333]

Just reading the table of contents in that "study", it's quite obvious there's a political agenda in play and neither the data nor the "conclusions" can be trusted.

You mean the flaws in the data that he readily acknowledges is difficult to obtain accurately?

At least he is up front about it, and not misrepresenting anything, unlike the "Refugee = rapist" crowd.

 

[eran0004]

Swedish media picked up on the bogus Daily Mail article:

http://www.kristianstadsbladet.se/k...-sett-bilden-och-rubriken-och-delat-artikeln/

http://www.svt.se/nyheter/regionalt...0202:falsk-bild-smutskastar-ensamkommande:nyh

Apparently, the Daily Mail have now blocked Swedish readers from accessing the article, in what they claim is a fear that it might violate Swedish law.

I've had a long conversations with a lawyer at the Daily Mail about this whole incident and slowly but surely they're starting to agree that perhaps it wasn't the best article they've ever published. The final nail in the coffin is probably the fact that the young sprinter they claim arrived as an unaccompanied minor and accused of lying about his age turned out to have arrived in 2003 - at the age of six - together with his family and having all the relevant documentations needed. His father went to Sweden ahead of his family to sort everything out with the migration agency and by the time his family joined him they had already been granted residence permit.

 

[Scaff]

The Daily Mail making stuff up to stir up xenophobic hate! Never!

BTW - The story may be blocked in Sweden, but they have not changed a word of the article to highlight that (or the rebuttal) and its still available in the UK.

 

[eran0004]

The Daily Mail making stuff up to stir up xenophobic hate! Never!

BTW - The story may be blocked in Sweden, but they have not changed a word of the article to highlight that (or the rebuttal) and its still available in the UK.

Yep, I'm still talking with the lawyer. She's prepeared to remove one of the boys from the article, but not both.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Also does the news sources people on the other side come up with.

What?

That is the case for most immigration studies, but the first two chapters give a nice overview over the statistical data distortions and data analysis problems. The data we are talking about is the german federal crime statistic.

So let's cherry pick the stuff we think might be unbiased and ignore the obvious political agenda.

You mean the flaws in the data that he readily acknowledges is difficult to obtain accurately?

At least he is up front about it, and not misrepresenting anything, unlike the "Refugee = rapist" crowd.

The fact that the "study" is obviously biased makes it no different than the "refugee = rapist" crowd. In fact, it could make it obviously worse, trying to hide a political agenda behind so called "scientific study". By the way, is there anyone here that is in the "refugee = rapist" crowd, or is that just a generic slander? Names please, if applicable.

 

[FoRiZon]

@Johnnypenso I think Barra sums up my thoughts really.

You mean the flaws in the data that he readily acknowledges is difficult to obtain accurately?

At least he is up front about it, and not misrepresenting anything, unlike the "Refugee = rapist" crowd.

 

[Johnnypenso]

@Johnnypenso I think Barra sums up my thoughts really.

So you're cool with the obvious political agenda in the study and feel that it's negated by including a caveat. Right then.

 

[Joel]

You mean the flaws in the data that he readily acknowledges is difficult to obtain accurately?

At least he is up front about it, and not misrepresenting anything, unlike the "Refugee = rapist" crowd.

"Here are stats that prove immigrants are more likely to commit crimes" ---> Statistical analysis.

"Here's some quantitative and qualitative reasons why these stats may be misleading" ---> Political agenda.

 

[tarnheld]

So let's cherry pick the stuff we think might be unbiased and ignore the obvious political agenda.

Can you please point me to the obvious political agenda that is pushed with untrustworthy data? BTW i was referring to that paper for explanation of data biases inherent in crime statistics to explain how i handled the BKA data, for another one see here.

 

[FoRiZon]

So you're cool with the obvious political agenda in the study and feel that it's negated by including a caveat. Right then.

You typically provides some news sources to support your arguments. Isnt that the exact same thing? More even as its the media that seeks more traffic unlike the research paper.

Dont be hypocritical, please.

 

[Barra333]

the way, is there anyone here that is in the "refugee = rapist" crowd, or is that just a generic slander? Names please, if applicable.

These two quotes don't say it explicitly, but the sentiment is pretty close.

I know why feminists don't oppose current immigration wave, they can finally have their rape culture and patriarchy they talk about all the time.

Strange thing is that I see women wearing what they want on western streets without being molested, and i also see gays being able to live and do as they please without being molested. You think that would be the case if Shariah is implemented in Europe? Something a major part of Muslims would like to be the case?

 

[mister dog]

These two quotes don't say it explicitly, but the sentiment is pretty close.

That's precious; a post saying women and gay people could be molested shouldn't they conform to Sharia law equals saying all refugees are rapists.

How far did you people sink in your apologist rhetoric, that one can't even state the obvious with regards to Sharia law without being labelled a bloody xenophobe...

 

[Scaff]

That's precious; a post saying women and gay people could be molested shouldn't they conform to Sharia law equals saying all refugees are rapists.

How far did you people sink in your apologist rhetoric, that one can't even state the obvious with regards to Sharia law without being labelled a bloody xenophobe...

Now aside from Sharia Law not being a single unified things, you have made reference to it's global spread being the main aim of pretty much all Muslims on numerous occasions....

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/search/2448847/?q=sharia&o=date&c[user][0]=203203

...and that you have stated (in the quote above) that should Sharia law be implemented in Europe (I can only assume by some kind of magic) it will lead to women being open to molestation.

Now given that the majority of the current migrants/refugees into Europe are from Muslim states then I can certainly see how such a conclusion could be reached from you posting history.

Certainly its how you come across to me. Now it may not be what you want to come across, but if that's the case I would suggest taking a good look at how you present your posts.

 

[mister dog]

I can't stop people making far fetched assumptions when that suits their agendas. They will pull things out of context whatever you post trying to label you as a bigot, whilst they don't realize they are acting like bigots themselves in the process.

Funny how you try to make me look like the odd one here singling out that Sharia quote, are you insinuating that Sharia law actually wouldn't lead to women that don't conform to it being molested (and with molested i mean both physically hurt or sexually abused) and gay people being prosecuted?

 

[Scaff]

I can't stop people making far fetched assumptions when that suits their agendas. They will pull things out of context whatever you post trying to label you as a bigot, whilst they don't realize they are acting like bigots themselves in the process.

Funny how you try to make me look like the odd one here singling out that Sharia quote, are you insinuating that Sharia law actually wouldn't lead to women that don't conform to it being molested (and with molested i mean both physically hurt or sexually abused) and gay people being prosecuted?

Which version of sharia law?

Oh and I haven't said you are anything, I've said how you on occasions come across based on more than a single post. That you object to how you come across is based on your words.

 

[mister dog]

Which version of sharia law?

Is there a 'version' of Sharia law that allows women on the streets wearing what they please, and tolerates gay people as normal members of society?

Oh and I haven't said you are anything, I've said how you on occasions come across based on more than a single post. That you object to how you come across is based on your words.

I don't mind really, it's just a bit obvious how everyone here tries to gang up on people that have more conservative/right winged thoughts when it comes to immigration, and how every word or sentence is scrutinized and pulled out of context.

 

[Scaff]

Is there a 'version' of Sharia law that allows women on the streets wearing what they please, and tolerates gay people as normal members of society?

There is no one single version of Sharia law that is universally agreed across the board.
They differ in what part of the legal system comes from Sharia and what doesn't.

For example some countries allow the operation of Sharia law to be followed for financial purposes (which allows banking to be managed without debt) or for business agreements, or for the settlement of family disputes.

Now all of the above are allowed to operate in a number of European countries, but they do not override local law and also exist for the Jewish and orthodox Christian faiths.

Nor is it a fact (yet it often gets spoken about as if it were) that all Muslims (or even a majority) want to impose the strictest form of Sharia Law on everyone, yet oddly that is the context that you (and others) repeatedly phrase it as. The reason why a good number of the refugees are arriving in Europe is because ISIS are trying to impose just that on them.

Now take again the Fundamentalist Christians who want to impose a strict legal system based upon a specific interpretation of Christian law, that's fairly close to the view of a good number of right wing US politicians. That would result in a massive undermining of Gay and Women's rights, if they were able to put in place what they wish (some have even mooted banning women from wearing Yoga Pants as they are an immoral temptation to men). Or the Christian groups that have used money and influence to tip he legal system in a number of African countries massively against the gay community (including going for the death penalty), again based on Christian Law.What about the Orthodox Jews who want pretty much the same thing?

I don't for a second think they represent the majority of Christians or Jews, and I don't for a second think you do either. However your posts have pretty much straight out said that is the aim of the vast majority of Muslims, despite the fact that millions have fled just such a thing and the dissenting voices inside those countries that do operate a hard-line version of Sharia are also Muslim.

I don't mind really, it's just a bit obvious how everyone here tries to gang up on people that have more conservative/right winged thoughts when it comes to immigration, and how every word or sentence is scrutinized and pulled out of context.

Any context that exists in your posts is from your presentation of them, and quite frankly if you don't like your world view being challenged that don't volunteer it publicly.

Just as you are free (within the AUP) to voice your views, others are free to discuss them, disagree with them and state why they disagree with them.

If you post something I agree with, then I will say so (and explain why), if you post something I disagree with, then I will say so (and explain why). If you post as fact and support those facts I will accept it, if you post something as fact and its not supported by facts then I will call you out on it. Just like I will do with any member.

That is, and always has been how the site operates. As long as the AUP is followed then discussion and rebuttal are free and fair. No one, and I mean no one gets a pass on that.

 

[mister dog]

There is no one single version of Sharia law that is universally agreed across the board.
They differ in what part of the legal system comes from Sharia and what doesn't.

For example some countries allow the operation of Sharia law to be followed for financial purposes (which allows banking to be managed without debt) or for business agreements, or for the settlement of family disputes.

Now all of the above are allowed to operate in a number of European countries, but they do not override local law and also exist for the Jewish and orthodox Christian faiths.

Giving the example of different forms of strictness or implementation of Sharia law, doesn't take away that it states women should be covered up and gay people should be prosecuted, which was my point.

Nor is it a fact (yet it often gets spoken about as if it were) that all Muslims (or even a majority) want to impose the strictest form of Sharia Law on everyone, yet oddly that is the context that you (and others) repeatedly phrase it as.

No it isn't a fact that all Muslims want this. What i said is that i think there's a lot of them that would like the Sharia to be implemented worldwide. Probably even a majority.

The reason why a good number of the refugees are arriving in Europe is because ISIS are trying to impose just that on them.

A good number yes, but the majority of them aren't even from Syria or Iraq. Biggest motivation for most of them is economically as far as i can tell.

Any context that exists in your posts is from your presentation of them, and quite frankly if you don't like your world view being challenged that don't volunteer it publicly.

Like I said i don't mind, and the folk that do agree with me will understand it how i want it to be perceived so it balances out in the end.

 

[Scaff]

Giving the example of different forms of strictness or implementation of Sharia law, doesn't take away that it states women should be covered up and gay people should be prosecuted, which was my point.

Apart from Tourags and Berbers (to name two off the top of my head), both Matriarchal Muslim societies in which women run the show, have equal or greater rights than men, men wear the view, pre-martial sex is not taboo (quite the opposite), women determine when a divorce happens and no-one gives a stuff about gays.

Oh and if you really want to get particular about it, it states that both men and women should dress modestly, and how that gets interpreted in a wide range of countries with differing levels of Sharia varies quite, quite massively. Something I know quite well from personal experience.

Now I personally don't think that any law should be based on religious texts, the difference it would seem is that I apply that to all faiths and I understand that of all those faiths not everyone wants to see enforced (as quite frankly they are the ones on the receiving end).

No it isn't a fact that all Muslims want this. What i said is that i think there's a lot of them that would like the Sharia to be implemented worldwide. Probably even a majority.

Thinking it doesn't make it true.

A good number yes, but the majority of them aren't even from Syria or Iraq. Biggest motivation for most of them is economically as far as i can tell.

I'm not just talking about in Europe, so yes the majority of them (as in worldwide refugees are from Syria and Iraq, as well as Afghanistan - you know the countries currently facing nutters who love a bit of strict Sharia), however don't dismiss places like Eritrea, which has a government (I use that term loosely) committing some of the worst human rights violations on the planet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Eritrea

As such I'm going to have to take a great deal more than a probably on it in terms of the global situation, and I've already made my position clear on those that are not genuine in terms of European migration.

Like I said i don't mind, and the folk that do agree with me will understand it how i want it to be perceived so it balances out in the end.

Odd then that you need to throw the term bigot around at anyone who disagreed with you, its almost like it did mind.