Being inmigrant just means that you moved from one country to another.
But then there’s a package of behaviors and conditions that come with that transition. Migration carries a huge expense and personal risk, it puts you under a higher degree of state surveillance, and the immigration process screens out a large component of the overall population (traditionally, young under educated men, the primary participants in criminalized behaviors).
Consequently, it means you’re more likely to be “good” than your native peers.
Anyway I would not start doing that kind of reasoning. I know it’s with good intentions. But it gives space to those who want to say that some group of people are bad just because a collateral reason.
What if statistics would say that inmigrants do more crime? What if someone make a logical reason justifying that moving for one place to another makes you a bad person?
I prefer not entering into that arguments. Each person should be judged by it’s actions, and not by which racial, national or any other not related group they belong.
Also, I refuse to be called “worse” just because I did not emigrated, just saying.
What if statistics would say that inmigrants do more crime?
Then we’d likely see a reversed set of incentives - lower expenses, fewer personal risks, less surveillance, and a screening process that encourages a surplus youth male population.
Each person should be judged by it’s actions
That’s expensive and inefficient. Far cheaper to apply a regional/ethnic heuristic, even if it is less reliable per capita. Build a big beautiful wall to keep all the Bad Guys Out, because you know they’re statistically bad, rather than staffing the border with Personality Inspectors and Minority Report style future-crime prediction police.
Also, I refuse to be called “worse” just because I did not emigrated, just saying.
You’re statistically worse for staying in your shithole country, rather than coming to the Best Country On Earth.
Immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than U.S.-born Americans, studies find
Statistically speaking it makes you good.
But then there’s a package of behaviors and conditions that come with that transition. Migration carries a huge expense and personal risk, it puts you under a higher degree of state surveillance, and the immigration process screens out a large component of the overall population (traditionally, young under educated men, the primary participants in criminalized behaviors).
Consequently, it means you’re more likely to be “good” than your native peers.
I’m not a US citizen.
Anyway I would not start doing that kind of reasoning. I know it’s with good intentions. But it gives space to those who want to say that some group of people are bad just because a collateral reason.
What if statistics would say that inmigrants do more crime? What if someone make a logical reason justifying that moving for one place to another makes you a bad person?
I prefer not entering into that arguments. Each person should be judged by it’s actions, and not by which racial, national or any other not related group they belong.
Also, I refuse to be called “worse” just because I did not emigrated, just saying.
Then we’d likely see a reversed set of incentives - lower expenses, fewer personal risks, less surveillance, and a screening process that encourages a surplus youth male population.
That’s expensive and inefficient. Far cheaper to apply a regional/ethnic heuristic, even if it is less reliable per capita. Build a big beautiful wall to keep all the Bad Guys Out, because you know they’re statistically bad, rather than staffing the border with Personality Inspectors and Minority Report style future-crime prediction police.
You’re statistically worse for staying in your shithole country, rather than coming to the Best Country On Earth.