Emerson, Manitoba border crossings

[Aylmer]

Closing the border would not decrease crime. In fact, it may do the opposite;

"Statistics Canada has now released findings from a spatial analysis of crime data in Canadian cities that suggest the percentage of recent immigrants in various regions of Toronto and Montreal is inversely proportional to all types of violent crime; in the latter case, it concluded that while various socio-economic factors increase crime, 'the proportion of recent immigrants lowers the violent crime rate; it acts as a protective factor.' "

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Closing the border would not decrease crime. In fact, it may do the opposite;

"Statistics Canada has now released findings from a spatial analysis of crime data in Canadian cities that suggest the percentage of recent immigrants in various regions of Toronto and Montreal is inversely proportional to all types of violent crime; in the latter case, it concluded that while various socio-economic factors increase crime, 'the proportion of recent immigrants lowers the violent crime rate; it acts as a protective factor.' "

Well, yeah, obviously, the best way to lower the quantity of reported crimes is to have all neighborhoods be full of illegal immigrants. No one is ever going to want to attract attention to themselves by reporting something (willingly walking into the lions' den, basically), so the official crime rate will be bordering on zero.

Similarly, it's not hard to imagine that in a city where the police force is mostly white and all the residents are black, and where there's a relationship of distrust for various reasons (some of them reasonable), the official crime rates might be low, 'cause the residents won't want to have anything to do with police if they can help it (it might backfire if they do -- say you call them to report something, and they end up finding stuff to charge _you_ with (!!!), you'll learn your lesson quickly!)

Seems pretty evident to me that recent immigrants will generally be more reticent to call the police on average, for various valid reasons (say, ingrained distrust of police based on their experiences back home, or lack of good mastery of the official language required to deal with them quickly and without trouble).

Therefore, it follows that we can expect the reported crime rate to get noticeably lower when neighborhoods are full of fresh immigrants.

[Aylmer]

You should read the article. You may find it interesting.
As you're not a fan of facts or figures, here's the harrowing account of the local police constable in one of those scary brown neighbourhoods:

"Constable Joseph Ho says that when he started working with the local police response unit four and a half years ago, he didn’t know what to expect. The neighbourhood fits the police profile of being at high risk for crime: its poverty levels, its density, its concentration of teenagers. Now he’s less concerned that the newcomers will commit crime than that they will become victims of it. “If they don’t speak English, or don’t understand how to call 911, or they don’t trust the police because of how the police behave in their home countries, that puts them at risk,” he says. When I ask him what the biggest issue is when it comes to youth crime in the neighbourhood, he thinks for a moment, and the worst he can come up with is loitering. In Thorncliffe, as elsewhere, the high concentration of immigrants has created a safer community. “Summer nights are really nice,” he says. “There are a lot of young families out. People are out on the street talking to each other.” "

[mistercorporate]

Originally Posted by lio45

Well, yeah, obviously, the best way to lower the quantity of reported crimes is to have all neighborhoods be full of illegal immigrants. No one is ever going to want to attract attention to themselves by reporting something (willingly walking into the lions' den, basically), so the official crime rate will be bordering on zero.

Similarly, it's not hard to imagine that in a city where the police force is mostly white and all the residents are black, and where there's a relationship of distrust for various reasons (some of them reasonable), the official crime rates might be low, 'cause the residents won't want to have anything to do with police if they can help it (it might backfire if they do -- say you call them to report something, and they end up finding stuff to charge _you_ with (!!!), you'll learn your lesson quickly!)

Seems pretty evident to me that recent immigrants will generally be more reticent to call the police on average, for various valid reasons (say, ingrained distrust of police based on their experiences back home, or lack of good mastery of the official language required to deal with them quickly and without trouble).

Therefore, it follows that we can expect the reported crime rate to get noticeably lower when neighborhoods are full of fresh immigrants.

New immigrants have lower crime rates and far lower incarceration rates than the native born, in Canada. It's mostly cultural as the ones we let in legally tend to be educated, better educated than even locals typically. The problem starts when we bring in illegal immigrants from places like the Middle East and Somalia, communities whose criminal track records in other countries frankly is rather terrible.

[cornholio]

Legal immigrants who actually live here tend to be for the most part have a good work ethic and motivation. Its not easy to move countries and go through the insane process etc. Most people do not do it because its hard. Hard working people do hard stuff. Hard working people don't commit blue collar crimes, they have higher motivation, work ethic and intelligence then that. Moving countries is often the hardest thing a person does in their life, harder then getting a degree, or some good job, or producing children etc. Keep in mind I said blue collar crimes, such as hacking your neighbor to death, or robbing a bank etc.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

As you're not a fan of facts or figures

This is a gross mischaracterisation of my position, which as I clearly explained more than once is that it's possible for data to be skewed or flawed, so it's usually worth it to use one's head rather than always accept all data as some kind of sacred truth.

"Oil and gas is only 2% of Alberta's GDP!"

"Foreign buyers are only 1% of Vancouver real estate purchases!"

etc.

That kind of stuff might be true on paper, depending on how the person compiling decides to handle the figures, but that kind of data is obviously to be taken with a huge grain of salt.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by mistercorporate

New immigrants have lower crime rates and far lower incarceration rates than the native born, in Canada. It's mostly cultural as the ones we let in legally tend to be educated, better educated than even locals typically. The problem starts when we bring in illegal immigrants from places like the Middle East and Somalia, communities whose criminal track records in other countries frankly is rather terrible.

In any event, I am not sure "immigrants" as a broad reference group is the best indicator to use to answer this question.

Some immigrant (or "newcomer") groups have higher crime rates, and some have lower crime rates. It also can vary from city to city. The highest crime rates in Ottawa for example are found in certain "newcomer" groups and their kids.

We'd probably need more granularity in order to draw some meaningful conclusions, but then we'd run into dangerous non-PC territory.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by mistercorporate

New immigrants have lower crime rates and far lower incarceration rates than the native born, in Canada. It's mostly cultural as the ones we let in legally tend to be educated, better educated than even locals typically. The problem starts when we bring in illegal immigrants from places like the Middle East and Somalia, communities whose criminal track records in other countries frankly is rather terrible.

Obviously, for citizens, income levels and education are much much better predictors of the likelihood to commit crimes than ethnic origin or the exact date of their or their family/ancestors' arrival in the country. No argument there.

[mistercorporate]

Originally Posted by Acajack

In any event, I am not sure "immigrants" as a broad reference group is the best indicator to use to answer this question.

Some immigrant (or "newcomer") groups have higher crime rates, and some have lower crime rates. It also can vary from city to city. The highest crime rates in Ottawa for example are found in certain "newcomer" groups and their kids.

We'd probably need more granularity in order to draw some meaningful conclusions, but then we'd run into dangerous non-PC territory.

What do you mean non-PC territory? Just say what you know.

Immigrants in general causing crimes at a much lower rate than the native born is a long established verifyable fact in this country. I'd go even further (non-PC stuff if you will), check out the prison populations in Anglo-Canada, overwhelmingly WASP, locally born blacks and aboriginals, hardly any people born outside this country. The same can be said for welfare recipients, check out the lineups outside the social assistance offices in Toronto, overwhlemingly the same demographics as above. This is the value of a points based immigration system, a few more years of this free for all refugee influx from the Middle East and that may all change.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by mistercorporate

Immigrants in general causing crimes at a much lower rate than the native born is a long established verifyable fact in this country. I'd go even further (non-PC stuff if you will), check out the prison populations in Anglo-Canada, overwhelmingly WASP, locally born blacks and aboriginals, hardly any people born outside this country. The same can be said for welfare recipients, check out the lineups outside the social assistance offices in Toronto, overwhlemingly the same demographics as above. This is the value of a points based immigration system, a few more years of this free for all refugee influx from the Middle East and that may all change.

The other thing that tends to happen is even if you carefully select immigrants, a couple generations later the descendants tend to be less upwardly mobile and more similar to the native population, because they are the full cross section of society, not just those few who are particularly driven and able to follow through and immigrate. The immigrants are typically more fertile than the native-born population.

If you pick your immigrants carefully it's likely you'll get a temporary bump in economic performance and reduction in crime. But the demographic expansion is permanent.

Is it the case that Canada is underpopulated and adding more people is improving our standard of living? If so, why are younger people so screwed over when it comes to finding housing, getting affordable education, and getting better jobs? Why are commute times in Canadian cities so terrible?

[mistercorporate]

Originally Posted by someone123

The other thing that tends to happen is even if you carefully select immigrants, a couple generations later the descendants tend to be less upwardly mobile and more similar to the native population, because they are the full cross section of society, not just those few who are particularly driven and able to follow through and immigrate. The immigrants are typically more fertile than the native-born population.

If you pick your immigrants carefully it's likely you'll get a temporary bump in economic performance and reduction in crime. But the demographic expansion is permanent.

Is it the case that Canada is underpopulated and adding more people is improving our standard of living? If so, why are younger people so screwed over when it comes to finding housing, getting affordable education, and getting better jobs? Why are commute times in Canadian cities so terrible?

1) "screwed over when it comes to finding housing": Real estate bubble due to foreign capital and local speculators.

2) "affordable education": More immigrants should help with this by increasing the tax base which is currently stagnant due to dying baby boomers only partially offset by immigration.

3) "getting better jobs": Immigrants create businesses (that hire people) at a much higher rate than the native born.

4) "commute times": Agreed, immigration doesn't necessarily help with this, we need to have manageable levels in order to absorb them both culturally and to create enough infrastructure to keep up with growth. 100,000-150,000 immigrants/year would be a healthy number I would think.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by mistercorporate

By arguing against highly controlled borders, the likes of you.

I haven't argued against highly controlled borders - not once.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by mistercorporate

1) "screwed over when it comes to finding housing": Real estate bubble due to foreign capital and local speculators.

Demographically do you think it would be possible for demand for housing to stay high if immigration were cut back and most of the population growth in Toronto and Vancouver evaporated overnight? I don't think immigration is the only cause but it is a contributing factor, and probably a necessary factor. If you read articles from more than a few months ago (when this issue started upsetting a lot of people) you will see examples where Canadian officials comment on how great it is that immigration to Canada has inflated housing prices.

2) "affordable education": More immigrants should help with this by increasing the tax base which is currently stagnant due to dying baby boomers only partially offset by immigration.

Here's an article about UBC: http://vancouversun.com/news/staff-b...re-white-males

UBC is 65% visible minority. Metro Vancouver is around 45% visible minority and BC is around 27% visible minority. White males at UBC are underrepresented by about 1/3 compared to the local population, and more than 1/2 compared to the provincial population. According to the administration this seems to be OK; mostly they worry about minority issues and specific desirable fields where women are underrepresented. If somebody is advocating for the poor white males that have terrible post-secondary education prospects and economic prospects in general then they're not doing a very good job because I rarely hear a peep about the issue through official channels.

I assume the situation at SFU is similar. UBC and SFU together make up about 2/3 of the university spots in BC so competitiveness or discrimination in these schools is a province-wide issue. A lot of kids who grow up in Vancouver expect that, if they go to university, they're probably going to have to leave town.

(It's also apparently OK for Trinity Western University to ban sexually active gay students.)

I agree this is probably more of a BC issue than a Canada-wide issue at the moment.

[Aylmer]

There is definitely a problem in terms of boys falling behind in schools and subsequently in university. Of course, as a white male, if you do get a university degree, you will still face fewer obstacles than your comparably-educated peers in terms of hiring, upwards mobility and pay. But the new gaps in terms of educational attainment among boys is definitely an issue which we'd do very well to address.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by lio45

This is a gross mischaracterisation of my position, which as I clearly explained more than once is that it's possible for data to be skewed or flawed, so it's usually worth it to use one's head rather than always accept all data as some kind of sacred truth.

I agree that critical thinking is essential. But in order to be critical, you should have well-founded reasons to be skeptical and not just a convenient "gut feeling". You can't be critical of data, but not critical of your own assumptions or anecdotes. It isn't a one-way street.
So if you think that crime statistics may be tainted by underreporting, show me some hard facts about underreporting and how often it happens. It's that simple.

Anyways, here's something interesting:

Two robust patterns emerge. first, new immigrants do not have a significant impact on the property crime rate, but with time spent in Canada, a 10% increase in the recent-immigrant share or established-immigrant share decreases the property crime rate by 2% to 3%. Neither underreporting to police nor the dilution of the criminal pool by the addition of law-abiding immigrants can fully explain the size of the estimates. This suggests that immigration has a spillover effect, such as changing neighbourhood characteristics, which reduces crime rates in the long run.

From page 23, which addresses underreporting:

Studies have found that cultural background affects an individual’s preferences, behaviour, and economic outcomes. In the context of this paper, cultural background might play a role in an individual’s willingness to contact authorities when a crime occurs.

[...]

Therefore, although there exists a significant difference between immigrants and natives in terms of the frequency of contacting police, the crime reduction effect of immigrants cannot be attributed to the underreporting behaviour.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

There is definitely a problem in terms of boys falling behind in schools and subsequently in university. Of course, as a white male, if you do get a university degree, you will still face fewer obstacles than your comparably-educated peers in terms of hiring, upwards mobility and pay. But the new gaps in terms of educational attainment among boys is definitely an issue which we'd do very well to address.

It's kinda buried in the article, but they start with 74.2 cents earned by an average full-time female worker compared to an average man in 2014. That seems large. Then, okay, okay, they admit that men work longer hours. Actually the hourly gap was 87.9 cents to a dollar; less than half.

But women also don't work in the same fields in the same proportions. They mention that too, then they admit that the gap narrows further but choose not to give any numbers. They quote somebody who says that a gap of around 5 cents is still significant. That may be, but then again there are other differences, like the fact that women tend to work in the public service more (more job security? If you lose your job you aren't counted anymore! Are pensions accounted for in earnings?) and take a lot more leave time. The article basically fails to establish anything, and is a better than average description of what is a pretty frequently discussed and major modern political issue in Canada.

I think the more telling thing here is that some victim-group narratives have a lot more legs than others in the media and in the political realm. Women tend to garner more sympathy than men today in Canada, for whatever reasons. A lot of people in big cities are also more sympathetic to immigrants than they are to their own compatriots who live in poor rural areas, although I think that is much farther along in the US than it is in Canada.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by someone123

A lot of people in big cities are also more sympathetic to immigrants than they are to their own compatriots who live in poor rural areas.

Well this is an interesting dichotomy. Are immigrants not compatriots?

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Well this is an interesting dichotomy. Are immigrants not compatriots?

Ehh, prospective immigrants or refugees. The key thing to me is the lack of empathy for only some poor people. But like I said I think it is a bigger phenomenon in the US, both in terms of the presence of the poverty itself and the disconnect.

To be honest you've demonstrated a bit of a pattern of homing in on relatively insubstantial parts of my posts rather than responding to the meat of my arguments. Maybe you agree with the other stuff?

[Aylmer]

I'm a stickler. It's important to say what we mean and mean what we say. And what you may consider insubstantial can often say a lot about your viewpoint, whether or not you want it to.


Regarding your other comments, sympathy isn't a zero-sum game; you can be sympathetic towards women and minorities and rural regions. It isn't a contest, and if it were, it sure wouldn't be one I'd want to be competing in. Nobody wants your pity - people want to be able to live well. I'm certain that most women wouldn't hesitate for a second to throw away your sympathy in exchange for equal pay, and a refugee would rather be a contributing member of society than the object of your pity (or scorn). And in any case, I would assume that rural Canada wants something more than the sympathies and facebook 'likes' of twentysomethings in Yorkville or Saint-Henri.

Are there problems that don't recieve as much attention in Canada? Things like poor rural regions or male drop-outs? For sure. But it's not because we're trying to address other problems that we can't also solve those ones too. Conversely, it's not because we decide not to address women's or minority issues that Cape Breton will suddenly be awash in government aid. Women doing well is good for all of Canada. Rural Canada doing well is good for all of Canada. Refugees and new immigrants doing well is good for all of Canada.

So what do I think of the rest of your argument? I think that pitting one societal problem against another is an ineffective way of resolving any of them.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

I agree that critical thinking is essential. But in order to be critical, you should have well-founded reasons to be skeptical and not just a convenient "gut feeling". You can't be critical of data, but not critical of your own assumptions or anecdotes. It isn't a one-way street.
So if you think that crime statistics may be tainted by underreporting, show me some hard facts about underreporting and how often it happens. It's that simple.

I can give you two real-life examples of underreporting crime. Among other things, I am in the process of fixing up (and overseeing, when it's stuff I can't legally do myself) one of my properties in a nearly all black neighborhood that used to be rough a few years ago, but is improving. Windows got broken on it while I was away in Quebec (clearly just vandalism by teens having fun -- I found the rocks in the house) and I didn't bother reporting. Then one of my NEW windows got again broken recently, after I replaced them -- still did not get reported.

Those two instances of crime against property (or whatever it's technically called) were not recorded, and therefore do not officially exist; they are not going to impact the official crime rate of this black neighborhood.

If I'd bothered, I'm sure it would have changed some data somewhere. (And not done me any good.)

Now I know all the neighbors in that area, and they know me; and I've also got the lights on over there... and I'm hoping it won't be a problem now.

Multiply this by 100 or 1,000 or 10,000 and you can quickly have a discrepancy between reported crime and actual crime. Underreporting DOES happen. Now, please don't ask me to provide lots of solid data on underreporting -- you'd remind me of fellow SSPer Crawford when he was insisting that undiscovered voter fraud is undiscovered, therefore does not officially exist and therefore is not a problem at all because the data shows there's no voter fraud.

Underreporting exists (even your links acknowledge it as an important factor), that was my point. Does it explain everything? Maybe, maybe not. As pointed out already, it's obvious that selected immigrants (selected for their wealth and/or education) will be less crime-prone than people who are poorer and less educated; wealth and education are much better indicators than ethnic origin.