Thoughts and prayers for Sweden

[Rozalia]

Hahaha, this article still links to the same study, comes to the same conclusion, and ultimately refutes your own argument. This article supports my claims, not yours. Thanks for doing my research for me.  

 

Ironically, this article also features a study done to account the difference in crime due to poverty, something you were so desperately wanting me to argue. And this one is from 2013! Imagine that. 

 

https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article-abstract/53/3/456/542980/Crime-as-a-Price-of-Inequality-The-Gap-in?redirectedFrom=fulltext

 

Again, these "statistics" (including the link above) are not normally collected in the yearly data gathering. These are studies in which sociologist and criminologists spend time and money collecting and analyzing years of data. The study linked, again, has justified its existence (and its grant money) through believing the data would show a significant difference between 1970s and 1990s. When there was none, despite Sweden's social/economic culture changing drastically within those years, it was concluded that it would be a waste of time and money to do one anytime in the near future, much less every !@#$ year. 

 

I think that people who support Trump are bringing drugs, they are bringing crime... and some, I assume, are good people. 

 

In all honesty, I can see why people voted for Trump. Some Trump voters voted for Obama in the election before, wanting to "change" Washington. Desperation and anxiety can push people to do irrational things. What I can't understand is how people would want to build a cult of personality around an internet troll. I mean, for god's sake, I can understand someone accomplished like Napoleon, or Alexander, or Augustus. You would think you would want to build a cult of personality around someone actually competent. So yes, I do think that Trump supporters who blindly continue to build him up into this figure of greatness despite daily evidence otherwise are idiots who objectively don't have a strong grasp of reality. 

 

Just speaking garbage again like when you laughably tried to claim Sweden was like the US in regards to immigrant crime. You know nothing on the matter and when information is put in front of you, you know not how to understand it. The article outright states that they historically commit more crime and the source shows over-representation for them. If I was charitable I'd assume you see the "things have not changed greatly since the last study" so you assume that is a killing blow for you to use. It ain't. It still exists as a problem as stated in the study and what we need to know is if it has gotten worse, hence we need the publishing of such things for 2002 onward. The study also lets not forget identifies that certain immigrant groups are far worse than others (something I've said to you several times) which are groups that currently get focus and more of are being imported, though of course their overall share in crime was low due to their low numbers.

 

https://www.bra.se/download/18.cba82f7130f475a2f1800025850/1371914734437/2005_crime_among_persons_born_in_sweden_and_other_countries.pdf

 

The study overall is very fair from what I can see, it certainly ain't a study done by certain obviously biased groups. I certainly would not based off what they see quite put it like they do but I can recognise I am coloured by certain bias that certainly would not quite have been present in 2005 when this was taken. However that again works against you. The fact you would rather not have a new one and have us stumble in the dark without proper data shows how afraid you are.

 

Nice try. I was talking simply the riots and made that fact clear every time you tried to claim otherwise. So more dishonesty.

 

Wrong, wrong, wrong. You amaze me in how damn wrong you always are. Such statistics are collected and have been collected since 2002 by Sweden but they simply haven't been published. Sweden is heavily under fire for its policy and publishing such a study on the data they have locked up somewhere to show that they are correct in what they say regarding immigrants would be easy and well worth any cost. They don't however because it would show otherwise, the same reason why you cowardly say no to such statistics. Of course its possible that Sweden has destroyed such data and I'd say its likely as the public ever in future finding out the full scale of data the government had on their hands (which they covered up) would be such a massive amplification against immigrants... oh boy.

 

As I told the likes of Rahl. Going down to that level simply means you are the one who gets beaten and humiliated. The people you attack look better every time you do.

 

His opponent is the MSM who needs fumigating and the (Corporate) Democrats who simply need to stop existing. In addition while I know you think they are no real problems, such a thing as trade deals and immigration are and have been for a long time massive concerns. If Trump addresses that by ripping up the likes of the TPP and building a wall then he will have supporters for life for such things. As I've said, you just don't know how people work like so many on your side. When a concern like immigration comes up even if you think its nonsense you must address it regardless as otherwise it will build and build. Pretending no issue exists and being dishonest will backfire and make you lose, simple.

Edited March 5, 2017 by Rozalia

[vonnorman]

Stop,just stop

 

"The unemployment rate rose from 7% in 1980 to 11% in 1982, then declined to 5% in 1988. The inflation rate declined from 10% in 1980 to 4% in 1988.[2]

 

Some economists have stated that Reagan's policies were an important part of bringing about the second longest peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history.[29][30] During the Reagan administration, the American economy went from a GDP growth of -0.3% in 1980 to 4.1% in 1988 (in constant 2005 dollars), averaging 7.91% annual growth in current dollars.[31] This reduced the unemployment rate by 1.6%, from 7.1% in 1980 to 5.5% in 1988.[32][33] A net job increase of about 21 million also occurred through mid-1990. Reagan's administration is the only one not to have raised the minimum wage.[34] The inflation rate, 13.5% in 1980, fell to 4.1% in 1988"

Source?

[Vicente Martinez]

Reaganomics is a failure. If you poll economists that agree you're naturally going to have their support.

I've made a point and have provided statistical evidence to prove that point,you on the other hand,have provided 0 evidence to prove your point,if you can't provide an explanation for your argument then your argument is simply defeated.I guess everything that disproves your point is either incorrect or right wing propaganda,but hey,numbers don't lie

Edited March 6, 2017 by Vincent de Beer

[Vicente Martinez]

Source?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

[ComradeMilton]

I've made a point and have provided statistical evidence to prove that point,you on the other hand,have provided 0 evidence to prove your point,if you can't provide an explanation for your argument then your argument is simply defeated.I guess everything that disproves your point is either incorrect or right wing propaganda,but hey,numbers don't lie

I disagree.

[vonnorman]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

Sweet, i love a good read thank you

[Caecus]

 

Just speaking garbage again like when you laughably tried to claim Sweden was like the US in regards to immigrant crime. You know nothing on the matter and when information is put in front of you, you know not how to understand it. The article outright states that they historically commit more crime and the source shows over-representation for them. If I was charitable I'd assume you see the "things have not changed greatly since the last study" so you assume that is a killing blow for you to use. It ain't. It still exists as a problem as stated in the study and what we need to know is if it has gotten worse, hence we need the publishing of such things for 2002 onward. The study also lets not forget identifies that certain immigrant groups are far worse than others (something I've said to you several times) which are groups that currently get focus and more of are being imported, though of course their overall share in crime was low due to their low numbers.

 

https://www.bra.se/download/18.cba82f7130f475a2f1800025850/1371914734437/2005_crime_among_persons_born_in_sweden_and_other_countries.pdf

 

The study overall is very fair from what I can see, it certainly ain't a study done by certain obviously biased groups. I certainly would not based off what they see quite put it like they do but I can recognise I am coloured by certain bias that certainly would not quite have been present in 2005 when this was taken. However that again works against you. The fact you would rather not have a new one and have us stumble in the dark without proper data shows how afraid you are.

 

Nice try. I was talking simply the riots and made that fact clear every time you tried to claim otherwise. So more dishonesty.

 

Wrong, wrong, wrong. You amaze me in how damn wrong you always are. Such statistics are collected and have been collected since 2002 by Sweden but they simply haven't been published. Sweden is heavily under fire for its policy and publishing such a study on the data they have locked up somewhere to show that they are correct in what they say regarding immigrants would be easy and well worth any cost. They don't however because it would show otherwise, the same reason why you cowardly say no to such statistics. Of course its possible that Sweden has destroyed such data and I'd say its likely as the public ever in future finding out the full scale of data the government had on their hands (which they covered up) would be such a massive amplification against immigrants... oh boy.

 

As I told the likes of Rahl. Going down to that level simply means you are the one who gets beaten and humiliated. The people you attack look better every time you do.

 

His opponent is the MSM who needs fumigating and the (Corporate) Democrats who simply need to stop existing. In addition while I know you think they are no real problems, such a thing as trade deals and immigration are and have been for a long time massive concerns. If Trump addresses that by ripping up the likes of the TPP and building a wall then he will have supporters for life for such things. As I've said, you just don't know how people work like so many on your side. When a concern like immigration comes up even if you think its nonsense you must address it regardless as otherwise it will build and build. Pretending no issue exists and being dishonest will backfire and make you lose, simple.

 

 

The better question is, why do you think another study will show anything different? It obviously didn't in the last one. Did something drastically change? Did the crime rate spike, suggesting some new dramatic change in Swedish society that would produce different results? By all means, please, do tell. If you don't have any good reason other than you think they should do another study to have "up-to-date" information, you aren't really making a strong case to justify tax dollars. But again, not surprised. Trump and his supporters seem to like dumping taxpayer money into useless projects.

 

Sweden has been under fire? Withholding statistical studies? Destroying data? Present evidence please. Not that I actually think you have any. Tin-foil doesn't suit you. 

[Rozalia]

The better question is, why do you think another study will show anything different? It obviously didn't in the last one. Did something drastically change? Did the crime rate spike, suggesting some new dramatic change in Swedish society that would produce different results? By all means, please, do tell. If you don't have any good reason other than you think they should do another study to have "up-to-date" information, you aren't really making a strong case to justify tax dollars. But again, not surprised. Trump and his supporters seem to like dumping taxpayer money into useless projects.

 

Sweden has been under fire? Withholding statistical studies? Destroying data? Present evidence please. Not that I actually think you have any. Tin-foil doesn't suit you. 

 

The old study made clear they are over-represented though due to small numbers their effect overall is minimal. Looking at overall crime rate figures which dropped in Sweden (as they did across all similar countries) its clear that their crime rate was not enough to overwhelm the overall drop in crime in Sweden. However there are now far more though granted that many will be second generation or those who immigrated at a very young age which have different rates when it comes to these matters. A study is thus important to see if something in these near 20 years has changed, if nothing else because of the large passage of time there has been. Even if we were to take your peddled garbage that is completely inaccurate as true... you really trying to sell to us that if something is one way that it cannot change over the decades? Laughably poor angle. 

Simple fact is if the new study were to show no problems then those against such immigration would be crippled. I certainly wouldn't bother with such things if the data was completely against me, and others that might even you could tear apart with a couple of sentences and yet... you fear said data. You think those who you insult and think so little of fear such data? Of course not for they have a firm belief in what the data would say if nothing else. You do not which is why you keep trying these trash attempts so lets be clear here... If the data were to be on your side then those immigrants are being wrongly blamed and "demonised" as they say and the study would show the truth of the matter... why are you against clearly their names? No matter what way it is looked at your position only makes sense if the conclusion is you are scared of what the data will show. You should as I said, be shouting to us about how much you want that data out there so it can prove us all so wrong and you so right.

 

Why persist with these tactics when I blow through them every single time? The fact I don't put on the tin-foil hat is why you keep getting obliterated every single time. I can observe some oddities but I am careful to not commit to them. Sweden under fire? Have you been living under a rock? Why even deny this? For years they have been the go to for a lot of people to point at. Withholding statistical studies? Come now, even you say this with the only difference is you've tried to provide excuses as to why ("waste of money" and such). Destroying data? I said its certainly possible they have which would make a study on such a period impossible and it's nothing new for governments to destroy data such as say in Great Britain the destroying of expenses data... keyword here being possible. I did not commit and say that they did so do not act as if I did. Asking the opponent to present evidence is a basic and often powerful tool, but you use it in such a manner that looks you look like a fool. Please stop and think.

[Caecus]

The old study made clear they are over-represented though due to small numbers their effect overall is minimal. Looking at overall crime rate figures which dropped in Sweden (as they did across all similar countries) its clear that their crime rate was not enough to overwhelm the overall drop in crime in Sweden. However there are now far more though granted that many will be second generation or those who immigrated at a very young age which have different rates when it comes to these matters. A study is thus important to see if something in these near 20 years has changed, if nothing else because of the large passage of time there has been. Even if we were to take your peddled garbage that is completely inaccurate as true... you really trying to sell to us that if something is one way that it cannot change over the decades? Laughably poor angle. 

Simple fact is if the new study were to show no problems then those against such immigration would be crippled. I certainly wouldn't bother with such things if the data was completely against me, and others that might even you could tear apart with a couple of sentences and yet... you fear said data. You think those who you insult and think so little of fear such data? Of course not for they have a firm belief in what the data would say if nothing else. You do not which is why you keep trying these trash attempts so lets be clear here... If the data were to be on your side then those immigrants are being wrongly blamed and "demonised" as they say and the study would show the truth of the matter... why are you against clearly their names? No matter what way it is looked at your position only makes sense if the conclusion is you are scared of what the data will show. You should as I said, be shouting to us about how much you want that data out there so it can prove us all so wrong and you so right.

 

Why persist with these tactics when I blow through them every single time? The fact I don't put on the tin-foil hat is why you keep getting obliterated every single time. I can observe some oddities but I am careful to not commit to them. Sweden under fire? Have you been living under a rock? Why even deny this? For years they have been the go to for a lot of people to point at. Withholding statistical studies? Come now, even you say this with the only difference is you've tried to provide excuses as to why ("waste of money" and such). Destroying data? I said its certainly possible they have which would make a study on such a period impossible and it's nothing new for governments to destroy data such as say in Great Britain the destroying of expenses data... keyword here being possible. I did not commit and say that they did so do not act as if I did. Asking the opponent to present evidence is a basic and often powerful tool, but you use it in such a manner that looks you look like a fool. Please stop and think.

 

I've asked for this evidence twice now. I'm going to ask for it a third time, assuming you have any. 

 

Lol. Again, you haven't provided a good reason to do the study. Explain to me why you think a study done now would be any different from the results obtained in the last study. 

 

Pretend that I do live under a rock. Where is your evidence? 

 

 

Time and time again, you fail to produce any evidence to back up your claims. You claim empirical evidence, but for some reason you are so afraid of actually posting a link. If it is such common knowledge, I imagine it's easy to find. So find it. Less ranting, more evidence, more links. This is the third time I've asked for this, this is foolish. 

[Rozalia]

I've asked for this evidence twice now. I'm going to ask for it a third time, assuming you have any. 

 

Lol. Again, you haven't provided a good reason to do the study. Explain to me why you think a study done now would be any different from the results obtained in the last study. 

 

Pretend that I do live under a rock. Where is your evidence? 

 

 

Time and time again, you fail to produce any evidence to back up your claims. You claim empirical evidence, but for some reason you are so afraid of actually posting a link. If it is such common knowledge, I imagine it's easy to find. So find it. Less ranting, more evidence, more links. This is the third time I've asked for this, this is foolish. 

 

Trying to reverse that on me fails as I have indeed provided evidence and addressed it several times. I have linked the source and then provided a translated version as clearly going by the twisting you were doing... perhaps you weren't reading it right. I've been very fair and explained the matter clearly enough. 

 

Answered already. Why ever do any newer studies if everything is apparently set in stone? Utter nonsense and its telling when that is the best you can muster. Its both pathetic and foolish. First off if the results were to be the same then that wouldn't be the most positive thing as the study acknowledged a over-representation of a particular immigrant group that is now much larger. Secondly if the study checks out like in your dishonest statement then... what is the problem? You don't want a study done that would prove without doubt your position is correct? That those attacking immigration are completely wrong? You're a damn coward and everyone knows it. Outside that there is no reason for you to be turning down such a study.

 

Just wasting time for the sake of distraction. Mass immigration, refugees, multiculturalism, so forth have have drawn a massive amount of heat and its simply undeniable. Asking me to cite evidence of such a known thing is just trying to waste my time and I won't do it. 

 

Again, simply saying your garbage in the hopes people will believe it doesn't work. I am not speaking anecdotes here as you are claiming. I have made a conclusion based on the bits and pieces available and have explained how I came to it. I am well aware its not strong evidence as such evidence doesn't currently exist hence my talk of Sweden publishing said data for all to see so we can know the full scope, something you desperately don't want as you're afraid of what it'd show. At times I have made observations and cited possibilities but every time I was careful to not push them as a fact because I am well aware that when you do such things and don't have evidence then you become discredited. You have taken those innocent statements and asked, "where is the evidence" which is utter nonsense. If I state something is certainly possible considering X then that doesn't mean I said they did it. An honest person would address those observations and give their thoughts on it, while a dishonest one tries to twist it into something else in an aim to discredit. 

[Caecus]

Trying to reverse that on me fails as I have indeed provided evidence and addressed it several times. I have linked the source and then provided a translated version as clearly going by the twisting you were doing... perhaps you weren't reading it right. I've been very fair and explained the matter clearly enough. 

 

Answered already. Why ever do any newer studies if everything is apparently set in stone? Utter nonsense and its telling when that is the best you can muster. Its both pathetic and foolish. First off if the results were to be the same then that wouldn't be the most positive thing as the study acknowledged a over-representation of a particular immigrant group that is now much larger. Secondly if the study checks out like in your dishonest statement then... what is the problem? You don't want a study done that would prove without doubt your position is correct? That those attacking immigration are completely wrong? You're a damn coward and everyone knows it. Outside that there is no reason for you to be turning down such a study.

 

Just wasting time for the sake of distraction. Mass immigration, refugees, multiculturalism, so forth have have drawn a massive amount of heat and its simply undeniable. Asking me to cite evidence of such a known thing is just trying to waste my time and I won't do it. 

 

Again, simply saying your garbage in the hopes people will believe it doesn't work. I am not speaking anecdotes here as you are claiming. I have made a conclusion based on the bits and pieces available and have explained how I came to it. I am well aware its not strong evidence as such evidence doesn't currently exist hence my talk of Sweden publishing said data for all to see so we can know the full scope, something you desperately don't want as you're afraid of what it'd show. At times I have made observations and cited possibilities but every time I was careful to not push them as a fact because I am well aware that when you do such things and don't have evidence then you become discredited. You have taken those innocent statements and asked, "where is the evidence" which is utter nonsense. If I state something is certainly possible considering X then that doesn't mean I said they did it. An honest person would address those observations and give their thoughts on it, while a dishonest one tries to twist it into something else in an aim to discredit. 

 

Link it again. Put quotes. "You didn't read it right" is a classic deflection when you don't have any evidence to show, so don't give any reason for me to doubt you, just do it. 

 

You do newer studies because you think that there has been an event that may change the demographics. You could possibly say that the refugees are from different parts of the world with different religions. That would be a good justification. Not sure how the National Council would take it though, considering that the 1970s and the 1990s studies - while don't feature Muslim refugees from specifically the Levant area - do feature different religious refugee groups from at least two different continents. Again, the National Council would probably consider it a waste of time and money, considering that they haven't pursued that study ever since. But don't convince me of it, go convince them. After all, Sweden is on the verge of utter destruction, right? 

 

"Mass immigration, refugees, multiculturalism, so forth have have drawn a massive amount of heat and its simply undeniable. Asking me to cite evidence of such a known thing is just trying to waste my time and I won't do it. "

 

That was not what I was asking for. I was asking for evidence that Europe's crime rate has fallen, but Sweden's has fallen at a slower rate. And even if you had that information, you would need evidence to tie it to immigration (but a correlation between the years Sweden accepted immigrants and the fallen crime would likely suffice for a casual argument here). 

 

Oh, so then this debate is over. You don't have evidence, you can't back up a claim. If you can't back up a claim, there is nothing left to debate. In lieu of evidence contrary to my claims, I assume you intend to concede the fact that all of you have overblown Sweden's immigration policy and that Trump is full of shit when he alludes to the "troubles of Sweden." 

[fistofdoom]

diarrhea 

 

get rekt m8

[Vicente Martinez]

I disagree.

 

Evidence?

[ComradeMilton]

Evidence?

No, thanks.I'm fine.

[Vicente Martinez]

No, thanks.I'm fine.

Because you can't find any.....If you're going to present an argument...at least provide evidence to prove it...

[Rozalia]

Link it again. Put quotes. "You didn't read it right" is a classic deflection when you don't have any evidence to show, so don't give any reason for me to doubt you, just do it. 

 

You do newer studies because you think that there has been an event that may change the demographics. You could possibly say that the refugees are from different parts of the world with different religions. That would be a good justification. Not sure how the National Council would take it though, considering that the 1970s and the 1990s studies - while don't feature Muslim refugees from specifically the Levant area - do feature different religious refugee groups from at least two different continents. Again, the National Council would probably consider it a waste of time and money, considering that they haven't pursued that study ever since. But don't convince me of it, go convince them. After all, Sweden is on the verge of utter destruction, right? 

 

"Mass immigration, refugees, multiculturalism, so forth have have drawn a massive amount of heat and its simply undeniable. Asking me to cite evidence of such a known thing is just trying to waste my time and I won't do it. "

 

That was not what I was asking for. I was asking for evidence that Europe's crime rate has fallen, but Sweden's has fallen at a slower rate. And even if you had that information, you would need evidence to tie it to immigration (but a correlation between the years Sweden accepted immigrants and the fallen crime would likely suffice for a casual argument here). 

 

Oh, so then this debate is over. You don't have evidence, you can't back up a claim. If you can't back up a claim, there is nothing left to debate. In lieu of evidence contrary to my claims, I assume you intend to concede the fact that all of you have overblown Sweden's immigration policy and that Trump is full of shit when he alludes to the "troubles of Sweden." 

 

 

I'm not going to be posting evidence of heat against such policies as its such a simple and known fact. It'd be like asking me to show evidence there are people in America who have a problem with illegal immigrants. A complete waste of time. Additionally I have never said Sweden is on the verge of utter destruction, stop. Just stop. Show me some respect as I have not stated such statements. I have acknowledged there are issues and that I want the data published so we can see the full scope instead of going off bits and pieces which is all we can do. 

 

Anyway the study is hardly a long piece and you really are asking me to baby you here. Whatever, I'll do it once to see how it goes and see if you prove further dishonest. The large amount of quotes means I have to split my posts.

 

Previous Swedish studies on the criminality of immigrants have shown that

persons born outside Sweden have higher levels of registered crime than

persons born within the country. In the National Council’s study from the

period 1985-1989, the findings showed that it was twice as common for 

71

persons born abroad to be registered for criminal offences by comparison

with persons born in Sweden to two Swedish born parents. Persons born in

Sweden to one or two foreign-born parents were also registered for crime

more often than those with two Swedish born parents. For this group, it

was 1.5 times as likely to be registered as crime suspects.

 

What you were saying about previous studies showing no real problem. A lie like most of what you say.

 

The majority of current international studies on registered crime, like their

Swedish counterparts, show that persons born outside the country in question

tend to be registered in connection with criminal offences to a greater

extent than persons born within the country. There are a number of older,

American studies, however, which show the opposite, namely that persons

who have migrated to a new country tend to commit offences to a lesser

extent than persons born within the country to two parents who were also

born there.

 International studies have also focused special attention on crime among

those born in the new country but to one or two parents born overseas. The

general picture produced by these studies indicates that this group is registered

for crime to a greater extent than both those born overseas and those

born within the country to two native born parents.

 When these results are interpreted, emphasis is often placed on the notion

that some children born to non-native parents, who grow up in the

new society, are torn between two cultural worlds. They often experience

their situation and their future possibilities as more limited than others of

the same age whose parents were born within the country, which may lead

to their becoming frustrated and alienated.

 

You claimed at one point that immigrant crime in Sweden was like America, even remarking you were surprised. Such a thing is completely false and how you could ever come to such a conclusion off the given to you information is beyond me outside you just deciding to talk out of your arse.

 

The National Council’s study includes all those persons aged between 15

and 51 years of age who were registered as resident in Sweden in 1997.

This group comprises approximately 4.4 million individuals. Slightly under

60 per cent of the almost 1,520,000 offences for which these persons were

registered during the period covered by the study can be attributed to persons

who were born in Sweden to two Swedish born parents. Almost one

quarter of the crimes are registered to persons born overseas, and almost

twenty per cent to persons born in Sweden to one or two parents born

abroad.

 Using this as its point of departure, the National Council has attempted

to estimate how the total number of reported offences is distributed across

different groups. The picture then changes somewhat, primarily because

those offences committed by persons not registered as resident in Sweden

are also included. This group is estimated to account for seven per cent of

the offences reported during the study period. This represents an increase

from the figure of three per cent noted in the National Council’s previous

study.

 

You say it was unchanged from before when it had actually increased.

 

By far the majority of all those included in the groups examined in the

study have not been suspected in connection with any offences during the

five year study period. This is true irrespective of ethnic background. The

proportions of the different groups not suspected of any offences at all varies

between 88 and 95 per cent.

 The proportion suspected of offences is higher however among those

born outside Sweden or who have one or two foreign-born parents, by

comparison with those born in Sweden to two Swedish born parents. It is

two and a half times as likely for persons born abroad to be registered as

crime suspects as it is for Swedish born persons with both parents born in

Sweden. They thus have a â€relative risk†of 2.5. For those born in Sweden

to two foreign-born parents, it is twice as common to be registered as it is

among persons born in Sweden to two Swedish born parents. For this

group, then, the â€relative risk†is 2. Among those with one Swedish born

and one non-Swedish born parent, the risk is 1.4 times as great. Thus the

pattern that emerged in the National Council’s previous report, namely that

the risk of being registered for crime was lower among the Swedish born

â€children of immigrants†than it was among those who had themselves

migrated to Sweden, is also apparent in this new study.

 

Immigrants more likely to commit crime, significantly if completely foreign.

 

If the material is broken down into different offence types, the proportion

of suspects from each background group becomes appreciably smaller. The

proportion of persons born abroad that are suspected in connection with a

theft offence (Chapter 8 of the Swedish Penal Code – Brottsbalken), or a

crime against the person (Chapter 3), which includes assault offences, lies at

slightly over four per cent for each offence category over the course of the

five year observation period. For other types of crime, the proportion of

foreign-born persons in the population is lower. At the same time, it may be

noted that the relative risk for being registered for crime among persons

born overseas is greater for certain offences than it is for others. It is four

times as likely, for example, for foreign-born persons to be suspected of

lethal violence and robbery as it is for persons born in Sweden to Swedish

born parents. This involves 0.03 per cent of persons born overseas being

suspected in connection with lethal violence during the study period and

0.35 per cent being suspected of robbery.

 

Heavily over-represented in worse crimes. 

 

On the whole, those born in Sweden to at least one overseas born parent

assume an ’in-between’ position as regards the question of being suspected

of criminal offences. It is less common for members of this group to be

suspected in connection with various types of crime than it is for those who

were themselves born overseas, but it is more common than among persons

born in Sweden to two Swedish born parents. There are however certain

types of offences that are more common within this group than they are in 

73

either of the other two groups. These offence types primarily involve categories

of crime where a large proportion of the offences are generally committed

by youths (irrespective of background). These involve car thefts,

vandalism, drunken driving, drug offences including offences that only involve

personal consumption, and crimes against the Weapons Act (vapenlagen)

and the Knives Act (knivförbudslagen).

 

Youths are the primarily issue when it comes to the riots so that group is problematic itself even if the group as a whole should cause less crime than the other one. 

 

If the findings from the current study are compared with those produced in

the National Council’s previous study, the picture that emerges is relatively

unchanged. For those born in Sweden to one or two foreign-born parents,

the relative risk is more or less the same as that noted twelve years ago; 1.6

as compared with 1.5 in the previous study. Among those persons born

abroad, the size of the relative risk has increased somewhat, from 2.1 in the

previous study to 2.5 in the current one.

 

The picture is relatively unchanged as there has been just a slight increase. Has this increase continued gradually or accelerated over the 20 years? We'd need another one to know.

 

Whether or not the levels of relative risk presented by the different groups

are to be considered high may be a matter for debate. To take one example,

the difference between men and women as regards crime is greater than the

differences based on whether or not a person was born in Sweden. It is 3.5

times as likely for men to be suspected of crimes as it is for women. With

regard to more serious offences, the differences between men and women

are greater still. Furthermore, it is six times as likely for persons from families

registered as having received social welfare benefit to be registered for

crime as it is for persons from families who have not been in receipt of such

benefits.

 

Makes mention of if this is a large concern is up to debate which it certainly is. However you can't just ignore this issue here and cite those, oh no, this needs tackling.

 

The proportion of persons suspected of offences is greater in groups from

certain geographical areas than it is in those from others. This is the case

for certain parts of Africa, such as North Africa, for example, and for

Western Asia. Those coming from West European countries, South-East

Asia and from the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zeeland comprise the

groups of those born outside Sweden who are registered as crime suspects

least often. The factor that distinguishes the areas whose emigrants are

suspected of offences in Sweden to a particularly large extent is that the

living conditions in these areas are unlike those in the western world. In

addition, those moving to Sweden from these areas have often been

â€forced†to leave their homelands as refugees, whereas those arriving from

western countries most often come more of their own free will.

 The high level of relative risk noted among North Africans does not

however mean that persons from North Africa are responsible for a large

proportion of the offences that are linked to crime suspects in Sweden. On

the contrary they account for a very small proportion of these offences. The

groups that dominate in this regard are those from the Nordic countries. 

74

Persons from Finland, Norway, Denmark and Iceland account for almost

five per cent of those suspected of offences, whereas the corresponding figure

for North Africans is 0.7 per cent. Amongst other things, of course, this

is a result of the fact that the number of persons living in Sweden who were

born in North Africa is not very large. The number of immigrants moving

to Sweden from her Nordic neighbours is much larger.

 

Certain immigrants do much more crime than others with it noting North Africans and Middle-Easterners. Also notes refugees though if the current batch of refugees are like the ones of 2001... again, another study. Those problem groups have larger numbers now so how has it all gone down? Again, another study.

 

International research shows that persons born abroad who move to the

new country of residence during their first years of life find it easier to

adapt than those who arrive once they have reached school-age. The National

Council’s study indicates that this general observation also holds in

relation to criminal behaviour. Those who migrated to Sweden at a very

young age, i.e. before starting school, are registered as suspected offenders

to a relatively minor extent. Persons who were of school age, up to and

including the late teenage years, when they arrived in Sweden, comprise the

group whose members were most often registered in connection with crime.

 

A simple and logical truth.

 

We know from previous research that certain background factors, such as

age and gender, covary with the risk for involvement in crime. Against this

background, the National Council has subjected the material to a standardisation

procedure in relation to gender, age, level of education and

occupational income. This standardisation means that the different groups

have been â€equalised†in relation to these factors by means of statistical

procedures. On the basis of these statistical calculations, all groups are assigned

the same proportions of men, younger persons etc. Once the material

has been standardised in this way, the level of relative risk among those

born abroad is reduced from 2.5 to 2.1. The size of the relative risk among

those born in Sweden to two foreign-born parents also diminishes substantially

from 2.0 to 1.5. One reason for this is that these groups contain a

larger proportion of young men with low levels of educational attainment

and income by comparison with those born in Sweden to two Swedish born

parents.

 By contrast, the size of the relative risk is not affected to any appreciable

extent among persons born in Sweden with only one parent born abroad.

One explanation for this is that this group’s â€profile†in relation to the

factors discussed is more similar to that of those born in Sweden to two

Swedish born parents.

 

You can reduce the level of over-representation if you bring other factors into it. Some would cry foul on that but whatever, numbers still above anyway.

[Rozalia]

Immigrants’ risk of being registered for crime has not changed in any pronounced

way since the previous study conducted by the National Council,

which related to the situation at the end of the 1980s. This means that: 

75

• The vast majority of immigrants are not registered in connection

with crime, either in the previous study or the current one.

• The relative risk for being registered in connection with crime has

increased among persons born abroad, but is more or less unchanged

among those born in Sweden to one or two foreign-born

parents. Among those born outside Sweden, the size of the relative

risk has increased from 2.1 to 2.5. If one standardises in order to

take into account group differences in relation to age, gender, level

of education and income, the relative risk among those born outside

Sweden diminishes to 2.1.

• The increase in the size of the relative risk among those born

abroad is not due to certain groups of immigrants being registered

in connection with crime to a greater extent today than they were

twelve years ago. The increase is instead explained primarily by an

increase in the number of persons in Sweden who belong to those

refugee groups that previous research has already shown to have a

particularly high level of relative risk.

• The pattern noted in the previous study that the â€children of immigrantsâ€

are in Sweden registered in connection with crime to a

lesser extent than those who have themselves migrated to Sweden,

which is unusual from an international perspective, is also found in

the current study.

The fact that the picture of immigrants’ crime has changed so little may

seem remarkable given the changes that have occurred in Swedish society

during the 1990s. Sweden has witnessed both the arrival of sizeable new

groups of refugees, and a worsening of the situation on the labour market

whose effects have been particularly negative for immigrants. The proportion

of those who have migrated to Sweden who live in â€povertyâ€20 has

increased, as has the level of residential segregation. The fact that immigrants’

relative risk for being registered in connection with crime has remained

relatively constant over a long period of time, despite both a gradual

increase in the number of persons who have themselves migrated to

Sweden, and changes in the surrounding society that meets them, is however

something that has already been noted in previous studies. Thus in von

Hofer, Sarnecki and Tham’s study from 1997, it was shown that the relative

risk among immigrants for being convicted of offences had remained

relatively constant since the 1970s. They too felt there was good reason to

emphasise the fact that the trend had been so stable, despite changes in the

reasons underlying immigration – from labour force immigration to refugee

immigration and the immigration of family members of those already resident

in Sweden – and despite the fact that immigrants are arriving from

increasingly distant countries.

 

A summary. 

 

Even if the size of immigrants’ relative risk for being registered in connection

with crime has not increased very much since the National Council’s

previous study, it has been found to exist in this study too. How then can

this higher level of risk be understood? The question that must first be discussed

is that of the extent to which these relative risks are the result of

actual differences in levels of involvement in crime between persons with an

immigrant background and those who do not have such a background. Or

are relative risks primarily the result of a process of selection when crimes

are reported or attended to by the police?

 Based on the knowledge available at the present time, the National

Council’s assessment is that selection processes associated with the reporting

of offences to the police and police investigative activities may explain a

certain amount of the relative risk for being registered in connection with

crime noted in this report. It is also reasonable to assume that this selection

effect is greater the more a given group differs culturally and in appearance

from persons with a Swedish background. This would suggest that the

overestimation of the group’s actual level of involvement in crime would be

particularly substantial for those groups with the highest levels of relative

risk, i.e. those from certain parts of Africa and Western Asia. If it had been

possible to study the actual criminality of different groups, then the differences

in the proportion committing offences are likely to have been somewhat

smaller than those presented in this study.

 The National Council’s assessment, however, is that this selection effect

nonetheless only explains a small part of the relative risk noted, and that

the results presented in the report may be used in order to discuss patterns

and trends in relation to criminality within different groups.

 

We need studies and analyse done to work out exactly what the answer to all these matters are. What are the causes and how to work through them. Simply stopping the publishing of fdata, burying your head in the sand so to speak achieves nothing.

 

What is it then in the life-situation experienced by immigrants that might

explain their being registered in connection with crime more often than

others? There are three main factors that are usually emphasised in this

context:

• It is difficult to make the break from one’s homeland and settle

down in a different country.

• Social factors that generally increase the risk for involvement in

crime are more common among immigrants.

• The reception given to immigrants in Sweden is flawed.

DIFFICULT TO MAKE THE BREAK FROM ONE’S HOMELAND AND MOVE TO A DIFFERENT COUNTRY

The thing that all immigrants who come to Sweden have in common is that

they have made a break from their homeland and have settled in a different

country. To leave one’s homeland and the ties one has there on a more or

less permanent basis involves a large number of difficulties, irrespective of

the reason for emigration. One is forced to separate oneself from an environment

one knows well, from friends and from relatives. One then arrives 

77

in an unfamiliar environment, with a new language and to a varying extent

also a new culture. For many of the refugees who arrived in Sweden during

the 1990s from countries suffering the effects of war, there are additional

difficulties associated with the fact that they have had traumatic experiences

both within their homeland and during their flight from the country, which

they have to work through at the same time as they are to be introduced

into Swedish society (Allwood & Franzén, 2000). In spite of these difficulties,

the majority of immigrants succeed in adapting to their new life in

Sweden. Among those who feel alienated and experience their life-chances

to be inadequate, however, the risk for criminal behaviour may increase

(Martens 1997; von Hofer, Sarnecki & Tham, 1997).

SOCIAL FACTORS THAT INCREASE THE RISK FOR INVOLVEMENT IN CRIME

A large number of studies have shown that as a group, persons born abroad

have poorer social opportunities and a worse social situation than the average

Swede. This is the case in relation to education, for example, work,

income, housing and physical and mental health. These factors generally

affect the risk for involvement in crime. The National Council shows in one

section of the current study that the findings are affected when the material

is standardised to â€equalise†all of the groups examined in terms of their

level of education and occupational income (and also age and gender).

When this is done, the between-group differences in the proportions that

are registered in connection with crime diminish somewhat. Occupational

income appears to be particularly significant in this context. It is also possible

that a further analysis of differences in living conditions would produce

additional â€explanations†of the relative risk for being registered in connection

with crime noted among those born outside Sweden.

FLAWS IN THE RECEPTION RECEIVED BY IMMIGRANTS

The third possible explanation, which is closely linked to the two already

discussed, is that the reception received by immigrants in Sweden does not

serve to overcome the difficulties they face in the way that it should. Several

researchers have argued that widespread prejudices about groups of immigrants

contribute to public sector agencies and various institutions sometimes

subjecting immigrant groups to a structural negative discrimination

(de los Reyes & Winborg, 2002; Kamali, 2005). This is perhaps made most

visible in the research focusing on the situation of immigrants on the labour

market (Höglund, 1998; Sidebäck et al., 2000; SOU 2001:79). Prejudice

may also serve as a contributory explanation for the increasingly marked

level of ethnic residential segregation, however. In certain areas, this has

reached a point where families, children and youths born outside Sweden

hardly ever meet and talk to persons who do not themselves have a nonSwedish

background. This segregation involves a risk for the intensification

of an â€us and them†perspective, which will worsen the possibilities for

immigrants to integrate in Sweden and to feel a sense of solidarity in relation

to Swedish society. Particularly among youths, these factors are likely

to involve an increased risk for crime.

 

Lists some possible explanations on why they are over-represented. 

[fistofdoom]

^

get rekt m8

I predicted it

[ComradeMilton]

Because you can't find any.....If you're going to present an argument...at least provide evidence to prove it...

You're allowed your opinion. I'll present my arguments as I please.

[Caecus]

 1. I'm not going to be posting evidence of heat against such policies as its such a simple and known fact. It'd be like asking me to show evidence there are people in America who have a problem with illegal immigrants. A complete waste of time. Additionally I have never said Sweden is on the verge of utter destruction, stop. Just stop. Show me some respect as I have not stated such statements. I have acknowledged there are issues and that I want the data published so we can see the full scope instead of going off bits and pieces which is all we can do. Anyway the study is hardly a long piece and you really are asking me to baby you here. Whatever, I'll do it once to see how it goes and see if you prove further dishonest. The large amount of quotes means I have to split my posts.

 

 

2.  What you were saying about previous studies showing no real problem. A lie like most of what you say.

 

 

3. You claimed at one point that immigrant crime in Sweden was like America, even remarking you were surprised. Such a thing is completely false and how you could ever come to such a conclusion off the given to you information is beyond me outside you just deciding to talk out of your arse.

 

 

4. You say it was unchanged from before when it had actually increased.

 

 

5. Immigrants more likely to commit crime, significantly if completely foreign.

 

 

6. Heavily over-represented in worse crimes. 

 

 

7. Youths are the primarily issue when it comes to the riots so that group is problematic itself even if the group as a whole should cause less crime than the other one. 

 

 

8. The picture is relatively unchanged as there has been just a slight increase. Has this increase continued gradually or accelerated over the 20 years? We'd need another one to know.

 

 

9. Makes mention of if this is a large concern is up to debate which it certainly is. However you can't just ignore this issue here and cite those, oh no, this needs tackling.

 

 

10. Certain immigrants do much more crime than others with it noting North Africans and Middle-Easterners. Also notes refugees though if the current batch of refugees are like the ones of 2001... again, another study. Those problem groups have larger numbers now so how has it all gone down? Again, another study.

 

 

11. A simple and logical truth.

 

 

12. You can reduce the level of over-representation if you bring other factors into it. Some would cry foul on that but whatever, numbers still above anyway.

 

Wow, you actually put in effort for this. I appreciate your time and effort you put into this one, as much as it is lined with insults. The least I can do is return the favor. 

 

1. It would be nice to have that link for the picture. Also, when you said disastrous, I didn't think you were speaking in hyperbole. 

 

 

??? Its like you don't even read what I put down and are just arguing against an imagined opponent who you have all the answers for. What I've told you is there is no spike and that over the years long before the Syrian war the numbers increased due to immigration (of a certain kind especially). If Sweden hadn't done that disastrous policy then they wouldn't have had those riots (again, the Syrian refugees may well be gas on the flame but they are not the root cause) and their crime also would be much lower (those immigrants are over-represented in crime).

 

2. You're right, I didn't read it carefully. Swedish immigrants do show that they have twice the "risk factor" to be suspected in crime. Although it was not my original intention to make this argument when I posted, I now refer to #12. 

 

3. Same as 2. But in all fairness, https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/53/3/456/542980/Crime-as-a-Price-of-Inequality-The-Gap-in

 

 

 

In Europe, the registered crime rate of immigrants far exceeds that of native populations (Kardell 2006; 2010; BRÃ… 1996; 2005; Tonry 1997; Haen Marshall 1997; Killias et al. 2012), which is in line with popular conceptions (Simon and Sikich 2007). Studies of self-reported crime present a mixed picture, however. There is evidence of over, equal or even under-representation of immigrant involvement in crime (Shannon 2006: 246; Junger-Tas et al. 1994; Papadopoulos 2010).

 

Though admittedly, my original intent was not this. 

 

4. The rather minimal increase is within the margin of error. In the conclusion: 

 

 

The fact that immigrants’ relative risk for being registered in connection with crime has remained relatively constant over a long period of time, despite both a gradual increase in the number of persons who have themselves migrated to Sweden, and changes in the surrounding society that meets them, is however something that has already been noted in previous studies. Thus in von Hofer, Sarnecki and Tham’s study from 1997, it was shown that the relative risk among immigrants for being convicted of offences had remained relatively constant since the 1970s. They too felt there was good reason to emphasise the fact that the trend had been so stable, despite changes in the reasons underlying immigration – from labour force immigration to refugee immigration and the immigration of family members of those already resident in Sweden – and despite the fact that immigrants are arriving from increasingly distant countries.

 

5. True. However, assuming you are sticking to your statement below: 

 

...

 

So where is your evidence of poor Swedes rioting? Come now. What we have is two groups. They share a lot of disadvantaging traits but the rioting one has a particular trait the other group that doesn't riot hasn't. What is it? You seem to think there is some grand design here to prove crime rates going up via crime rates. There isn't. You have simply talked nonsense and I'm challenging you on it. They riot not simply because they are poor, jobless, or whatever else as otherwise Sweden would be suffering riots day in and day out all across the country. They riot because they are immigrants of a particular culture who have not and will not integrate. Now do not misunderstand as I'm sure you will. There are many good and positive immigrant groups, however that one is not one of them. Admit it.

 

I would like to present a more recent study published in 2013. 

 

 

 

Immigrants’ overrepresentation in crime can be explained by reference to social-structural explanations, group-specific culture and discrimination in the justice system (Killias et al. 2012; Peterson and Krivo 2005). According to the structural perspective, the mechanisms that generate a difference in crime between immigrants and natives are (at least) twofold. First, immigrants may have higher crime rates due to their adverse life conditions. Social disadvantage or ‘blocked opportunities’ might contribute to anti-social behaviours. Second, immigrants often live in socially and ethnically segregated communities characterized by social disorganization and impeded cooperation, where oppositional identities flourish (Peterson and Krivo 2005: 345).

 

With that information in mind, we cannot conclude that "immigrants of a particular culture who have not and will not integrate" is the primary cause of crime. 

 

6. "Heavily" is an over-exaggeration. Also, in the same article mentioned above, this is explained through "modern theories of crime and social behaviour."

 

 

 

Children of parents with limited access to highly valued resources are at greater risk of involvement in crime and anti-social behaviour (among many others, see Krivo and Peterson 2009; Bäckman and Nilsson 2007), and poverty is intrinsically related to crime (Nilsson and Estrada 2009). 

This line of thought is found in many classical and modern theories of crime and social behaviour. Merton’s (1938) strain theory is perhaps the classic example. According to Merton, individuals strive to fulfil culturally defined societal goals, such as wealth accumulation and upward mobility. The means available to achieve these goals are not uniformly distributed and a lack of means may cause strain in some individuals. Individuals may respond to strain by rejecting the social goals, or by employing illegitimate means to achieve them. Criminals are found among those who accept the socially recognized goals, but reject the legitimate means to achieve these goals.

 

7. In same article mentioned above, this is explained largely through segregated neighborhoods. While the article dates several years before the most recent riot, the news article quoting the large immigrant presence suggests this still occurs, and has an effect on youths

 

[Caecus]

 

 

Inequality also influences the broader social context of children, namely the neighbourhoods and schools in which they spend a lot of time during adolescence. The social disorganization theory of Shaw and McKay (1942) predicts that individuals will be more likely to engage in crime in disorganized areas where social cohesion is underdeveloped. Hence, residential segregation can be associated with considerable disadvantage, and the social characteristics of neighbourhoods are important predictors of crime among residents (Kelly 2000; Shaw and McKay 1942).

 

8. There have been more recent studies done, according to the article. Specifically, the author below has done a summary of the 23 most recent studies completed, publishing his work in 2010. I have yet to read his article, but his conclusion is also summarized in the piece. The "2.5 times" reflects the number given in Martens piece. 

 

 

 

Kardell

 

J

. 

(2010)

, Ã–verrepresentation och diskriminering: En studie av personer med utländsk bakgrund i den svenska kriminalstatistiken [Over Representation and discrimination: A study of people with a foreign background in the Swedish criminal statistics]. Kriminologiska Institutionen, Stockholms Universitet [institute of Criminology, Stockholm University]

 

 

In general, all these studies show that immigrants are overrepresented in recorded crime by comparison with the native-born population. The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (BRÃ… 2005) has shown that individuals born abroad are approximately 2.5 times more likely to be registered as crime suspects by comparison with people born in Sweden of Swedish-born parents.

 

 

 

9. I am in agreement with the general statement of the quote. 

 

10. I refer to Kardell's piece, again, without having actual read the article yet, but trusting in the summary provided by Hallsten. 

 

11. Agreed. 

 

12. Perhaps, but the Hallsten article believes the previous analytical methods are faulty, causing an over-inflation in the numbers. 

 

 

 

Compared to children of Swedish-born parents, children of immigrants are between 1.4 and two times more likely to be registered in crime statistics. This runs counter to the results of studies from other European countries, where the level of overrepresentation among children is higher than that of the parental generation (Tonry 1997; Haen Marshall 1997; Killias 2009), but a recent study has called the prior Swedish results into question (Kardell and Carlsson 2009).

 

Again, I have yet to read Kardell and Carlsson article. 

 

 

 

The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (BRÃ… 2005) has shown that individuals born abroad are approximately 2.5 times more likely to be registered as crime suspects by comparison with people born in Sweden of Swedish-born parents. Controlling for age, sex and the adult individuals’ own education and income reduces the gap somewhat, but the remaining unexplained differences are still substantial (see also BRÃ… 1996). However, as we will discuss later, controlling for characteristics that may be influenced by prior involvement in crime constitutes an unsound analytical design.

 

 

We address the first of these research questions, (a), by means of regression models. The aim is to estimate the degree of overrepresentation of children of immigrants in crime in Sweden, namely the proportional difference between the groups. We employ a ‘premarket’ design (Neal and Johnson 1996), where all explanatory variables (1) are measured prior to the start of the criminal career and (2) are measured in terms of characteristics of the individual’s social background (characteristics of parents and neighbourhoods during childhood), rather than in terms of characteristics of the individuals themselves, in order to avoid endogeneity of explanatory variables. By contrast, if explanatory variables such as education and earnings are measured among individuals subsequent to the point at which the crimes were registered (cf. BRÃ… 2005), this produces serious endogeneity problems: suspected and convicted individuals may be criminal because they have a low level of earnings/education or they may have a low level of earnings/education because they are criminal, particularly immediately subsequent to having been convicted or sentenced. The scientific contribution of such designs is therefore limited. In sum, our empirical model is similar to that of classic attainment models (Blau and Duncan 1967), although we exclude mediating variables in order to avoid endogenous covariates. In order to achieve a robust estimate of the immigrant–native differences, we have aimed for as exhaustive a set of control variables as possible; that is, we want to control for parents’ educational and economic resources, as well as family demography and neighbourhood residency during childhood.

 

In essence, the study criticizes the general statistical design of the National Council, and ultimately concludes that the new design accounts for any over-representation. 

 

In this study, we have shown that, for males, around 50–80 per cent of the gap in recorded crime between the children of immigrants and children with a native-Swedish background can be explained by family resources and neighbourhood segregation, without even considering the individuals’ own attainment characteristics (which we avoided, due to their potential endogeneity). For females, the explained proportion of the gap in crime is even larger, and it turns out that we often find no significant difference between females of immigrant and Swedish origin. Since our co-national group proxies show only a very limited presence of a common crime pattern, the explanation for the remaining portion of the gap must be sought in unmeasured idiosyncratic characteristics unique to each individual—or in a general discrimination of immigrants that does not differ by co-national group.

[Rozalia]

Wow, you actually put in effort for this. I appreciate your time and effort you put into this one, as much as it is lined with insults. The least I can do is return the favor. 

 

1. It would be nice to have that link for the picture. Also, when you said disastrous, I didn't think you were speaking in hyperbole. 

 

 

2. You're right, I didn't read it carefully. Swedish immigrants do show that they have twice the "risk factor" to be suspected in crime. Although it was not my original intention to make this argument when I posted, I now refer to #12. 

 

3. Same as 2. But in all fairness, https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/53/3/456/542980/Crime-as-a-Price-of-Inequality-The-Gap-in

 

 

Though admittedly, my original intent was not this. 

 

4. The rather minimal increase is within the margin of error. In the conclusion: 

 

 

5. True. However, assuming you are sticking to your statement below: 

 

 

I would like to present a more recent study published in 2013. 

 

 

With that information in mind, we cannot conclude that "immigrants of a particular culture who have not and will not integrate" is the primary cause of crime. 

 

6. "Heavily" is an over-exaggeration. Also, in the same article mentioned above, this is explained through "modern theories of crime and social behaviour."

 

 

7. In same article mentioned above, this is explained largely through segregated neighborhoods. While the article dates several years before the most recent riot, the news article quoting the large immigrant presence suggests this still occurs, and has an effect on youths

 

You must forgive me but when it goes on long enough and I feel respect is not being given I get irritated. 

 

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Archive:Crime_statistics

 

1: I like to use bombastic language at times however I would say it is disastrous as I think in the long term. Such policies of Sweden do not in my personal beliefs, and there seems to be no evidence to counter this, breed unity in a nation. Already those against the immigrants are gaining more and more strength for disunity and hatred has been bred instead. 

 

2 & 12: The possible over-inflation is considered in the assessment to only be able to explain explain a small part of the additional risk as noted in the second to last paragraph I quoted.

 

3: Sorry you'll have to point it out. Bit vague what exactly you're driving at. If there being other issues then certainly and I would love to see those addressed... but we got to actually start addressing them first. 

 

4: Its certainly true enough that such a slight increase could ultimately be nothing... which is why you need more studies and we just so happen to have 2002 till 2016 to look at, that is if they ever decide to publish such things. 

 

5: Those are possible explanations but not conclusive. It is however something I would certainly agree with on at least the second part. Stories that get coverage regarding Sweden often are ones of them being lax and the weakness during incidents such as the riots also imply the opposite of a firm and racist/whatever system which is not something the Swedes are known for. On the second part I am in total agreement as the ghettos are a terrible thing. That is why we have to break them and disperse the (smaller) number of immigrants throughout the nation.

 

6: It is not on the nature of violent crime as noted in the study. 

 

7: Ummm... http://www.aftonbladet.se/senastenytt/ttnyheter/inrikes/article22872574.ab, you'll need to translate it but from what it appears problems had surfaced in 2004 before the study was compiled. Don't know if it goes back before 2004 but that was when it became dangerous for the police in those areas. Anyway I don't discount additional reasons and I'm always very clear on my distaste for ghettos which I've seen first hand. However to address that you must have the courage to address the issue.

 

8: I'll need to see it. Sources I see around the net be they in right or left wing circles note the 2005 piece as the most recent. That might have been one done later which is bit a dubious and not quite as credible perhaps. 

 

9: That is fair.

 

10: That is dandy. However again those are possible explanations. We must look at the more recent data and see how things have gone and from what I see, it won't be good, not the world is ending bad no... but not positive for the now and the future. You might disagree with that, no way to knowing which way it is and it could well be somewhere in the middle. First we get that data, we look at it, stop the influx (though Sweden has slowed that down recently yes) and then possibly remove the big problem ones. After that you address the issues such as the ghettos though as you know, it is my belief that the culture of Islam is involved and that ultimately must be defeated also. We need liberal and accepting Muslims, not Conservatives and their extremes the radicals. 

 

We would both need to read that it seems however my overall point remains true whatever the case. We need more statistics published and then analysis of them. Such things are no waste of money. Immigrant issues has been in the public mind for so long that it keeps boiling and boiling and so what we've seen thus far in response to it may well ultimately be nothing for what the future holds. Look at the EU which was sort of a similar thing. Why did Brexit happen? Because for 2 decades the issue was left to boil, the EU was blamed for everything correctly or wrongly, and the EU in its arrogance didn't even bother to address such things even as it became too late to do so. 

People want to see their concerns addressed and if after doing that it means rolling back on immigration and doing some things differently then so be it. Immigration is a great thing however it should not be reckless.