Talk:Immigration and crime

Italy

I don't have a source handy, but there was also a recent controversy in Italy, where the government used an exception from the EU's free-movement rules to deport a bunch of Romanians. --Delirium (talk) 09:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Spp-poster.jpg

The image Image:Spp-poster.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Needs improvement

This is just like a dump of statistics and anecdotes rather than an article. It needs much better sourcing and some actual discussion of the issue. At the moment it'd be a handy cheat-sheet for those opposing immigration but it's not of much use educationally. Fences&Windows 23:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed (on both of your posts). In its current state, the article does nothing more but dump statistics from an extremely limited collection of sources, without any of the reasoning and analysis that go into these surveys. Presented like this, it merely reflects the reasoning of one single political agenda. As Fences&Windows says, it needs to have its scope broadened - a lot - or we could just as well start serving up articles of the form "blank criminality." Somebody262 (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Broaden the scope?

If this were broadened to be Immigration and crime it could cover issues of illegal immigration, human trafficking, crimes against immigrants and crimes by immigrants, and the article wouldn't have the automatic assumption inherent in the title that there is such a thing as "immigrant criminality". Fences&Windows 00:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Fences, there is such a thing as immigrant criminality, it's a plain question of choosing to single it out and look at it. You have shown extremely bad judgement in this, and It appears that you simply want impose Political Correctness no matter what.

It isn't helpful to wave your hands and try to change the subject, or failing that to delete the article, when it is pointed out that the immigrant demographic in practically any industrialized country has a significantly higher rate of delinquency. No, it isn't helpful to state that there are also crimes commited against immigrants, and other crimes commited by non-immigrants, that's just changing the subject. What needs to be done is to look at it and try to collect evidence showing why this should be the case and what are the underlying mechanisms. It isn't "immigrant-bashing" to do this.

If you do this honestly (as opposed to either just indulge in immigrant-bashing, or on the other hand, try to dismiss the subject as a "myth" or as immigrant-bashing), the "young male" topos will come up very soon. It turns out that (a) immigrant demographics have an above-average percentage of young males, and (b) young males of any demographic show above average delinquency. What needs to be discussed, then, is the correlation between being a young male, migrating and being criminal. Do young males migrate in order to be criminal, do they migrate and then become criminal as it were as independent decisions, or do they migrate and then become criminal because they feel alienated in a foreign environment, or what. This needs to be based on sociological literature and demographic studies. This is complicated enough without your attempts to muddy the water and introduce random unrelated topics. --dab (𒁳) 15:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Crying "political correctness" is a very dodgy argument to deploy, you're immediately assuming bad faith. Failing to include discussion from the sources that deny that such as thing as "immigrant criminality" even exists is not good editing. I'm not "muddying the waters", I'm saying this is a sub-standard article and needs entirely rewriting to give a balanced view of the intersection of immigration and crime - which can include a section about "immigration criminality", providing it is well-sourced and balanced. The very subject is imbalanced as it makes the assumption that such a thing as "Immigrant criminality" exists by its title without even trying to show that it does, instead just listing some statistics without any real context. For an analogous potential article, try starting "Jewish criminality"[1] and see what happens. Just because we can write an article on a certain topic with a certain title doesn't mean we should. Someone has moved the title to "Immigration and crime" as I'd suggested; I'd ask that we leave it there and rewrite accordingly. If the topic is so complicated, why did you not write the article properly to reflect that? Perhaps you should take more care on complicated and sensitive topics in future. Fences&Windows 02:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

well, wildly moving articles around to titles considered politically more palatable also does very little towards addressing concerns that the article content is sub-standard. No, this article does not need a balanced account of "the intersection of immigration and crime", this is nonsense, as the article's topic is clearly immigrant criminality, not intersection of immigration and crime.

Your suggestion "try 'Jewish criminality'" is pure WP:POINT (a.k.a. bad faith). We could indeed write an article about the notion of Jewish criminality, because the term was historically in use, and is notable in the history of anti-semitism. Just as long as it is made clear from the beginning that "Jewish criminality" is a term relevant to the WWI to Nazi era. "Immigrant criminality" otoh is not a historical term, it is a term used in a discourse very much part of current-day affairs. If in 50 years there should be a paradigm shift to a consensus that the debate on immigrant criminality during the 2000s was misguided and inherently xenophobic, please come back in 2060 and present your refereces then. WP:CRYSTAL. Your implication that just because "Jewish criminality" is today considered an ideological concept within anti-semitism does not prove that the situation with "immigrant criminality" is in any way comparable. Sheesh.

If there is little immigrant criminality in the USA, that's great for the USA, but it just means that the USA has little to contribute to this topic, not that this topic is invalid. --dab (𒁳) 11:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You're still assuming that such as thing as "immigrant criminality" exists, and then writing the article to suit that assumption. An article that fails to discuss why there could be an association or perceived association of immigrants with criminality and just lists some statistics out of context is basically worthless: but you wrote one anyway. Fences&Windows 23:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course it exists. It's a synthesis of two items, immigration and crime. Just like "armed robbery" exists. There are arms, there are robbers, and there is armed robbery. Of course it would be "original synthesis" if we as Wikipedians just took two concepts, such as "unicorns" and "manslaughter" and wrote an article about it. The entire point is that the synthesis of "arms" and "robbery", or of "immigrant" and "crime" isn't ours but is found in notable, quotable sources.

I am really through with your bad faith stalling. All you did for this article was nominate it for deletion and slap ridiculous amounts of cleanup tags on it. Either you are interested in working on it or you aren't. If you are, let's see some good faith contributions. If you aren't, please leave it alone already. --dab (𒁳) 10:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Crime and Immigration (2007) and Immigration and Crime (2006)

Two books which appear worth looking into in regards to the future of this article are:

• Crime and Immigration (2007) by Freilich & Newman
• Immigration and Crime (2006) by Martinez & Valenzuela

--Aryaman (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I will roll my sleeves up and see if I can help. Fences&Windows 22:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Both of these books discusss the situation in the USA specifically. So far this article is missing an US section altogether. We should start one, and branch out detail to an immigration and crime in the United States article. The situation in the USA is vastly different from that in Europe. In an US context, it may in fact make more sense to speak of "immigration and crime", because there appears to be actually less criminality among immigrants on average. --dab (𒁳) 11:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion.

I see this was suggested in feb. This article is terrible and reads very poorly. It is of little use to scholars looking for information and reads like a piece of propaganda in places. RUBBISH.77.102.241.60 (talk) 14:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed Lawdroid (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Most of the sections do not observe NPOV Inund8 (talk) 22:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The article is fine, the sources obey Wikipedia rules. NPOV does not mean inventing your own facts, we dont give equal consideration to fringe opinions compared to accepted consensus. It is simply a fact that in majority of countries immigrants have higher criminality (the only exception I know is US with Mexican immigrants), and the article reflects that (if you dont think its the case, feel free to provide different data that show the opposite). What could be improved is adding some paragraph about the interpretation of the data (there is none so far, only the numbers are stated), but thats definitely not a reason for deletion. - Blaspie55

Not agreed. I find it well sourced and balance. Zezen (talk) 11:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

inclusion of norwegian information

makes it as if Norway has a huge problem with immigrants. edits are suspiciously like a banned user who has been trying to paint migrants very negatively. LibStar (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It's up to you what to make of it. It is only the facts. Statistics about crime by immigrants in Norway is of course relevant to an article on WP named "Immigration and crime". The norwegian material is exactly in the same format as the rest of the article. Removing well sourced relevant content like you're doing is vandalism.81.167.16.214 (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

IP. Have you followed the redirect you carelessly removed? If you do you will find that all of the information (sources and all) is there. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 02:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean

Main article: Immigration to Norway § Issues

? It says nothing of immigration and crime. Why does it matter by the way?

Do you realize how stupid you look right now... the article title reads Immigration to norway. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 02:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I really dont get what you're trying to prove.81.167.16.214 (talk) 02:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

enough with the PC whitewashing

The problem with this article is the bigot attitude expressed here. In what way is it "racist filth" to say that anti-immigrant sentiment is on the rise in Europe, and that this is directly associated with the debate over high immigrant crime rates? Is it "racist" against the Dutch to state that they elected figures like Fortuyn and Wilders because of their frustration with immigrant crime? Well, they did, I am sorry if this insults those Dutch that voted for other parties, but that's how democracy wins, the people with the most votes get to govern. Personally I would never vote for right-wing populists, as I do not think they are part of a solution but much rather part of the problem, but everyone needs to recognize that dissatisfaction with the immigrant situation will invariably lead to a backlash via protest votes and result in unsavoury figures entering parliament. It is entirely pointless to deny this mechanism. --dab (𒁳) 07:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

here is another example of bigotry. Apparently, the required standards are that every edit to this article must "represent the whole of immigration" in a given country. How this article is supposed to be improved with such surreal expectations (a.k.a. WP:POINT) is a mystery.

Some people seem to labour under the misapprehension that discussing criminal immigrants is somehow a slight on immigrants in general, including law abiding ones. This is, of course, ridiculous. The fact is that "immigrant criminality" is a real political issue which creates a real and tangible political backlash, and it is irresponsible to refuse covering it just because that backlash happens to be associated with nationalistic and right-wing populistic overtones. --dab (𒁳) 13:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

With an article name such as this, what do you expect? It's like having an article entitled Men and rape, Muslims and stoning or Koreans and cat eating. Of course some immigrants are criminals, and some criminals are immigrants. There may be more immigrant criminals than non-immigrant criminals and this will enable various political groups etc to get excited. But really, it's not a stand-alone subject that merits treatment as a seperate issue. Anything in this article would sit much better in individual country articles, or in immigration or crime-related articles. This is because "Immigration and crime" does not mean anything different than "Immigration and crime" (unlike say Rhythm and blues or Search and rescue. The article creates the presumption of an intrinisic relationship that simply doesn't exist. This will inevitably lead to problems and conflict in editing and maintaining it. --Pontificalibus (talk) 23:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

thanks Pontificalibus, agree with name change. LibStar (talk) 00:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

um, the topic of this article is immigrant criminality. I agree to current title is misleading. This is what I am talking about. Yes, the article is in bad shape. The proper approach would be to help fixing it. What people are doing instead is deteriorate it even more, and then call for deletion because it has been deteriorated. This is disingenious.

That said, "immigration and crime" is a valid topic. The question is not, does the article title connect to nouns with a conjunction. The question is, can it be shown that there is serious literature covering the topic. With several monographs titled "immigration and crime", this is very easy to establish for this title[2].

You are correct that if a title is purely compositional ("Immigration and crime") the topic is invalid. Rhythm and blues, Search and rescue and immigration and crime are valid because there is literature about this specific conjunction. "Koreans and cat eating" is not a valid conjunction because at least I fail to find literature covering the topic.[3] --dab (𒁳) 11:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

single extreme example for Germany

persistently trying to include this example, is extremely selective and violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV in its presentation. if someone didn't know anything about German immigration would they draw the conclusion all migrants are like this? LibStar (talk) 02:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

"if someone didn't know anything about German immigration would they draw the conclusion all migrants are like this" -- what on earth led you to such an idea? Please respect WP:FORUM and don't use Wikipedai talkpages for random rhetorical elaborations. Also please do not abuse WP:AFD for whimsical WP:POINT. --dab (𒁳) 11:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Immigration and crime → Crime among immigrants — Current title to some extent makes a bias against immigrants overall, and draws a line as if immigration lead to crime and looks at the issue of crime conducted by immigrants in isolation of other factors and without addressing the issue of crime against immigrants. There are records which indicate when an immigration affected positively on country's economy e.g. catalyzing economy and increase in demand. Userpd (talk) 13:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I think your proposed name actually makes a bias against immigrants overall, focusing on crime perpetuated by immigrant persons, whereas the current title doesn't preclude the positive or negative effects of immigration on overall crime rates. --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No, here it would be clearly written about crime among immigrants rather than assuming that immigration and crime is mutually inclusive. Also, you said: "the current title doesn't preclude the positive or negative effects of immigration on overall crime rates" - how is the data of performed crimes by immigrants or suggesting that crime and immigration is just one thing is positive to you? Userpd (talk) 01:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. To whatever extent the problems identified by the nominator exist, the proposed title is far, far worse. The current title merely juxtaposes the two topics, allowing the article to discuss how the two intersect and to what extent; there is no bias implied. The proposed title, on the other hand, unnecessarily limits the scope and implies that crime specifically "among" (whether that means "by" or "against" is unclear) immigrants is somehow notable in itself. Powers ^T 19:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't limit, it just clarifies to avoid assumptions. Userpd (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You're going to have to be more specific. What assumptions? How does the simple conjunction "and" imply a bias against immigrants? You said: "There are records which indicate when an immigration affected positively on country's economy" -- which has what to do with crime? Powers ^T 20:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Assumption that immigration is something bad (crime). Assumption that immigration and crime are two things that are notable enough to keep focus on it in order to worse the situation with immigrants. It has to do with crime because there's no article which would indicate "immigration and positiveness on economy" or something like that. It's no doubt this article will be used as a platform for spreading the idea that immigration is bad by "providing data" on how many crimes are being performed by immigrants simply because they're immigrants omitting other aspects which could have lead to a crime. Userpd (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like you consider the mere existence of this article to be a problem, then. Your proposed title is certainly no better at trying to disassociate the two concepts than the current title; if anything, it's worse. Powers ^T 02:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

"Crime among immigrants" isn't that controversial (it's just a natural thing) as bounding immigration and crime together. Userpd (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - I appreciate and roughly agree with the rationale, but I also agree with Pontificalibus that the proposed new name does not solve the POV title problem. At the moment I think "Immigration and crime" is about as neutral as you're going to get. While we're here, it is true that the article still has POV issues, particularly in the Sweden and Switzerland sections which are completely torn out of any kind of contexts (hence, the POV is largely due to errors of omission). Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

no consensus, eh?

Strange how it was no problem to move this article away from its original location at immigrant criminality even though there was no consensus for that either.

I created this page in October 2007 at immigrant criminality. I would ask you to kindly leave it in place as long as there isn't any consensus for anything either way. It is one thing to do things by the book, it is another to apply double standards. --dab (𒁳) 11:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that using a very POV title like that for such a topic, using just one source, which is only source in the article, is about WP:NPOV policy. Someone should have noted the change in talk, but it should not be a controversial change. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

AfD Comments to help improve article

Here are some relevant comments from the deletion discussion that can be used as basis of expanding the article (assuming WP:RS found), including some sources - whose inclusion was one reason article was not AfD'd (so someone should put them in the article if they don't want to see a future AfD). In part theses suggestions are made to deal with the legitimate concern expressed in the AfD: "usual[ly] people wouldn't try to blame the entire group of people but instead focus on individuals that do it without labeling others for their attitudes / crimes.":

• the books linked in the discussion, cited by the closer, are not from reliable academic presses. Chick Bowen 02:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• As far as sources go, 10 minutes on a library web catalogue gave
  • Is Immigration Responsible for the Crime Drop? An Assessment of the Influence of Immigration on Changes in Violent Crime Between 1990 and 2000. by Tim Wadsworth, University of Colorado Boulder
  • Higher Immigration, Lower Crime. by Daniel Griswold, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute
  • Mexican Immigration: Insiders' Views on Crime, Risks, and Victimization. from the Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice
  • CRIME AND IMMIGRATION by Gino Speranza, in the Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology
  • Latino Employment and Black Violence: The Unintended Consequence of U.S. Immigration Policy. by Edward Shihadeh and Raymond Barranco, LSU
  • IMMIGRATION AND CRIME IN AN ERA OF TRANSFORMATION: A LONGITUDINAL ANALYSIS OF HOMICIDES IN SAN DIEGO NEIGHBORHOODS by Ramiro Martinez, Jacob Stowell, and Matthew Lee - Criminology
• Don't forget:
  • Lee, Matthew T.; Martinez, Ramiro (2009). "Immigration reduces crime: an emerging scholarly consensus". In McDonald, William Frank (ed.). Immigration, Crime and Justice. Sociology of Crime Law and Deviance. Vol. 13. Emerald Group Publishing. pp. 3–16. doi:10.1108/S1521-6136(2009)0000013004. ISBN 9781848554382. ISSN 1521-6136. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Rumbaut, Rubén G.; Ewing, Walter A. (2007). "The Myth of Immigrant Criminality and the Paradox of Assimilation: Incarceration Rates among Native and Foreign-Born Men". Immigration Policy Center. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
• Ironically for all of these claims about POV-pushing, the first chapter of McDonald2009, one of the very books cited in the AFD discussion, is Lee & Martinez 2009 arguing that immigration reduces crime based upon a review of the scholarly literature on the subject.
• The first book is by Jacob I. Stowell assistant professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Massachusetts Lowell and published by academic publishing house LFB Scholarly Publishing, and the second book is edited by William Frank McDonald professor and co-director of the Institute of Criminal Law and Procedure at Georgetown University, published by Emerald Group Publishing, and containing articles written by people such as Matthew T. Lee associate professor of Sociology at the University of Akron and Ramiro Martinez Jr, associate professor of Criminal Justice at Florida International University.
• look, there are more books which are pretty much of the same reliability (the University of Michigan, Oxford University Press US) with titles that draw an assumption between ethnicities and crime, should we create an article for this too? Ethnicity and crime? So, like I said, there are other aspects which should we take into account, most of crimes which are done by immigrants not being implied in the article by its current title. And makes it look as their immigration status is the reason for more crimes.
• If there's a link between immigration and crime, then that's definitely to be explained on Wikipedia--and if there's no link between them, then that too definitely needs to be said...PS: The current article isn't about "immigration and crime". It's about "immigrants as perpetrators of crime". It either needs to explore the subject of immigrants as victims of crime as well, or change its name. An article called "immigration and crime" would need to mention issues like human trafficking.
• ...historical info on US history of immigration where there was a very free immigration policy for a few hundred years (to the Native Americans dismay, of course) is relevant. In fact, in that case the colonialists were a bunch of land grabbing murderers. Hmmm, and then there's Israel's colonialists and lots of others (Albanians in Kosovo, for example, and they were supported by US; another interesting case.) When do people stop being immigrants and start being colonialists anyway?
• Immigrants as victims of crime are tackled by chapters 5—9 of McDonald2009, with articles written by people such as professor Toni Makkai and Natalie Taylor (of the AIC).
• Immigration affects on the crime level is an oft-spoken topic to warrant an article. That article is extremely poor quality though...
• This article is not expected to make a conclusion about the presence or nature of the link; it is supposed to (and does) present the arguments and data published on the subject, and the readers will make up their own mind about the conclusions. As all agree, the article needs very considerable expansion.

So hopefully efforts will be made to improve article. Maybe I will do so myself in my area of interest - immigration and colonialization and crime. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, you are essentially saying that there is tons of literature for those who wish to build this article. I think this was clear all along. The people who keep moving, pruning and Afding this article are not interested in developing it, they are interested in sabotaging its development. If the people only interested in preventing this article will now kindly stay away, perhaps it can finally make some progress.

I understand the misguided political correctness that motivates this kind of disruption. I also think it is stupid. I am familiar with Swiss statistics. In Switzerland, people of Sub-Saharan African origin have a crime rate about eight time higher than the Swiss population. This is a highly significant statistical fact and definitely needs to be reported and examined. Does it translate to "Africans are more criminal than Europeans"? No. And nobody in their right mind would suggest it does. It translates to "Sub-Saharan Africans who happen to be in Switzerland, for a variety of poorly understood circumstances and reasons, happen to be more criminal than the average population". Sometimes the mere facts are relevant too, or even more relevant than abstract or ideological conclusions.

This article is expected to report any conclusion that happens to be reached in published literature on the topic. The presence of the link for many countries is a simple matter of statistics and beyond dispute.

It goes without saying that interpretations for this are not to be made in Wikipedia's voice. What this article should do is reporting interpretations made in quotable sources. This is just stating the obvious. There are 3.5 million Wikipedia articles, and these basic observations hold true for each one. --dab (𒁳) 11:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

statistics should be presently clearly so as to be easily misintrepreted. Use of "single extreme examples" of say a group of people of race X committing a horrendous crime is WP:UNDUE. This article should not be a list of selective statistics and examples of crime. This article needs to be structured better than a country by country account of migrants committing crime. LibStar (talk) 11:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention the simple fact that immigrants are often discriminated against in employment and therefore some turn to crime. And let's not forget situations like a) immigrants who came because their countries were formerly colonized and/or such immigration for cheap labor formerly encouraged and b) immigrants whose own economies were harmed by the nation they moved to (think NAFTA) and therefore feel forced to come here and some turn to crime; and c) crimes committed by cross-border criminals who aren't immigrants but who might place immigrants in various countries for purpose of crime. So crime was the purpose of, not the result of, immigration. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

so? you are listing some, just some, possible correlations. You pick them selectively due to your political agenda, sombody else would list other correlations, also picked selectively. Obviously the aim of this article must be to present all such proposed correlations within WP:DUE. The fact remains, of course, that there is a statistically significant correlation, in part due to the mechanisms you listed, in part due to others. It is one thing to explain a correlation. It is another to draw political conclusions from such explanations. At present, the "lead" talks about "real or perceived correlation". This is of course completely biased. You may as well say that superconductivity is the "real or perceived" disappearance of electrical resistance, or that rape is a "real or perceived" sexual assault. Obviously using a term implies that you have "perceived" something, and there is room for misperception. Making a big fuss about an epistemological commonplace is just a sign of editorializing. The question is not whether there is a correlation between immigration and crime. That is well documented. The question is whether it can or should be excused due to factors such as those you listed. Recording a correlation and opiniong that it is excusable are two fundamentally different things. Your list of reasons suggest that you do think that it is excusable, and that is fair enough. Basically you are listing discrimination, historical colonialism and economic retaliation as valid excuses. This article should certainly document this opinion, but it must label it as an opinion. Others would list anthropological factors such as "excess of young males". This may indeed be a valid excuse, I don't know, let's see the quotable references. The question will still be, for the purposes of the policy makers of a given country, whether they should opt to allow significant immigration of a demopgrahic of whom they know in advance that they will cause a statistical increase of delinquence for perfectly excusable and normal reasons. In the same vein, increasing the speed limit on a mountain road will increase the number of traffic accidents for perfectly excusable reasons, namely human neurological reaction time. Policy makers will still be responsible for an action which is forseeable to cause an effect, especially if the effect is perfectly predictable. --dab (𒁳) 11:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Netherlands statistics

This section is almost completely unsourced, and the sources are of the lowest quality - two third-hand news reports. I propose that we delete this section unless official statistics can be provided. Lawdroid (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree; it's worrying (and the source at the end doesn't inspire a great deal of confidence). Probably best to remove stuff like that unless/until a better source is added. bobrayner (talk) 09:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Misleading statistics

Studies that purport to demonstrate that immigrants have lower crime rates in the United States almost always fail to take into account the length of an immigrant's stay in the country versus the length of a native-born citizen's stay. If I were to release all the convicts of a maximum security prison and, one week later, inquire into how many of them have been re-arrested for violent crimes versus how many arrests were made for those same crimes in the general population, I might well find that ex-convicts have low rates of criminality compared to the general population and might then claim that ex-convicts are less violent than those who have never been to prison. That's false because it will not likely remain the case if I compare arrest rates between these two groups five or ten years out. Similarly, native-born citizens have had their entire lives in country to rack up criminal records while many immigrants have only had months or a few short years to do the same (and assuming they've actually stayed in the country for the entirety of their duration). In spite of this obvious problem, most studies fail to take this into account. They rely on comparisons of lifetime incarceration rates and don't use more appropriate "per year" metrics of criminality.

Furthermore, a look at the most wanted lists of individual states often reveals a very high percentage of Hispanics whose birthplaces are unknown (and who are often formally described as "white males" ) even in states with relatively low percentages of Hispanics. It appears obvious that many of these fugitives are illegal immigrants from Latin American countries who have made these wanted lists precisely because they've escaped home. These people are not tabulated in arrest statistics because they've fled the country prior to arrest! 24.113.109.228 (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? bobrayner (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE

The article Europe section is not UNDUE, because it only presents statistical facts, and there is no dispute in mainstream media or academia that this statistics are true. The only dispute is about their *interpretation* - whether the higher crime rate is due to socioeconomic conditions, culture or law enforcement bias. This interpretation issues need to be clarified (with each view given appropiate space per WP:UNDUE). But there is no reason to delete simple facts that present no disputed opinions, when they satisfy WP:VERIFIABILITY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShotmanMaslo (talk • contribs) 12:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

``socioeconomic may be the catch phrase here: in countries, where immigrants etc. are poor, the crime rate may go down with wealth for every kind of citizen alike. The article states nothing about correlation, causality and socioeconomics. Please delete this whole misleading article or rewrite it as something IMHO in the line of: 'correlation cannot tell us a thing unless we are doing regional, meta-paper studies, which still won't even tell the whole truth.' 178.4.255.47 (talk) 08:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, correlation can still tell us something, even if you dont have definite consensus about the causation, which is why correlates of crime are used. What is the crime rate of immigrants (perhaps compared to crime rate of general population) is still a piece of useful knowledge. You can add studies that go deeper into the causes (if you have them), but they are not strictly necessary for this article to provide useful information - even the raw crime rate of immigrant populations is enough.

STOP reverting my contributions without discussion. The sources are NOT atrocious. RTV Rijnmond, NIS News and The Local are very respectable, mainstream news sources. The Local is the largest English-language news network in Europe, NIS News is the official english site of the Netherlands' national news agency ANP. They are also not cherrypicked, I have not found any other sources dealing with the topic (feel free to add other respectable sources that disagree with them if you think I have deliberately missed something). I am giving you a chance to voice your objections, but unless you provide a good reason why it should not be included, I am going the revert the delete.

More sources to support my contributions:

http://www.elsevier.nl/web/Nieuws/Nederland/236094/Schokkende-cijfers-criminaliteit-Marokkanen-Rotterdam.htm

https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/16374/Leun%20van%20der.pdf?sequence=2

"Early studies in the Dutch context showed that boys of Ambonese (Indonesian) and Surinamese origin were more often registered as crime suspects than Dutch boys. A number of studies since then recognise a significant overrepresentation of Moroccan and Antillean youngsters in recorded crime."

"Although problems with youngsters with a Moroccan and Antillean background attract most of the attention, the 2002 police data also show that less noticed groups of immigrants also display higher crime rates than natives. They come from countries such as the Dominican Republic, Angola, Congo, Sierra Leone, Tunisia and Algeria (Blom et al. 2005: 125)"

"Police data for 2002 that were linked to population data showed that 37.5 percent of all recorded suspects of a crime living in the Netherlands are of foreign origin (including those of the second generation). The proportion of these persons in the suspect population is therefore almost twice as high as the share of immigrants among the Dutch population. The highest suspect rates per capita are found among first (4.9) and second generation (7.1) male migrants from a non‐western background. Rates for so‐called ‘western migrants’ are very close to those of the native Dutch. In all groups, rates for women are considerably lower than for men, with the highest found among non‐western migrants (Blom et al 2005: 31)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShotmanMaslo (talk • contribs) 19:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you have any official sources, then, instead of news sources? Looks a hell of a lot like cherrypicking. Lawdroid (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I have not found the primary sources these articles reference on the internet, hence the "better citation tag" - if someone finds them, it would be prefferable. But even if not, respectable secondary sources are acceptable as citations and should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShotmanMaslo (talk • contribs) 05:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Someone added a NPOV tag, asserting that the data are "somewhat cherrypicked", probably referring to the Europe section. As the autor of a large portion of that section, I feel the need to say that I have not cherrypicked anything, unless Google is cherrypicking - contrary to the US, there is simply no data from Europe that I know of that would show immigrants having lower crime rate than the natives - the best I could find is that Eastern Europeans have the same crime rate in Britain, and its in there, added by me. The opposite point of view has no basis, and thus should not be represented on Wikipedia - we dont give heliocentrism and geocentrism the same weight because of neutrality. If you think I omitted some source showing the opposite, feel free to add it, but I have not found anything like that. [unsigned comment, probably by Blaspie55 (talk)]

I have fixed some weasel words, to call spade a spade. Zezen (talk) 09:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I found weird POV quotes "[The rate of crimes by immigrants] further drops to 2.4 : 1 if offences that cannot be committed by Germans are taken off." source.

I wonder what crimes can only be committed by non-Germans. Anybody knows?

Its probably referring to things like illegal immigration into Germany, perhaps abusing services that are for citizens only - in general, things that are legal for a German citizen to do, but illegal for non-citizens. Although this is just my guess. Blaspie55 (talk) 10:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Good guess, but these are not crimes. No statistician would include these here.Zezen (talk) 11:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

ScrittoreMagrolino's edits

@ScrittoreMagrolino: Please revert your edits as:

1. You introduce too many grammatical etc. mistakes despite my comment on your Talk.

2. The Amnesty "scuola/secondaria-primo-grado" source that you elaborate on is POV material for school-aged kids, so not a Wp:RS. Do not use these.

3. Your other controversial edits are not sourced and limited to this article, hence Wp:OR and Wp:SPA .

4. Edits such as "significantly higher (between 64 and 86 percent higher) than Italians' crime rate, between 1.23% (64 percent higher) and 1.4% (86 percent higher)", and thus deleting the "significant" qualifier are at best clumsy, while also subjective, to put it mildly.

Zezen (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

1. The mistakes has been corrected by 207.244.188.188

2. The source ('Popoli Migranti Guida per l'insegnante' PDF) is reliable and cites sources for every data mentioned within, in this case 'Rapporto del Ministero degli Interni: Stranieri e Sicurezza' (government data)

3 . See page 17 of the Amnesty International report

4 . in this page immigrants' crime rates (jn the ways analyzed for other nations) usually are 3-5 times higher than natives' crime rates without adverbs like 'significantly' to remark that so adding 'significantly' here is not consistent with the page, therefore it is not neutral because it diverts the sense of the phrase in this context.

ScrittoreMagrolino (talk) 08:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Ad 1. Here is what you wrote since then, exempli gratia:

But taking into account the different legal status of foreigners, 16.9% of the complaints against foreigners regularly present can be connected directly or indirectly to the immigration law... 

Apart from the WP:Weasel words can, directly or indirectly, the bolded term has little meaning in English. Please ask a native English speaker to fix these so that we can comment.

Ad 2. Please thus quote 'Rapporto del Ministero degli Interni: Stranieri e Sicurezza', which is RS, directly, so that we can check therein.

THanks. Zezen (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I can't find the full government document(only a partial summary is available in the government site) , the data however can be found in another document that elaborates government data, in fact the Amnesty International report refers to two sources for those information, this is the document mentioned (download 'comunicato/scheda' )

http://www.caritas.it/home_page/tutti_i_temi/00001531_01/10/2009___La_criminalita_degli_immigrati___dati__interpretazioni_e_pregiudizi.html

The document is called "La criminalità degli immigrati: dati, interpretazioni e pregiudizi". As you can see when you open the document the report is made by 'Dossier Statistico Immigrazione' (aka 'IDOS' as you can see here http://www.dossierimmigrazione.it/categoria.php?cid=1). IDOS is a statistics agency that works with the government (as you can see here http://www.integrazionemigranti.gov.it/Attualita/News/Pagine/idos_imprenditoria_luglio2014.aspx or here http://www1.interno.gov.it/mininterno/site/it/sezioni/sala_stampa/notizie/immigrazione/2014_03_25_rapporto_idos_EMN.html :) therefore the data is reliable. 'La criminalità degli immigrati: dati, interpretazioni e pregiudizi' is furthermore a famous document mentioned by many other studies (peer review) like this https://books.google.it/books?id=RpfrAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA829&lpg=PA829&dq=La+criminalit%C3%A0+degli+immigrati:+dati,+interpretazioni+e+pregiudizi&source=bl&ots=2-cHeUuX-6&sig=BN2rVK-Ad8tch5ErqC3ec86Xloc&hl=it&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwifrqOInpvKAhWIOxoKHa75AAU4ChDoAQg1MAg#v=onepage&q=La%20criminalit%C3%A0%20degli%20immigrati%3A%20dati%2C%20interpretazioni%20e%20pregiudizi&f=false

ScrittoreMagrolino (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I read the La Criminalita source. It talks about LEGAL migrants in the intro:  degli immigrati regolari nel nostro Paese è solo leggermente più alto di quello degli italiani (tra l'1,23% e l'1,40%, contro lo 0,75%...,

while you write only "foreigners" there. As stated above, the illegal aliens commit many times more crimes so its apples and oranges here. Please rephrase then or explain here. Zezen (talk) 05:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@ ScrittoreMagrolino Ad 1. Please also further fix the grammar of your contributions such as:

Legal immigrants' crime rate is higher than Italians' crime rate, between 1.23% and 1.4%, compared to 0.75% of Italians' crime rate, and It is lower between people over 40 years old, comparable data considering that immigrants have a lower average age, in particular: for people aged 18–44 years old, it is' 1.50% ...

that detract from the Italian section of this article. Zezen (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

definition of "immigrant"

Snooganssnoogans has now deleted a section 3 times by undoing the information under United Kingdom. This is unfair. He totally ignored my reason. You cannot arbitrarily make your own definition that fits your own opinion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration "Immigration is the movement of people into a destination country to which they are not native or do not possess its citizenship in order to settle or reside there, especially as permanent residents or naturalized citizens, or to take-up employment as a migrant worker or temporarily as a foreign worker."

The definition of immigration states that people who seek refuge or work in another country can become a naturalized citizen or obtain permission for permanent residency...and still be considered an immigrant and not an indigenous, native inhabitant. He is now considered a "legal immigrant" who must follow the laws of the host country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_%28law%29#Categories "a legal alien is a non-citizen who is legally permitted to remain in a country. This is a very broad category which includes tourists, guest workers, legal permanent residents and student visa resident aliens."

The African or Muslim population have been predominantly occurring in the 20th century and 21st century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_crime "Immigration and crime refers to perceived or actual relationships between crime and immigration." Now we see here that this wiki article does not solely deal with "actual" statistics but also the "perceived" relationship. There's a perception of how people from other countries bring their own culture to influence their behavior that may be at odds with the native laws.

For example, in Saudi Arabia, women are not allowed to drive a car. This law is different from the equality in the UK. It's the "perception" how immigrants from that region may not have the same respect if they did not grow up in the same environment.

If you can find new information that shows the Japanese having a lower crime rate, then I would not object with you. I'm not against immigration as a foreign policy, but the truth should be allowed with freedom of speech.

I want to get a compromise with you, Snooganssnoogans, or get another person to discuss this issue and come to a consensus. Thank you for your time. I will be undoing it just for my 2nd time because I gave links and explanation with the keywords of "perceived" and "naturalized citizens". Even if you do not personally agree with the statistics, the facts are permitted and relevant according to how they've been defined. Billyh45 (talk) 02:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Even after 50 years, a settler from another country is still considered a legal "immigrant". Their children can be brought up while learning their ancestors' culture, different language, foreign food, or clothing. Even 2nd generation families consist of the "perceived" relationship to immigration. Billyh45 (talk) 03:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Simply being black or Muslim does not make you an immigrant, even if someone perceives you to be. Is Oxlade-Chamberlain an immigrant? Is George Galloway, who happens to be Muslim, an immigrant? There is already a page for 'race and crime in the UK' and you're free to create one on 'religion and crime in the UK'.

Galloway denied converting to a Muslim in the early 2000's. "The opening paragraph of Jemima Khan's piece in the New Statesman, referring to an alleged conversion ceremony, is totally untrue." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9229014/George-Galloway-denies-claims-he-converted-to-Islam.html

Also, Islam is a foreign religion that was brought into the country by immigrants. Therefore this affects the "perceived" relation as used with the formal definitions given in the above links for wiki's "Immigration and crime" article. Are we not allowed to discuss similar content across multiple wiki articles? Why does an immigrant's religion not apply to an article about immigration? Billyh45 (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion

A third opinion has been requested. As is the usual rule, I will ask the editors to state in one or two sentences what the question is. Please be civil and concise if you really want a third-party answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans undo'ed the section 3 times because of his interpretation of the word "immigration" as only "recent immigration" in a narrow sense. But if it's defined in the intro as "perceived" as well as "actual" relationships, then wouldn't "legal immigrants" from the 1990's who have become "naturalized citizens" count in a broad sense? ([4][5][6] reversions) Billyh45 (talk) 05:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The issue is that you want a section on the crime rate of blacks and Muslims in the UK because these groups are either actual or perceived immigrants. I disagree because both these groups include people who are not immigrants in any sense (actual or perceived, legal or illegal): nobody thinks of Lady Evelyn Cobbold (a Muslim) as an immigrant or the "Black Liverpudlians... able to trace their ancestors in the city back ten generations" as immigrants (quoted from the Wiki article on 'Black British'). This seems very straightforward to me. [This is by SnoogansSnoogans. I'm not quite sure how to appropriately sign off on the 'talk' sections]

Be civil and concise, and state what the question is. Comment on content, not contributors. Otherwise I will have to remove the Third Opinion request. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I, like Robert McClenon, am a Third Opinion volunteer. From the edit summaries made since the Third Opinion request was made, I think that with the assistance of Volunteer Marek that this dispute may have been settled, at least for the moment. If that's the case, then the editor who made the request at the Third Opinion page should remove the request. Also to Snooganssnoogans, you sign your talk page posts by adding four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Robert, I'm sorry if I was not concise enough. Should I re-phrase my question? This is the first time I've contacted Third Opinion. Transporter, Marek helped me with something else, but he did not resolve my question. Billyh45 (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

If there still is a question, please restate the question, and be civil and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality and Censorship

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Immigration_and_crime&diff=700028811&oldid=700028081 I'd like to know why User:Sjö said, "removing news item that doesn't fit in" in his edit summary on 15 January 2016. A direct quote from a police chief in Stockholm has not relationship to crime or immigration at all?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Immigration_and_crime&diff=699929824&oldid=699929626 I'd like to know why User:Volunteer_Marek said, "undue - the text around it lists actual studies, here is just some media reports" in his edit summary on 15 January 2016. Can you explain why a reliable source is called "just some media reports"? What is the meaning of "undue"? Does Wikipedia have a guideline for "undue" for the basis of removing contributions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billyh45 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

If 2 or more editors are in dispute, then it will endlessly continue unless a moderator can make the final judgment. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Immigration_and_crime&diff=700034286&oldid=700034000 Volunteer_Marek states here that "this is obviously relevant". He's saying that political views from the opposition of parties are allowed to criticize the official statistics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Immigration_and_crime&diff=700055424&oldid=700040811 Volunteer_Marek then removed my post about the police. He claims I'm violating Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material Then why remove the entire post? Is the direct quote from a police chief in Sweden an error that shouldn't belong in a Wiki article about crime in Sweden? Volunteer_Marek engages in aggressive editing.

If you check his talk page, he has a history of removing without adequately explaining and without forming a consensus with the other editors. User_talk:Volunteer_Marek#Please_special_the_reason_for_removal_of_text and User_talk:Volunteer_Marek#Removal_of_contents

I will remove my sentence if it violates Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material, but I believe the police chief's comment is relevant. Can a moderator please give a final ruling? Billyh45 (talk) 04:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Also why remove a statistic from the National Geographic? It's a reliable source. Billyh45 (talk) 04:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Move the Italy section up

I'm relatively new at this, so I'm wary about doing source edits. Could someone move the Italy section to where it should be alphabetically? Thanks. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)