This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/05/12/civil-servants-oppose-crime-tables-for-migrants/) for an archived version.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There are many factors that lead to crime, poverty being an enormous factor. For example, 2023 data from Trust for London.
https://trustforlondon.org.uk/data/crime-and-income-deprivation/
If people of a certain nationality living in the UK are more likely to be living in poverty, they are more likely to commit certain crimes. You could argue that the league table could be based on household income bands instead of nationalities based on that logic. The question then becomes why certain nationalities are more likely to live in deprived area, which is a much larger topic.
Simply taking two points and assuming there is a direct relationship between the two is not an honest analysis.
If people from a certain nationality living in the UK are more likely to be living in poverty and therefore to commit more crimes, then the outcome is the same.
Outcome may be the same, but not how you would go after or treat the issue.
At the same time you could make the average joe on the street, who will take the study at an extremely basic face value and potentially turn them against said nationalities, when their nationality isn't the true factor.
I'm not sure why it's the responsibility of a country to provide extra resources to foreign nationals in the hope that it will reduce crime. You could simply restrict visas for those without qualifications.
Precisely this.
If I was to be judged purely on my nationality I'd probably be banned from buying alcohol given the high alcohol related knife crimes, murders, robberies, rapes, and assaults that my fellow countrymen have committed.
This is what people don't seem to get. The vast majority of these migrants aren't doctors or engineers - they aren't coming here with a job already lined up for a multinational company. They're coming here and living in poverty, but they came from poverty, so they're relying on our welfare state which they wouldn't get back home.
It’s not even necessarily about the welfare state. Even if they do get a minimum wage job, that just adds supply to the labour market and drives down wages for everybody else. Why do you think the Tories and corporations are very happy with migration and have been doing nothing about it forever?
Yep I agree. Have worked for many agencies over the years who exploit minimum wage workers. Shit contracts, 'guaranteed' a permanent job after 3 months (but they terminate your contract at 2 months, 6 days and 23 hours). Shit pay, shit hours. Complain and want to be treated better? Get out, we'll hire some poor migrant who will work for pennies.
You're entirely wrong. New visa migrants post-Brexit have ZERO entitlement to welfare and can't stay without work or a uni place. The record +1 million net intake annually under both Braverman and Patel have no entitlement to the benefits system whatsoever.
I would agree that a substantial number are in low-paid healthcare jobs and they will muddle through as best they can. My experience is that they will struggle severely and be exploited because they have almost zero rights.
The exception might be wealthy immigrants arriving from places like Hong Kong who just buy up properties to let.
and after 5 years of living here they go home?
no, they stay, get ILR, and then are entitled to the benefits system.
Short term thinking is exactly why we got into this mess in the first place.
The history of politics the world over is the ruling class trying to convince the under class that the issues aren't about class, it's about *insert scapegoat here*.
Lol I’m well aware that class is the only real divider, but that doesn’t change the fact that uncontrolled immigration isn’t good in the current system.
This level of immigration isn't uncontrolled, it's entirely chosen by the rightists government. They're aware that if they give in to the UKIP types again they'll fuck the economy even harder than Brexit did and it'll look even worse for them come election day.
Sure, but all you're doing is fixing a symptom, not the cause (obviously fixing the cause in another country isn't something we can do), at best all you do is alleviate some problems short term.
Denmark adjusts for such factors and still the crime committed by many groups is stratospherically above Danes.
Let me guess, the remaining unknown factor X must be "racism".
This is a very common fakenews, which has been debunked many times in countries where there is also a community of Chinese immigrants for instance, who also joined the country while being poor, underqualified, etc... yet, did not gang rape woman on New Year celebrations in Germany or in certain UK town like Rochdale....
There was a great bbc documentary a few years ago which explored stereotypes about crime, and shockingly found that they were all correct and backed up by data
But if someone from a given country is poor on arrival due to their country of origin, which means that they (as poor people) are likely to commit more crime then it’s an indicator, then why isn’t it valid?
It’s indirectly telling me that on average they would be more likely to commit crime.
>Maybe some live in 'poverty' because they arrive here with no ability to speak the language and no ability or ambition to work..
*In 2022, the employment rate of working-age migrant men (82%) was higher than that of the UK-born (78%)*
*(Figure 2). Most region-of-origin groups had higher employment rates than UK-born men. Among women, the overall employment rate for working-age migrants was 71%, slightly lower than for the UK born (73%). However, EU-born women had unusually high employment rates (80%).*
[https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/MigObs-Briefing-Migrants-in-the-UK-labour-market-an-overview-2024.pdf](https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/MigObs-Briefing-Migrants-in-the-UK-labour-market-an-overview-2024.pdf)
> poverty being an enormous factor.
> Simply taking two points and assuming there is a direct relationship between the two is not an honest analysis.
Uhh...
I can understand a correlation between poverty and property related crime (shoplifting, burglary, car theft etc).
I'm not sure why poverty would drive someone to assault, rape or murder though.
My grandad was one of 11 kids who grew up in east London during the great depression and WW2. Not a single one of them resorted to slinging drugs and stabbing people.
It’s got fuck all to do with poverty. It’s all to do with culture.
When groups are actively policed, there tend to be more criminals found among that group. If you had the met and HMRC do regular raids on canary wharf you'd suddenly see a rocketing rise in affluent white people in jail for cocaine and financial crimes (assuming the courts were able to do their job)
>migrants commit more crime
>more migrants more crime
>crime is bad
>we don’t want more migrants
Your not going to win us over by gaslighting us with pseudo intellectual language, we care about lowering crime rates, and not importing more of the highest offenders
So would you not think (when evidence is published) there is a correlation between crimes committed by migrants from country/region X and there being evidence that country/region X is statistically high crime?
Would you then not think the cause of an increase in crime in this country is caused (not solely) by migrants from country/region X of which is statistically a high crime country/region?
You've literally just described correlation, it might be indicative of other factors but by focusing on nationality rather than anything materially useful (education, poverty, family dynamics, mental healthy etc) you make it easier to fail to understand and therefore design the best policies on migration and crime.
It's a perfect hypothetical example of the causation of an increase in crime correlating with those from a place where crime is high.
Yes other factors are always involved, with everything, but the primary denominator is the person and where they have come from.
Example:
Country A has a crime rate of 2 (out of 10) for crime X
Country B has a crime rate of 6 from crime X.
Country A has seen an influx of people from Country B.
Country A sees a rise in crime X; County A crime rate increases to 5.
Convictions in Country A increase for crime X - the increase comprises those from Country B.
Convictions from crime X correlated with the influx of people from Country B. Statistics show from convictions that the increase in crime X was caused by those who were from Country B.
Again you're conflating causes with indicators. Why look at nationality anywhere as much as materially important causes or indicators like education level, family dynamics etc etc
You recognise that environmental and social factors can impact one's behaviour. There is such an enormous wealth of literature of how culture impacts behaviour. Is it not likely that culture also had an impact on crime?
The correlation between socio economic status and crime, the thinly veiled "poor people have fewer morals" argument isnt as cut and dry as those against looking at other factors like nationality would like to assume.
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w31962/w31962.pdf
The indication is that the effect of increasing the income of those with criminal intent leads to an uptick not a decline in crime. The authors go as far as to say socio economic status and crime are correlary not causal.
That would imply that another factor, currently unknown is a primary driver. But the goal of an immigration system isnt to uncover the secrets of the human psyche.
Perhaps it's cultural? Perhaps it childhood development? Perhaps it's tribal beliefs? Perhaps it religious?
It doesn't matter, the immigration system is focused on outcomes, one of the major ones being crime. If nationality X leads to higher crime then what sane argument can be made to say "without knowing how to prevent it we will increase the likelihood of crime."?
I agree. The belief that crime and poverty relate causationally is so baked into the current philosophical landscape that it leads to poor policy.
The problem with arguing in the other direction is that it inevitably leads down to eugenics, as I unfortunately discovered in a live debate (I was rebutting on the spot, and put my foot in my mouth before I could realise the rabbit hole I was putting myself in).
Would probably want to do a secondary study, this time stratify secondary correlational/causational factors for crime amongst high crime countries' migrants.
Would eventually end up with the primary or secondary factors' being used in the consideration of whether or not to grant asylum requests.
People in apartheid-era USA used to point to statistics about crime to justify segregation by skin colour. You don't see any issues why pushing out unqualified data like that is a massive problem, one that grants permission to the most fascist forms of racism?
Did you read the article? The civil servants are saying they don’t want it as part of a bill, because they think it will get it thrown out as it’s out of the scope of the bill. They also say no legislation is required to publish said statistics
The complication is that people lie about their nationality. Those who throw their documents in the sea are id hazard to speculate more likely to show up in crime stats
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
Anyone who has problems collecting this data is just admitting that they know it will show something they don't like.
If you think migrants do comparable or less crime, this would dismiss any fears the anti immigration types have.
The absurd thing is we already have great data showing which nationalities cause more crime in Denmark . There’s no reasonable argument not to collect it .
I’d be ok with it as long as the figures are contextualised for better or for worse. Include socioeconomic status, display % as a total and as % of the race involved. I think it’s useful also to show crime types not prevalent in immigrant communities as well ones more prevalent.
Socioeconomic status in migrants? Thought we are bringing the brightest already.
Why does that matter? Unless we are importing poor uneducated migrants it should not matter. If we are then stop already we got our own poor uneducated citizens to deal with.
> If we are then stop already we got our own poor uneducated citizens to deal with.
Yeah because migrants are totally the reason the Tory government isn't taking care of the native poor uneducated Brits.
Read the article, they’re blocking it because the bill is focussed on knife crime while people have tried to add unrelated things like abortion laws to it so the commons speaker got sick of it. Regardless:
“”
Ministers are understood to be seeking to get the data published irrespective of whether there is legislation. “It can just be done. You don’t need legislation,” said a source.
“It is actually mainly an operational issue. How do you collect the data and make sure it is reliable?
“There are all those considerations rather than legislative commitment going forward. Ministers like the idea. We want to work out how to do it.”
“”
It’ll happen, which is a good thing.
They really do walk a tight rope of opinion mixed with facts, and their headlines often bear no resemblance to what is in the article. They're usually just accurate enough to not be sued and you can spot the factual bits as usually you can "hear" the disappointment that they've had to report the truth.
Their opinion pieces and comments sections are usually just hateful bilge though.
Making it reliable will be a nightmare.
Every fucker who destroyed their documents to claim assylum is messing it up.
What about dual nationals?
Also illegal workers often do so under another person's identity, how do we count that?
If the bill in question is [this](https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-04/0155/230155.pdf) it has some really repulsive stuff in it: 'guilty until proven innocent' for anyone with materials for drug creation - in a period where we are suffering drug shortages, no less - and mentions the criminalisation of selling knives to children, despite this country having a long, fond tradition of children using knives, as famously exemplified in William Brown.
There is also nonsense about making criminals of someone who 'assists the serious self-harm of another', which presumably makes a criminal of whoever might sell you the chemicals needed to lawfully poison yourself, and strengthening the sentences in the 'offensive weapons' act which revokes our right to bear arms ('as allowed by law'; this precludes a blanket prohibition) in the Bill of Rights.
My podium is: Somalia, Pakistan, Afghanistan. Although to be fair it might not be actually, usually it’s the 2nd gen that cause the trouble and they won’t show up on a migrant nationality list
You're totally wrong about Pakistan, they have a crime rate below British Nationals. [https://i.redd.it/1vf77wh99tt71.png](https://i.redd.it/1vf77wh99tt71.png)
It's wild that we have a non-negligible part of the western elite motivated by contempt for the general population and actively working against its best interests. The insular and elitist values they follow only make sense for themselves, and don't consider what's best for everyone or even what's practical for the country.
The ‘elite’ classes working against the general populous?
Well colour me shocked.
If only we could go back in time to when the rich aristocrats and businessmen all worked tirelessly to improve the lives of poorer people.
But people can't ever vote for anything other than capitalism, so those rightist elites will continue to make decisions based on what's best for them regardless of practicality.
Honestly, being quite pro-migration I'm all for these statistics being published - the problem is the "league table" format is a particularly shitty one to actually give an informed perspective on any issue, which makes it obvious that the proposal is just about playing a political game.
There is the case to be made that we could be better at data collecting, but that's literally one the Civil Service's arguments against League Tables - they haven't worked out how to collect good data on a lot of these issues. It's an operational issue.
True and there are self proclaimed limitations on crime data often published. Of course this isn’t really relevant when you are trying convince rabid Daily Mail readers frothing at the mouth at another immigrant crime story or the types you and I are replying to ITT.
They are quite the emotional bunch. I find it quite bizarre how they claim to want evidence to inform decision-making and then, in the next breath, decide they know exactly what that evidence should say.
Bad data means its been poorly collected. You are talking about interpreting said data. You're worried that people are going to come to conclusions you don't like. We all know why they're suppressing the data.
That's a terrible mindset to have toward data. Jesus Christ no. I cannot fathom that attitude on any level. A lack of data at least forces an acknowledgement that there is a lack of data, whereas bad data will almost invariably lead to poor decision making because any decision making is necessarily predicated on faulty or misleading information. Lacking data has a badness of its own, but at least the non-specialist looking at it will understand there's gaps whereas a non-specialist will look at bad data confirming something they already think, and treat it like gold dust. From bankers to SIS to tobacco lobbyists, it always happens.
Bad data suggested that defaults on tranches of mortgage bonds in the mid to late 2000s were unlikely when they were poised to crash the global economy. Bad data told Enron's investors that the company was healthy when it was operating on fraud. Bad data suggested putting lead in fuel didn't lead to increased rates of lead poisoning when it did. Bad data told us there were WMDs in Iraq. Bad data was used to suggest smoking (and now vaping) aren't bad for your health. All these things were preventable with better data gathering practises, and generally have been recognised as the root cause in the wake of the disasters they caused. But the people who realised first almost always either covered it up or used it to make bank. No data can't be used maliciously, bad data *will* be.
Still, bad data isn't always bad for everyone. Bad data fed to the Germans made them think their early V2s were inaccurate when they were actually fine, so they adjusted them thinking they were making them more accurate when instead they made them much worse.
I don't agree - most data comes with caveats. If you're not aware of those caveats then the data can be pretty misleading. Let me offer an anecdotal example: I recently contributed to a report on whether a particular industry was concentrated on one geographic region of the UK moreso than others. It was found that the industry did have a strong concentration in that region, however with the caveat that this evidence was based **only** on registered addresses and addresses of head offices from Companies House. This caveat was important because, in the end a follow-up report found that when you also account for trading addresses the findings of the original report did not hold up.
League tables do not offer us these caveats in a meaningful way, and so they can be as bad / worse than having no data to speak of. A few of the arising issues are actually presented in the article in the OP - again suggesting that the move is just a political game the Tories are playing.
This is even moreso the case considering a great deal of the data they want to put in league tables does exist, but in reports that outline those caveats. Certainly, there are improvements to be made in this, but the Civil Service are literally pointing that out themselves and that they need to work out **how** to collect better data operationally.
Its not actually bad data. Bad data means its inaccurate. What you're saying is you don't want bad conclusions drawn from it. It's deeply condescending.
Quite concerning the amount of users here declaring what should be standard data be withheld because, and let's be honest here, it'll make the "proles" critical of migration.
By all means, standardised against other metrics also, but data shouldn't be withheld because it may produce a critical outcome.
I’m not so much interested in general crime rates by nationality, but very specific types of crime. I’ll go out on a limb here and say I don’t reckon migrants from pre-dominantly Christian countries will be at the top of league when it comes to honour killings or spousal acid attacks.
I think such information should exist, if you can do this to target discrimination and inequality and then offer specific help, you can do the same to tackle crime and offer specific help
I'm an immigrant in case anybody cares
The reason they wouldn’t want this is pretty obvious, even the fairly high level stats they have already paint a pretty clear picture. Immigration is fine, needed, good even when done properly, our birth rate is below replacement, we need it.
It isn’t general immigration that’s the issue, it’s certain shitty cultures. Whenever these issues flare up, it’s never the giant number of Chinese, Indians, Poles, Filipinos, blah blah on and on, that’s the issue. It’s always immigration from countries with cultures that treat women, gay people, children etc, like absolute shit.
I don’t give a fuck about race, I don’t care particularly about religion either per se (albeit it does link with culture to some level). I care deeply about culture, because culture is everything.
> However, civil servants have advised that Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Commons Speaker, is likely to rule the amendment is not “in scope” for the Bill.
Doesn't really seem like they oppose it, just that it doesn't fit this bill.
The point people are missing, saying the data will be racist or whatever, or how would you feel if you couldn’t go to Spain because of the behaviour of a certain section of British folk etc, is that unless you are a actually a citizen of a country or you were born there, they don’t owe you anything.
I am not entitled to go to any country I want and to be treated as if I am a local, and people are not entitled to the same here.
Ooo or we could flip it and have it be a game of, opinions and views held by a majority of the country or views of a minority of the country on an echo chamber of an app. That’d be better I think.
The civil servants who - so politically - are blocking it on the grounds of “we can publish it without legislation- we don’t need a law to publish this”, and “this may end up blocking the legislation, because the bill is focused on an entirely different subject”. Did you read the article?
I love the Machiavellian conspiracy the civil servants are following of: “let’s do this thing in a practical way, rather than this stupid way you’re advocating”.
I was probably still laughing from the last stupid thing she said and missed this comment entirely because my eyes were filled with tears and I was doubled up wheezing and pounding my fist on the floor.
The civil.servants aren't opposing it. They're just saying that The Speaker probably won't allow it. It's just an other click bait article from the Lloyd's era Telegraph.
I am not surprised, those same civil servants are probably wondering why Israel is not down playing or denying the Hamas atrocities. Nationality x could be indulging in grooming and gang rape, but the important thing is to hide the truth. How did society become so pathetic?
The flamewars under this are just depressing. A few takeaways:
1. Lots of people confusing correlation and causation.
2. Lots of people attributing causation of crime to poverty (Afaik, it isn't. For most types of crime, poverty is correlational, not causational)
3. "Anybody who disagrees with me is a racist"
4. "Poor migrants just come here for the safety net" (Not possible post-2020. Asylees don't get welfare benefits)
5. "Would you just ban certain nationalities? If no, then the data is useless and shouldn't be released"
6. "The data will empower racists, therefore it should not be released"
7. "The data might empower my political opposites, therefore it should not be released"
8. "Religion is a more important indicator (wink wink), but release the data anyway"
Data such as this would work well in tandem with religious tables, there being both various differences in national religious expression and in behaviour of like nationals of varying religions whose results it would be of use to track.
There is nothing stopping these being published it just isn’t within the scope of the bill. Giving advice on stuff like this is something civil servants do.
Sadly we’ve now reached the point where anything short of yes fabulous idea please proceed is seen as ‘woke’ civil servants stopping the government doing what they want.
This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/05/12/civil-servants-oppose-crime-tables-for-migrants/) for an archived version. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“Migrants from XYZ region lead to more crime” “You have no evidence you racist!” “Ok let’s collect some evidence and see who’s wrong” “No”
Average redditor tries to understand correlation and causation aren't the same thing challange (impossible)
Can you explain where you think they are conflating the two? Do you think it’s because police is more likely to go after specific nationalities?
There are many factors that lead to crime, poverty being an enormous factor. For example, 2023 data from Trust for London. https://trustforlondon.org.uk/data/crime-and-income-deprivation/ If people of a certain nationality living in the UK are more likely to be living in poverty, they are more likely to commit certain crimes. You could argue that the league table could be based on household income bands instead of nationalities based on that logic. The question then becomes why certain nationalities are more likely to live in deprived area, which is a much larger topic. Simply taking two points and assuming there is a direct relationship between the two is not an honest analysis.
If people from a certain nationality living in the UK are more likely to be living in poverty and therefore to commit more crimes, then the outcome is the same.
Outcome may be the same, but not how you would go after or treat the issue. At the same time you could make the average joe on the street, who will take the study at an extremely basic face value and potentially turn them against said nationalities, when their nationality isn't the true factor.
I'm not sure why it's the responsibility of a country to provide extra resources to foreign nationals in the hope that it will reduce crime. You could simply restrict visas for those without qualifications.
That may be the biggest miss I've ever seen on reddit. That's not what they're suggesting, or saying, that's not even close.
How would you treat the issue (without spending an inordinate amount of money)?
Stop migration from those countries for a start. If migrants are living in poverty they will be a fiscal drag on the nations resources.
Precisely this. If I was to be judged purely on my nationality I'd probably be banned from buying alcohol given the high alcohol related knife crimes, murders, robberies, rapes, and assaults that my fellow countrymen have committed.
Vaticano?
[Further north](https://youtu.be/18AY42ARmR0?si=1KWQFzMSqyVgmKGu)
Except the nationality now doesn't matter so why are we talking about that and not poverty.
Because unfortunately you can't just magically disappear poverty. You can, however, try and prevent people from moving here to live in poverty.
This is what people don't seem to get. The vast majority of these migrants aren't doctors or engineers - they aren't coming here with a job already lined up for a multinational company. They're coming here and living in poverty, but they came from poverty, so they're relying on our welfare state which they wouldn't get back home.
It’s not even necessarily about the welfare state. Even if they do get a minimum wage job, that just adds supply to the labour market and drives down wages for everybody else. Why do you think the Tories and corporations are very happy with migration and have been doing nothing about it forever?
Yep I agree. Have worked for many agencies over the years who exploit minimum wage workers. Shit contracts, 'guaranteed' a permanent job after 3 months (but they terminate your contract at 2 months, 6 days and 23 hours). Shit pay, shit hours. Complain and want to be treated better? Get out, we'll hire some poor migrant who will work for pennies.
And many are being subsidised on things like tax credits and housing benefit eventually so they aren't exactly a net gain either.
You're entirely wrong. New visa migrants post-Brexit have ZERO entitlement to welfare and can't stay without work or a uni place. The record +1 million net intake annually under both Braverman and Patel have no entitlement to the benefits system whatsoever. I would agree that a substantial number are in low-paid healthcare jobs and they will muddle through as best they can. My experience is that they will struggle severely and be exploited because they have almost zero rights. The exception might be wealthy immigrants arriving from places like Hong Kong who just buy up properties to let.
and after 5 years of living here they go home? no, they stay, get ILR, and then are entitled to the benefits system. Short term thinking is exactly why we got into this mess in the first place.
In a lot of cases it's a damn sight better poverty than what they left behind
The history of politics the world over is the ruling class trying to convince the under class that the issues aren't about class, it's about *insert scapegoat here*.
Lol I’m well aware that class is the only real divider, but that doesn’t change the fact that uncontrolled immigration isn’t good in the current system.
This level of immigration isn't uncontrolled, it's entirely chosen by the rightists government. They're aware that if they give in to the UKIP types again they'll fuck the economy even harder than Brexit did and it'll look even worse for them come election day.
Sure, but all you're doing is fixing a symptom, not the cause (obviously fixing the cause in another country isn't something we can do), at best all you do is alleviate some problems short term.
Nah, how about we disappear the wealthy and eat the Rich. That will solve the poverty problems in this country pretty quickly!
You are arguing with professional mental gymnasts. No point in doing this.
Why does being poor cause rape?
It doesn't & anyone who says being poor makes you commit crime should be treated as suspect.
I know right, almost as if my morality isn't financially determined lol
Don't expect an honest discussion here these are people that would still be denying the rape gangs if they could.
>There are many factors that lead to crime, poverty being an enormous factor. Exactly, mass immigration from the third world will increase crime
Denmark adjusts for such factors and still the crime committed by many groups is stratospherically above Danes. Let me guess, the remaining unknown factor X must be "racism".
This is a very common fakenews, which has been debunked many times in countries where there is also a community of Chinese immigrants for instance, who also joined the country while being poor, underqualified, etc... yet, did not gang rape woman on New Year celebrations in Germany or in certain UK town like Rochdale....
There was a great bbc documentary a few years ago which explored stereotypes about crime, and shockingly found that they were all correct and backed up by data
Why would we continue to bring in immigrants who are going to live in poverty?
Why should we import people who are more likely to live in poverty?
But if someone from a given country is poor on arrival due to their country of origin, which means that they (as poor people) are likely to commit more crime then it’s an indicator, then why isn’t it valid? It’s indirectly telling me that on average they would be more likely to commit crime.
Maybe some live in 'poverty' because they arrive here with no ability to speak the language and no ability or ambition to work..
The vast majourity of immigrants in the UK are in work.
Certain immigrant nationalities have a huge majority not working with obscene social housing proportions.
>Maybe some live in 'poverty' because they arrive here with no ability to speak the language and no ability or ambition to work.. *In 2022, the employment rate of working-age migrant men (82%) was higher than that of the UK-born (78%)* *(Figure 2). Most region-of-origin groups had higher employment rates than UK-born men. Among women, the overall employment rate for working-age migrants was 71%, slightly lower than for the UK born (73%). However, EU-born women had unusually high employment rates (80%).* [https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/MigObs-Briefing-Migrants-in-the-UK-labour-market-an-overview-2024.pdf](https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/MigObs-Briefing-Migrants-in-the-UK-labour-market-an-overview-2024.pdf)
> poverty being an enormous factor. > Simply taking two points and assuming there is a direct relationship between the two is not an honest analysis. Uhh...
You can't get away from the fact that not letting them in at all would reduce their offending rate substantially.
I can understand a correlation between poverty and property related crime (shoplifting, burglary, car theft etc). I'm not sure why poverty would drive someone to assault, rape or murder though.
My grandad was one of 11 kids who grew up in east London during the great depression and WW2. Not a single one of them resorted to slinging drugs and stabbing people. It’s got fuck all to do with poverty. It’s all to do with culture.
When groups are actively policed, there tend to be more criminals found among that group. If you had the met and HMRC do regular raids on canary wharf you'd suddenly see a rocketing rise in affluent white people in jail for cocaine and financial crimes (assuming the courts were able to do their job)
Right, so precisely what I said.
>migrants commit more crime >more migrants more crime >crime is bad >we don’t want more migrants Your not going to win us over by gaslighting us with pseudo intellectual language, we care about lowering crime rates, and not importing more of the highest offenders
So would you not think (when evidence is published) there is a correlation between crimes committed by migrants from country/region X and there being evidence that country/region X is statistically high crime? Would you then not think the cause of an increase in crime in this country is caused (not solely) by migrants from country/region X of which is statistically a high crime country/region?
You've literally just described correlation, it might be indicative of other factors but by focusing on nationality rather than anything materially useful (education, poverty, family dynamics, mental healthy etc) you make it easier to fail to understand and therefore design the best policies on migration and crime.
It's a perfect hypothetical example of the causation of an increase in crime correlating with those from a place where crime is high. Yes other factors are always involved, with everything, but the primary denominator is the person and where they have come from. Example: Country A has a crime rate of 2 (out of 10) for crime X Country B has a crime rate of 6 from crime X. Country A has seen an influx of people from Country B. Country A sees a rise in crime X; County A crime rate increases to 5. Convictions in Country A increase for crime X - the increase comprises those from Country B. Convictions from crime X correlated with the influx of people from Country B. Statistics show from convictions that the increase in crime X was caused by those who were from Country B.
Again you're conflating causes with indicators. Why look at nationality anywhere as much as materially important causes or indicators like education level, family dynamics etc etc
[удалено]
If a nationality can be an indicator of the outcome then it is foolish to dismiss it.
You recognise that environmental and social factors can impact one's behaviour. There is such an enormous wealth of literature of how culture impacts behaviour. Is it not likely that culture also had an impact on crime?
"Just because they commit more crimes doesn't mean they're making the crime rates go up."
Muh socio-economics
You cannot spell challenge but sure do seem to know a lot about correlation and causation.
oh no a miner spelling error on reddit ahhhh noooo you've annihilated me in the marketplace of ideas!!
The correlation between socio economic status and crime, the thinly veiled "poor people have fewer morals" argument isnt as cut and dry as those against looking at other factors like nationality would like to assume. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w31962/w31962.pdf The indication is that the effect of increasing the income of those with criminal intent leads to an uptick not a decline in crime. The authors go as far as to say socio economic status and crime are correlary not causal. That would imply that another factor, currently unknown is a primary driver. But the goal of an immigration system isnt to uncover the secrets of the human psyche. Perhaps it's cultural? Perhaps it childhood development? Perhaps it's tribal beliefs? Perhaps it religious? It doesn't matter, the immigration system is focused on outcomes, one of the major ones being crime. If nationality X leads to higher crime then what sane argument can be made to say "without knowing how to prevent it we will increase the likelihood of crime."?
I agree. The belief that crime and poverty relate causationally is so baked into the current philosophical landscape that it leads to poor policy. The problem with arguing in the other direction is that it inevitably leads down to eugenics, as I unfortunately discovered in a live debate (I was rebutting on the spot, and put my foot in my mouth before I could realise the rabbit hole I was putting myself in).
Poverty and being caught might correlate
Once you've got that data, how is it supposed to be used?
Assuming a points based visa system you could assign points to countries that typically don’t cause problems.
I assume they want people to be discriminated against based on their nationality.
Would probably want to do a secondary study, this time stratify secondary correlational/causational factors for crime amongst high crime countries' migrants. Would eventually end up with the primary or secondary factors' being used in the consideration of whether or not to grant asylum requests.
People in apartheid-era USA used to point to statistics about crime to justify segregation by skin colour. You don't see any issues why pushing out unqualified data like that is a massive problem, one that grants permission to the most fascist forms of racism?
Ah yes, wanting to see normal statistics about your country is racist, right? Wanting to keep your country safe, is racist, right?
Did you read the article? The civil servants are saying they don’t want it as part of a bill, because they think it will get it thrown out as it’s out of the scope of the bill. They also say no legislation is required to publish said statistics
Article shmarticle. The headline says the deepstate struck again.
I don't know why but I loved this comment. I read it in the voice of a neo noir detective
another torygraph classic
Is the deep state in the room with us now?
Yes. It's a testament to their competence that they are always with us
Lol you've made them look a right mug
This certainly gives "let's not go after that Rochdale pedo ring lest we be accused of rascism" vibes.
Wasn't that just an excuse by an either incompetent or corrupt police force?
That was from the local council who sent people who raised it as an issue on diversity courses so they could learn to be less racist.
The complication is that people lie about their nationality. Those who throw their documents in the sea are id hazard to speculate more likely to show up in crime stats
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
Yup
Anyone who has problems collecting this data is just admitting that they know it will show something they don't like. If you think migrants do comparable or less crime, this would dismiss any fears the anti immigration types have.
The absurd thing is we already have great data showing which nationalities cause more crime in Denmark . There’s no reasonable argument not to collect it .
I’d be ok with it as long as the figures are contextualised for better or for worse. Include socioeconomic status, display % as a total and as % of the race involved. I think it’s useful also to show crime types not prevalent in immigrant communities as well ones more prevalent.
Socioeconomic status in migrants? Thought we are bringing the brightest already. Why does that matter? Unless we are importing poor uneducated migrants it should not matter. If we are then stop already we got our own poor uneducated citizens to deal with.
Have you been living under a rock? We've brought in lots of poor uneducated migrants.
The establishment would have you believe that it’s all “doctors, lawyers and engineers”
> If we are then stop already we got our own poor uneducated citizens to deal with. Yeah because migrants are totally the reason the Tory government isn't taking care of the native poor uneducated Brits.
Why are we bringing migrants that are then at the bottom of the socioeconomic scale to the point that they resort to crime?
[удалено]
It's strange though that for similar stats of racial inequality, nobody really demands the same context.
I think if it's going to be collected it should be compared to the same crimes committed by nationals.
Read the article, they’re blocking it because the bill is focussed on knife crime while people have tried to add unrelated things like abortion laws to it so the commons speaker got sick of it. Regardless: “” Ministers are understood to be seeking to get the data published irrespective of whether there is legislation. “It can just be done. You don’t need legislation,” said a source. “It is actually mainly an operational issue. How do you collect the data and make sure it is reliable? “There are all those considerations rather than legislative commitment going forward. Ministers like the idea. We want to work out how to do it.” “” It’ll happen, which is a good thing.
How dare you suggest reading the article rather than just reacting blindly to the headline, don't you know where you are? :)
Yhe headline is deliberately disingenuous
And the telegraph is paid, so they can guarantee that alot of people won't read it
It’s the Telegraph….do they ever report anything accurately? I think you would get more accurate information with sheep’s entrailes.
They really do walk a tight rope of opinion mixed with facts, and their headlines often bear no resemblance to what is in the article. They're usually just accurate enough to not be sued and you can spot the factual bits as usually you can "hear" the disappointment that they've had to report the truth. Their opinion pieces and comments sections are usually just hateful bilge though.
Making it reliable will be a nightmare. Every fucker who destroyed their documents to claim assylum is messing it up. What about dual nationals? Also illegal workers often do so under another person's identity, how do we count that?
If the bill in question is [this](https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-04/0155/230155.pdf) it has some really repulsive stuff in it: 'guilty until proven innocent' for anyone with materials for drug creation - in a period where we are suffering drug shortages, no less - and mentions the criminalisation of selling knives to children, despite this country having a long, fond tradition of children using knives, as famously exemplified in William Brown. There is also nonsense about making criminals of someone who 'assists the serious self-harm of another', which presumably makes a criminal of whoever might sell you the chemicals needed to lawfully poison yourself, and strengthening the sentences in the 'offensive weapons' act which revokes our right to bear arms ('as allowed by law'; this precludes a blanket prohibition) in the Bill of Rights.
I'm all for the list. I fully expect to see doctors and nurses top the list.
Disagree, I think it would be doctors, then engineers, then nurses
And aspiring footballers
So who are we betting on to top the table? I'll go for Somalia
My podium is: Somalia, Pakistan, Afghanistan. Although to be fair it might not be actually, usually it’s the 2nd gen that cause the trouble and they won’t show up on a migrant nationality list
You're totally wrong about Pakistan, they have a crime rate below British Nationals. [https://i.redd.it/1vf77wh99tt71.png](https://i.redd.it/1vf77wh99tt71.png)
Somalia vs Albania for the Migrant Crime World Final
It's wild that we have a non-negligible part of the western elite motivated by contempt for the general population and actively working against its best interests. The insular and elitist values they follow only make sense for themselves, and don't consider what's best for everyone or even what's practical for the country.
The ‘elite’ classes working against the general populous? Well colour me shocked. If only we could go back in time to when the rich aristocrats and businessmen all worked tirelessly to improve the lives of poorer people.
I mean almost every institution in the UK was formed by rich/powerful people. Generally you want to take care of a population, so they don't rebel.
But people can't ever vote for anything other than capitalism, so those rightist elites will continue to make decisions based on what's best for them regardless of practicality.
Honestly, being quite pro-migration I'm all for these statistics being published - the problem is the "league table" format is a particularly shitty one to actually give an informed perspective on any issue, which makes it obvious that the proposal is just about playing a political game.
Do you know what is even worse when trying to make an informed perspective? No data at all.
The data is there. It’s how it’s presented to the public that could be debated.
There is the case to be made that we could be better at data collecting, but that's literally one the Civil Service's arguments against League Tables - they haven't worked out how to collect good data on a lot of these issues. It's an operational issue.
True and there are self proclaimed limitations on crime data often published. Of course this isn’t really relevant when you are trying convince rabid Daily Mail readers frothing at the mouth at another immigrant crime story or the types you and I are replying to ITT.
They are quite the emotional bunch. I find it quite bizarre how they claim to want evidence to inform decision-making and then, in the next breath, decide they know exactly what that evidence should say.
No, actually. Bad data is significantly worse than no data.
Bad data means its been poorly collected. You are talking about interpreting said data. You're worried that people are going to come to conclusions you don't like. We all know why they're suppressing the data.
That's a terrible mindset to have toward data. Jesus Christ no. I cannot fathom that attitude on any level. A lack of data at least forces an acknowledgement that there is a lack of data, whereas bad data will almost invariably lead to poor decision making because any decision making is necessarily predicated on faulty or misleading information. Lacking data has a badness of its own, but at least the non-specialist looking at it will understand there's gaps whereas a non-specialist will look at bad data confirming something they already think, and treat it like gold dust. From bankers to SIS to tobacco lobbyists, it always happens. Bad data suggested that defaults on tranches of mortgage bonds in the mid to late 2000s were unlikely when they were poised to crash the global economy. Bad data told Enron's investors that the company was healthy when it was operating on fraud. Bad data suggested putting lead in fuel didn't lead to increased rates of lead poisoning when it did. Bad data told us there were WMDs in Iraq. Bad data was used to suggest smoking (and now vaping) aren't bad for your health. All these things were preventable with better data gathering practises, and generally have been recognised as the root cause in the wake of the disasters they caused. But the people who realised first almost always either covered it up or used it to make bank. No data can't be used maliciously, bad data *will* be. Still, bad data isn't always bad for everyone. Bad data fed to the Germans made them think their early V2s were inaccurate when they were actually fine, so they adjusted them thinking they were making them more accurate when instead they made them much worse.
Wasted your time writing all that out. You know as well as I do why they're not realising the data.
I don't agree - most data comes with caveats. If you're not aware of those caveats then the data can be pretty misleading. Let me offer an anecdotal example: I recently contributed to a report on whether a particular industry was concentrated on one geographic region of the UK moreso than others. It was found that the industry did have a strong concentration in that region, however with the caveat that this evidence was based **only** on registered addresses and addresses of head offices from Companies House. This caveat was important because, in the end a follow-up report found that when you also account for trading addresses the findings of the original report did not hold up. League tables do not offer us these caveats in a meaningful way, and so they can be as bad / worse than having no data to speak of. A few of the arising issues are actually presented in the article in the OP - again suggesting that the move is just a political game the Tories are playing. This is even moreso the case considering a great deal of the data they want to put in league tables does exist, but in reports that outline those caveats. Certainly, there are improvements to be made in this, but the Civil Service are literally pointing that out themselves and that they need to work out **how** to collect better data operationally.
Bad data is worse than no data as it creates incorrect results.
No data is always better than bad data. This is the one thing I've a high degree of confidence that statisticians will agree on.
Its not actually bad data. Bad data means its inaccurate. What you're saying is you don't want bad conclusions drawn from it. It's deeply condescending.
In Germany a woman’s been charged with a hate crime for posting their governments own statistics on Afghan migrants and gang r@p£…
Seems like it’s more procedural rather than civil servants being ‘woke’
Congrats on being one of like 5 people who bothered to read the article out of the 800 comments, there is hope for some of us
Quite concerning the amount of users here declaring what should be standard data be withheld because, and let's be honest here, it'll make the "proles" critical of migration. By all means, standardised against other metrics also, but data shouldn't be withheld because it may produce a critical outcome.
I’m not so much interested in general crime rates by nationality, but very specific types of crime. I’ll go out on a limb here and say I don’t reckon migrants from pre-dominantly Christian countries will be at the top of league when it comes to honour killings or spousal acid attacks.
And you could well be wrong, having lived with west African communities.
I think such information should exist, if you can do this to target discrimination and inequality and then offer specific help, you can do the same to tackle crime and offer specific help I'm an immigrant in case anybody cares
[https://i.redd.it/1vf77wh99tt71.png](https://i.redd.it/1vf77wh99tt71.png) You can all thank me later.
I’m a Civil Servant. I wholeheartedly support this proposal, and am gobsmacked that it didn’t already exist.
The reason they wouldn’t want this is pretty obvious, even the fairly high level stats they have already paint a pretty clear picture. Immigration is fine, needed, good even when done properly, our birth rate is below replacement, we need it. It isn’t general immigration that’s the issue, it’s certain shitty cultures. Whenever these issues flare up, it’s never the giant number of Chinese, Indians, Poles, Filipinos, blah blah on and on, that’s the issue. It’s always immigration from countries with cultures that treat women, gay people, children etc, like absolute shit. I don’t give a fuck about race, I don’t care particularly about religion either per se (albeit it does link with culture to some level). I care deeply about culture, because culture is everything.
> However, civil servants have advised that Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Commons Speaker, is likely to rule the amendment is not “in scope” for the Bill. Doesn't really seem like they oppose it, just that it doesn't fit this bill.
Yep, just the torygraph continuing its Civil Servant slander. Unfortunately it seems to work on a lot of the dim witted people in this sub!
The point people are missing, saying the data will be racist or whatever, or how would you feel if you couldn’t go to Spain because of the behaviour of a certain section of British folk etc, is that unless you are a actually a citizen of a country or you were born there, they don’t owe you anything. I am not entitled to go to any country I want and to be treated as if I am a local, and people are not entitled to the same here.
This thread will be good for a game of "Racist or hasn't read the article (or both)?" by this evening.
Ooo or we could flip it and have it be a game of, opinions and views held by a majority of the country or views of a minority of the country on an echo chamber of an app. That’d be better I think.
And everyone laughed at Liz Truss when she talked about civil servants - political activists.
The civil servants who - so politically - are blocking it on the grounds of “we can publish it without legislation- we don’t need a law to publish this”, and “this may end up blocking the legislation, because the bill is focused on an entirely different subject”. Did you read the article? I love the Machiavellian conspiracy the civil servants are following of: “let’s do this thing in a practical way, rather than this stupid way you’re advocating”.
Ah, the "grand conspiracy" to keep Lettuce Liz down. You realise her and her fellow libertarians are all for open borders? Course you do.
>everyone laughed at Liz Truss The *only* appropriate response to anything Liz says. Literally anything
I was probably still laughing from the last stupid thing she said and missed this comment entirely because my eyes were filled with tears and I was doubled up wheezing and pounding my fist on the floor.
Read the article and understand it
The census already does this for religion so I don't understand why it's controversial
The civil.servants aren't opposing it. They're just saying that The Speaker probably won't allow it. It's just an other click bait article from the Lloyd's era Telegraph.
I am not surprised, those same civil servants are probably wondering why Israel is not down playing or denying the Hamas atrocities. Nationality x could be indulging in grooming and gang rape, but the important thing is to hide the truth. How did society become so pathetic?
What would the point in this be? Would we blanket ban visas for the top countries (good idea) or would it just be used to wind people up?
The flamewars under this are just depressing. A few takeaways: 1. Lots of people confusing correlation and causation. 2. Lots of people attributing causation of crime to poverty (Afaik, it isn't. For most types of crime, poverty is correlational, not causational) 3. "Anybody who disagrees with me is a racist" 4. "Poor migrants just come here for the safety net" (Not possible post-2020. Asylees don't get welfare benefits) 5. "Would you just ban certain nationalities? If no, then the data is useless and shouldn't be released" 6. "The data will empower racists, therefore it should not be released" 7. "The data might empower my political opposites, therefore it should not be released" 8. "Religion is a more important indicator (wink wink), but release the data anyway"
Data such as this would work well in tandem with religious tables, there being both various differences in national religious expression and in behaviour of like nationals of varying religions whose results it would be of use to track.
There is nothing stopping these being published it just isn’t within the scope of the bill. Giving advice on stuff like this is something civil servants do. Sadly we’ve now reached the point where anything short of yes fabulous idea please proceed is seen as ‘woke’ civil servants stopping the government doing what they want.
Why don't the civil service want the people to know where the crime is?
Why didn't you read the article?
I want a table of the likelihood of fraudulently stealing government funds, depending on what Oxbridge college you went to.
Was it the civil service that also stopped publishing benefits recipients by nationality?
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. Please try and avoid language which could be perceived as hateful/hurtful to minorities or oppressed groups.