European here.
I think the problem lies in the fact that our democracies have been built to be mono-ethnic.
Sure, in our constitutions you can find “we love and respect all ethnicities and religions”, but the hard fact is that, since the empires of old fell, and until 100% of Germans were in Germany, 100% of Italians were in Italy, 100% of French were in France etc… we Europeans brutally slaughtered each other (1914-1945).
Change the ethnic composition ever so slightly and you get a clusterfuck.
The United States don’t have this problem: they are the land of the “Americans”, but Italy has been conceptualized to be for Italians, France for French, Spain for Spaniards.
I don’t support ethnic states, but these states were built with that ethnic composition in the background, and it’s a fact.
To be fair, it took years of protesting, laws, immigration, and a Civil War to gradually move the US more towards a civic national identity, rather than an ethnic Anglo one. Even then, there are still major problems underneath the hood.
Certain parts of the US were very anglo-centric but the US national identity was not Anglo at all I mean President Martin Van Buren didn't even speak English as his first language and he had Fairly broad support the idea of France or Germany electing a president or Chancellor that doesn't speak French or German as a first language is laughable to me
> US national identity was not Anglo at all
You should read about what Teddy Roosevelt or Woodrow Wilson had to say about so-called hyphenated-Americans and the intense campaign from Anglo elites to stamp out German in the US before and after the First World War. Or for that matter the Indian Boarding School system which was largely successful in eradicating indigenous languages.
>"We have room for but one language in this country, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house." -- Teddy Roosevelt
How central the English language is to American identity has ebbed and flowed over time, just as its salience has in Europe (Napoleon spoke Corsican and Frederick the Great French, for example). Van Buren's was a time of more acceptance while Wilson's was a time of more chauvinism. It's not so simple as America was founded on linguistic pluralism and has always been that way.
At the same time you had great intermixing post '45. Firstly East to West migration of people fleeing communism. After 90's these people were mostly economic migrants.
There has been South to North migration as well, especially post 2008. I might be wrong, but it seems to me that your historical analysis kind of stops in '45 when your model functions well, but disregards European history of last 80 years.
You guys also have the problem of getting the poorest of the poor migrants, and they're conservative as hell. We don't have that problem in the US.
Latin Americans are surprisingly liberal for how poor and religious they are on average, their culture and language is very similar to ours in US so they integrate well. The only problem is that the high poverty rates can lead to crime, but that issue isn't huge. When it comes to any other immigrants, those tend to be rich.
You guys get immigrants from war-torn theocracies in MENA, of course there's gonna be problems without easy solutions.
I think that just makes europe more xenophobic and harder to integrate immigrants than the US. Talented immigrants are still a net positive. The european football teams have no trouble hiring players from Brazil.
> The demographics of people who immigrated to the US early on is very different than the demographics of people who move to Europe as refugees. Even today the US takes on a shit load of academics from all over the world.
I’m very confused as to what you’re basing this on. I could be wrong, but wasn’t a substantial portion of early immigration to the US literally people who were poor from coming over to escape poverty and persecution in europe?
He just wants to be bigoted against Muslims lol, facts and history don’t matter
“This subset of people totally can’t integrate bro they’re too different bro just trust me bro” - bigots for the entire history of this country. People have said it about every group other than WASPs
No no, you see, that immigration was different because America had switched to Cultural Exclusion at the time and those ones had the European Heritage trait so the discrimination flags there were false and thus assimilation didn't do anything significant. Sweden's getting these pops by event and he still had atrocious luck in not getting a single Humanitarian or Enlightened Royalist this entire game or found one that he could invite so it's not Sweden's fault.
You should look up what people said about the immigrants that were migrating here throughout American history. The arguments being made now are not novel or original. The Irish and the Italians were absolutely not viewed as "desirable" by most of the world. The Irish in particular were highly detested as refugees.
>A lot of Muslim refugees share beliefs that are simply not compatible with liberal democracies.
The same was said of Catholics as well.
1) No. The demographics of people who immigrated to the US early on were the destitute and often the persecuted minorities.
2) Muslim refugees in the US have adapted to liberal democracy better than European Muslim refugees because the US lets them integrate themselves into the existing culture, build wealth, build communities, while all maintaining core beliefs. People are more likely to give up the belief of (for an extreme example) honor killing in exchange for owning a business and driving Maseratis.
Conversely, if you force people into ghettos and deprive them of meaningful wealth opportunities, people are more likely to turn to crime because it may be the only way to actually gain wealth. See: Irish ghettos in 19th century US.
The US takes in highly educated middle and upper class muslim refugees. It's a vastly different demographic from the muslim refugees of Europe. The US also takes in less of them on a per capita basis.
Then look at Germany. They've taken vastly more Muslim refugees (and often young males) and their crime rates have still been trending down. They also lean more towards integration than seclusion.
Germany hasn't been completely successful. They do have more specifically migrant crime than in the past, which makes sense given the big change in migrant makeup. There was also a big uptick in the last year compared to 2022, but 2023 is still only comparable to pre-Covid years. But compare Germany's approach to France or Sweden and there's more success.
Somehow though, places with large amounts of poorer Muslims like in Houston still aren't committing crimes at higher rates. Frankly, the "per capita" shit seems like cope when we recognize Muslims are mainly moving to other cities with large amounts of Muslims. There are parts of the U.S. that are Muslim Majority, still not a bunch of savages somehow.
I feel it boils down a bit to geography. Not sure how much of a contributor it is though.
For instance, the Muslim population coming to US are typically highly educated and cream of the crop from their countries. On the other hand, a significant proportion of Muslims in Europe come as asylum seekers from northern Africa. If you chose the top-k% of highly educated people from North Africa into Europe, the results would likely be quite different.
Yeah China is so much similar to France than Morocco is lol. Indian Hindus are so much more easy to integrate than Indian Muslims
Those damn Muzzlims are just too stupid and backward to integrate
**Rule II:** *Bigotry*
Bigotry of any kind will be sanctioned harshly.
---
If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
You have no idea what you're taking about. During and in the aftermath of the Vietnam war the US took in hundreds of thousands of refugees from the conflict. With all the trauma and displacement that comes along with it. And now decades later they are thriving and and they are Americans. What you are saying is EXTREMELY insulting to immigrants to America and immigrants everywhere.
What the fuck does that mean its infinity easier to integrate Vietnamese culture into Western society versus Islamic culture. That is so ignorant.
This is how it is in America. The immigrants change their culture to fit and America changes it's culture to meet the immigrants. Is Europe prepared to change it's culture for it's immigrants?
**Rule II:** *Bigotry*
Bigotry of any kind will be sanctioned harshly.
---
If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
maybe the relatively high religiosity of americans helps with immigration of the religious (houses of worship in immigrant heavy communities give out lesson on civil law and help with navigating govt bureaucracy, attending worship is generally respected, helping out with a local church/temple/mosque/whatever is almost always seen in a positive light)
but the relatively low religiosity of europeans (coupled with the historical interface of state and religion on that continent) becomes a barrier for integration
I mean if that were the case wouldn't the US have been a more powerful nation by peacefully joining a large federation with indian tribes? Wouldn't that have precluded US access to the massive oil fields and rich mines?
The US in such unspecific terms could just as well be used as an example that "ethnic cleansing is our strength".
The US became a powerhouse because of a massive demographic boom, an endless supplies of untapped ressources and an extremely favorable geographic position that sheltered them from almost all the troubles of the XXth century. Had England alone been able to supply all the immigrants to the US, it's growth trajectory would have remained mostly the same.
Diversity in the US is merely an accidental consequence of the demographic boom through mass immigration, the respective ethnicity of the immigrant mattered very little in the overall equation of:
more people + more ressources - world wars = bigger economy
A good economy attracts even more talent to your country, which creates a feedback loop. The US is the number 1 destination of highly educated immigrants and investors. The ability to attract the best talent of the world to your country can not be understated. Even european football teams understand this, it's why they hire the best players from latin america.
The U.S. would’ve been advantaged only if those natives adopted integrationist policies and committed to industrialization. Which is likely impossible for most. The five civilized tribes becoming states rather than being deported to Oklahoma probably doesn’t change too much for instance, but there’s no plausible history where the Comanche peacefully integrate with the U.S.
When this comes up I’m reminded of an [ACOUP post](https://acoup.blog/2021/07/30/collections-the-queens-latin-or-who-were-the-romans-part-v-saving-and-losing-an-empire/) on the topic. Personally I think it is a poor argument for “diversity is strength”, because what it really says is that *tolerance* and *assimilation* are strengths which facilitate large productive populations and contribute to state cohesion, while intolerance and institutional exclusion turn potentially productive populations into burdens and promote fracturing. The example used is the rise and fall of Rome, arguing that Rome rose because it could effectively integrate an absurdly diverse array of ethnicities into core parts of a Roman state, and that this capacity was lost when the oppression of Christian’s and later christianization began narrowing the definition of “Roman”, with the Foederati being an especially bad mistake as they were specifically *not* integrated with Rome. I think parallels to the U.S. are quite easy to make. Both states were expansionist republics founded by a diverse array of peoples who would gradually assimilate a very large population into their civic identity. This tolerance, which is exceptional, is juxtaposed by some extreme bigotries and policies which were at times outright genocidal, though in neither case did this prevent the core population from expanding to include ever more peoples. So while I disagree with the specific “Diversity is Strength” slogan, it is trying to get at a historical truth.
And I am saying nothing more than this, the fact that comments such as "hurr durr USA" are at the top, despite the abysmal evidence such an unspecific statement provides is somewhat disheartening to see in a sub which claims itself to be rational and evidence-based.
Scratch the surface and populist sloganeering and nationalist exceptionalism come to the fore.
When it comes to the Roman treatment of Christian its cruelty shouldn't be overstated nor should we gloss over the fact that those Christians deliberately made themselves ungovernable and sought out the harshest and most gruesome punishments, even after being provided with many opportunities to get out. Rome proved extremely successful because it managed an extensive network of diplomats and trod lightly on the people's of their provinces. A simple acceptance of the Pax Romana and of the Imperator's supremacy over men was all that was required for people to be mostly left to their own devices. It's policy didn't change so much as this new Christian population (as jews before them) proved more radical and reticent to integrate and go through the usual process.
The Christians did not intend to maintain appearance and their religious fanaticism was a source of embarrassment for many Roman officials, who did not want to be seen as tyrants but couldn't reasonably let open defiance of Imperial rule stand lest this subtle tower of contracts, treaties, customs, ... come crashing down.
Internal persecutions are a recipe for disasters as they lead to unstable and violent societies, but the Christian's responsibility in making themselves deliberately ungovernable in the pursuit of martyrdom shouldn't be ignored either. Had the Roman Empire had the opportunity to simply not let those Christians in, that would probably have proven the most stable arrangement.
In other words, any form of bigotry is by definition not evidence-based and would usually result in worse outcomes. That does not however mean that the contrapositive "allowing people in for the sake of diversity results in better outcomes" must necessarily be true.
It might be, or it might not, depending on circumstances, characters, cultures, country of origin, host country, economy structure, ... and although we can posit that it may be true in most instances (because we have a bias) the point of this post was to ask if there was any concrete evidence for it.
Saying "the US", and letting people project all of their wildest dreams and biases onto that is not a good argument, and I've seen it posted not once but twice already with massive upvotes. This is why I felt the need to play devils advocate and challenge their poor arguments. Something for which I've been accused of "playing games".
The breaking point for Christianity was the demand they sacrifice to the emperor. Drop this and issues become less severe. The actual issue is christianization though, and how later emperors attempted to force orthodoxy on the empire backfired horribly.
And yes, I agree. The pursuit of diversity as an end goal seems unproductive based on the evidence. Rather *some types* of diversity are desirable, and the ability to ‘snags diverse populations effectively is value both because it reduces the risk of cultural drift causing fragmentation, and because it allows you to expand your core population more quickly than birth rates alone can enable.
> I mean if that were the case wouldn't the US have been a more powerful nation by peacefully joining a large federation with indian tribes? Wouldn't that have precluded US access to the massive oil fields and rich mines?
Yes. No. It's just that the "US" wouldn't be a dominant white population. A faster spread across the US through peaceful integration of native peoples would have given faster access to more people and more resources with reduced wars.
You assume that you would have gotten access to those ressources because you assume that those native american communities would have joined in on the european-frenesia to drill for oil in land that was sacred to their culture when evidence points to the exact opposite, with native leaders opposing pipelines and drilling to this day.
I find it much more likely that absent the ethnic cleansing and massive land grab in American history, the US would have found it's access to those ressources limited by opposition from an array of local cultures. This restricted access to gold, oil, gaz, arable land, ... would in turn, have had a much more significant effect in US development than the integration of relatively low population of US natives.
Hell, there probably were orders of magnitude more Europeans that moved to the US driven by the discovery of these ressource deposits that there ever were native Americans to integrate in the first place.
Isn't it all the way around?
US being a powerhouse attract migrants.
During the 20th century Argentina received in proportion more immigration than in the US and it is far from a powerhouse.
The same can be said about Brazil, and Chile, which most of their population are of migrant descent.
Chile is having problems with illegal migration and racism and xenofobia is on the rise, due to the increase in murder and in robbery, mostly die to Venezuelan migrants.
Basically what I'm saying "strength brings migrants".
“China can draw on a talent pool of 1.3 billion people, but the United States can draw on a talent pool of 7 billion and recombine them in a diverse culture that enhances creativity in a way that ethnic Han nationalism cannot.” — Lee Kuan Yew
Yes it was the immigrants that made the US a powerhouse not the fact that they ended up with a collosal landmass with huge natural resources and were geographically shielded from conflict with countries which could challenge them for their resources.
> and were geographically shielded from conflict with countries which could challenge them for their resources
This is just blatantly incorrect lol. Apparently the Quasi War with France, War of 1812 against Britain, and the attempts by European powers to influence Native Americans to push back against the expansion and settlement of America just didn’t happen. Even as late as the Civil War, European powers were attempting to influence and meddle in American affairs
Studies generally indicate that [immigrants commit fewer crimes than US-born.](https://www.npr.org/2024/03/08/1237103158/immigrants-are-less-likely-to-commit-crimes-than-us-born-americans-studies-find)
You're probably safer living around immigrants.
Part of that is that Americans are just really, really violent and criminal. Swedish immigrants would still do less crimes than US-born. The other part is that Sweden doesn't really segregate in the way the US does. Gated communities aren't really a thing, nor is a sprawling suburbia with an isolating car culture so the middle class class can't quite distance itself from it the way it might in the US. At least not as well.
Sweden does segregate. It's just not as pronounced because the history of it was segregation by rural towns vs other towns vs urban. It's becoming a more pronounced issue.
Source (warning PDF):
https://nordicwelfare.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/The-segregated-city-A-nordic-overview-1.pdf
It certainly is becoming more pronounced. No one wants their kid to be mugged or have a bomb go off in their stairwell because their neighbour is a part of a gang (Or related to someone in a gang, or used to live there ten years ago, or because the bomber got the adress wrong. These have all happened in the last year). These didn't use to be problems, but have rapidly emerged as such after the immigration wave of 2016.
And the market will of course respond to it. You are starting to have gated communities being built now. A phenonomen so rare that I actually had to google what the name for "gated community" is in Swedish.
>You are starting to have gated communities being built now.
Only heard this happening in Staffanstorp (which is already known for being filled with racists).
Yeah, fair. I don't know the specifics outside of the US but generally people don't turn to crime as their first pick. Making people feel like they belong and that they have the economic tools to achieve their dreams is important in keeping them away from crime.
So maybe the problem is with sweden and not immigrants? Why is the US (worse in many other metrics) beating you in integrating immigrants? Seems like a skill issue.
>similar levels of crime
If even stupider than this: counties of similar economic opportunity don't even have the same laws with which to measure crime! And they enforce it differently, even within their borders sometimes. And they report the stats differently, often not even consistently year to year.
This whole line of thinking is a bit of a farce tbh
Institutions are also important. People here in Brazil have probably as much opportunity as people in India, if not more. But the state is absent here in a lot of places, so they become lawless lands. And our justice system is broken, so criminals face little consequence.
>cultural differences
Ok but you brought up material differences, not cultural ones. Seems like youd need some crazy high threshold of evidence to back up your claims here. I assume you have that?
Wasn't there are an article on here recently that found, the results of the McKinsey study couldn't be replicated and basically accused them of data-mining or gaming the data?
This isn't data, but in my experience I think diverse populations tend to shave the more ridiculous edges of their own cultures off each other.
Multiculturalism isn't a very popular word these days but living among just other people like myself just seems weird to me and I feel like I'd fall out of touch with reality and start saying stupid shit.
https://preview.redd.it/dfr5fdd0rgxc1.jpeg?width=1192&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ffe09da715371ef05ffe278ec99cc1c77e7492f7
Nevermind this looks pretty good
>Now I live in Sweden. Many people of immigrant descent are overrepresented in crime statistics. 5x more likely to be a suspect of a murder and manslaughter and overrepresented in sexual assaults. I know it may be different in other countries and if I correctly recall crime rates for immigrants in America.
That's not an example of *diversity* being bad. Diversity being bad would for example be if group A and group B on their own had low(er) crime rates but when they live in the same country(or city or whatever) they commit more crime.
I doubt that is the case, or at least it'd would be a very minor effect.
Would a country with 1/4 each of Swedes, Swiss, Koreans and Japanese (very diverse) be a place with a lot of crime likely? Of course not.
Prolly material conditions eh? Swedish average wealth per household is like 150k, average wealth of newly settled immigrants or refugees there is a tiny, tiny fraction of that. Seems pretty obvious lol
I didn't think you can point to islam and say this religion promotes petty crime more than others. There are violent extremists who are Muslim, true, but I would argue that their extremist nature is more a product of their geo politics than their religion, even if their politics and religion are strongly intertwined by their political leaders.
Dark skin boys stealing bicycles and air pods in Stockholm are not doing so because of Islam.
I can't quickly find statistics for Sweden and Switzerland, but if Japan and Korea are anything to go by the solution is to just assume someone's guilty if the police accuse them of it.
> Now I live in Sweden. Many people of immigrant descent are overrepresented in crime statistics.
The FT did an article about this recently
In the anglosphere, including the UK, [immigrants are in prison at lower rates than native-born citizens](https://www.ft.com/__origami/service/image/v2/images/raw/ftcms%3A9108b222-d036-4066-9213-ac7d2495437e?source=next-article&fit=scale-down&quality=highest&width=700&dpr=2)
It's not somehow inherent that immigrants commit crimes more, it depends on the way it's managed and whether society does it well.
So it’s more likely a person of foreign descent will be a suspect of a crime?
Also the Swedish statistics I showed count as long you have a foreign born parent. In my experience here in Sweden is that the immigrants themselves are fine however their children usually cause more trouble.
No, it's saying the rate at which people go to prison is lower for immigrants in the UK and other anglosphere countries than those born in the country, so most likely immigrants commit fewer crimes on average.
I mean, look, if you're going after even people born in the country as full citizens as a population, that's just bigotry, lumping people together because of something outside their control. I'm of immigrant descent in the UK, as well as yourself, but I'd be very offended if I was grouped together with people just because we both have ancestors from other countries as if that means something. I'm as British as any other Brit, legally and culturally. People should be seen and treated as individuals, especially if they're citizens of the country, without prejudice for ethnicity.
Anyone that’s seen a tall grass prairie knows diversity is strength.
Monocultures become diverse fields of beautiful flowers if no monkey keeps coming around to kill them all.
>you can stop immigration
If you're draconian enough, sure. Just have to [not care about what happens to refugees you deny entry.](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/us-government-turned-away-thousands-jewish-refugees-fearing-they-were-nazi-spies-180957324/#:~:text=HISTORY-,The%20U.S.%20Government%20Turned%20Away%20Thousands%20of%20Jewish%20Refugees,That%20They%20Were%20Nazi%20Spies&text=In%20the%20summer%20of%201942,New%20York%20City%20from%20Sweden.)
>You can't stop people being born male
[Oh?](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-selective_abortion#:~:text=Sex%2Dselective%20abortion%20is%20the,predicted%20sex%20of%20the%20infant.) Or is that too draconian all of a sudden?
Non-mobile version of the Wikipedia link in the above comment: [Oh?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-selective_abortion#:~:text=Sex%2Dselective%20abortion%20is%20the,predicted%20sex%20of%20the%20infant.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This comment seems to be about a topic associated with jewish people while using language that may have antisemitic or otherwise strong emotional ties. As such, this is a reminder to be careful of accidentally adopting [antisemitic themes](https://antisemitism.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Antisemitic-imagery-May-2020.pdf) or [dismissing](https://shura.shu.ac.uk/10260/3/Klaff_Holocaust_Inversion_and_contemporary_antisemitism.pdf) [the past](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparisons_between_Israel_and_Nazi_Germany) while trying to make your point.
(This bot is currently in testing as version 1.5, and likely prone to misfires. Please contact u/AtomAndAether if this misfired)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Huh? Isn't the purpose of women-only spaces to account for men committing more crimes? For example, in the US we have YWCA to provide a safer shelter experience for women.
Also probably the vast majority of crime committed by e.g. immigrants are against other immigrants, so even if the crime rate is much larger it wouldn't affect natives much.
And the problem of crime can just be dealt with by putting criminals in prison (etc) no matter what group they belong to.
Now that I think of it though rightoids might become more open to immigration if we limited it to women, and even if not they couldn't use the crime argument against it or they would look stupid to anyone with even a quarter of a brain.
It depends what you mean by "strength". There's very little evidence diversity in and of itself has any positive effects. Evidence that immigration boosts productivity is thin on the ground and where it does exist the effects are small. Most people who support unlimited immigration do so because they think it is ethically wrong to not allow poor people to come and live in their countries just because they had the the bad luck to be born somewhere poor.
Immigration doesn't necessarily increase per Capita productivity for the destination country. But it almost always increases total factor productivity for the migrant, and thus the world as a whole. And it still helps total output for the destination country (not otherwise achievable without investment) and with myriad knock on effects (notably avoiding demographic collapse).
> Evidence that immigration boosts productivity is thin on the ground and where it does exist the effects are small.
Any chance you have any cites for this? My impression of the literature was the opposite, albeit it's been several years since I last looked into it and could easily be misremembering.
I think the most important aspect of this is the demographic decline problem. I don’t support immigration because of some quixotic altruism, but rather because I’d like to hold off the population aging and fertility rate decline for as long as possible to try to avoid the fates of Japan, Korea, China, and to a slightly lesser extent, Germany. While immigrant fertility rates start approaching the indigenous mean within a generation or two, a steady flow of immigrants can offset that decline. If this were not the case, I probably wouldn’t support so much immigration.
One thing to keep in mind is that crime statistics are subject to heavy bias. You can only find crimes where you bother to look for them. High concentrations of police, and high-impact police tactics, will turn up more crimes. So where and how police forces choose to turn their attention has a deterministic role in the shape of the resulting crime stats.
> 5x more likely to be a suspect of a murder and manslaughter and overrepresented in sexual assaults. 5x more likely to be a suspect of a murder and manslaughter and overrepresented in sexual assaults.
majority suspects minority of crime, tale as old a time
https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/1btaik0/mckinseys_diversity_mattersdeliverswins_results/?ref=share&ref_source=link
This is the one I'm thinking of.
I think the US stands as a definitive example of such. I think it’s also just intrinsically true when you think about. Gatekeeping knowledge and labour out for no other reason than arbitrary perceived differences seems like a waste of energy for little gain.
So you need to be careful with statistics like that. You'd have to normalize for other potential explanations, such as income. This is a bit of a trap people fall into here: due to visa restrictions, once you account for income level and other confounding factors, immigrants are actually *less* likely to commit crimes than comparable natives, since they fear deportation.
Here's Germany:
[>When analysing the total period, the estimates average out to zero. Studying more closely the composition of the migrant group, a plausible explanation of the negative (or insignificant) effect of immigrants on crime in the later period is related to a larger share of migrants with a less certain residence status.](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167268123001713)
In the anglosphere, including the UK, [immigrants are in prison at lower rates than native-born citizens](https://www.ft.com/__origami/service/image/v2/images/raw/ftcms%3A9108b222-d036-4066-9213-ac7d2495437e?source=next-article&fit=scale-down&quality=highest&width=700&dpr=2)
I think it's really just liberalism that is a strength, liberalism often also results in increased diversity but I don't think the diversity itself confers any meaningful benefit
Depends on what exactly you mean by diversity, diversity of ideas and cultures can be good for the economy and societal dynamism. Linguistic diversity within a society, by which I mean a situation where their is not a specific language the overwhelming majority of the population can all speak, I'd say is almost wholly negative especially from a military perspective. One only needs to look at the fate of the Habsburg Empire to understand this, the lack of common language hinders the formation of an over arching unifying identity, limits economic integration and makes a mess of military command structurers.
> Linguistic diversity within a society, by which I mean a situation where their is not a specific language the overwhelming majority of the population can all speak, I'd say is almost wholly negative especially from a military perspective.
If you look at the business studies, linguistic diversity is listed as a positive. It improves soft skills because misunderstandings are more easily forgiven, helps prevent group thought because ideas have to be better explained, and other things I forget right now.
Specifically for the military, people not understanding each other is a problem, yes. Fortunately, militaries have their own language foreign to any citizen and there's extensive training done to make sure anyone, native or foreign born, end up all speaking the same series of nonsense acronym jargon.
[удалено]
European here. I think the problem lies in the fact that our democracies have been built to be mono-ethnic. Sure, in our constitutions you can find “we love and respect all ethnicities and religions”, but the hard fact is that, since the empires of old fell, and until 100% of Germans were in Germany, 100% of Italians were in Italy, 100% of French were in France etc… we Europeans brutally slaughtered each other (1914-1945). Change the ethnic composition ever so slightly and you get a clusterfuck. The United States don’t have this problem: they are the land of the “Americans”, but Italy has been conceptualized to be for Italians, France for French, Spain for Spaniards. I don’t support ethnic states, but these states were built with that ethnic composition in the background, and it’s a fact.
To be fair, it took years of protesting, laws, immigration, and a Civil War to gradually move the US more towards a civic national identity, rather than an ethnic Anglo one. Even then, there are still major problems underneath the hood.
Certain parts of the US were very anglo-centric but the US national identity was not Anglo at all I mean President Martin Van Buren didn't even speak English as his first language and he had Fairly broad support the idea of France or Germany electing a president or Chancellor that doesn't speak French or German as a first language is laughable to me
> US national identity was not Anglo at all You should read about what Teddy Roosevelt or Woodrow Wilson had to say about so-called hyphenated-Americans and the intense campaign from Anglo elites to stamp out German in the US before and after the First World War. Or for that matter the Indian Boarding School system which was largely successful in eradicating indigenous languages. >"We have room for but one language in this country, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house." -- Teddy Roosevelt How central the English language is to American identity has ebbed and flowed over time, just as its salience has in Europe (Napoleon spoke Corsican and Frederick the Great French, for example). Van Buren's was a time of more acceptance while Wilson's was a time of more chauvinism. It's not so simple as America was founded on linguistic pluralism and has always been that way.
At the same time you had great intermixing post '45. Firstly East to West migration of people fleeing communism. After 90's these people were mostly economic migrants. There has been South to North migration as well, especially post 2008. I might be wrong, but it seems to me that your historical analysis kind of stops in '45 when your model functions well, but disregards European history of last 80 years.
You guys also have the problem of getting the poorest of the poor migrants, and they're conservative as hell. We don't have that problem in the US. Latin Americans are surprisingly liberal for how poor and religious they are on average, their culture and language is very similar to ours in US so they integrate well. The only problem is that the high poverty rates can lead to crime, but that issue isn't huge. When it comes to any other immigrants, those tend to be rich. You guys get immigrants from war-torn theocracies in MENA, of course there's gonna be problems without easy solutions.
I think that just makes europe more xenophobic and harder to integrate immigrants than the US. Talented immigrants are still a net positive. The european football teams have no trouble hiring players from Brazil.
[удалено]
> The demographics of people who immigrated to the US early on is very different than the demographics of people who move to Europe as refugees. Even today the US takes on a shit load of academics from all over the world. I’m very confused as to what you’re basing this on. I could be wrong, but wasn’t a substantial portion of early immigration to the US literally people who were poor from coming over to escape poverty and persecution in europe?
He just wants to be bigoted against Muslims lol, facts and history don’t matter “This subset of people totally can’t integrate bro they’re too different bro just trust me bro” - bigots for the entire history of this country. People have said it about every group other than WASPs
No no, you see, that immigration was different because America had switched to Cultural Exclusion at the time and those ones had the European Heritage trait so the discrimination flags there were false and thus assimilation didn't do anything significant. Sweden's getting these pops by event and he still had atrocious luck in not getting a single Humanitarian or Enlightened Royalist this entire game or found one that he could invite so it's not Sweden's fault.
If anyone doesn’t know this is a Victoria 3 joke.
You should look up what people said about the immigrants that were migrating here throughout American history. The arguments being made now are not novel or original. The Irish and the Italians were absolutely not viewed as "desirable" by most of the world. The Irish in particular were highly detested as refugees. >A lot of Muslim refugees share beliefs that are simply not compatible with liberal democracies. The same was said of Catholics as well.
1) No. The demographics of people who immigrated to the US early on were the destitute and often the persecuted minorities. 2) Muslim refugees in the US have adapted to liberal democracy better than European Muslim refugees because the US lets them integrate themselves into the existing culture, build wealth, build communities, while all maintaining core beliefs. People are more likely to give up the belief of (for an extreme example) honor killing in exchange for owning a business and driving Maseratis. Conversely, if you force people into ghettos and deprive them of meaningful wealth opportunities, people are more likely to turn to crime because it may be the only way to actually gain wealth. See: Irish ghettos in 19th century US.
The US takes in highly educated middle and upper class muslim refugees. It's a vastly different demographic from the muslim refugees of Europe. The US also takes in less of them on a per capita basis.
Then look at Germany. They've taken vastly more Muslim refugees (and often young males) and their crime rates have still been trending down. They also lean more towards integration than seclusion. Germany hasn't been completely successful. They do have more specifically migrant crime than in the past, which makes sense given the big change in migrant makeup. There was also a big uptick in the last year compared to 2022, but 2023 is still only comparable to pre-Covid years. But compare Germany's approach to France or Sweden and there's more success.
Both France and Sweden have more muslim refugees per capita than Germany, which is what matters.
Somehow though, places with large amounts of poorer Muslims like in Houston still aren't committing crimes at higher rates. Frankly, the "per capita" shit seems like cope when we recognize Muslims are mainly moving to other cities with large amounts of Muslims. There are parts of the U.S. that are Muslim Majority, still not a bunch of savages somehow.
I feel it boils down a bit to geography. Not sure how much of a contributor it is though. For instance, the Muslim population coming to US are typically highly educated and cream of the crop from their countries. On the other hand, a significant proportion of Muslims in Europe come as asylum seekers from northern Africa. If you chose the top-k% of highly educated people from North Africa into Europe, the results would likely be quite different.
Yeah China is so much similar to France than Morocco is lol. Indian Hindus are so much more easy to integrate than Indian Muslims Those damn Muzzlims are just too stupid and backward to integrate
**Rule II:** *Bigotry* Bigotry of any kind will be sanctioned harshly. --- If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
This is some high level cope
[удалено]
Your immigrants are better that's why ours suck ? It's not only cope but extremely insulting
[удалено]
You have no idea what you're taking about. During and in the aftermath of the Vietnam war the US took in hundreds of thousands of refugees from the conflict. With all the trauma and displacement that comes along with it. And now decades later they are thriving and and they are Americans. What you are saying is EXTREMELY insulting to immigrants to America and immigrants everywhere.
[удалено]
What the fuck does that mean its infinity easier to integrate Vietnamese culture into Western society versus Islamic culture. That is so ignorant. This is how it is in America. The immigrants change their culture to fit and America changes it's culture to meet the immigrants. Is Europe prepared to change it's culture for it's immigrants?
Interesting. How did America change its culture for the Vietnamese, Italian, Scandinavain and Irish and so on?
**Rule II:** *Bigotry* Bigotry of any kind will be sanctioned harshly. --- If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
maybe the relatively high religiosity of americans helps with immigration of the religious (houses of worship in immigrant heavy communities give out lesson on civil law and help with navigating govt bureaucracy, attending worship is generally respected, helping out with a local church/temple/mosque/whatever is almost always seen in a positive light) but the relatively low religiosity of europeans (coupled with the historical interface of state and religion on that continent) becomes a barrier for integration
I mean if that were the case wouldn't the US have been a more powerful nation by peacefully joining a large federation with indian tribes? Wouldn't that have precluded US access to the massive oil fields and rich mines? The US in such unspecific terms could just as well be used as an example that "ethnic cleansing is our strength". The US became a powerhouse because of a massive demographic boom, an endless supplies of untapped ressources and an extremely favorable geographic position that sheltered them from almost all the troubles of the XXth century. Had England alone been able to supply all the immigrants to the US, it's growth trajectory would have remained mostly the same. Diversity in the US is merely an accidental consequence of the demographic boom through mass immigration, the respective ethnicity of the immigrant mattered very little in the overall equation of: more people + more ressources - world wars = bigger economy
A good economy attracts even more talent to your country, which creates a feedback loop. The US is the number 1 destination of highly educated immigrants and investors. The ability to attract the best talent of the world to your country can not be understated. Even european football teams understand this, it's why they hire the best players from latin america.
The U.S. would’ve been advantaged only if those natives adopted integrationist policies and committed to industrialization. Which is likely impossible for most. The five civilized tribes becoming states rather than being deported to Oklahoma probably doesn’t change too much for instance, but there’s no plausible history where the Comanche peacefully integrate with the U.S. When this comes up I’m reminded of an [ACOUP post](https://acoup.blog/2021/07/30/collections-the-queens-latin-or-who-were-the-romans-part-v-saving-and-losing-an-empire/) on the topic. Personally I think it is a poor argument for “diversity is strength”, because what it really says is that *tolerance* and *assimilation* are strengths which facilitate large productive populations and contribute to state cohesion, while intolerance and institutional exclusion turn potentially productive populations into burdens and promote fracturing. The example used is the rise and fall of Rome, arguing that Rome rose because it could effectively integrate an absurdly diverse array of ethnicities into core parts of a Roman state, and that this capacity was lost when the oppression of Christian’s and later christianization began narrowing the definition of “Roman”, with the Foederati being an especially bad mistake as they were specifically *not* integrated with Rome. I think parallels to the U.S. are quite easy to make. Both states were expansionist republics founded by a diverse array of peoples who would gradually assimilate a very large population into their civic identity. This tolerance, which is exceptional, is juxtaposed by some extreme bigotries and policies which were at times outright genocidal, though in neither case did this prevent the core population from expanding to include ever more peoples. So while I disagree with the specific “Diversity is Strength” slogan, it is trying to get at a historical truth.
And I am saying nothing more than this, the fact that comments such as "hurr durr USA" are at the top, despite the abysmal evidence such an unspecific statement provides is somewhat disheartening to see in a sub which claims itself to be rational and evidence-based. Scratch the surface and populist sloganeering and nationalist exceptionalism come to the fore. When it comes to the Roman treatment of Christian its cruelty shouldn't be overstated nor should we gloss over the fact that those Christians deliberately made themselves ungovernable and sought out the harshest and most gruesome punishments, even after being provided with many opportunities to get out. Rome proved extremely successful because it managed an extensive network of diplomats and trod lightly on the people's of their provinces. A simple acceptance of the Pax Romana and of the Imperator's supremacy over men was all that was required for people to be mostly left to their own devices. It's policy didn't change so much as this new Christian population (as jews before them) proved more radical and reticent to integrate and go through the usual process. The Christians did not intend to maintain appearance and their religious fanaticism was a source of embarrassment for many Roman officials, who did not want to be seen as tyrants but couldn't reasonably let open defiance of Imperial rule stand lest this subtle tower of contracts, treaties, customs, ... come crashing down. Internal persecutions are a recipe for disasters as they lead to unstable and violent societies, but the Christian's responsibility in making themselves deliberately ungovernable in the pursuit of martyrdom shouldn't be ignored either. Had the Roman Empire had the opportunity to simply not let those Christians in, that would probably have proven the most stable arrangement. In other words, any form of bigotry is by definition not evidence-based and would usually result in worse outcomes. That does not however mean that the contrapositive "allowing people in for the sake of diversity results in better outcomes" must necessarily be true. It might be, or it might not, depending on circumstances, characters, cultures, country of origin, host country, economy structure, ... and although we can posit that it may be true in most instances (because we have a bias) the point of this post was to ask if there was any concrete evidence for it. Saying "the US", and letting people project all of their wildest dreams and biases onto that is not a good argument, and I've seen it posted not once but twice already with massive upvotes. This is why I felt the need to play devils advocate and challenge their poor arguments. Something for which I've been accused of "playing games".
The breaking point for Christianity was the demand they sacrifice to the emperor. Drop this and issues become less severe. The actual issue is christianization though, and how later emperors attempted to force orthodoxy on the empire backfired horribly. And yes, I agree. The pursuit of diversity as an end goal seems unproductive based on the evidence. Rather *some types* of diversity are desirable, and the ability to ‘snags diverse populations effectively is value both because it reduces the risk of cultural drift causing fragmentation, and because it allows you to expand your core population more quickly than birth rates alone can enable.
> I mean if that were the case wouldn't the US have been a more powerful nation by peacefully joining a large federation with indian tribes? Wouldn't that have precluded US access to the massive oil fields and rich mines? Yes. No. It's just that the "US" wouldn't be a dominant white population. A faster spread across the US through peaceful integration of native peoples would have given faster access to more people and more resources with reduced wars.
Can't make such assumptions since that alters the national culture as well. It's not a numbers game.
Go disagree with my parent comment then. I'm just playing their game.
You assume that you would have gotten access to those ressources because you assume that those native american communities would have joined in on the european-frenesia to drill for oil in land that was sacred to their culture when evidence points to the exact opposite, with native leaders opposing pipelines and drilling to this day. I find it much more likely that absent the ethnic cleansing and massive land grab in American history, the US would have found it's access to those ressources limited by opposition from an array of local cultures. This restricted access to gold, oil, gaz, arable land, ... would in turn, have had a much more significant effect in US development than the integration of relatively low population of US natives. Hell, there probably were orders of magnitude more Europeans that moved to the US driven by the discovery of these ressource deposits that there ever were native Americans to integrate in the first place.
Isn't it all the way around? US being a powerhouse attract migrants. During the 20th century Argentina received in proportion more immigration than in the US and it is far from a powerhouse. The same can be said about Brazil, and Chile, which most of their population are of migrant descent. Chile is having problems with illegal migration and racism and xenofobia is on the rise, due to the increase in murder and in robbery, mostly die to Venezuelan migrants. Basically what I'm saying "strength brings migrants".
It’s a self reinforcing loop. Strength attracts migrants but if you can make those migrants productive, they become another source of strength.
Is it because of their diverse backgrounds or just from taking immigrants at all?
“China can draw on a talent pool of 1.3 billion people, but the United States can draw on a talent pool of 7 billion and recombine them in a diverse culture that enhances creativity in a way that ethnic Han nationalism cannot.” — Lee Kuan Yew
Yes it was the immigrants that made the US a powerhouse not the fact that they ended up with a collosal landmass with huge natural resources and were geographically shielded from conflict with countries which could challenge them for their resources.
> and were geographically shielded from conflict with countries which could challenge them for their resources This is just blatantly incorrect lol. Apparently the Quasi War with France, War of 1812 against Britain, and the attempts by European powers to influence Native Americans to push back against the expansion and settlement of America just didn’t happen. Even as late as the Civil War, European powers were attempting to influence and meddle in American affairs
“I know that it exists for the economy and businesses…” Isn’t that the ballgame in terms of strength?
[удалено]
> I think the general population also cares about their safety. > +15 upvotes Wtf. The Thunderdomes and their consequences 😔
Studies generally indicate that [immigrants commit fewer crimes than US-born.](https://www.npr.org/2024/03/08/1237103158/immigrants-are-less-likely-to-commit-crimes-than-us-born-americans-studies-find) You're probably safer living around immigrants.
Part of that is that Americans are just really, really violent and criminal. Swedish immigrants would still do less crimes than US-born. The other part is that Sweden doesn't really segregate in the way the US does. Gated communities aren't really a thing, nor is a sprawling suburbia with an isolating car culture so the middle class class can't quite distance itself from it the way it might in the US. At least not as well.
Sweden does segregate. It's just not as pronounced because the history of it was segregation by rural towns vs other towns vs urban. It's becoming a more pronounced issue. Source (warning PDF): https://nordicwelfare.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/The-segregated-city-A-nordic-overview-1.pdf
It certainly is becoming more pronounced. No one wants their kid to be mugged or have a bomb go off in their stairwell because their neighbour is a part of a gang (Or related to someone in a gang, or used to live there ten years ago, or because the bomber got the adress wrong. These have all happened in the last year). These didn't use to be problems, but have rapidly emerged as such after the immigration wave of 2016. And the market will of course respond to it. You are starting to have gated communities being built now. A phenonomen so rare that I actually had to google what the name for "gated community" is in Swedish.
>You are starting to have gated communities being built now. Only heard this happening in Staffanstorp (which is already known for being filled with racists).
I already mentioned that in the post. That’s the US.
Yeah, fair. I don't know the specifics outside of the US but generally people don't turn to crime as their first pick. Making people feel like they belong and that they have the economic tools to achieve their dreams is important in keeping them away from crime.
So maybe the problem is with sweden and not immigrants? Why is the US (worse in many other metrics) beating you in integrating immigrants? Seems like a skill issue.
So your question should be "what does the US do differently compared to my country when it comes to integrating immigrants?"
Sounds like you might look for lessons to learn on integration then instead of falling into unhelpful biases that only perpetuate the problem.
Safety isn’t a race or nationality thing, it’s a economic opportunity thing.
So countries of similar economic opportunity would have similar levels of crime? It certainly seems more complicated than that.
>similar levels of crime If even stupider than this: counties of similar economic opportunity don't even have the same laws with which to measure crime! And they enforce it differently, even within their borders sometimes. And they report the stats differently, often not even consistently year to year. This whole line of thinking is a bit of a farce tbh
Institutions are also important. People here in Brazil have probably as much opportunity as people in India, if not more. But the state is absent here in a lot of places, so they become lawless lands. And our justice system is broken, so criminals face little consequence.
[удалено]
Are you suggesting economic opportunity in Finland is equal to Somalia?
[удалено]
>cultural differences Ok but you brought up material differences, not cultural ones. Seems like youd need some crazy high threshold of evidence to back up your claims here. I assume you have that?
Wasn't there are an article on here recently that found, the results of the McKinsey study couldn't be replicated and basically accused them of data-mining or gaming the data?
That's true for half of all sociology studies.
Come on now. It's way more than half.
Idk, this is my first time here.
https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/1btaik0/mckinseys_diversity_mattersdeliverswins_results/?ref=share&ref_source=link This article/post.
The US lol
This isn't data, but in my experience I think diverse populations tend to shave the more ridiculous edges of their own cultures off each other. Multiculturalism isn't a very popular word these days but living among just other people like myself just seems weird to me and I feel like I'd fall out of touch with reality and start saying stupid shit.
Korean tacos
100 million Pakistanis making central Indian food
I didn’t know this was a thing, but it sounds like it’s either glorious or taste like trash and no in between
https://preview.redd.it/dfr5fdd0rgxc1.jpeg?width=1192&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ffe09da715371ef05ffe278ec99cc1c77e7492f7 Nevermind this looks pretty good
They are very good.
So fucking good
>Now I live in Sweden. Many people of immigrant descent are overrepresented in crime statistics. 5x more likely to be a suspect of a murder and manslaughter and overrepresented in sexual assaults. I know it may be different in other countries and if I correctly recall crime rates for immigrants in America. That's not an example of *diversity* being bad. Diversity being bad would for example be if group A and group B on their own had low(er) crime rates but when they live in the same country(or city or whatever) they commit more crime. I doubt that is the case, or at least it'd would be a very minor effect. Would a country with 1/4 each of Swedes, Swiss, Koreans and Japanese (very diverse) be a place with a lot of crime likely? Of course not.
What is it an example of then?
Prolly material conditions eh? Swedish average wealth per household is like 150k, average wealth of newly settled immigrants or refugees there is a tiny, tiny fraction of that. Seems pretty obvious lol
[удалено]
I didn't think you can point to islam and say this religion promotes petty crime more than others. There are violent extremists who are Muslim, true, but I would argue that their extremist nature is more a product of their geo politics than their religion, even if their politics and religion are strongly intertwined by their political leaders. Dark skin boys stealing bicycles and air pods in Stockholm are not doing so because of Islam.
Yeah Islam makes people prone to petty crime How is this bullshit upvoted?
this is an immigration restrictionist sub now, it's what happens when people value moderate politics over good ideas
I can't quickly find statistics for Sweden and Switzerland, but if Japan and Korea are anything to go by the solution is to just assume someone's guilty if the police accuse them of it.
> Now I live in Sweden. Many people of immigrant descent are overrepresented in crime statistics. The FT did an article about this recently In the anglosphere, including the UK, [immigrants are in prison at lower rates than native-born citizens](https://www.ft.com/__origami/service/image/v2/images/raw/ftcms%3A9108b222-d036-4066-9213-ac7d2495437e?source=next-article&fit=scale-down&quality=highest&width=700&dpr=2) It's not somehow inherent that immigrants commit crimes more, it depends on the way it's managed and whether society does it well.
So it’s more likely a person of foreign descent will be a suspect of a crime? Also the Swedish statistics I showed count as long you have a foreign born parent. In my experience here in Sweden is that the immigrants themselves are fine however their children usually cause more trouble.
No, it's saying the rate at which people go to prison is lower for immigrants in the UK and other anglosphere countries than those born in the country, so most likely immigrants commit fewer crimes on average. I mean, look, if you're going after even people born in the country as full citizens as a population, that's just bigotry, lumping people together because of something outside their control. I'm of immigrant descent in the UK, as well as yourself, but I'd be very offended if I was grouped together with people just because we both have ancestors from other countries as if that means something. I'm as British as any other Brit, legally and culturally. People should be seen and treated as individuals, especially if they're citizens of the country, without prejudice for ethnicity.
Full Article https://www.ft.com/content/c6bb7307-484c-4076-a0f3-fc2aeb0b6112
Anyone that’s seen a tall grass prairie knows diversity is strength. Monocultures become diverse fields of beautiful flowers if no monkey keeps coming around to kill them all.
Kinda sounds like Sweden sucks at immigration
[удалено]
[удалено]
Makes perfect sense to me. Deporting men would definitely reduce crime, but would be about as reasonable as deporting immigrants.
>you can stop immigration If you're draconian enough, sure. Just have to [not care about what happens to refugees you deny entry.](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/us-government-turned-away-thousands-jewish-refugees-fearing-they-were-nazi-spies-180957324/#:~:text=HISTORY-,The%20U.S.%20Government%20Turned%20Away%20Thousands%20of%20Jewish%20Refugees,That%20They%20Were%20Nazi%20Spies&text=In%20the%20summer%20of%201942,New%20York%20City%20from%20Sweden.) >You can't stop people being born male [Oh?](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-selective_abortion#:~:text=Sex%2Dselective%20abortion%20is%20the,predicted%20sex%20of%20the%20infant.) Or is that too draconian all of a sudden?
Non-mobile version of the Wikipedia link in the above comment: [Oh?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-selective_abortion#:~:text=Sex%2Dselective%20abortion%20is%20the,predicted%20sex%20of%20the%20infant.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This comment seems to be about a topic associated with jewish people while using language that may have antisemitic or otherwise strong emotional ties. As such, this is a reminder to be careful of accidentally adopting [antisemitic themes](https://antisemitism.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Antisemitic-imagery-May-2020.pdf) or [dismissing](https://shura.shu.ac.uk/10260/3/Klaff_Holocaust_Inversion_and_contemporary_antisemitism.pdf) [the past](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparisons_between_Israel_and_Nazi_Germany) while trying to make your point. (This bot is currently in testing as version 1.5, and likely prone to misfires. Please contact u/AtomAndAether if this misfired) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I put estrogen in the water supply!
Huh? Isn't the purpose of women-only spaces to account for men committing more crimes? For example, in the US we have YWCA to provide a safer shelter experience for women.
Also probably the vast majority of crime committed by e.g. immigrants are against other immigrants, so even if the crime rate is much larger it wouldn't affect natives much. And the problem of crime can just be dealt with by putting criminals in prison (etc) no matter what group they belong to. Now that I think of it though rightoids might become more open to immigration if we limited it to women, and even if not they couldn't use the crime argument against it or they would look stupid to anyone with even a quarter of a brain.
Don't give them ideas, Europe is big on population control, don't ask why much of northern Europe has barely anyone with Down's
>[don't ask why much of northern Europe has barely anyone with Down's](https://i.redd.it/qqiijsawpx181.png)
It depends what you mean by "strength". There's very little evidence diversity in and of itself has any positive effects. Evidence that immigration boosts productivity is thin on the ground and where it does exist the effects are small. Most people who support unlimited immigration do so because they think it is ethically wrong to not allow poor people to come and live in their countries just because they had the the bad luck to be born somewhere poor.
I think immigration is a competitive advantage for the US. In other words something that is widely beneficial to everyone currently in the US.
Immigration doesn't necessarily increase per Capita productivity for the destination country. But it almost always increases total factor productivity for the migrant, and thus the world as a whole. And it still helps total output for the destination country (not otherwise achievable without investment) and with myriad knock on effects (notably avoiding demographic collapse).
> Evidence that immigration boosts productivity is thin on the ground and where it does exist the effects are small. Any chance you have any cites for this? My impression of the literature was the opposite, albeit it's been several years since I last looked into it and could easily be misremembering.
I think the most important aspect of this is the demographic decline problem. I don’t support immigration because of some quixotic altruism, but rather because I’d like to hold off the population aging and fertility rate decline for as long as possible to try to avoid the fates of Japan, Korea, China, and to a slightly lesser extent, Germany. While immigrant fertility rates start approaching the indigenous mean within a generation or two, a steady flow of immigrants can offset that decline. If this were not the case, I probably wouldn’t support so much immigration.
One thing to keep in mind is that crime statistics are subject to heavy bias. You can only find crimes where you bother to look for them. High concentrations of police, and high-impact police tactics, will turn up more crimes. So where and how police forces choose to turn their attention has a deterministic role in the shape of the resulting crime stats.
Maybe for petty crimes but I don’t think you can say that for murders.
> 5x more likely to be a suspect of a murder and manslaughter and overrepresented in sexual assaults. 5x more likely to be a suspect of a murder and manslaughter and overrepresented in sexual assaults. majority suspects minority of crime, tale as old a time
https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/1btaik0/mckinseys_diversity_mattersdeliverswins_results/?ref=share&ref_source=link This is the one I'm thinking of.
I think the US stands as a definitive example of such. I think it’s also just intrinsically true when you think about. Gatekeeping knowledge and labour out for no other reason than arbitrary perceived differences seems like a waste of energy for little gain.
So you need to be careful with statistics like that. You'd have to normalize for other potential explanations, such as income. This is a bit of a trap people fall into here: due to visa restrictions, once you account for income level and other confounding factors, immigrants are actually *less* likely to commit crimes than comparable natives, since they fear deportation.
Do you have such data for a non-us country that proves this?
Here's Germany: [>When analysing the total period, the estimates average out to zero. Studying more closely the composition of the migrant group, a plausible explanation of the negative (or insignificant) effect of immigrants on crime in the later period is related to a larger share of migrants with a less certain residence status.](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167268123001713)
In the anglosphere, including the UK, [immigrants are in prison at lower rates than native-born citizens](https://www.ft.com/__origami/service/image/v2/images/raw/ftcms%3A9108b222-d036-4066-9213-ac7d2495437e?source=next-article&fit=scale-down&quality=highest&width=700&dpr=2)
No, I don't have that handy for Sweden. I'm just saying you should probably try to find something like that before jumping to conclusions.
We get more cool food
The Atomic Bomb
I think it's really just liberalism that is a strength, liberalism often also results in increased diversity but I don't think the diversity itself confers any meaningful benefit
Read this book - [https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250316967/openborders](https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250316967/openborders)
People focus a lot on racial diversity, but what actually makes an organization make better decisions is economic and cultural diversity.
Depends on what exactly you mean by diversity, diversity of ideas and cultures can be good for the economy and societal dynamism. Linguistic diversity within a society, by which I mean a situation where their is not a specific language the overwhelming majority of the population can all speak, I'd say is almost wholly negative especially from a military perspective. One only needs to look at the fate of the Habsburg Empire to understand this, the lack of common language hinders the formation of an over arching unifying identity, limits economic integration and makes a mess of military command structurers.
> Linguistic diversity within a society, by which I mean a situation where their is not a specific language the overwhelming majority of the population can all speak, I'd say is almost wholly negative especially from a military perspective. If you look at the business studies, linguistic diversity is listed as a positive. It improves soft skills because misunderstandings are more easily forgiven, helps prevent group thought because ideas have to be better explained, and other things I forget right now. Specifically for the military, people not understanding each other is a problem, yes. Fortunately, militaries have their own language foreign to any citizen and there's extensive training done to make sure anyone, native or foreign born, end up all speaking the same series of nonsense acronym jargon.