Either you misunderstood what I was getting at, or I'm misunderstanding what you're getting at. Assume I stated my point poorly, and never mind.
-
-
Replying to @random_eddie @Noahpinion
I entirely agree that births increase crime / that RATE is what matters my point is this: the pro-immigration people (not a great term, bc I am ALSO pro-immigration!) like to argue "immigrants create less crime than natives". I agree w that! My point is ...
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
is that there is a spectrum of agregation. At one end is "consider each person individually, with absolute knowledge". At the other end is "there are 7 billion people and we can't draw distinctions between ANY of them". First is impossible. Second is stupid.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
so we can / do / should make as good decisions as possible, using as much data as possible. So: we look askance at people who have committed 1 murder. This is unfair! Many will never commit another. Ideally we'd let in murderers who will never commit another. ...but we don't
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
...because we can't get that level of knowledge, so we fall back on "well, 20% of people who murder once murder again" (or whatever the stat is) and keep them out.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
"keeping the crime rate the same" is actually a shitty goal. we'd love to dilute the current level of crimes with a 100% crime free immigration stream, so that crime RATES fall, yes?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
but we don't do that. We admit a mix of people that commit, on average, MORE crimes than the core / traditional demographic of the US. This demographic is also in favor of more taxes, more government, more socialism, and less freedom. This is a dumb policy. The end.
1 reply 2 retweets 3 likes -
...of America.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MorlockP
Loosely agreed, and understood even before I tweeted. But to head down this tangent towards our potential disagreements:
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @random_eddie @MorlockP
I'm only slightly more comfortable blocking admission based on national origin than I am with deporting or imprisoning natives based on skin color. I get your argument, but it can be made in reverse as well. I (and you, I'm sure) would prefer a more granular approach.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Yep, granular is best. The idea is to admit INDIVIDUALS who will commit zero crimes and vote in favor of Enlightenment values. Re deporting natives: citizenship is property. The state does not have the right to confiscate it. N.B. because citizenship is property ...
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.