Why Illegal Immigrants Are More Likely to Rape, Steal, & Kill

Look at that title.

Does that sound like a racist title set up for provocative effect?

Yeah… If you belong to the billion-members clubs of the virtue signalers, politically correct, and lobotomized disenlightned.

In truth, to any clear and free mind, it should be plain logical that illegal migrants are more likely to rape, steal and kill.

The obvious provisions here are that:

1. “More likely” doesn’t mean everyone, many, and not even a “large percentage” -of course-
2. It doesn’t mean very likely. It just means “more likely than the general host population already residing in the host country”
3. Statistics can prove either point, and seem to be politically-driven

But, once that incipit is done, we go back to that politically incorrect truth of simple logic.
And, albeit it’s certainly possible that illegal immigration may have no negative impact on general quality of life markers such as crime (violent, petty, or property), terrorism, security, perceived security, street cleanliness, etc. it would be simply illogical to think otherwise.

Let’s see why illegal migration is likely to negatively effect the host country:

Reason #1: Self-Selection Bias: Males, Risk-Takers, & Desperate

Simple question:

Who is more likely to pack and leave everything, no job prospect, no visas, and no certitudes?

Is it the fearful and risk-averse?

Nope.

Is it those who enjoy great reputation in their original country, with great social life and support networks?

Nope, neither are those.

Is the well-off, with advanced degrees, who are already doing well in their country?

Nope, those seek legal immigration, and often arrive with a scholarship, a job, or high chances of getting either of them.

So, who is more likely to try their luck with illegal emigration?

Turns out, the people who are likely to emigrate tend to belong to groups who are also more likely to commit crimes.

These are:

• Men, who emigrate more than women, and who are more likely to commit crimes than women
• Young/mature, both more likely to emigrate and more likely to commit crimes
• Risk takers, with studies showing a correlation between traveled migratory distance and genes affecting risk-taking behavior (Sapolsky also says the US is more individualistic because of the higher incidence of R7 allele from the migrating populace)
• Low status, which can lead to crime not only in the original immigrants, but also in their children, thus ensuring a future of criminality, not just a present

And, albeit it’s a tiny minority, people high in psychopathy are also more likely to move, escaping burnt reputations, legal woes, and looking for a cozy new place where to reset their rap sheet with a clean slate.

Reason #2: Lack of Legally Viable Options

Again, this is simple logic:

Any half-rational individual, even if simply at a subconscious level, is less likely to commit crime if they have legal ways of gaining the status, mates, and resources they want.

Conversely, they are more likely to seek a shortcut through crime when they cannot find a legal way to a good life (or when they are forced by truly dire circumstances to feed themselves).

Reason #3: Psychology – The Comparative Nature Of The Human Mind

There are also psychological reasons that can push immigrants into a life of crime.

Some of those migrants take a risk hoping to go from poverty, to a better life.
Some dream of a good life.

And some have unrealistic expectations of what awaits them in the promised land -and no doubt, for at least some, aggravated by entitlement mentality-.

So when they land and struggle… They may be ill-equipped to accept that as part of life -or to see it as a transitory period that one must simply go through-.

Once they reach the land of plenty, the stark contrast between some of the well-off locals and their own status is even bigger than when they left.
And income inequality is a known predictor of criminality.

As Tony Montana provides a good example while looking at the rich and paving the way for his own life of crime:

Tony Montana: Cono, look at these…fucking onions! They outta be picking gold off the streets.

Little later Montana quits his low status job to go looking for that “gold off the street”.
Of course, with little hope for any legal way to make good money, the golden pot is not to be found at the end of a rainbow.

Reason #3: Social & Sexual Dynamics

Men prefer friends who are cool and high status.

And women notoriously prefer men who are “more” than they are.

Problem: immigrants are often seen as lower status, plus they often are lower status -at least upon landing-.

Result?
While getting into high-value circles and dating women is already complicated enough for many men, it’s even more complicated for many immigrants,

The fact that immigrants are mostly men adds further fuel to the problematic fire.

An increase in (attempted) rape or sexual harassment is indeed also the logical consequence of having more men than women, and more men with no dating options.

There is also data to support that logic.
Birger did a great job collecting evidence on how deeply the men to women gender ratio affects people’s behavior, including violent behavior and rape.

Problem: The Politically-Driven Statistic Bias

So…

What do the stats say?

It might seem like the best way to find the “truth” right?
Go to the data, done.

But you might have noticed, we didn’t get too deep into that.
And here’s why:

1. Data is abundant, logic is not: you get stats everywhere, but you get logic almost nowhere. That’s why a piece on logic-firsrt can be useful. Of course, data would get the last word, but the problem with data is that:
2. Research is contradictory, and you can find statistics supporting either side. Even more damning though, is that:
3. Data seems to bend to political bias, rather than being used for getting to the truth -or to the best policy-. Ultimately, the last word is not in the data, but in the summation and use of that data.
   No matter how good the data is, data always requires an unbiased mind to structure it, make sense of it, share it, and craft strategies and policies based on it

Indeed, some of the top statistics you find on Google seem to be framed and spun to show that “everything’s OK when you look at the data”.

For example this study on the crime effect of the recent German immigration says:

 “very small increases in crime in particular with respect to drug offenses and fare-dodging.

The way that’s phrased it’s already slightly biased to make the reader feel that “the increase is no big deal” because it’s “very small” and “not violent”.

But when that study hit the press, which is where public opinion and policies are most often formed, the spin-job went into higher gear.
The article referencing that study on Quartz for example, titles:

What effect did the record influx of refugees have on jobs and crime in Germany? Not much

Big LOL to that.

Did you notice the bias?

A critical thinker can smell the bias with just those keywords.
First, it frames this case as “exceptional” because of the “record” keyword. That sub-communicates that if that record-breaking immigration wave didn’t cause big troubles, then you can chill because “normal” illegal immigration is nothing compared to it.
Then, it conflates jobs and crime, which are two very separate issues. But by putting “jobs” next to “crimes”, it takes the edge off of “crime” which by itself would otherwise negatively frame the public discourse against immigration, no matter how small the impact was.

Then the “not much” part.
Without even reading the study, with just those two words, a power-aware reader already knows that “it probably DID have an effect, and it was NEGATIVE”.

The only question is “how much”.

Another study on the effects of the 2015 refugee crisis finds that between 2014 and 2016, the number of police-recorded acts of violence in Lower Saxony rose by 10.4 percent.
And, surprise surprise, a whopping 92.1 of this increase can be attributed to refugees.

The study says that it’s not surprising, since a noticeable proportion of refugees are young men in the age range in which people are increasingly delinquent.
Which is true and confirms exactly what we say here, except that… It feels like a justification, as if to say “all other age groups are probably fine”, hence “immigration is fine”.

The respective article citing that study takes the spin-mastery even further, and it titles:

Prevention improvement is solution to refugee crime, study finds

And if you think that’s laughable, wait for the subtitle:

A recent study suggests that refugees would resort to less violence if they had better exposure to education, extracurricular activities and female influence.

“They’d resort to less violence”, if…
Now that’s a spin master who doesn’t even know to that job properly.

But still they tried, and their attempted spin is to ignore the real issue at hand, and jump at the solutions.
Solutions that, of course, do not include curbing immigration or sending some back, but that “we should give them more” -a form of victim blaming, in a way-.

Of course, those solutions may be valid and worth considering, but… It’s also true that any good solution should start form a look at the hard data first.
And a testy reader who goes straight to bottom line numbers instead might want to comment that “maybe the article authors should lend their daughters for more “female influence””.

There would be much more but, by now, you get the point:

Plenty of statistics show that at least some recent waves of immigration can significantly increase crime rates.
But my experience says that those statistics rarely inform public opinion and policy.
Instead, the statistics that filter through the media either seek to spin a rosy view on immigration, or choose to highlight studies that downplay or deny any correlation between immigration and crime.

Warning: We Only Support Unbiased Logic

Finally, we want to stress this:

We are agnostic and neutral on immigration, when at its most general level.

This article was purposefully framed with a shocking title.
And it was purposefully taking the side of against immigration because we feel that the current public discourse, often tinged by political correctness, is too skewed towards the naive interpretation.

So, no, we believe that supporting indiscriminate immigration is a naive and often uninformed stance.

However, we are equally against overly-cynical and simplistic anti-immigration sentiment and racism.
Thus, we distance ourselves from attacks against immigrants as a whole and, particularly, against individuals.

Many migrants are great people and will add even more value to the world once in a developed nation. Many more may need some help in the beginning, but will turn out to be A-level citizens.
And some move out of desperation and deserve empathy.

That doesn’t mean to welcome just about anyone, though, which is simply a losing approach for most.

A government has an obligation towards the citizens who justify and finance its own existence, and an obligation to foster, and maybe even prioritize, the taxpayers’ well-being.
But as human beings, one may also argue we have an obligation to think about any human being well being, and to help prevent any suffering, no matter where it originates.

So the goal should be to strike a balance between helping people in difficulty -something that can be done without necessarily opening the borders-, while also prioritizing the well-being of the local taxpayers.

So what we are in favor of is intelligent, unbiased discourse that informs policies that maximize well-being.
Tough call, I know :).