Depending on the sample sizes from the two groups (e.g. how many people you let in from each group), it is entirely possible that you will let in no desirables from either group. It’s also possible that you might let in more undesirables from Group A than from Group B, again depending on the sample sizes. Tell me, Smally — if I let in 100 people from Group A and 100 people from Group B, how many undesirables have I admitted from each group?
Hmm?
The statistical fallacy that you and pjgoober appear to be engaging in is the apparent belief that in any groups of people drawn from Group A and Group B, the number of “undesirables” in each group of immigrants will always be equal to the percentage distribution of “undesirables” in the greater pools (i.e. Group A and Group B themselves). But that’s not always the case. At any rate, this situation is called “biased sampling” in statistics.
]]>That claim displays a remarkable lack of understanding of the principles of statistical analysis on the part of both Dr. Sowell and yourself.
]]>Bigots and Bell-curvists, oh me, oh my!
]]>This is not really much to the point, but as for southeast Michigan, I used to live in Ypsilanti and might very well have moved to inner-city Detroit had my wife’s plans for school turned out differently. Unlike some alarmists, I do know how to weigh significant but small differences in risk and make intelligent life decisions based on them.
Prudence for my descendants dictates that I err in the exact opposite direction that you would have americans err in.
Excuse me, but based on the data that you have presented so far, you have not yet even demonstrated an empirical claim that an increase in the number of immigrants’ children would produce a higher violent crime rate in the United States–let alone the collectivist moral conclusions that you draw from this empirical claim. In order to do that you would have to demonstrate that an immigrant’s U.S.-born child is more likely than a U.S.-born child of U.S.-born parents to commit violent crimes, preferably when controlled for socioeconomic factors such as income, education, etc. But whether that’s true or false, you haven’t yet demonstrated it. The study you cited doesn’t even compare the violent crime rates immigrants’ U.S.-born children to the U.S.-born children of U.S.-born parents. It compares the incarceration rates of immigrants to the incarceration rates of other immigrants’ U.S.-born children. To infer anything about potential trends in U.S. crime rates from this comparison is fallacious.
The same trends in incarceration disparities by race and immigrant generation hold when looking at violent non-drug crimes like murder and rape.
If you say so, but the source that you cite for your claims above does not provide any evidence one way or another on this claim. If you have evidence, you should produce a citation for it.
Radgeek writes (with my editing in brackets):
I have no idea why you think that the government should visit the [group average] sins of [prospective] immigrant children on their parents.The above in brackets would describe my true position.
Right. So you believe in using real violence against millions of innocent people in order to address the hypothetical sins of children that they may or may not have. That’s despicable.
Totally agreed. Using force of law to uprooting someone for the crimes of their children is wrong. Not letting them immigrate in the first place is the our right.
You have every right to adopt any policy you like as to who can pass through or move onto your own property. What I object to is your claim that we
–i.e., you–have the right to get the government to force me, and other dissenters, and the guests or tenants that we willingly allow to pass through or live on or work on our land, to follow your policies on our own property.
However, it is interesting that you make a distinction between (1) uprooting people who are already here, and (2) blocking people not yet here from immigrating. If you believe it is immoral to uproot people who are already here for the as-yet uncommitted possible future sins of their potential descendents, doesn’t it logically follow that you must support the right of peaceful undocumented immigrants to stay in the United States, once they have reached the United States, rather than being hunted down, arrested, jailed, and exiled by the internal immigration Securitate?
So, do you support whe conclusion that your premises seem to entail–i.e., the immediate abolition of ICE and unconditional amnesty for all illegal immigrants living in the United States?
]]>So since no one can predict the future with 100% accuracy in social science, you think we should ignore social science when trying to forecast the future implications of our laws? I guess the Bush administration couldn’t have predicted with 100% accuracy that the iraqi’s weren’t going to like being invaded and that they’d resist violently, so Bush & Company are off the hook for all their ludicrously wrong predictions (“welcomed as liberators!”).
“but caus on pure moral and ethicall terms you cançt restrict the right of hispanic immigrants for something that their descendants are going to do, supposedly.”
I disagree with you whole-heartedly here. I don’t think either of us is going to budge on this one.
]]>Yes, whole-heartedly. Fears without evidence are inexcusable. Fears with evidence are not (and evidence does not have to be 100% predictive of the future, I err on the side of prudence, it’s the least i owe my descendants).
“Just to end….Even if it is true that hispanic immigrants commit more crimes than other etnicities, isn´t the percentage of hispanic that commit crimes still just a small part of the whole total of those immigrants and their descendence?”
Yes, of course. You basically just said what thomas sowell said above, but it doesn’t sound quite as convincing for your side putting it the way he does. Again, would you move to the ghettos of Detroit? I am sure only a small percentage of the people there are violent criminals.
“So how do you plan to pass a colective judgment on the mayority of immigrants for the supposed crimes of their descendents?”
By “pass collective judgment”, you must mean “not let them immigrate in the first place”. You see open borders as non-negotiable, whatever the likely horrific consequences for current american inhabitants. We are obviously going to have to agree to disagree. When you sell open-borders to people from now on, don’t just tell the moral superiority of your ethical code. You should tell people the likely consequences for the US murder/crime rate as well. Anything else is lying by omission.
]]>