Talentlesssculptor

Where did you mention that.

In a separate comment about Switzerland specifically.

And don’t tell me it is because our immigration system is somehow strict.

Switzerland's is.

I can move around Europe with a high likelyhood that nobody ever checks who I am.

Switzerland is not in the EU. Even so, "In Switzerland, 69.7% of the prison population did not have Swiss citizenship, compared to 22.1% of total resident population (as of 2008)."

"In 2010, a statistic was published which listed delinquency by nationality (based on 2009 data). To avoid distortions due to demographic structure, only the male population aged between 18 and 34 was considered for each group. From the study, it became clear that crime rate is highly correlated on the country of origin of the various migrant groups. Thus, immigrants from Germany, France and Austria had a significantly lower crime rate than Swiss citizens (60% to 80%), while immigrants from Angola, Nigeria and Algeria had a crime rate of above 600% of that of Swiss population. In between these extremes were immigrants from Former Yugoslavia, with crime rates of between 210% and 300% of the Swiss value."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Switzerland#Crime_rates

I am a coward because I don't have the time to break down an economic model? Or am I a cowardly racist weasel because I don't swallow that immigration of individuals from less stable and progressive countries make the country to which they migrate, less stable and progressive?

If you want a relevant quote on why Cato arrived at their findings, maybe this will help "In another recent paper, this one looking at all costs and tax payments using a different survey, Cato again assigns the welfare costs of immigrants’ U.S.-born children to the U.S.-born. That study even excluded the roughly $200 billion spent educating these children. Of course we should educate the U.S.-born children of immigrants. But as is true of welfare, the impact on the education system must be considered when setting immigration policy. Any analysis that fails to do so does profound disservice to the public discourse.

Another important issue with Cato’s welfare approach is the decision to report the average dollar value of benefits rather than use rates. Because the SIPP does a better job capturing use of welfare than the amount recipients receive, Cato has to make various adjustments to the values in the SIPP. None of this means that reporting dollar amounts is a terrible idea. But it does mean that their results are dependent on all the assumptions they make."

https://cis.org/Oped/CIS-vs-Cato-Immigrant-Welfare-Whos-Right

Ahh. TPC "A joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution,"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Policy_Center#Funding

Urban institute: "According to a study by U.S. News & World Report most political campaign donations by Urban Institute employees go to Democratic politicians. Between 2003 and 2010, Urban Institute employees' made $79,529 in political contributions, none of which went to the Republican Party."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_Institute#History_and_funding

So hardly unbiased, but the bigger issue is the partner Brookings Institution:

"A 2014 investigation by The New York Times found Brookings to be among more than a dozen Washington, D.C.–based research groups and think tanks to have received payments from foreign governments while encouraging American government officials to support policies aligned with those foreign governments' agendas.[112] The Times published documents showing that Brookings accepted grants from Norway with specific policy requests and helped it gain access to U.S. government officials, as well as other "deliverables".[113][114] In June 2014, Norway agreed to make an additional $4 million donation to Brookings.[112] Several legal specialists who examined the documents told the paper that the language of the transactions "appeared to necessitate Brookings filing as a foreign agent" under the Foreign Agent Registration Act.[114]

The government of Qatar was named by The New York Times as "the single biggest foreign donor to Brookings", reportedly contributing $14.8 million over a four-year period. A former visiting fellow at a Brookings affiliate in Qatar reportedly said that "he had been told during his job interview that he could not take positions critical of the Qatar government in papers".[112] Brookings officials denied any connection between the views of their funders and their scholars' work, citing reports that questioned the Qatari government's education reform efforts and criticized its support of militants in Syria. But Brookings officials reportedly acknowledged that they meet with Qatari government officials regularly.[112]

In 2018, The Washington Post reported that Brookings accepted funding from Huawei from 2012 to 2018.[115] A report by the Center for International Policy's Foreign Influence Transparency Initiative of the top 50 think tanks on the University of Pennsylvania's Global Go-To Think Tanks rating index found that between 2014 and 2018, Brookings received the third-highest amount of funding from outside the United States compared to other think tanks, with a total of more than $27 million.[116] In 2022, Brookings president John R. Allen resigned amid an FBI probe into lobbying on behalf of Qatar."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Institution#Funding_controversies

It should also be noted that the Cato model that the claim in the article is based upon is developed by an organization that is pro immigration and has connections to the Ayn Rand institute: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute#Ideological_relationships

Yes. I mentioned something to this effect earlier. This is partly why Switzerland is not seeing a marked increase in violent crime.

I understand that you didn't read my comment and that is fine. This is just an echo-chamber any way, so I am not expecting any meaningful conversations. You have a nice day now.

"No, you."

Research suggests that policing strategy may have put immigrants at a disadvantage by targeting only the most public forms of crime, while locals were more likely able to engage in the types of crimes that could be conducted behind locked doors.

LOL! The VERY NEXT SENTENCE: "An analysis of historical courtroom records suggests that despite higher rates of arrest, immigrants were not systematically disadvantaged by the British court system in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries"

Please show that this is true.

Edit - Or just stick your heads in the sand and down-vote I guess.

You think Swedish state media (SVT), rated by Media Bias Fact Check as:Center Left and High Factuality ,is trying to spread xenophobia?

In 2018, Swedish Television investigative journalism show Uppdrag Granskning analysed the total of 843 district court cases from the five preceding years and found that 58% of all convicted of rape and attempted rape had a foreign background.[23][32] 40% were immigrants born in the Middle East and Africa, with young men from Afghanistan numbering 45 standing out as being the next most common country of birth after Sweden.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Sweden

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/sveriges-television-svt-bias-and-credibility/

What tool should we use? Crime rates in their native countries?

Also "An analysis of historical courtroom records suggests that despite higher rates of arrest, immigrants were not systematically disadvantaged by the British court system in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_crime#United_Kingdom

Totally, but that obviously isn't the case since we see that a crime that is very "behind closed doors" like spousal assaults and homicide was also more prevalent amongst immigrants in Norway.