The Economist Publishes Chart Showing That Immigrants, Especially From Afganistan, the Middle East, and North Africa, Commit a Grossly Disproportionate Amount of Sex Crimes in England, Wales, and Denmark (But Then They Try to Hide the Ball)

Here's the thing, though: Because the discrepancies were so enormous, they attempted to hide just how grossly disproprtionate the rates of sex offense are.

They put the numbers on a logarithmic scale --which deliberately squashes numbers together to disguise just how great the differences are -- to hide the full extent of the disparity.

But people normalized the scale into a simple and clear linear graph.

Here's the graph the pro-open-borders Economist published. Note the scale at top shows rates of sex offense jumping from 1, to 2, to 5, to 10.

That's to hide the outlier here.

Here's what the scale looks like when the numbers go, as numbers usually do, from 1, to 2, to 3, to 4, etc.

By the way: The Economist originally posted this graph with a normal linear scale, but then deleted it and replaced it with the deliberately-misleading logarithmic scale when lefties and open borders advocates (but I repeat myself) complained that the graph was accurate and therefore racist.

Here was the first graph they published:

Jonatan Pallesen @jonatanpallesen

This figure from the Economist looks bad, but reality is in fact even worse.

Sexual offences is a broad category. And as a rule, the more severe the crime, the higher the over-representation of perpetrators from the Middle East and Africa.

We can see this in the data from Denmark, which has the best quality crime data in the world. Here we can break down both by ancestry and by severity of offence.

The figure shows that in Denmark people from Middle East and Africa are vastly more over-represented for rape than for sexual offences. The same is likely the case for England as well, so if they had the data available to draw the red rape circle, it would be much further to the right.

The Economist, which has always been open borders but also became ultra-woke over the past 15 years, says that the evidence is complicated and we can't draw any firm conclusions from it.

Because evidence-based conclusion are racist.

Do immigrants from some countries commit more sex crimes?

A hard look at Britain’s data suggests so. But it is hardly an epidemic

Tren de Aragua only took over a few apartment buildings in Colorado.

The article is paywalled and conspicuously absent from Archive.is, but here are some quotes found on a Reddit thread about the article:

This suggested Afghans are convicted of sex crimes at seven times the British rate--a far cry from Mr Timothy's "over 20 times", but disturbing nevertheless (see chart)."

"here age-standardised analysis exists for those countries, the over-representation shrinks, as in Britain, but it does not vanish.

"And the numbers need to be kept in perspective. In 2010-12 Afghan nationals were convicted of 92 sex crimes; in 2022-24 the total was 102. Ten additional sex crimes, after the Afghan population has roughly tripled, is not an epidemic."

Ten additional rapes = no big deal.

But we should also hang the Cornell 7, who are guilty of zero rapes.

The Economist attempts to make the numbers look better by weighting for age. Now, it is true that men aged between 17 and, say, 35 commit the great majority of crimes, and most of the immigrants coming over from these shithole countries fall into that age range.

An invasion of "military aged men," as they say.

But this does not help their case, because they're advocating for a continuing flow of men from these countries at the exact ages most likely to rape or commit violent crimes. The anti-immigration or immigration-slowdown crowd makes the case that we cannot absorb so many military-aged men -- or, perhaps we should say, rapist- aged men -- in so short of time.

And also: This kind of numbers-massaging doesn't make the great disproportion in sex offenses go away. It just reduces it from "terrifying" to "highly alarming."

The Economist says we can and should and that the additional rapes and sex attacks are just the cost of boosting our GDP (by importing huge numbers of nonworking males with no skills who will be on the dole their entire lives).

My citation for that? Why, another graph prepared by the gonzo open borders woke magazine The Economist, showing that immigrants from the "MENAPT" countries -- Middle East, North Africa, Pakistan, Turkey -- contribute the least to the Danish economy by far.

Note the second lowest line represents other immigrants -- also a small contribution.

Also note that this is based on age, so all groups drop to very low levels of economic contribution as they go past retirement age, as of course they would.

But look at the very low levels of economic contribution for immigrants in what are, in the West, considered the "productive years" of a man's life:

Even during their peak "earning" years, immigrants from MENAPT nations are still a net drain on the economy and it gets worse after that.

Explain to me how the west gains economically by allowing the free migration of people who offer barely any contribution to the economy at all but are huge consumers of welfare and social services paid for by the economically-contributing natives?

The Economist, in another article, says that riots in Europe have nothing to do with culture:

The Economist @TheEconomist

Oct 24

Donald Trump's diagnosis of the protests is plain wrong. The problems facing Europe's liberals are not about race or religion--and are much harder to fix

Rule of Law ⚖️ @MovetheWorld9

Oct 26

The Economist and The FT have been left-wing publications for 20 years. They are not pro-capitalist publications at all. That ship sailed decades ago. They are left-wing on every other issue not just on immigration.

posted by Disinformation Expert Ace at 02:10 PM

| Access Comments