That’s their… headline result? “We do not find, however, any evidence for a systematic link between the scale of refugee immigration (and neither the type of refugee accommodation or refugee sex ratios) and the risk of Germans to become victims of a crime in which refugees are suspects” (pg. 3), “refugee inflows do not exert a statistically significant effect on the crime rate” (pg. 21), “we found no impact on the overall likelihood of Germans to be victimized in a crime” (pg. 31), “our results hence do not support the view that Germans were victimized in greater numbers by refugees” (pg. 34).
I haven’t read their paper, but the chart sure seems like it establishes a clear correlation. Also, the quotes you are saying seem to be saying something else, claiming that “greater inflow was not correlated with greater crime”, which is different than “refugees were not particularly likely to commit crimes against Germans”. Indeed, at least on a quick skim of the data that Larks linked, the that statement seems clearly false (though it might still be true that for some reason it is not as clear that greater immigration inflow is necessarily correlated with greater crime, since it might lower crime in other ways, though my best guess is that claim is being chosen as a result of a garden of forking paths methodology).
They say: “We found no impact on the overall likelihood of Germans to be victimized in a crime”. That is, refugees were not any likelier than Germans to commit crimes against Germans.
Furthermore, in a post I am working on now, I will discuss why such charts—I look at one simply comparing the % of of a given ethnicity in prison to the % in a population—do not tell you all that much:
“We might overestimate the rate of immigrant crime because:
Immigrant and native-born populations differ. Crime is disproportionately committed by young men (under 30 years old). If the immigrant population contains a lot of young men, and the native population skews older, one could end up with immigrants overrepresented in the prison system even if natives and immigrants are equally likely to commit crimes over their lifetime.
Racial or ethnic bias in the justice system could lead to more convictions for immigrants than the native-born, even if they are committing crimes at the same rate.
The crimes immigrants may have committed could be immigration offenses. In the US, 86% of undocumented people charged with a crime are charged not with a violent or property crime, but with being in the country without permission. The native-born cannot commit immigration offenses in their home country, so mechanically, immigrants commit more immigration offenses than the native born.
I’m also fairly certain this isn’t the kind of crime most people worry about when they worry about immigrants and crime.
On the other hand, this graph might underestimate immigrant crime if:
Criminal immigrants are deported and thus don’t appear in the prison statistics.
Immigrants commit crimes against other immigrants. There is data suggesting that immigrants are less likely to report crimes to law enforcement; this might allow criminals who target this population to get away with more.”
I haven’t read their paper, but the chart sure seems like it establishes a clear correlation. Also, the quotes you are saying seem to be saying something else, claiming that “greater inflow was not correlated with greater crime”, which is different than “refugees were not particularly likely to commit crimes against Germans”. Indeed, at least on a quick skim of the data that Larks linked, the that statement seems clearly false (though it might still be true that for some reason it is not as clear that greater immigration inflow is necessarily correlated with greater crime, since it might lower crime in other ways, though my best guess is that claim is being chosen as a result of a garden of forking paths methodology).
They say: “We found no impact on the overall likelihood of Germans to be victimized in a crime”. That is, refugees were not any likelier than Germans to commit crimes against Germans.
I said: “In Germany, refugees were not particularly likely to commit crimes against Germans”. I have accurately reported their results.
Furthermore, in a post I am working on now, I will discuss why such charts—I look at one simply comparing the % of of a given ethnicity in prison to the % in a population—do not tell you all that much:
“We might overestimate the rate of immigrant crime because:
Immigrant and native-born populations differ. Crime is disproportionately committed by young men (under 30 years old). If the immigrant population contains a lot of young men, and the native population skews older, one could end up with immigrants overrepresented in the prison system even if natives and immigrants are equally likely to commit crimes over their lifetime.
Racial or ethnic bias in the justice system could lead to more convictions for immigrants than the native-born, even if they are committing crimes at the same rate.
The crimes immigrants may have committed could be immigration offenses. In the US, 86% of undocumented people charged with a crime are charged not with a violent or property crime, but with being in the country without permission. The native-born cannot commit immigration offenses in their home country, so mechanically, immigrants commit more immigration offenses than the native born.
I’m also fairly certain this isn’t the kind of crime most people worry about when they worry about immigrants and crime.
On the other hand, this graph might underestimate immigrant crime if:
Criminal immigrants are deported and thus don’t appear in the prison statistics.
Immigrants commit crimes against other immigrants. There is data suggesting that immigrants are less likely to report crimes to law enforcement; this might allow criminals who target this population to get away with more.”