> You've given irrelevant data

In fact, calling it "irrelevant" is pushing the boundaries of good faith. It definitely includes "third world" immigrants, too. Apparently we haven't been able to find any statistical significance of the country of origin [1]:

> According to the study, this is the case for almost every region in the world that is a major source of immigrants to the United States. As of 2019, immigrants from China and eastern and southern Europe were committing the fewest number of crimes — as measured by incarceration rates — relative to U.S.-born individuals.

The exception is Mexican and Central American immigrants, but their incarceration rates are similar to, not _higher_ than U.S.-born individuals:

> The exception is Mexican and Central American immigrants, [...] Incarceration rates among Mexican and Central American immigrants were similar to those of U.S.-born individuals between 1980 and 2005.

> Hiding problems with bs stats isn't going to help anyone.

You've given no data at all. As it stands, everything you posted are your personal opinions.

[1] https://siepr.stanford.edu/news/mythical-tie-between-immigra...

You've now given data that makes my argument. I don't need to provide citation where we're talking about your data.

What more do you need here? Immigration from third world countries increases crime and murder, having nothing to do with guns.

The previous data you gave tries to make the opposite point by including immigrants that aren't from third world countries, I.e. irrelevant. You for sure see how that's bad faith and I'm not going to entertain further discussion if you won't sustain that you're in the wrong for doing that.

You've also summarized the data with an interpretation that isn't honest to the numbers.

That last part absolutely ends the discussion for me. I'm interested in science not politics.

You are clearly reading the data incorrectly. It says that immigration (third world or not) reduces the crime and murder rate. U.S.-born citizens are more prone to incarceration.

You're including unrelated immigrants to wash your data. The question is on third world immigrants ONLY.

Otherwise you can say things like guns don't have bullets because we looked at "things that kill" and most of them don't.

That's obviously not a good way to answer questions.

Try talking with an expert or get help from someone to understand why we don't use statistics like that to make business or medical decisions.

I hope you have an easy time figuring it out.

Good luck.

> According to the study, this is the case for almost every region in the world that is a major source of immigrants to the United States.

Nice, except "almost" doesn't describe anything relevant to the question and its inherent subjectivity makes it useless especially when attempting to draw from a pool of data that's not relevant to the question.

"Almost everyone in the US is white," doesn't tell you anything about the demographics of the US. It's still technically true, but it's painting a grossly inaccurate picture of the demographics.

You should take on some statistics lectures or macrobio on Khan or something. This isn't a good platform for in depth discussion. You're not going to learn anything from this.

Talk to an expert. When they see what you're doing they will easily explain what's wrong to you.

Although, maybe these examples I gave are enough.