[gruez]

So would you say it's fair game to blame "migrants" for crimes? After all, you can't steal something if you're not in a country, so letting someone into a country strictly increases the crime rate. Even if migrants commit crimes at a lower rate than the local population, unless it's exactly zero, it'll still increase the crime rate.

edit: downvoters, I'm not actually endorsing blaming migrants. It's only used as an example.

[d4704]

> Even if migrants commit crimes at a lower rate than the local population, unless it's exactly zero, it'll still increase the crime rate.

But that assumes you do not count the person who commit the crime as part of the population count.

In this example, “crime per capita” goes down if they commit crime below the average crime rate of population before they joined that population.

[gruez]

>But that assumes you do not count the person who commit the crime as part of the population count.

Sorry, meant to say "crime count", or more precisely, "native victimization count". Natavists by definition prioritize the native population over immigrants, so if some native got victimized by a migrant, I doubt a natavist would be convinced by "well actually, even though there was one extra crime committed by a migrant, there's also 10,000 (or whatever) more people, so the crime rate actually went down!"

[llamaimperative]

Do crimes have a liquid market with supply and demand mechanics?

If so, then sure, you can blame every criminal for x% of every crime, I guess.

[gruez]

The comment was in reply to:

>Even if the bureaucracy is the worst offender, every foreigner buying a house still results in 1 less house for Spaniards.

It's pretty clear that supply and demand isn't a consideration here, and the commenter is strictly focusing on the aspect that one house is being removed from the housing supply.

[llamaimperative]

If you remove a house from the supply, by any method, there is one fewer house in said supply.