Tassi di detenzione: i cittadini nati all’estero sono sottorappresentati nell’anglosfera ma sono sovrarappresentati in Europa

[Financial Times: The Anglosphere has an advantage on immigration](https://www.ft.com/content/c6bb7307-484c-4076-a0f3-fc2aeb0b6112)

One of the biggest discrepancies that this financial times article talks about is the immigrant trends in the English-speaking world vs in Europe, including the over-representation of foreign-born nationals in mainland European prisons vs under-representation of foreign-born nationals in Anglosphere prisons (US, UK, Canada, Australia, NZ, and Ireland).

In each core Anglosphere country, foreign-born nationals are under-represented relative to their total share of the populous among local prison populations. In addition to being in prison less than the national averages, immigrants in the UK, Ireland, Australia, and the US, on average, provide a net positive fiscal boost to each local economy as foreign-born nationals often contribute more money to the economy than the amount they received from each government.

The children of immigrants are also performing better in the Anglosphere. In the UK, Australia, Canada, and USA, children of immigrants from all ethnicities earn more than their immigrant parents’ generation did, and on average, by the time the second generation reach adulthood, they are more educated and earn more than your average Brit, American, Canadian, Aussie, and Kiwi.

However in Europe, the opposite is true. Foreign-born nationals are over-represented in each selected mainland European country relative to their total share of the populous among local prison populations. In addition to being in prison more often, immigrants in countries like France, Belgium, Sweden, and the Netherlands are, on average, net recipients of government spending meaning they receive more money from the government than the amount of money they put in.

The children of immigrants are also performing worse in Europe. In France and Germany, children of immigrants inexplicably earn less than their immigrant parents’ generation did, and on average, by the time the second generation reach adulthood, they are even more economically disadvantaged compared to your average European than their parents’ generation were.

What exactly does the Anglophone world do that continental Europe has not when it comes to better integrating newcomers to their countries?

In before this thread is removed

I wonder what would be those numbers if you add population that is not foreign born but has parents foreign born.

The main reasons are probably cultural and geographical. UK and others are islands, and that limits illegal immigration. But above that most immigrants in EU come from poor, culturally very different from EU (it is not just the religion) Islamic countries.

While most immigrants in the Anglosphere come from former British colonies, or in the US case from Mexico, which is not so different culturally from US in comparison to Afghanistan for example.

Tf New Zealand is doing

There’s a pretty simple reason: it’s harder to immigrate illegally to the countries in the Anglosphere, and so they can do additional vetting that Europeans can’t.

Swiss and Greece on top and for Both Albanians are the Main Prisoners.

complete and total anglosphere victory. The thing about the US and Canada is that immigrants tend to do better than native born and their children do better than even them

This entire analysis is the epitome of apples-to-oranges. It makes it sound as though non-Anglo Europe is being overrun by foreign-born (non-European) criminals while Anglo countries have model immigrants, which is untrue.

The reality is that EU countries are connected by land to large parts of the world (by population) and most EU residents (legal or illegal) don’t need to go through border controls to enter another EU country, so you have significant movement of “unvetted” people between countries, whereas, due to the geography of being literal or practical island, immigrants will be vetted when entering New Zealand, Australia, the UK, Ireland, the US, and Canada.

Therefore in the Schengen Zone you end up with a German working in Switzerland who commits a crime, a Polish football hooligan who commits a crime in Germany, a Syrian refugee from Germany who commits a crime in Denmark, a Belgian who burgles in Luxembourg, and even a criminal gang from Bulgaria operating across the entire EU (there’s also the issue of traveling Roma committing crimes, but that’s not something to get into here). All of those are “foreign-born” criminals in a statistical sense, but not in a practical nor an immigration sense because of EU freedom of movement and the Schengen Zone.

You don’t have those same “foreign-born” criminals in the Anglosphere due to geography, and the immigrants you do have will have gone through a rigorous vetting process to enter the country. Hence these statistics are basically worthless as a comparison between EU and Anglo countries.

EDIT: And to be clear, I’m not claiming that crime is lower or higher in different countries or even that foreign-born people commit more or less crime. I’m simply pointing out that these statistics are worthless as a ***comparison*** because of significant differences in who comprises the “foreign-born” population in different countries.