Mfw 13% of the population is too large when you consider that the elderly and very young aren't committing the rapes and murders

So it's more likely that 6% of the population is committing 50% of the crimes

And to boot, BLM has destroyed millions upon millions of dollars worth of public and private property

Not to mention that the GDP is influenced by population and interest, not by produce, and so it has no correlation on the quality of life, nor the labor power of a demographic, nor can there be any correlation drawn between a specific demographic and the GDP

It just denotes the growth of a population and the interest of the central bank undergoing "controlled inflation"

@Προμηθεύς {Caustic Dreamer} going through multiple publications coming out of the SIPP data set but the US census bureau does not make a discernable effort in making its data consumable (https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/sipp/data/datasets.2008.html) with the majority of its data released purely as data files which I think youd agree is unreasonable to ask me to process
Going ahead can we assume that peter molyneux's head in the corner does not make a viable source?

Hrm... Put a pen in that. I'll look for the specific statistics while continuing the discussion

Or you can

Idc how this goes about lol

That being said, are you going to ignore my assertions made after the fact?

I'm objecting your sourced "rebuttals"

I sourced a paper that discusses how Somali migrants had major illiteracy issues and a drastic unemployment rate

https://cis.org/Report/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-and-Native-Households

Did not take me long to find Stephan's source

It's like he had a video on youtube that was about this subject, and had sources in the description

Keep in mind that this source is pro-immigration

They're just, in a fit of cognitive dissonance, perfectly fine with highly-expensive social programs with low returns

Your economic approach betrays you

https://www.vera.org/publications/price-of-prisons-what-incarceration-costs-taxpayers

id be willing to accept that migrants would use economic supplements to a higher degree than native born citizens but I don't see that as a economic hinderance on the economy as a whole as its as the paper you've now sourced states, low income employed not unemployed groups. your earlier source while identifying problems with literacy issues and unemployment rates among some groups shows that this was not shared by the entire somalian immigrant population, and identifies that positive impacts would be attained should the "resisters" of assimilation into swedish society be identified prior to entry into the country. An approach which would mirror my own suggestions.

your last paper is just that prisons cost money

Who are in the prisons?

39% white people, 40% black people and 19% hispanics in the US

How are 13% of the population the largest percentage of people in prisons

And how are they responsible for so much cost

Is it possible that this multiethnic scenario is actively cost-inefficient

african americans are exposed to higher levels of poverty and have less developed communities. this is only to be expected given the only fairly recent achievement of full civil rights and even so african americans do not represent a tax deficit

So here is my rebuttal

Why are most countries in Africa unable to sustain themselves without billions of dollars in financial aid from the US, let alone other European countries

They've had civil rights since the get-go

Why is Mexico a third world country in almost every part of it?

If entire countries of Africa cannot sustain themselves economically, producing drastic deficits on the US that they will never repay

Why am I supposed to believe that blacks have any potential to produce wealth in the US?

Same story, different area

You're a capitalist, what is the benefit to the US to support the dead weight of these ethnic groups?

most african countries dont receive much aid at all, especially historically. the middle east is currently much higher for example. historically europe is also a huge beneficiary of us aid programs, again to a more prominent degree than africa as africas geopolitical importance is low.
Civil rights have not been equal to african americans from the get go as should be seen from the history of jim crow laws, segregation and slavery in the US.
Mexico is a shit country because its on shit geography. Africa too has a terrible geography.

Japan has shit geography as well, and it's a highly developed first world nation

Russia has shit geography

That's not an excuse

Japan had to be bullied into a first world nation from an Emperor-worshipping island, it wasn't as developed before essential American interference. And even then, due to its island geography, it had little wars and was quite isolated, allowing it to develop on its own.
And Russia, besides having great people, also had and has a heckton of natural resources which it utilized heavily. And still none of these two countries had as many geographical problems or as little geographical benefits as African countries have.

as for aid the payoffs are fairly immediate. aid is typically used to encourage geopolitical effects, not to actually promote the well being of the people the country its given to.
The russian geography on the european side is pretty exceptional, as is most of the european plain and has access to good agricultural land, decent river systems and flat terrain allowing inexpensive infrastructure builds. on the asian side its pretty shit which oddly enough is why you see all the development in russia highly concentrated near europe.
japan has pockets of exceptional areas and exceptional ports, kinda shit until you hit globalised trade which oddly enough is when we saw it come into its own

plus both of these are in the eurasian continental system, the longest east-west landmass on earth