Who decides and who pays.

From The Violent Legacy of Conflict: Evidence on Asylum Seekers, Crime, and Public Policy in Switzerland by Mathieu Couttenier, Veronica Petrencu, Dominic Rohner, and Mathias Thoenig. From the Abstract:

We study empirically how past exposure to conflict in origin countries makes migrants more violence-prone in their host country, focusing on asylum seekers in Switzerland. We exploit a novel and unique dataset on all crimes reported in Switzerland by the nationalities of perpetrators and of victims over 2009–2016. Our baseline result is that cohorts exposed to civil conflict/mass killing during childhood are 35 percent more prone to violent crime than the average cohort. This effect is particularly strong for early childhood exposure and is mostly confined to co-nationals, consistent with inter-group hostility persisting over time. We exploit cross-region heterogeneity in public policies within Switzerland to document which integration policies are best able to mitigate the detrimental effect of past conflict exposure on violent criminality. We find that offering labor market access to asylum seekers eliminates two-thirds of the effect.

Interesting on multiple levels. Excess violence from exposure. Violence largely contained within ethnic cohort. Persistence over time. Employment as a public policy solution to violence.

A lot of this runs counter to much of the received wisdom. It also calls into question the ethics of aspects of immigration where it is predictable that increased migration under particular circumstances will be associated with increased violence to the domestic population. Especially when the domestic population on the receiving end of that violence are those at the bottom of the societal pyramid.

What are the ethics of privileged high quintile policy people making decisions the consequences of which they will be sheltered from but the costs of which will be borne by the bottom quintile of the domestic population? Not to put too fine a point on it.