December 22, 2009

Updated: Immigrant crime



Jason Richwine of the American Enterprise Institute had a post up recently with the above awkwardly large graph, the key of which can be seen by doubleclicking on the graph. The white bar is American-born whites, the green bar Hispanic immigrants, and the orange bar American-born Hispanics.

Richwine was responding to a Center for Immigration Studies report arguing that Census reports showing much lower crime rates for immigrant Hispanics than American-born Hispanics are misleading. The graph above shows 2000 Census data, with % of young men institutionalized (largely, imprisoned) being very low for Hispanic immigrants, below the American-born white average, and considerably higher for American-born Hispanics.

Steve Camarota and Jessica Vaughan of CIS point out dubious aspects of the data -- e.g., illegal immigrants have an incentive to lie in order to avoid deportation.

Richwine counters: " ... increased crime in the second generation is consistent with an increase in several other underclass behaviors. As the chart above indicates, labor force dropout, illegitimacy, and welfare usage are all much higher among Hispanic natives than among Hispanic immigrants. (Those data come from reliable interviews of normal people outside of prison.) It makes sense that crime would increase if all of those other underclass problems are increasing as well."

I suspect that the 1996 legislation to restrict immigrants from getting welfare has had a good effect, in contrast to immigrants to Europe. Also, the horrific rise in gang crime in Mexico has provided a more exciting alternative for criminally inclined Mexicans than immigrating to the U.S. Why go through all the hassle of going to the U.S. and becoming a roofer when you can be a Big Man with a Gun for a salary on the Mexican side of the border. So, we may have been getting in recent years the better sort of poor young Mexican.

I would also point to the macro evidence that first generation immigrants have low crime rates. If you look at murder and nonnegligent manslaughter rates by sizable cities, the rankings are dominated by cities with large black populations: New Orleans, St. Louis, Baltimore, Detroit, Washington, Oakland, Kansas City and so forth.

The bottom of the FBI's list of cities is Lincoln, Nebraska, which is something like 88% white. Then comes Honolulu. Then come some highly white, slightly Hispanic Southwestern exurbs like Henderson, NV, Chandler, AZ, and Plano, TX.

Then comes El Paso, which is now 80% Hispanic. El Paso has been famous for its pacific citizens for several decades. Even an all Hispanic entrepot destination like Santa Ana, CA has a murder rate of 8.8, less than twice Portland, Oregon's.

On the other hand, within a heavily Hispanic area, the great majority of murders involve Hispanics. For example, here is the LA Times' Homicide Report. By this point in LA's social evolution, Philip Marlowe would have nothing to do. The white criminal element has largely been priced out of the Los Angeles area.

For example, there is a single legendary Los Angeles Unified School District public middle school in the extreme northeastern corner of the San Fernando Valley, up against the edge of the mountains, that is notorious for having white underclass students from biker / addict backgrounds: parents show up drunk for teacher-parent conferences and try to punch out teachers, fathers have Aryan Nation prison gang tattoos, moms' teeth are falling out from crystal meth.

But that school is a notorious exception to the rule that white people in the LA are law-abiding. Moreover, even that school is only 1/3rd white.

Similarly, the LA cop novelist Joseph Wambaugh has just finished up his Hollywood Station trilogy (Hollywood Moon is another good read). He likes to have a white criminal or two in each one, but realistic ones. He puts in a lot of effort to explain how they can afford to live in Hollywood (e.g., meth head inherited his house in Hollywood from his mom) and what kind of crimes they specialize in typically, identity theft, burglary, or dressing up in superhero costumes and harassing tourists on Hollywood Blvd. for tips. Few of Wambaugh's contemporary white criminals have anything in the way of a gang for support. They're just isolated nasty lumpenproles left over.

The LAPD's colorful Most Wanted website tends to be dominated by immigrants, but a large reason for that is that wanted immigrants are more likely to skedaddle back home where the LAPD can't get them, in contrast to the homeboys who have nowhere to go. So, over time, the Most Wanted list fills up with Mexicans, Russians, Armenians, Salvadorans, and the like, who are overseas, but still on the LAPD's books.

So, the overall crime rate in LA is fairly low right now -- the 2007 homicide rate was the lowest in four decades -- but the white crime rate (outside of various Middle Eastern and ex-Soviet gangsters, and, lately, a few subprime-related incidents, which are colorful but not common) is incredibly low.

Ironically, if the city was still mostly white, the crime rate would be lower, but the white crime rate would be higher because it would be less expensive to live there.

That of course raises questions about the sons of the immigrants. Will they continue the historic pattern of higher crime rates than their fathers?

P.S. A reader points to this June 10, 2006 article in the LA Times breaking out homicide rates by race/ethnicity:
The numbers reveal a wide racial divide regarding violent crime.

Blacks make up about 11% of the city's population but account for 38% of all homicide victims and 29% of suspects, according to the statistics. By contrast, whites make up 30% of the population but account for just 6% of homicide victims and 2% of suspects. Latinos make up 47% of the population and constitute 50% of homicide victims and 66% of suspects.

My reader writes:
The black murder rate is about 40 times the white rate, and the Hispanic rate is 21x the white rate. The 'other' rate is almost 4x the white rate.

My methodology: (race crime rate %/race population %)/(white crime rate %/white population %). E.g., for blacks (29%/11%)/(2%/30%)= 39.5

It's also interesting that you can calculate the Who's Winning ratio by dividing suspects by victims. Hispanics make up 50% of the victims but 66% of the suspects, so they are giving better than they get. Blacks, in contrast, make up 29% of the suspects and 38% of the victims, so that suggests that more Hispanics are killing blacks than vice-versa. There have been a few highly publicized incidents that would suggest this, but I've never seen any figures before.

That Who's Winning ratio is rather unexpected since the Hispanic homicide rate is nationally less than half the black rate, and in LA is half the black rate. But it does jibe with reports that Hispanic gangs in the Southland have gained the upper hand over the notorious black gangs (e.g., the Bloods and the Crips) that became so celebrated during the gangsta rap days.

The white murder rate is so low that domestic homicides among LA whites must now be rare. My guess is, based on anecdotal evidence, that the higher homicide rates among LA's Others (who are primarily Asian) than among whites stems in part from more domestic homicides.

Of course, we are dealing with small sample sizes here.

Anyway, all this helps explain some of the paradoxes involved with crime rates right now. White homicide rates in big cities, it appears, have now dropped to extraordinarily low levels.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

39 comments:

James said...

La Griffe posits that Hispanics have a higher criminality but smaller distribution in criminality. As a result they are actually less likely than white people to be serial killers (the most extreme form of criminality, he says). It might carry over into murders.

Anonymous said...

Steve, you made a pretty basic mistake here. I stopped reading when I saw your positive mention of Henderson, Nevada. Having lived there (it's a "city" like "the upper east side" is a city - Henderson is a neighborhood in Vegas) I knew there was something wrong with your "bottom of the list" bit. Sure enough it's near the bottom of the list because it's population is tiny. New York City indeed has a whopping THREE TIMES the total number of violent crimes as Henderson... and a population thirty five times that of Henderson.

On the subject, the fun thing about driving down Boulder Highway from Henderson to Fremont Street is that from dusk to dawn you're virtually guaranteed to see someone getting arrested on the hood of a police car. I know of almost no other street like it. There are worse streets of course, such as in parts of New Orleans but those are streets the cops just won't enter. Vegas however is the greatest cat and mouse game in town, crime and despair on every block of concrete and cameras, police and private armies swarming through netting fish from a bucket.

mnuez

Glossy said...

In the crime table linked from your post New Orleans has the top spot with a murder rate almost twice that of Detroit. If true, that would be astounding.

There is a reason for skepticism though: what if the Census Bureau is underestimating NO's post-Katrina population? The population given in that crime table is 281,440. The 2000 census showed 484,674. So the Census Bureau is assuming that roughly 200,000 people did not return to the city after the disaster. Perhaps NO's murder rate is actually lower than what is shown (more similar to Detroit's or Baltimore's, for example), and is just being inflated by the impossibility to figure out what the city's population actually is after Katrina. If the 2010 census shows more people than expected there, this guess will be proven correct.

Fred said...

"Blacks make up about 11% of the city's population but account for 38% of all homicide victims and 29% of suspects, according to the statistics. By contrast, whites make up 30% of the population but account for just 6% of homicide victims and 2% of suspects. Latinos make up 47%"

The funny thing is that if you went by TV shows set in Los Angeles, you'd think the city was about 80% white, 20% black, and 0% Latino.

Anonymous said...

The surprising thing here is that it appears that asians are more likely to murder than whites.

In the past it has been said repeatedly that southeast asians (cambodians, thais, malaysians) have much lower IQ than northeast asians (japanese, koreans, chinese)

Can we also conclude that the southeast asians have a murder rate much higher than the white rate and the northeast asians have a lower rate?

Anonymous said...

Very fascinating, and not all that surprising. Does anyone know of a study that looks more closely into "Hispanics" and separates the different races and race mixtures that constitute the "Hispanic" group to see which sub-group is most troublesome?

I have my suspicions, but I can't confirm them. Sure, I could compare Mexicans(mostly mestizos) in the south west U.S with Dominicans(mostly mulattoes) in the north east U.S, but that isn't precise enough.

Here in NY, there is this fascinating phenomenon among blacks and Hispanics that may not be as common in California: blacks and Hispanics intermarrying due to the high % of mulattoes and even blacks among the Dominicans and to a lesser extent Puerto Ricans. This probably happens at a significantly higher rate in New York than in LA, since Mexicans are largely mestizo and see blacks as being more different. This is also leading to a blending of the cultures, and this may be especially interesting when it happens among the black and Hispanic underclass. A lot of black men love "Spanish" chicks, from successful middle class blacks to inner city thugs. They often really want white girls, but half or quarter white Hispanic girls are second best and almost as good. Related to this, I often wonder to what degree the Hispanic teen pregnancy rate is due to black males. The Hispanic teen pregnancy rate is even higher than the black rate in the U.S, and I suspect black males(black Hispanic or American black) may often be the fathers(but they may only count the mother when recording the teen pregnancy rate and heck they often don't even know who the father is much of the time). I also notice that among the recent violent crimes here in NYC and police shootings of armed suspects, some of the black males involved had Spanish surnames and/or first names; this seems to be increasingly common.


Anyway, it's possible that at times some black Hispanics may be lumped in with "blacks" and at other times with the "hispanics", whichever best serves someone's politics or personal agenda.

Cordelia said...

"White homicide rates in big cities, it appears, have now dropped to extraordinarily low levels."

Is that 'cause divorce is now so easy/acceptable?

truthiness said...

Most of the whites left behind in LA are middle/upper middle class or rich.

At the very least, there are very few poor or low-income whites still left in LA.

So, you can't really get an accurate idea about general crime rates (for whites) from such a select group.

John Seiler said...

One reason for the lower crime rate is that gun ownership has risen sharply in recent years. Criminals know a lot more potential victims are armed and ready to defend themselves.

It would be interesting to compare gun ownership, ethnicity, and crime.

Anyway, here's a report, link at the end:

"A ten percent drop in murders during the first six months of this year at a time when gun sales were up dramatically is more proof that there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.

"The FBI released data Monday that shows murders dropped by 10 percent from the same period in 2008. Meanwhile, according to data released by the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) shows that during the first six months of this year, gun sales were up. January 2009 background checks rose 28.8 percent over the same month in 2008, February’s NICS checks were up 23.3 percent and in March they were up 29.9 percent over March 2008."

Link: http://www.lewrockwell.com/pr/gun-sales-up-murder-down.html

CJ said...

I stopped reading when I saw your positive mention of Henderson, Nevada. Having lived there (it's a "city" like "the upper east side" is a city - Henderson is a neighborhood in Vegas) I knew there was something wrong with your "bottom of the list" bit.

I worked in the Las Vegas area for about two months in 1999 and about four months in 2003. The second tine I stayed in Boulder City and, when I had to, drove to Las Vegas through Henderson. The government structure in Clark County and the Vegas area in general is confusing to visitors, but Henderson is definitely a separate municipality with its own city government. In spite of driving through Henderson at least 50 times, I'm not sure I ever saw anyone handcuffed on the hood of a police car. OTOH, the Vegas area is for sure going downhill lately.

Anonymous said...

This is a very intersting post. So white criminals get priced out of the city/region if there are too many criminals from other races? Or do they just get priced out by the high cost of housing? Why don't Hispanic or black groups respond in the same way as the white underclass?

Chris said...

Most of the whites left behind in LA are middle/upper middle class or rich.

At the very least, there are very few poor or low-income whites still left in LA.


So, what you could look at instead is the relationship between whiteness and tendency for violent crime, such as murder, among different states. I plotted this data: http://i49.tinypic.com/2whhtzq.gif

The pattern is pretty striking.

Robert said...

"By 1993, there were imitation Bloods and Crips all across the country."

The crack trade brought the Crips into a lot of smaller cities in the Midwest. The Gangster Disciples of Chicago kept crack out of Chicago and fought a war with the Crips in many of the smaller cities including, Little Rock, AR, Appleton, WI, Des Moines, IA and others. The Latin Kings from Chicago have also spread to many cities and seems to be the gang du jour amoung hispanics in south and southwest.

Concerned Netizen said...

Chris,

Wow, what an interesting graph. Thanks.

I wonder what would happen if you did the same with blacks/whites, and then b/w/H/Asian.

My guess would be that black and white criminality rates parallel one another but the black rate is always higher; that Hispanic and Asian crime rates don't parallel either. But that's just a guess.

My point is that black and white Americans inhabit the same psychological space, but blacks have had a more violent reaction to that space for whatever reason; Hispanics and Asians inhabit their own psychic spaces, and are not part of the black/white world at all. But that's really guessing wildly.

Deckin said...

For the longest time, I've been wondering when you would apply your crowding out theory (first developed with respect to gay men and Broadway shows) to the subject of race and crime.

Here's more grist for that. In Oakland, city of about 400K that regularly chalks up 100+ murders a year hasn't had a white suspect for a murder (that I can recall) since 2006; and even that one was when the high IQ but highly unstable computer wiz Hans Reiser murdered his Russian mail order bride. So the white murder rate in Oakland has, for all intents and purposes, vanished.

As you suggest, this may be due to pricing out, but I doubt it. Although it's probably more true of Oakland than L.A. that the white lower classes headed for the exurbs, the logical conclusion to that explanation would have a commensurate rise in the white crime in the exurbs to which they fled. I'm not sure you see that, but I'd be interested to look at the numbers.

I think, rather, that the crowding out phenomenon is much more pervasive and travels in the crime context much as it does in the gay context. I think the mode of transmission is cultural and that now, by and large, crime is a sun people phenomenon and even those whites genetically and culturally disposed to it are avoiding it.

I imagine if the overall crime rate is at 30 or 40 year lows, the white crime is below that seen in the 1800s.

truthiness said...

>>This is a very intersting post. So white criminals get priced out of the city/region if there are too many criminals from other races?<<

White criminals (who mostly come from poor or working class families) get priced out because white working-class neighborhoods disappear due to minorities moving in.

The working-class minorities have crime rates that are too high for even the working-class whites to be comfortable with, so they move.

>>Or do they just get priced out by the high cost of housing?<<

It gets more expensive to live in a "white area" because the only areas left that are mostly white are where middle/upper middle class or rich whites live (the housing there is too expensive for most minorities to live in).

>>Why don't Hispanic or black groups respond in the same way as the white underclass?<<

Blacks/Hispanics do respond the same way.

For instance, Blacks have been leaving LA for some time now. Most go to other low-cost-of-living cities far away (like Palmdale/Lancaster) or some even go back to the South.

As LA became more Hispanic, Hispanic gangsters begin to terrorize not just their black gangster rivals but also other blacks who were not gang affiliated as well. This naturally causes some blacks to flee.

In NOLA, on the other hand, black gangsters/criminals rob and kill Hispanic immigrants who are there to help rebuild the city from the damage caused by hurricane Katrina. This causes Hispanic immigrants be weary of working in NOLA.

It is mostly a numbers game. As an area becomes filled with "others," it gets harder to stay in.

This is especially true for working-class areas since working-class areas have more "rough neck" types that make getting along with others hard.

Anthony said...

To add to Deckin's comment, there have been very few white murder victims in Oakland in the past few years, despite a white population about 25% of the total, not all wealthy, or even middle class. (There have been years with one white murder victim.)

That may invalidate Concerned Netizen's "psychic space" theory, at least for the Bay Area.

Tsoldrin said...

Is the monster jump in native Hispanic unwed mothers explainable simply by better living conditions or is there more to it? Who's impregnating them?

---


The 40X vs 21X murder rate is interesting. There would seem to be indicators of nature vs nurture there, if a base line could be established.

I wonder what the numbers are on Hispanics living in the U.S. carrying European genes. One would assume that the northernmost Mexicans make up a larger percentage of immigrants and also that they hold the highest percentage of European genetics via their Spanish conquerers as well as intermixing through proximity.

Anonymous said...

I imagine if the overall crime rate is at 30 or 40 year lows, the white crime is below that seen in the 1800s.

I think it is a dubious assertion from the PTB that crime is down. Quite frankly with all the BS out of government and in particular with regard racial & ethnic issues I don't know how anybody can have any faith or belief in just about any of it.

Whiskey said...

Deckin's insight here is pretty spot on IMHO. Don't forget that crime is a "network phenomena" that requires a support network: fences, accomplices, alibis, relatives, various safe houses, etc.

The sort of criminal network from the "Dortmunder" novels by Donald E. Westlake existed only in imagination. Having taught in places like the San Gabriel Valley barrios, I can say the network is strong among Latinos or really, Mexican emigres and second/third generation.

Now, one of the main reasons for crime is how "hot" it makes guys wrt attraction by girls. A top gang leader or banger has MORE status than a football hero. I've seen that at work, it is very powerful.

Truth said...

I don't know, O.J seemed to pull the wool.

Anonymous said...

Again why is it that when property gets expensive the white underclass moves out but not the black or Hispanic poor?

Anonymous said...

When divorce was Really Bad, a lot of accidental and natural causes deaths of spouses were really undetected homicides. Forensic procedures then were crude and made for getting away with murder easier if you were even moderately discreet about it.

ben tillman said...

Again why is it that when property gets expensive the white underclass moves out but not the black or Hispanic poor?

Because property gets expensive only in the white parts of town.

Not Anonymous said...

Steve, you made a pretty basic mistake here. I stopped reading when I saw your positive mention of Henderson, Nevada. Having lived there (it's a "city" like "the upper east side" is a city - Henderson is a neighborhood in Vegas) I knew there was something wrong with your "bottom of the list" bit. Sure enough it's near the bottom of the list because it's population is tiny. New York City indeed has a whopping THREE TIMES the total number of violent crimes as Henderson... and a population thirty five times that of Henderson.

Anonymous, you made a pretty basic mistake by not reading what those numbers in the columns represented.

The numbers next to the population number are the crime rate per 100,000 people.

Concerned Netizen said...

Re: crowding out. Even crime prone proles have some ability to restrain themselves. If you have any inkling that in jail you'll be a minority, a white minority, and that in order to survive you'll have to join a skinhead or Aryan Brotherhood group, you'll wise up and go straight.

The only whites who end up in jail are people who really have some genetic problem, an irresistible urge to commit mayhem. They get what they deserve.

Maybe the advent of Latin gangs in the jails will have a salutary effect on black men.

I'm confused about this post. Originally weren't there graphs that indicated that whites have a higher incarceration rate than Hispanics in certain states? Where did that go?

Anonymous said...

Now let's see:
Not only has America's (particularly California's) black and hispanic population has been the proximate cause of the world's worst financial disaster of modern times (see Steve's work on the Minority Mortgage Meltdown), unvarnished statistics now clearly tell us that an astronomical differential in the propensity to commit murder is the order of the day in immigration ground-zero ie Los Angeles.
- And all to think that one gets a few cents shaved off a head of lettuce or a pound of strawberries down at the supermarket.
A most Faustian bargain indeed.Satan's side of the bargain (as applied to the USA) is simply horric, exceedingly horrific.
"And the sheep safely graze".

Sam said...

I was in LA for the first time a few years ago. I was astonished at the lack of white people. There were a fair amount in Santa Monica and some more downtown and a lot at tourist attractions. But for the most part it looked like Tehran, Mexico City and Honk Kong all fused together. I certainly got the impression that the the only whites there are the Hollywood tyoes, the uber-rich and some yuppies.

Anonymous said...

Arizona takes drastic steps in the face of a huge budget crisis.

Dutch Boy said...

Sam, I can remember being astonished in the mid-1970s (!) at the paucity of white people in the most urbanized LA areas (I hadn't visited since the 1960s). That paucity has spread relentlessly since then - only the biggest buck areas are white now. Back then about half the people I worked with were white refugees from the greater LA area; now my coworkers are mostly East Asians/Pacific Islanders.

Anonymous said...

Amazing that someone with Steve's broad cross-referencing style of analysis and vast knowledge apparently doesn't know about a crucial reason murder rates are at 30- or 40-year lows: The massive progress in emergency treatment of people with gunshot wounds to the torso, building off advances in stabilizing wounded U.S. soldiers in Vietnam in the 1960s. Google "anthony harris murder rate" for more.

This is from an AMA newsletter in 2002:

Homicide rates are dropping. At least that is what the statistics indicate. But behind the numbers is an interesting question.

Is there less violence out there causing injury and death, or has medicine made such strides in treating the victims of this violence that fewer people die of gunshot wounds, stabbings and other forms of trauma?

A group of researchers based in Massachusetts is now suggesting that the latter very well could be the case -- that developments in medical infrastructure may explain why the homicide rate has dropped despite increases in aggravated assault and a proliferation of ever more dangerous weapons.

According to a paper the group published in the May issue of Homicide Studies, assault victims are getting to the hospital faster, and the quality of care received has improved. As a result, they are more likely to survive and less likely to become another homicide statistic.

"Medical advances haven't really been taken seriously as making a difference in this, but improvements have probably made a huge difference," said Anthony Harris, PhD, lead author of the paper and professor of sociology at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst.

The group estimated that without these improvements the U.S. murder rate would be 45,000 to 70,000 annually rather than the current 15,000 to 20,000. Physicians concurred that the theory is plausible.

Michael Ventura said...

Anonymous,

Then how do you explain that according to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, the Rape Rate is 37% lower now than it was in 1990 and the Aggravated Assault Rate 49% lower?

On this topic, can Steve or anyone else here offer some wisdom on the subject of why the Rape and Aggravated Assault Rates are so strongly correlated from 1960 to 2009?

The R Squared on Rape and Aggravated Assault is an amazingly strong .925.

Whereas the R Squared on Rape and Murder is only .325.

I mean, just what is it that caused the Rape Rate to start skyrocketing in 1963: Doubling by 1970, Tripling by 1977, and Quadrupling by 1988?

I know single females are far more likely to be raped (note to fathers, talk to your daughters about the advantages of marriage), so perhaps feminism could be a factor?

I dunno, than there's the idea Sowell has promoted about Liberal Sentencing laws and the Anti-Crime Fighting Rulings of the Warren Court.

But there has to be something else at work, right?

Sam said...

Durch Boy,

People tend to think LA has a white population because of Hollywood movies/TV. An example would be The Big Lebowski. It shows these white slackers hanging around the bowling alley. I doubt those guys could exist in LA today or even when the movie was made ten years ago.

And I wonder how much longer Hollywood can exist in LA? You always heard about ambitious young actors from the Midwest showing up there working at menial jobes until they get their big break. Could that happen any more? Can you get a menial jobe (construction, waiter) without speaking Spanish? And if you could, where could you live? And how about all the support people (lighting, makeup,etc.)? They don't get paid enough to live in Malibu. And would you even want to live in LA anyways? It seems like a pretty dangerous place; some safe enclaves in a vast urban jungle - same as you read about Sao Paulo..



A smart studio exec should jump the gun and start a new one in Oregon.

The Round Peg said...

Migration has been going on all over the world for eons, since the beginning of humanity. People migrate from poorer region to richer one for better life. That's just how it is. That's a constant in humanity. It's not going to stop any reason or in any region of the world.

Steve should be glad that the US is getting mostly Hispanic immigrants, who have similar cultures and religions. Just look at Europe. Migration is also happening in Europe... but Europeans are getting MUSLIM immigrants. Just be glad that you guys are not getting floods of Muslims.

Curvaceous Carbon-based Life Form said...

"People migrate from poorer region to richer one for better life. That's just how it is. That's a constant in humanity. It's not going to stop any reason or in any region of the world."

Hey, square head:

Yeah, people WANT to migrate from poorer regions to richer ones. .

But in times and places where the residents of said richer countries haven't had their self-esteem and will to live stripped from them by hostile elites who, beginning when they're schoolage children, constantly browbeat them how much they suck, the richer people SHOOT the uninvited "poor people trying to migrate in for a better life" (historically called "invaders.")
At which time the poor invaders -- oh, I meant immigrants, sorry -- historically CERTAINLY DID cease invading -- oh, I meant immigrating, sorry.

Gee, I keep goofing that up. Quick, Henry, SEND MORE PC INDOCTRINATION.

Hey, I know, Blockhead, since you're lecturing Steve how we should all be giving thanks for and loveying on the mestizoes and jumping for joy at their arrival, let's see you set a good example. Give a family of 'em YOUR house, your refrigerator, your car to drive and your money for your medical care, 'kay? You will? Okay! Great! You're a peach.
Heck, who knows? They might even clean your toilets out of gratitude.

JW Ogden said...

The graph could be interpreted as a strong indictment of welfare.

David Davenport said...

Conquest has been going on all over the world for eons, since the beginning of humanity. People from one region conquer other places and peoples for better life. That's just how it is. That's a constant in humanity. It's not going to stop any reason or in any region of the world.

The USA needs to annex some coastal real estate in Lower California.

Reactionary said...

So basically, lower and middle class whites pay taxes in a not-very-successful attempt to pacify and defend themselves from the blacks and Meso-Americans that the government likewise forbids them from discriminating against.

I like to point out to people of certain political stripes that if we applied the same metric for social pathology to American blacks that we do to Arabs, the military would have to bomb most US inner cities into smoking ruins.

Anonymous said...

Following on from Curvaceous Carbon-based Life Form...

Tonight I was just watching For All Mankind on the BBC.

The only narration is that of the Apollo astronauts, intelligent, thoughtful, articulate, competent, brave and yes...white.

In 2009, in almost every other respect men who look like and talk them are denigrated and demonized.

People who act like them are of course still help up as great examples, its just they no longer look like them. Women and non-whites are routinely portrayed in those roles.