July 21, 2013

New Unz article on race and crime

From Ron Unz's new article on race and crime:
Thus, replacing a city’s blacks with immigrants would tend to lower local crime rates by as much as 90%, and during the 1990s American elites may have become increasingly aware of this important fact, together with the obvious implications for their quality of urban life and housing values. 
According to Census data, between 1990 and 2010 the number of Hispanics and Asians increased by one-third in Los Angeles, by nearly 50% in New York City, and by over 70% in Washington, D.C.  The inevitable result was to squeeze out much of the local black population, which declined, often substantially, in each location.  And all three cities experienced enormous drops in local crime, with homicide rates falling by 73%, 79%, and 72% respectively, perhaps partly as a result of these underlying demographic changes.  Meanwhile, the white population increasingly shifted toward the affluent, who were best able to afford the sharp rise in housing prices.  It is an undeniable fact that American elites, conservative and liberal alike, are today almost universally in favor of very high levels of immigration, and their possible recognition of the direct demographic impact upon their own urban circumstances may be an important but unspoken factor in shaping their views.

Read the whole thing there.

163 comments:

RonMexico said...

Is this what will happen to Detroit?

Steve Sailer said...

Dear RonMexico:

Congratulations on acquiring a new identity in Arizona after that unfortunate run-in with Bill Cosby and the other Black Crusaders.

Anonymous said...

The white working class, with all its immense financial resources and talents, will of course now be responsible for enacting the few remaining items of the liberal agenda with respect to African-Americans.

Anon.

anony-mouse said...

1/ If Unz's theory was true you'd see some barriers to Caribbean/African immigration going up and easier immigration for Asians. But you don't.

2/ I wonder how many people noticed which group has easily the highest growth rate in crime? More proof for my theory that Whites aren't natural Republicans.

Anonymous said...

I'm too tired to read the article right now...

But the premise doesn't make sense.

Importing Hispanics and Asians to push blacks out?

Is this some type of politically correct masquerading b.s.?

That would assume that in L.A. in the 60s and 70s you couldn't walk around without getting beaten and raped by a black person.

Obviously that is not true.

So Unz' article makes no sense.

Ridding cities of black people does not require one importing people who frankly...are just as bad. All it requires is bull dozing Cabreenie Green and not rebuilding it, or relocating everyone someplace else.

Zoink said...

"but this does not necessarily prove that whites are much more likely to commit urban crime, though it would tend to rule out the contrary possibility that Hispanics or immigrants have far higher rates of criminality."

No, it does not. The fact is that Hispanics are incarcerated at more than twice the rate of whites. In fact, their rate should be lower for a couple big reasons:

(1) the current incarcerated population includes people sent to prison a long time ago, before the large surge in Hispanic population. Thus, even if crime rates were equal, the Hispanic rate would be expected to be lower.

(2) immigrants are subject to at lest some selection before legal immigration is allowed, and many are deported for small-time crimes before they graduate up to crimes that would result in long sentences.

Moreover, crime rates in Europe are much lower than rates in Latin America, in particular the major Latin American source countries of Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean.

RKU's data, remember, only looks at total crime in a city and then the city's racial breakdown. This understates Hispanic crime rates by not taking into account the fact that Steve has pointed to many times that whites in high-Hispanic cities like NY, LA, and DC are unusually law-abiding compared to whites in low-Hispanic cities like Buffalo or Youngstown.

Likewise, his result is an artifact of the fact that a handful of cities with very large Hispanic majorities, such as Santa Ana and El Paso, have fairly low crime rates. I don't know much about El Paso, but Santa Ana is essentially a Los Angeles bedroom community, nearly entirely suburban, with no high-crime urban core or vast public housing projects. It also does not have much in the way of high-value crime targets. Nonetheless, Santa Ana still has a much higher violent crime rate than neighboring OC bedroom communities, in fact 5 to 15 times higher.

The best thing you can say about the Hispanic crime rate is that it isn't much higher than the white rate, despite them having much less education, much lower income, and being much more likely to be born to broken homes and teenage mothers.

Wankers Gawking at Vox said...

This might well have to do with the fact that people of lower IQ are more prone to commit crime

Zoink said...

As for the article's thesis, that urban liberals like immigration because Hispanic immigrants have much lower crime rates than the black they replace, I think he overestimates how canny and forward thinking they are.

This is a process that takes decades after all, and by definition occurs in areas where they do not frequent. I do think they've noticed and appreciate the change. But the idea that they were planning this all along is fairly silly.

Further, some liberals really do believe racial crime rates are equal, and the media helps by playing up Hispanic crime these days more than black crime, especially drug cartel crime.

Also, if this were true, why wouldn't these urban whites who want to get blacks out of the city still support public housing? Especially in NYC and SF, it is common to see a project full of poor blacks randomly in the middle of a trendy expensive neighborhood.

agnostic said...

I haven't read the entire long-ish article, so I'll direct this to the general trend among HBD types to focus way too much on race in relation to changes in crime rates, up or down.

Racial composition partly explains why one area has higher or lower crime rates than another region at the same point in time.

But it explains almost nothing about changes over time, up or down.

The rise in crime from the late '50s through the early '90s was nationwide -- every single state. And it was Western-wide.

The decline in crime over the past 20 years has also been nationwide -- every single state has seen a pronounced drop in crime rates. And ditto across the Western nations.

Percent of the population that's non-white has only steadily gone up during this boom-and-bust cycle of crime, so it is obviously something separate from it. It explains why the American rates cycle around a higher long-term average than Sweden, but not why American and Swedish homicide rates rose and fell.

The only uncontroversial variable that tracks crime rates anywhere you look is the shape of the age pyramid -- more youthful leads to higher crime, and more gray-haired leads to lower crime.

Then there's how much time people spend in unsupervised public spaces vs. secure in their private homes. The social mood swings back and forth between the extremes of outgoing, party-on-every-corner to cocooning / home-only entertainment.

As the majority of people leave their homes and hang out in public, they give predatory criminals more prey to feed on, sending crime rates up. When people avoid public spaces and stay at home or the office all day long, criminals have almost no chance to exploit them, sending crime rates down.

That's basically it -- youthfulness of the age pyramid, and outgoing-ness of the population (somewhat related to each other, but distinct). Those two swing around over time, and also show long-term secular trends (older populations, and more indoor living).

So they're equipped to explain the secular decline in crime rates over the centuries, as well as the shorter-term cycles around that trend.

Racial composition has nothing to do with it.

Time to take Occam's razor seriously, instead of looking at cases or using Procrustes' bed in order to make race a main player in the story. It's at best a minor player, and often not part of the cast at all.

Aaron Gross said...

I just glanced at the column, didn't really go into his main argument, but this claim struck me:

Indeed, although restrictionists routinely denounce [the 1924 Immigration Act] for having flooded America with Hispanic immigrants, the facts are precisely the opposite. While the 1924 Immigration Act had drastically curtailed immigration from Europe (and Asia), the entire Western Hemisphere was totally exempted, and the U.S. retained its previous “open borders” policy for Mexico and the rest of Latin America until strict quotas were finally introduced as part of the 1965 law.

This seems to be correct, from what I could find on the internet. (I haven't read the whole text of the 1924 law.) Assuming it's true, then as Unz says, the "dissident right" is publicizing massive disinformation about the 1965 law as it relates to the 1924 law. I'd always believed that disinformation.

C. Van Carter said...

Krugman notices things have turned out differently in Pittsburgh and Detroit. Why? "If you like, sprawl killed Detroit, by depriving it of the kind of environment that could incubate new sources of prosperity."

David Davenport said...


Meanwhile, the white population increasingly shifted toward the affluent, who were best able to afford the sharp rise in housing prices.


So, what is happening to less affluent Weissfolk?

That's what Meanwhile, the white population increasingly shifted toward the affluent, who were best able to afford the sharp rise in housing prices. is about now: socializing costs.

Only if one equates "conservatism" with Republican Establishmentarianism.

You're way behind the goy populist trend of thought, a.k.a. the Tea Party faction. Where did you come from, maybe NY Times comments?

More proof for my theory that Whites aren't natural Republicans.

Will you be pleased if whites turn out to be more like 19th century Democrats?

agnostic said...

As for the specific proposal about plunging crime rates after blacks were kicked out -- where did they move to? They didn't wind up on Mars, and they didn't just starve to death.

So what happened to the places they went to? Well, there are certainly crime rates after they showed up than if they hadn't shown up at all. But all you really see is the same decline over the past 20 years, as you see everywhere else in the country.

The place they got kicked out from probably had an even steeper decline (like New York), and the place that absorbed them a less dramatic decline. But you're talking second or third-order effects.

For example, New York rates declined by 75-80%, where blacks were kicked out. A lot of them migrated back to the deep South, especially Atlanta. The effect? The homicide rate in Atlanta plunged by "only" 65-70% from a peak of about 58 to a recent low of around 20 (per 100K), from circa 1990 to 2010.

So, sure, the city that kicked out blacks declined even more than the city that absorbed them, but both saw dramatic declines. Those 10 percentage points may earn bragging points for New Yorkers, and mild resentment from Atlantans, but that's all the story about changing racial composition amounts to.

Anonymous said...

I guess that's it then. Brazil's high crime rate is due to too many young people. The high Chinese crime rate in the sixties and seventies, yup, you guessed it: Too many young people.

Anonymous said...

If you like, sprawl killed Detroit, by depriving it of the kind of environment that could incubate new sources of prosperity.

LOL. Why would anyone locate a new business in a crime-ridden city with a kleptocratic political class and a population that's 50% functionally illiterate?

There were many boondoggles to fund a central core in Detroit--Ren center, various mass transit schemes, and so on. They received a lot of federal money. It was a total waste, because on the ground Detroit was a dangerous and unprofitable place to live.

Anonymous said...

If our elites really are this cleverly Machiavellian, I have a new found respect for them.

Anonymous said...

"1/ If Unz's theory was true you'd see some barriers to Caribbean/African immigration going up and easier immigration for Asians. But you don't."

Liberals in New York, DC and LA are going to admit publically what they're doing?

.

"According to Census data, between 1990 and 2010 the number of Hispanics and Asians increased by...The inevitable result was to squeeze out much of the local black population, which declined, often substantially, in each location."

It's the other way round. Blacks are being pushed out and replaced with hispanics and asians - with the ensuing dramatic drop in the crime rate.

He's wrong that conservative elites can get away with this though. Only the elites in liberal cities can get away with it because only liberal cities can rely on the media to keep quiet about it.

Or not be quiet at all but make a lot of distracting noise deflecting attention from New York, LA and DC by pointing and spluttering in the opposite direction - like Florida for example.

.

"This is a process that takes decades after all"

It has been going on decades - two at least.

Anonymous said...

"Krugman notices things have turned out differently in Pittsburgh and Detroit. Why? "If you like, sprawl killed Detroit, by depriving it of the kind of environment that could incubate new sources of prosperity."

Pittsburgh is one of the least black of the old, Northern industrial cities. That's why it didn't degenerate into a Detroit.

Alfa158 said...

The data plots certainly seem to establish that crime rates are very strongly correlated to Black population percentages while the percentages of other races have almost no effect. However, that is based on hard data, the proposition that the elites are consciously promoting immigration to reduce crime seems undocumented (sorry; purely unintentional pun). The population shifts that move crime prone people away from the elites may be driven by other push/pull factors. Elites generate heavy demand for menial personal labor in the form of maids, nannies, gardeners, janitors dishwashers, cooks waiters, etc. Since the Civil Rights movement Black people are increasingly unwilling to do jobs that are seem as demeaning and a legacy of slavery/Jim Crow. This created a labor vacuum that has pulled immigrants into the proximity of the elites. At about the same time Section 8 housing and a welfare state has allowed Black people to move out into outlying area. In LA we have seen the trend further accelerated by Hispanics ethnically cleansing Blacks from South LA.

Anonymous said...

Obviously it's understandable for the New York media to want to get rid of black crime in New York but at the same time they are covering up the cleansing of black people from New York with zero tolerance, section 8 etc they are:

1) denying the black violent crime problem exists thus preventing an actual solution

2) transfering their violent crime through the section-8ing of white middle class neighborhoods while attacking any opposition (to what they themselves were doing) as racist thereby effectively making themselves accessory to all the violent crime that ensued.

3) Using cases like Trayvon Martin to stir up racial polarization as a way of deflecting attention from what they were doing in New York, La and DC.

Anonymous said...

"If you like, sprawl killed Detroit, by depriving it of the kind of environment that could incubate new sources of prosperity."

Sprawl was created by people trying to escape gangs and violent crime so the true cause then would be what prevented a solution to the violent crime problem?

The media prevented a solution to the gang and violent crime problem by covering it up.

Galactic Overlord said...

A couple of comments:

First, to Anony-mouse, regarding increased white crime in recent years:

At the time of Moynihan's original 1960s report, the percentage of black children born out of wedlock was just a little north of 20 (compared to 70-plus today). For the last 20-odd years, the proportion of white children born out of wedlock has been higher than that of blacks in the mid-1960s. I think this may be a sign that whites are starting to reach the kind of tipping point that blacks went through in the 1970s.

Second comment is on Unz's remark near the end: "If we examine the 2011 homicide rates for our set of sixty-six large cities, seventeen of these were at least 30% below the projected trendline, with four cities—Charlotte, Raleigh, St. Paul, and Virginia Beach—achieving even better results than New York City."

I can comment on Virginia Beach because I went to law school there. It's one of the worst possible places to use to draw any conclusions about the state of black America in general... because a disproportionately large percentage of the population has ties to the US military, especially the Navy.

Anonymous said...

It's misleading enough that South Asians and Northeast Asians are lumped together for "statistical" purposes in dealing with social policy and politics, now some folks conveniently lump Hispanics with Asians. Yikes.

Peter the Shark said...

While I agree that elites, both liberal and conservative, are trying to push out blacks and replace them with hispanics, I don't think the primary motivation is crime. It's simpler - any employer, other than the owner of a professional sports franchise, prefers a hispanic over a black. Liberals also love hiring hispanics because they can tell themselves they are tolerant.

Peter the Shark said...

@Anonymous:
That would assume that in L.A. in the 60s and 70s you couldn't walk around without getting beaten and raped by a black person.

In the '70s and '80s a lot of people felt that way about LA - those were the heydays of racial riots, Compton was always in the news, etc. It feels to me like a much safer city these days.

Anonymous said...

But the whole thing is such an obvious nonsense.
So the blacks are 'squeezed out' of the cities. But 'squeezed out' of a city doesn't mean they magically disappear - they simply move on to some unsuspecting suburb to pillage. And so the cycle continues.

Anonymous said...

"However, that is based on hard data, the proposition that the elites are consciously promoting immigration to reduce crime"

They're not reducing crime. Unless immigrants have a zero crime rate then they will increase overall crime.

What they're doing is moving a high crime population from *their* cities to white middle-class neighborhoods elsewhere and then replacing the high crime population with a medium or low crime population.

Violent crime in their cities goes down. Violent crime in white suburbs goes up.

Anonymous said...

Elites desiring immigrants who'll work for less is more than plausible. The fact that many of these immigrants replaced Blacks in urban centers, thus reducing crime, was a bonus recognized after the fact.

The question is what will the third generation do?

Also, Unz's suggestion that mass immigration might not be a conspiracy to replace Whites but Blacks is exactly the kind of argument someone like Unz might try to make. I must have been blind, because I now see how that theory applies perfectly to Europe, Canada, and Australia.

This seems to be correct, from what I could find on the internet. (I haven't read the whole text of the 1924 law.) Assuming it's true, then as Unz says, the "dissident right" is publicizing massive disinformation about the 1965 law as it relates to the 1924 law. I'd always believed that disinformation.

It's not disinformation. The reason why the 1924 law didn't need to limit western hemisphere immigration is that, at the time, the entire hemisphere was relatively sparely populated and the vast majority of the people with the means, knowledge, and willingness to immigrate were elite white people and some "just across the border" Mexicans. The decades between 1924 and 1965 eventually saw the lowest levels of immigration since the 1830's.

Third world immigration only became a relevant phenomenon after western medicine induced population explosions.

Anonymous said...

"But the whole thing is such an obvious nonsense."

The idea that the motive is benign is obvious nonsense. The idea that they are pushing black violent crime out of *their* cities makes perfect sense.

Obviously it's very bad for the people who get section-8ed.

Aaron Gross said...

Obvious typo in my comment above: the bracketed phrase in the quotation should be "the 1965 immigration law." My mistake reverses the meaning. (If Steve wants, he's welcome to correct the original instead of publishing this correction.)

Hail said...

Ron Unz is smart, but I think he is off-target in proposing that immigration enthusiasm among White-gentiles today is driven by a desire to push Blacks out.

Upper-class White-gentiles support immigration (mostly passively, I'd guess) because they have no choice, socially. We live in (under?) a Multicultacracy. Racially-motivated immigration-restriction is a direct attack on our Multicultacracy and its primary goals/values.

It's like some Muslim, in the Middle Ages or whenever, saying, "Hey everybody, I've been thinking about it and reading about it, and I think we should really reconsider this Mohammed guy. I think he may have been a liar." Taking that line, no matter how good-intentioned, is a ticket to social ostracism, at best, and probably much worse. It's the same today, isn't it. Replace "Mohammed" with "Nonwhite immigration" (or your favorite euphemism for it).

"It's the Multicultacracy, stupid".

Anonymous said...

"While I agree that elites, both liberal and conservative, are trying to push out blacks and replace them with hispanics, I don't think the primary motivation is crime"

In places like Manhattan i think it's partly a gigantic real-estate scam.

.

"Also, Unz's suggestion that mass immigration might not be a conspiracy to replace Whites but Blacks"

Black violent crime was used to push out middle-class whites from certain cities and now that's complete it's time to get rid of blacks too.

gum said...

Jewish, homo, and white liberal urban elites figger one way to reduce black crime is to use browns and yellows as buffers and replacements. So, even as these hypocrites bitch and scream about Zimmerman, they want more Zimmermans to replace the Trayvons in their cities. Indeed all the furor seemed to serve as smoke and mirrors to fool the blacks that white, Jewish, and liberals still care about them when the globo-liberal policy is really to bring in more people who look like Zimmerman to replace those who look and act like Trayvon.

Libs are weird. Dzhkar Tsarnaev killed 4 people and maimed dozens for no good reason while Zimmerman used defensive violence to save himself from a thug. Yet, the media have been far more hostile to Zimmerman than to Dzhokar. Are libs unwilling to admit that Dzhokar's madness is the product of the North while they're all too eager to push the narrative that southern 'whites'--even brown ones--are evil and still kill 'innocent' blacks?

I recall liberal Jews like David Sirota were praying that the Boston Bombers would be anti-immigration 'white supremacist teabaggers', and indeed if that had been the case, we prolly never would have heard the end of it. But the killers were immigrants, and urban libs need more immigrants as buffers against blacks. So, not much media rage.

Also, Dzhokar killed whites while Zimmerman killed a black guy.
But it's funny... Dzhokar killed urban white liberals--even a real child(than a 17 yr old one like Trayvon)--, but these very urban white liberals vilify Zimmerman more than Dzhokar. But then they also want more browns who look like Zimmerman to replace urban blacks. I'm awful confused.

Anonymous said...

"but I think he is off-target in proposing that immigration enthusiasm among White-gentiles today is driven by a desire to push Blacks out."

Well if we're talking about the liberal elite in cities like New York and especially the immigration enthusiasm of writers in the NYT then judging by the names it's very much Jewish enthusiasm.

Given the huge difference in attitude of the NYT to the use of "racial profiling" in the Zimmerman case and the use of the same racial profiling to harass the black population off Manhattan i'd say that it's very much driven by a desire to push blacks out.

Anonymous said...

Reading Ron Unz's article, I was struck by the ridiculously high correlation coefficient concerning blacks and criminality, in any given urban setting.

Good grief! - having correlations like that is as close as you'll ever get to having a demonstrable scientific fact in a social science that you'll ever likely get. The equivalent of 'G' in physics as a fundamental constant of nature.

Many of the nations of western Europe still haven't fully embraced mass immigration from sub-saharan Africa, although the elites are mustard keen to start this venture - and have already started o persecute and imprison anyone who dares raise a voice in protest. We also have the ominous fact that black Africa' population will sky-rocket to 4 billion in this century and Europe's population will sharply diminish. Add economist and lefty pea-brains to this equation, ('but we need them to pay our pensions!'), and you have a volatile mix. Add also the fact that the lefties and pea-brain economists usually prevail and get what they want, (there are a hell of a lot of dumb-as-shit politicians out there, who like to think they are being 'smart' by taking econo-retards seriously), and things look very grim.

All I can say is the dumb-as-shit,
(ie the western European elitists and political class), must somehow be made fully aware of these race/crime coefficients.
But, alas, these tossers are so arrogant and blinkered that I wager it would zero effect even if it was written in a hundred foot flashing neon letters.

Aaron Gross said...

@Anonymous, the disinformation is the story that high levels of Hispanic immigration since 1965 are a result of (among other things) the 1965 law. For instance, the story that Ted Kennedy was wrong - either naive or dishonest - when he said that the 1965 law would not significantly alter the ethnic composition of America.

Apparently, Kennedy was correct. Mass immigration over the last few decades, legal and illegal, is not a result of the 1965 law. The 1924 law would have allowed mass Hispanic immigration as well - even more so, in fact. Blaming mass immigration on the 1965 law is disinformation. (I haven't read either law, only summaries, so I'm just going by that.)

John said...

==="Racial composition partly explains why one area has higher or lower crime rates than another region at the same point in time.

But it explains almost nothing about changes over time, up or down.

The rise in crime from the late '50s through the early '90s was nationwide -- every single state. And it was Western-wide."===


But one thing that remains consistent over time is that Blacks commit the most crimes, followed by Hispanics, then Whites, then Asians, and this order does not change regardless of whether the overall crime rate increases or decreases in any given period.

Anonymous said...

"Ridding cities of black people does not require one importing people who frankly...are just as bad."

Hispanics are problematic and there are many of them where I live. But they've given me no trouble and I like the sight of Hispanic families having fun in the park. Reminds me of the village scene in THE WILD BUNCH.
So when it comes to social problems, browns are much preferable to blacks.

I don't want US to be Mexicanized but I don't feel ill will toward them as a people.
But negroes? Don't get me started.

Anonymous said...

The rise in Mexican immigration which occurred beginning about 1970 was caused by internal factors in Mexico. US policy had very little to do with it. Aaron Gross is right.

Anonymous said...

Better Latinos than poor blacks any day.

Anonymous said...

White and brown can live together with far fewer problems than white and black.

Anonymous said...

@Aaron Gross, Again it's not disinformation. The misinformation is the argument that since quotas were set for the western hemisphere only in the 1965 law, that immigration from the western hemisphere prior to 1965 must have been limitless. This is Unz's misunderstanding of the 1924 law.

In reality, any immigration from countries without national origins quotas were considered illegal. Quotas were what was allowed.

In fact, up 400,000 Mexicans were deported in the 1930's. They were somewhat tolerated in the border states, but technically illegal. And let's not forget Operation Wetback.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-04-04-1930s-deportees-cover_x.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback

Anonymous said...

I like the sight of Hispanic families having fun in the park.

I remember enjoying public parks with the family back in the 70's. These days, my kids have to live vicariously through Hispanics, because there is hardly a park in LA proper that I can go to. They are all jammed packed- every single table, soccer field, and softball field!

Anonymous said...

agnostic: So they're equipped to explain the secular decline in crime rates over the centuries, as well as the shorter-term cycles around that trend.

I agree almost completely, but I think "Pinkerisation" of social norms over the centuries is also possible, but that's a comparatively long time change.

Anonymous said...

"Time to take Occam's razor seriously, instead of looking at cases or using Procrustes' bed in order to make race a main player in the story. It's at best a minor player, and often not part of the cast at all."

Obviously, you've never lived in a middle-class neighborhood turned upside down by section 8 housing for blacks.

Have you ever lived in or near a black neighborhood? Have you ever lived in an hispanic neighborhood?
I doubt it, which is why you seem to actually believe that all races are peers under their skin.

They're not. Grow up.

jack strocchi said...

It is an undeniable fact that Amierican elites, conservative and liberal alike, are today almost universally in favor of very high levels of immigration, and their possible recognition of the direct demographic impact upon their own urban circumstances may be an important but unspoken factor in shaping their views.

Implying that Caucasian elites are using Hispanic demographic power to ethnically cleanse the US's major cosmopolitan metropolises of African-Americans. To make these locales safer for Sex & the City lifestyle, and associated economic gains from property booms. Ahh, SWPLs combination of sanctimony and status ascendancy is a wonder to behold.

Anonymous said...

"For example, New York rates declined by 75-80%, where blacks were kicked out. A lot of them migrated back to the deep South, especially Atlanta. The effect? The homicide rate in Atlanta plunged by "only" 65-70% from a peak of about 58 to a recent low of around 20 (per 100K), from circa 1990 to 2010."

I dunno. Thanks to blacks being "kicked out" of NYC, things seem to be really hopping in downtown Atlanta. Seems like a lot of assaults go unreported. Black folks don't like snitches.

Here's a taste of an downtown Atlanta mall. This apparently goes on regularly:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMCfMh9hEWA

Anonymous said...

Indeed, although restrictionists routinely denounce [the 1924 Immigration Act] for having flooded America with Hispanic immigrants, the facts are precisely the opposite. While the 1924 Immigration Act had drastically curtailed immigration from Europe (and Asia), the entire Western Hemisphere was totally exempted, and the U.S. retained its previous “open borders” policy for Mexico and the rest of Latin America until strict quotas were finally introduced as part of the 1965 law.

Unz is spinning certain facts in his usual lawyerly way.

There was very little immigration from Latin America in the early half of the 20th century. There was no quota, but it wasn't because people thought immigration from Latin America was fine and dandy and wanted more of it. Also, despite no quota, there were qualitative restrictions on immigrants from Latin America.

Up until the 1965 Immigration Act, most of the importation of Latin Americans into the US was as contract farm workers under the legal bracero program. These laborers would be sent back after their contracts were up. The bracero program was ended in 1964, and following the 1965 Immigration Act, illegal immigration from Latin America increased significantly.

Anonymous said...

Also, the 1965 Immigration Act instituted things such as family reunification which fostered the increase of Hispanic and other immigrants.

Anonymous said...

Apparently, Kennedy was correct. Mass immigration over the last few decades, legal and illegal, is not a result of the 1965 law. The 1924 law would have allowed mass Hispanic immigration as well - even more so, in fact. Blaming mass immigration on the 1965 law is disinformation. (I haven't read either law, only summaries, so I'm just going by that.)

You're engaging in what's called sophistry. It's like arguing that since the 1965 law didn't explicitly state that it would increase X immigration by X number, it can't be said to have resulted in it.

Dr Van Nostrand said...

All this talk of replacing one troublesome minority with another would bring to mind Principal Skinners logic when justifying the pigeon devouring lizards.Im surprised Steve didnt bring it up here as he used it before

SKINNER
Well, I was wrong. The lizards are a godsend.

LISA
But isn't that a bit short-sighted? What happens when we're overrun by lizards?

SKINNER
No problem. We simply unleash wave after wave of Chinese needle snakes. They'll wipe out the lizards.

LISA
But aren't the snakes even worse?

SKINNER
Yes, but we're prepared for that. We've lined up a fabulous type of gorilla that thrives on snake meat.

LISA
But then we're stuck with gorillas!

SKINNER
No, that's the beautiful part. When wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death.

Anonymous said...

If this were true, shouldn't the urban liberal elites be replacing blacks with Asians, not Hispanics? Or are too many Asians potentially dangerous to them as professional and educational competitors? It seems to me blacks are physically very hostile to Asians in many cities (85% of assault crimes in San Fracisco in 2008 was black-on-Asian, for example) while Jews seem to be the most hostile intellectually to Asians, especially during the whole Tiger Mom episode.

Anonymous said...

My impression of Hispanic crime vs. Black crime is that Hispanics commit rape and murder at a rate much lower than Blacks and only slightly higher than Whites. They commit all other crimes at a rate slightly lower than Blacks, but much closer to the Black rate than the White rate. Most Whites don't think that deep into it. I think they prefer Hispanics to Blacks for the simple reason that Hispanics are far less physically intimidating than Blacks.

Discard said...

I too would prefer Mexicans to Blacks.

Just as I would prefer to be shot in the leg with a .32 rather than be shot in the gut with a .45.

Anonymous said...

I remember reading an article some years ago I think in the NY Times that stated African-Americans, descendants of USA slaves, were not a majority of NYC city's Black population. That immigrants and their children were the majority. I remember saying that this is the real reason for NYC crime rate has plunged. Chicago's problem is not only that its Black population is almost uniformly African-American but that most have antecedents from the Deep South in particular Mississippi and Alabama. These states produce the most backwards of Blacks. Even Blacks call them "bammas" derisively.

Anonymous said...

Reading about how immigration hurts African Americans (AKA leftists' pet hungry grizzly bears - nice in theory, but you're not letting them in your house) reminds me of a Basic Instructions comic where two cowokers are discussing how to tell another colleague that he smells:

"Jenkins smells."

"I'll tell him."

"Someone has to tell him."

"I'll tell him."

"He's gonna be really embarassed."

"You don't have to keep selling this to me. I said I'll do it".

With more finesse, and less concern for someone's actual benefit, that's the gleeful white leftist/neocon reaction to pointing out the harm it does to Af-Ams. Blacks haven't exactly been winning friends - hurting them through immigration is a feature, not a bug.

It's left to sane people to consider the fact that, while they are annoying little turds, we'll still have to live with them afterwards. They've been massively overplaying the slavery card for, ooooh, about 150 years, but the fact remains that their ancestors didn't choose to come. (And we can all agree that the US would've been better without slavery and - whisper it - the descendents of slaves, right?)

Florida resident said...

Somehow car thefts, and also injurious and fatal car accidents, by Hispanics do not figure in Ron Unz's calculus.
My relative in San Jose (by the way, she is a wife of a Google programmer and employee) was almost killed in an accident of that type.
Read also numerous publications by (otherwise relatively liberal) Victor Davies Hanson, including his book "Mexifornia".

Anonymous said...

Further, some liberals really do believe racial crime rates are equal, and the media helps by playing up Hispanic crime these days more than black crime, especially drug cartel crime.

The media can play up any myth they want, but people know, through personal experience, who robbed them. And that has tended to be black. My most liberal acquaintances are politically correct to a fault, but they know who commits crimes, despite all the BS in the media. They know the ethnicity and/or race of the doctors they visit and it's nothing like what the media depicts in soap operas.

Anonymous said...

This does seem plausible to me, especially when I am aware of the Obama administration doing all they can to get affluent Westchester county, which is just north of New York City to build lots of new housing projects. To me, and some other people it seems like New York City trying to push its blacks into Westchester, but Westchester doesn't want them(so much of the white population of Westchester moved there to escape the blacks).

The county boss, Astorino(who is very popular), has done all he can to stand in the way of this housing scheme. Based on some kind of obscure law, Westchester county is "required" to build a ton of low-income housing, or they lose federal funding for parks, infrastructure and other projects as "punishment".

Luckily this kind of "punishment" is easy to endure, since the alternative, lots "diversity" in the form of low-income housing in the affluent suburbs of Westchester would destroy many communities.

As a resident of Westchester, I must admit that I am not totally opposed to this low-income housing scheme. I just hope they build them in the richest, most exclusive areas where I know a lot of obnoxious "liberals" live. Especially in Bronxville. The richest parts of Scarsdale. Also build a lot of them in Bedford near George Soros' and Martha Stewart's estates, right next to them if they can manage.

sunbeam said...

Ron Unz wrote in his article:

"If instead we relied upon smaller geographical units such as neighborhoods, our results would be much more precise, but ethnicity data is provided by zip code while crime data is reported by precinct, so a major research undertaking would be required to match these dissimilar aggregational units for calculation purposes. "

I don't get why this would be a big deal. Presumably every precinct has a mailing address. If you have that field in a database, it should be as simple as a couple of SQL queries. I'd actually use it to generate an all new database to crunch, just cause I can have as many as I want obviously.

Even if you did it by hand, you could ask for volunteers to help you and break it up by state or something.

Oh heck, you could even send an email to the state in question and ask them if they would be so kind as to give you the info.

Just doesn't seem to be as big a deal as he made it to me.

IHTG said...

Aaron Gross: The 1965 Immigration Act-as-the-source-of-all-evil thing has always been a canard for the most part.

American culture after the 1960s wasn't capable of mustering the will to stop tens of millions of people from crossing the border, law or no law.

Anonymous said...

Unz keeps ignoring the big difference in crime rates between the first and later generations of immigrants. He also pilfers Steve's ideas without giving credit.

Anonymous said...

The 1924 law would have allowed mass Hispanic immigration as well - even more so, in fact. Blaming mass immigration on the 1965 law is disinformation. (I haven't read either law, only summaries, so I'm just going by that.)

The 1924 law limited total immigration to around 150,000 per year. So it might have allowed Mexicans to come, but it would not have provided for MASS immigration.

Glaivester said...

One thing to note: the paragraph Steve is quoting does not say that elites use immigration to reduce the black population and therefore reduce crime, it says that they use immigration to displace the black population from their neighborhoods and therefore to reduce the amount of crime that directly affects them.

Art Deco said...

Excuse me, but this thesis is untenable.

In Upstate New York, there has been considerable diffusion of the black population in the last generation, but it has not led to an epidemic of crime in either tract suburbs or small towns and countryside. What you see in greater Washington, greater Detroit, and smaller cities like Rochester is that around a third of the black population is unobtrusively settled in and among the larger community. Alexandria, Va. is a case in point. That municipality is 20% black and has a homicide rate of 2.0 per 100,000. I do not think you can demonstrate that diffused black populations have been a source of social problems. Were this thesis in its crude form correct - street are safer because troublesome elements of the population were chased elsewhere - diffused black populations would be causing problems.

New York City is divided into about 60 community districts, each will an appointed advisory board. Naturally, the community districts have wildly varying homicide rates. There are a couple of districts where no homicides were recorded in 2012 (and keep in mind that the mean population of a community district is around 130,000). Those encompassing the Bedford-Stuyvesant and Ocean Hill-Brownsville area in Brooklyn have had homicides rates around 23 per 100,000 in recent years and are the most viperous areas of the city. The citywide mean has bounced around a set point of 6.8 per 100,000. Keep in mind that the mean homicide rate for the City of Buffalo has been about 20 per 100,000 in recent years, for Rochester 19 per 100,000 and for Utica about 8 per 100,000. That is to say that the worst neighborhoods in New York are seeing homicide frequencies only 10 or 15% above central city means Upstate.

One engaging exercise is to test the homicide rates to which different racial groups are exposed given their residence. That is to say, construct a synthetic homicide rate for each sub-population by calculating an average derived from the rate in each community district weighted according to the share of the said racial group resident in each. New York City's blacks are exposed to a homicide rate of 8.6 per 100,000; Hispanics are exposed to a similar rate, 8.4 per 100,000. Anglo-Caucasians &c. are exposed to a rate of 2.8 per 100,000. Blacks in greater Rochester are exposed to a homicide rate of around 25 per 100,000.

Hispanics &c. chasing blacks into the ether does not explain the pattern of violent crime in New York City. Blacks in New York (who number close to 2 million, or a quarter of the population) have experienced marked improvements in public security and are no more exposed to lethal violence than are hispanics.

I think the only way this thesis can work is by positing that blacks of similar disposition behave differently in circumstances where they are diffused than where they are concentrated - that the whole is not the sum of its parts. One would also have to posit that hispanic immigration is busting up black neighborhoods and thus changing the dynamic of social relations among blacks. The thing is, you still have loci of heavy concentrations of blacks in New York City, and most of them have homicide rates that would have been regarded as passable a generation ago. (Please note, those of you complaining about section 8 housing, this thesis about immigration rendering urban centers more tranquil incorporates within it a notion that putting random blacks in non-black environments alters their observed behavior).

hank s. said...

"Reading Ron Unz's article, I was struck by the ridiculously high correlation coefficient concerning blacks and criminality, in any given urban setting."

Yup. You can argue all the rest but this is simple freaking fact, and everyone knows it. Makes President Sharpton look even more of a liar and a knave.

@Aaron Gross - absolutely, correct. Most of the discussions about Hispanic immigration into the US are not even hot air, they are poison gas. Look at what happened in the Zimmerman case. A perfectly nice English-speaking son of a mixed race legal Peruvian immigrant has had his life turned into utter hell because of his legitimate fears of black criminality.

With impending municipal bankruptcies I truly wonder whether the USSA isn't about to collapse. I used to think such doomsayers were crazy but not now.

Anonymous said...

The liberal soul and a father's pride.

Anonymous said...

'Unz keeps ignoring the big difference in crime rates between the first and later generations of immigrants. He also pilfers Steve's ideas without giving credit.'


I'd say Unz is as contrarian and daring as Sailer and has contributed fresh insights--true or false--to the debate. Giving credit is unnecessary since these ideas run in streams. No single person came up with them.

Anonymous said...

"The 1965 Immigration Act-as-the-source-of-all-evil thing has always been a canard for the most part."

Without the immigrants since 1965, what would be percentage of blacks in America?

35%?

Black percentage has remained relatively cuz of immigration. That is the positive result of immigration. Better yellows, browns, and Muslims than blacks.

Anonymous said...

The 1924 law limited total immigration to around 150,000 per year. So it might have allowed Mexicans to come, but it would not have provided for MASS immigration.

There were qualitative restrictions that severely restricted Mexican and other Latin American immigration.

As far as I know, we don't have any quotas on Martian immigrants either. This doesn't mean that we have an "open borders" policy with Martians.

Anonymous said...

1) How can anyone talk about the difference between the 1924 & 1965 immigration laws without mentioning the intervening Operation Wetback?!?

2) How can anyone talk about long-term trends in black crime rates without:

2a) Mentioning the get-tough-on-crime movement, which began during the Reagan administration, and which has seen millions upon millions of young black males incarcerated during [what would have been] their peak years of criminal activity? Or without

2b) Mentioning the massive increase in the fraudulence of crime statistics?

As an example of fraud, the greater Miami-Dade gubmint bureaucracy decided to reclassify public school crimes as school discipline problems, which led to a massive decrease in the official Miami-Dade crime rate, but which also allowed young school-aged thugs to escape incarceration, and instead to merely suffer disciplinary suspension from school, so that they could then spend their days ambushing and attacking the various "Creepy Ass Crackas" who served as Neighborhood Watch volunteers throughout greater Florida.

Anonymous said...

"Better Latinos than poor blacks any day."

Depends if you get to choose or not. If you're part of the New York media you get to choose which you want by covering up the cleansing of New York. If you're part of the white middle class getting section-8ed you don't get to choose as the same New York media will stomp you for being racist if you try to resist.

It's not a democracy it's a media-ocracy.

.

"If this were true, shouldn't the urban liberal elites be replacing blacks with Asians, not Hispanics?"

If the asian/white/hispanic/black crime rates were 1/2/4/8 then replacing 8 for 4 is a big enough difference to make sense on its own and as mentioned the drop in crime in New York has been higher than anywhere else as a result of this cleansing.

Obviously if the primary hatred of anti-white liberals wasn't for standard issue white people none of this would have happened at all. It's all ulimately about getting rid of white people while still maintaining a minimum level of cheap servants.

Svigor said...

HUD's New 'Fair Housing' Rule Establishes Diversity Data for Every Neighborhood in U.S.

To ensure that "every American is able to choose to live in a community they feel proud of," HUD has published a new fair-housing regulation intended to give people access to better neighborhoods than the ones they currently live in.

Papers please?

Anonymous said...

There are two kinds of people.

For one group of people, social problems come to them. They have no choice. If you're a poor white, social problems related to black thuggery come to you.

But if you're an affluent white professor at a college, you can choose the social problem that most interests you, even if it's part of the past. So, you can pretend that Jim Crow is still the problem in America. You have the privilege of choosing the social problem of your choice. Never mind reality is closer to Jim Crack.

Svigor said...

"Make no mistake, this is a big deal," Donovan said. "With the HUD budget alone, we are talking about billions of dollars. And as you know, decades ago, these funds were used to support discrimination. Now, they will be used to expand opportunity and bring communities closer to the American Dream."

I find that one of the most interesting tells in the whole piece. I've been saying the same thing for years: first, the gov't illegitimately meddled in Americans' lives with forced segregation; now, they illegitimately meddle in Americans' lives with forced integration. There was practically no gap between the two; the one thing they didn't do is just #$%@ off and leave people alone. When they were done grabbing power in the name of segregation, they went to grabbing power in the name of integration. Watch what a man does consistently, to find his real goals. The gov't is obviously only consistently interested in grabbing more and more power. Their excuses change, the goal does not.

Anonymous said...

Are there any stats showing the average outcome of a black person raised from birth (or close to it) in a non-black home?

Do these statistical tendencies tend to disappear?

Anonymous said...

"Blaming mass immigration on the 1965 law is disinformation."

This is mostly true. The primary causes of mass immigration are:

1. Total non-enforcement of immigration laws, including 'sanctuary cities'

2. The Supreme Court's 'anchor baby' interpretation of the 14th amendment.

3. The various official amnesties.

The secondary cause is legal "family reunification" immigration of the relatives of those from #1-3 above.

Aaron Gross said...

@Anonymous, from summaries I've read, the 1924 law's quota did not apply to Mexicans or to others from the Western Hemisphere:

This put the total number of visas available each year to new immigrants at 350,000. It did not, however, establish quotas of any kind for residents of the Western Hemisphere. (emphasis added)

The story we're always hearing from VDARE.com and other restrictionist sources (maybe including Steve Sailer, I don't know) is disinformation.

pat said...

Unz obviously isn't being honest. It took me two minutes to look up the most dangerous cities in Wikipedia as measured by murder rates. The top twenty are all in South or Central America. The least murderous city is Singapore.

Unz exploits the confusion engendered by the FBI conflation of ethnic and racial categories to argue that Hispanics are really not violent at all and that there is no distorting effect by grouping them with Asians.

Outrageous.

All sorts of evidence exists that East Asians are the least violent of the major races, white European descended people next and then the others with blacks at the bottom. Hispanics are far more violent and prone to crime than whites - and he knows it.

Albertosaurus

Anonymous said...

The limit on "total immigration" in the 1924 Act only applied to countries outside the Western Hemisphere.

Sounds like Unz proved you restrictionists wrong.

Mexico's Baby Boom, political turmoil, and recession increased Mexican immigration to the US beginning in the '70s. Not US policy

Anonymous said...

@Aaron Gross - Now you're annoying. Did you read the links I provided? If a country was not given a quota, then the number allowed is ZERO, not unlimited. The law was understood that way and enforced that way, at the time. The unlimited quota interpretation IS the disinformation. I was being kind to Unz when I called it misinformation.

Here's another link
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5078

Look at where it says "ALL OTHER COUNTRIES - 1600" Source: US Gov 1929

Anonymous said...

edit All others - 1900

Anonymous said...

The act itself specifically stated that immigration from Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Haiti, the Canal Zone, the Dominican Republic, and any other country in the Americas was exempt from the quotas, and was unlimited as long as one could pay the fees.

The act itself is online and one can read it.

Matt said...

Albertosaurus - All sorts of evidence exists that East Asians are the least violent of the major races, white European descended people next and then the others with blacks at the bottom. Hispanics are far more violent and prone to crime than whites - and he knows it.

Alby, this is true but you have to take into account that foreign born persons of any ethnicity from White to Black to Hispanic commit fewer crimes in the USA than natives of the same race, mainly they tend to be older.

And most of the population of Asians and Hispanics in the USA is foreign born.

If you want the true index of criminality for Asians vs Whites, we should be comparing a mixed basket of Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea and Japan to a mixed basket of Germans, French, Italians, British and Spanish (preferably while adjusting for migration, but this isn't hugely necessary).

Average for the above Asian nations is 1.6 per 100,000, while for the European nations it is 0.96 per 100,000.

Now let's say we discounted South Korea and Taiwan, with their high murder rates, as unusual for Asian countries and just compared Japan and Germany + Spain.

What we find is Germany + Spain average is 0.8 per 100,000 while Japan is 0.4 per 100,000.

So the East Asian "advantage" in lower violence and aggression, which probably mostly stems from their introverted and risk averse traits, adds up to at most around around 1 less murder every 300,000 people.

Its not really a big difference compared to the Central America vs White America chasm in murder rates.

source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Anonymous said...

"'ALL OTHER COUNTRIES - 1600" Source: US Gov 1929"

All other countries covered by quotas, not non-quota countries.

Anonymous said...

http://www.upa.pdx.edu/IMS/currentprojects/TAHv3/Content/PDFs/Immigration_Act_1924.pdf

Ironically, if not for the 1924 law, America would be a whiter country today.

Anonymous said...

@artdeco
>diffused black populations would >be causing problems.

They are

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903520204576480542593887906.html

and many more like it.

>One engaging exercise is to test >the homicide rates

Homicides aren't as good a metric as people believe because of medical advances and especially the criticality of the speed/distance of trauma centers and paramedics.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324712504578131360684277812.html

"Crime experts who attribute the drop in killings to better policing or an aging population fail to square the image of a more tranquil nation with this statistic: The reported number of people treated for gunshot attacks from 2001 to 2011 has grown by nearly half."

Anonymous said...

The story we're always hearing from VDARE.com and other restrictionist sources (maybe including Steve Sailer, I don't know) is disinformation.

Aaron, by your use of the term restrictionist in your rebuttal, are you implying that you are on the other side of the debate and are for open borders?

Anonymous said...

>2) How can anyone talk about long->term trends in black crime rates >without:

Also if you allow an environment to become dominated by gangs and then leave it to stew for generations what you are effectively doing is breeding violent criminals because in that sort of environment the most violent males get to the top of the heap, make lots of babies and each subsequent generation has a bigger percentage of violent criminals.

.

>Mexico's Baby Boom, political >turmoil, and recession increased >Mexican immigration to the US >beginning in the '70s. Not US >policy

Obviously not true. US policy includes *reacting* (or not reacting) to external events.

Anonymous said...

Ironically, if not for the 1924 law, America would be a whiter country today.

Bullshit. This tangent you guys have picked up concerning the "non-quota" immigrants is a sideshow.

The bottom line, from the link you provided no less, is this:

From 1924 to 1947, only 2,718,006 immigrants came to the United States, a total equal to the number entering during any two-year period before World War I. In the 1930s, for the first time in U.S. history, those leaving the United States outnumbered those entering.

In other words it did its job.

The same people harping on the "non-quota" immigrants are probably the same that bring up the fact that immigration policy was never put into the Constitution, and ignoring the fact that the Father of the Nation signed into law an extremely restrictive naturalization act in 1790.

Despite this they claim that had the Founders wanted a European nation, they would have enshrined it into the Constitution. However, even the Founders had no idea back then what would happen in the late 20th century. Likewise the authors of the 1924 Immigration Act had no idea this nation would be flooded by Mexicans who, at the time, were not swamping the border. The immigration bomb was coming from Southern and Eastern Europe.

Does anyone seriously doubt the authors of the 1924 act would have not put the Mexicans on the quota list had Mexico been the pain in the ass that it is today?

After all we are always lectured about how restrictionists those WASPs were in 1924. But now we must reinterpret history and show those WASPS were actually for mass third world immigration. That's a bunch of crap and is similar to the revamping taking place blaming cultural marxism on the Puritans.

Anonymous said...

"Ironically, if not for the 1924 law, America would be a whiter country today."

Nonsense.

The population explosion outside the West only started after WWII.

http://www.calwatchdog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Mexican-Born-Population-in-the-U.S.-Pew-Center.png

What was needed was a post-war update to the 1924 act.

Anonymous said...

It is an undeniable fact that American elites, conservative and liberal alike, are today almost universally in favor of very high levels of immigration


Ron Unz himself is Exhibit A in support of this.

Anonymous said...

The advocates of the '24 law didn't want other whites challenging their power. So they shut the door on Europeans.

Look at what group benefited most from the '24 law, it wasn't whites.

Anonymous said...

So how would more white people allowed into the US have not made America whiter?

You people are so blinded by your restrictionist VDARE-fueled bigotry that you fail to grasp basic logic.

Art Deco said...

Homicides aren't as good a metric as people believe because of medical advances and especially the criticality of the speed/distance of trauma centers and paramedics.

Oh, yes they are. The validity of homicide statistics does not suffer from reporting deficits or definitional variation from one jurisdiction to another.

The amplitude of the decline of other index crimes is smaller than that for homicide but it is real.

Crime experts who attribute the drop in killings to better policing or an aging population fail to square the image of a more tranquil nation with this statistic: The reported number of people treated for gunshot attacks from 2001 to 2011 has grown by nearly half."

In the last 20 years, the frequency of forcible rape has declined by 40% and the frequency of robbery had declined 57% and the frequency of of aggravated assault by 45%. See here:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1


The frequency of homicides making use of instruments other than guns declined from 2.3 per 100,000 to 1.3 per 100,000 (40%) over the last 20 years.

Anonymous said...

The 1965 immigration law does get an excessive degree of blame for the ongoing demographic disaster which is the USA. Yes, it was a bad law in several respects, but it was just one of a number of factors which led us to where we are today.

The courts (as usual) did a great deal of mischief. Several SCOTUS rulings in the 1960's, 1970's and later mandated that state and local governments must treat citizens and illegal aliens alike. That is, they must treat the law-abiding and the criminals alike. That's a mind-boggling position for a supposed "court of law" to take. So now illegals are entitled to all sorts of government benefits which they were previously denied.

The other big factor is that the federal government has ignored federal immigration law. They have ignored - or even outright sabotaged - any effort to deter illegal immigration for the last fifty years. They then periodically grant amnesty and citizenship to the illegals they have encouraged to enter the country. None of this can be blamed on the 1965 immigration bill. If our government had followed that bill to the letter, things would be much better than they currently are.

Art Deco said...

By the way, Mr. Anonymous, your thesis would not explain why blacks in Rochester have 3x the risk of death from homicide than they do in New York given that there is a handsome trauma center at the periphery of each of the city's two sets of slums.

Anonymous said...

"You people are so blinded by your restrictionist VDARE-fueled bigotry that you fail to grasp basic logic."

You're extrapolating hispanic immigration after the post-war population explosion back to 1924 long before before that explosion.

Philo said...

Though he puts aside the issue of causation, Unz might have mentioned the War on Drugs as a likely contributor to Blacks’ high levels of incarceration and violence. He might also have mentioned, as a factor contributing to the popularity of immigration among white elites, that the immigration of Hispanics and Asians will reduce feelings of “white guilt” for the low status of Blacks in America: it will no longer be plausible to view the country as divided between white oppressors and Black victims when so many people are neither white nor Black. (Also, the success of non-white immigrants will make Blacks’ claims of continuing victimhood less plausible.)

Unz claims that white elites in New York, Washington, Los Angeles, and Palo Alto want to replace local Black populations with immigrants. And where do the displaced Blacks go? To “Atlanta or Baltimore or Riverside.” But don’t those cities have white elites, too? Shouldn’t those elites be resisting this influx and, indeed, trying to push their Blacks elsewhere? Is there any evidence for this?

Anonymous said...

The act itself specifically stated that immigration from Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Haiti, the Canal Zone, the Dominican Republic, and any other country in the Americas was exempt from the quotas, and was unlimited as long as one could pay the fees.


Dear God, you're stupid.

Back in 1924 immigration was not the sole provenance of the jackasses in DC, as it is today. There were immense barriers to a Mexican immigrating to the US. Discrimination - good, smart, perfectly legal, sensible discrimination - was a way of life in America, as it was elsewhere in the world.

Which is why, in spite of your claptrap about "unlimited" immigration from other countries in the Western hemisphere, no such immigration actually took place.

Anonymous said...

Look at what group benefited most from the '24 law, it wasn't whites.


It was not intended to benefit "whites", it was intended to benefit America and Americans (chiefly though not exclusively white Americans), and it succeeded in doing so.

Anonymous said...

Alexandria, Va. is a case in point. That municipality is 20% black and has a homicide rate of 2.0 per 100,000.


Alexandria is a bedroom community for federal government workers and has a median household income of over $100k/yr. I think we can concede that the typical black HUD worker is not sticking up convenience stores or mugging people in the street.

But we can also admit that the blacks in Alexandria are quite atypical of blacks in general.

sunbeam said...

Art Deco wrote:

"In the last 20 years, the frequency of forcible rape has declined by 40% and the frequency of robbery had declined 57% and the frequency of of aggravated assault by 45%. See here:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1"

Hmmm statistics. I'd pull up that old quote about "lies, damned lies, and statistics.." whoops.

Anyway, assuming the numbers from the source you've quoted are done in good faith, how do you explain the also apparently actual increase in the number of knife and gunshot wounds treated in hospitals that has been noted in this thread?

Also how is a decline in crime numbers not related to the sheer numbers of black people that are in jail now, a phenomena I think started about 1980 according to what I've read here.

I'm also at a loss to understand the numbers you have posted concerning some locations in New York state.

How exactly are your numbers inconsistent with the individuals in question, being removed to the hinterlands by high prices, section 8, and Bloomberg/Giuliani policies?

Has crime dropped in Rochester and Buffalo the past 20 years? Or increased?

Also since you seem knowledgeable about the area, where do blacks from NYC move after they are Bloomberged? I guess that would depend on whether you think that is a real thing, or it is some kind of conspiracy theory promoted here.

But assuming it is true where are they going? Jersey? Connecticut? Pennsylvania? Down south? Where?

I continually read things here, and in the national media about social engineering, and the reversal of the great migration.

But if true where are they landing?

Anonymous said...

@ArtDeco

Your original point was that

"diffused black populations would be causing problems."

They are

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903520204576480542593887906.html

and many more articles like it.

In the New York context the best examples would be places in New Jersey like Camden which took in a lot of the New York cleansing and were destroyed by it.

.

"your thesis would not explain why blacks in Rochester have 3x the risk of death from homicide than they do in New York given that there is a handsome trauma center at the periphery of each of the city's two sets of slums."

Well it would if the cleansing method used by New York was a combination of targeted harassment of known black criminals followed up by gentrification.

The worst would be pushed out first.

Anonymous said...

"But don’t those cities have white elites, too? Shouldn’t those elites be resisting this influx and, indeed, trying to push their Blacks elsewhere?"

They can only do it if the media turn a blind eye (or deflect attention by pointing and sputtering in the opposite direction like at Zimmerman) so the only cities that can get away with it are cities with a lot of media connections e.g. New York, LA, DC etc.

Marlo said...

A more interesting article might examine the correlation between crime and chronic unemployment - a condition that disproportionately affects blacks, through no fault of their own. It's intellectually lazy to mention that blacks are x times more likely to rob or murder, while ignoring the effects of 40-50% unemployment in post-industrial areas like Detroit, East St. Louis, Baltimore etc.

There is a causal relationship between long-term unemployment and violent crime. Lest you doubt it, just examine the behavior of long-term unemployed white men. Do their feelings of emasculation not lead them to commit murder-suicides? An honest answer to this question goes far in explaining why 40-50% unemployment proves deadly in "black neighborhoods". It also explains why areas with large concentrations of unemployed white men - Moscow Russia, for example - are havens for violent criminals.

Rex Little said...

Unz points to the high rate of incarceration of blacks, which is of course not news to anyone. But is it possible that blacks are jailed more often not because they commit more crimes, but because those that do (and maybe even those who don't) are more likely to be arrested and convicted because of racist police and courts?

I don't hold this view myself. I merely raise it as a point which race hustlers could make. Ideally, any study which purports to demonstrate black criminality should incorporate other statistics which couldn't be countered this way (in addition to incarceration rates, of course).

sunbeam said...

Marlo wrote:

A more interesting article might examine the correlation between crime and chronic unemployment - a condition that disproportionately affects blacks, through no fault of their own. It's intellectually lazy to mention that blacks are x times more likely to rob or murder, while ignoring the effects of 40-50% unemployment in post-industrial areas like Detroit, East St. Louis, Baltimore etc"

That is an interesting idea. How might we analyze it though? It sounds like a chicken and egg thing honestly.

I mean are there any other populations around that have such long histories of chronic unemployment that don't have high crime?

And you might find something different than you were expecting.

I'll defer to our resident experts on everything, but how many Russian crime lords are actually Russian, as opposed to Chechens, Azerbaijanis, Georgians, and the like?

I've got a mental picture of Russians as potentially homicidal if pushed, but more likely to drink themselves to death in that situation. Or if they do something violent, murder/suicide as the most likely result.

The whole crime lord thing seems more like a Caucasus kind of thing than a Russian one. The same guys that would have been tribal warlords are now running crime rings.

I could be wrong though.

Art Deco said...


Alexandria is a bedroom community for federal government workers and has a median household income of over $100k/yr. I think we can concede that the typical black HUD worker is not sticking up convenience stores or mugging people in the street.

But we can also admit that the blacks in Alexandria are quite atypical of blacks in general.


Again, fully 1/3 of the blacks in metropolitan Washington live outside the District of Columbia and Prince George's County. The mean homicide rate in these 10 suburbs is about 1.5 per 100,000 and the black share is 15% (above the national mean). You see this pattern in Detroit as well. About 1/3 of the blacks in metropolitan Detroit live outside of the Detroit municipality and the half-dozen problem suburbs. Again, the homicide rate in the Detroit suburbs is 2.4 per 100,000. (The same pattern applies in Rochester as well). There is a large bloc of the black population that blends in unnoticed.

Anonymous said...

Anyway, assuming the numbers from the source you've quoted are done in good faith, how do you explain the also apparently actual increase in the number of knife and gunshot wounds treated in hospitals that has been noted in this thread?

Different commenter, but chicks give it up easier, they got fatter, and internet porn. Half joke.

Anonymous said...

Marlo

"A more interesting article might examine the correlation between crime and chronic unemployment"

Sure, hence wiser generations promoting full employment as a public good and being against importing millions of cheap laborers to undercut wages and cause unemployment.

Surprising then that black leaders aren't anti-immigration. Perhaps they've all been bought by the open borders lobby the same as white politicians?

Art Deco said...

n the New York context the best examples would be places in New Jersey like Camden which took in a lot of the New York cleansing and were destroyed by it.

Camden is a component of greater Philadelphia, so it would not be a locus of 'cleansed' blacks from Brooklyn. Problem blacks have not been cleansed in Philadelphia. Blacks in general form 45% of the population therein and the city has a homicide of 22.2 per 100,000, 3x New York's. Camden's is worse at 47 per 100,000. The remainder of Camden, Gloucester, and Burlington Counties have hardly any homicides, so it looks as if Camden is just urban South Jersey's pit (92% of the South Jersey dense settlement is not in Camden).

The analogous areas in greater New York would be a half dozen municipalities in northern New Jersey and Westchester. The thing is, these are not particularly murder-ridden by 1980 standards. Five of the six (Mount Vernon (NY), Jersey City, Paterson (NJ), Orange (NJ), East Orange (NJ), and Elizabeth (NJ) have homicide rates in the range of 8-17 per 100,000. Orange and East Orange. Jersey City, Paterson, and Elizabeth are not abnormally black, either.

The exception is Newark (NJ). Newark has a high homicide rate (~30 per 100,000), but it long has. You have over 3 million blacks in greater New York and about 140,000 (< 5%) live in Newark, so the NYPD chasing troublesome people to Newark does not explain much (and actually explains nothing).

Art Deco said...

ow do you explain the also apparently actual increase in the number of knife and gunshot wounds treated in hospitals that has been noted in this thread?

Maybe your data is just misreported or misinterpreted. I am relying on the FBI, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and others.

Anonymous said...

"Camden is a component of greater Philadelphia, so it would not be a locus of 'cleansed' blacks from Brooklyn"

Except it was for whatever reason (usually transport or family links).

.

"The thing is, these are not particularly murder-ridden by 1980 standards."

Well nowhere is - so you have to compare like with like and not try and compare pre-paramedic homicide rates with the post-paramedic rates.

Anonymous said...

Without the 1924 Immigration Act, the country would indeed be whiter, but more Catholic and Jewish, and more ethnically fragmented. The Little Italys and Poletowns would be bigger and longer lasting, New York would be very Jewish. Southerners would be a smaller share of the population. The black percentage of the population would have dropped to maybe 6-7% (It was 9% in the 1930 census) The space and resources filled by those Europeans would not have been later available to Latin American and Asian immigration. The Great Migration would have been minimal. However, the country would probably have lost its Anglo-Protestant character and chosen the path of multiculturalism, like Canada.

Anonymous said...

Art Deco
"I am relying on the FBI, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and others."

That's part of the problem. The apparent discrepancy between the crime stats and medical records for knife and gunshot wounds.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324712504578131360684277812.html

However it doesn't matter for the main point if we assume the difference caused by medical advances doesn't change relative rankings much.

Similarly to know if the displaced New York population increased the crime stats in their new neighborhoods you'd need to know exactly where the displaced population went. I was told places like Camden, NJ by people who were involved back in Giuliani's time but who knows.

Again though it doesn't much matter as there is plenty of evidence generally that section-8 increases violent crime.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903520204576480542593887906.html

.

So is the reason New York's crime stats have fallen further than other cities to do with their cleansing of the black population?

Plainly so.

Will that cleansing have increased crime stats in the areas that got section-8ed?

Judging by what happens everywhere else again this is plainly so.

Is that why the elites want mass immigration?

No they are waging economic warfare on their fellow citizens and the elite outside a few favored media cities can't do it anyway. The opportunity for liberals in a few cities to reduce crime through cleansing the black population is just a bonus - on top of the cheap servant thing.

Anonymous said...

"But assuming it is true where are they going? Jersey? Connecticut? Pennsylvania? Down south? Where?"

I submit that they are going to smaller cities. I remember reading over 10 years ago that such cities had surpassed better-known areas like the South Bronx for concentrated poverty.

And this was well before I even started hearing about the "suburbanization of poverty".

It stuck in my mind because I worked in a city like that at the time.

Of course I've forgotten the reference, darnit. But, I did some Googling and I found some articles dating back to 2004 which support my hypothesis. [See below.]

"But don’t those cities have white elites, too? Shouldn’t those elites be resisting this influx and, indeed, trying to push their Blacks elsewhere? Is there any evidence for this?"

Well, I can tell you that smaller cities like Bridgeport and Waterbury, CT do not have white elites to resist the influx. But I can't speak for anywhere else.

FWIW, the gang bangers in Bridgeport, CT are very proud of the fact that rapper Biggie Smalls referred to their town as "Baby New York". Maybe his appellation reflects the movement of people from NYC to this smaller, extremely poor city? I know, it doesn't prove much, but it's an amusing data point.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070705203121AAZnAo3

Small Cities Hit Hard in Crime Report
Published: June 15, 2006
"Among the 15 other cities with 100,000 or more people in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, 10 had increases in violent crime, including 4 in the double digits. And in those 15 cities, taken together, the number of homicides rose by 28 percent."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/15/nyregion/15crime.html?_r=0

Small cities cope with crime surge
By Patrik Jonsson, Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor / July 6, 2004

"Violent crime, once mainly the purview of big urban centers, is now growing in many small and mid-size cities. Even as aggressive policing in places like Boston, New York, and Los Angeles helped dramatically lower the nation's overall crime rate in the 1990s, towns like Springfield, Mass.; Victoria, Texas; and Hattiesburg, Miss.; are now seeing a rise in murder, assaults, and other violent incidents."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0706/p01s03-ussc.html

Child Poverty Rates Are Especially High in Small Cities
SARA EDELSTEINFEB 08, 2013
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2013/02/child-poverty-rates-are-especially-high-small-cities/4642/

Art Deco said...

C'mon anonymous. There are about 38,000 blacks in Camden. The ruin of Camden explains very little and could not explain anything unless the place were a penal colony.

The same is the case with Mount Vernon and the aforementioned six municipalities in New Jersey. Of the 3 million blacks in metropolitan New York, no more than about 400,000 live in those seven municipalities, nor are those municipalities in bad shape when compared to central cities in ordinary metropolitan centers (Newark the exception). They have also experienced improvements in pubic security in the last 15 years (East Orange in particular). This notion that New York City improved internally by dumping the gangbangers on municipalities in New Jersey is not serious. The math simply does not work.

Anonymous said...

I think crime is migrating to places that many of us have never heard of, like Newburgh, NY.

Welcome to Newburgh, Murder Capital of New York

"This tiny city has a crime epidemic reminiscent of the Bronx of the seventies. It is also the scene of some of the most ambitious gang raids ever conducted, led by an FBI agent who knows the young men he’s arresting only too well."
By Patrick Radden Keefe Published Sep 25, 2011

"With a higher rate of violent crime per capita than the South Bronx or Brownsville, little Newburgh, population 29,000, is the murder capital of New York State."

"A threat assessment released in 2009 by the National Gang Intelligence Center found that gangs are “migrating” from urban areas to suburban and even rural communities. Statistics indicate that crime is dropping more quickly in our big cities than it is in their environs. One theory, which you’ll hear on the streets of Newburgh, is that New York City cleaned up crime by sweeping it into the surrounding area."

http://nymag.com/news/crimelaw/newburgh-2011-10/

Anonymous said...

Liberals and Jews want more immigrants (hispanics primarily) because of their behavioral nature. The Hispanics have IQs slightly higher than blacks and more submissive behavior. They kill several birds with one blow.
Immigration is part of the liberal agenda is politically correct and therefore will have no spot of ''original sin'' (racism) that choice.
Hispanics are usually owned by a true feeling of inferiority and admiration for white people.
See Mexico, the country has only 9% of whites but this minority completely dominates the country. Crime is high, but rarely reaches the elite.

More Hispanics in major American cities, nurseries of liberals and Jews, mean
Less crime compared to the average black
Greater respect for the authority of their Jewish and white masters, as is the case in Latin America (live in NY for a Mexican will not be much different than living in Mexico City, after all, the masters of light skin are 'the same' the only novelty is that it will be pushed to learn English).
With the presence of the always efficient and submissive Asians (South and East Asian), large American cities will be ready to consummate their multiracial nature.
Blacks go into a not too distant future, in the West, to turn into ''cult'' allegories.

Anonymous said...

"They can only do it if the media turn a blind eye (or deflect attention by pointing and sputtering in the opposite direction like at Zimmerman) so the only cities that can get away with it are cities with a lot of media connections e.g. New York, LA, DC etc."

What exactly is "it?" What are the specific methods used to "remove" blacks from these areas? I know that stop and frisk has been mentioned as such a tool (and I'm somewhat doubtful that this has had much effect in driving blacks out), but that is only used in NYC. What are elites in DC and LA doing to get rid of blacks?

Anonymous said...

Has Unz ever explained his pro-immigration smear campaign against Pete Wilson over prop 187,and how that comports with his apparent change of heart?

Has Sailer ever explained his man-crush on Unz in light of the former?

It would be great if Unz has indeed changed his mind but it would also be nice of him to say so. And it would be nice if he said "sorry" to all the native Californians--of all races--he smeared as racist at the time for supporting 187.

It would also seem to be incumbent on Steve, if Unz has not had a change of heart, to explain why Steve is so uncritically pro-Unz, given that absent a change of heart, they would appear to be diametrically opposed on the one issue that Steve cares the most about.

Anonymous said...

"I remember reading an article some years ago I think in the NY Times that stated African-Americans, descendants of USA slaves, were not a majority of NYC city's Black population. That immigrants and their children were the majority. I remember saying that this is the real reason for NYC crime rate has plunged."

Bingo. Despite all the hyperbolic talk of "cleansing," Unz mentioned that the black population of NYC has only declined 7% since 1985, while there has been a 67% decline in violent crime since then. I think the real story here has been the replacement of native blacks with more productive, less crime prone immigrant blacks

Art Deco said...

About 23,000 people live in Newburgh. It has had a problem for about 4 or 5 years. This is not altogether new. The place was depressing to look at a generation ago. A generation before that, it was one of the places Geraldine Ferraro's parents alighted. Dominick Ferraro was a civilian in the employ of the proto-Mafia.

Anonymous said...

"1/ If Unz's theory was true you'd see some barriers to Caribbean/African immigration going up and easier immigration for Asians. But you don't." - They'll deal with those problems when they crop up. For right now the immigrants coming in aren't coming in through chain migration, and their kids have yet to regress to mean just yet.

"2/ I wonder how many people noticed which group has easily the highest growth rate in crime? More proof for my theory that Whites aren't natural Republicans." - Guess which group becomes white when its members commit a crime.

Anonymous said...

"Apparently, Kennedy was correct. Mass immigration over the last few decades, legal and illegal, is not a result of the 1965 law. The 1924 law would have allowed mass Hispanic immigration as well - even more so, in fact. Blaming mass immigration on the 1965 law is disinformation. (I haven't read either law, only summaries, so I'm just going by that.)" - I don't think mexico was dealt with directly by the 1924 laws, but it was dealt with by other laws. the 1965 bill changed all of that, and added chain migration to the mix which is the big one.

Anonymous said...

You know, this thesis does seem to explain what's been happening to New Haven, CT.

New Haven was always basically a dangerous black slum surrounding a small Ivy League oasis. It was recently named the 4th most dangerous city in the U.S.
http://yaledailynews.com/crosscampus/2011/05/24/new-haven-fourth-most-dangerous-city-in-u-s-according-to-preliminary-fbi-data/

But, over the past 5-10 years the political leadership has really rolled out the welcome mat for Hispanics and illegal aliens, to the point of officially becoming a sanctuary city.
http://www.economist.com/node/9587843

Yale Law school students launched a crusade to punish cops in an adjacent white, working-class suburb (East Haven) for profiling Hispanics. This led to a Justice Dept. probe and the arrest of several officers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/03/nyregion/in-east-haven-hispanic-residents-stories-led-to-bias-charges.html?pagewanted=all

Now mayoral candidate Justin Elicker, a Yale and Foreign Service alum, has set up a Spanish-language website and is doing heavy outreach to Latinos.
http://www.elicker2013.com/press-coverage/elicker-campaign-launches-spanish-language-website

And he has some competition - "2 Latino Teams Court A Growing Community";

"Two different groups of passionate campaigners. Both after a prize: the estimated 12,500 (and growing) Latino voters in a city that has opened its arms to immigrants, where the official census counts (most recently 27 percent of the city’s population) can’t keep pace with the explosive population growth on the ground.

Whichever candidate prevails in the Sept. 10 Democratic primary, “the Latino community is the winner in this one,” observed Board of Aldermen President Jorge Perez, who was born in Cuba (and who supports Harp)."
http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/2_latino_teams_court_an_emerging_force/

I could never figure out why this was happening. If any place has a white elite that could resist illegal immigration, it's New Haven. And, if any place didn't need more poor people, it's New Haven.

There is really no industry here to employ them, just service jobs, and the effort to attract them seemed to pick up even after the housing bubble and it's attendant construction boom had popped.

Obviously, it's nowhere near the Mexican border. But the increase has been mostly from Mexico and Central America, not the Caribbean, as evidenced by the following quote from one of the articles above.

"The activists Thursday promising to put sweat and equity behind Henry Fernandez’s campaign found their way through causes and organizations with which Fernandez and Kica Matos (at the center of the photo at the top of the story), to whom he’s married, have allied themselves over the years, efforts that sprang up alongside the rise of New Haven’s Latin American-born community. Until this century, New Haveners of Puerto Rican heritage have dominated the city’s political and civic life."

Why was New Haven going out of their way to attract more poor people all the way from Latin America?

I couldn't figure it out, but now, thanks to Ron Unz, I understand.

Anonymous said...

ArtDeco

"This notion that New York City improved internally by dumping the gangbangers on municipalities in New Jersey is not serious."

I'll quote the anonymii who answered first

"A threat assessment released in 2009 by the National Gang Intelligence Center found that gangs are “migrating” from urban areas to suburban and even rural communities. Statistics indicate that crime is dropping more quickly in our big cities than it is in their environs. One theory, which you’ll hear on the streets of Newburgh, is that New York City cleaned up crime by sweeping it into the surrounding area."

http://nymag.com/news/crimelaw/newburgh-2011-10/

.

"What exactly is "it?" What are the specific methods used to "remove" blacks from these areas?...What are elites in DC and LA doing to get rid of blacks?"

New York, harass all the scary dudes and gangbangers out with zero tolerance, stop and frisk etc. This is not difficult - career criminals can't make any money if you're on their ass all the time so they move. Obviously it can't be done without the media keeping quiet. That's the critical factor.

It's not like black people are all eight times more violent than white people. It's just their percentage of violent individuals is much higher. Once the scariest ones are chased off gentrification is safe.

In LA the media has been turning a blind eye to hispanic gangs doing it with guns: ignore a low-level ethnic civil war in LA while pointing and spluttering at Zimmerman in Florida.

I don't know anyone in DC so i don't know what they're doing there except the black percentage is plummeting so they'll be doing something - maybe it's mass section-8?

Anonymous said...

Again, fully 1/3 of the blacks in metropolitan Washington live outside the District of Columbia and Prince George's County. The mean homicide rate in these 10 suburbs is about 1.5 per 100,000 and the black share is 15% (above the national mean)


Art Deco, I genuinely don't know what point you're trying to make here. Is it that "blacks" are not a homogeneous mass and that some are more likely to be criminals than others? Fine. I don't see where that gets us but yes, that much is obvious.

Likewise I'm sure that if there existed a 100% white metro area in the US, some parts of it would be "high crime" and others less so.

Anonymous said...

is it possible that blacks are jailed more often not because they commit more crimes, but because those that do (and maybe even those who don't) are more likely to be arrested and convicted because of racist police and courts?


No.

jody said...

agnostic, stop posting your incorrect ideas about violent crime. they are wrong. leave the violent crime discussion to people who actually know what they're talking about. you've turned into the canadian version of whiskey whenever this topic comes up. same mindless droning on and on every time. blah blah blah race doesn't matter blah blah blah.

since the 2013 super bowl, over 30 NFL players have been arrested. only 2 or 3 of them were white, all of them arrested for DUI. the rest were vibrant, the highest profile arrest being aaron hernandez, who is suspected in at least 4 murders. during the same time period, not 1 NHL player has been arrested, as far as i can tell. NHL in total averages maybe 3 arrests per year.

"But one thing that remains consistent over time is that Blacks commit the most crimes, followed by Hispanics, then Whites, then Asians, and this order does not change regardless of whether the overall crime rate increases or decreases in any given period."

3 or 4 years ago in LA, euro americans were committing less violent crime than asians per person. you read that correctly. the asians in LA were MORE violent than the europeans. not by a lot, but those were the statistics. this may have been due to asian gangs, but i didn't investigate to that degree. only noting the raw numbers.

i'm not sure what the current crime rates are in LA as far as that goes, but euro americans in 2012 are at 100 year lows in violent crime. that is the main reason US violent crime is down so much. just as fewer europeans are showing up to vote, and the GOP could benefit by getting 3 percent more of them to turn out than they could by getting 25 more of the africans or mexicans to turn out, so it is with crime. less europeans are showing up to murder and rape, and they are the biggest group. a 2 or 3 point drop for the largest group is like a 25 point drop for other groups.

putting violent criminals in prison and keeping them there, greatly increased police presence, improved police work, the drug war (which WORKS, contra drooling libertarian morons), and improved surveillance (to the point of violating the US constitution) are the reason that african violent crime is not totally out of control. it has gone up, not down, but up over the last decade. cocaine production and importation to the US is at 13 year lows. the mexican methamphetamine cartels in california have been broken.

like african violent crime, mexican violent crime is also up some, though they are not nearly as violent as africans. but they do introduce new levels of other nuisance and annoyance crimes. all forms of media, not just television, seem to have decided to completely ignore the chaos they have caused on america's streets and highways. car crashes, drunk driving, unlicensed driving, uninsured driving, are much more common now that mexicans fill our roads, and insurance rates are up in mexican populous cities. not to mention auto theft, where technology is in a constant battle against car thieves.

jody said...

"In the last 20 years, the frequency of forcible rape has declined by 40% and the frequency of robbery had declined 57% and the frequency of of aggravated assault by 45%."

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Rtc2.gif

getting harder and harder to rob and rape now that anybody could be carrying. ultimate moron john mccain seems to have flipped even on this issue, leading me to question how the GOP even functions anymore. as pat buchanan mused, one wonders if the GOP is even capable of governing the US at this point.

jody said...

"Krugman notices things have turned out differently in Pittsburgh and Detroit. Why?"

there's barely any africans in pittsburgh compared to detroit. even so, they do about 50% of the ganging and banging in the 'burgh.

a better comparison would be cleveland, which has gone through exactly the same transformation as detroit for exactly the same reasons. at it's height, cleveland was the 5th largest city in america. now it is a de-industrialized dump and increasingly african.

cleveland is where puerto rican kidnapper ariel castro operated, and is now where a new african serial killer, michael madison, was just discovered. madison, a registered sex offender, is wanted for 3 murders and suspected of more. this is only 4 years after another african serial killer, anthony sowell, was uncovered in cleveland.

my father will retire this year as an executive at eaton corporation, one of the largest businesses with headquarters in cleveland - or it used to be. eaton moved physical headquarters out of cleveland last year. this year, after finalizing the acquisition of irish manufacturer cooper industries, eaton declared the purchase a merger, and officially moved it's legal headquarters to ireland - so it could pay much lower irish income taxes, instead of the 35% corporate income tax which the US charges, the highest corporate income tax in the world.

so yet another US manufacturer, eaton corp, has left america for foreign lands, and the US government loses out on collecting any taxes from it's 17 billion a year income stream. fortunately however, obama will give a speech on the economy at knox college in illinois, a small liberal arts campus with 1400 students. 1400 budding cultural marxists versus eaton corp, which employs over 30,000 americans but is looking to slowly shift many of those jobs overseas.

this must be called 'balancing the math' in the world of obama. losing thousands of US jobs in a preventable move is ok as long as he's converting a few hundred 20 year olds to cultural marxism. hey, he's recruiting. job openings in the obama army are what matters. fundamentally transforming america is what counts here. not stupid straight white males and their dumb ideas about industry and manufacturing. they didn't build that, after all.

we never talk about cleveland on here (or any cities in ohio) but they are all like this. cincinnati, toledo, dayton, akron. the only city in ohio not totally going downhill is columbus.

David said...

Unz has a point. After all, Zimmerman the aggressive boy scout is Hispanic. While Martin the violent thief was even blacker than Obama's hypothetical son.

Steve Sailer said...

A quite large fraction of New York City blacks are now West Indians and Africans.

On the other hand, it's not clear that the Census comes close to accurately tracking down all the poor people in New York City

Anonymous said...

The Hispanics have IQs slightly higher than blacks and more submissive behavior.

Let me get this straight - you consider Hispanics who obey the law instead of going on criminal rampages to be submissive? You must be Whiskey's Stormfront cousin.

David said...

>is it possible that blacks are jailed more often not because they commit more crimes, but [...] of racist police and courts? I don't hold this view myself. I merely raise it as a point which race hustlers could make. Ideally, any study which purports to demonstrate black criminality should incorporate other statistics which couldn't be countered this way<

No. That countering is invalid on its face. It has an impossible burden of proving that all or most of the verdicts (for instance) were incorrect; or else the illogical burden of demanding that the prosecutors prove that they didn't throw or blow the cases (i.e. prove a negative).

Imagine if these burdens were accepted. What would count as "proof" of "non-racism"? Obviously, some form of disparate impact would be called on as the standard. Which means goodbye justice.

Anonymous said...

"Despite this they claim that had the Founders wanted a European nation, they would have enshrined it into the Constitution. However, even the Founders had no idea back then what would happen in the late 20th century"

Imagine what this country could have been had the Founders not allowed the slaves to be brought over.

Unfortunately, the founders were lazy and didn't want to do the field work and so the seeds of the destruction of the country were planted at the very beginning.

sunbeam said...

jody said:

"since the 2013 super bowl, over 30 NFL players have been arrested. only 2 or 3 of them were white, all of them arrested for DUI. the rest were vibrant, the highest profile arrest being aaron hernandez, who is suspected in at least 4 murders. during the same time period, not 1 NHL player has been arrested, as far as i can tell. NHL in total averages maybe 3 arrests per year."

I guess HGH is the main thing that is used, but I've thought for a long time that athletes in a lot of sports are aberrations if they don't juice.

Just wondering if steroids have something to do with these arrests.

You hear all kinds of things about different sports getting cleaned up, but the reports of suspensions for use of these substances keeps coming.

Marlo said...

sunbeam said:

"That is an interesting idea. How might we analyze it though? It sounds like a chicken and egg thing honestly."

Here's a link to a Swedish study that examines the relationship between long-term unemployment and violent crime:

http://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/lunewp/2011_034.html

More evidence: according to politifact, Nevada is No. 1 in unemployment and No. 2 in violent crime.

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/jan/26/no-casinos/nevada-no-1-unemployment-violent-crime-car-theft-d/

As you know, these are merely correlations. Yet, the findings are in line with some obvious truths: unemployed men often feel emasculated, and emasculated men are often violent. This, of course, doesn't mean that all violence is a result of unemployment.

"I mean are there any other populations around that have such long histories of chronic unemployment that don't have high crime?"

If I were conducting my own research, I'd focus on white collar individuals subjected to long-term unemployment for the first time; men with no prior history of violent crime, mental illness, alcoholism or drug abuse.

If you can show that these men are prone to violence, you can conclude that there's a causal relationship between high levels of long-term unemployment and high levels of violence in a community.



"I'll defer to our resident experts on everything, but how many Russian crime lords are actually Russian, as opposed to Chechens, Azerbaijanis, Georgians, and the like?"

Based on this video, I would say that most Russian prisoners are white: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ0duvcxVf0

Here's a video about Russian street children involved with murder (clearly white): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7gpeKDdGgY

Russian Criminals and their tattoos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZjfOJIeOLE

Some of them look to be from the Caucasus but the majority of them are clearly white.

By the way, HBDers, I'm not going to argue about why blacks are more likely to be unemployed. I'm simply making a point. Not everything is about race.

Anonymous said...

After reading a good number of unz articles, I've come to the conclusion that unz would rather be original than correct.

Yes, the "elites want to replace his blacks with Hispanics" is a novel argument, but its pretty bonkers.

His "Jews are overrepresented at elite colleges" made a little more sense, but even that one didnt really hold up to any real scrutiny.

Anonymous said...

"By the way, HBDers, I'm not going to argue about why blacks are more likely to be unemployed"


Anti-white liberals at the NYT wanting unlimited mass immigration for anti-white reasons and ignoring the consequences?

Anonymous said...

"Unfortunately, the founders were lazy and didn't want to do the field work"

Nope, not possible. Throughout history sugar plantations have always been associated with slavery because they were so labor intensive - starting from Yemen thousands of years ago then east to west to Ethiopia, to Ancient Egypt, Cyprus, Crete, Sicily, North Africa, Moorish Spain, West African Islands and finally the Caribbean and parts of the Americas.

For 3000 years sugar plantations = slavery.

.

"unemployed men often feel emasculated, and emasculated men are often violent."

Not really true. Emasculated men tend to get depressed. However *environments* of long-term unemployment *breed* violent and criminal men because they are relatively more successful in those environments. It's generational imo.

.

"A quite large fraction of New York City blacks are now West Indians and Africans."

A function of the racial churn?

1) Which black neighborhoods have disappeared?
2)Were they "historic" black neighborhoods in areas of what would be prime real estate in places like Manhattan?
3) Did the new black immigrants congregate in different neighborhoods?

I'm going to assume based on experiences elsewhere the answer to all three questions is yes.

Anonymous said...

Art Deco said...

Alexandria, Va. is a case in point. That municipality is 20% black and has a homicide rate of 2.0 per 100,000. I do not think you can demonstrate that diffused black populations have been a source of social problems.


Anyone who is familiar with crime in Northern Virginia knows that the ghetto of the area is the Route 1 corridor along Alexandria-Mount Vernon where there exists an unusually high concentration of black population for the region. It's just that this concentration happens to be sitting immediately next to a highly educated and affluent SWPL population in nearby touristy part of Alexandria and beyond. Your numbers are, therefore, highly misleading.

Anonymous said

If the asian/white/hispanic/black crime rates were 1/2/4/8 then replacing 8 for 4 is a big enough difference to make sense on its own and as mentioned the drop in crime in New York has been higher than anywhere else as a result of this cleansing.


Yes, yet 1 beats 4 any day in terms of crime, no? Going from 8 to 1 seems a lot better than from 8 to 4 if this were the main criterion. There must be other factors at work since "Hispanics and Asians" seem equally preferred allegedly.

Matt said...

If you want the true index of criminality for Asians vs Whites, we should be comparing a mixed basket of Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea and Japan to a mixed basket of Germans, French, Italians, British and Spanish (preferably while adjusting for migration, but this isn't hugely necessary).


That would be comparing apples to oranges since the conditions in these countries are vastly different. A more useful comparison would be how their rates vary in the SAME country. As Jared Taylor's "The Color of Crime" shows Asians in the U.S. display lower criminality than whites in the U.S. though not by as big a margin as the differences between blacks/Hispanics and whites.

Anonymous said...

"Yes, the "elites want to replace blacks with Hispanics" is a novel argument, but its pretty bonkers."

The elites in New York, LA and DC *are* replacing blacks with hispanics.

Unz is simply providing a possible explanation for why.

Anonymous said...

"This put the total number of visas available each year to new immigrants at 350,000. It did not, however, establish quotas of any kind for residents of the Western Hemisphere. (emphasis added)"

When I took Civics back in High School in the late 60s (in South Texas) we studied what it took to immigrate to the US. One of the things that was required was being able to demonstrate speaking in English.

The requirement to be able to speak English alone would have kept many of the current illegal immigrants from the Western hemisphere from being legal immigrants in the US. It also reduced the number of Mexican ag-labor types who would have even considered legally immigrating, as opposed to remaining annual migrant farm labor (coming from Mexican and returning each year).

At the time these laws were actually respected and enforced. That didn't last. Now we have the government that buries us in laws but only enforces what it pleases. Pretty much devolves to an arbitrary exercise in power.

Steve Sailer said...

Sugar was bad news. Jim in "Huckleberry Finn" is always terrified he'll get sold down the river to the sugar plantations. Tobacco was the nicest crop for slaves, with cotton in the middle.

Cigar rolling was even compatible with a well-informed work force. Cuban cigar-rollers often paid somebody to read them newspapers and books while they worked.

Anonymous said...

"Yes, yet 1 beats 4 any day in terms of crime, no? Going from 8 to 1 seems a lot better than from 8 to 4 if this were the main criterion."

True but say most of your violent crime rate comes from 20% of your population and you can replace them over 20 years with 5% asian and 15% hispanic - simply because that's the ratio they're arriving in - or only replace 5% with asians and wait another 40 years for the other 15%.

.

"Sugar was bad news."

In pretty much every way. Bees ftw.

Anonymous said...

"Without the 1924 Immigration Act, the country would indeed be whiter, but more Catholic and Jewish, and more ethnically fragmented. The Little Italys and Poletowns would be bigger and longer lasting, New York would be very Jewish. Southerners would be a smaller share of the population. The black percentage of the population would have dropped to maybe 6-7% (It was 9% in the 1930 census) The space and resources filled by those Europeans would not have been later available to Latin American and Asian immigration. The Great Migration would have been minimal. However, the country would probably have lost its Anglo-Protestant character and chosen the path of multiculturalism, like Canada."

Sounds almost utopian. If only that America had existed.

Matt said...

That would be comparing apples to oranges since the conditions in these countries are vastly different.

People create their own environments.

Within country comparisons don't make sense because of the cherry picked nature of immigration (i.e. East Asian migrants come out roughly the same on average, but have a higher % of people at the low and high end of ability) and because of the general advantage of foreign born people in crime, from being older and so on.

Art Deco said...

Art Deco, I genuinely don't know what point you're trying to make here. Is it that "blacks" are not a homogeneous mass and that some are more likely to be criminals than others? Fine. I don't see where that gets us but yes, that much is obvious.

[sighs and drums fingers]. The contention incorporated in the original post was that crime rates in New York City and other loci had fallen because recent immigrants had displaced the domestic black population. You would have to show that the thus diffused black population was damaging public order in their new residences. In the three metropolitan regions named, that is not the case.

I think the descriptive statistics from New York City's police precincts and community districts discredit the Unz thesis as well, at least as regards New York City.

Anonymous said...

The Alexandria Rt 1 corridor is not a part of the actual city of Alexandria but a part of Fairfax County. The black population of Alexandria has been diminished due to gentrification. The historic black section of Alexandria was located in Old Town which is very expensive now 800 sq ft row homes going for 500k+ for example.

Alexandria has also broken up problematic housing developments and have adopted a scattered public housing model. New developments tend to have some units reserved for public housing residents.

Finally on the West End of the city the Black population is increasingly of West African immigrants.

Anonymous said...

All this talk about Prince Georges County, Maryland -- I live right next to PG County, and have worked and gone socially there often. As it has gotten more black (and hispanic) it has transformed into a crime-ridden place. The kind of place where people say, don't wait for the bus to get to the metro station because a girl got kidnapped and raped, etc., etc. I don't really understand how anyone can use someplace like PG County (or any other place where blacks form more than about 15%) is not affected profoundly by serious crime, the kind of crime that makes you feel like a prisoner in the your very own town, paid for by your very own taxes.
Makes you fell like you need a watchful protector, a silent (or noisy) guardian -- a Zimmer Man.

Anonymous said...

"True but say most of your violent crime rate comes from 20% of your population and you can replace them over 20 years with 5% asian and 15% hispanic - simply because that's the ratio they're arriving in - or only replace 5% with asians and wait another 40 years for the other 15%." - they aren't being replaced, they are being moved into other communities.

Anonymous said...

''Let me get this straight - you consider Hispanics who obey the law instead of going on criminal rampages to be submissive? You must be Whiskey's Stormfront cousin.''

I do not understand.
The term coined submissive is well here. In the end, all the people from medium to high IQ tend to be'' submissive'' are civilized, spayed, Christianized.
In the case of Hispanics is the Mongoloid component coming from the Amerindians, which makes them more submissive and less confrontational in relation to the established order.
Blacks, when they are not in a trance ethnocentric tribe with high iq, are also submissive but as most do not have the cognitive ability to maintain a minimum of modern society (aka western style) then end up becoming anarchists involuntary.

Art Deco said...

Re: Prince George's County:

The place is notable for low police density. If the ratio of local police to the population in tract developments was around the national mean for metropolitan settlements, the number of sworn officers would be about 2.5x what it is at this time. They need to hire more cops. The homicide rate is currently 16 per 100,000. For a suburban zone, that is exceedingly unusual (and not replicated in any other DC suburb, august or scruffy).

Anonymous said...

The term coined submissive is well here. In the end, all the people from medium to high IQ tend to be'' submissive'' are civilized, spayed, Christianized.


I'm sensing that English is not your native language. "Submissive", "spayed", "civilized" and "Christian" are not synonyms. They are four distinct and different things.

Anonymous said...

Camden is a component of greater Philadelphia, so it would not be a locus of 'cleansed' blacks from Brooklyn.


Your proclaiming it does not make it so. There is nothing whatsoever to prevent blacks displaced from NY from moving to, among other places, Camden NJ. They do not say to themselves "Uh oh, Camden is a component of greater Philadelphia - let's not more THERE!"

As your yourself point out, the violent crime rate of the blacks who remain in NY, though still high, is lower than that of blacks elsewhere in the US. It is also true that the percentage of the NY populations which is black has dropped. The only logical conclusion is that the blacks who have left the city are the most violent ones.



You would have to show that the thus diffused black population was damaging public order in their new residences.


Since there is no way to know for certain where their new residences are, you are setting a condition which is (by design, I suspect) impossible to meet.

Anonymous said...

Despite all the hyperbolic talk of "cleansing," Unz mentioned that the black population of NYC has only declined 7% since 1985, while there has been a 67% decline in violent crime since then.


I can well believe that those 7% were responsible for a huge amount of the crime in NYC, and that their de facto expulsion would have the results which have been seen. It seems like the "Unz is wrong on this" crowd are working on the assumption that "A black is a black is a black". Clearly that is an incorrect assumption.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

True but say most of your violent crime rate comes from 20% of your population and you can replace them over 20 years with 5% asian and 15% hispanic - simply because that's the ratio they're arriving in - or only replace 5% with asians and wait another 40 years for the other 15%.


Except that "the ratio they're arriving in" has been completely policy-dependent and not fixed at all. Hispanic immigration has been largely illegal in recent years while Asian ones have been mostly legal (indeed, as illegal immigration declined in recent years, the immigrants' ethnic pattern has shifted from majority Hispanic to plurality Asian starting about 2010).

If urban elites wanted that 20% "thug population" to be replaced entirely by Asians, rather than by Hispanics, they could have achieved it. Yet they have done the opposite (prefer Hispanics) by enacting policies like "sanctuary cities" and such.

Again, Unz's thesis does not make sense because if replacement of higher criminality minority by lower criminality minority were the main criterion, these elites would have preferred Asians, not Hispanics. So I suspect other motives/fears.

Matt said...

People create their own environments.

Within country comparisons don't make sense because of the cherry picked nature of immigration (i.e. East Asian migrants come out roughly the same on average, but have a higher % of people at the low and high end of ability) and because of the general advantage of foreign born people in crime, from being older and so on.


"People create their own environments" is simplistic and does not reflect actual historical pattern. The causality between people and environment go BOTH ways, not one way. In other words, Swedes made Sweden as much as the Swedish environment made Swedes.

If you want to compare apples to apples, you have to put people in the same environment.

Your point about the advantages, in terms of lower criminality, of selecting immigrant population is well-taken. It is absolutely true -- with all ethnic groups, including whites, immigrants display lower criminality than American-born of the same ethnicities.

That methodological problem can be bypassed largely by looking at crime-related numbers for the American-born of various ethnicities.

Here are the incarceration rates from a 2010 study:

Non-Hispanic whites (native-born): 1.7%
Mexicans (foreign-born): 0.7%
Mexicans (native-born): 5.9%
Chinese/Taiwanese (foreign-born): 0.2%
Chinese/Taiwanese (native-born): 0.7%

Note that the American-born Chinese still show lower criminality than native-born whites (0.7% vs. 1.7% respectively).

Another point to note is that the negative criminal effect of assimilation varies by ethnicity. With Mexicans it jumps more than 8 times while for Chinese it only jumps 2 1/2 times. Apparently Chinese kids born here are more resistant to the lure of our degenerate popular youth culture (which, again, is consistent with other proxies like marriage rates, divorce rates, etc.).

By the way, the assimilative effect is NOT uniform across all Asian groups. Laotians and Cambodians, for example, show worse-than Mexican numbers (0.9%/7.3%), but with the same 8x effect. So clearly NE Asians and SE Asians diverge in this regard.

Jared Taylor's study confirms this overall relationship pretty well as it shows that Asians (NE, SE & subcontinental) in the U.S. (mixture of foreign-born and U.S.-born) are 1/4 less likely to be violent criminals than whites.

Finally, regarding PG County near DC, the one thing that captures the area perfectly is that it is the most affluent "black" county in the country, yet it is the county with the highest criminality and the lowest test scores among DC suburbs, many of which have only 55-60% whites. Meaning, even in a highly "diverse" region, PG County's "achievement" is quite unique.

David Davenport said...

Operation Wetback

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: Operation Wetback (1954): Implementation and tactics[edit]

Operation Wetback was a system of tactical control and cooperation within the U.S. Border Patrol and alongside the Mexican government.[30] Planning between the INS led by Gen. Joseph Swing and the Mexican government began in early 1954 while the program was formally announced in May 1954.[31] On May 17th, 1954 command teams of 12 Border Patrol agents, buses, planes, and temporary processing stations began locating, processing, and deporting Mexicans that had illegally entered the United States. 750 immigration and border patrol officers and investigators, 300 jeeps, cars and buses, and 7 airplanes were allocated for the operation.[32] Teams were focused on quick processing and deportation, as planes were able to coordinate ground efforts more quickly and increase mobility. [33] Those deported were handed off to Mexican officials, who in turn deported them into central Mexico where there were many labor opportunities.[34] While the operation would include the cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Chicago, its main targets were border areas in Texas and California. [35] Overall, there were 1,078,168 apprehensions made in the first year of Operation Wetback, with 170,000 being captured from May to July 1954.[36] The total number of apprehensions would fall to just 242,608 in 1955, and would continuously decline by year until 1962, when there was a slight rise in apprehended workers.[37]

During the entirety of the Operation, border recruitment of undocumented workers by American growers continued due largely to the inexpensiveness of undocumented labor and the desire of growers to avoid the bureaucratic obstacles of the Bracero program; the continuation of illegal immigration despite the efforts of Operation Wetback was largely responsible for the failure of the program.[38] Despite the decline in apprehensions, the total number of Border Patrol agents more than doubled to 1,692 by 1962, and an additional plane was also added to the force.[39] In terms of apprehensions, Operation Wetback was immediately successful.

However, this success would be short lived, as the program would fail to limit the number of workers entering the United States from Mexico illegally.[40] The program would also result in a more permanent, strategic border control presence along the United States - Mexico border.[41]

Anonymous said...

''I'm sensing that English is not your native language. "Submissive", "spayed", "civilized" and "Christian" are not synonyms. They are four distinct and different things.''

You is right, but actually these words became synonyms.

David Davenport said...

However, this success would be short lived, as the program would fail to limit the number of workers entering the United States from Mexico illegally.[40] The program would also result in a more permanent, strategic border control presence along the United States - Mexico border.[41]

I forgot to add this comment last night:

Neither sentence in that last paragraph is true. Those sentences are the Wikipedia entry writer's editorial gloss on his factual paragraphs.

Operation Wetback was a success.