His-Panic

The cover story for the March issue of The American Conservative is one of the more courageous endeavors I've seen from a political magazine in a long time. "His-Panic," written by Ron Unz, the magazine's publisher, tackles "axe-grinding ideologues" who Unz says "have fallen for a myth of immigrant lawlessness." It's a lengthy, persuasive argument against the notion that Hispanic immigrants are a disproportionate cause of crime.

For a magazine co-founded by anti-immigration paleocons Pat Buchanan and Taki Theodoracopulos, the story risks alienating a hell of a lot of the magazine's readers.

The issue also hits newsstands during CPAC, the annual D.C. gathering of conservative activists. So far, the article doesn't seem to have generated much discussion on the blogs. And it may not. When I wrote about immigration, crime, and the "El Paso Miracle" last July, I went on Lou Dobbs' radio show to defend the column. To my surprise, Dobbs had few quarrels with the thesis, and claimed he has never insinuated that immigrants—even illegal immigrants—are especially prone to violent crime. If viewers of his TV show happened to draw such a conclusion based on his tendency to sensationalize the occasional violent crime that happened to be committed by an immigrant, I suppose that's just beyond his control.

But this is why Unz's piece is so remarkable—and valuable. The lawless immigrant myth simply isn't backed up by any serious data, but it's still common and commonly perpetuated by the anti-immigrant right, if only by anecdote. It'll be difficult for that to continue now that the paleo-right's flagship publication has torpedoed the myth on its cover. I just hope they don't lose all their subscribers in the process.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    I think a vein just burst in lonewacko's head.

  • LibertyBill||

    If only we could all see that

  • Xeones||

    Nostalgically preemptively shut the fuck up, LoneWacko.

  • ||

    Can't there be a ban expiry date, if they're going to ban someone in the first place? Like 6 months or something? Or 600 years for Xeones?

  • Mike Laursen||

    Really, what fun is it posting something like this if Lonewacko's not around.

  • ||

    They occasionally publish some of his syndicated columns. He no longer has any editorial or managerial control over the content. As far as being "the paleo-right's flagship publication", it hasn't been any such thing for quite some time. Paleocons gave up on it quite some time ago.
    Affilojetpack

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    For a magazine co-founded by anti-immigration paleocons Pat Buchanan and Taki Theodoracopulos

    who no longer have anything to do with it, and haven't for some time. It's basically deteriorated into another leftist rag, the name notwithstanding. If you want to read the views of Buchanan, Theodoracopulos and the like-minded, go here.

  • Ray Pew||

    The website has an article by Buchanan posted Feb. 19, 2010.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    They occasionally publish some of his syndicated columns. He no longer has any editorial or managerial control over the content. As far as being "the paleo-right's flagship publication", it hasn't been any such thing for quite some time. Paleocons gave up on it quite some time ago.

  • LibertyBill||

    The Paleos havent given up, if anything illegal-immigration and Obama's election have reengerized them. They havent been this active since the Cold War.

  • ||

    Has anybody seen that goalpost? It was here a minute ago.

  • Zeb||

    "If you want to read the views of Buchanan, Theodoracopulos and the like-minded, go here."

    Why would one want to do that?

  • Xeones||

    Dammit, Aresen, i was trying to get first comment. You damned Canadians, coming over here and stealing American commenters' jobs...

  • ||

    You're welcome Xeoneswacko.

  • Neck the Color of a Fine Wine||

    DERTEKENERJERBS!

  • ||

    They occasionally publish some of his syndicated columns. He no longer has any editorial or managerial control over the content. As far as being "the paleo-right's flagship publication", it hasn't been any such thing for quite some time. Paleocons gave up on it quite some time ago. download the american | download machete

  • ||

    The article admits that Hispanic immigrants are two and a half times more likely to be incarcerated than native whites. Then goes on to say that that doesn't mean immigrants are more violent than natives because the immigrants are disproportionally young and male. And when you compare the incarceration rates of young and male natives and immigrants the number looks better.

    Well big fucking deal. The problem is not that Mexicans or Salvadorians are more violent as a group than anyone else. The problem is that immigrants are disproportionately young males who tend to raise hell and get into trouble. If the immigrants were disproportionately grandmothers, there wouldn't be a crime problem.

    The article then proceeds from that huge logical fallacy. It is just a crap article. It would have been nice if Balko had bothered to read the damn thing before posting it.

  • ||

    So you're saying we should be all his-panicking over hispanic immigrants because they're mostly young males? That it would be okay if wetbacks were old females instead?

  • ||

    Pretty much. Where would you rather live, next to a home aged widows or a fraternity house? Which neighbors are going to cause fewer problems and bother you less? Which group is more likely to have someone in the group arrested?

    Go to communities with high illegal immigrant population. The problem is that you have a bunch of young men, away from home, with no wives or girlfriends, and thus tend to raise hell and get into trouble. Nothing against the immigrants. Most young men are like that.

    That is not necessarily an argument against immigration. In fact, it could be considered an argument for open borders. If we had more open borders, more of these guys would bring their families with them and we would get a better mix of people and have fewer problems. But, it does no good to pretend that the facts are not what they are.

  • ||

    If we had more open borders, more of these guys would work seasonally and leave their families where it was cheaper to raise them.

    ...thus mitigating some of Slap the Enlightened!'s worries as well.

  • ||

    Maybe so. I think that is a valid point. But the article is total crap.

  • ||

    Go to communities with high illegal immigrant population.

    Been there done that. Or more accurately, born there raised there. Young male illegal aliens do not party more excessively than young males of the legal variety. The only different I could detect was that the hispanics preferred cock fights while the rednecks preferred dog fights.

    Maybe we should deport all young males regardless of citizenship.

  • INEED A DRINK||

    Polygamous sects routinely drive out teenage boys because they are seen as competition of the three wives to reach paradise goal.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    It's not like crime is the only concern about immigration, either. Here's an NYT article you'll never see blogged about on Hit & Run

  • Zeb||

    STFU Lone Whacko?

  • ||

    Wow! Poor people don't intellectually stimulate their children as much as wealthy folks do.

    Who'd a thunk it?

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    Apparently your parents didn't stimulate you much, either:

    But from 24 to 36 months, the Hispanic children fell about six months behind their white peers on measures like word comprehension, more complex speech and working with their mothers on simple tasks.

    Read for comprehension much?

  • Zeb||

    So what point are you trying to make? Hispanics are stupid?

  • Slap the Retarded!||

    DER TEKEN UR JORBS!!!!!!!!!1

  • zoltan||

    He's trying to say that obviously white peers means white kids of a similar background to the Hispanic ones...riiiiiiiiiight.

  • Old Mexican||

    If the immigrants were disproportionately grandmothers, there wouldn't be a crime problem.

    Grandmothers just aren't good roofers . . .

  • ||

    Actually, that is close to the point I wanted to make:

    Young males are also disproportionately likely to start businesses.

    My experience with the immigrants I have known is that they have a lot more moxie and willingness to work than the typical North American high school graduate.

  • ||

    Maybe so. And it may be that they are worth the extra crime they bring as a group. But don't piss on my head and tell me it is raining by telling me that immigrants are not disproportionately violent they are just disproportionally young and male.

  • ||

    And...?

  • ||

    More likely to be incarcerated, or more likely to commit violent crime? If the War on Drugs has taught us anything it's that incarcerations don't necessarily result from violent crime. Add to that, simply being in the US can get a Latin American imprisoned because it's against the law.

  • ||

    The rates of violent crimes are higher to. Further, we do not imprison illegals unless they have committed another crime.

  • Radley Balko||

    John,

    Did you actually read the article?

    Unz offers plenty of explanation as to why Hispanics have higher incarceration rates than whites, not least of which is that they're about 100% more likely to be incarcerated for immigration-related offenses. That doesn't make them more violent.

    The second-safest big city in the U.S. is El Paso, which also has the highest percentage of immigrants. San Jose, San Diego, Fort Worth, New York, and San Antonio are also in the top ten, and all have large Hispanic populations.

    Of the ten least safe cities, only Dallas and Houston have large Hispanic populations. Just a hunch, but I'll bet recent immigrants aren't committing the rapes and homicides in those two cities.

  • ||

    And he commits one falacy after another. He excludes high incarceration rates in the Northeast because that is the result of Dominicans and Puerto Ricans, as if they are not really Hispanics or Domincans are not really immigrants.

    He basically just ignores all the stats that he doesn't like and finds a few that support his thesis. And so what that San Antonio and El Paso are safe cities. Maybe they just have kick ass police departments and the criminal elements therefore tend to stay away from them. That fact in itself doesn't prove anything.

    It is a crap article in a nutcase rag of a magazine. The case for open borders can be made better than that.

  • ||

    I read the article as saying basically that the fact that someone is a Hispanic immigrant does not tell you anything about the likelihood that he will commit violent crime. The higher proportion of young men, the difference between Caribbean Hispanic and Central Americans and the fact that illegal immigrants are liable to arrest for immigration violations all go toward proving that one thing.

  • zoltan||

    He basically just ignores all the stats that he doesn't like

    Sounds familiar.

    Of course, anyone who thinks El Paso and San Antonio have kick-ass police departments and wants to ignore the stats for that is just plain right.

  • ||

    The second-safest big city in the U.S. is El Paso, which also has the highest percentage of immigrants. San Jose, San Diego, Fort Worth, New York, and San Antonio are also in the top ten, and all have large Hispanic populations.

    DNBRFA, but the number of overall crimes has no bearing on the percentages of groups who commit them.

    Please quit this non-sequitur, Ron. Perhaps hispanic immigrants are less violent. The fact that they live in cities that have less violent crime doesn't make it so, whatever their percentage of the population, and you should know it. When you present statistics in this fashion it makes me think that you don't even believe what you are saying.

  • PIRS||

    "If the immigrants were disproportionately grandmothers, there wouldn't be a crime problem."

    In Florida they ARE disproportionately grandmothers and they cause problems on the roadways and increase trafic accidents.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    The problem is that immigrants are disproportionately young males who tend to raise hell and get into trouble.


    On average, young males are more likely to pack their bags to move to another place than other people.

  • ||

    There are other issues as well. Ideally, immigrants should have a vastly lower crime rate, because they would go through some sort of vetting process. You know, good old-fashioned legal immigration, where they can reject you for (e.g.) having gang tattoos.

    I've read that the "immigrants have low crime rates" argument ignores the crime rates of the first-generation children of immigrants. They are often citizens by birth and don't count as "immigrants," but have a much higher crime rate than their parents.

    Finally, how accurate are the crime stats in immigrant communities? If you're an illegal, you may not want to report a crime.

  • ||

    How is pointing out that young males commit crimes a logical fallacy?

    They also dig ditches. and we need some ditches dug cuz grandma ain't going to do it.

    Plus if you live in Georgia or Florida those young males from Mexico are less likely to steal the shovel and bash your head in with it then the native young white males are.

  • ||

    No one said pointing to the fact that young males commit crimes is a logical fallacy.

    Plus, are you saying that in Georgia and Florida, immigrants from Latin America (because, after all, Hispanics don't come from just Mexico) are less likely to commit violent crimes than native white males?(because violent crimes, after all, aren't limited just to "steal the shovel and bash your head in with it").

  • ||

    +1

    Anyone who's personally dealt with the gang culture in Hispanic areas knows this is horseshit.

    Sell me something else, my eyes deceiving me and all.

  • PIRS||

    I have never bought an issue of this magazine before. I will go to my local Barnes & Noble and buy one if they have it.

  • Old Mexican||

    I have a question - how much gang violence would exist if schooling wasn't mandatory, if "Child" Labor laws did not include 15 years old and allowed them to pursuit an apprenticeship, if Minimum Wage Law were repealed, and if Drug Prohibition was repealed?

  • Geotpf||

    Gang violence would be greatly reduced if drug prohibition was repealed.

    The other items you listed would probablyu either have no effect or would actually increase gang violence if enacted. For example, if more kids weren't going to school, many of the marginal students would be in a gang instead. They would certainly have more free time to do so.

  • Ice||

    Not if they were working.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Ice,

    Exactly

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Geotpf,

    For example, if more kids weren't going to school, many of the marginal students would be in a gang instead.

    No, not necessarily. The stultifying effect of being trapped in a veritable prison for 6-8 hours listening to some half-wit about things they do not want to know is enough to drive them to a gang. If such kids were able to work, they could start being productive from 15 onwards, instead of just hanging out.

    Schools (at least, the public ones) were not and are not designed to instill a love for knowledge on kids, but to make obedient and unquestioning citizens/laborers. Let those that want to have their High School diploma go to school for it, and those that DON'T, let them WORK.

  • Geotpf||

    I think the quibble here is one year. Now, I think state laws differ, but I think in most areas 16 year olds can work full time instead of attending high school (possibly requiring parental permission). If that age is merely changed to 15, the net effect would be minimal, I would think.

  • josey||

    But, with the gang's main source of income eliminated, what would be the draw? What -- I suppose they would be able to keep 24s on their Escalades by practicing petty crime while nurturing dreams of becoming the latest Eminem or Jay-Z? Much as some of these penny-ante thugs would like to fancy themselves latter day Gambinos and Luccheses, today's gangs are really more opportunistic than organized. Remove their easy and guaranteed source of income, and for the most part, they will simply evaporate.

    Basically, I think you are underestimating the magnitude of what drug laws have done to the entire socioeconomic landscape.

  • Sudden||

    In my experience, most of the arguments made by those in favor of tighter immigration policy revolve not around immigrants lawlessness, but rather around immigrants abilities and willingness to utilize existing income redistribution laws to their benefit. Two undocumented parents have several kids, because said kids don't have parents with legal income, those families receive checks from the state for each kid each month. Then there's the healthcare thing (just drive by the county health services office in Boyle Heights sometime). I'll be the first to acknowledge that this isnt a problem with immigration as much as it is a problem with the welfare state, but that distinction doesn't seem to be constructive given the contituencies lined up to support the welfare state.

  • ||

    Yeah I think John is onto something. I mean, is the argument over whether hispanics are inherently more prone to violent crime? Perhaps some conservatives think this, but if belief in the inherent criminal tendencies (or lack thereof) of hispanics is not a necessary plank in the arguments over immigration, then criticizing a whole viewpoint based on finding that hispanics aren't *generally* prone to crime seems a bit beside the point.

    Hispanic immigrants tend to be disproportionately poor, young, and male.

    It also doesn't seem difficult to imagine that the criminal behavior among these could solidify into a community wide social problem: more and more young, poor, alienated young males show up, more and more boys get recruited into the lifestyle.

    Maybe it's an argument that we need to get more whole families from Latin America up here, (but I don't know, I mean, are there a ton of young, poor males in Latin America? If so then they wouldn't necessarily be made less violent by bringing them to the U.S.), maybe the contribution their labor makes to our economy is worth the trade-off, maybe we should close our borders. In any case, it doesn't seem all that revealing that by altering our lens, we can show that human being of hispanic descent are not more prone to violent crime than humans beings of European descent, because we're dealing with particular realities with immigration that provides our lens, through which we see that the group we label "hispanic immigrants" has a larger proportion of its members involved in violent crime than the group we label "native whites."

  • ||

    I can't claim comprehensive knowledge of coservativedom, but this is the first I've heard of this "myth of immigrant lawlessness". I do see people saying that our border-control is so messed up that we can't even deport most of the ones we know to be lawless. Each time there is an atrocity, by an immigrant here without INS approval, that was preceded by an arrest that might have been an opportunity to deport that person, we will hear about it. We don't hear about these events so regularly because they happen with any more frequency than crimes by citizens or legal immigrants, we hear about it because it illustrates a problem with our enforcement of present immigration laws.
    In forging an immigration reform "compromise" the public is promised that in exchange for measures like an amnesty on immigrants already here without official sanction, we will get measures like better border control and enforcement. My read (on those who I think you are referring to as "axe-grinding ideologues") is that they are saying "so what's stopping us from building a fence and deporting on first arrest now?
    Part of their concern (expressed in quotations highlighed in the first paragraph of the linked article) is the externalities associated with the trafficking of people across the border: crimes against immigrants by the people they've hired to bring them across, damage to property and ecology along the border -- not to mention that some think we are at war and our enemy might use this channel for weapons and personnel. Even worse, someone along the lines of Joe Kennedy might use the same routes to bring in banned compounds such as that demon drink. What year is this again?

  • ||

    Odd that legal immigrants and visitors don't seem to induce these externalities.

    Maybe there is a simple solution here...

  • ||

    There is a little laboratory in Europe, with some states open to immigration from the new-EU-members and some not. And there is certainly a myth of gypsy lawlessness in Europe if you use the anthropological definition of the word.
    (Although it seems the Irish Republic's most notorious offender was a Pole named Prawo Jazdy ...)

  • ||

    Yes, simple:

    If you believe that people can be kept out, then you tighten border security.

    If you don't, or do but have a moral or some other kind of objection, it's to make immigration legal for everyone.

    The question is if this would change the make-up of hispanic immigrants such that they would then be like East Asian immigrants. That strikes me as a question we don't have an answer to, or at least one doesn't spring to mind. I mean, is it that these young, poor males are at home all happy and law-abiding, then they come here and become idle and lonely and start to tear shit up? And our prohibition distorts which parts of the population from Latin America ends up here?

    Or is it that there are young, poor males in Latin America and in North America, tearing shit up, no matter where they hang their hat?

    Is it a little of both?

  • ||

    Oh OK Radley, so the argument is literally that there is no reason to think that the group "immigrants from Latin America" has a larger share of its members engaging in violent crime than the group "native whites?"

    I thought that the caveat was that the *reason* that immigrants from Latin America have more of its members engaging in violent crime is because they're disproportionately young and male. And that John's point was that this isn't a useful piece of information because after all, many hispanic immigrants are young and male (I throw in poor).

    I mean, I suppose we should always be open to data, but is the claim seriously that hispanic immigrant groups aren't more populated by violent criminals than native white groups?

  • ed||

    Look, I've seen MSNBC's Lockup, History Channel's Gangland and truTV's Operación Repo. Them Mexes is badass muthus! The tats, the low-riders, the fat chiquitas...brrr! Hide your daughters, white America.

  • Dave A.||

    I live in a very hispanic neighborhood in Herndon, VA. Someone in the neighborhood kept stealing our trash can so I of course kept assuming it was it was one of my El Salvadoran neighbors.

    Turns out, it was the black guy in the house right next to mine who was using the trash cans to store things in his back yard. Everyone got their trash bins back when their house went into forclosure. I sure felt like a jackass!

  • vince||

  • ed||

    Friggin' Eye-talians!

  • ||

    I suspect open-border libertarians are motivated more by the principle of open borders than short term political calculations.

  • Zeb||

    One doesn't generally become a libertarian for practical reasons.

  • virginia||

    "We reform the immigration laws, it puts 12 million people on the path to citizenship and eventually voters," stated Eliseo Medina, international executive vice-president of Service Employees International Union, or SEIU … Can you imagine if we have … two out of three? Can you imagine 8 million new voters who care about our issues and will be voting? We will be creating a governing coalition for the long term, not just for an election cycle.

    yeah, but then the joke's on them when they become legal, earn enough to rise above the poverty level, and then... start paying taxes. that's when the wheels fall off SEIU's bus.

  • ||

    DER, WE MUST LIMIT FREEDOM IN ORDER TO PROTECT IT, DER.

  • .||

    Why don't we try letting Israel open their borders first? If it works for them, then we'll try it here, too.

  • ||

    Few would deny that immigration cannot be moderated to minimize serious and individually provable threats to the public.

    I would argue that the economic migrants that make up the vast majority of prospective US immigrants are not that similar to the existential enemies that make up the majority of prospective Israel immigrants. You may disagree.

  • ||

    Yes, with so many more terrorists waiting in Mexico the smart thing to do would be to see how it works out in Israel first. I totally agree.

  • libertybill||

    I thought the Neocon rags supported Statist Social Conservativism to the T

  • Michael Ejercito||


    Do open border libertarians not realize that unskilled 3rd world immigrants vote overwhelmingly for leftist politicians? What's worse they are socially right-wing, so you get the worst of both worlds.


    So why wasn't America dominated by the left-wing during the 1890's, with scores of naturalized citizens from Italy, Ireland, and Poland, which were the equivalent of Third World countries back then?

  • ||

    Sometimes they'll stumble across the realization, but the WILL TO BELIEVE is just too strong.

    Ideological overreach strikes again.

  • ||

    The "realization" is already known. What isn't known is why it would matter to a libertarian?

  • Abdul||

    don't confuse me with your words and statistics. I can judge 'em by the cover-model's face.

  • ||

    Got to love the red necks.

    According to a graph in the article Florida and Georgia have a higher incarceration rate among whites then among Hispanics.

  • a||

    I just hope they don't lose all their subscribers in the process.
    You condescending fuck. The American Conservative was opposing the mass murder in Iraq when half of your colleagues were baying for blood. I'd say American Conservative readers are less into foreigner-bashing than a lot of your cosmo pals are.

  • ||

    Yeah, we libertarians loved the Iraq war from the beginning and hate immigrants. How dare Balko insinuate that conservatives are pro-war and anti-immigration. RAWR.

  • a||

    Do you know any fucking thing about the magazine in question? Do you know any fucking thing about the Iraq record of Reason's staffers?

  • ||

    I really don't give a fuck, honestly. I do, however, know what the vast majority of conservatives believe about Iraq and immigration.

  • a||

    I really don't give a fuck, honestly
    Then why, Christ almighty, didja open yer yap?

  • ||

    Because you opened yours and let out the stupid.

  • a||

    nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah

    Rock on.

  • ||

    I mean is there some unidentified group that reads American Conservative that are even more libertarian than libertarians and aren't really conservative? Because that's what you seem to be trying to pass off here.

  • matt||

    Are you actually too dim to realize that Reason published various pro-war opinions and AmCon published none?

    Because that's established fact.

    The rest is just you being an ass, and the more of that you do, the more you prove our point.

  • MNG||

    I realize this doesn't fit in the Talk Radio-esque paradigm of the right leaning folks here, but I'm a long time subscriber to AmCon. Of course, I voted for Buchanan for President too...But the mag has always been thoughtful, a great read, agree or disagree with it.

  • ||

    So that's where MNG gets his strawmen from...

  • ||

    "I just hope they don't lose all their subscribers in the process."

    Why do you care?

  • ||

    I judge people by how likely they are to have a spare ball or two they are willing to sell for cheap. Hey, it's Friday....

  • ||

    "San Jose, San Diego, Fort Worth, New York, and San Antonio are also in the top ten, and all have large Hispanic populations.

    Of the ten least safe cities, only Dallas and Houston have large Hispanic populations."

    I have another explanation.

  • Colin||

    I live in a heavily Hispanic community, many of whom are almost certainly illegal.

    I've never felt safer in my life.

  • ||

    Good article -- stupid title.

    And this is from someone who enjoyed MonsTurd and RetarDead.

  • PIRS||

    This is also the title of a book by Geraldo Rivera
    http://www.amazon.com/His-Pani.....amp;sr=1-3

  • Maverick||

    Fairly interesting article, but why title it The Myth of Immigrant Crime and put said title on the right cheek of a tatoo'd ne'er do well who's more fact than legend? But let's get down to brass tacks: white people stole my car.

  • SpikeTedAgnew||

    Balko "the blogs have been slow to pick this up". Reason's included! I read that last month. I would hope that Reason writers and readers would be reading American Conservative and TakiMag too. Also, read this blog written last month, in a timely fashion, refuting the article
    http://inductivist.blogspot.co.....rship.html

  • TallDave||

    Inner-city black neighborhoods have the highest crime rates, and they aren't immigrants.

    Asian and Arab immigrants have lower crime rates and higher incomes than native whites, because they tend to come from traditions of civility and study. It's really culture that drives crime rates, not race or immigrant status, and cultures can come from anywhere and wear any skin color.

  • ||

    TallDave,

    But the group that some are concerned about are immigrants from Latin America, in part because these are the ones that may or may not continue coming here in large numbers, depending on immigration policy.

    The issue is not about immigration per se, or race per se, but Hispanic immigration. One doesn't have to assert anything about the inherent nature of racial groups to take a conservative view on the issue, which is why I'm still all all that clear what the article demonstrates (that is, how it changes the debate).

    If the idea is that we need to tweak our policy, or liberalize it to change the particular demographics of Hispanic immigrants, then OK. It also might mean we need to get tougher on immigration policy. But as it is, the article seems to claim that Hispanic groups don't have a higher proportion of its members committing violent crime, which is quite surprising. If it doesn't say that, then one has to wonder why it's important that the group we label "Hispanic immigrants" are more populated by violent criminals than native whites *because* Hispanic immigrant groups are more populated by poor young males.

    Theses two claims are different:

    1) The group labeled "Hispanic immigrants" has the illusion of being a more violent group in general, but the reason it seems that way is because the group has a higher relative proportion of poor young males.

    2) The group labeled "Hispanic immigrants" is not more populated by violent criminals than the native white group.

    2 seems like a revelation, and one that should impact the debate. 1 doesn't strike me as news, and I can't think of any obvious implications it should have on policy.

  • ||

    The magazine cover and article title already betrays the fact that the article is a veiled screed against hispanics and immigration.

  • ||

    CRITICISM OF UNZ's ARTICLE


    Ron Unz Vanishes Hispanic Criminality…Not!

    http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/100224_nd.htm


    Et Tu Amcon?

    http://mansizedtarget.wordpress.com/2010/01/27/et-tu-amcon/

  • ||

  • ||

    According to The American "Conservative", Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is as Law Abiding as Mary Poppins

    http://statsaholic.blogspot.co.....ative.html


    Will the “AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE” comments thread survive?

    http://blog.vdare.com/archives.....d-survive/

  • ||

    So why wasn't America dominated by the left-wing during the 1890's, with scores of naturalized citizens from Italy, Ireland, and Poland, which were the equivalent of Third World countries back then?

    Because it took them a while to develop political machines and get their candidates in office. When they did we got Roosevelt. And let's not forget a big part of that wave were Jews, who still vote 70-80 percent democratic in presidential elections.

  • ||

    There are, what, 17 or so 'hispanic' countries in this Hemisphere. Why do you people want to create an eighteenth one? That is quite frankly what your open borders preferences implies. You've already done it in Cali, and we see how well that is working out.

  • William||

    California's failing economy had nothing to do with immigrants and everything to do with their overtaxed and over socialized state. Here in Texas the economy is booming and we have just as many illegals as California. In fact, last I checked the Southwestern US was experiencing higher economic growth than the rest of the nation --the S.W has the highest concentration of undocumented laborers.

  • ||

    80 percent hispanic Santa Ana, California has something like 7.6 murders per 100,000 people in 2006. Nearby, largely white huntington beach had 1. Hunting beach is pretty edgy, lot of MMA 'dojos' etc. But still, 1 murder vs. 7.6

  • ||

    Do open border libertarians not realize that unskilled 3rd world immigrants vote overwhelmingly for leftist politicians? What's worse they are socially right-wing, so you get the worst of both worlds.Affilojetpack

  • sathi2000||

    TV show happened to draw such a conclusion based on his tendency to sensationalize the occasional violent crime that happened to be committed by an immigrant, I suppose that's just beyond his control.
    http://destinationsoftwareinc.com

  • lj220||

    it's really~~YREFDHFDD

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement