http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2010/03/unz_again_1.html

Wikipedia’s Seattle article is not unsourced. It is a “featured article”, with all the sources named. The Wikipedia figure is based on the American Community Survey conducted by the Census Bureau, a fact which is mentioned by Burton. However, it seems that some Wikipedia editor has accidentally picked the black population number from the wrong column in the table, reporting the black share of the entire US population as that of Seattle. So Unz’s number is correct.

However, as Burton says, when comparing crime in Seattle and San Jose, one should also take into account the fact that Asians commit very few crimes, and that there are twice as much Asians in San Jose than Seattle.

Is Ms.Glass telling us that she bought the ADC list of Sex Offenders offered below and found thereon both photos of the individual S.O’s and their “racial” classification by the ADC?

Otherwise, where is “there”?

————————————————–
From that Website:
{# Where can I find information regarding sex offenders?
Information regarding sex offenders can be viewed at Sex Offender Information.} Info on this page supporting JG’s claim = 0.
{The Arizona Department of Public Safety makes a current list of all registered sex offenders in Arizona available in a downloadable form. Information is only provided for sex offenders with risk assessment scores of Level 2 (Intermediate) or Level 3 (High), A.R.S. definitions.
Note: there is a charge of $25.00 for this list.}

I am utterly flabbergasted.

My mind must have been incapable of comprehending that anyone could do such a thing in an article published in a major journal.

The thing is that of course you’ll see a massive decrease in relative Hispanic Criminality if you pick some trait Hispanics have more of, divide the TOTAL Number of Hispanic Crimes by it, and then compare it to the result of dividing the TOTAL number of White Crimes by it!

Let’s say there were 10 times as many Hispanics who listen to Ricky Martin as Whites. Well guess what will happen if you divide the TOTAL Hispanic Crime Figures by the number of Hispanics who listen to Ricky Martin, and then quite insanely compare it to the result of dividing the TOTAL White Crime Figures by the number of Whites who listen to Ricky Martin?

The Ricky Martin adjusted Hispanic “Crime Rate” you’d generate would be FAR lower than the Ricky Martin adjusted White “Crime Rate”.

But of course it wouldn’t mean anything.

It wouldn’t mean anything at all.

And neither do Ron Unz’s “Age Adjusted” “Crime Rates”.

‘The problems start with Unz’s exclusion of the federal prison data. His reason is superficially plausible — the sole offense of some Hispanics in federal custody may be an illegal border crossing. It hardly seems fair, as Unz writes, to group “illegal nannies convicted of illegal nannying” with robbers and rapists who are typically put in state prisons. After throwing out the federal data and reducing HDW from 2.62 to 1.80, Unz says the reduction “presumably reflect[s] the exclusion of immigration-related federal offenses.”

That’s not true at all. The reduction mainly reflects the vagaries of state-level data collection. The reality is that relatively few people are held in federal prison for immigration violations unless they have also committed a more serious crime. It would be difficult to find any illegal nannies doing hard time.

In fact, the BJS data make it clear that mere immigration-related offenses cannot explain the reduction in HDW when the federal data are thrown out. As Matthew Roberts and Steve Burton recently pointed out in Chronicles, the number of people in federal prison for immigration violations is very small compared to the combined number of Hispanics in federal, state, and local custody. Even under the strong assumption that they should all be discounted, immigration-related offenses can account for only a tiny part of the HDW (Hispanics divided by Whites) reduction.”‘

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/model-minority/

I’ve read your quite interesting analysis of the relative criminality of Hispanic versus other ethnic groups in The American Conservative. Setting aside the obvious problem that Hispanic is not really a “race,” and also ignoring the obvious problems with comparing Seattle, WA with San Jose, Calif – in the the confounding, ameliorative effect on crime a 31% vs. 15% Asian population would have – we are still confronted with one enormous problem.

Namely, what is really at issue is count of actual crimes being committed, not normalised rates, per se. What has been set up is something of a straw-man, purporting that Hispanics, ipso facto, are more at risk for committing crimes, and then attempting to knock it over with data.

That particular question holds little interest to me – I am not any sort of anthropologist. Whether any group of people is 5% more likely or 9% less likely, all else being equal, to commit crimes is almost totally beside the point.

The bottom line question is, are those people who are actually here MORE or LESS likely to commit crimes? Given the undisputed data – that Hispanics in the US are disproportionately young, single, and male, the number of crimes being committed by people fitting this description will almost surely be disproportionately high. Considered as a reductio ad absurdum, the case where every single person of Hispanic origins were a 28 year old, single, poor, male; all else being equal, we would expect an inordinate amount of crime to be committed by Hispanics.

THAT is what people are reacting to. Anecdotal evidence has a very strong impact, whether it’s “fair” or not. Look at the arrest report data from San Jose (and Mr Unz lives in Palo Alto, a city where most of the Hispanics he likely encounters are when he goes out of his front door to hector the gardeners to turn off their gasoline-powered leaf blowers). It’s been an issue with the SJPD for many, many years that Hispanics are over-represented in arrests and other encounters with the police. Now, this may be due to a number of factors, but to the citizen who sees the arrests being made, that has an impact beyond the academic exercise of trying to determine whether as a cohort, “Hispanics” are more or less likely to commit crimes than other groups.

And finally, given that illegal immigration virtually guarantees an annual influx of young, single, poor males between the ages of 18-29 every single year, a reasonable person could not be blamed for concern about the AMOUNT of crime one might expect, rather than relative rates of it.

Put simply, your car is not stolen in per capita fractions, nor your home burgled on a centile basis.

Beyond that, he has no awareness that the cultural/illegal immigrant tsunami has little to do with felons. AmCon subscribers who want to preserve our European/English cultural traditions do not “hate” Latinos; we just want to keep our own heritage. We have a right to grow old in the country we were born in, and not have the rug pulled out from under us by any other ethnic group.

And how will this English language publication survive if we encourage our own demise?

“Unz writes: “Since the BJS state+local incarceration data is unfortunately stratified neither by age nor gender, I was forced to develop a methodology to adjust these figures for the age and gender differences of the relevant ethnic populations…my approach was simply to divide the total number of inmates by the total high-crime-age male population for each ethnic group to produce an age-adjusted incarceration rate…

“At this point I must confess that it’s only with the greatest difficulty that I’ve been able to persuade myself that Unz actually means what he seems to be saying here – i.e., that in an attempt to produce, e.g., an ‘age-adjusted incarceration rate’ for white males in his various chosen age ranges, he simply took the total number of white inmates regardless of age and sex and divided by the total white male population in those cohorts – and likewise for blacks and for Hispanics. But apparently that really is exactly what he did. If you take a few hours to work through this absurd procedure, you really do end up with the sort of numbers shown in his Fig. 1 – numbers that are not even remotely in the ballpark of the truth.

“And here I was, naively hoping that he had just mis-labelled the scale on his graph!

“I mean, what can one say, in the face of such open and apparent statistical malpractice? – except that somebody needs to take away this man’s calculator before he sins again.

“Do I really need to point out that the result of this procedure is not an ‘age-adjusted incarceration rate?’ – that, on the contrary, it is a completely meaningless number? Obviously – or so, at any rate, I would have hoped – if one wants to know the incarceration rate for, e.g., 18-29-year-old white males, one needs to start with the number of 18-29-year-old white male inmates alone – and not the total number of white inmates of all ages and both sexes?

“Ye Gods.”

You make no attempt to reply to these paragraphs.

Why not?

I’m sure this is an issue of great interest to most subscribers, and I would hope that most of them, like me, are more interested in discovering the truth about the immigration/crime relationship as opposed to grinding their own ideological axes.