I am confused. What is the specific statement he made on crime rates that you are disagreeing with? You both seem to agree that certain minority groups have higher crime rates (this is just an evidence-based fact). The reasons for that are complex and multifactorial, which I think you also both recognize. Or do you think the disparity in crime rates is solely due to disparity in income?
He (or she, I don't know adoo's gender) already lost the argument about increasing diversity leading to decrease in crime rates, so now he is fixated on the fact that I have the percentage of white + Asian and then individual percentages for black and Hispanic (even though I posted a link that has all the individual percentages both now and historically). He thinks this is some gotcha that can somehow discredit me. He just doesn't want to admit that I was right and he was wrong.
for Irvine, moniker lumped the demographic data for asians and whites as one racial group moniker had conveniently claimed that diversity leads to high crime rates. i then pointed out Irvine and NPB as eg to the contrary; Irvine's increasing diverse population has a lower crime rate than NPB Moniker dismissed that Irvine has a diverse population, w the spin that this one group makes up 79.9% of Irvine's population
OK, I must not have followed the conversation closely. I think if one wants to understand the relationship between racial diversity and crime rates, you have to somehow control for how prone to crime rates of the various demographic groups that make up the population are. The research you linked to shows that when diverse racial groups are living amongst each other, that can have a crime-reducing effect by increasing social bonds between them. But the effect seems to describe a scenario in which inter-race crime otherwise exists at an elevated level and arguing that this can be reduced via tighter social integration. That is an interesting idea, and it makes some intuitive sense. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it's saying that if you have a highly homogenous population, and you insert certain demographic groups which tend to have elevated crime rates, that somehow this will reduce crime rates for that new, more diverse population.
I grew up in Prince Georges county Md in the 80’s. It does not get more diverse than that. Problem is, white flight happened and now its not really diverse at all. White flight from inside the loop in the 70’s then outside the loop in the 80’s. The crime rate there is awful now and many parts are very dangerous. There were issues but not too many. It was a wonderful neighborhood and we all truly got along fantastically. Diversity is absolutely a good thing in neighborhoods. I still have good lifelong friends from that area.
Go to actual Asian countries and there are large swaths of Asians that commit petty crime. They just don't have the resources to immigrate here. You are looking at a selection filter that chooses the wealthiest and most educated Asians in general that migrate here through said selection filter. My parents are Bangladeshi. They came from upper class families and went to top private grade schools over there and got student visas to get here and start their lives here. 99.9% of Bangladeshis can't immigrate here. They would fail through the selection filter and yes many of them in poor neighborhoods in places like Dhaka do commit many petty and violent crimes.
