Nixon fudged African crime figures

November 19, 2008
Andrew Bolt

But here’s the central point. Last year Nixon told us Sudanese refugees, if not all African refugees, were “under-represented in the crime statistics”. In fact, we now know they’re over-represented—by as much as eight times.

Andrews was right to worry and urge caution. Nixon was wrong to challenge his figures. And we, who relied on Nixon’s assurances, were grossly unfair to damn Andrews as a racist and a hatemonger for merely doing his duty. I’m sorry for my part in that.

Read it all. It's good, but unfortunately Bolt does not oppose African immigration per se, he only proposes a slowing down until we settle the African crime rate. But, as an experimentalist, he should have looked overseas and seen the high crime rates in the US, UK, France, etc, and opposed black immigration here until those overseas countries showed us that multiracial utopia is possible - and they haven't done that yet. So, as an immigration scientist, Andrew Bolt demonstrates a stubborn reckless streak by happily repeating those failed experiments here.

But, regardless of crime rates, there are other dimensions to oppose African immigration: aesthetics, the loss of social capital, the reluctance of employers to hire foreigners, informal segregation in suburbs and schools and universities, Islamification, national security, terrorism, etc. Does anybody bother to quantify those dimensions with statistics?

Note, Bolt has previously taken a somewhat stronger stance against African immigration:

We can ignore all this, as we usually, do and shout “racist” at those who point out that we have a problem.

But we need to rethink just how - or even whether - we resettle immigrants whose culture is so very, very different.

Today would have been a good time to echo that last line, don't you think?