In any case, since as you’ve claimed in response to me before, you’re a good Weberian and are guided by the empirical evidence on these questions, I wonder what your interpretation of the US studies might be.

I have to get up early and do my non-Weberian style paid work tomorrow. The study is a syllabus of errors which I will refute chapter and verse, as soon as I get the time.

PS. Hope I wasn’t out of line with that crack about puking.

Ohh puh-leese! I think I am going to puke.

Is that an example of your resistable charm, Jack?

And I guess there’s never any time in your life when you’ve had to ask for clarification after not seeing the point immediately?

In any case, since as you’ve claimed in response to me before, you’re a good Weberian and are guided by the empirical evidence on these questions, I wonder what your interpretation of the US studies might be.

Ok, gotcha, Andrew, was a bit confused.

Ohh puh-leese! I think I am going to puke.

Andrew Norton is a rotten Strocchi-ite in both scientific approach and substantive policy disposition. Why is his name not dirt amongst all right thinking people?

He kicks off elsewhere by underlining the crucial distinction between racial and cultural differences, which has been so mendaciously blurred by our cultural elites. I have been banging on about the multiracial v multicultural difference for ages.

Naomi - Their parents, obviously. They have low levels of skills and would struggle to get admitted.

This is a reference the critical importance of people quality in immigration. I have harped on the priority of people selection over cultural settlement policy more times than I care to admit.

Mark - Say the theft rate among the native born is 3,500 per 100,000, or 3.5%. Add 20,000 carefully selected migrants, who commit 200 additional thefts, making 3,700 out of 120,000, or 3.08%. The asbolute number of crimes is higher, but relative to population the rate has declined.

Andrew Norton here delivers a free lesson in baby stats (ratios fer crissake!) combined with a sotto voce reference to North East Asian immigrants, who present with an almost invisible crime rate. No prizes for guessing which tactless brute has been blurting this out all over the internet.

How come he says the same things as me, yet winds up bathed in kisses by all and sundry. Whilst I am sentenced to the dog house. Why is it so?

I guess it must be my resistable charm.

Mark - Say the theft rate among the native born is 3,500 per 100,000, or 3.5%. Add 20,000 carefully selected migrants, who commit 200 additional thefts, making 3,700 out of 120,000, or 3.08%. The asbolute number of crimes is higher, but relative to population the rate has declined.

However for immigration to reduce crime in absolute terms the effects of their positive social norms must outweigh the fact that inevitably some migrants will break the law.

It doesn’t seem too far fetched that Lebanese gangs have harrassed people on the beach because of cultural hostility to certain customs - most particularly women being exposed in a way that was considered indecent in all ‘developed’ cultures until about forty years ago. It doesn’t seem that far fetched to imagine that, as in the reports the gangs behaved with aggressive contempt towards such things. And it is understandable that people became insensed at this behaviour. I’d be incensed if I and/or a woman I knew was a victim.

It goes without saying that the indiscriminate mob violence that errupted in response is a disgrace that should be resisted with the full force of the law.