On Racial Crime Stats from the FBI

Thanks mf



Date: 9/25/08 9:40 PM

Subject: Re: [CJIS_COMM] FBI: playing politics with crime statistics

Hi Martin,

The gentleman from the FBI, whom you asked, said that the classifications are mandated to them, and they have no choice but to follow protocol. Added to that, he noted, "A person of Hispanic ethnicity would be classified in whichever of the four racial categories listed [White; Black; American Indian or Alaskan Native; and Asian or Pacific Islander] that is most appropriate for that individual, as determined by the investigating agency."

You have to realize: Some Hispanics are actually white; others are not. In fact, 10 percent of Mexico's population is white--believe it or not. I've been there, and can attest to this. I think quite a few Americans retire there, too, as they can live somewhat comfortably on social security income (if they can deal with crime and other conditions there).

Still, I know what you mean: Mexican Indians should be included with American Indians and Alaskans. Again, this "should" be the case (but with the term "American" preceding Indian, probably is often not). And, on the other hand, white Mexicans of Spaniard-descent should be included as white.

Aside from what you mentioned, I believe that Arabs are also often classified as white--if they're the perpetrators of crimes (but may be classified different if they're the victim of "race" crimes). In my opinion, this is the government's way of making crimes appear more racially balanced--lest we realize the disproportionate number of Mexican Indian, Arab, and other non-white crimes, per capita, and--God forbid--complain about it.

What the heck: Let's just follow the government's guidelines, be completely ignorant, and say that a bunch of white folks were responsible for 9-11! Actually, if the truth be told, 9-11 was the government's fault, as the government allowed all the terrorists entrance, did not deport those people whose visas had expired, and, even today, STILL do LITTLE if NOTHING about our open borders that allow criminals crossing over via Mexico--to the tune of probably over 1 million illegal aliens ("illegal" being the keyword) a year.

This really bothers me. I read about some young girl who was abducted at a bus stop by some Mexicans in a van, not far from where I live, last year. This occurred in the heartland of America. The sad part is, the story only ran locally, as far as I know. And I wonder how often similar scenarios play across the U.S., with many criminals from Mexico fleeing here to avoid arrest in their own nations. Will I have to accompany my children to and from the bus stops until they're old enough to drive? I can't pretend that the government will protect them; even if the government wanted to, there could be as many as a million, if not more, Mexican hard-core criminals (rapists, robbers, drug-runners, gangsters, pedophiles, etc., ad nauseam) among the illegal aliens, who are doing the "jobs that jobs that American's won't do."

If the FBI really wanted to help stop the illegal aliens, they'd have a convenient form at their website so that people could report perceived illegal hiring of illegal aliens, which the FBI could investigate further, thereby helping the understaffed INS and raising their revenue from special fees that could be charged to the companies who hired the illegal aliens for the investigations, along with fines. Of course, the keyword in the previous sentence was "if." And that is why millions cross the border annually, and part of the reason why the FBI's statistics are meaningless.

When it comes down to it, the FBI's statistics, based on its mandated guidelines, are flawed at best; politically correct claptrap, at worst, as they invite meaningless numbers since no one can be certain how to report crimes. This bizarre mentality when it comes to twisted statistics does not stop there, either.

You also must realize that the white people in the FBI are being discriminated against, just as in any other profession across America, when they seek advancement. And they must bite their lips, like Pavlovian dogs, and ignore it all, lest they appear "racist" and are denied advancement, if not their jobs, accordingly. It creates some unusual situations.

I read an article in the newspaper some time ago about how the FBI was lowering its personnel, and another article a few days later about how it was increasing its personnel. If this sounds conflicting, it's only because of the lack of details: The first article said that it was getting rid of its (mostly white) leadership, encouraging retirement (in one form or another); the second article said that the FBI was trying to hire a more "diverse" (i.e., non-white) work-force, undoubtedly discriminating against white applicants in an effort to do so. Rest assured, not only would the non-whites be granted preferential treatment in hiring, but then in promotion as well, lest someone pull out the race-card and say that the workforce has a disproportionate number of whites in positions (that they merited from their work).

Sometimes, I have to really wonder what my tax-dollars are used for--that is, aside from bailing out banks that charge usurious fees to me.

Mark Farrell

---- Martin wrote:

============= Thanks, that is comical. The FBI should know that many "Hispanics" are of Indian descent, and far from "white."

How is that you would classify an Aztec Indian offender the same race as myself, someone who is of Germanic decent?

Again, you are passing the buck and blaming another government bureaucracy for your political decisions. The offender statistics have been rendered meaningless by your interpretation.

----- Original Message ---- From: FBI Communications Unit <cjis_comm@leo.gov> To: Martin Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 1:44:46 PM Subject: RE: [CJIS_COMM] FBI: playing politics with crime statistics

This correspondence is in response to your question posed about racial categories in the UCR Program. The term Hispanic is an indicator of ethnicity rather than race. The elements of race and ethnicity built into the UCR Program adhere to the guidelines established by DIRECTIVE NO. 15, RACE AND ETHNIC STANDARDS FOR FEDERAL STATISTICS AND ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTING. Those guidelines were set by the Office of Management and Budget, the federal agency with authority for setting guidelines for federal statistical programs, and the FBI is required to abide by those guidelines. For UCR purposes there are four racial categories: White; Black; American Indian or Alaskan Native; and Asian or Pacific Islander. (For your further information, in 1980, Congress mandated that ethnicity be collected by the UCR Program. This information was collected on the arrestee and for both the victim and offender for homicide data. Collection for ethnicity ended in 1986 when Congress allowed the mandate to expire.) A person of Hispanic ethnicity would be classified in whichever of the four racial categories listed above that is most appropriate for that individual, as determined by the investigating agency.


From:cjis_comm-bounces@listserv.leo.gov [mailto:cjis_comm-bounces@listserv.leo.gov] On Behalf Of Martin Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 12:16 PM To: cjis_comm@leo.gov Subject: [CJIS_COMM] FBI: playing politics with crime statistics

Why does the FBI aggregate Hispanics into the white category as "offenders", vastly increasing the apparent white crime rate?

Martin Schrick Dayton , Ohio


Freedom isn't free! To insure the continuation of this website and the survival of its creator in these financially-troubled times, please send donations directly to the Birdman at
PO Box 66683, St Pete Beach FL 33736-6683

"The smallest good deed is worth the grandest intention."

Please contribute today - buy our books - and spread the word to all your friends!
Remember: Your donation = our survival!

* * * Back to the Home Page of John "Birdman" Bryant, the World's Most Controversial Author * * *