NOTE: PLEASE say if you DON'T want your name and/or email address published when sending VDARE email.
From: Sheila Young (e-mail her)
Re: James Fulford's Blog: Washington Post–Hate Crimes Supposedly Caused By "Contentious Debate Over Immigration"
I have read the 48-page article written by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and have studied crime issues for many years.
The theory promoted by the Treason Lobby that there is a surge in hate crimes against Latinos —for any reason—is bogus.
The data in the Federal Hate Crimes Statistics database is flawed because it has previously been manipulated before being sent from the law enforcement agencies to the FBI processing center.
Whoever designed the reporting forms for mandatory use by these agencies had an anti-American agenda.
Hispanics are listed on these forms as victims. But the forms have no reporting box for them as offenders. Officers must choose a race for them.
The FBI does not collect data on crimes committed by foreign nationals or differentiate between crimes by gangs and those committed by the American public.
An example of flawed data would be that of the Latino foreign national who murdered three black college students in Newark. It would go in the statistical database as perpetrated by a White American.
There should be an investigation into this deliberate data manipulation—who is behind it, who designed it so that false information would be trumpeted through out the media to conclude that Latinos—legal or not—are suffering a wave of violent attacks by people of non-color who are against illegal immigration?
Those in the media who trumpet these lies that the FBI statistics prove that so called comprehensive immigration reform must be passed to protect these immigrants. They are also claiming that the enhanced hate crime bill S909 must be passed to protect them.
But of course this is a thought crime bill and the only ones not protected will be white, Christian heterosexuals—even though according to the Constitution, everyone is equal under the law.
Young's previous letter is here.