Thanks.

I discussed this research earlier, and recall that the data used for the analysis does not appropriately answer the research prompt, given the skewing of information in the direction of relatively new immigrants. This brings us back to the income inequality problem. If you invite a bunch of poor people to live next to you, will you immediately trust them? It doesn't matter what their skin color is. By contrast, hundreds of London properties have sold to Russian, Qatari, Saudi, Polish, Albanian, Serbian and Chinese developers over the past 20 years, somewhat in that order. Do native Londoners (including Brits, Jewish Brits, Pakistani-Brits &c), or even the new arrivals, "trust" one another immediately? Of course not. The erosion of trust question is the wrong question because everyone knows you would not immediatly trust a new arrival, even if they were as white as snowflakes. The other problem is that it's human nature to assume that people who look like you can be trusted, and the 'other' cannot be trusted. This is a no-brainer. What's important in this case is: what does diversity bring to the community. And the answer it that: it brings much more than does the process of inbreading with the locals, as was common in rural parts of some countries before the mid-20th century. After decades of generations in diverse metropolitan areas, one sees significant benefits. Large cities in the US "melting post" are an excellent examples of this. For what it's worth, we'll probably agree on the general necessity of restrictions on immigration, but we will not agree on the promotion of white supremacy groups and areas. This latter approach is counter-productive, divides people, and there are no historical examples where these arrangements were fruitful.