Ethnic Cleansing is a policy of rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area. You seem to be using a commonly cited inaccurate definition of genocide instead of the broader term “ethnic cleansing”, but note that even genocide does not require killing as the means, as it is defined (in the 1948 Genocide Convention) as any combination of one or more of seven different acts (one of which is killing members of the group) when undertaken with the specific intent to destroy the given racial, ethnic, national, or religious group.

TIL that neighborhood crime causing white flight is actually ethnic cleansing.

No, that's probably not ethnic cleansing, since the white people who fled to the suburbs were in a position of privilege and wanted to give up their homes. The American government practices ethnic cleansing, as you assert, so and for some reason they just made it illegal to do it in their own cities for the benifit of the most privileged ethnic demographic. Perplexing.

> Ethnic Cleansing is a policy of rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area

So removing non-white Hispanics from America would count? What if the goal isn't to render the area ethnically homogenous?

> So removing non-white Hispanics from America would count?

Obviously that’s the argument put forth. Why phrase it as a question?

> What if the goal isn't to render the area ethnically homogenous?

A fair point, since a favorite argument of the regime and now protected legal doctrine is “the bad thing happened but it’s ok because we didn’t mean it like that”.

Except that doesn’t apply in this case since the goal is explicitly stated.