Immigration, not guns, reduces crime

[Pat McCotter]

Does more immigration mean less crime?
Barbara Kiviat
Thursday, May 27, 2010

Brace yourself for the backlash. University of Colorado sociologist Tim Wadsworth has a study out in Social Science Quarterly suggesting that more immigration leads to less crime. During the 1990s, the incidence of serious crime dropped in many places in the U.S.—but fastest in the cities with the largest increase in immigrants. That conclusion comes from studying demographic data from the Census for cities with more than 50,000 residents and information from the FBI about instances of homicide and robbery.

From the WSJ:

    "The cities that experience[d] the greatest growth in immigration were the same one[ s] that were experiencing the greatest declines in violent crime," [Wadsworth] said. "While I don't think I or anyone else will argue that immigration can explain the bulk of the crime drop, it seems like this is an important piece of the puzzle."

The story continues:

    [Wadsworth] offers a number of theories to explain this finding: immigrants often live in homogeneous enclaves within cities, which offer a degree of social cohesion that may produce lower crime rates; there may be a selection effect, where those driven to immigrate or (selected by their families to seek work in the U.S.) are the fittest and least likely to turn to crime.

And from a story in the University of Colorado's Arts and Sciences magazine:

    Some have suggested that immigrant communities are often characterized by extended family networks, lower levels of divorce, and cultural and religious beliefs that facilitate community integration. Wadsworth notes that "criminologists have long known that these factors provide buffers against crime."

Wadsworth is hardly the first one to make the claim that immigration, at least as experienced in recent American history, drives down crime rates. Harvard sociologist Robert Sampson has looked at the issue extensively. You can read a great summary of his thinking here (PDF).

So now just one question. Who's going to tell Arizona?

[toowm]

Fixed title

Immigration, not and guns, reduces crime

[lildog]

Does the study differentiate the difference between immigration and illegal immigration?

Also does it take into account that around 1990 is when they started maximum mandatory sentencing which took a lot of criminals off the streets that were otherwise returning after short periods of jail?

[Pat McCotter]

Then there is the Roe Effect.

[MaineShark]

It's an interesting study.  There are a number of factors they don't fully account for (like, do increases in prosperity and dropping crime maybe attract immigrants?), so immigration may not reduce crime.  But it does rather establish that immigrants don't increase crime substantially, anyway.

Does the study differentiate the difference between immigration and illegal immigration?

I was discussing this with a friend.  He's an immigrant, so he has no problem with immigration, but he doesn't like "illegals," and claims that they are more likely to commit crimes.

My response was that, even if we just assume his proposal is correct, is it any wonder?  The system says that you must commit a crime to cross the border, if the Feds won't give you "permission" to live here.  So, by definition, all "illegals" are folks who are willing to break the law.  Those who are unwilling have to wait in line to get here, while those who are willing (some of whom may be willing to break other laws that deal with real violations of others' rights) can just wander in.

As with gun control, immigration restrictions only impede the law-abiding.  So, if "illegal immigration" increases crime, it would only be for the same reasons that "gun control" increases crime.

Joe

[Lloyd Danforth]

Crime statistics vary due to changes in birth rates, too. Periods of  higher birth rates often  result in more crime 15-20 years later.

[KBCraig]

I was discussing this with a friend.  He's an immigrant, so he has no problem with immigration, but he doesn't like "illegals," and claims that they are more likely to commit crimes.

I hear this a lot, too. I point out that "criminals" (as most folks define them) are lazy. They mostly steal and rob and cheat and defraud and rape because they're too lazy to get what they want through moral means.

By what logic would someone who just wants to steal/rape/rob risk life and limb and spend his extended family's entire life savings, to travel thousands of miles while risking arrest, then seek out a job as a busboy or roofer? All the same criminal opportunities are available back home; the only financial incentive to moving for America is to seek honest (albeit illegal) work.

As with gun control, immigration restrictions only impede the law-abiding.

Perzackly. And just like with gun control, outlawing an item, substance, or activity doesn't decrease the raw numbers, it only increases the percentage of already-criminal folks who engage. In other words, it turns the item/substance/activity over to those who are already criminally minded.

[EthanLeeVita]

I was discussing this with a friend.  He's an immigrant, so he has no problem with immigration, but he doesn't like "illegals," and claims that they are more likely to commit crimes.

I hear this a lot, too. I point out that "criminals" (as most folks define them) are lazy. They mostly steal and rob and cheat and defraud and rape because they're too lazy to get what they want through moral means.

By what logic would someone who just wants to steal/rape/rob risk life and limb and spend his extended family's entire life savings, to travel thousands of miles while risking arrest, then seek out a job as a busboy or roofer? All the same criminal opportunities are available back home; the only financial incentive to moving for America is to seek honest (albeit illegal) work.

As with gun control, immigration restrictions only impede the law-abiding.

Perzackly. And just like with gun control, outlawing an item, substance, or activity doesn't decrease the raw numbers, it only increases the percentage of already-criminal folks who engage. In other words, it turns the item/substance/activity over to those who are already criminally minded.

While I wish for no statist borders (to be removed with the state), wouldn't these arguments contradict each other?

[AntonLee]

it never ceases to amaze me that people still don't want new neighbors because they didn't give the government money and proper paperwork.  Either that or they really just hate mexicans.

I was talking to one of these protectionists the other day.  He was going on about how it's not about racism (as usual) and of course I disagree, I think race has a lot to do with why people are all for the police state that comes with superior ethnic cleans. . .I mean border control. 

So when we were alone I really wanted to get him to show his racism off, so I started with the "well these people are different you know, they're hispanic" stuff.  .  . he went off on how he hates "spics" and "wetbacks" and they have no right to be in this country of his, with their alternate languages and the like.

He proved my point.  THe "I'm not racist I just hate that people didn't stand in line for 10 years and starve" argument is ridiculous.  Just as stupid as it was with the italians, germans, and irish in the earlier days of America.