More immigrants = less crime

[WhipperSnapper]

no. we need more immigration. just about every facet of america is made better by immigrants...from food to economics.

How does the food situation improve? More people means less arable land and prime productive farmland available per capita. Not only that, but as the population grows there is pressure to convert farmland into housing and other things, reducing the amount of land available for food production.

How do you figure that the economic situation improves? Wouldn't much of that depend on the kinds of immigrants who are entering and the nation's overall economic state?

Let's suppose that your nation has, say, 20 million unemployed and underemployed people. You then add 5 million new immigrants who will need jobs. Your nation now has 25 million unemployed people and wages have been driven further down. Is that really an improvement?

What if the immigrants consume more in government services than they contribute in tax revenue (if they are even paying taxes at all)? They might consume public housing funds, education funds (for their kids), Medicaid funds, emergency room funds, and any associated criminal justice costs. It's an act of faith to assume that all or even most immigrants are going to be "profitable" for a nation.

In your view, is the amount of population that the nation can comfortably support unlimited? Is there such a thing as a "carrying capacity"? In your view, do things like farmland, timber, clean air, and clean freshwater exist in unlimited infinite supplies? Don't forget the environment's capacity to absorb pollution; more people means more waste and pollution.

 

[yllus]

I thought I might surface this again, seeing as the question of the value of immigration in North America seems to be a hot topic right now.

Social Science Quarterly: Is Immigration Responsible for the Crime Drop? An Assessment of the Influence of Immigration on Changes in Violent Crime Between 1990 and 2000

The cities that experience the greatest growth in immigration were the same one that were experiencing the greatest declines in violent crime,” he 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.

...

[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.

Robert Sampson - Rethinking Crime and Immigration (PDF)

Consider first the “Latino Paradox.” Hispanic Americans do better on a wide range of social indicators—including propensity to violence—than one would expect given their socioeconomic disadvantages. To assess this paradox in more depth, my colleagues and I examined violent acts committed by nearly 3,000 males and females in Chicago ranging in age from 8 to 25 between 1995 and 2003. The study selected whites, blacks, and Hispanics (primarily Mexican-Americans) from 180 neighborhoods ranging from highly segregated to very integrated. We also analyzed data from police records, the U.S. Census, and a separate survey of more than 8,000 Chicago residents who were asked about the characteristics of their neighborhoods.

Notably, we found a significantly lower rate of violence among Mexican-Americans compared to blacks and whites. A major reason is that more than a quarter of those of Mexican descent were born abroad and more than half lived in neighborhoods where the majority of residents were also Mexican. In particular, first-generation immigrants (those born outside the United States) were 45 percent less likely to commit violence than third-generation Americans, adjusting for individual, family, and neighborhood background. Second-generation immigrants were 22 percent less likely to commit violence than the third generation. This pattern held true for non-Hispanic whites and blacks as well.

Our study further showed living in a neighborhood of concentrated immigration was directly associated with lower violence (again, after taking into account a host of correlated factors, including poverty and an individual’s immigrant status). Immigration thus appeared “protective” against violence.

Consider next the implications of these findings when set against the backdrop of one of the most profound social changes to visit the United States in recent decades. Foreign immigration to the United States rose sharply in the 1990s, especially from Mexico and especially to immigrant enclaves in large cities. Overall, the foreign-born population increased by more than 50 percent in 10 years, to 31 million in 2000. A report by the Pew Hispanic Center found immigration grew most significantly in the mid-1990s and hit its peak at the end of the decade, when the national homicide rate plunged to levels not seen since the 1960s. Immigrant flows have receded since 2001 but remain high, while the national homicide rate leveled off and seems now to be creeping up.

 

[Fern]

I thought I might surface this again, seeing as the question of the value of immigration in North America seems to be a hot topic right now.

[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.

Really?

Wow, that's not a good article.

It's well known immigrants, particularly illegal immigrants don't report crimes against them. Yes, they may congregate in their communities, but when their fellow immigrants commit crimes against them they're reluctant to report it. And other (criminal) immigrants know it and target them. I.e., such numbers/studies cannot be relied upon, particular those, like this one, which do not even acknowledge this fact.

From a 'Progressive source':

Latinos are scared to report crimes to local police who have the power to enforce immigration laws, says a new report. Forty four percent of Latinos — and 70 percent of undocumented Latinos — said they are less likely to contact police officers if they were victims of a crime, for fear that they or someone they know will be asked about their immigration status. The findings are part of a survey of over 2,000 Hispanics around Phoenix, Los Angeles, Chicago and Houston, and the report, Insecure Communities: Latino Perceptions of Police Involvement in Immigration Enforcement, was commissioned by Policy Link, a progressive research and advocacy organization.

http://nbclatino.com/2013/05/07/survey-latinos-are-less-likely-to-report-crimes-to-police/

Pretty poor to overlook the above. Another 'study' 'engineered' to produce the desire outcome? Yeah, looks like it.

In any case, not even the Obama WH agrees with this:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/nsc/transnational-crime/threat

Drugs, human trafficking, sex slaves, kidnapping etc.

BTW: as someone who has immigrated a number of times, the proposition that "those driven to immigrate or are the fittest and least likely to turn to crime" is absurd. Criminals are highly motivated to migrate, for obvious reasons. I wish you could have been with me in Ceuta back in the 80's. Criminals from the Magreb (Arab North Africa) were there trying to go North into Europe, and those from Europe trying to escape South into Africa. Ceuta was then a kind of 'no man's land' in between Europe and Africa, with Spain and Morocco both claiming ownership but not responsibility. I think they've cleaned up Ceuta, but back then when night fell and you weren't in a hotel with guards, you needed some type of melee weapon(s) to get by. No sh1t.

I.e., Ceuta was just plum full of wanna be immigrants, just not the type the author imagines.

That article is laughable from top-to-bottom.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Oh, forgot to mention that the author also claims that crime and poverty are unrelated. He had to make that claim to try to make his point. Just fodder for the libs here, as I'm sure they'll agree with him [/sarcasm].

Fern

 

[bshole]

Let's suppose that your nation has, say, 20 million unemployed and underemployed people. You then add 5 million new immigrants who will need jobs. Your nation now has 25 million unemployed people and wages have been driven further down. Is that really an improvement?

Immigrants are TWICE as likely to start a business than a native Americans. Who's to say that they won't CREATE more jobs than they consume?

 

[Fern]

Immigrants are TWICE as likely to start a business than a native Americans. Who's to say that they won't CREATE more jobs than they consume?

Seriously?

What jobs are they starting?

Mexican restaurants?

Landscaping services?

Construction?

And so you're claiming that restaurants, landscaping and construction businesses didn't exist before they came?

If you're not claiming that then all they've done is take that work away from a pre-existing business.

Fern

 

[Geosurface]

More immigrants = less crime, eh?

Tell that to the native women being raped by immigrants all across Europe.

 

[yllus]

It's well known immigrants, particularly illegal immigrants don't report crimes against them. Yes, they may congregate in their communities, but when their fellow immigrants commit crimes against them they're reluctant to report it. And other (criminal) immigrants know it and target them. I.e., such numbers/studies cannot be relied upon, particular those, like this one, which do not even acknowledge this fact.

Something being well known doesn't make it accurate. And how do you know it was overlooked? Because it wasn't:

Perhaps a bigger concern is that we need to distinguish illegal from legal immigration and focus on the many illegal aliens who allegedly are accounting for crime waves across the country—the “Newark phenomenon.” By one argument, because of deportation risk illegal immigrants are afraid to report crimes against them to the police, resulting in artificially low official estimates in the Hispanic community.

But no evidence exists that reporting biases seriously affect estimates of the homicide victimization rate—unlike other crimes there is a body. At the national level, then, the homicides committed by illegal aliens in the United States are reflected in the data just like for everyone else. The bottom line is that as immigrants poured into the country, homicides plummeted. One could claim crime would decrease faster absent immigration inflows, but that’s a different argument and concedes my basic point.

Overall, you're contesting at least two properly conducted studies by using a statement that says that illegal immigrants tend to not want to contact the police.

Your second link is to a White House policy page that talks about some of the dangers of trans-national criminal organizations. What this has to do with immigrants and their effect on the local crime rate is beyond me. Is the logic you're using here that trans-nationsl are foreigners... immigrants used to be foreigners... therefore immigrants lead to drugs, human trafficking, sex slaves, and kidnapping?

 

[yllus]

More immigrants = less crime, eh?

Tell that to the native women being raped by immigrants all across Europe.

Note: If you find yourself responding to peer reviewed studies with "tell that to [victim A] being [terrible act causing immediate emotional response B]", you really don't have anything useful to contribute to the discussion.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Your second link is to a White House policy page that talks about some of the dangers of trans-national criminal organizations. What this has to do with immigrants and their effect on the local crime rate is beyond me.

"Transnational" obviously mean across border. Who the h3ll is doing this cross border crime?

But no evidence exists that reporting biases seriously affect estimates of the homicide victimization rate—unlike other crimes there is a body.

Seriously?

Homicides are the only act of crime?

No one has ever heard of a body dumped in the desert etc? Or buried - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Corona

There are no unsolved murders?

And as the link I supplied above attests to - immigrants don't report crime, particularly illegal immigrants. Many many cities have outreach programs to counter this. The cause isn't only a fear of being reported to immigration authorities, but a cultural problem as well. Too much corruption and mistrust in law enforcement in Mexico etc. They stay away from police; there and here.

Fern

 

[Geosurface]

Note: If you find yourself responding to peer reviewed studies with "tell that to [victim A] being [terrible act causing immediate emotional response B]", you really don't have anything useful to contribute to the discussion.

I wasn't attempting to do some thorough dismantling of the premise you're putting forth, I was just trying to reference the well known, well documented link between immigrants and crime in Europe.

If my attempt to reference that phenomenon in a dramatic way wasn't effective, I can only assume it may be due to you being unaware of it. I would encourage you to spend some time looking into what's been going on in Europe in the last decade or so.

 

[nehalem256]

I thought I might surface this again, seeing as the question of the value of immigration in North America seems to be a hot topic right now.

Social Science Quarterly: Is Immigration Responsible for the Crime Drop? An Assessment of the Influence of Immigration on Changes in Violent Crime Between 1990 and 2000



Robert Sampson - Rethinking Crime and Immigration (PDF)

"Our study further showed living in a neighborhood of concentrated immigration was directly associated with lower violence (again, after taking into account a host of correlated factors, including poverty and an individual’s immigrant status). Immigration thus appeared “protective” against violence."

Wait a minute. They seriously had to account for an individual's "immigrant status". If being an immigrant was really "protective" why would they need to account for it?

 

[rpanic]

Aside from entering illegally and identity theft I don’t think illegals probably commit more crimes and are trying to stay under the radar of police. The real problem lies with their children that are born here in poverty as legal citizens with parents that are uneducated and expect our schools and services to raise and feed them.

 

[woolfe9998]

deleted

 

[bshole]

Fern,

Typically I tend to back up my smack talk.

There are still plenty of entrepreneurs in America. But more and more of them are actually coming from somewhere else.

Immigrants were twice as likely to start a new business last year as someone born in the U.S., CNN reports. That's in spite of a weak economic climate that seems to have had a flattening effect on the number of overall businesses being created.
But actually, the economic downturn of the past few years is what may have helped drive so many immigrants to go into business for themselves, multiple reports suggest.

Many people who come to the U.S. seeking work end up in low-paying industries -- like construction -- that are vulnerable to recession, according to CNN. So when times get tough, it's people from those sectors who are more likely to turn entrepreneurial. For the same reason, entrepreneurship is reportedly up among high school dropouts, for whom it may be harder to advance along traditional career paths, according to a researcher interviewed by Bloomberg earlier this year.

That can help explain the jump in immigrant-owned new businesses since the recession hit. In 2008, immigrants represented about 17 percent of all new business owners in the U.S., according to The Washington Post. By 2011, immigrants were creating 28 percent of all new businesses, CNN reports.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/08/immigrants-new-businesses_n_1499719.html

 

[Patranus]

Depends what kind. Every legal immigrant I've met was hard working and pretty tight with the law.
If you're one of the people who jumped the border and can't legally work.... then yeah that's different and that needs to be stopped.

Every legal immigrant I know is 10x more hard working than the average American, have their kids in line, ect.

 

[woolfe9998]

Really?

Wow, that's not a good article.

It's well known immigrants, particularly illegal immigrants don't report crimes against them. Yes, they may congregate in their communities, but when their fellow immigrants commit crimes against them they're reluctant to report it. And other (criminal) immigrants know it and target them. I.e., such numbers/studies cannot be relied upon, particular those, like this one, which do not even acknowledge this fact.

From a 'Progressive source':

http://nbclatino.com/2013/05/07/survey-latinos-are-less-likely-to-report-crimes-to-police/

Pretty poor to overlook the above. Another 'study' 'engineered' to produce the desire outcome? Yeah, looks like it.

In any case, not even the Obama WH agrees with this:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/nsc/transnational-crime/threat

Drugs, human trafficking, sex slaves, kidnapping etc.

BTW: as someone who has immigrated a number of times, the proposition that "those driven to immigrate or are the fittest and least likely to turn to crime" is absurd. Criminals are highly motivated to migrate, for obvious reasons. I wish you could have been with me in Ceuta back in the 80's. Criminals from the Magreb (Arab North Africa) were there trying to go North into Europe, and those from Europe trying to escape South into Africa. Ceuta was then a kind of 'no man's land' in between Europe and Africa, with Spain and Morocco both claiming ownership but not responsibility. I think they've cleaned up Ceuta, but back then when night fell and you weren't in a hotel with guards, you needed some type of melee weapon(s) to get by. No sh1t.

I.e., Ceuta was just plum full of wanna be immigrants, just not the type the author imagines.

That article is laughable from top-to-bottom.

Fern

Your point seems valid. However, while the linked article describing the study does not address this point, I'd be highly surprised if the study itself fails to address it. Unfortunately I can't verify since free issues of Social Science Quarterly don't seem to be available online.

 

[Fern]

Fern,

Typically I tend to back up my smack talk.

We're apparently not understanding each other.

I'm not saying that they don't start businesses. I'm saying that they're just taking away work from already established businesses. I.e., no net jobs created, just transfered from a (likely higher paying US person) to a lower paying immigrant person. The net result is just lower wages etc. I don't see that as a positive.

Fern

 

[woolfe9998]

We're apparently not understanding each other.

I'm not saying that they don't start businesses. I'm saying that they're just taking away work from already established businesses. I.e., no net jobs created, just transfered from a (likely higher paying US person) to a lower paying immigrant person. The net result is just lower wages etc. I don't see that as a positive.

Fern

So you would agree that when people either start businesses or get jobs, they are merely displacing other jobs? The reason I ask is because I've made this very same argument as it pertains to welfare and other social programs. If we pull these programs, it won't matter if this motivates these people to go find work because we have structural unemployment and any work these people find is merely displacing others.

 

[Fern]

So you would agree that when people either start businesses or get jobs, they are merely displacing other jobs? The reason I ask is because I've made this very same argument as it pertains to welfare and other social programs. If we pull these programs, it won't matter if this motivates these people to go find work because we have structural unemployment and any work these people find is merely displacing others.

Yes, I agree.

As regards welfare etc I would likely have approached it differently. E.g., pushing more workers into the workforce will not increase employment. We have an excess supply of available workers, adding more doesn't really do anything (except possibly drive down wages).

However, the 'jobs displacement' argument is equally valid IMO.

It's demand that needs to increase now, not the workforce.

I do think that in some cases new businesses can have a positive effect and not merely result in job shifting with no net increase in employment.

E.g., a new manufacturing business that increases our exports. I.e., it doesn't replace an existing US manufacturer.

Fern

 

[woolfe9998]

Yes, I agree.

As regards welfare etc I would likely have approached it differently. E.g., pushing more workers into the workforce will not increase employment. We have an excess supply of available workers, adding more doesn't really do anything (except possibly drive down wages).

However, the 'jobs displacement' argument is equally valid IMO.

It's demand that needs to increase now, not the workforce.

I do think that in some cases new businesses can have a positive effect and not merely result in job shifting with no net increase in employment.

E.g., a new manufacturing business that increases our exports. I.e., it doesn't replace an existing US manufacturer.

Fern

Yes, I agree. In order to create new jobs, you have to either create new markets or find a way to stimulate demand in existing markets.

I think you're largely correct as this point relates to immigration, except to note that the immigrants themselves constitute an increase in demand for products and services. This is particularly so with the businesses like Mexican markets and restaurants which they tend to open in their own neighborhoods. I doubt these are displacing many existing businesses or jobs. Many of the jobs they're getting, however, undoubtedly do.

 

[shortylickens]

Manassas would disagree.

 

[Fern]

Yes, I agree. In order to create new jobs, you have to either create new markets or find a way to stimulate demand in existing markets.

I think you're largely correct as this point relates to immigration, except to note that the immigrants themselves constitute an increase in demand for products and services. This is particularly so with the businesses like Mexican markets and restaurants which they tend to open in their own neighborhoods. I doubt these are displacing many existing businesses or jobs. Many of the jobs they're getting, however, undoubtedly do.

I tend to see that as shifting jobs and demand. In the absence of immigrants, shifting jobs will still likely shift demand. E.g., I'm unemployed but now take Joe's job: job shifting. Joe liked to eat lunch at McDonalds, I eat at Burger King; demand shifted. Same as for immigrants except they may shift to an ethnic restaurant they prefer.

But when speaking of immigrants coming here to take jobs, particularly those from Mexico, I'm concerned about the amount of money they save and send back home. In that regard we really have a net economic loss in addition to mere job shifting. I.e., demand would be exported.

Fern

 

[woolfe9998]

I tend to see that as shifting jobs and demand. In the absence of immigrants, shifting jobs will still likely shift demand. E.g., I'm unemployed but now take Joe's job: job shifting. Joe liked to eat lunch at McDonalds, I eat at Burger King; demand shifted. Same as for immigrants except they may shift to an ethnic restaurant they prefer.

But when speaking of immigrants coming here to take jobs, particularly those from Mexico, I'm concerned about the amount of money they save and send back home. In that regard we really have a net economic loss in addition to mere job shifting. I.e., demand would be exported.

Fern

Immigration of cheap labor - whether legal or illegal - is kind of the flip side of off shoring labor to other countries. We're just bringing the cheap labor here. The pluses and minuses are similar. Both can cost jobs and/or depress wages here. Both result in less expensive goods and services.

Another upside in the case of immigration is that the immigrants will spend their paychecks here. Which is why your concern about sending it back is quite correct. I'm just not sure about the magnitude of the problem. I read that Mexican immigrants (legal and illegal combined) sent $20 billion back in one year year (can't recall which). That doesn't tell me what percentage of their earning this represents. We also spend plenty of money in foreign markets. The money spent by Americans in foreign countries through tourism alone probably exceeds that many fold.