Robert Sampson writes in today's NYT Op-Ed page:
...evidence points to increased immigration as a major factor associated with the lower crime rate of the 1990's (and its recent leveling off).
Hispanic Americans do better on a range of various social indicators -- including propensity to violence -- than one would expect given their socioeconomic disadvantages. My colleagues and I have completed a study in which we examined 8,000 Chicago residents who were asked about the characteristics of their neighborhoods.
Surprisingly, we found a significantly lower rate of violence among Mexican-Americans than among blacks and whites...Indeed, the first-generation immigrants (those born outside the United States) in our study were 45 percent less likely to commit violence than were third-generation Americans, adjusting for family and neighborhood background. [TC: But don't absolute probabilities play the key role here? And should we compare Mexicans to "blacks and whites" or to each group in isolation?] Second-generation immigrants were 22 percent less likely to commit violence than the third generation.
Our study further showed that living in a neighborhood of concentrated immigrants is directly associated with lower violence (again, after taking into account a host of factors...)
Alas, there is no permalink these days. Here is the relevant project which generated the data. No one of Sampson's pieces on his web page seems to cover this result, though many are relevant more broadly. Also see this summary of his criticism of "broken window" and "tipping point" theories of crime.
Here is another piece which seems to support the basic result that Mexican immigration lowers crime. Here is a survey article on the topic. This piece (see p.113) suggests that crime is lower in border cities than comparable non-border cities, and that Mexican immigration cannot be identified as a cause of a higher U.S. crime rate.
Yes comments are open, but purely anecdotal accounts of how you were once mugged by a Mexican, or how your neighborhood just isn't "the same anymore" are discouraged. I'm posting a version of this over at MarginalRevolution.com as well, look for the differing comments.
I hate these interview studies. Using even impartial observers to assign a quantify to how people "feel about their environment" is futile because these things are inherently unquantifiable in any objective sense of the word. This causes harm because these pseudo-quantities are then used to produce what has the superficial appearance of hard scientific data, which is then used to drive policy decisions.
I imagine illegal immigration lowers crime and improves the economy in Mexico even better than it improves things here. You dont think Vincente Fox is sending us all his scientists, do you?
Regardless, one of your surveys suggests that immigrants are "disproportionately young males who...are at greater risk of criminal involvement." It then integrates those differences - but even if young hispanic males are less likely to commit crimes, the fact that immigrants are mostly young males would mean that their arrival would in fact increase crime.
Maybe illegal immigrants dont take their troubles to the police as often as native born blacks and whites.
What are you reading? The study doesn't report on the incidence of victimization and is therefore not subject to bias based on increased likelihood that they "take their troubles to the police," it reports on crime rates.
You said Mexicans. I think you meant "illegal immigrants," since apparently the two are synonyms on this thread.
My only comment is that she spent a great deal of
time personally in Los Angeles in high crime areas
researching this City Journal article.
http://tinyurl.com/262rj
Kovarsky is correct in noting this study does not appear differentiate between legal and illegal immigrants (because it was on the effects of immigration as such, so that shouldn't matter). As a practical matter, it's no different if someone from Iowa moves to Chicago than it is if someone from Mexico does, legal or otherwise. I'm often stunned by the sudden complaint that the economic pie is fixed when it comes to immigration. "Don't take our jobs," they cry. Of course if it weren't for artificially high labor costs, it wouldn't be relevant.
As to the slippery slope argument, it presumes that many people would want to and could come to the U.S., even if there were open borders. At some point the market clears and no one else will come. Of course, given that a *large* part of our economy is service-based, more people means an even faster-growing economy, and as people make more money here, they will see opportunities to make money elsewhere. A suddenly monied middle class in Mexico would be a powerful political force.
If some choose to remain here and become citizens, even better for us all. Unfettered immigration is one of the things that helped turn America into the world power it is today, and it can only help in the long run. I don't lightly throw accusations of racism around, but I can't help but think a lot of the opposition to unfettered immigration today versus the 19th century is these immigrants won't be white.
open borders be in favor of mass immigration if
the majority of said immigrants were white???
While there are certainly racists in the fringe
restrictionist groups, I believe there is no shortage
of anti-white racists among the far left open borders
crowd.
"United States counties that share a border with Mexico continue to struggle with educational achievement, poverty, access to health care and federal crimes, according to a new study by the University of Texas at El Paso's Institute for Policy and Economic Development.
The study, "At the Cross Roads: U.S./Mexico Border Counties in Transition," was prepared for the U.S./Mexico Border Counties Coalition. The two-year study takes a unique approach by grouping the 24 counties along the border of Mexico as a "51st state" and comparing it to the rest of the country.
The coalition announced the results of the study at an event at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. this week.
Among the findings:
- Border counties would rank No. 1 in federal crime as a 51st state, primarily because of drug and immigration arrests.
- If San Diego County is not included, border counties would rank last in per capita income. With San Diego County, border counties would rank 39th.
- If considered a 51st state, the border counties would rank 50th in percent of residents above the age of 25 who have completed high school.
- As a 51st state, border counties would rank last in the number of health care professionals available for residents.
Coalition officials will use the study to illustrate the problems facing the border when they meet with members of Congress in coming weeks."
Tyler lists My Bloody Valentine's Loveless as perhaps the best album since the Beatles.
I frequently cite that album as my favorite of all time, so I'd just take a chance to acknowledge the primo taste.
Please resume screaming about how somehow this post endorses an open border.
BTW, I think you're reading an anti-immigrant bias into a lot of these comments that simply isn't there. I'm the one who wrote the first comment. The only vitriolic anti-immigrant comment I see is the one from GregD. Calm down.
However, one trend that is extremely disturbing is the growing tendency among Hispanic youth to join criminal gangs. I cover juvenile court and know firsthand that we have vastly disproportional numbers of young Hispanic gang members. Based on my personal observation, these boys (and girls) are torn between two cultures: the traditional Hispanic culture of their frequently-Spanish-speaking parents and the broader American culture that they experience at school and elsewhere. Alternating between both and belonging to neither, they seek acceptance from gangs such as the Surenos, Nortenos, and MS-13.
It doesn't take too many 13-year-old kids proudly sporting the three-dot tattoo that symbolizes membership in SUR-13 to realize that America can choose between doing a better job assimilating the youngest Hispanic generation, or paying the price later.
Everything I have read and seen leads me to believe the message of this article(s) is false. The lowering of crime rates in the 90’s can just as easily be correlated to the effect of legalized abortion a decade and a half earlier(anyone else read Freakenomics?) Basically as some others here pointed out a high proportion of “street crime” is committed by single, young males. All other evaluations aside the familial nature of many hardworking Mexican immigrant families probably does more to affect the crime rates than anything else.
Reading through the articles and the blog I am struck by all the false connections and conclusions. Regardless of the truth of what I say above this seems like bad science to me. Others who mention the lack of crime reporting by illegal immigrants is probably valid as well. I don’t know the truth here but I am extremely skeptical of these reports. Not convinced at all.
Due respect, first 4 comments:
(1)
If the effort to make illegal immigration a felony is successful, we can expect to see the crime rate among first-generation Mexican immigrants skyrocket.
(2)
At what point does immigration stop? 500M? 1BN? Or does the U.S. continue to act as relief valve for over-populated nations forever?
(3)
Maybe illegal immigrants dont take their troubles to the police as often as native born blacks and whites.
(4)
Is illegal immigration no longer a crime? Even if it did decrease the rate of other crime, it is still a criminal offense and should be treated that way.
Why, on earth, are you telling me to calm down? I'm not one of the people that's practically busted a gasket over an inference that this post doesn't even create (open borders). Please don't make me out to be some naive paranoid liberal that's reading too much into these things. The comments are sitting right there for everyone to read.
And as for this:
The article is about first generation Hispanic immigrants. I'm all for open immigration, but you're being willfully ignorant if you pretend that there isn't a substantial percentage in that group who immigrated illegally.
Well, I'm glad I'm not willfully ignorant, since I don't believe that. I live in Houston, and have for most of my life. I'm all for David Lajaunie, for example, who takes the time to look at the data and refute it. Nice job, David. More people should take their cues from you. The vast majority of responses, however, were nothing like that. I'm not being willfully ignorant or hopelessly naive about anything. I'm certainly not for open borders. In fact, I'm for 0 illegal immigration and limited legal immigration. I would like the comfort of knowing that position is grounded in, you know, evidence, and I would be open to changing it if my position were incompatible with certain factual assumptions I had been making. I certainly welcome studies that challenge the conventional wisdom on anything.
I agree with you on the second comment, but I already conceded that.
The third comment about illegal immigrants being afraid to go to the police isn't anti-immigrant at all. It highlights a very real problem affecting immigrants. Advocates for immigrants often point out that illegal immigrants are easily exploited because they are afraid to go to the government to enforce labor laws. There is nothing remotely anti-immigrant about that comment.
As for the fourth, I'll admit that's fairly anti-immigrant also, but it's hardly blowing a gasket.
I said that you're being willfully ignorant because you claim that a discussion of issues affecting illegal immigrants is irrelevant to a discussion of issues affecting first generation immigrants. Since there is substantial overlap between the two groups, illegal immigration is absolutely relevant.
I agree that your comment was the most innocuous. By the way, I happen not to agree with it - you're assuming the deterrent effect of the felonization won't dominate the increased conviction rates. But that's the sort of analytic exercise that would benefit everyone. I feel like you are somewhat of a reluctant apologist here.
Sure, every comment (except for a few) is subject to a more benign interpretation, but I was still struck by the immediacy with which the post and thread transformed from the methodology of a statistical study into a referendum on open borders. I know you, and I know you're thoughtful. I don't see how someone could be left with some pretty unappealing inferences based on the immediacy of the association. Sure, illegal immigration is an issue in play here, but so are things like work visas, the effects on second generation criminality, whether the methods can properly control for income, whether the crime rate might be lower because these groups have less access to law enforcement, etc. etc. In fact, given the post, it seems that we were supposed to go a little bit more in that direction. Complicated stuff. I just don't see it that way. I read the post again.
some of the lowlights:
At what point does immigration stop? 500M? 1BN? Or does the U.S. continue to act as relief valve for over-populated nations forever?
Is illegal immigration no longer a crime? Even if it did decrease the rate of other crime, it is still a criminal offense and should be treated that way.
this one is one of my personal faves:
Mr. Jenkins: Would you and other advocates for
open borders be in favor of mass immigration if
the majority of said immigrants were white???
While there are certainly racists in the fringe
restrictionist groups, I believe there is no shortage
of anti-white racists among the far left open borders
crowd.
We flipped with Europe. We won and chose the Mexicans. Europe got stuck with the Arabs
While illegal immigration is certainly ipmortant, the overwhelming focus on it - when it was not expressly stated in the article - is a little disconcerting when there were so many other things to ask. I'm not asking that you agree with me, but just understand where I'm coming from.
Cheers, and good job. Always a thoughtful one...
Taking NY's place atop many of the crime tables are cities with non-trivial Mexican immigrant populations. The notion that such populations account for a crime decline fails the giggle test.
Since the authors place so much faith in self reporting I suggest they proceed to the nearest police station to turn themselves in for any past instances of indescretion.
Illegal immigration fosters racism and disdain for the law. Ignoring illegal immigration fosters racism and disdain for the law. Anyone who disagrees is welcome to pay my uninsured motorist coverage in a state whey coverage is mandatory. Connect the dots. Anyone who thinks there's a net economic benefit is welcome to pay the salaries of the 22 bi-lingual social workers my county of Ventura has hired to provide greater access to public services. They are Mixteca to Spanish translatorsn not English as there are 10,000 Mixtecans who speak neither English nor Spanish most of whom neither read nor write any language.
Actually, New York has gone from ~30,000 Mexican residents in 1990 to over 200,000 today. And the number of immigrants in New York from other nations has grown so rapidly they will soon be a majority of the population. So the immigration-corresponds-with-lower-crime hypothesis still fits. Sort of.
see
NY Times - Record Immigration ...
(requires free registration)
Of course, the real problem with the editorial is that an actual examination of the statistics shows that crime rates, especially for violent crimes, dropped among ALL ethnic and income groups during the last 15 years or so. The wave of mass immigration of the past quarter century is just coincidental.
My own personal theory is that years of playing violent video games like GTA has left a large fraction of young males too fat and lazy to commit violent street crime. Rising juvenile obesity rates led directly to lower crime rates.
But when Mexicans move to the United States and become, to one extent or another, assimilated, they tend to adopt the less desirable charactistics of the wider culture. Alas.
Haha. it is clear that a "conservative outlook" is inconsistent with criminal activity. And social liberals, of course, just can't get enough violent crime. "Gay marriage, free marijuana, and more brutal slayings!" goes their mantra, I believe.
Certainly, the proportion of Mexican immigration into NYC is far less than in other cities.
Giggle test still fails, I fear.
These are the results of a scientific study conducted near an American university, and therefor certified to be correct and infallible.
Brett, please read the post before you accuse me of being oblivious. There's one sentence that talks specifically about first generation Mexican Americans, the rest talks about "hispanic/mexican americans" or expressly about second and third generation immigrants.
I never denied that the study sample included illegal immigrants. Ever. Please stop trying to clobber me over the head with a straw man that I never said. However, based on the THING WE'RE ANALYZING, I'm going to go ahead and continue to adhere to the position that the sample set here is not one that is accurately described as 'illegal immigrants.'
Perhaps we should oil them some?
But hasn't it been the general experience that (apart from situations where immigrants are crammed into cities), new immigrants tend to be on their best behavior? And illegal immigrants will naturally tend to avoid doing things that attract attention of the authorities?
Except it talks extensively about 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants, which are by DEFINITION not illegal.
I really don't understand what your beef is with me here, other than I suspect you intensely dislike me. I have never suggested that first generation immigrants weren't largely comprised of illegals. But given that the survey wasn't offered for the purpose of analyzing only illegal immigrants, or even only first generation immigrants, the focus on the open border/illegal immigration issue was in absolute disproportion to that issue's role in the passage posted.
No one suggests we should put illegal immigrants in jail - what we should do is find them and deport them, and then seal the border so they can't come back. Which would be cheaper in the long run than the billions we pay for their medical costs, and welfare, and education...what kind of country is this that so many people are advocating violating federal law? What if this was the assault weapons ban? Illegal immigration is a crime, and as long as it remains so it must be prevented.
Robert J. Sampson's thesis that Hispanic immigration is in part the cause of lower crime rates plays better as a reason why immigration - at least legal immigration - is not a cause of higher crime rates. Illegal immigrants are more likely to be involved in crime than legal immigrants, which explains much of the concern about illegal immigration. Among possible causes of lower crime rates, he neglects one which many people living in places like New York and Cambridge prefer to ignore - the deterrent effect of increased gun ownership and the concealed carry laws now in place in over two thirds of the states. The studies of John Lott and others in this area are quite definitive.
Sincerely yours,
Brooks Lyman
President, MIT Pistol &Rifle Club
Cambridge, MA
(1) That assumes that illegal immigrants commit crimes against other illegal immmigrants in disproportion to their actual fraction of the population.
(2) That assumes citizens do not commit crimes against illegal immigrants in disproportion to to their actual fraction of the population.
(3) To the extent that most illegal immigrants are poor and have access to fewer resources, they are more likely to be caught and prosecuted for the crimes they do commit.
If you are making a statistical bias argument, and perhaps there is one to be made, it's not clear which direction it points.
Haha. Others such as...Mary Rosh?
(I'm not arguing the merits of the more-guns-less-crime thesis one way or the other. But come on: can you seriously still cite John Lott's work with a straight face?)
I propose a synergistic effect. We hire Mexicans, arm them, and sent them to work as auxiliary police.
Any idea that's that sure of sending the border patroll Michelle Malkin fans into a frothing racist seizure has my vote!
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/060312_sampson.htm
/I mean Sailer
//ha . . . slashies
If Steve Sailer had been in charge of immigration in 1845 and your last name is O'Brian, your ancestors would have starved to death in Ireland.
If Steve Sailer had been in charge of immigration in 1880 and your last name is Horowitz, your ancestors would have been attacked in a pogrom. If they had survived this, they would have been exterminated in a Nazi death camp.
If Steve Sailer had been in charge of immigration in 1890 and your last name is Tancredo (ha ha) your ancestors would have been killed by the Mafia in their Sicilian village.
If Steve Sailer had been in charge of immigration in 1900 and your last name is Kurulewski, your ancestors would have been incinerated when the Nazis blew up Warsaw.
If Steve Sailer had been in charge of immigration in 1910 and your last name is Chang, your ancestors would have been raped and killed in Nanking, or starved to death in the Great Leap Forward, or perished in a Cultural Revolution reeducation camp.
If Steve Sailer had been in charge of immigration in 1920 and your last name is Kawasaki, your ancestors would have been incinerated in Tokyo or Hiroshima, or in a cave in Okinawa.
If Steve Sailer had been in charge of immigration in 1960 and your last name is Gonzales, you would still be stuck in a hellhole nation called Cuba.
All hail Steve Sailer!
Nor do I see Gordo's point - it's not America's responsibility to let everyone in a bad situation into the country. There's a whole lot of people around the world who would be a lot better off in America. We have neither the ability nor the responsibility to let any or all of them in. The question is what effect they have in America after they arrive - and so far those effects seem to be mostly negative.
"Steve Sailer hated Mexicans! And he was half Mexican! ... And he hated irony!"
"Steve Sailer is the father of every kid in this town!"
"Steve Sailer once showed me a video of him making love to my wife, and it was the most beautiful thing I ever saw!"
"Steve Sailer's poop is used as currency in Argentina."
"I once saw Steve Sailer scissor kick Angela Landsbury."
"Steve Sailer sheds his skin once a year."
"Steve Sailer did 3 tours in 'Nam...... I was in Corpus Christi on business a month ago. I had this eight foot tall Asian waiter, which made me curious. I asked him his name. Sure enough it's Ho Tran Steve Sailer!"
"I once saw Steve Sailer eat a whole live chicken."
"Steve Sailer was a two ton man-mountain who could palm a medicine ball!"
"Steve Sailer had a four day heart attack...a day for each chamber. At the autopsy, they said his heart looked like a basketball filled with riccotta cheese."
"Steve Sailer once punched a hole in a cow just to see who was coming up the road."
"Steve Sailer sheds his skin once a year."
"Steve Sailer did 3 tours in 'Nam...... I was in Corpus Christi on business a month ago. I had this eight foot tall Asian waiter, which made me curious. I asked him his name. Sure enough it's Ho Tran Steve Sailer!"
I wish to say nothing at all other than these were FUUUNNNYYY! Belly laughs are a good thing.
This argument was first made by the "Know-Nothings" of the 1850's against the Irish immigration wave.
Are you arguing that things started going downhill in this country in the 1850's?
If we had greatly restricted immigration starting in the 1850's, this would be a much different nation. We would be another Australia - at best. The other possibility? - South Africa.
It is also absurd to compare American immigration in the 19th and early 20th centuries to American immigration today. The Schmidts and O'Brians and Horowitzes and Tancredos and Kurulewskis and Changs and Kawasakis invoked by Gordo above were immigrating into a hard knocks society where you and your children pretty much either assimilated or died. Today's immigrants are entering an advanced welfare state that actively encourages "multiculturalism."
Then why are today's Asian, Hispanic, and African immigrants following the same assimilationist path as their predecessors? The statistics back this up, despite all of the undoubted anecdotal evidence you can conjure up.
Admit it, Steve, you don't want these immigrants because they aren't the same race as you.
Your imputation of racism to me is a disgusting and unfounded smear.
Kovarsky: the word "multiculturalism" is, indeed, a "stupid, political-correctness inspired word." That alone is sufficient justification for putting it in scare quotes. I agree that what it represents is not silly. It is other things.
The question then arises - why do otherwise intelligent Americans do this?
The answer? Racism or nativism, take your pick.
Let me translate this study for you and your logic-avoiding ilk:
We can pay hispanic immigrants crap and they won't commit as many crimes white or black natives would if we paid them that crappy, because they come from a third world country so it's still a lot for them. But, more relavently to the actual crime rate, they still commit more crimes than native born because damnnnnn we pay them crappy! Oh, and the effect dissappears with each succeeding generation, and in America's long term future, generations after 1st generation are what matter.
Also, Hispanics have been poor and will be poor for a long time. Using Sampson's own equations plugging in socio-economic factors and spitting out crime, would undoubtedly reveal that for at least several decades to come (the time frame in which hispanics could concievably come close to anglo socio-economic indicators), hispanics will disproportionately commit crimes on an absolute scale (hispanics who are almost all descended from 1st generation immigrants).
I don't understand how some people can dismiss immigration restricionists as racist, nativist, anti-foriegn biased, etc. I'd like them to explain why not wanting to have crimes commited upon you on an absolute scale (screw Sampson's adjustment, if you are mugged by someone making 12,000 a year, Sampson doesn't weigh it as that important, but you still got mugged), is racist.
Where is the flaw in my argument? How am I a racist? I want logical answers from Gordo and others. Cut the ad-hominen bullshit.
I'm pretty sure that, just like good immigrants and good citizens, good illegal immigrants want to stay away from bad illegal immigrants too.
Nine years ago, my car got a flat tire. It was dusk. I rolled into an abandoned lot, in a really bad slum about 10 miles from help. I did not have a cell phone, and my 2-month-old infant son was with me. One of those young non-English speaking Mexican criminals we seem to be discussing appeared from nowhere -- he had no car and was walking -- shooed my baby and me to the side, changed my tire, said no to my offer of reward, waved goodbye, and walked away into the dusk, headed toward that bad neighborhood where I assume he lived. I could only categorize him as a "good man", regardless of his nationality.
harttite increase length penis enlargement patch continuator supersensuousness semimonastic [url=http://www.naturalherbals.biz/virilityexpatch/] penis enlargement patch[/url] [link=http://www.naturalherbals.biz/virilityexpatch/] penis enlargement patch[/link]
sabalaceae free fx education forex training latax unroyal delimitate [url=http://www.eazy-forex.biz/Forex.Training.html] forex training[/url] [link=http://www.eazy-forex.biz/Forex.Training.html] forex training[/link]
arrogative fat blocker fat blocker awfulness taryba revertively [url=http://www.vitastore.biz/Products/FatBlocker-2.html] fat blocker[/url] [link=http://www.vitastore.biz/Products/FatBlocker-2.html] fat blocker[/link]
houndy weight loss carbohydrate blocker jarkman bauera syzygetically [url=http://www.vitastore.biz/Products/Citrimax.html] carbohydrate blocker[/url] [link=http://www.vitastore.biz/Products/Citrimax.html] carbohydrate blocker[/link]