Immigrants Reduce Crime

These stats have been mentioned before in the other immigration threads but statistics show that immigrants, even illegal immigrants, reduce violent crime rather than increase it which is a widespread perception and one that underlies support for the latest Az laws and other campaigns against illegal immigration. I think this issue deservese its own thread as a topic of discussion as how much of a threat illegal immigrants are is critical to understanding the issue fully.

This piece is fairly long so I am just posting some highlights but recommend reading the whole piece at the link.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/05/27/reading-ranting-and-arithmetic.html

Reading, Ranting, And Arithmetic
Good cops know the difference between dangerous criminals and illegal aliens, which is one reason violent crime is going down, even in Arizona.
Last Friday, supporters of Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer posted an amusing little video on YouTube showing a Kermit-ish frog singing about the need to read and then going into a funk after screening clips of Obama administration officials admitting they opined on the recent Arizona immigration bill without having, well, read it.

Fair enough. You have to take a good look at the law to appreciate how truly sinister it really is. But Brewer and her supporters need to do their homework, too. A little basic research would have shown them that big cities with large immigrant populations are safer places to live.


This is not just a matter of random correlation being mistaken for causation. A new study by sociologist Tim Wadsworth of the University of Colorado at Boulder carefully evaluates the various factors behind the statistics that show a massive drop in crime during the 1990s at a time when immigration rose dramatically. In a peer-reviewed paper appearing in the June 2010 issue of Social Science Quarterly, Wadsworth argues not only that “cities with the largest increases in immigration between 1990 and 2000 experienced the largest decreases in homicide and robbery,” which we knew, but that after considering all the other explanations, rising immigration “was partially responsible.”

To deny that reality and ignore its implications is likely to make life more dangerous all over America, diverting resources away from the fight against violent crime and breaking down the hard-won trust between cops and the communities where they work. Several police chiefs tried to make exactly this point Wednesday on a visit to Washington to talk about the Arizona law, due to take effect in July, and the bad precedent it sets. “This is not a law that increases public safety. This is a bill that makes it much harder for us to do our jobs,” said Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck. “Crime will go up if this becomes law in Arizona or in any other state.”

This is not an ideological question, although some of the law’s supporters, including some cops, would like to turn it into one. Experience has shown that when immigrants think they’ll be nailed for immigration offenses, they stop cooperating with law enforcement. The intelligence needed to find and fight hard-core criminals, whatever their immigration status, will be harder to get. People who feel themselves singled out for discrimination will withdraw more and more into ghettos, increasingly marginalized from American life instead of integrated into it. Smart cops understand all this perfectly well.
...
That’s a distinction that raving pundits on the right have always had trouble making when they talk about an “illegal-alien crime wave.” And even some politicians who know better have been happy to stoke the fire. Thus Governor Brewer told Fox News and anyone else who’d listen, “We’ve been inundated with criminal activity. It’s just—it’s been outrageous.” Arizona’s Sen. John McCain said last month that the failure to secure the border with Mexico “has led to violence—the worst I have ever seen.” The president of the Arizona Association of Sheriffs, Paul Babeu of Pinal County, claims, “Crime is off the chart in this state.”

What the FBI chart actually shows is that the incidence of violent crime in Arizona declined dramatically in the last two years. After a spike in 2006 and 2007, the number in Phoenix dropped to 10,465 in 2008 and to 8,730 in 2009, which is lower than it was six years ago. Murders, which hit a high of 234 in 2006, dropped to 167 in 2008 and 122 in 2009. (Some lesser crimes may go unreported, especially if people are scared to talk to the cops, but police statistics only rarely miss a murder.)
...
Did I already make that point? It bears repeating. The FBI numbers show that in the midst of the supposed crime wave, many other cities in the Southwest have had declines in crime similar to Phoenix. El Paso, Texas, just across the Rio Grande from a ferocious drug war in Juarez, where some 5,000 people have been murdered in recent years, saw almost no change in its own crime rate and remains one of the safest cities in the country, with only 12 murders last year. San Antonio saw violent crime drop from 9,699 incidents to 7,844; murders from 116 to 99. Compare that with a city like Detroit, which is a little bigger than El Paso and much smaller than San Antonio—and not exactly a magnet for job-seeking immigrants. Its murder rate went up from 323 in 2008 to 361 in 2009.

 

I don't advocate a completely open border but I do believe that we should open them up quite abit. I think something like a relatively open border where almost anyone can come in provided they pay a small fee, like a $100, pass through a customs checkpoint and gets a visa there (registration of their presence in the US) would address the situation. That would remove much of the impetus for violent crimes from Coyotes who smuggle people for thousands of dollars through dangerous situations.

 

First off a billion people are not going to come to the US even if the border if completely open as it is logistically impossible for that many people to be on the move. Immigration is largely a function of economics which while encouraging some to come it also discourages some people from moving, closed borders or not it is just expensive to up and move. Also many other factors keep people in the same place. For example Detroit has a very depressed economy while North Dakota's is booming. Its not like the whole population of Detroit is moving to North Dakota even though they legally can.

Second I never said just open the border for people from Mexico. I would apply the same standard to alll who wanted come no matter their origin country or point of entry.

 

Except as the article points out immigration reduces violent crime as the tight knit communities of immigrants tend to be more stable and when immigrants are not afraid of being hounded on immigration issues they are more likely to cooperate with law enforcement.

Which is why if under my proposal we open the borders more to match the reality of the situation we can bring the immigration issue from the underground economy out in the open. A the moment the focus on enforcement just means that more immigration gets pushed underground. That actually makes it more likely for thos who want to harm the US to slip in as their are more illegal avenues for them to come through. Bringing immigration out in the open lagely deprives coyotes of their income source and also frees up ICE and homeland security from largely chasing people coming here for economic reasons and onto those who might want to do harm as its less likely for those who just want to come here to work would go through the hassle of paying a Coyote to smuggle them in if there is a relatively easy way to come here legally.

Most illegal immigrants are here to work and contribute to our tax base by paying things like sales and payroll taxes even while they don't get many of the benefits. The arguments that illegals burder our welfare system is unproven by statistics and it is more likely that they add more to our economy than they take away.

Also consider that the way social security is set up is that we need more workers for every retiree. Given our demographics the only way that can be maintained is through immigration.

I'm glad you think that way as that is the crux of the argument that the article is presenting.