Immigrants Are Less Criminal Than Native-Born Americans

Maybe they should be afraid of us.



Immigration, especially illegal immigration, leads to more crime, assert some anti-immigrant think tanks. A 2010 poll in Utah found that 62 percent of respondents  "definitely" or "probably" agreed that illegal immigrants are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime. A 2007 poll conducted on behalf of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice poll also reported that "62 percent of people polled believed illegal immigration is tied to rising crime." The National Opinion Research Center's 2000 General Social Survey asked whether "more immigrants cause higher crime rates." Twenty-five percent of respondents said "very likely" and an additional 48 percent answered "somewhat likely."

In fact, most research today finds that immigrants, including undocumented ones, are less prone to crime than are native-born Americans. A 2008 study by researchers at the Public Policy Institute of California found that "the foreign-born, who make up about 35 percent of the adult population in California, constitute only about 17 percent of the adult prison population." They further noted, "U.S.-born adult men are incarcerated at a rate over two-and-a-half times greater than that of foreign-born men." A 2010 report from the Berkeley Center for Criminal Justice observed that, between 1991 and 2008, when nearly 3.7 million foreign-born people, about a third of whom were "unauthorized" immigrants, moved to California, the state's violent crime rate fell by 55 percent. The national violent crime rate also has fallen by more than 70 percent since its peak in 1993 even as the number of immigrants residing here swelled from 20 to 40 million over the past two decades.

In fact, the findings in a 2010 study on immigrant populations in America's larger cities "suggest that growth in immigration may have been responsible for part of the precipitous crime drop of the 1990s."

On the other hand, there are a few studies that do find a correlation between immigration and higher property crime rates. Using county-level crime and immigrant data between 1980 and 2000, University of Chicago researcher Jorg Spenkuch calculates that "a ten percent increase in the share of immigrants—roughly one percentage point based on numbers from the 2000 Census—is estimated to lead to an increase in the property crime rate of circa 1.2 percent, while the rate of violent crimes remains essentially unaffected."

In 2008, Arizona started enforcing its Legal Arizona Workers Act (LAWA), which imposed sanctions on businesses that hired undocumented workers. As a consequence of LAWA, lots of young noncitizen male Mexican migrants left the state. Using data generated by this natural experiment for his 2013 study, University of Cincinnati criminal justice researcher, Aaron Chalfin finds, "After 2008, Arizona's crime rate (particularly its property crime rate) declined by approximately 10 percent implying that the decline in the foreign-born Mexican share induced by LAWA resulted in a decline in property crimes of more than 20 percent."

Let's set aside the dispute over what the relationship between crime and immigration is for now to consider an interesting new study by team of researchers led by Saint Louis University sociologist Michael Vaughn. That study aims to get beyond the "immigrant paradox" in which immigrants are more socially disadvantaged yet less likely to commit crime. They probe "the full depth of antisocial behavior" using data from the National Epidemiological Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC). Since there were two surveys, there is data on changes in antisocial behavior adjusting for the length of time immigrants had lived in the U.S.

Good old-fashioned "root causes" sociology would suggest that since immigrants are more likely to be male, poor, younger, less educated and live in cities, they should be more prone to antisocial behavior. Yet this study reports that they are considerably less antisocial than native-born Americans. This finding applies to immigrants from Africa, Asia, Europe and Latin America.

The NESARC asks participants to self-report on 31 antisocial behaviors including bullying, hurting animals, staying out late without permission, shoplifting, and starting fights.

 "Across the board, the prevalence of antisocial behavior among native-born Americans was greater than that of immigrants," find the researchers. According to the survey, immigrants were particularly less likely than native-borns to engage in behaviors that could hurt others, truancy, stay out late without permission, quit a job without options, shoplift, or do something for which they could get arrested.  Native-borns were four times more likely to report violent behavior than Asian or African immigrants and three times more likely than Latin American immigrants. European immigrants were only about third less likely to engage in violence than native-borns.

Why might immigrants be more tractable? Fear of deportation would tend to make people behave, but it could also be that the sort of person who has the gumption to seek a better life in another country may already have the self-discipline to rein in antisocial behavior.

In any case, these findings prompt Vaughn and his colleagues to speculatively ask, "If increased immigration lowers the crime rate, then can immigration be thought of as a crime prevention strategy?"

Well, maybe, but the effect would only be temporary.  Every year that an immigrant lives in the U.S. is associated with a 1.9 and 0.9 percent increase in nonviolent and violent crime respectively. Their data also show that the behaviors of the children of immigrants over time begins to resemble that of native-borns. In other words, assimilation means adopting the social (or antisocial) norms of native-born Americans.

An old joke goes: My family has been having problems with immigrants ever since we got to this country. Natives have always viewed newcomers with suspicion.

"The continued indictment for criminality of those just arrived is as old as the history of our country, and has been directed, during each period, with greatest vehemence against that national group whose migration here has been the most recent and the most marked," observed a 1931 Michigan Law Review article. Citing the determinations of the congressional Dillingham Commission (1911) on immigration twenty years earlier, the article added, "All the evidence then available indicated a lesser criminality on the part of the immigrant group as a whole. Succeeding studies have supported this conclusion."

They still do.

NEXT: Dawn of the Planet of the Apes: Age of Ape-Pocalypse

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. These data might be correct, but you can't draw a conclusion. A huge portion of the crime reductions mentioned occurred in New York City under Rudy and Mikey. I'd be interested to see what happened to these numbers if you removed NYC or if you removed African Americans from the results.

    I honestly have absolutely zero idea if it would demonstrate that illegal immigrants commit more crimes, but so does the author...

    1. Or is it neither...

  2. You know who else exhibited anti-social behavior?


      1. I was going to say, "Nick Gillespie!" for his propagation of murderous GIFs

        Why...? Was there someone else you were thinking of...?

        1. Oh thank goodness! You had me worried for a second 😉

          1. Hitler! boom


  3. In fact, most research today finds that immigrants, including undocumented ones, are less prone to crime than are native-born Americans.

    Crime is directly caused by what we choose to criminalize. But, setting aside for a moment that being undocumented in this country has been made a crime, I could see being undocumented being incentive to lie low and not draw attention from the po-po. On the other hand, as legit Americans we have the right to flaunt the laws that get passed by the people we vote into office. So, in conclusion, America fuck yeah.

    1. Illegals don't have much to worry about with regard to the cops. The cops won't detain them for deportation, and the cops know that the illegals won't show up to court. So they often just let them go.

    2. Are illegals by definition criminals?

      And therefor 100% of them have committed crimes?

      Am I missing something?!

      1. So were those who broke Jim Crow laws, so yes, you are missing something.

        1. The people who broke Jim Crow laws were citizens of the United States, dolt.

          1. So what?

          2. Way to miss the point.

        2. Whether or not breaking the laws was a good thing or not is beside the point. If you're comparing the volume of people that break the laws, by definition 100% of people who entered the country illegally broke the law. So at best the two groups could be equal, if 100% of legal citizens also broke the law (which is probably pretty close to accurate, considering how many laws there are).

          1. All the witches in that them thar dark ages? They, too, broke ALL of that them thar laws agin' bein' a-cursed WITCHES!!! BURN that them thar law-breakin' WITCHES, Ah sez!!!!

    3. Crime is directly caused by what we choose to criminalize.

      Exactly. All of the right wingers I discuss this issue with make it a point of calling them 'criminals.' I ask these right wingers how many times they have ever exceeded the speed limit, by even 1 mph. How many times they have rolled through a stop sign. How many times they have thrown something into the trash can that was technically forbidden as trash.

      Calling immigrants 'criminals' but calling concealed carriers in outlawed places 'patriots' is the height of hypocrisy and bullshit. Conservatives will get a clue when they can formulate some logic that can be uniformly, not just selectively, applied. I won't hold my breath for that day.

  4. God I love those signs.

  5. So, because Americans are anti-social a-holes already, we need to import more? Is that the idea?

    1. "We"? I think they mainly import themselves.

      Anyway, I think that the idea is that the argument that immigrants increase the crime rate is false.

      1. Except for the silly fact that ILLEGAL immigrants (you left out the key word) ALL are criminals, just by virtue of setting foot on our soil.

        1. So we're all criminal appearantly, unless of course you've never sped, right?

  6. ?Oh, what was your name in the States
    Was it Thompson, or Johnson, or Bates
    Did you murder your wife and fly for your life
    Say, what was your name in the States??

    1. I've often speculated why you don't return to America. Did you abscond with the church funds? Run off with a senator's wife? I like to think you killed a man: It's the Romantic in me.

  7. Every anchor baby is native born. I guess this research shows they are less law-abiding than their parents.

    1. Uh. No. You must take your lessons on interpreting statistics from gun control advocates.

    2. Sweet! BTW, what's the point of this piece? An attempt to put a happy face on the kids trying to cross the border who get gang-raped, tortured and in many cases death or dismemberment?

      Oh, and Ron, here's a little something to wet your whistle:

      2 oz Vodka

      1 oz Triple Sec (colorless Cura?ao)

      1/2 oz Juice - Cranberry

      1/2 oz Juice - Lime

      Shake ingredients with ice and strain into a chilled cocktail glass. If you like the sugar rim, moisten the rim with cranberry juice then dip the rim into granulated sugar. *For a purple Cosmopolitan replace Triple Sec with Blue Caraco


      1. Triple Sec is not colorless Cura?ao, you heathen.

        1. I wouldn't know; I don't go to the cocktail parties.

          1. SF doesn't go to cocktail parties. He drinks alone.

          2. If you're going to insist on trotting out a tired joke, at least get it right.

      2. Why are you ruining my Margarita on the rocks?

  8. Speaking of immigration Lebron's back to Cleveland to let the city down one last time.

    1. Cleveland let itself down when it let Euclid Street happen...

  9. Anti-social and criminal are not the same thing.

  10. My wife's an immigrant and she's very criminal. Sometimes I must detain her for hours of intense interrogation before releasing her without charge.

    1. I hope there's a newsletter I can subscribe to . . . .

      1. Well she's blonde and Western European so her value as an immigrant exceeds that of over 332 Somali cab drivers. It can be easy to forget that she is foreign scum whom I must rigorously reexamine from time to time.

      2. The newsletter is called The Daily Plow

  11. I told you these immigrants don't fit in.

  12. "Across the board, the prevalence of antisocial behavior among native-born Americans was greater than that of immigrants," find the researchers."

    Replace "native-born Americans" with "native-born Americans Blacks", and the article actually makes sense.

    1. See first comment above.

      1. Racist!

        1. YOU ARE!

          1. Facts are racist. We should have nothing to do with them!

    2. Well, when are you going to agitate for deporting them?

      If your really want to be consistent, you should support lifting immigration limits on asians. They'll lower our crime rate.

      At least Murkin's willing to actually propose such ideas.

    3. The area conservatives can't decide whether to blame spics or niggers for all our ills.

      1. I blame canadians for our ills, filthy icebacks!

    4. Yep. Stuff this in Reason's face, if it wants to go there - blacks commit a whole lot of crimes, and if your argument for immigration is "blacks sure are criminals!" then own it.

  13. Native-borns were four times more likely to report violent behavior than Asian or African immigrants and three times more likely than Latin American immigrants. European immigrants were only about third less likely to engage in violence than native-borns.

    So, is this measure of anti-social behavior based on self reported metrics? If so, then it might make sense that immigrants would be less inclined to self report for fear of deportation.

    Which isn't intended to be an anti-immigrant statement, just pointing a potential flaw in the data if it relies on self reported numbers.

    1. It means that crimes committed by illegal immigrants is much higher than indicated by statistics, because it is not reported.

  14. Nobody is afraid of us/US.

  15. One thought:

    IF you're going to debunk the idea that immigrants commit more crime, you might use data about crime rates.

    Not "anti-social behavior", whatever that is.

    1. Hey, the writer doesn't want logic to interfere with his agenda.

  16. Well. In my 4 miserable years in Arizona I had my car broke into three times, my house once, major property damaged twice, and was physically assaulted once. All by illegals, I know, because those were just the times I called the cops and they actually caught the people. I stopped calling the cops after I was robbed of my ID and they would no longer allow me to file police reports (seriously--they wouldn't let me file a report about my stolen ID because I didn't have ID. Thanks, Tucson PD!).

    But then I found out some fucktard politicians did some shit once in other countries or something so HELL YEAH WHITE GUILT. I deserve it. Fuck.

    1. Wow, I lived in AZ for close to 7 years and never once had any issues with TEH ILLEGALZ.

      Also, check the crime stats for AZ, they're the lowest they've been in decades.

      1. B-b-but muh anecdotes! LA RAZA

      2. You're lucky, and probably don't live in Patagonia or Yuma.

        I worked myself into a nice frothing-mad anti-illegal frenzy back when it happened, but now, years later, it is the cops I resent. They treated all of us like shit, victims and suspects alike. And I've since had even worse experiences with cops. I don't know that there's any kind of crime I'd call the cops for nowadays.

  17. Like that crime-ridden country of Japan or Finland!

    They need some foreigners to get those crime rates down.


    1. Non-sequitor

  18. The self-reported study is no good. People don't self-report honestly. But it's clear there is no positive correlation between immigration-legal or unauthorized-and crime.

    1. Except for drunk driving. Otherwise you are correct.

  19. It might be a bit off-topic but I saw this article on Breitbart about peoples from Baltimore asking where they could get asylum. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-G.....Get-Asylum

    And here a video from reporter Charlie LeDuff talking about this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-c_uPA1sNE

  20. Honesty always flies out the window at Reason when it's time to propagandize for open borders.

    At the most basic level of analysis, the *relevant* population to get statistics on are *illegal* immigrants, not *all* immigrants.

    The more general issue for most people is whether the government can filter less desirable immigrants from more desirable immigrants, where desirability is based in the preferences of *current citizens*.

    I think this is obvious, as do most people in the US, as do most people around the world.

    "Good old-fashioned "root causes" sociology would suggest that since immigrants are more likely to be male, poor, younger, less educated and live in cities, they should be more prone to antisocial behavior. "

    Actually, such analysis indicates that one can differentiate between more and less desirable immigrants, despite your dishonest efforts to evade this issue. The rest of the country, and the world, would like the less desirable kept out.

    I understand that Reason is fundamentally filled with writers who consider the existence of government borders as initiation of force.

    Fine. Make that argument, but stop feeding us dishonest bullshit in the meantime.

    1. The more general issue for most people is whether the government can filter less desirable immigrants from more desirable immigrants

      It cannot until the borders are opened and discrimination only takes place against the dangerously infectious, spies, terrorists, and other criminals.

      where desirability is based in the preferences of *current citizens*.

      Nope fuck that collectivism.

      1. Sheldon, is that you?

        If you don't want a government acting in the interests of it's current citizens, in whose interests should it act?

        Why should we get all "collectivist" and only allow US citizens to vote? Or go on food stamps? Or Medicare?

        Should the US Gov similarly protecting the rights of everyone in the world? Literally, the Policeman of the World?

        Let's see how consistent you can be in your self righteousness dogma.

        1. If you don't want a government acting in the interests of it's current citizens, in whose interests should it act?

          It used to be self-evident that governments were instituted to secure unalienable rights that were granted to all individuals equally.

          Maybe all the immigration has diluted your understanding of what the founders of the US believed and wrote down?

          Why should we get all "collectivist" and only allow US citizens to vote? Or go on food stamps? Or Medicare?

          Because voting, food stamps, and Medicare are not unalienable rights. Government cannot legitimately abrogate the rights of travel, residence, and labor, but it can certainly refuse to hand out free stuff.

          Should the US Gov similarly protecting the rights of everyone in the world? Literally, the Policeman of the World?

          Of course not. The US is obligated to secure individual rights only where it is the sovereign authority -- i.e., only within its dominion and on that dominion's borders.

          1. The US is obligated to secure individual rights of US citizens. They're the other party to the social contract. It's dominion didn't ratify the Constitution the people's elected representatives did. If a US citizen is overseas does the US government stop having an obligation to defend their rights where able because they're not within it's "dominion"? Likewise, was the US government obligated to defend the rights of the redcoats burning the White House in 1814? Or were they kind of on their own? You're take on the matter renders citizenship meaningless.

            1. The US is obligated to secure individual rights of US citizens.

              Your copy of the Declaration of Independence sounds different from mine. Also, your copy of the Constitution must have all instances of "persons" or "people" replaced with "citizens".

              They're the other party to the social contract.

              The what?

              If a US citizen is overseas does the US government stop having an obligation to defend their rights where able because they're not within it's "dominion"?

              "...where able..." Wonderful qualifier you put in there. The US government can choose to advocate for a citizen -- or for anyone else for that matter -- outside its dominion. But it can not secure his rights if he's under another nation's sovereign authority, unless of course it is "able" to.

              Likewise, was the US government obligated to defend the rights of the redcoats burning the White House in 1814?

              Of course not. They posed a direct and intentional threat upon the population. Securing the rights of those in the US meant fighting the British army and agents.

              You're take on the matter renders citizenship meaningless.

              Actually, no. My take -- shared pretty obviously by the founders -- clearly distinguishes citizens from individuals, rendering citizenship very meaningful.

              1. That in order to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
                I read this to mean that among other things, governments protections are intended for the people instituting them. The rights are universal but the securing of them by necessity can't be. I don't see any reference to "dominion".
                ... most likely to effect THEIR Safety and Happiness
                ... to provide new Guards for THEIR future Security
                Not sure why the possessive pronoun was used if the intent was to extend the security to everybody. The sentence works fine without them.
                Constitution preamble:
                "... and secure the Blessings of Liberty to OURSELVES and OUR Posterity"
                I'm sure they just forgot to add "and everybody else that wanders across our border.

                I'd like to point out that our government is not always able to secure our rights even INSIDE its "dominion" (the case of the women being imprisoned in a Cleveland basement for years comes to mind). What they're obligated to do is TRY. Just as they're obligated to do when Americans run afoul overseas and have done since the country's founding. Just as the Mexican government does for its citizens when they run afoul here (sometimes). That's THEIR obligation to THEIR citizens

              2. Who gets to define what constitutes a "direct and intentional threat" I wonder? One could argue the Mexican Government's policies encouraging illegal immigration allowing American capital to flow back into the Mexican economy makes the immigrants de facto agents of a foreign state, if not intentionally so (though the constant whipping out of the Mexican flag undermines that distinction). I'm not suggesting they be treated like enemy combatants, but they're certainly not entitled to other people's governmental resources when they have no interest in participating in or contributing to said nation.

                What do you believe are the benefits of citizenship when you've already doled out the most important one our government offers to anyone who wants it? The "free stuff" you mentioned earlier? Because everyone else is getting that too. You may like that to change but as it stands being a US citizen is meaningless.

  21. If "US born" is considered as "native", then the natives are guaranteed to commit more crime than the foreigners.

    At the top of my head, Asians, Muslims, and non Latino immigrants commit way less violent crimes than the big three (white, Latino, blacks) and their incarceration rate is small. And Asians are the fastest growing demographics.

    Violent crimes are decreasing every year, but if you were dead serious about living somewhere safe, you wouldn't think "I need to avoid places where there are many US born individuals". No, you would avoid broken down parts of the country like parts of Chicago, where there are a good amount of poor African Americans or Lations. You would go straight to places like Orange County (Asian zone central) where the immigrants and natives alike don't commit 500 shootings a day.

  22. Well, yeah, most want to come here and work their ass off with the end goal of sending money back home to loved ones. Committing crime does not help that goal.

    On top of that, the undocumented ones know they're here illegally and will do as little as possible to make themselves visible to law enforcement.

    1. "Committing crime does not help that goal."

      Actually, committing the crime of coming here illegally is the ONLY way to achieve that goal...

      1. Wait: are you saying the ONLY way into this country is by jumping the southern fence? You can't be that stupid.

        Or are you saying a high skills immigrant who jumped through all the visa hoops doesn't send money home to family? Because, again, you can't be that stupid.

        Or maybe you are...

  23. Can you really trust the results from a study that labels illegal aliens as "undocumented immigrants"? Isn't that very label the author tipping their hand to a particular bias?

    1. The proper term is "illegal humans"... To which I would sometimes almost like to say, "When humans are outlawed, only outlaws will be human". How utterly EVIL, to be born 5 or 5,000 feet or miles on the WRONG side of the sacred BORDER that has been decided upon, by Government Almighty??!?! Border disrespect == Government Almighty disrespect, == EVIL!!! BURN the witches, Ah sez!!!

      1. Again ... this is an anarchist position, not a libertarian one. If borders are meaningless how can you infer that there's a "right" and a "wrong" side to them? If borders are meaningless why is almost all of the traffic going one-way? If a government doesn't have the authority to define who is and isn't a citizen, I'm not sure how you think they'd have the ability to defend those citizens' rights.

  24. This business about the criminality of immigrants is a straw-man. It's about sovereignty not petty theft.
    You open borders people are making the same logical misstep the neocons did when applying Jeffersonian individualism to those who aren't a party to the social contract that defends it (or at least used to). The neocons applied it to Iraqis erroneously. You all are applying it in the same fashion, the difference being that instead of imposing some sort of social contract on those that may not want it you're inferring we ignore it altogether. I never mistook libertarianism for anarchism.
    A contract requires two parties. You can differ on how it is made but more often I'm seeing people infer that no agreement is necessary. There's a reason I don't walk over to Mexico and declare myself a citizen (apart from it being illegal). It's because Mexico sucks. It sucks because individual Mexicans allow it to suck (a habit Americans, native and otherwise are picking up). The same people you're suggesting we grant citizenship to en masse without even a thought to assimilation. Instead of nation building over in Iraq, the neocons should have just flew all of them over here and declared them citizens Since they're foreign-born science tells us they'd be better citizens than us anyway. Maybe we should all move there so we're less likely to commit crimes ourselves We'll just swap every generation to keep out of trouble.

  25. No, this article is completely wrong, and guilty of "selective statistics."

    Try this one: "Illegal aliens constitute over 25% of the federal prison population. Think about that for a moment. This means that a group which comprises less than 5% of the population is committing 25% percent of the crime."

    And that figure was from 5 years ago. Now they are 1/3 and one MILLION behind bars.

    We are supporting Latin American criminal class as well as Latin American underclass - the unemployed, the uneducated, the anti-social, the gang-members, the criminals, in this country. American immigration use to yield the best, now we strain for the worst.

    1. f: Some relevant data here:

      Between 1992 and 2012, the number of offenders sentenced in federal courts more than doubled, rising from 36,564 cases to 75,867.1 At the same time, the number of unlawful reentry convictions increased 28-fold, from 690 cases in 1992 to 19,463 in 2012.2 The increase in unlawful reentry convictions alone accounts for nearly half (48%) of the growth in the total number of offenders sentenced in federal courts over the period. By contrast, the second fastest growing type of conviction?for drug offenses?accounted for 22% of the growth.

  26. "Immigrants Are Less Criminal Than Native-Born Americans." If Ronald Bailey, the author of this website had done his research properly then he would find that Texas and Arizona statistics would differ from what he wrote. I'd like to see another article on this with accurate referenced statistics from California, Arizona and Texas.

    I used to live in Phoenix and crime coming from the illegals was so horrible that it was general public knowledge that police wouldn't officially record the crime because they didn't want their crime rates to be known. They wouldn't even send an officer to a person's residence for a reported theft. I had a new neighbor moving in next door who were too tired to empty their truck. The next morning the padlock had been cut and the truck was empty. The police refused to come.

    Now you can see why I need proof.

    1. GG: Of course, not all immigrants are angels.

      Back in 2010, the Associated Press reported data suggesting that border cities were actually pretty safe places.

    2. Despite the selective police non-reporting (e.g. perpetual 12-year-old baby Travon and his possession of stolen jewelry), here's this:

      Top Ten Most Wanted (LA)
      Monarrez, Jesse Enrique
      Nistal, Cesar Augusto
      Padilla, Jose A.
      Perez, Demecio Carlos
      Reyes, Ramon
      Vargas, Victor
      Villa, Ruben
      [Yes, there are only seven entries in the "top 10".]
      I couldn't find an equivalent list for Phoenix or AZ, and too lazy to page thru each entry on pages designed to maximize exposure to advertising.

  27. Immigrants aren't fungible:
    Crime rates by country of origin: Denmark
    Huge differences between countries.
    Crime rate per 100 persons, age 20-29
    [table: varies from 19.2 for Kuwait, 18.3 for Lebanon to .8 for Australia and .7 for Japan; more than 20X spread]

    Crime rates by country of origin: Norway
    [table: varies from 47 for Somalia and Iraq to 4 for Philipines; more than 10X spread]

    So the US is lucky in not getting many "immigrants" from N. Africa and other muslim [tables 7 & 8] countries.

  28. OMG NOT THIS AGAIN!!!!!!

    There is a very good reason why immigrants have a lower crime rate than native born Americans, and it has nothing to do with them being upstanding members of the community. It has EVERYTHING to do with how long they have been here!!

    For example, a 36 year-old native born citizen of the United States has most likely lived within the borders of the United States nearly all of his/her life. So he/she has had 36 years to rack up a criminal record.

    By contrast, a 36 year-old foreign born resident by definition has lived in the United States less than 36 years, in some cases for decades, in some cases for 10 years or more, but in many cases only for a year or two. Since he/she has been in the United States for a much shorter time period, he/she has had far less time to rack up a criminal record.

    That's why it seems like immigrants commit fewer crimes. If you want a truly fair comparison, you would have to add any crimes/infractions that they committed before they emigrated from their home country.

    Add to this two confounding factors: Most legal immigrants get at least a cursory criminal background check. Illegal immigrants do not, and in fact they have broken the law just by entering the United States. If you counted the crimes of illegal entry in statistics, that would make all of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants criminals, and would greatly skew the statistics.

  29. immigrants are invaders, footsoldiers of the elites, the cheap labor warriors of Capital in its battle against Labor.

    Hang the elite, drive the foreign invaders from our soil, and put the troops on the border.

  30. One wonders more about the criminality of the second generation than the new immigrant, at least in the Southwest. That's not treated in Chalfin's study.

  31. Other cultures litter and act foolish, without fear of being taken to task and held accountable.

  32. But the rape claims are probably over the top .... ????



    Yeah, these poor "undocumented immigrants" just want a job. ;|

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.