Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Criminal Immigrants?

Americans believe newcomers ”legal and illegal" are more likely to commit crimes. Research suggests the opposite is true.

ICEWikimedia CommonsDo immigrants commit more than their share of crimes? Most Americans think so. In a 2010 poll conducted for KSL-TV in Utah, 62 percent of respondents "definitely" or "probably" agreed that illegal immigrants are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime. Asked whether "more immigrants cause higher crime rates" in the National Opinion Research Center's 2000 General Social Survey, 25 percent of respondents said this was "very likely" and an additional 48 percent answered "somewhat likely." And a 2007 poll conducted on behalf of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice reported that 62 percent of Americans associate illegal immigration with higher crime rates.

The criminality of newcomers to America's shores is a sticking point in the immigration debate, one that anti-immigrant think tanks such as the Center for Immigration Studies and the Federation for American Immigration Reform often return to. Just one problem: It's not real.

In fact, most research, such as a 2008 report by University of California sociologist Ruben Rumbaut for the Police Foundation National Conference, finds that immigrants, including undocumented ones, are less prone to crime than are native-born Americans. Rumbaut finds that the incarceration rate of American-born males between 18 and 39 years of age was five times the rate of foreign-born males, and finds similar conclusions in a survey of other studies on the topic.

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 an unprecedented 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, according to data from the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics, also has fallen by more than 70 percent since its peak in 1993 even as the number of immigrants, legal and undocumented, residing in the land of the free swelled from 20 to 40 million over the past two decades.

There are a few studies that do find a correlation between immigration and higher property crime rates. Using county-level crime and immigration data between 1980 and 2000, Northwestern University 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."

Despite the evidence, Americans continue to believe that more immigrants equal more crime of all kinds. But researchers are delving deeper into the data and finding support for a surprising new theory. In 2010, Social Science Quarterly published a study of immigrant populations in America's larger cities. It suggested that "growth in immigration may have been responsible for part of the precipitous crime drop of the 1990s."

That theory is buttressed by a new study from a 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 crimes. 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 United States.

Good old-fashioned "root causes" sociology would suggest that since immigrants are more likely to be male, poor, young, urban, and less educated, 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, staying out late without permission, quitting a job without options, shoplifting, or doing 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 a 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?"

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 begin 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, even when they are frequently descended from relatively recent arrivals themselves.

"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 20 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.

Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons

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.

  • ||

    Well, look, since criminals are a major source of the revenue that runs our bold new progressive and enlightened society, it only makes sense that we import some more. Or do you want women and children to starve to death in the streets?

  • craiginmass||

    Ah, blame it on the libs...even though you very well know the right is responsible for the fearmongering about criminal immigrants.

    Very predictable. But wrong. Use facts. The reason that blue states have been more reasonable about DL's and other stuff for immigrants is that we know the truth - that is, they are hard working folks who don't mind getting dirty and have family values.

    Amazing how each issue is somehow turned backwards here - it's bizarro world.

    States like GA. and AZ. are the ones that did the fearmongering ....that is, those freedom loving real american conservatives. You know, your side of things.....

    As usual, also, liberals have a more accurate and fact-based view and policies.

    It must sadden you that some people get it.

  • Sosalty||

    They have such family values such as 'drinking while driving' more than the legal citizen population?

  • Kure'i||

    "As usual, also, liberals have a more accurate and fact-based view and policies."

    Said without any sense of irony...

    Whenever I agree with the majority of liberals on any given issue, I have to check my reasoning very carefully, because I suspect I must have made a mistake somewhere along the line.

  • craiginmass||

    "Whenever I agree with the majority of liberals on any given issue"

    It looks like most libertarians are closer to progs on immigration than they are to the standard far righties.

    Kudos to those...
    Demerits to those who tow the company (GOP establishment) line.

    I have to assume you agree with progs on cutting the security state down to size...and with their being way ahead of the curve on "freedoms" like decrim and legal pots, classifying most drug offenses as non-jail, etc.

  • Kure'i||

    I don't use the term "progressives" generally, since it's just a throwback term used since "liberal" became unfashionable; in the mid 2000s, I saw a lot of liberals calling themselves "libertarians," too, for much the same reason. In fact, the first time I heard someone refer to himself as a "progressive" was back in the early 90's, when a college Marxist self-described as one. So yeah, quacks like a duck...

    Not sure what cutting the security state down to size means, exactly, but maybe.

    Yes, not just decrim, and not just pot -- legalize all drugs. It's been my position since the late 80's, regardless of any curve. And no jail follows necessarily if there's no drug offenses.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    You can thank the WOD for this perception. Latin immigrants? They must have come over with a bundle of drugs on their back!

  • GILMORE||

    'On their back'?

    lol

    yeah, that's not where they put it.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    It's a regional thing. If you're talking customs at JFK, they're looking for expensive drugs up the butt.

    The Yuma sector of the border patrol deals a lot more with 100lb bundles of MJ in burlap sacks.

  • GILMORE||

    And they wonder why the Yuma Border Patrol insists on listening to nothing but Phish

  • Svenster||

    "immigrants, including undocumented ones, are less prone to crime than are native-born Americans"

    That's easy to believe, since Hispanic immigrants actually commit no crimes in America. Zero. Not a one.

    While the FBI lists the race of reported offenders in their annual Uniformed Crime Report (UCR), the agency does not report crimes committed by Hispanics or Latinos. Instead, it lists them as white. The FBI does list Hispanics as victims of crime, however.

    PDF Link: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv12.pdf

  • Flemur||

    True, the FBI is dishonest.

    Ron Unz has a whole series of analyses of "hispanic" crime rates, turns out to be about the same as the general population (e.g. higher than whites, much lower than blacks).

    in the population, so "hispanics" replacing blacks will lower the crime rate.

    But "hispanics" get shot at 2X to 10X the rate of whites, depending on the state:
    http://www.urban.org/UploadedP.....y-2010.pdf
    Most people (80%, usually 90%) who are shot are shot by other people of the same race...

    In Denmark and Norway, immigrants on average have a much higher crime rate than the natives, but it varies wildly depending on where they came from - Muslims immigrants and those from the M.E. and N. Africa are about 20X more criminal than others: "Huge difference between countries".

  • Flemur||

    Fix link typo:

    The crime rate for any given city is mostly determined by its percentage of blacks in the population, so "hispanics" replacing blacks will lower the crime rate.

    But "hispanics" get shot at 2X to 10X the rate of whites, depending on the state:
    ...

  • MarkinLA||

    Unz is a moron. Yeah adding more criminals who commit crime at a lower rate than blacks but higher than whites is a great way to lower the crime rate.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    In the link you provided, I see the table where they disaggregate victims of violent crime by race/ethnicity, but I don't see a table where they disaggregate offenders by race/ethnicity. Is it buried somewhere in the text?

  • JohnD||

    The problem with this ridiculous claim that the illegals commit less crimes is that they are ignoring the fact that illegals broke the law coming here. They also drive without a drivers license in most states. They don't pay taxes, except for sales tax and they go to emergency rooms and don't pay the hospitals.

  • Kure'i||

    "They also drive without a drivers license."

    Yes, because they're unable to get one. Including the kids and young adults who were brought here as children, and have lived the majority of their lives here, and now want to support themselves and their families. One of the biggest benefits of DACA is that they finally can get licenses.

    "They don't pay taxes."

    Some do, some don't. Many use ITIN numbers to pay taxes. And almost all of them pay taxes once they get a work permit, whether through DACA or an Order of Supervision. To say "they don't pay taxes" as a blanket statement is factually incorrect.

  • PM||

    Yes, because they're unable to get one.

    Generally not true in the states with the highest concentrations of illegal immigrants. Also not true in other states you probably wouldn't think of as immigration havens. For example, both states I've lived in the last 10 years, NV and WA, give driver licenses to undocumented immigrants (an irony not lost on a transplant from another state who has to bring in at least 1 form of picture ID, a birth certificate, social security card, and utility bill to get a license).

  • Kure'i||

    Well yes, in about a quarter of the states they can get them, but in those states, I'm not sure if the majority do not get them, which is the previous commenter's contention. I know that, for the DACA recipients for whom I've worked, a drivers license was a huge prize for them, and something which most of the undocumented very much wish to get.

    And yes, that irony is not lost on a lot of us. My wife, who is an immigrant, was very annoyed at the fact that the undocumented can get in-state tuition at places where she has to pay out-of-state rates.

    I think the whole issue of immigration is such a mess that anyone taking an absolutist position on it, given the practical constraints of our system and the tangled web of interrelated laws throughout it, is probably not concerned either with being honest or fair, or is just not apprised of all of the facts.

  • Careless||

    They're also basing it on counting the number of immigrants in US prison. The one criminal legal immigrant I knew (conspiracy to commit murder for hire) was deported. It's also hardly uncommon for illegal immigrants with warrants on them to flee the country.

  • Eric Bana||

    Taboola is so annoying.

  • mtrueman||

    Curious whether or not an 'internal immigrant,' one say born in New York and later moved to LA, Chicago, Alaska or wherever, would be similarly shirking in their criminality.

  • ||

    Nah man, these things only happen when you immigrant over the *magic* line on the map.

    See, you have 'permission' to cross and trade across the lines delineating your city, county, and state boundaries - but the national one? No way man, that's just too much.

  • Sevo||

    ..."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.""...

    35% of the adult CA population is "foreign-born"?
    If this study is to gain any cred, that error has to be corrected; 1/3 of CA's population is *not* "foreign-born".

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    This was on Drudge this morning:
    http://www.breitbart.com/Breit.....ak-English

  • Sevo||

    My goodness! I need to get out more.

  • Sosalty||

    Just retired from teaching in a limited English community in CA. Lots of 3rd generation immigrants, but every class has several non-english speakers. If one qualifies that many of the 2nd and 3rd generation are born of foreign born parents, yea, 1/3 of the population. Easy to say they are from MX as they speak Spanglish, a broken english and spanish mix, and I'd say are minimally assimulated as Americans, though another topic in itself. Lots of Mexican villages, complete with 3rd world living standards, up and down Cali.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    If one qualifies that many of the 2nd and 3rd generation are born of foreign born parents

    Maybe I'm missing something here, but I'm not sure that's how it works.

  • Careless||

    It's not.

  • craiginmass||

    "Lots of Mexican villages, complete with 3rd world living standards, up and down Cali."

    Someone has to do the dishes and collect the trash in an area where most white folks just won't....right?

    Isn't it true that most service folks in CA are these so-called "third world types"?

    You'd probably be SOL without them picking your food, cleaning your dishes, doing constructions and thousands of other things.

    Perhaps you need to raise up the minimum wage and give better benefits.

    On the other hand, lots of Americans going to Mexico to live and get medical work, etc. so it must not be so bad.

  • Kure'i||

    Lots of Americans go to Mexico to get medical work because their system is much more unregulated, or if regulated, such regulations are unenforced. Because regulations drive up prices, which those on the Left here cannot seem to accept.

  • craiginmass||

    Americans go to Mexico for medical work because our corporations here have a near-monopoly on most procedures and basically have you by the balls.

    So we agree. The only difference is that I understand the greed of the corporations and the system and you attribute all the blame to regulations. Last time I looked, no regulation force companies to pay executives millions per year - or, in the case of one retiring health CEO - a pension of 800 million in total value (including his built up stock).

    I'd wager that no mexican health care CEO gets that kind of money. Someone has to pay for it and it's you and I.

  • Kure'i||

    So, if greed is the reason medical procedures cost more here, rather than laws and regulations, I suppose you're positing that the difference is because either:

    1) Greed is less a factor in the Mexican healthcare system than it is in the US system; or

    2) Greed is somehow better addressed by the Mexican laws and regulations.

    Given the rampant corruption in nearly all sectors of the Mexican economy, I have serious doubts about #1. Given the rampant corruption in all sectors of the Mexican economy, I have even more serious doubts about #2.

    Secondly, people generally go to Mexico for more routine, relatively nonserious procedures; not a lot of people are going to Mexico for brain surgery or a bypass. It's a big convenience when you can walk into a pharmacy and get what you want over the counter, rather than having to go to a doctor and get a prescription for some antibiotics.

    I got some vaccinations once in Argentina, because in the United States, I had to make an appointment weeks in advance, and pay $200, whereas in Argentina I could just walk into any Ministry of Health office and get the shots for free. However, if I had to have an operation, I would've flown back to the US.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Too bad nativists don't care about facts and reason. That's why they're nativists. They'll continue to insist that the priorities of the border wall and e-verify must supersede all else, or DOOM.

  • Sosalty||

    Be nice to allow the prosperity that results from an American Constition and resulting political system. Nothing wrong with having a working border so America doesn't sink to the incompetent political system of Mexico and its' associated misery. Probably not DOOM, just a slow sinking doom.

  • JohnD||

    You are an idiot. this mass invasion of foreign people is turning America into a 3rd world country.

    Maybe you like it like that, fool.

  • MWG||

    Having lived in Arizona for 10 years and living in Brazil now, i can assure you that your full of shit if you think the US is anywhere near 3rd world.

  • Kure'i||

    Yeah, when your city doesn't have electricity or running water available, I might be inclined to listen.

    Travel more, post less.

  • craiginmass||

    Actually, the Kochs and Waltons and friends are doing the job by their opposition to min. wage and benefits and their constant lobbying success to have all the wealth go to the already wealthy.

    It's working extremely well and has nothing to do with immigrants and everything to do with the foxes eating all the chickens.

  • Kure'i||

    OMFGZ give trigger warning$ before mentioning evil KOCH$!!!!1!eleventy!1!

  • Rorschach Carlyle||

    Hey, if our immigration policies are good enough for the President of Mexico, they're good enough for you, too.

    (The comments are the highlight of the article.)

  • Marshall Gill||

    Rumbaut finds that the incarceration rate of American-born males between 18 and 39 years of age was five times the rate of foreign-born males, and finds similar conclusions in a survey of other studies on the topic.

    Bullshit, Ron. While someone may have produced some numbers to support their preconceived notions, the idea that citizens commit five times the rate of crimes as the foreign born is ridiculous on its face. Not because "America Fuck yeah" or "foreigners are not criminals" but because such a large disparity implies some huge cultural differences which are not evident at all.

    Maybe, just maybe, you could find such disparity among certain sub-cultures. It might be possible that Amish men commit 1/5th of the crime that the non-Amish do, but I doubt even that.

    Even if true it is still a bait and switch. Saying "immigrants commit less crime than citizens" doesn't say shit about the rate crimes are committed when certain sub groups are compared. Crime rates are effected by age demographics more than anything else. Young men commit more crimes than all other groups combined. Young men also make up the largest group of immigrants, also more than all other groups combined. These two factors have more influence on immigrant crime than anything else.

  • Cytotoxic||

    We await your compelling data with baited breath.

  • Ted S.||

    I don't like the smell of bait on your breath.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Whoops!

  • Mark22||

    I think the burden of proof is really on people presenting this data. We don't actually know at what rate illegal immigrants commit crimes, we only know at what rate they are caught and convicted.

    Given that illegal immigrants are already experts at hiding from authorities, it isn't at all surprising that they are caught and convicted at a much lower rate than citizens. In fact, many may simply leave the US to evade capture, something native born citizens can't easily do.

  • ||

    Or it *could* be that immigrants are under the eye of the state more and are worried about losing their green cards/visa (for the legal) and/or simply being deported (for the illegal).

  • Marshall Gill||

    it *could* be that immigrants are under the eye of the state more and are worried about losing their green cards/visa (for the legal) and/or simply being deported (for the illegal)

    Five times? The rates used where not native born versus non-native born. The rates used where "immigrant young men" versus "native born young men". Native born young men make up a much smaller percentage of the population than the percentage of young men who are immigrants.

    We have an old and getting older population. Immigrants are going to continue to be much younger as a group than the native born for some time. Unless some miracle of human nature occurs, immigrants are more likely to commit crimes as a group than the native born. This would almost certainly apply to all immigrants regardless of from where they came.

    Young men can be quite productive. Young men provide a majority of all the manual labor produced. This is in no way an argument against immigration in any form. I just do not believe studies which claim to go against what, I believe, are pretty general demographic trends.

  • mtrueman||

    "implies some huge cultural differences which are not evident at all."

    Just a wild guess, but I bet you've never emigrated. I'm correct, yes? Knew it! Obviously you don't understand the mind of a migrant. The divide between the migrant and the native born is large and easily evident if you are willing to consider it. The migrant is more diligent, more independent, less expectant and less demanding than the native born counterpart. These are not cultural differences, as you assume they are, but differences in character.

  • Marshall Gill||

    The migrant is more diligent, more independent, less expectant and less demanding than the native born counterpart. These are not cultural differences, as you assume they are, but differences in character.

    I am not making any assumptions about immigrants, other than that they are human. I am making assumptions about young men. I don't doubt for a second that emigrating takes a special character. No, I have never emigrated. I do doubt that immigrants are five times as immune to crime demographics as the native born.

  • Homple||

    I guess you aren't a Muslim who immigrated to the UK or France, then, are you.

  • mtrueman||

    I am. And don't ever mistake me for my gold bricking native born non-immigrant children, you bigoted fuck.

  • Homple||

    The mistake, apparently, was in how you raised your kids.

  • mtrueman||

    Alas, it takes a village, a proper muslim village.

  • Sevo||

    mtrueman|9.7.14 @ 9:53PM|#
    "Alas, it takes a village, a proper muslim village."

    To make it clear: By direct statement, this POS prides him/herself on being a hypocrite and lying.
    Any engagement is a total waste of time; Bo isn't nearly as practiced as this POS in self-contradiction.

  • mtrueman||

    "To make it clear:"

    I'm sure your clear making interventions are well intentioned, but they are unnecessary. We are all a step or two ahead of you Sevo.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Young men also make up the largest group of immigrants, also more than all other groups combined.

    That's not true. Looking at illegal immigrants by gender 53% are male and 47& are female. Now when we look at them by age, the largest cohort is 25-34 years, when around 2 million men and 1.6 million women. The next largest cohort is 35-44 with 1.75 million men and 1.57 million women. While there is a large disparity by gender in the 18-24 cohort, about twice as many men as women (880,000 to 540,000), this cohort is dwarfed by the male population of the other two cohorts.

    Now you might argue that 25-34 is still "young". I wouldn't, but even for the sake of argument saying that they are, it is still incorrect to state that they are larger than all the other groups combined, considering that just the total of men out side the 18-34 cohort is about 1 million larger.

    Source.

  • Marshall Gill||

    Looking at illegal immigrants by gender 53% are male and 47& are female. Now when we look at them by age, the largest cohort is 25-34 years, when around 2 million men and 1.6 million women. The next largest cohort is 35-44 with 1.75 million men and 1.57 million women.

    I concede that they apparently do not make up as large a percentage as I thought.

    "Illegal immigrants"? I thought that the study included both kinds.

    When I said "young" men, I believe the crime statistic is something like 18 to 28 so that isn't an exact fit, either.

  • Kure'i||

    "Young men commit more crimes than all other groups combined."

    You wouldn't say that about a woman. Sexist.

    But +1 Amish mafia points.

  • lap83||

    "University of California sociologist Ruben Rumbaut for the Police Foundation National Conference, finds that immigrants, including undocumented ones, are less prone to crime than are native-born Americans."

    Let me guess, he didn't look at the rates of illegal and legal immigrants separately. Wonder why.

  • lap83||

    *crime rates

  • Cytotoxic||

    I think he did actually.

  • JohnD||

    Your problem is you don't think.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    You guessed incorrectly.

    Jus' sayin'.

    Besides, I'll never get the logic of "They broke this malum prohibitum law, that's a gateway crime to malum in se!" Maybe it's just me, but if I sneaked into a country illegally, I would do everything in my power not to draw attention to myself...especially from the authorities.

  • Kure'i||

    And it's anecdotally true, in my experience. Even dealing with undocumented clients who come to me, it's like pulling teeth to get information from them, because even though they want help, they're so used to keeping a low profile that they won't ever volunteer information.

    I was in Brazil illegally once, and the last thing I thought about doing was something that would attract cops or attention.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    They're trespassers. They're criminals, by definition. They're in your kitchen, drinking your milk, eating your Oreos and throwing their trash on the floor, for crying out loud. They're IN YOUR LIVING ROOM, watching foreign language soap operas on your teevee with their muddy feet on the sofa!

  • Cytotoxic||

    LA RAZA

  • ||

    But I invited them in.

  • Kure'i||

    They're drinking mate and chewing coca leaves have a goat in your bedroom!

  • Kure'i||

    *AND have...

  • XM||

    Immigrants include a large number of Asians, Muslims, and others who commit very little crime. "Nativists" can consist of whites, African Americans and (US born) Hispanics, who tend to commit the most crime in this country. The anti illegal alien activists obviously don't fear international students attending USC or some Korean grocerer.

    If you expand the definition of crime to being in the country illegally, cheating on taxes, petty domestic violence, and selling stuff without proper license, underground prostitution, then the gap would shrink - perhaps considerably.

    To be fair, undocumented immigrants aren't supposed to be here. So if they (for example) commit only 10% of all violent crimes in the US and had criminal past in their homeland, then nativists have something to worry about. The Boston bombing wasn't that long ago.

  • ||

    If you expand the definition of crime to being in the country illegally, cheating on taxes, petty domestic violence, and selling stuff without proper license, underground prostitution, then the gap would shrink - perhaps considerably

    But then you're including a ton of stuff that libertarians don't think should be crimes anyway.

  • New Normal||

    Yeah, we should only include statistics on things Libertarians think are important!

  • Cytotoxic||

    Yes. The other stuff is just nonsense.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Do you really give a shit that Igor on the corner is selling Globnorb sandwiches without a license?

  • Kure'i||

    +1 Doug Stanhope.

  • Sosalty||

    If you included the non-arrests for a political correct group, illegal hispanics, then the gap would shrink considerably. Now combine the 2. Every US citizen in my area of Cali must have car insurance, no ifs, ands or buts. The illegal is an exception, it's waved by law enforcement, they know it, and who knows, perhaps a majority don't carry it. Our insurance premiums are calculated to cover accidents from non-insured motorists, ie: the illegal drivers. The cops in our area will tell you, they won't arrest the undocumented drunk driver or confiscate their car because it'll get dismissed and is frowned upon as a waste of law enforcement resources.

  • JohnD||

    Which is exactly why libertarians will also be a small minority.

  • craiginmass||

    "The anti illegal alien activists obviously don't fear international students attending USC or some Korean grocerer"

    So do they fear the immigrants who picked the food they eat, clean the dishes they eat off, processed the meat they desire, built the houses and buildings they dwell in?

    Which ones specifically do they fear?

  • Biff||

    From the article: "There are a few studies that do find a correlation between immigration and higher property crime rates."

    So, in terms of the types of crimes that people are, by far, most likely to be victims of, immigration may make things worse.

    In other words, in contrast to the headline and the bulk of this tendentious article, people actually *may* be justified in worrying about an increased likelihood of crime touching their *own* lives, and statistics never lie, but statisticians do.

  • Cytotoxic||

    That was one maybe decent study and one weak study. The data is overwhelmingly indicating that immigration does not increase and may decrease crime.

  • Mark22||

    Going from "immigrants are convicted at comparable rates to non-immigrants" to "immigration may decrease crime" is a vast and unwarranted leap of logic.

    Mind you, I'm actually pro immigration, but the stupidity of arguments from people like you really weakens the case for liberal immigration policies.

  • PM||

    Yeah, the two studies confirming MY bias are WAY more authoritative than the two studies confirming YOUR bias!

    /Cytotoxic, on any given topic.

  • Just Sayin'||

    There is a reason we call him "Cytotoxic the Slow".

  • blackjack||

    If you don't know the secret handshake, win our special lottery, come from a favored region or have a bunch of money, we don't want you. Our club is special, only accessed by the accident of birth. Scary outsiders will just wreck our sweet land of the free and the brave. And, of course, all those stolen JOBS! There's got to be a way to stop these monsters from casually tending our yards and caring for our children for cheap.

    The government cannot be trusted in any way except to raid druggies and prevent foreign invasion of gardeners and nannies. Those tasks are run with efficiency and morality and should be expanded to the point of absurdity. Men with machine guns demanding papers and raiding businesses are just the start. Maybe we should study the east German efforts at blocking border travel. Hell, we could even prevent actual citizens from leaving, just to increase tax revenue. The law is the law, after all.

  • Sam Haysom||

    This is exactly what the DuPont family keeps telling me when I show up their family reunions and very subtly inquire as to when my share of the DuPont fortune should he expected. I refuse to believe the accident of birth should deny my millions. I earned them by the diligence and gumption of pretending to be a DuPont and entering the DuPont estate illegally.

  • Kure'i||

    Your friend's mother is taking jobs from real 'merkins! Deport her!

  • Sosalty||

    Sounds like an English as Second Language course in college completely devoid of reality.

    Lots of incentives for the immigrants to be reported as "angelic." 1st, coming here illegitimally, though possibility ethically, makes 'em 'illegal' and have a greater propensity to commit further crimes. 2nd, the crowd coming up from MX are escaping their past, whether harsh conditions or problems with the law. They often lack solid education (even in Spanish), skills, and savings. Those with fewer resources and a history of problems will generally find themselves surrounded by conflict in their new environment.

    Immigration can be a positive, but today in the USA schools and society aren't prepared to handle the quantity or the needs of illegal immigration.

  • Cytotoxic||

    coming here illegitimally, though possibility ethically, makes 'em 'illegal' and have a greater propensity to commit further crimes.

    RTFA. They commit less crime. They come here to earn money and avoid getting caught ie live honestly.

  • Homple||

    TFA waves around statistics that conflict with reality as observed by some.

  • Mark22||

    TFA talks about reported conviction rates. Those are related in complicated ways to ethnicity, enforcement, and actual rates at which people commit crimes. Your (and the article's) interpretation of that data is invalid.

  • blackjack||

    Bullshit. People have traveled freely between MX and US forever. They will continue forever, as well. They pose less of a problem than citizens, because they are careful to avoid deportation and the many arrests the preclude eventual legal migration (which for most people is a pipe dream decades away if even possible at all)

    If you wanna complain about publicly funded services, well, there shouldn't be any, anyway. Why justify irrational immigration policies with irrational welfare policies?

    Our system of admitting immigrants is just as screwed up as our system of taxation, our legal system, our entire system of governance. As in all of these, unjust laws are ignored and life is good for everyone but the pearl clutchers and the victims of the wacky laws they are able to pass and enforce.

    There's no justice in hunting people down and caging them for merely crossing an imaginary line without permission from the same lowlifes who brought us the war on drugs, prohibition, extreme taxation, massive regulation, occupational licensing, foreign wars, conscription, the war on terror, etc.
    Yeah, those guys are great at morally creating and administering laws, why would immigration be any different?

  • JohnD||

    You are as ignorant as cytotoxic

  • Kure'i||

    I agree with the spirit of this post, but the fact is, we do have irrational welfare policies, and as long as we have them, and are tied together through these idiotic, state-enforced mandates, then to discount these costs in any utilitarian calculus is also irrational.

    As I stated in an earlier comment, I think being an absolutist, policy-wise, on immigration is foolhardy, given the mess our system is currently in. Taking on more people in an already overburdened system has to be considered carefully, because ideology is seldom solace for real world consequences.

    Yes, I'm all for allowing as many immigrants into the US as want to come, given that there is no welfare state forcing those of us to care for that immigrant's child through food stamps, public schools, social services, and all the rest. But when that immigrant has 6 kids here, and makes $4/hour, and the rest of the citizenry has to pay the difference, don't sign me up for that.

  • Sosalty||

    Many of the families of students I taught took out multiple IDs so they can collect unemployment multiple times, working a few months in the fields and drawing a check year round. Seems half the town doesn't bother with car insurance. Unemployment generally is 30 to 40% percent. One can't leave your car outside of your garage and expect the wheels to be there the next day. 4th of July best be spent in the basement from falling bullets fired into the air. My landlord dropped by to pick up the washer from behind the house. He picked it up and placed it in his truck by himself, he's collecting disability for a bad back. The ----- Lounge has gambling and that was rammed thru by bribing the local politicians, ect... Common knowledge that Police won't confiscate cars of illegal drunk drivers but will if your a US citizen. It goes on and on. If you think illegals don't have at least as high a criminal impact on communities as the rest of the population, that's your separate reality.

  • blackjack||

    I think pearl clutchers have a outsized impact on communities, that's for sure.

    So you've lived in the ghetto and now the rest of the world suffer because of your reading of the impact of immigration? I live in L.A., and my experience is the opposite. In the construction field, the natives were constantly scamming and bring legal drama, while the IIs showed up on time worked quietly, worked hard and minded their own. I've had trouble with illegals, but I've had many more times as much trouble from citizens. I only wish my present field allowed me the use of unskilled labor so I could hire illegals and avoid all the system gaming that natives do.

    It's a fallacy that IIs have nothing to lose. They will get deported if captured. They avoid trouble for just that reason, in MOST cases. Natural born citizens are less afraid of consequences, because there are fewer consequences, DUH.

  • Homple||

    Of course the behavior of those immigrants who show up for work might be different from that of the ghetto dwellers who don't.

  • PM||

    It's a fallacy that IIs have nothing to lose. They will get deported if captured. They avoid trouble for just that reason, in MOST cases. Natural born citizens are less afraid of consequences, because there are fewer consequences, DUH.

    Lol. Getting over the border with a new identity is so trivial that anybody who did it once doesn't give two shits about doing it again. I knew a guy from Mexico working as a dishwasher in WA state who got deported after some type of child support violation and was back at his old job, with the same employer, using a different name and phony SS# within 2 weeks. Cost him about 800 bucks. Which was easy to recoup with the child support monkey off his back.

    A similarly situated "natural born" citizen or legal immigrant would be in jail and financially fucked for 1/3 of their life. I've known a few guys (one a legal permanent resident, the rest "natural born") in that situation as well.

    The consequences of IRS liens, wrecked credit, and criminal convictions are also a lot more severe for people who will be facing jail or a lifetime of indentured servitude rather than a short vacation to Mexico as a result.

  • blackjack||

    You should explain to your natural born friend how to get a fake ID and a phony ss#.

    For most deportees, they lose their jobs, most of their stuff, and have to sneak back across the war zone we call a border, also torpedoing any chance of a greencard for the next decade. Imagine being forcibly taken to mexico, with zero time to prepare your household or secure your belongings, and having to make your way back, with little or no resources. I'm sure you'll abstain from volunteering for such a "vacation!"

    Of course, it's like everything else, some people have situations where it's not too big of deal to get back from deportation, while others fare much worse. Likewise, with the work/home thing. That's why anecdotes are meaningless. You can counter either side with an endless stream.

  • PM||

    You should explain to your natural born friend how to get a fake ID and a phony ss#.

    Kind of gets at my point: the consequences of identity fraud are also more severe for people who can be tracked down to a real identity in the states (here again, long jail sentence vs bus ride to Mexico City). Except for the most petty of crimes, there is nearly no situation where deportation is a worse option than the sentence and long-term consequences. So I disagree with your contention that the risk calculus is worse for the undocumented. It may be for some things, but it's certainly not a universal rule. Doesn't mean deportation is necessarily pleasant. However, it should be noted that being deported doesn't necessarily mean your family will be as well, and Western Union operates worldwide. This is a game in a lot of ways for both the immigrants and law enforcement.

  • Kure'i||

    "For most deportees, they lose their jobs, most of their stuff, and have to sneak back across the war zone we call a border, also torpedoing any chance of a greencard for the next decade..."

    It's even worse than that, for many.

    If they've spent more than a year here before being deported and then returned, they're effectively permanently inadmissible. And if their first deportation was an expedited removal, it's next to impossible to ever fix this except in very limited/specific circumstances.

  • MarkinLA||

    You don't know what you are talking about. The jails are so full in LA county that nobody is held for trial unless it is a major felony. Any sentence less than 90 days is tossed.

    Nobody reports them to ICE when they are done with their sentence.

  • Kure'i||

    I can't speak for CA or Los Angeles, but this isn't the case everywhere. I've had clients deported after serving their full prison sentences. Years after, in fact.

  • Homple||

    Funny how different the behavior of illegal immigrants appears to academics doing statistical studies than it does to those who live among them.

  • craiginmass||

    Yes, because we all know anecdotes are reality and should be used to set policy and law.

  • Homple||

    So we should trust hand waving statistics over our own observations. Top Men and all that.

  • MarkinLA||

    and we all know social "science" isn't just politics wrapped up in the trapping of science.

  • Homple||

    Anyway, the open borders whoopers don't have to worry about studies or principles because they don't have to convince skeptics to get what they want.

    Shortly after the first Tuesday after the first Monday this coming November, the Emperor Ai Won will issue an edict to open the borders (well, the Southwestern one anyway) and the Grand Immigration Without Inspection experiment will begin. Relax, calm down and put your energies to work on the problems of food truck regulation. The border problem will go away.

  • Sosalty||

    "The border problem will go away."

    Agreed, and progress toward a lawless utopia, may resume.

  • blackjack||

    Oddly enough, some of us here don't trust the government, and would like it if they constrained people less. Even if said people were born south of the magic line, and are of a different race.

  • Taco||

    What if said people engaged in the institutionalized rape of children?

  • craiginmass||

    Catholic block is already too big in the USA, but the pakis are also know for this (big time in Britain)......I guess power is power, and if child abusers have enough money and power, they get to make policy.

  • Sosalty||

    Child rape ring involving 1400 underage kids on the UK news today. What's under the radar with our undocumented?

  • Sevo||

    craiginmass|9.7.14 @ 7:21PM|#
    "Catholic block is already too big in the USA, but the pakis are also know for this (big time in Britain)......I guess power is power, and if child abusers have enough money and power, they get to make policy."
    KOCH!, right, twit?

  • Kure'i||

    "The Pakis?"

    Wow.

  • blackjack||

    The "experiment" is in trying to prevent people who have been traveling freely for centuries from doing so. Stupid immigration policies are a recent thing. They slowly developed since the depression and accelerated since 9/11. Used to be no biggie. In fact, we used to welcome the downtrodden and it was to our great benefit. We've only recently become a combination prison/country club. Now we waste billions on border "security," shoot kids for throwing rocks, demand papers from innocent citizens (100 miles from a border), regulate small businesses until near death and hunt/cage people to assuage irrational fears held by the unthinking, mindless dupes who struggle to see the basic reality of the issue, but hey, it's getting votes for both teams, so somebodies coming up, right?

  • Homple||

    Well, Blackjack, we'll be seeing in due course how your theories work out in real life. That's what experiments do.

  • RoninX||

    It worked pretty well for the US, a nation of immigrants...

  • PM||

    If it did we probably wouldn't be having a conversation about the self-same country's forthcoming "experiment" with open borders. That is to say, we haven't been operating under such conditions for about a century.

  • Homple||

    Yes, the USA today is just like it was in 1890.

  • JohnD||

    Stupid internet comments like yours are also a recent thing, but here you are.

  • blackjack||

    should I try to be more thoughtful and reasoned, like you?

  • PM||

    They slowly developed since the depression...

    I wasn't aware we were in a depression in 1882. Or 1921.

  • PM||

    Or 1924...

  • blackjack||

    You got me, lowlifes have been screwing poeple over for longer than I stated. i was fixated on the mexican repatriation.

  • ||

    i was fixated on the mexican repatriation.

    On that you are absolutely correct. Even after the 1924 immigration act transformed Ellis Island from an open gate to a locked door, migration back and forth across the Mexican border was entirely unregulated de facto until after World War II.

  • Homple||

    Those who think that Ellis Island was an open door should read the text of the 1891 Immigration Act.

    http://tinyurl.com/o9vuakm

  • ||

    Uhhh. Usually it's those of us who are for open borders who bring up the 1891 Immigration Act.

    ...the following classes of aliens shall be excluded from admission into the United States...: All idiots, insane persons, paupers or persons likely to become a public charge, persons suffering from a loathsome or a dangerous contagious disease, persons who have been convicted of a felony or other infamous crime or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, polygamists, and also any person whose ticket or passage is paid for with the money of another...

    That is not too far from what most open borders advocates call for today.

    What this Act meant in practice was that Ellis Island accepted 98% of everyone in third and lower class who came to America and 100% of everyone in first and second class. That's a far cry from the acceptance of 1% (5000 general purpose visas for 500,000 illegal immigrants) that we see today.

  • Homple||

    I have no squawk with screening immigrants. I like the part of the 1891 law which said you would be sent back if found to be on public support. It's good idea but, with today's welfare state and Proggy agitators it would never be enforced.

  • ||

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    1) To suggest that it is possible to collect data on undocumented immigrants good enough to draw this kind of conclusion is an insult to my intelligence.

    2) Technically, all undocumented immigrants are lawbreakers. I don't blame them for one fat instant, especially since the government is so uninterested in enforcing the laws involved, but this is a fact, and one that the pro-immigrant forces in our society clearly want to ignore. to the point, in fact, that when the anti-immigrant forces call them on it they flatly deny that it is true, which is silly.

  • RoninX||

    If (1) is true, then it's equally impossible for anyone to legitimately claim that illegal immigrants increase crime.

    While (2) is technically true, it's not a reason for libertarians to object to immigration. Most libertarians agree that if a law is wrong (e.g. prohibiting citizens from recording videos of police misconduct), it's not immoral to violate it.

  • Kure'i||

    Technically, since most Americans unknowingly commit felonies daily, as the laws and regulations have become so numerous that most people are unaware of them, we are all lawbreakers.

    If illegally forwarding an email makes most of us more likely to become murderers, thieves, or drunk drivers, then it's news to me.

  • XM||

    If you were born to an immigrant parent in the US, are you (for the purposes of this kind of study) still an immigrant, or a native?

  • MarkinLA||

    Probably native born so the gang-banger children of the guy working at the car wash are native born criminals and the father a law abiding immigrant. Both we could do without.

  • RoninX||

    If you were born in the US, then you are a native-born US citizen, regardless of your parents' immigration status.

  • Sosalty||

    Good ? For legal discussions, moms cross into the US, give birth, then return to MX. They are US citizens.

    More generally, I look at the original border crosser as illegal, but then his kids and gradkids that live in closed spanish speaking only communties have much in common with illegal granddad. In my studies of immigrants, they pass thru phases, sorta like grieving phases, where they resent their host country and affilate/romantize with
    'ole Mexico. Pour on a little white guilt symphathy and one can get a rather militant population ready to join gangs, spit on US soccer team in LA, and blame America for their lack of upward mobility.

  • Kure'i||

    Most of the undocumented population I've worked with is fairly apathetic apolitically. But I've seen a little bit of this in the kids, and with (like you said) white guilt/cultural relativism thrown in the mix, there's a big recipe for European style Balkanization. I figure we're about a generation behind Europe in this way; but don't worry -- it'll all go to hell sooner or later, and the libs will cry that any protest is reactionary/old white men/Tea Party/Koch$, and the SoCons will chalk it up to lack of faith/declining church rates or welfare or something equally inane.

  • Taco||

    An entire article on immigrant crime without mentioning Rotherham. Why don't you guys just admit that your entire operation is nothing more than self parody.

  • RoninX||

    Because the US != UK?

  • Taco||

    Tho is really the best answer you have?

    "That happened in Yorkshire, not New York, therefore it didn't happen as far as my decision making process goes"

  • RoninX||

    Do you really believe that all immigrants are evil, regardless of where they came from and where they moved to?

  • Taco||

    "Do you really believe that all immigrants are evil, regardless of where they came from and where they moved to?"

    Straw man. I don't believe this and never implied it. You however seem to think that the evils of unfettered immigration with no attempt at assimilation are somehow geographically limited to England.

  • RoninX||

    "I don't believe this and never implied it."

    You seem to equate illegal immigration with child rape, and most people would consider the latter pure evil.

  • Taco||

    Actually I'm pretty sure the immigrants in Rotherham were legal immigrants.

  • Kure'i||

    Okay -- If a study applies to immigrants in one country, what possibly makes you think it is applicable to immigrants anywhere?

    Muslim immigrants in Europe -- segregated, fueled by multicultural nonsense and the moral relativism fostered by the elites in the host countries -- are absolutely a different breed of immigrant than what we have, for the most part, in the US. We don't import young angry muslims to shore up our failing welfare system (yet.) We mostly have poor people sneaking across la frontera in search of a better life and to send money back home.

  • Taco||

    "segregated, fueled by multicultural nonsense and the moral relativism fostered by the elites in the host countries"

    What part of this sentence does not also apply to the United States?

  • Kure'i||

    Most immigrants, in my experience (working with them and immigration issues) just want very much to become Americans and to create a good life in this country. They're not trying to remake their country here, or overtly hostile to the core values of liberalism. This is worlds apart from the overt hostility seen in a lot of European ethnic enclaves, and hasn't reached the stage it has in Europe.

    In the US, it seems to be following the more traditional pattern of generational assimilation, though I think the academic-media complex is eroding the forces of assimilation as best it can. Like I said, I think we're a generation behind the Europeans. Unfortunately, I doubt we'll learn anything, and probably headed long-run for an increasingly nasty form of identity politics just like they will.

  • See.More||

    ... They're not trying to remake their country here...

    I'll try to remember that when I am driving through parts of town that are heavily populated by immigrants and look like Little Mexico or Little Tokyo and nothing (except traffic signs) is in English.

  • Kure'i||

    BTW -- you didn't answer my initial question, which was: If a study applies to immigrants in one country, what possibly makes you think it is applicable to immigrants anywhere?

  • Taco||

    I'm pretty sure since that you are the one advocating replacing my culture with a Central American peasant culture, the burden of proof is on you to prove that Rotherham was a one-off event, and nothing even mildly similar to it will ever occur to my children or their children.

  • Taco||

    Also this

    "They're not trying to remake their country here, or overtly hostile to the core values of liberalism."

    Is patently false.

  • Taco||

    " probably headed long-run for an increasingly nasty form of identity politics just like they will."

    When immigrants show up and start sexually enslaving your children, identity politics is almost inevitable, isn't it?

  • Kure'i||

    If you can show that most immigrants in the United States are overtly hostile to liberty, then let's hear your evidence. But since you can at best point to the rare and isolated incidents you will no doubt google, then I think it's best to treat the idea that they are as just another construct or your frenzied imagination and (apparent) fixation on child rape or whatever other myth you're peddling.

  • Taco||

    "If you can show that most immigrants in the United States are overtly hostile to liberty, then let's hear your evidence. "

    You do understand that you are unreasonably shifting the burden of proof right? You are proposing unfettered immigration. The burden is on YOU to prove that this will all be just fine, and that Rotherham will never happen here. The burden is not on me.

  • Kure'i||

    Actually, regardless of what you think I'm advocating (and what, exactly, is YOUR culture, anyway?) you are the one who made the absurd assertion that a study that applies to immigrants in one society applies to immigrants across societies, you are the one obligated to justify your assertion. That's how argument works. At least in my culture.
    If you can't justify it with evidence and facts that logically lead to such an assertion, it's discounted as an arbitrary one.

    If it applies across cultures, you might as well declare that it applies across time as well, and that the filthy rotten fur'ners who came here in the 1800s really made a mess of what was once a great country, by saddling it with crime, drugs, illegitimate children, and whatever else you suspect these people of doing.

  • Taco||

    "you are the one who made the absurd assertion that a study that applies to immigrants in one society applies to immigrants across societies,"

    I really don't know what you are talking about. I made no references to any study. Honestly I am not even certain you are intending to reply to me.

    Are you referring to the rape and sexual bondage of 1400 English children by immigrants as a "study"? If so, please stop.

  • Kure'i||

    @ Taco, since you don't know whether I'm talking to you:

    I) Here, I'll explain this thread:

    a) You complained that the article didn't mention Rotherdam.

    b) Someone responded that the article was about the US, and not the UK.

    c) You complained that this wasn't an adequate answer, and implied that a specific situation in one country could also be applicable to a completely different country with a completely different immigrant demographic ("That happened in Yorkshire, not New York, therefore it didn't happen as far as my decision making process goes.")

    d) I asked how you could make this assertion, and you decided that the burden was on me to show it wasn't true.

    e) In conclusion, you claim that immigrants are 1) overtly hostile to liberal values, yet the burden is on me to show that they are not; 2) That asking you to give evidence for your positive claim is "unreasonably shifting the burden," and that I should somehow be given the task of proving a negative; 3) That I should prove that "Rotherdam will never happen again," which is a claim I never made, and which is impossible to prove.

    What I can prove, through examination of your posts, is that you are fixated on rape and sexual bondage of children. And for that, I recommend therapy or self-administered chemical castration. I recommend the latter anyway, to ensure that you don't reproduce, lest your spawn also grow up to post on, and further pollute, this forum.

  • Taco||

    "What I can prove, through examination of your posts, is that you are fixated on rape and sexual bondage of children. And for that, I recommend therapy or self-administered chemical castration. I recommend the latter anyway, to ensure that you don't reproduce, lest your spawn also grow up to post on, and further pollute, this forum."

    I have to admit, I am quite bothered by the rape and sexual bondage of children. One of my ancestors had 6 children. 3 stayed in England, 3 came to Massachusetts. By good luck, my ancestry went. If it wasn't for this one fortuitous event that happened 350 years before I was born, it would be my children, and not the children of my distant cousins, who were raped by immigrants.

    As for your suggestion (offer? threat?) of chemical castration, the point is a) I already have children, and I want them and their children and their children to grow up in a world free from sexual slavery at the hands of immigrants and b) remove me from the gene pool? That's the whole point if immigration isn't it? If not completely remove me from the gene pool, at least ensure that me and my descendants are electorally marginalized. I'm not sure why Reason readers support importing a Marxist electorate. Well, because "freedom", right?

  • Rorschach Carlyle||

    I'll mention Rotherham. I thought this Daniel Hannan article was interesting.

    Rotherham child sex scandal: these children were victims of 'anti-racism'

    Reason, take note!

  • Taco||

    Reason won't take note. I guess if you've been raped by an immigrant, you're not the kind of millennial Reason has such a hard on for.

  • blackjack||

    The studies and polls are all useless. Laws should be based on principles, regardless of effect or popularity. If it's wrong to block free movement with force, then it's wrong, period. So what if it increases crime (it doesn't), so what if there's social welfare costs, and so what if Mccain calls you a wacko-bird?

    Democracy and utopian social engineering are incompatible with natural rights. The pursuit of either violates said rights, inevitably. We could easily eradicate crime and reduce welfare costs by simply killing off a buncha people and instilling a massive fear of punishment in the rest, if that's the only goal. No one tried to sneak into the East Germany.

  • Taco||

    "Laws should be based on principles, regardless of effect or popularity."

    Clearly, your children have never been raped by immigrants while police, social services, and elected officials did nothing, because diversity.

    How about this principle: all immigration decisions should be made with the goal of or

  • Taco||

    Cut off.

    How about this principle: all immigration decisions should be made with the goal of preserving for ourselves and our descendants the most free, most secure, least rapey society that we can reasonable achieve. Importing people who will vote for less freedom, drive physical or economic insecurity, or rape the children of natives, will not be accepted.

  • RoninX||

    So do you believe that Native Americans should try to force Europeans to "Go back where you came from!" since they did a lot of that stuff?

  • Taco||

    I believe that Native Americans would have been smart to present a united, aggressive response against European colonization. Do you disagree with that?

  • RoninX||

    And if Mexico were launching an armed invasion the US, I'd support an aggressive response against that as well.

    There is a subtle, yet important, difference between shooting someone and cleaning their bathroom.

  • Taco||

    There is a subtle, yet important, difference between cleaning someone's bathroom and holding their children in sexual slavery for decades.

  • PM||

    Laws should be based on principles, regardless of effect or popularity.

    On this I wholeheartedly agree, and I think Reason has a tendency to get bogged down in often-weak utilitarian arguments trying to justify laws that would better be argued on principle. Drug policy is another area where this tends to happen.

  • blackjack||

    Thanks. I was starting to fel like I was at Bill orielly .com or something.

  • Taco||

    O'Reilly wants to give every employed illegal alien a green card. Is that fundamentally different from what Reason wants?

    http://www.creators.com/opinio.....ation.html

  • MarkinLA||

    Any visit to a county jail or prison in California will tell you this study is garbage.

  • blackjack||

    Ever done it?

    I have, and you are wrong. The jails are mostly filled with poor people who mean no-one harm. They coexist with the criminals who brutally abuse them, alongside the sadistic guards. Spoken like someone who has actually been there.

  • Taco||

    "The jails are mostly filled with poor people who mean no-one harm. They coexist with the criminals who brutally abuse them, "

    Are you saying that these two groups of people (the poor and the criminals) are not disproportionately Hispanic? I've never been to a Los Angeles County Jail (or any jail in any county in California) so I am legitimately curious. Are the California County jails really inhabited by poor whites and criminal whites, in your experience?

  • The artist known Dunphy||

    Crime is committed disproportionately due to gender (biggest disparity), age, and ethnicity (and religion and education level and especially for male perpetrators based on OOW birth/fatherless home environment)

    And this is not based on "biased" police etc. it's based on what VICTIMS say (NCVS) about the (apparent) race, gender, and age of the offender.

    hispanic otoh is not a racial thang, and is independent of race and appearance so it's hard for crime victims to tell.

    of course who ends up in jail/prison is dependent both on crime commission rate AND poverty rate, since given a similar crime, the poorer person is more likely to get convicted and get a worse sentence.

    hispanics are disproportionately poor, so even if they committed crime at the average rate in society, they would be disproportionately in jail/prison because of their income level.

    japanese americans are about the least crime prone demographic AND average substantially higher income than average (more than whites by a substantial margin).

    And guess what? They are disproportionately imprisoned.

    not at all shocking.

  • MarkinLA||

    Yes I have and it is full of "Hispanics" In fact, the blacks at the Pitches Honor Ranch filed suit because with the vast majority being Hispanics, they didn't feel safe.

  • The artist known Dunphy||

    imo, one of the disadvantages of local cops being tasked with enforcing immigration laws is that is substantially disincentivizes illegal immigrant crime victims from calling police.

    two unfortunate consequences can be that by not calling the police ceteris paribus situations more likely to escalate to a situation where somebody gets killed, etc. and thus more likelihood of jail/imprisonment as well.

    at a minimum a huge percentage of violent crime in progress tends to stop once the perps hear the sirens or hear the dispatched call in the case where they have scanners (and it's certainly not unheard of to find scanners etc. in possession of criminals if you catch them when they flee from the scene.)

    also, when illegals are afraid to call police they are going to be (imo) more likely to seek "street justice" iow retaliation, or at least risk some major incident when they try to recover their stuff

    apart from those home invasions perpetrated by evil SWAT team jackbooted govt thugs (derp derp derp fap fap fap reasonoid response), they are overwhelmingly either drug ripoff (ripoff of a drug dealer or otherwise drug related) or an "i am going to get my shit back one way or another" incidents.

    neither usually turn out well

  • MarkinLA||

    imo, one of the disadvantages of local cops being tasked with enforcing immigration laws is that is substantially disincentivizes illegal immigrant crime victims from calling police.

    The police always say this but I don't think there is any real evidence to back it up. Now that the LAPD stopped doing anything, I doubt more crimes were reported and more cases solved. The gangs run rampant in those areas and that is scarier than the police.

  • MarkinLA||

    http://www.ppic.org/content/pu.....onsjtf.pdf

    Thank Reagan's amnesty. Let's do it again.

  • Response||

    It's information like this article that turned me in full support of vastly expanding immigration.

  • Taco||

    Maybe you should try reading articles like this one:

    http://m.theglobeandmail.com/g.....ice=mobile

  • blackjack||

    Nope. There's a whole lot of blacks, a good amount of hispanics, and a minority of whites. The hispanics are almost entirely native born. The II are in for stupid DUI and domestic violence BS. Point is that most people in jail in LA are just there because they are poor, not criminal. The racial makeup of the jail is a better indicator who's poor than who's criminal. The violent gang banger types are at least a generation away from immigration of either type.

  • The artist known Dunphy||

    False. The poor are MUCH more likely to be convicted of a crime they are accused of, and more likely to be accused of one as well.

    the poor are more likely to COMMIT part I crimes.

    As for Part II, not so much. Stuff like DUI, domestic violence, casual drug use, etc. is pretty even.

    When it comes to armed robbery, murder, etc. there is a pretty strong disproportionality.

    Most people who claim the criminal "justice" system (lol) is racist, fail to account for INCOME. If you account for income REGARDLESS of race, thats where the true disparity lies. OJ got rich person's justice (the first) time. If he was poor and white he almost certainly would have gone to prison. It's an INCOME thang, not a race thang.

    Heck, the best indicator a male will end up serving jail/prison time in their life?

    Race?

    nope

    Look at out of wedlock birth rates/fatherless homes.

    Births out of wedlock are a more reliable predictor of criminality/chance of incarceration than race or income

    http://www.jcsafefamily.org/wp.....olence.pdf

  • blackjack||

    I flipped the races. I meant majority black AND hispanic.

    I never asserted that the system is racist. It's far more classist. Poor people are suspect and are targeted by the police, regardless of race.

    Said targeting results in punitive actions regardless of guilt. Getting stopped, ticketed and charged/bullyed based on your outward appearance is very common.

    police are so sure of their ability to determine one's criminal propensity based solely on looks, that they readily use every tool they have to rain punishment upon those they deem worthy. Having the wrong tattoos, the wrong attire and a beat up car, in the wrong neighborhood can and often does result in extreme, life changing consequences.

    It's a de-facto dress code with severe penalties. Many of the "furtive movement" shootings are based on the crimey look of the victim.

    Cops also use all the petty infractions as a gateway to finding actual crime. Once branded as a likely criminal, you can expect every possible petty charge to be applied to you. Next thing you know, you have a laundry list of traffic fines, petty beefs, a suspended license and a host of court dates and sanctions. When you're poor, these things can ruin your life.

    All because you look "wrong". I know you can choose to look "right," but is it just to visit such sanctions on people for such flimsy reasons as cops deciding you look wrong?

  • blackjack||

    Any way, the original point was that there are few ILLEGAL immigrants mixed into the criminal population, not hispanics. After a lifetime in SOCAL, you can pretty easily tell who's illegal. Not always, but mostly. The hardened criminals look down upon the illegals in L.A. jails. They're mostly natural born citizens, while the IIs are in for stupid petty BS. I said "mostly" so save your anecdotes.

  • MarkinLA||

    Hispanics and blacks are members of street gangs and deal drugs and use violence to protect their turf. I really don't care that some drunk illegal alien's kids who didn't finish school became gang bangers. I am not making that useless PC distinction. Without the trash from mexico we wouldn't have the home grown trash.

    Here is another immigrant success story. Popped out her own drug gang.

    http://www.laweekly.com/2014-0.....he-family/

  • MarkinLA||

    In this one Mexican family values story we have an incarceration rate for the native born 13 times(one for each of her children) higher than their immigrant mother.

    We need more immigrant success stories like this.

  • blackjack||

    Damn, getting a lot of use out of your pointy white hat, are you?

  • Taco||

    "MarkinLA is raaaaaaaycisssssssssst!!!!!"

    -- blackjack

  • blackjack||

    He said " Hispanics and blacks are members of street gangs and deal drugs and use violence to protect their turf."

    I'm pretty sure it's not a wolf cry to call that racist.

  • Kure'i||

    I think there's an invasion here from Stormfront or the English Defense League (or whatever it's called; I've forgotten) or something. A lot of these posters sound like crypto-Nazis.

    It is amusing, however, when Brits or British immigrants are found rallying against undocumented immigrants in America.

  • craiginmass||

    "I think there's an invasion here from Stormfront or the English Defense League (or whatever it's called; I've forgotten) or something. A lot of these posters sound like crypto-Nazis"

    This has rung true with EVERY "Paulie" type ground I've had the pleasuring of bantering with...over the past 6 years or more. Back them into a corner and their inner KKK comes charging out.

    It's not an accident that Daddie Paul had that newsletter with all the racist crap or that Rand had a campaign manager who posted pics of lynched negroes on MLK day and laughed about it (on Facebook).

    My guess if you generally don't find a lot of black folks at Libertarian party confabs. I dug through the pics of conventions and saw thousands of faces....90% male - maybe 3 black faces in all the pics I could find total.

    (Polling shows it's basically as white as stormfront - that is, 94% non-hispanic white).

    So, don't fear. This is yet another bunch of angry white guys financed by some Rich Angry White Old White Guys.

  • MarkinLA||

    No just people who live in the real world and see how screwed it has become thanks to these illegals.

  • Kure'i||

    Living in Los Angeles, I never had any problem with "illegals," whatsoever.

    Living in Michigan, I had many undocumented clients, and even some friends, and zero problems with any of them I met. But I had plenty of problems with native born criminals.

    And now living in Florida, I again encounter or at least see hardworking illegals daily. Yet I'm much more reticent to travel into some areas of the city filled with the native born, but am untroubled going to areas where many undocumented live.

    So what real world are you talking about, Markin? Because in my real world, I've seen very little evidence of crime coming from illegals, other than using fake papers or the now-ubiquitous DUIs.

  • MarkinLA||

    Where did MS-13 get their start. How many members of the 18th street gang were deported back to central America. Try researching that.

    You don't know shit about what happened in LA since the 1980s. Who cares that YOU personally never had a problem with an illegal. Neither did a lot of people who never had to live around them.

  • Kure'i||

    "You don't know shit about what happened in LA since the 1980s."

    Weird, since I lived near the corner of Hollywood and Vermont for most of the 90's, and wasn't there in the 80's at all, and so I have no idea wtf you're talking about, which is not surprising, since I don't speak Racist.

  • MarkinLA||

    racism, racism, racism, blah, blah, blah. some pathetic sniveling white guilt ridden millennial learned a new word.

  • craiginmass||

    You must really love the Russians here then!

  • The artist known Dunphy||

    I was discussing the Sean Bell shooting with a friend, and they said that it was that shooting, in addition to Amadou Diallo that finally got them to conclude that NYPD is TRIGGER HAPPY!!!!

    Um, reaaalllllllllllly?

    Let's get two things out of the way. NYC has seen a precipitous drop in crime over the last several decades. So has the nation in general, but NYPD has seen a much more profound drop. At it's nadir (it's seen a minor spike from the bottom iirc), and even today, it compares favorably with a lot of conventionally "peaceful" low crime suburban areas, and WAY better than Chicago, New Orleans, Flint Michigan, Oakland and other such hellholes.

    So one would expect OIS (Officer Involved Shootings) to go down as Part I crime reduced, and of course they did. No surprise. Just as police shooting rate tends to be proportional to Part I crime rate (the more violent crime, the more cop shootings), and the demographics that police disproportionately shoot at tend to match the disproportionate rate that that group is involved in Part I crime. That's why out of one survey of about 1150 cop shootings, cops only shot 50 women, despite the fact that they make up a majority of the population and especially the STREET population (since more men are in prison and jails).

  • The artist known Dunphy||

    Here' the FACTS about NYPD from 2012

    2012 New York City population 8.2 MILLION,,, NYPD Uniform Staff 35000 ... 23 Million Citizen Contacts...5 million radio assignments... 250,000 weapon assignments... 26,000 arrests involving unlawful weapons use... 5700 involving unlawful gun use... 1374 shooting incidents investigated... 60 officers total fired their guns in only 45 officer involved shooting incidents... 14 subjects shot and injured... 16 subjects shot and killed... 13 officers shot and injured. 0 killed. let's look at those stats. Ive heard people say NYPD is TRIGGER HAPPY and they are AFRAID OF GETTING SHOT BY POLICE. Of course overwhelmingly the people shot are doing really bad stuff, but regardless out of 8.2 million people, 30 were shot by police. 0.00000365853 of people in new york are shot by police each year. How many people are shot/calls for service? 0.00000125. How many people are shot by NYPD per shooting incident they respond to? 0.02183406113. Officer shoot one person for every 800,000 calls for service! Officers shoot 1 person for every 8221 incidents involving weapons they respond to. OMG THEY ARE SO TRIGGER HAPPY!!!!!!!

    TO put this further in perspective.

  • The artist known Dunphy||

    If you were a NYPD cop in 2012, you had a .04% of being shot in the line of duty. If you were a resident of New York City, you had a .0004 chance of being shot by police. Iow, a NYPD cop is 100 times as likely to be shot by a person in NYC as a person is likely to be shot by NYPD. That stat is actually probably lower since 8.2 million is the POPULATION, but on any given day there are far more people IN NYC because the populaion swells due to tourists, workers, etc. Manhattan for example DOUBLES it's population during the day

    And of course that's total! If you weren't doing some really bad stuff, the chance is much much much lower (the overwhelming # of people shot by police are convicted felons and engaged in felonious behavior at time of shooting).

  • trig||

    While that's somewhat compelling it seems unfair to compare cops getting shot by anyone vs anyone getting shot by cops... Multiply that .0004 by the general population divided by the # of cops then we'll see.

  • The artist known Dunphy||

    I heard someleftist woman complaining that she was afraid of getting shot by police in New York City, after the Sean Bell shooting.

    nationwide less than 5% of those shot by police are women.

    And of course they are more than 50% of the population and even more than that when you consider far more men are locked away in prison/jail where they can't get shot by police

    Here's a shocking statistic. Police shoot various demographics disproportionately at roughly the same disproportionate rate that demo commits part I crime and/or shoots police.

    Many claim cops are racist because they disproportionately shoot black (men).

    Ok, they DO disproportionately shoot... men... black men... black men between 16 and 40

    US african american population about 13% last i checked, so black males about 6 % and even less are in that age group.

    Stats on what %age of police shooting victims are black males are difficult to find. However, nobody doubts the #'s are disproportionate.

    OMG RACIST AND SEXIST.

    Well, except that critics of concealed carry also point out the CCWers disproportionately shoot young black males.

    Are they racist too?

    One stat that is not in question, but the advocates that police violence is racist will NEVER mention is - what %age of cops killed are shot by black males.

    iow, is violence AGAINST cops disproportionate.

    yes

    1994-2005, 40% of cops killed were killed by black males.

    I have yet to see the race hustlers mention this.

    shocking

  • craiginmass||

    First you have to educate us on the TOTAL of cops shot.....it's quite low, isn't it? If so, the stats are pretty short......

    Then, based on the Libertarian bent you see here, tell us what the chances were of the police overstepping their bounds and making a concerned (and armed) citizen feel that he must defend himself....???

    After that we can discuss how you discern statistics based on

    FYI, 120 officers killed in 2012. Much safer than piloting aircraft or even farming. Truck drivers have more danger....garbage people also.

    At the very least you should start harping in statistics with some bigger numbers behind them. After all, you are killing a lot of folks with your garbage and by flying. I'd bet more white garbage and white flyers are responsible for those deaths..than blacks!

  • Matt787||

    I appreciate Bailey's citation of multiple conflicting studies but not the conclusion there is no evidence to believe illegal immigrants are not responsible for higher crime rates.

    One of the problems with the study quoted as evidence is incarceration rates are not a reliable predictor of crimes committed by legal citizens vs. illegal immigrants. The problem is illegal immigrants are generally much more difficult to track down since they often exist with false identifying information, have no solid contact information and live in a micro-community that protects each other. Even if the crime rate between illegal and legal were the same, the incarceration rate for legal citizens would likely be much higher. This study was skewed from the start.

    It would be more interesting to look at crime rates of border cities vs. other cities. Taking into account drug cartels and the willingness to break American law to get over the border, I don't think it is baseless to think illegal immigrants are responsible for higher crime rates. Do we have conclusive evidence either way...no. But it is silly to assume one study is the truth when it fits political viewpoints, especially when there are studies that point to the contrary and the study employed is clearly biased.

  • The artist known Dunphy||

    A propos your reference to what would be "interesting": El Paso, it has a VERY low crime rate. Not only is it a border city, but it borders one of the most violent cities in this HEMISPHERE Ciudad Juarez.

    This article debunks some extreme claims about how safe El Paso is but does conclude that it ranks VERY favorably with other cities in terms of crime rate, and those other cities mostly do not border a crime cesspool like Juarez

    http://www.politifact.com/texa.....ts-size-c/

  • Matt787||

    One border town is not an accurate depiction of the entire situation. That's called cherry-picking. I don't know what the actual results are, but you can't cherry-pick data or ignore bias and claim your conclusion is sound as the author did. That is the point.

  • Matt787||

    Here, we can play the studies game:

    http://www.breitbart.com/Breit.....dden-in-US

    The fact is the way these studies are conducted can have a tremendous affect on the outcome. You can find conflicting studies for almost any controversial topic. Which do you believe? The one that fits your individual ideology?

  • Careless||

    And, you know, illegals flee the country when the police are after them. Witness America's most famous family of illegal immigrants, the Tsarnaevs. (yes, they were here legally, but they committed immigration fraud to get legal status)

  • Kure'i||

    Did the Tsarvaevs get away?

  • New Normal||

    No, ICE caught them and they were deported without incident. The Boston bombing never took place and everybody loved illegals!

  • Careless||

    Yes, the parents fled the country to avoid a warrant.

  • Kure'i||

    Ah, the shoplifter mom. Nevermind, now you've convinced me.

  • New Normal||

    Those poor poor illegals. Luckily the enlightened 20 somethings that post here will have their wish when Obama unilaterally and illegally grants their wish. Since laws that Libertarians disagree with are amoral, and thus have no power of them, Obama can do whatever he wants.

  • Kure'i||

    Did someone link here from the Cliven Bundy Appreciation web site?

  • trig||

    " 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 a third less likely to engage in violence than native-borns." This is confusing.. is this about REPORTING violent behavior or COMMITTING violent behavior.

  • Anon E. Mouse||

    We should adopt the same immigration laws and policies as Mexico. Surely Mexican immigrants will be pleased if our laws are more like those in their native land.

    No, you say? But of course, they'd rather we change our laws for them, rather than change their own laws.

  • Taco||

    I would support this proposal. A good first step at least.

  • ockraz||

    Entering the country illegally is a crime (although visa overstays aren't). If you add that to the tally, I'm thinking it's likely true that 'illegal immigrants are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime.'

  • hahahahaa||

    a moving, as well as a unique charm of their own, different colors can represent each of us one day is not the same mood. In addition, it is compared to the 996 version will be more movement and more giving a vibrant sense of youth.new balance 574new balance outlet matching methods do in fact find new balance sales area, guaranteed to make you easy to find here a real fit with their own methods. The shoes to match up with their whole dress with each other, to be able to highlight its features shoes. The shoe itself is a casual fashion, so with clothes, casual fashion with out the effect is certainly no better choice.

  • hahahahaa||

    Chanel (Chanel)
    This season was to explore the theme of fashion and art, Karl Lagerfeld give full play to his unique color technology, to show a different style, this Plaid graffiti bag, stylish yet luxurious, full of personality. Metal and stitching lines, mix color matching, showing not the same style, bags do the old design, reflecting the retro Style.
    Cheap Chanel Handbags
    best chanel gifts

  • hahahahaa||


    Chanel sunglasses, Chanel Black sunglasses, Chanel Designer sunglasses, Chanel Eyewear, Chanel womens sunglasses, Chanel ladies sunglassesChanel (Chanel)
    The new season's Chanel bag filled with street atmosphere, a new concept of graffiti fashion, showing young rebellious personality, so increasingly popular new fashion, fashion is not necessarily the traditional model. The new graffiti designs, expressed through color rebellious style, different color, with a rope design reflects the combination of personality Feel, chains and fabrics, soft but just.where to buy chanel

  • hahahahaa||

    Nike DUNK SB series shoes are recommended over the largest number of products in the shoes of a, and 85 years from the first pair of Dunk SB turned out to now, Dunk SB high, mid, low to help, but also ordinary level, P-class, S-class! color is more colorful aspects of it. In addition, because it is closer to the style and casual shoes, it is also better outfit.
    New balance regardless of style or a Nike sneakers
    running shoes
    couple of other shoes are a perfect example of the influx of people in the eyes of contemporary, 575,996 series is to create an essential tool, such as retro sportsman tide woman. And the reason for the brand's new balance shoes to be welcomed because it is regardless of appearance or shoes with colors are very nice, very nice, very wild. I think this is all the more willing to buy because of the brand to wear shoes like it. Couple models is very important that both men and women

  • hahahahaa||

    Nike DUNK SB series shoes are recommended over the largest number of products in the shoes of a, and 85 years from the first pair of Dunk SB turned out to now, Dunk SB high, mid, low to help, but also ordinary level, P-class, S-class! color is more colorful aspects of it. In addition, because it is closer to the style and casual shoes, it is also better outfit.
    New balance regardless of style or a Nike Air Jordan Retro Shoes Online Store
    Nike Shoes
    couple of other shoes are a perfect example of the influx of people in the eyes of contemporary, 575,996 series is to create an essential tool, such as retro sportsman tide woman. And the reason for the brand's new balance shoes to be welcomed because it is regardless of appearance or shoes with colors are very nice, very nice, very wild. I think this is all the more willing to buy because of the brand to wear shoes like it. Couple models is very important that both men and women

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online