Immigration and Crime

I participated in a panel in my department today on Foreign Policy and the 2024 election. I talked about NATO and climate change -- with these questions in mind: Will these policy issues influence the outcome of the election (maybe climate change); and how will the election results influence policy going forward?

Colleagues talked about Russia/Ukraine, Gaza/Lebanon, China, and immigration.

The last issue was the most controversial as the panelists (and student audience members) had the deepest disagreement on this issue during the Q&A.

I feel compelled to fact-check some of the statements that were flying around the room.

Contra to alarming claims, the Biden administration has not had an "open borders" policy. This claim is basically a Republican talking point in recent presidential campaigms, not some settled matter of public policy. The libertarian Cato Institute, which used to be reliably Republican, agrees. On the left, advocates of open borders certainly do not view the US border as open. 

Next, immigrants do not commit "most crime" or even a disproportionate share of them.  A number from New York City referenced in today's discussion was essentially made up by "police sources" and reported in the tabloid New York Post.  Meanwhile, a more thorough dive by the NY Times this past February revealed quite different official data from the NYPD:

But police data indicate that there has been no surge in crime since April 2022, when Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas started sending buses of migrants to New York to protest the federal government’s border policy.

More than 170,000 migrants have arrived in the city since then, and it is difficult to know what crime statistics would show had they not come. But as the migrant numbers have increased, the overall crime rate has stayed flat. And, in fact, many major categories of crime — including rape, murder and shootings — have decreased, according to an analysis of the New York Police Department’s month-by-month statistics since April 2022.

The story also quotes (by name) experts: "Jeffrey Butts, director of the Research and Evaluation Center at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, said that there was no discernible migrant crime wave."

Beyond NYC, the paper also referenced academic studies: 

"In 2023, researchers at Stanford University found that immigrants were imprisoned at lower rates than people born in the United States. In 2020, a University of Wisconsin-Madison study noted that undocumented immigrants in Texas tended to have fewer felony arrests than legal residents."

The Department of Justice's National Institute of Justice recently discussed a study it funded conducted using Texas data, which is perhaps the one referenced by the TImes (or a follow-up): 

 An NIJ-funded study examining data from the Texas Department of Public Safety estimated the rate at which undocumented immigrants are arrested for committing crimes. The study found that undocumented immigrants are arrested at less than half the rate of native-born U.S. citizens for violent and drug crimes and a quarter the rate of native-born citizens for property crimes.

Reuters collected an array of academic studies in mid-summer debunking the myth of out-of-control immigrant crime. "A meta-analysis of more than fifty studies on the link between immigration and crime between 1994 and 2014 found there was no significant relationship between the two." . 

The evidence seems overwhelming. The American Immigration Council looked at data from 1980 to 2022 and found "that as the immigrant share of the population grew, the crime rate declined." The Council also looked at recent data from the FBI and Census Bureau:

Using Uniform Crime Reporting data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and population data from the U. S. Census Bureau, the Council also explored the relationship between total crime rates and immigrant shares of the population between 2017 and 2022 at the state level. Using beta regression analyses and data from all 50 states, the result shows no statistically significant correlation between the immigrant share of the population and the total crime rate in any state. This means higher immigrant population shares are not associated with higher crime rates, which aligns with a wealth of prior research on this topic.

The Brennan Center for Justice links to numerous studies. The Center notes that the immigrant crime myth goes back to at least the 1930s and has been used to tarnish "Irish, Catholic, Jewish, Italian, Mexican, Japanese, Chinese, and German people" who immigrated. One study by a Northwestern scholar referenced in the Reuters story I noted above uses data going back 150 years. The results showed that more recent immigrants are even less likely to commit crimes and become incarcerated than previous waves of immigrants. 

Personally, I've referenced stats in my classes from the Anti-Defamation League that reveal much the same information -- immigrants commit fewer crimes than citizens. By the way, links in this quote are in the original and not all of them currently work. The bolded parts are also in the original. 

Study after study has shown that immigrants – regardless of where they are from, what immigration status they hold, and how much education they have completed – are less likely than native-born citizens to commit crimes or become incarcerated.

According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, while the overall percentage of immigrants and the number of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. both increased between 1990 and 2016, the violent crime rate in the U.S. during that time plummeted 48 percent and the property crime rate dropped by 41 percent. More recent population and crime data from the Pew Research Center reveals the continuation of this trend. Studies have consistently found that immigrants are less likely to be incarcerated than native-born Americans and that there is a negative correlation between levels of immigration and crime rates.

Other studies have found that crime rates are lowest in states with the highest immigration growth rates, and that states with larger shares of undocumented immigrants tend to have lower crime rates than states with smaller shares.

The ADL also debunks myths about terrorism, non-citizen voting, public health, etc. Customs and Border Protection also post annual stats. While those numbers undoubtedly reflect growing border encounters, they do not show a great number of criminals coming across the border as a percentage of the total. This is a link to the obviously non-alarming crime numbers from CBP.

When pressed for numbers, the Trump campaign responds with anecdotes about specific crimes. In a nation of 330 million people, this is a terrible and misleading way to document anything. Spend a few minutes on the internet and one can find misleading instances of all sorts of horrible crimes committed by all sorts of trusted people -- mothers, coaches, teachers, priests, etc. Those specific cases would not necessarily make any generalizable point. 

Michael Light, the University of Wisconsin-Madison professor, said U.S. research overall does not indicate immigrants are more likely to commit crime.

"Of course, foreign-born individuals have committed crimes," Light said in an interview. "But do foreign-born individuals commit crime at a disproportionately higher rate than native-born individuals? The answer is pretty conclusively no."

 

Visit this blog's homepage.

For 280 character IR and foreign policy talk, follow me on twitter.

Or for basketball, baseball, movies or other stuff, follow this personal twitter account.

Senator Schumer at UofL

I went to the campus talk by NY Senator Chuck Schumer this morning. I was not sitting very close, so my photos didn't turn out very well. I posted a Twitter thread about the event:

Sen. Schumer speaking at University of Louisville this morning. Will tweet any important content. pic.twitter.com/jKFqgDQSxF

— Rodger Payne (@RodgerPayne) February 12, 2018

Schumer's talk was not packed with content. He emphasized bipartisanship and was hopeful about upcoming immigration debate in Senate.

Briefly noted problems: it's a complex issue, need 60 votes, "fractious House" and (obliquely) Trump is Trump.

— Rodger Payne (@RodgerPayne) February 12, 2018

Q& A included more content, but nothing especially notable.

Was asked a good question about jobs in an increasingly automated economy. Kept returning to that puzzle, to his credit. Wants to pay more to teachers and aids for elderly.

— Rodger Payne (@RodgerPayne) February 12, 2018

Was critical of selective "deficit hawks" like @RandPaul . Paul voted for the big tax cut, which undermines his credibility on the deficit.

— Rodger Payne (@RodgerPayne) February 12, 2018

Schumer offered more detail on immigration in Q & A. Reminded audience of Gang of 8 compromise that included path to citizenship, more border security, novel solutions for tech & ag sectors, work & language requirements, & US loyalty pledge.

Thanked @SenJohnMcCain

— Rodger Payne (@RodgerPayne) February 12, 2018

Finally, @SenSchumer wasn't overly critical of anyone in government. Said very little about Trump.

Was perhaps most critical of @EPAScottPruitt "disservice" by weakening regulations, reducing @EPA personnel, & not enforcing laws.

— Rodger Payne (@RodgerPayne) February 12, 2018

The Department Twitter account posted a photo of the Senators with our new department chair Jasmine Farrier:

The spirit of bi-partisanship is alive and well in the UofL Political Science Department! @ULmCenter @UofLASThinker @SenSchumer @SenateMajLdr #WeAreUofL pic.twitter.com/IgsY4lF75h

— UofL Political Science (@UofLDOPS) February 12, 2018

Did I mention that my term as chair ended and I'm on sabbatical through 2018?

Oh, I snapped this shot from my seat prior to the event (sorry it is blurry, but you were warned above):

Visit this blog's homepage.

For 140 character IR and foreign policy talk, follow me on twitter.

Or for basketball, baseball, movies or other stuff, follow this personal twitter account.

Political Economy of Relative Gains

Realist IR scholars reject the possibility of meaningful international cooperation on the idea that not all states can benefit from such cooperation. That's wrong, liberal institutionalists retort, because classic trade theory demonstrates that cooperation can promote mutual "absolute" gain.

Realists counter with the point that mutual gains rarely result in equal distribution. Some states will benefit more from cooperation and these relative advantages mitigate against cooperation. Why would a state partake in an agreement that helps competitors more than it helps itself? Essentially, because realists see international politics as a struggle for power, states can prevent a redistribution of power by refusing to partake in meaningful cooperation.

Plus, on many truly difficult issues, there are going to be costs to cooperation -- similar to the dues union members pay for the benefit of membership. States have an incentive to free ride, rather than to pay costs to create gains. Thus, on many global issues that require genuine multilateral cooperation -- Kenneth Waltz mentioned “poverty, population, pollution, and proliferation” (209) -- states won't work together because they lack incentives.

Realists do not think much of existing international cooperation. Believe it or not, a prominent realist view of past trade practices suggests that they reflect typical interstate competition rather than real cooperation. Realists recognize that states form alliances when confronted by potential hegemons, but this is basically because their survival is potentially at stake. In lesser circumstances, a strong state might set up sham institutions to promote forms of cooperation that are in their individual interest and essentially coerce others to participate. This could include institutions that serve multiple purposes, promoting selfish security cooperation with small economic bribes.

Some empirical evidence supports the pessimistic view of international economic cooperation.

This is a quick and simplified account of a complex debate, of course, but I mention it because of this study result I read in The Atlantic last October.** Individual Americans apparently embrace this vision and reject the prospect of mutual benefit if the benefits provides relative gains to "competitors." IOW, people see other people as competitors:

In a survey of faculty, students, and staff at the Harvard School of Public Health, nearly half of the respondents said they’d prefer to live in a world where the average salary was $25,000 and they earned $50,000 than one where they earned $100,000 but the average was $200,000. Similarly, a majority favored relative over absolute advantage when it came to their own intelligence and attractiveness, their child’s intelligence and attractiveness, or praise from a superior. Apparently the survey respondents would rather the planet be filled with stupid, ugly children than have their own child left behind [1].

There are apparent lessons in this about the rise of Donald Trump and the populist/nationalist concerns of his supporters. Trump wants to build a wall along the southern US border, deport millions of undocumented immigrants, and impose new tariffs on major trading partners such as China and Mexico. Many economists predict that his policies would hurt the white working class more than others. However, their analysis is generally framed in terms of utility theory.

What if his voters don't care about utility as much as they do about perceived relative gains -- for them personally as well as for the US? Perhaps they are willing to be additionally impoverished so long as their competitors do worse -- whether that is undocumented Mexican workers or China.

The danger, of course, is that Trump voters are likely very wrong in how his presidency might influence the outcomes they desire. His tax policies, for example, basically continue long-term Republican plans to benefit the richest Americans -- and this link is from The Economist, not some lefty politician or organization. Would the U.S. win a trade war with China?


--------------------
** Yes, I'm cleaning out my office and have a stack of clippings.

Visit this blog's homepage.

For 140 character IR and foreign policy talk, follow me on twitter.

Or for basketball, baseball, movies or other stuff, follow this personal twitter account.

2020 Presidential Election: A Blue Blowout?

Photo credit: Troy McCullough (Idle Type)

Last Friday, Congress certified the 2012 Electoral College results and Barack Obama was officially reelected by a tally of 332 to 206. Unofficially, the Associated Press counted the number of individual votes the candidates received in nationwide balloting. In the AP's final election result, Obama got 51.1% of the vote, while Mitt Romney received 47.2%.

Many analysts have already highlighted the startling vote percentages Barack Obama achieved in 2012 among Latino and Asian voters. Here's how the Boston Globe framed it on November 9, 2012:

Exit polling by The New York Times showed Asian-Americans voted for Obama over Romney 73 percent to 26 percent, after backing him against John McCain 62 to 35...

Obama’s 47-point advantage among Asian-Americans on Election Day was bigger than his edge among Latinos, 44 points, or women, 11 points.

In 2008, Obama beat John McCain among Latinos by about two-to-one: 67% to 31%.  Romney managed to win only 27% of the Latino vote in 2012, while Obama won 71%. That's a bit better than 2.5 to one.

Given demographic changes, Latinos are expected to be an even greater electoral force in the coming decades. In 2010, there were about 50 million Hispanics living in the US, or about 13% of the population. By 2030, the numbers will be 78 million and they will comprise almost 22% of the population.

Asian-Americans are the fastest growing ethnic group in the US. There were just over 17 million Asian-Americans counted in the 2010 census, constituting 5.6% of the population. If the last decade's population growth holds up, there will be more than 25 million Asian American in the US in 2020. The US government forecasts 20 million Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders living in the US by 2020. By 2050, they are expected to make up nearly 10% of the US population.

Unless Republicans can increase their appeal to these demographic groups, they are in for more electoral disasters. Republican election strategist Ed Gillespie pointed out in January 2012 that his party would be in big trouble by 2020 if even 2008 voting patterns held:

“If the Republican Party nominee in 2020—just two elections after this one--gets the same percentage of the white, African-American, Hispanic and Asian-American vote, according to current projections the Democrat will win the White House by 14 percentage points.”

In the policy realm, Vice President Joe Biden already predicts that the Republican party will recognize the reality and cooperate with Democrats to pass immigration reform in the new Congress.


Visit this blog's homepage.

For 140 character IR and foreign policy talk, follow me on twitter.

Or for basketball, baseball, movies or other stuff, follow this personal twitter account.

Baseball Players tell Arizona to Repeal the Law

The new Arizona immigration law has received a lot of attention in the short time since it was signed into law in late April. As the BBC notes, the law "will require state police to question people about their immigration status if there is 'reasonable suspicion'.

The bill - which takes effect in 90 days - also makes it a crime under state law to be in the US illegally."

Yesterday, the Major League Baseball Player's Association announced its formal opposition to the law. In a press release, Executive Director Michael Weiner, summarized the player's union opposition:

“The recent passage by Arizona of a new immigration law could have a negative impact on hundreds of Major League players who are citizens of countries other than the United States....

The international players on the Diamondbacks work and, with their families, reside in Arizona from April through September or October. In addition, during the season, hundreds of international players on opposing Major League teams travel to Arizona to play the Diamondbacks. And, the spring training homes of half of the 30 Major League teams are now in Arizona. All of these players, as well as their families, could be adversely affected, even though their presence in the United States is legal. Each of them must be ready to prove, at any time, his identity and the legality of his being in Arizona to any state or local official with suspicion of his immigration status. This law also may affect players who are U.S. citizens but are suspected by law enforcement of being of foreign descent."

The MLBPA "opposes this law as written" and calls for prompt repeal or modification.

Some voices are already calling for baseball to move the 2011 All-Star game, slated to be played in Phoenix. White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen has announced that he will not participate in the game. A number of current players have also spoken out against the law and mentioned their concerns about playing in Arizona.

About four and a half years ago, I noted a small number of athletes involved in progressive causes, including one baseball player openly opposed to the Iraq war. The latest reaction is timely and apparently provokes broader concerns.


Visit this blog's homepage.