By Ilya Somin
July 14, 2015Immigration and crime
In
recent weeks, there has been an upsurge in controversy over crime
committed by immigrants, sparked by a recent murder in San Francisco,
and by presidential candidate
Donald Trump’s exploitation of the issue. But as conservative
commentator Linda Chavez points out, immigrants – both legal and illegal
– have far lower crime rates than native-born Americans do. Even if
they did not, it does not follow that immigration restrictions
and deportation are the right solution to the problem.
Numerous
studies show that immigrants have lower crime rates than natives, a
finding which holds true even if you focus solely on Mexican immigrants –
the main objects
of Trump’s ire. Indeed, Mexican-born immigrant males aged 18-39 who
lack a high school diploma actually had a lower incarceration rate in
2010 (2.8%) than all native-born males of the same age group (3.3%),
regardless of education level (the incarceration
rate for native-born men without a high school diploma was 10.7% in the
same year). Overall, immigrants are only about one-fifth as likely to
be incarcerated for crimes, and the difference is mostly due to a lower
propensity to commit crime in the immigrant
population rather than to deportation or other law enforcement measures
that differentially target immigrants.
For
these reasons, claims that we could lower violent crime rates by
reducing immigration or deporting more illegals are fundamentally
misplaced. Indeed, if reducing violent
crime is really goal, we could shift some of the vast resources
currently devoted to keeping out and deporting peaceful migrants and
reinvest them in combating violent crime and terrorism.
But
let’s assume that the data showed that immigrants have an unusually
high crime after all. It still would not follow that increased
immigration restrictions and deportation
are the answer. Even if immigrants had a crime rate, say, twice as
high, as those of natives, immigration restrictions and deportation
efforts would still punish vastly more innocent, nonviolent people, than
violent criminals. Within the native-born population,
there are a number of demographic groups that have much higher than
average crime rates. For example, a hugely disproportionate percentage
of violent crimes are committed by young males, particularly homicides.
Other things equal, increasing the proportion
of young males in any population is likely to disportionately increase
the crime rate. Yet few would argue that this justifies restricting the
movement of young males as a class, or otherwise imposing constraints on
their liberty. Indeed, few Americans would
support imposing a curfew that applied to young males alone, even if
might reduce the crime rate. Similarly, few would support a differential
drinking age for men, as opposed to women, even though inebriated men
are far more likely to resort to violence than
women are. We recognize that it is wrong to restrict the liberty of
large classes of innocent people merely because they happen to belong to
a demographic group with a relatively high crime rate. For their part,
most conservative immigration restrictionists
rightly recognize that it is wrong to deprive innocent gun-owners of
their right to possess handguns merely because a small minority use them
to commit rimes.
The
same principle applies to immigrants as much as it does to young males
and gun owners. Indeed, it does so with much greater force. Those who
wish to crack down on
immigrants generally in order to lower the crime rate advocate far more
draconian measures than a differential curfew or drinking age. They
favor imposing immigration restrictions and deportation rules that
consign huge numbers of people (most of whom have
not harmed anyone at all) to a lifetime of Third World poverty and
oppression.
Given
the enormity of the harms and restrictions on freedom involved, they
can be justified – if at all – only if they are the only way to prevent a
comparably grave evil.
The burden of proof that such policies must meet is a lot higher than
whatever might be sufficient to justify a differential curfew,
confiscation of guns, or similar more moderate infringement on freedom.
Yet it is fairly obvious that there are numerous more
cost-effective ways to lower violent crime, including – as noted above –
devoting to that purpose some of the resources currently allocated to
keeping out and deporting peaceful migrants. For example, some of that
money could be spent on increasing the number
of police officers assigned to high-crime neighborhoods. Unlikely
immigration restrictions, increasing police presence has a proven record
of reducing crime rates.
Many
immigration restrictionists nonetheless claim that immigrants – or at
least illegal immigrants – are different from young males because their
mere presence in the
US violates the law, thus essentially making them criminals regardless
of whether they have committed any other wrongs. Illegally crossing the
border is in fact a minor misdemeanor under federal law. If you think
that anyone who violates the law in any way
is thereby a morally depraved person who must be punished, then you can
consistently advocate immigration restriction and deportation as
“solutions” to immigrant criminality.
But
most Americans do not in fact seem to believe that all violations of
law are morally wrong and deserve punishment. If you drove your car to
work today, you probably
exceeded the speed limit, which is also a violation of criminal law.
Yet you probably don’t think you did anything wrong, much less deserve
punishment. Almost every business violates at least a few of the
manifold state and federal regulations that apply to
them. Overall, the vast majority of American adults have violated state
or federal criminal law at one point or another.
The
point is not just that most Americans violate the law, but that we
believe we are morally justified in doing so in many situations. And, in
most such cases, our reasons
are far less compelling than those of border-crossing illegal
immigrants, whose only other option is to accept a lifetime of poverty
and misery living under corrupt and often oppressive Third World
governments. The average illegal immigrant is far less morally
blameworthy than the average American who decides to drive a few miles
above the speed limit in order to get to work faster, or to engage in
underage drinking – both of which activities are more likely to endanger
innocent third parties than merely crossing
a border in search of freedom and opportunity.
The
desire to prevent violent crime is laudable regardless of whether the
perpetrators are immigrants or natives. But we should find ways to deter
and punish the guilty
without harming large numbers of innocent people in the process.
For more information, go to: www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment