Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Summary
Few issues are as contentious as immigration and crime. Concern
over the effects of immigration on crime is longstanding, and bans
against criminal aliens constituted some of the earliest restrictions
on immigration to the United States (Kanstroom, 2007). More
recently, policies adopted in the mid-1990s greatly expanded the
scope of acts for which noncitizens may be expelled from the United States. Even so, many
calls to curtail immigration, particularly illegal immigration, appeal to public fears about
immigrants’ involvement in criminal activities.
Are such fears justified? On the one hand, immigration policy screens the foreign-born
for criminal history and assigns extra penalties to noncitizens who commit crimes, suggest-
ing that the foreign-born would be less likely than the U.S.-born to be involved in criminal
enterprises. On the other hand, in California, immigrants are more likely than the U.S.-born
to be young and male; they are also more likely to have low levels of education. These charac-
teristics are typically related to criminal activity, providing some basis for concern that immi-
grants may be more criminally active than the U.S.-born.
In this issue of California Counts, we examine the effects of immigration on public safety
in California. In our assessments, we use measures of incarceration and institutionalization as
proxies for criminal involvement. We find that the foreign-born, who make up about 35 per-
cent of the adult population in California, constitute only about 17 percent of the adult prison
California Counts Crime, Corrections, and California
2
California Counts Crime, Corrections, and California
3
California Counts Crime, Corrections, and California
4
California Counts Crime, Corrections, and California
. . . even if someone
Text Box 2. What Makes a Person Deportable?
comes to the United
Illegal immigrant—Deportable if status is revealed. Apprehension
States legally, a
for any criminal activity may lead to investigation of status. conviction of an
aggravated felony
Naturalized citizen—In general, naturalized citizens cannot be
deported.
qualifies that person
for deportation,
Permanent legal resident—Deportable for conviction of an “aggra- unless he or she is a
vated felony.” The list of “aggravated felonies” was expanded several
times after the introduction of the term in the 1988 Anti-Drug
naturalized citizen.
Abuse Act. It now includes any crime for which the individual is
sentenced to more than a year, even if the sentence is suspended.
These rules are retroactive—even if one committed a crime before
the legislation that marked it as a deportable offense, one is subject visa status, the more important
to deportation. question is whether in totality the
foreign-born represent a higher
Temporary visa holder—Any criminal activity may lead to non- level of risk to public safety than
renewal of visa or to revocation. do the U.S.-born. We would like
to understand the relationship
between foreign birth and criminal
activity in general, whether or not
apprehension and conviction. If deported for criminal activity will the individuals are permanent legal
convicted of a crime, immigrants include individuals who were in residents; naturalized citizens; busi-
serve their sentences in correc- the country legally. ness, tourist, or student visa hold-
tional institutions before being For those who are not in the ers; or the proverbial illegal entrant
adjudicated for deportation. country legally, deportation is a who evaded the border patrol.
For permanent legal residents potential penalty of apprehension This focus better allows us to
who are noncitizens, the penalty for a minor crime and is more assess whether the combination of
for a criminal conviction of an likely for conviction of a seri- immigration and criminal justice
aggravated felony is the sentence, ous one.3 If one is in the country policies that govern the foreign-born
plus any additional time waiting illegally—either by illegal entry yields a foreign-born population
for deportation procedures to be or by abusing a visa—then one that adversely affects public safety.
completed, plus the final penalty is deportable even without crimi- In most of this report, we focus on
of deportation. It is important to nal activity. But criminal activity the totality of the foreign-born pop-
emphasize that even if someone makes it more likely that one’s ulation, but we also provide infor-
comes to the United States legally, illegal status will come to the mation on important subgroups.
a conviction of an aggravated attention of authorities.
felony qualifies that person for Second, our data do not allow Demographics and Crime
deportation, unless he or she is a us to examine criminal activity by There are many reasons to assume
naturalized citizen.2 This means legal or illegal visa status. Although that the foreign-born may be
that the number of immigrants it would be interesting to know more likely than the U.S.-born
5
California Counts Crime, Corrections, and California
In California, foreign-
born men ages 18–40 Figure 1. Age Distribution of California Men, 2000
have lower educational 14.0
attainment levels than
12.0
U.S.-born men in the Foreign-born
U.S.-born
same age group. 10.0
Percentage 8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
+
5
4
9
4
65
–1
–1
–5
–2
–3
–4
–2
–3
–5
–6
5–
–4
<
10
15
25
20
35
55
30
50
45
60
40
Age group
to be involved in criminal activ- Source: Authors’ calculations from the 2000 U.S. Census.
ity. In particular, the foreign-born
in California have demographic
characteristics that are often cor-
related with criminal activity and
incarceration. Figure 1 shows that Figure 2. Educational Attainment of California Men
the foreign-born are more likely Ages 18–40
than the U.S.-born to be young
adults. The late teenage years 40.0
and early 20s are associated with 35.0 Foreign-born
higher rates of criminal offending, U.S.-born
30.0
and the 20s and 30s are associated
with higher rates of incarceration.4 25.0
Percentage
6
California Counts Crime, Corrections, and California
I n this section, we document would not want to conclude that noncitizens are disproportionately
the incarceration and institu- criminally active from their representation in federal prisons alone.
tionalization rates among the State jails and prisons are much more likely to be representa-
foreign-born and the U.S.-born. tive of the criminally active population. And California prisons
“Incarceration” here refers to a contain 30 percent of all noncitizen inmates in state prisons
sentence served in the California nationwide. Therefore, analysis of immigrant representation in the
state prison system, known as the state prison system in California provides insight into this state’s
California Department of Correc- experiences, but it also likely reflects the nation as a whole.
tions and Rehabilitation (CDCR).
7
California Counts Crime, Corrections, and California
i
that for crimes against persons in
Figure 3. Percentage Incarcerated in California, by Age
2005, the foreign-born were incar-
and Place of Birth
cerated at a rate of 161 per 100,000
3.0 people and that the U.S.-born were
Foreign-born women incarcerated at a rate of 259 per
2.5
U.S.-born women 100,000. The rate of incarceration
Foreign-born men
2.0 for drug crimes was 54 per 100,000
Percentage
U.S.-born men
All foreign-born for the foreign-born and 114 per
1.5
All U.S.-born 100,000 for the U.S.-born.8
1.0
0.5
0
The Criminal Justice
20–29 30–39 40–49
Age group
50–59 60+ Total
Funnel
8
California Counts Crime, Corrections, and California
Convict
Sentence
Institutionalization
Incarcerate
of Men Ages 18–40
F ocusing on institutionaliza-
tion has both benefits and
problems. One benefit is our rich
data source: individual-level data
criminal activity from observations hension. The U.S.-born may be from the 2000 Census.10 These
about the end point—incarceration more likely to be placed on proba- data contain a broad array of indi-
or institutionalization. tion or in an alternative institu- vidual characteristics, including
If the foreign-born and the tion (for mental illness or drug country of origin, citizenship sta-
U.S.-born are equally likely to rehabilitation, for example).9 tus, age, educational attainment,
engage in criminal activity and Looking at incarceration as a race, and ethnicity. In addition,
are treated equally at each junc- measure of criminal activity has “institutions” captures jails as well
ture in the criminal justice fun- another limitation: Prison is gener- as prisons. Finally, because some
nel, then we should see equal ally reserved for serious crimes. In individuals are placed in mental
incarceration and institutional- California, as in many states, less hospitals or rehabilitation facilities
ization rates. However, it may serious crimes, called misdemean- instead of being incarcerated, this
be that the foreign-born and the ors, are adjudicated by counties, measure captures individuals who
U.S.-born have different probabil- and terms of confinement, if any, may have engaged in criminal
ities of proceeding from one part are served in county jails. Felo- behavior but who have received
of the funnel to the next. If, for nies—more serious crimes—are markedly different sentences. Since
example, the U.S.-born are bet- punishable by terms in the state our focus is on public safety, using
ter able than the foreign-born to CDCR. Therefore, focusing only institutionalization as a measure—
aid in their own defense or have on incarceration in the state prison which captures as broad a segment
more resources to devote to their system may miss an important part of the criminally active population
defense, then the foreign-born of the story. In the next section, we as possible—significantly expands
may be more likely to advance focus on a broader measure of inca- our analysis of the relationship
toward incarceration after appre- pacitation: institutionalization. between immigration and crime.
9
California Counts Crime, Corrections, and California
Of course, “institutions” also alization rates by age appear rela- appeals to revamp this system to
includes mental hospitals and tively flat.12 And, of course, the draw in a more highly skilled class
nursing homes in which people most striking feature of the graph of immigrants—for example, by
live because of their health rather is that, for any age, the institu- emphasizing educational attain-
than any criminal behavior. Thus, tionalization rates of the foreign- ment in the allocation of visas.
in this section, we shift our focus born are relatively very low. To be sure, those advocating
to men ages 18–40. For this pop- In general, educational attain- such changes generally argue that
ulation, a large majority of those ment is quite strongly negatively improving educational attainment
who are institutionalized are in a correlated with incarceration and among immigrants would lead
correctional setting.11 Focusing on institutionalization. In Figure 6, to better labor market outcomes
this group captures the population we present institutionalization rates for them, and this might be so.
that is disproportionately likely by educational attainment for But insofar as institutionalization
to be engaged in criminal activity foreign-born and U.S.-born men captures criminal activity, the
and institutionalized for it. ages 18–40. Again, we see that for evidence here suggests that using
Overall, U.S.-born men ages the U.S.-born, a familiar pattern higher educational attainment as
18–40 have institutionalization emerges: Those with low levels of a selection criterion for permanent
rates that are 10 times higher than educational attainment are much resident visas would have little
those of foreign-born men in the more likely to be institutionalized effect on public safety, because all
same age group (4.2% vs. 0.42%). than those with 12 years of edu- the foreign-born, regardless of edu-
Thus, this broader measure, which cation or more.13 For the foreign- cational attainment, already have
captures those housed in jails for born, again, we see much less very low institutionalization rates.
lesser offenses, also shows remark- correlation between institutionali-
ably low relative outcomes for the zation and educational attainment.
foreign-born. Institutionalization rates are low Institutionalization
Figure 5 breaks down insti- for all levels of education among
tutionalization rates by age. For the foreign-born. Indeed, among and Population
U.S.-born men, these rates follow the U.S.-born, only those with a Subgroups
a pattern that is well-known to college degree or above have insti-
criminologists. Institutionalization
rises during the late teens and
early 20s as men are criminally
tutionalization rates below those
of any educational group among
the foreign-born.
T he analysis above generally
described the foreign-born
relative to the U.S.-born. Here, we
active and accruing records that This finding may have impor- look more specifically at popula-
then command a term of incar- tant implications for immigra- tion subgroups that are of particu-
ceration. In the late 20s and early tion policy as it pertains to those lar interest in California.
30s, institutionalization rates tend who are admitted as permanent
to level off. Then institutionaliza- residents. Visas to become a per- Countries of Origin
tion rates begin to decline as indi- manent resident alien are currently We begin with countries of origin.
viduals finish serving their time allocated largely based on fam- About 37 percent of men ages 18–
and age out of the period of their ily ties to U.S. citizens or family 40 in California are foreign-born,
lives when they are most likely to ties to those who already have and 20 percent of this group
be criminally active. In contrast, permanent resident status. Over were born in Mexico. Other well-
for foreign-born men, institution- the years, there have been many represented regions include Central
10
California Counts Crime, Corrections, and California
3.0
2.0
1.0
0
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
Age
Source: Authors’ calculations from the 2000 U.S. Census.
11
California Counts Crime, Corrections, and California
Percentage 2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0
rn
t r an
es
n
m
ic l
in
di
er ra
ic
or
na
bo
in
s
un si
ex
Ch
a
In
m nt
ie
.- b
co e r A
pp
et
n-
Ce
.S
Vi
ili
ig
U
th
Ph
re
O
Fo
Place of birth
Noncitizens Source: Authors’ calculations from the 2000 U.S. Census.
In press coverage on immigra-
tion and crime, illegal immigrants
are frequently the focus of atten-
tion. In California, the undocu-
Figure 8. California Institutionalization Rate of U.S.-Born and
mented are estimated to make up
Noncitizen Foreign-Born Men Ages 18–40, by Place of Birth
28 percent of the foreign-born
population (Hoefer, Rytina, and 4.5
Campbell, 2007). Unfortunately, 4.0
our data do not reveal the precise 3.5
immigration status of the foreign- 3.0
Percentage
es
n
in
di
er ra
ic
or
na
bo
in
s
un si
ex
Ch
a
In
m nt
ie
.- b
co e r A
pp
et
n-
Vi
ili
ig
U
th
Ph
re
Place of birth
Among men in California ages Source: Authors’ calculations from the 2000 U.S. Census.
18–40, 27 percent are foreign-born
noncitizens. In Figure 8, we present
institutionalization rates for this
group according to the country and
region-of-origin groups analyzed
12
California Counts Crime, Corrections, and California
above. These rates are nearly identi- be overstated in the Census data of education is only slightly lower,
cal to those in Figure 7. Indeed, (Ibarraran and Lubotsky, 2007). at 12.9 percent. For U.S.-born
institutionalization rates for non- Many have expressed concern blacks with less than a high school
citizens born in Mexico—a group about the inflow of immigrants diploma, this rate climbs to 30.5
much more likely than the foreign- with low levels of education, since, percent.16
born overall to include illegal immi- for many groups, low education As we discussed above, insti-
grants—are (very slightly) lower levels are correlated with worse tutionalization does not have the
for noncitizens than for all men labor market outcomes, worse same correlation with educational
ages 18–40 born in Mexico. Insti- health, and worse social outcomes attainment among the foreign-born
tutionalization rates for noncitizens in general, including crime. as it does among the U.S.-born.
are dramatically lower than for Figure 9 presents institutional- Perhaps, then, it is unsurprising
the U.S.-born, as were the rates for ization rates for men ages 18–40 that institutionalization rates of
the foreign-born overall. Indeed, with less than a high school diploma. the foreign-born with less than a
U.S.-born institutionalization rates The dominant feature of these charts high school diploma are extremely
are almost 10 times higher. is the high institutionalization rates low. Overall, and for each of our
A different way to look at this for U.S.-born men with low levels subgroups, institutionalization
issue is to ask what percentage of of education. Over 13 percent of all rates for the foreign-born with low
those institutionalized in Califor- U.S.-born men (ages 18–40) with levels of education are quite simi-
nia fall into a given nativity and less than a high school diploma are lar to institutionalization rates for
citizenship group. Again, let us in institutions. The rate for U.S.- the foreign-born, without regard
look at the Mexican-born. Among born Hispanic men with low levels to education level.
noninstitutionalized men ages 18–
40, 21 percent are Mexican-born,
and 17.2 percent of that group are
noncitizens. Among institutional- Figure 9. California Institutionalization Rate of Men
ized men in this age group, 3.6 Ages 18–40 with Less Than a High School Diploma,
percent are Mexican-born, and by Place of Birth
2.9 percent are Mexican-born non- 35
citizens. However one measures it, 30
Mexican-born men are dramati- 25
cally underrepresented in California
Percentage
20
prisons and other institutions.
15
10
Educational Attainment
5
As we saw in Figure 2, the foreign-
0
born are much more likely than
t r an
es
n
b l orn
F o an rn
rn
m
ic l
in
or
ic
na
in
is o
bo
s
un si
U ck
ic
ex
a
Ch
m nt
ie
.- b
.- b
H .- b
co r A
pp
et
a
n-
Ce
.S
.S
Vi
p
ili
e
ig
U
th
Ph
re
13
California Counts Crime, Corrections, and California
Both incarceration spent in the country.17 The second the foreign-born in California.
in state prisons and explanation—“exposure time”— These low rates hold true across
merely involves more time at risk region-of-origin and education
the broader measure for apprehension. Since our data do subgroups. From a perspective of
of institutionalization not allow us to follow individuals public safety, then, there would be
show remarkably and examine how their criminal little reason to limit immigration,
low rates among involvement changes over time, we to try to increase the education
the foreign-born in cannot distinguish between these levels of immigrants, or to increase
hypotheses. Nonetheless, we might punishments to deter noncitizens
California. worry, for example, that the low from committing crimes.
rates of institutionalization among
noncitizens is simply a consequence
of their not having been in the
country long enough to either go
Does Deportation
through the naturalization process Matter?
In addition, the comparisons
in Figure 9 are the same if we
examine institutionalization rates
or to have accumulated a criminal
record warranting jail or prison.
However, when we examine
I f incarceration and institution-
alization rates have the same
relationship with criminal activ-
for only the noncitizens in our institutionalization rates by time ity for the foreign-born and the
subgroups. Thus, even among spent in the United States, all U.S.-born—that is, if both groups
noncitizens with low education groups have rates that are an order are treated equally in the crimi-
from Mexico—the most likely of magnitude lower than rates of nal justice system—then the data
candidates for having entered the the U.S.-born. Although it is the presented here indicate that the
U.S. illegally—institutionalization case that those who have been in foreign-born have remarkably
rates are very low. the United States for fewer than low rates of criminal offending in
five years have the lowest institu- California. Of course, there are
Length of Time in the tionalization rates (0.24%), those a number of reasons to wonder if
United States who have been in the United States the relationship between institu-
Does it matter that the foreign- for 21 years or more have rates that tionalization and criminal activity
born population is composed of are only slightly higher than the is the same for the foreign-born
people who have been in the United overall rate for the foreign-born and the U.S.-born. Differences in
States for different lengths of time? (0.48% vs. 0.43%). Neither assimi- treatment between the foreign-
Theories differ. Spending more time lation nor exposure time appears born and the U.S.-born at any
in the United States may “assimi- to close the gap in institutionali- juncture in the criminal justice
late” the foreign-born to higher zation between the U.S.-born and system may lead to differences
rates of criminal activity. Or it may the foreign-born. in institutionalization rates for a
simply give them more time to get given level of criminal activity.
caught for criminal activity and Overview Such differences could skew
accumulate a serious enough record In sum, both incarceration in our findings in either direction,
to earn jail or prison time. Assimi- state prisons and the broader by inflating the institutionalization
lation implies that underlying measure of institutionalization rates of either the foreign-born or
criminal activity changes with time show remarkably low rates among the U.S.-born. For example, the
14
California Counts Crime, Corrections, and California
U.S.-born may be better able foreign-born do not (because of inmates. A recent report by the
to aid in their own defense and deportation), then relative institu- Department of Homeland Secu-
thus have lower probabilities of tionalization rates may understate rity Inspector General’s office
conviction or shorter sentences the criminal activity levels of the found that current staffing levels
conditional on conviction.18 At foreign-born. at ICE are insufficient to screen
the same time, if the foreign-born The effect of deportation on and process criminal offenders for
are swiftly deported for criminal the very low rates of institutional- deportation (U.S. Department of
activity, then their institutional- ization of the foreign-born depends Homeland Security, 2006). Fur-
ized numbers will be low relative in large part on the speed and thermore, even those with depor-
to their actual criminal activity. thoroughness with which deporta- tation orders do not necessarily
How much does deportation tion for criminal involvement takes leave the country as scheduled and
matter? Unfortunately, neither the place.21 The process works like this: many areas report that those who
federal nor the state government As mentioned above, the foreign- are deported manage to reenter
provides data on the numbers of born serve their full sentence in the country (Berestein, 2007).22
deported prisoners in sufficient the CDCR, after which they are Although we do not have
detail for us to assess fully the role determined eligible for deportation. data on deportation numbers, we
of deportation on institutionaliza- During the prison term, CDCR suspect that time lags and restric-
tion rates of the foreign-born.19 officials alert Immigration and tions on placement mean that
However, a brief examination Customs Enforcement (ICE) to deportation requirements may
of the current deportation pro- the identity of any inmate they inflate the institutionalization
cesses will allow us to make some believe may be a noncitizen. ICE rates of the foreign-born relative to
educated guesses. Of course, we investigates and places a “hold” their underlying criminal activity.
cannot fully analyze here the com- on inmates designated for further For these reasons, we think that
plicated ways in which deporta- immigration enforcement action. the low institutionalization rates
tion rules interact with state and This designation places some of the foreign-born in California
local law enforcement; instead, we restrictions on the CDCR. For reflect low rates of criminal activ-
will simply provide an overview. example, a foreign-born inmate ity among the foreign-born rather
As noted above, noncitizens with an ICE hold on his or her than the effects of deportation.
may be subject to deportation record cannot be paroled and may
for many reasons. For our pur- be disqualified from rehabilitative
poses, we are simply interested prison programs.
in whether this means that their In previous research, Butcher Immigration and
institutionalization rates will be and Piehl (2000) found that City Crime Rates
comparatively low relative to rates inmates in California prisons with
of the U.S.-born. This may be a
particularly important issue in
California, since the state has a
ICE holds (called “INS holds” at
the time) served about 10 percent
longer than comparable inmates
I n this section, we turn to direct
evidence on crime. Here, we
examine city-level crime rates in
high rate of recidivism, mean- with comparable sentence lengths. California and analyze their correla-
ing that the prison population is We speculated at the time that tion with the rates of arriving immi-
disproportionately made up of the finding may have been due grants to see if they are consistent
returning offenders.20 If the U.S.- to time lags in developing the with our findings on incarceration
born recidivate, but many of the systems to manage deportable and institutionalization rates.
15
California Counts Crime, Corrections, and California
16
California Counts Crime, Corrections, and California
400
(per 100,000 population)
Bakersfield Stockton
plots comparing the change in a Huntington Beach
200
city’s crime rate with the percent- Modesto San Bernadino San Francisco
17
California Counts Crime, Corrections, and California
We find that the in cities with a larger newly arrived affect the state is through the
foreign-born have low foreign-born population. activities of their children and
We do not claim that these their children’s children. We do
rates of incarceration simple correlations represent the know that U.S.-born adults have
and institutionalization, true, causal effect of an increase higher incarceration and institu-
and that these rates in immigration on city crime tionalization rates than foreign-
hold true across rates in California. In reality, born adults, and that many
education and region- the determinants of crime are U.S.-born adults are second- or
multiple and the relationship to third-generation descendants of
of-origin subgroups. immigration complex. Nonethe- earlier immigrants. Perhaps the
less, these results for California are added punishments and threats
entirely consistent with national that affect noncitizens convicted of
studies that adopt statistical tech- criminal activity serve as a deter-
niques that plausibly point to the rent to these activities and perhaps,
causal relationship between the without such threats, their U.S.-
two. These studies find either no born children will have higher rates
impact of immigration on crime of criminal activity. Or it may be
rates or a slightly negative one that the immigrant generation itself
(Butcher and Piehl, 1998a, 2007). is particularly noncriminal.30
compared to the immigrant inflow The earlier analysis of incar- Unfortunately, the census data
rates of other cities in California. ceration and institutionalization that we use here to examine insti-
The line in each figure rep- rates suggests low rates of criminal tutionalization rates do not provide
resents the average relationship involvement for the foreign-born. information on the birthplaces of
between the change in the crime This analysis of city-level crime rates individuals’ parents and grandpar-
rate and the percentage of recently bolsters our confidence that our ents, so we cannot conduct a par-
arrived foreign-born.29 For prop- results represent the true underlying allel analysis for later generations.
erty crimes, the correlation is criminal activity of the foreign- However, to give some insight into
slightly negative. This means that born in California and not merely how these groups might fare, we
the higher the share of recently differences in treatment within the can examine the institutionaliza-
arrived foreign-born population, criminal justice process. tion rates of those who came to
the more property crime rates fell the United States at very young
over the five-year period, on aver- ages. These people are sometimes
age. This relationship is not statis- What About referred to as the “1.5 generation,”
tically significant, meaning that since they were “nearly” born in
the relationship is consistent with the Children of the United States, will likely speak
there being no correlation between Immigrants? unaccented English, receive their
immigrant inflows and change in education in the United States,
property crime. For violent crime
rates, however, the relationship is
negative and statistically signifi-
O ur analysis here has focused
on the effects of the foreign-
born on public safety in Califor-
and for most intents and purposes
will be difficult to distinguish
from their U.S.-born siblings.
cant. In this case, we see stronger nia. Of course, one of the pro- Among those immigrants who
evidence that crime rates fell more found ways in which immigrants arrived when they were age one or
18
California Counts Crime, Corrections, and California
younger, the institutionalization levels and wages than do the chil- men ages 18-40 with a college
rate is 0.8 percent.31 Although this dren of the U.S.-born.34 Although degree or higher have lower insti-
is higher than for the foreign-born these findings are not directly tutionalization rates than the aver-
overall,32 it is much lower than for related to criminal activity, among age among the foreign-born.
the U.S.-born. Recall that these are the U.S.-born, higher education On city-level crime rates—a
also the foreign-born who have had and wages and low levels of wel- broad measure of public safety—
the longest “exposure time” and fare use correlate with lower levels our evidence suggests that, between
the longest time to assimilate.33 of criminal activity. This evidence, 2000 and 2005, cities with higher
Perhaps those who are natural- albeit somewhat circumstantial, rates of newly arrived immigrants
ized citizens among the 1.5 gen- suggests that the children of the had, if anything, a greater decline
eration come closest to being like foreign-born are likely to have in crime rates than cities with lower
second-generation immigrants, lower rates of criminal activity rates of newly arrived immigrants.
since they too would be free of the than are the U.S.-born, on aver- Altogether, this evidence sug-
threat of deportation if involved age, although perhaps not as low gests that immigrants have very
in criminal activity. Among this as the foreign-born themselves. low rates of criminal activity in
group, institutionalization rates California. Note that this finding
are somewhat lower (0.6%) than is consistent with national studies
for the overall 1.5 generation. on immigration and crime, which
Direct evidence on criminal activ- Summary and Policy also find low rates of criminal activ-
ity of the second generation is Implications ity for the foreign-born. Indeed,
limited but corroborates these a review of the literature (Mears,
findings. For example, Samp-
son Morenoff, and Raudenbush
(2005) surveyed youth in Chicago
T his California Counts presents
evidence on individual institu-
tionalization rates and city-level
2002) noted that the published
academic literature on the criminal
activity of the foreign-born does not
neighborhoods, finding that the crime rates. We find that the foreign- contain a counter claim.
foreign-born have the lowest rates born have low rates of incarceration Immigration policy reform
of violence, but those reporting and institutionalization, and that must take into account many fac-
to be children of immigrants also these rates hold true across educa- tors in addition to the public safety
report lower rates of violence than tion and region-of-origin subgroups. issues addressed here. However,
those with U.S.-born parents. Even for those immigrants our results suggest that several
In addition, other evidence on with demographic characteristics of the reforms currently under
the children of the foreign-born that, among the U.S.-born, are consideration would do little to
suggests that they have relatively positively correlated with jail and improve public safety. In particu-
good outcomes in the United prison time, we find low rates of lar, from a public safety stand-
States. For example, Butcher and institutionalization. For example, point, there would be little reason
Hu (2000) found that those with among foreign-born men ages to further limit immigration, to
at least one foreign-born parent 18–40 with less than a high school favor entry by high-skilled immi-
have lower rates of receiving social diploma, the institutionalization grants, or to increase penalties
welfare than those with two U.S.- rate is 0.5 percent. Among the against criminal immigrants. ◆
born parents. In addition, Card U.S.-born with less than a high
(2005) found that children of school diploma, the rate is 13.4
immigrants have higher education percent. In fact, only U.S.-born
19
California Counts Crime, Corrections, and California
20
California Counts Crime, Corrections, and California
Pakistan, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Indochina or jail. This rate, which is higher than that all change in the foreign-born population in
(not specified), Malaysia, Singapore, Bangla- in other large states, can be explained by the a city in the same five-year period. With this
desh, Sri Lanka, and Nepal. high rate of technical violations of parole. “inflow rate,” we examine whether those cit-
More than half of those returned to prison ies that received more new arrivals (as a per-
15 Controlling for age does not substantially or jail do so because they have violated the centage of the overall population) had worse
change these comparisons. conditions of their parole rather than com- crime rates than equivalent cities with lower
mitting a new crime. See Fisher (2005). inflows of immigrants.
16 Note that U.S.-born blacks make up about
6.3 percent of the overall population of men 21 Note that determining the deportability of 27Crime rate data at the city level are often
ages 18–40 in California. Among institu- the foreign-born who have been convicted of noisy. We have also conducted this analysis
tionalized men ages 18–40 in California, criminal activity, and detaining them while using three-year averages of the crime rate
however, U.S.-born blacks make up 27 per- they wait for deportation, imposes additional data (1999–2001 and 2004–2006). These
cent of the population. costs on law enforcement. calculations are very similar to those pre-
sented here.
17Assimilation might lead to more criminal 22 The challenges to repatriation include fail-
activity if, for example, it takes time to learn ure of aliens to obey orders to appear, high 28 Note that some large cities, notably San
the best opportunities for theft and to make absconding rates of those with final orders Diego, are not identified in the Census and
contacts that allow one to dispose of stolen to depart, failure of receiving countries to American Community Survey data. This has
property. issue travel documentation (or the refusal to to do with the Census definitions for being
accept deportees), and recent Supreme Court within a “city.” San Diego is identified as
18 On a more technical note, the “under- decisions mandating the release of aliens if a metropolitan area but not as a “city.” In
count” in the Census is much more likely to orders cannot be executed promptly. See U.S. addition, we require that there be at least
affect the noninstitutionalized population Department of Homeland Security (2006) 30 recently arrived (in the last five years)
than the institutionalized population, since for details. foreign-born in the city to have a statistically
the latter are enumerated from administra- reliable measure of the inflow of immigrants.
tive records. For those outside institutions, 23 Data are from the Uniform Crime Reports
the undercount is likely higher for the collected by the Federal Bureau of Investiga- 29 The line is estimated using ordinary least
foreign-born than for the U.S.-born. This tion. (See http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm.) squares, weighted by the square root of the
means that the denominator used to calcu- These represent crimes in four categories of city population in 2005. Los Angeles is
late the fraction institutionalized is too low property crimes (burglary, larceny, motor shown on the scatter plot but was not used
for the foreign-born relative to the U.S.- vehicle theft, and arson) and four categories to estimate the fitted line as changes in the
born, which will overstate the fraction of of violent crimes (homicide, rape, robbery, crime rate data collection procedures ren-
foreign-born institutionalized. and aggravated assault). dered the statistics noncomparable across the
two points in time. The results here are quite
19 Some suggestion of the possible magnitude 24 If, for example, the foreign-born cross the similar even if we include Los Angeles or
of the effect of deportation comes from com- border undetected, commit crimes, and then estimate the relationship without weighting.
paring the representation of the foreign-born return to their country of origin undetected,
among new admissions to state prisons rather then we might see high crime rates without 30 Butcher and Piehl (2007) argued that
than among recidivists. For men (ages 20 and seeing high institutionalization rates. It is migrants appear to be particularly responsive
up) in California state prisons, the overall important to note, however, that compari- to incentives and less likely to engage in
percentage foreign-born is 17 percent. Among sons of border and nonborder cities reveal criminal activity.
new admissions to prison, the percentage that border cities (with larger immigrant
foreign-born is higher (23%). This is consis- populations) do not have higher crime rates 31 The percentage is almost identical if we
tent with a higher rate of reoffending among than nonborder cities (Hagan and Palloni, define the 1.5 generation as those arriving
the U.S.-born, possibly because of the depor- 1999). Thus, there is little empirical evidence when they are age 5 or younger.
tation of noncitizens after their first term of to support the idea that the foreign-born are
incarceration. However, it is also consistent committing crimes in the United States and 32 This difference is not statistically significant.
with noncitizens being sentenced for lesser evading detection by crossing the border.
crimes and receiving commensurately lighter 33 Separating assimilation from age-at-arrival
sentences (Butcher and Piehl, 2000). And 25 Note, however, that recent work on the effects is complicated and requires more
note that for the population in California effect of immigration on the wages and than one cross-section of data. See Friedberg
overall, the percentage foreign-born among employment of the U.S.-born in California (1992) for a discussion.
men ages 20 and up is about 36 percent, thus shows little evidence of a negative labor mar-
the 17 percent foreign-born among the new ket effect (Peri, 2007). 34 The finding is based on national data for
admissions to prison is very low. adults ages 21–64, with controls for age dif-
26 The percentage of a city’s population that ferences between the groups.
20 Within three years of release, two-thirds arrived in the United States between 2000
of California prisoners are returned to prison and 2005 is highly correlated with the over-
21
California Counts Crime, Corrections, and California
22
California Counts Crime, Corrections, and California
Thomas C. Sutton, Chair Donna Lucas Short sections of text, not to exceed three
Retired Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Chief Executive Officer paragraphs, may be quoted without written
Pacific Life Insurance Company Lucas Public Affairs permission provided that full attribution is
given to the source and the above copyright
Mark Baldassare Leon E. Panetta
notice is included.
President and Chief Executive Officer Director
Public Policy Institute of California The Leon & Sylvia Panetta Institute for Research publications reflect the views of the
Public Policy
Ruben Barrales authors and do not necessarily reflect the views
President and Chief Executive Officer Ki Suh Park of the staff, officers, or Board of Directors of
San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce Design and Managing Partner the Public Policy Institute of California.
Gruen Associates
Linda Griego
Public Policy Institute of California
President and Chief Executive Officer Constance L. Rice
500 Washington Street, Suite 600
Griego Enterprises, Inc. Co-Director
San Francisco, California 94111
The Advancement Project
Telephone: 415.291.4400
Edward K. Hamilton
Fax: 415.291.4401
Chairman Raymond L. Watson
www.ppic.org
Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Associates, Inc. Vice Chairman of the Board Emeritus
The Irvine Company
Gary K. Hart PPIC Sacramento Center
Former State Senator and Secretary of Carol Whiteside Senator Office Building
Education President Emeritus 1121 L Street, Suite 801
State of California Great Valley Center Sacramento, California 95814
Telephone: 916.440.1120
Walter B. Hewlett Fax: 916.440.1121
Director
Center for Computer Assisted ISSN #1554-401X
Research in the Humanities
23
California Counts
Recent issues of
California Counts
population trends and profiles
In This Issue
Crime Rates
Low Among
California’s
Immigrants