By LEO J. PIERSON
Originally Posted at Ohio Action Cricle: Ohio's 1st and only research based immigration blog.
When I was asked to write the first post in a BRIDGES blog series on immigration, I was thrilled to accept the offer. Given Arizona's new draconian laws, and since I have had to have this discussion with many people recently, I thought it prudent to kick off the series with a frank discussion on Crime and Immigration. It is the case that native born citizens often believe that immigrants bring crime (especially violent crime) with them to their host communities. It's what many of us immigration researchers refer to as the holy trinity of anti-immigrant sentiments: Drugs, Litter and Violent Crime.
One excellent example of this is in the film 9500 Liberty, where one native born woman claims that her 83 year old grandmother no longer feels safe enough to take her trash out at night because of the presence of a newly arrived (and presumably violent) Latino immigrant population. Taken from my own research, I captured the following quote during a brilliant interview with a native born resident living in a new immigrant destination: "The ethnic groups that are living here have changed. The crime rate is high now versus even 5 years ago. I would feel comfortable when my children were small. Not any more!" (actual crime rate decreased in interviewee's community over the cited time period).
For the reasons that are highlighted in such public discourses, this is an excellent discussion for us to be having in more public settings. Put in the form of a question, one asks: is it true that increased rates of in-migration bring increased rates of crime—especially violent crime?
Based on commonly held beliefs, the answer is not what most would expect it to be and thus requires a bit of explanation.
While it is true that larger urban areas—which are the principal destinations for most newly arriving immigrants—have higher crime rates than the average small town in Ohio, when we look at the numbers over time, what we find is that of all the variables that lead to this "social fact," there is no (as in 0) correlation—i.e. relationship—between increases in violent crime rates and increases in patterns of in-migration.
In fact, recent research suggests a causal inverse relationship between the two—that is to say, over the course of time, increased rates of in-migration partially explain observed decreases in rates of violent crime!
A just released study* by Tim Wadsworth, a sociologist at the University of Colorado, shows that between the years 1990 and 2000, the U.S. urban areas that experienced the largest rates of in-migration also experienced either significantly decreased rates of violent crime or significantly smaller increases when compared to similar urban areas that experienced lower rates of in-migration. These findings might begin to help us understand why many law officials in Arizona have flatly contradicted Arizona politicians by stating that there is no "crime wave" on our side of the border. In fact, when we look at the numbers, Arizona's violent crime rates (including the border zones) have declined significantly over the past decade, even as their rates of net in-migration have gone up!
There are various explanations given in the research literature on immigration to suggest why this might be the case (While Wadsworth's research could not test the theories, it does lend them plausibility). One oft-given reason is that—contrary to popular belief—the choice to immigrate to the U.S. is not an individual decision. Rather, the decision to leave one's home for a new destination of opportunity is one that is made collectively. Decision making involves both immediate and extended family members, as well as friends and "community elders."**
The idea is that if home societies are deliberating on who to send to a new country in order to find work and new opportunities, those who are sent are not hardened criminals; they are trusted members of their home communities. Indeed my own research—though tangential to this particular topic—does directly imply the validity of such an argument.
So to the question: are immigrants also most often violent criminals? As many academics have long suspected, the answer is NO, and now we have the data*** to prove it. In actual fact, negative stereotypes rooted in false ideas of criminality serve to further stigmatize already economically, racially and culturally marginalized immigrant communities.
The outstanding thing about the Wadsworth's data analysis is that it indicates one other important point. Not only is it the case that immigrants do not contribute to increased rates of violent crime, but it seems also to be the case that immigrants positively contribute to decreasing violent crime in the communities in which they—quite literally—settle.****
About the Author: Leo Pierson is a sociologist and instructor at Cincinnati State Technical and Community College. His research focuses on local and state immigration policy and conflict in the U.S. Leo is also the Ohio State Director of Civil Rights for the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC).
__________________
*Wadsworth, Tim. June 2010. Is Immigration Responsible for the Crime Drop? An Assessment of the Influence of Immigration on Changes in Violent Crime Between 1990 and 2000. Social Science Quarterly. Vol 91 (2): 531-53.
**For interesting discussions on immigrant decision making processes see Peggy Levitt's work on The Transnational Villages. See also Saskia Sassen's insights in Chapter 6 of Territory, Authority, Rights.
***"Computing estimates based on the pooled cross-sectional time-series models discussed above suggests that, controlling for a variety of other factors, growth in the new immigrant population was responsible, on average, for 9.3 percent of the decline in logged homicide rates, and that growth in total immigration was, on average, responsible for 22.2 percent of the decrease in logged robbery rates." (see p. 549 of above cited article by Wadsworth.
****Special thanks is owed to Tim Wadsworth, of the University of Colorado, for directly providing me with his journal article, which I heavily leaned upon in order to write this post. In the concluding remarks of his article, Tim asks that his and other such research "play an important role in challenging the public discourse as we begin to shape new immigration policy for the 21st century." It is the sincere hope of OAC that in the "strong and slow boring of hard boards," we might begin to help accomplish precisely this task.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Monday, May 24, 2010
Vision Quest 2010: Immigration in America
In American Indian tradition, the Vision Quest is a rite of passage that marks the transition from childhood to adulthood. During the quest, the young adult searches for guidance and prepares for a new direction in life. Now fast forward to 2010 for a different type of coming of age moment, one that asks all of us to engage in a serious and mature discussion about the future of immigration reform in America.
In a 1998 interview published in Revolutionary Worker, (http://revcom.us/a/v20/980-89/987/zinn.htm), the late historian Howard Zinn talked about his vision of a diverse society. Zinn’s approach called for a transformation in the way that we look at the world: “If you don’t have a vision, for instance of a world without national boundaries, you are not in a position to really evaluate very specific things, like should Congress pass this immigration law, or should we pass that immigration law, should we restrict immigration this much or immigration that much. But if you have a vision of the kind of world that you want, then it becomes clear what your attitude has to be towards immigration, which is people should be able to move: there shouldn’t be such a thing as a foreigner, an alien, an immigrant.”
While everyone may not agree with Zinn’s vision, it is important to envision the type of world in which you would like to live. Is it one that legalizes racial profiling? Is it a world that bans ethnic studies? Is it a world that appreciates difference? We at JUSTCAUSE are happy to bring you our first-ever blog series on immigration in America. For the next few weeks, we will hear from a range of voices about immigration and immigration reform in America. Now is the time for us to embark upon our own quest to learn, to listen, and to develop a new narrative for our world.
In a 1998 interview published in Revolutionary Worker, (http://revcom.us/a/v20/980-89/987/zinn.htm), the late historian Howard Zinn talked about his vision of a diverse society. Zinn’s approach called for a transformation in the way that we look at the world: “If you don’t have a vision, for instance of a world without national boundaries, you are not in a position to really evaluate very specific things, like should Congress pass this immigration law, or should we pass that immigration law, should we restrict immigration this much or immigration that much. But if you have a vision of the kind of world that you want, then it becomes clear what your attitude has to be towards immigration, which is people should be able to move: there shouldn’t be such a thing as a foreigner, an alien, an immigrant.”
While everyone may not agree with Zinn’s vision, it is important to envision the type of world in which you would like to live. Is it one that legalizes racial profiling? Is it a world that bans ethnic studies? Is it a world that appreciates difference? We at JUSTCAUSE are happy to bring you our first-ever blog series on immigration in America. For the next few weeks, we will hear from a range of voices about immigration and immigration reform in America. Now is the time for us to embark upon our own quest to learn, to listen, and to develop a new narrative for our world.
Monday, May 17, 2010
A Home Run for Cincinnati
For the second year in a row, Cincinnati hosted the Gillette Civil Rights Game. The Civil Rights game was founded in 2007 as a way to honor the activists and leaders who have made significant changes in our nation, as well as the role of baseball in breaking barriers both on and off the playing field. The weekend’s festivities included a roundtable discussion on civil rights and sports, a youth baseball summit, the MLB Beacon Awards Luncheon, and three great games against the St. Louis Cardinals. To top it all off, the Cincinnati Reds are now in first place in their division!
But the weekend was more than just fun and games. The roundtable, “Baseball and the Civil Rights Movement” was something akin to a celebratory challenge. The panel was moderated by Harvard law professor Charles Ogletree and included such notables as Joe Morgan, Zina Garrison, Marvin Lewis, Barry Larkin, Reggie Williams, and Michele Jones. And last but not least, the legendary Hank Aaron was on hand to make the closing remarks.
In the midst of the celebration of the achievements of Jackie Robinson and other activists, the panelists acknowledged that as a nation we still have a long way to go before we achieve a truly level playing field. Hall of Famer Joe Morgan was a part of the “Big Red Machine” and is now back with the Reds working in community outreach. Morgan reminded us that the game of baseball can truly change lives and urged the audience to support youth baseball initiatives in our communities. Former Bengals’ linebacker Reggie Williams reaffirmed the position of athlete as activist by voicing his critique of the Arizona immigration law. Even though each panelist brought a unique perspective, they all shared the same sentiment that we all have an opportunity to create change in our communities.
The audience for the roundtable was a diverse mix of white and black, young and old. The audience was also a reminder of how far we have come as a city. In some ways, the residual effect of the social unrest of 2001 still hangs over the city; however, the roundtable was an important reminder that there is much to be learned from engaging in the difficult conversations about race and inequity. Conversations about the past are powerful for what they can teach us about the here and now. Jackie Robinson once said that “the right of every American to first-class citizenship is the most important issue of our time,” and his words are as true now as they were then. So in the spirit of Jackie Robinson, let’s do our part to level the playing field.
But the weekend was more than just fun and games. The roundtable, “Baseball and the Civil Rights Movement” was something akin to a celebratory challenge. The panel was moderated by Harvard law professor Charles Ogletree and included such notables as Joe Morgan, Zina Garrison, Marvin Lewis, Barry Larkin, Reggie Williams, and Michele Jones. And last but not least, the legendary Hank Aaron was on hand to make the closing remarks.
In the midst of the celebration of the achievements of Jackie Robinson and other activists, the panelists acknowledged that as a nation we still have a long way to go before we achieve a truly level playing field. Hall of Famer Joe Morgan was a part of the “Big Red Machine” and is now back with the Reds working in community outreach. Morgan reminded us that the game of baseball can truly change lives and urged the audience to support youth baseball initiatives in our communities. Former Bengals’ linebacker Reggie Williams reaffirmed the position of athlete as activist by voicing his critique of the Arizona immigration law. Even though each panelist brought a unique perspective, they all shared the same sentiment that we all have an opportunity to create change in our communities.
The audience for the roundtable was a diverse mix of white and black, young and old. The audience was also a reminder of how far we have come as a city. In some ways, the residual effect of the social unrest of 2001 still hangs over the city; however, the roundtable was an important reminder that there is much to be learned from engaging in the difficult conversations about race and inequity. Conversations about the past are powerful for what they can teach us about the here and now. Jackie Robinson once said that “the right of every American to first-class citizenship is the most important issue of our time,” and his words are as true now as they were then. So in the spirit of Jackie Robinson, let’s do our part to level the playing field.
Monday, May 3, 2010
No home for hate
Guess what? Cincinnati has been in the news lately. Unfortunately, the attention was for all of the wrong reasons. Media outlets from North Carolina to California picked up the disturbing story of the John Johnson beating, the man who was brutally attacked because he is homeless. Johnson was attacked by a group of skinheads, three of whom are active military personnel, at a homeless encampment last month. The Southern Poverty Law Center’s blog, Hatewatch, even wrote about the attack. Our city has seen four reports of these crimes in the last year and each offense is more violent than the last. We may not like this type of attention, but it does give us an opportunity to learn more about hate crimes against the homeless and what we can to prevent these crimes from becoming even more frequent.
This latest attack is part of a disturbing trend in our nation. The National Coalition for the Homeless states that from 1999 through 2008, in over 200 cities and in 46 states, there were 880 acts of violence against the homeless. These attacks resulted in 244 deaths of homeless people and 636 victims of non-lethal violence. Further, a 2008 report from the Coalition and the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty ranked Ohio among the top five states in reported crimes against the homeless. The report is available at nationalhomeless.org.
Before we let the weight of the statistics force us into emotional paralysis, there is a lot that we can do to encourage lawmakers to do more to protect Ohio’s homeless population. Representative Mike Foley is planning to sponsor the Homeless Hate Crimes Bill. If passed, one convicted of a committing a crime against a homeless person would receive a harsher sentence. Now is the time to encourage other lawmakers to do their part to deter these senseless crimes. In Soul of a Citizen, Paul Loeb writes “Community involvement, in other words, is the mirror that best reflects our individual choices, our strengths, and weakness, our accomplishments and failures. It allows our lives to count for something.” This is our time to let our concern count for something. Stand with BRIDGES in support of the Homeless Hate Crimes Bill.
Let’s not let hate find a home in Cincinnati.
This latest attack is part of a disturbing trend in our nation. The National Coalition for the Homeless states that from 1999 through 2008, in over 200 cities and in 46 states, there were 880 acts of violence against the homeless. These attacks resulted in 244 deaths of homeless people and 636 victims of non-lethal violence. Further, a 2008 report from the Coalition and the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty ranked Ohio among the top five states in reported crimes against the homeless. The report is available at nationalhomeless.org.
Before we let the weight of the statistics force us into emotional paralysis, there is a lot that we can do to encourage lawmakers to do more to protect Ohio’s homeless population. Representative Mike Foley is planning to sponsor the Homeless Hate Crimes Bill. If passed, one convicted of a committing a crime against a homeless person would receive a harsher sentence. Now is the time to encourage other lawmakers to do their part to deter these senseless crimes. In Soul of a Citizen, Paul Loeb writes “Community involvement, in other words, is the mirror that best reflects our individual choices, our strengths, and weakness, our accomplishments and failures. It allows our lives to count for something.” This is our time to let our concern count for something. Stand with BRIDGES in support of the Homeless Hate Crimes Bill.
Let’s not let hate find a home in Cincinnati.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)