Criminal Justice essy

Immigrants and Crime: Myths and Realities

Omar Melchor

University of Nevada Las Vegas

Introduction

It is to no ones surprise that immigrants in the United States have historically been perceived as a massive problem for the country. This is especially the case when it comes to crime and incarceration. Results from the General Social Survey revealed that almost three-fourths of the population in the United States believed that immigration was causally related to crime, that immigrants made it harder to keep jobs, and that immigrants made it difficult to keep the United States united (Rumbaut, Gonzales, Komaie, & Morgan, 2006). This is problematic because public opinion often works its way up to the highest priorities of political leaders and these opinions are reflected in immigration laws and policies. Menjivar and Bejarano (2004) and Hickman et al (2008) stress this point noting that the public continues to grow more intolerant of immigrants and believe crime is due in great part to immigration.

The perception that immigrants are criminals and fill up our prisons leads, for example, to citizen groups who advocate to reduce immigration and in turn to politicians who take more restrictive steps to enact harsher immigration laws and policies aimed at dealing with the ”criminal immigrants.” As an example of the implementation of these expensive policies, in 2006 in an effort to tighten security at the Mexican border, hundreds of border patrol officials were hired, 6,000 troops where deployed, surveillance was increased, and 700 miles of fencing were built (Hickman et al., 2008).

The fact that society does in fact influence public policy is nothing new. It is necessary that we examine how the beliefs and perceptions of society have historically impacted policy so that we can better understand the impact that our society today does or could have on policy if it is misguided by unfounded perceptions. Once this has been established, this research paper will focus on analyzing the existing literature, sociological and criminological theories, and existing empirical research to determine whether or not immigrants are in fact more criminal, thus, supporting society’s perceptions.

Prevalence of Problem

Historical Perspective: Focus on the Impact of Society on Immigration Law

Immigration law is designed to determine who enters the United States and for how long those persons can stay. It designates the ‘Alien status’ as well as the obligations, duties and rights associated with the status. Immigration law, from its early history, has changed dramatically over the years from its early beginnings when most immigrants were welcomed during the industrial revolution, as they were needed for the labor force, to the contemporary era when it became very difficult to legally migrate and work in this country (LeMay et al, 1999). Immigration law also deals with the process of admitting or denying those seeking asylum and refugee status, naturalization policies, deportation of those deemed illegal, the procedures at various governmental levels that have an influence on immigrants’ lives in terms of educational and occupational opportunities, and the access to different welfare and health benefits.

From its early beginnings, the United States has been a nation of immigrants. The countless number of individuals who have emigrated here has deeply and profoundly shaped the social, economic, political, and cultural aspects of the United States (LeMay et al. 1999). However, the attitude and perceptions toward immigrants have not always been positive. As noted by LeMay, cultural, political, economic, and social aspects of society are responsible, to a great extent for influencing immigration law. As an example, in 1921 and 1924 the perception of the public that immigrants exhibited public drunkenness and consumed too much alcohol, led to the passage of prohibitions that reduced immigration substantially (Hagan and Palloni, 1999).

Early Immigration (1790-1950)

Before Congress’ first attempts to control immigration, immigration law was characterized with open doors (Hing, 1999). LeMay et al (1999) recognized several push factors from China, Japan, and European countries that led to a massive emigration during this period. Economically, there were persistent famines which starved citizens of those countries forcing them to emigrate. In other countries, the adjustment of labor from agriculture to industry forced thousands to loose their means of sustainability and forced them to look for new horizons. Politically, the prosecution of individuals because of their views gave many few options other than to emigrate to a more tolerant country. On the same token, many pull factors in the United States contributed to those immigrants choosing the United States as the country of arrival. The United States was a developing nation, and as such, a place that offered better economic opportunities and jobs. The need for people to build cities, defend against the Indians, and clear millions of miles into farm land was obvious. The desire of population growth, regardless of nationality, was reflected on immigration law which was very unrestrictive. Socially and culturally, according to LeMay (1999), the sentiment among society at the time was that the nation was a place for freedom which could be shared by anyone who decided to join regardless of nationality. This is also reflected on the statement by former President George Washington who stated that “The bosom of America is open to receive not only the opulent and respectable stranger, but the oppressed and the persecuted of all nations and religions; who we shall welcome to participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.”(General George Washington, December 2, 1783). Thanks to the conditions of society at the time, which reflected on immigration law, the free flow of immigrants continued with very few requirements or restrictions throughout the 1800’s.

The open doors in America were not to remain open forever, as the conditions in society changed, and in turn the change was reflected in new immigration laws. The political climate that followed World War I led in great part to the landmark Immigration Act of 1924 which provided a yearly quota of immigrants of 2% from each country or nationality (Hing, 1999 and Ngai 1999). This Act took direct aim at southern and eastern Europeans, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians. In terms of culture, the arrival of over 20 million immigrants between the 1880’s and 1920’s from Asia and Europe, and who were more visibly different than earlier immigrants, set a xenophobic sentiment among society against these new immigrants. Society’s rejection of specific immigrants, first from China and then from Asia in general, drove immigration laws until the 1950’s (Motomura, 1991). However, the economy of the United States was on the rise and the need for cheap labor gave place to the treaty of Burlingame in 1868. The purpose of the treaty was to obtain cheap Chinese labor and it in turn gave free entry to Chinese laborers who immigrated mainly to California. The anti-Chinese sentiment, as a result of a clash of cultures, first started in this state after Chinese laborers moved from rural areas to the suburbs and then became evident on immigration laws in general. The changes in immigration law regarding this group of immigrant were at first minor and gradual, but then culminated with the restriction of immigrant laborers from China until the 1950’s. Socially, according to Lee (1999) this was the time when the nativism and xenophobia were at a peak and society at large believed that immigration, especially from China, was an eminent threat to the country’s economic, religious, and overall well being of civilization in the United States. Hing (1999) recognized for example that anti-Catholicism led to the requirement that excluded eligibility to naturalize aliens who could not read or understated some language or dialect.

Modern Immigration Law (1950-2000)

After the attack from Japan on Pearl Harbor in the early 1940’s, the United States once again changed immigration law to let immigrant laborers from China legally immigrate to the United States. This happened as President Roosevelt repealed all previous Chinese exclusion acts and allied with China against Japan. This was a decision fully driven by politics as the reason to repeal all previous exclusion acts was to ease a treaty with China against Japan. In 1952, the Immigration and Nationalization Act (INA) became one of the most massive and comprehensive pieces of immigration law ever produced (Lopez, 1981). It is important to note that this Act was passed after World War II and that it was not a new law in and of itself but it was rather a summary that reinforced the already existing laws summarized within it. The social anxiety about enemy aliens after the war was obvious in the reinforcement of the laws in this Act which led congress to keep yearly immigration quotas, harsh deportation and naturalization policies, and exclusion of certain immigrants even after President Truman vetoed most of the provisions within this Act (Lopez, 1981).

The next major change in immigration law happened in 1986 with the passage of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). The notion that immigrants were taking jobs and affecting the economy reflected clearly on this Act. The act focused mainly on strategies to discourage immigration by reducing job opportunities in the United States (Cornelius, 1989), by increasing sanctions for those who hired illegal aliens (Reynolds and McCleery, 1988), by denying illegal aliens welfare benefits, and by increasing deportation (Cheswick, 1988). As Hing (1999) argued, the 1986 Act was primarily aimed at illegal immigration from Mexico and from Asia since the number of immigrants from those countries grew out of the expected proportions (over 80% of total immigrants) and this growth did not go unnoticed by nativists who pushed for legislation on the matter. Political forces, especially by republicans led by Senator Alan Simpson of Wyoming, pushed for this Act which was aimed to reduce immigration from Mexico and Asia, but was also aimed to increase diversity by giving visas to immigrants from other 36 countries.

Immigration Law after September 11, 2001

Without a doubt, the most important change in enforcement of immigration law in this century is the opening of the Department of Homeland Security one year after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 and the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Services agency, previously in charge of immigration enforcement and services. This was the most massive reorganization of governmental agencies in the past fifty years. It is no secret that the first and foremost reason for this national scale change was the incident on September 11. The aim of immigration law was shifted almost completely to sharing of intelligence with the purpose of combating terrorism and to border enforcement (Cornelius, 2001). As noted by Akram and Johnson (2002), almost immediately after the attack, racial profiling and racist acts against Muslims or Arabs and even individuals who just appeared to be Muslims or Arabs followed.

The attack on the twin towers and the reactions of America to the attack have been compared by Schildkraut (2002) to the attack on Pearl Harbor and the reactions to it in 1941. The author recalls sentiments of patriotism of Americans to defend the nation’s ideals and the ‘push’ for stricter immigration laws aimed at specific ethnic groups and border enforcement. However, the author also recognize that changes in immigration law after September 11 (e.g. opening of DHS) were not as harsh and impulsive as those after Pearl Harbor (e.g. forcing Japanese in military camps or restricting entry of immigrants from Japan). As a logical explanation, the author suggests that this change is in part due to a slightly more diversified and tolerant society today compared to that in the 1940’s.

Proposal

Without a doubt, public opinion has greatly influenced public policy over the years.

Despite the number of arguments of how immigration represents a special threat to our nation, especially in term of how it affects crime and incarceration rates, the amount of actual empirical evidence to support this claim is almost non-existent (Hickman & Suttorp, 2008). Although the public in general, sociological and criminal theories, and current immigration laws support the claim that immigration is positively related to crime, sociological theories and empirical evidence also exist to contradict these claims (Reid, Weiss, Adelman & Jaret, 2005). The perception that immigrants are criminals and fill up our prisons not only affects the country economically by funding the implementation of laws with no empirical backing, but also by criminalizing immigrants and further weakening social ties among our population. In this research document, I propose to explore several sociological and criminological theories, and several sources of empirical research that either support or fail to support the claim that immigrants are more criminals and fill up our prisons. Also, a closer look will be given to the differences among immigrant groups and to immigration and specific crimes and specific geographical locations. This will in turn shed light into the question of whether or not the perception of society that immigrants are more criminal is founded.

Literature Review

Theories/evidence supporting the link

Although the American public has positively correlated immigration and crime, public opinion is not generally supported with empirical evidence. Despite the lack of support for this view, there are important sociological, economic, and criminological theories that indicate that immigration should increase crime (Reid et al., 2005). Theories that take on differential opportunity structures ideals tend to focus on how immigrants are disadvantaged compared to native born and as a result commit crimes. Some of those disadvantages could include high levels of poverty when arriving in the country and low levels of education. When immigrants are faced with disadvantages that prevent them from achieving economic success, they turn to illegitimate means to achieve their goals by committing property crimes; and, they may also turn to violent crimes as a result of a need to retaliate or show their frustration (Reid et al., 2005). This view is clearly restrictive as immigrants may not always take on illegitimate means, instead they may take on legitimate ways when they are available to them and take illegitimate when they are not.

Criminal subcultures theory also points at the assumption that immigration might cause crime, as immigrants may organize criminal gangs as a result of their disadvantages. The crime committed may take mainly the form of organized property offences since their main goal is economic gain but, it may eventually turn to violent offence as the criminal subcultures develop. Lee, Martinez, and Rosenfeld (2001) also support the argument that crimes may be committed as a result of blocked opportunities for success which sometimes result in killings that may have been started with economic motives such as those in robberies.

Cultural theory has also been used to explain immigrants’ crime. Since criminal law is thought to be reflective of the values and interests of the dominant group of society, the values of the dominant group sometimes conflict with the values and interests of immigrants. As a result, immigrants may be labeled as deviant under the rules of the majority even when they may be acting appropriately under the values of their own culture; thus, immigrants may deviate more often than natives as they see no wrong in their actions (Lee et al., 2001). As a clear example, many cases of domestic violence have been reported in which immigrants will admit to the crime openly since they believe it is as acceptable here as it was in their home countries.

Social disorganization theory suggests that crime occurs when community social institutions are weak as a result of social change. In the case of immigration, large numbers of immigrants who are diverse, poor, and uneducated, relocate into neighborhoods and cities weakening social institutions and contributing to crimes not only for them but also for the original habitants of those neighborhoods and communities (Reid et al., 2005). Lee et al. (2001) further argues that since immigrants disorganize communities, they make it hard to work towards common goals, limit criminal behaviors, and protect values.

Social disorganization, along with the previously reviewed theories, assumes that immigration causes crime because immigrants actually commit more crime than the people who are native or were born in this country. Reid et al. (2005) offer an alternative by suggesting that immigrants may not necessarily commit more crime, but that immigration itself as a mechanism may be responsible for higher crime rates. One way in which this could occur is by immigration creating a large number of suitable victims that have few means to protect their property or themselves. Also, regardless of the amount of crime that immigrants may commit compared to natives, immigration may increase crime as it changes the structure of local labor markets. This could be explained as many employers are thought to prefer some types of minorities as workers over others (e.g. illegal Latinos over native born Blacks), and those minorities who were not preferred, are displaced contributing to an increase in the amount of crime they commit.

Just like criminological and sociological theories link immigration and crime, some economic theories also show support for this claim. In the United States, there seems to be a general trend and concern that immigration has a negative impact on the country, especially as it is said to add to the underclass by increasing levels of poverty and adding to the amount of uneducated individuals (Butcher et al., 2006). Immigrants are believed to have very few market skills and thus very low market outcomes. As a result, they may engage in crime to achieve their economic goals.

Theories/evidence not supporting the link

While there are theories that suggest that immigration should cause higher rates of crime, there is research which suggests the opposite. Immigrants, for example, are seen in many aspects as revitalizing to urban areas that had experienced declines in their populations and industries (Butcher et al., 2006). Theories often make the assumption that immigrants are economically disadvantaged. Although this may be true when compared to natives, immigrants today may not be as bad economically as they were decades ago when theories such as structural differences theory came into place.

Reid et al. (2005) recognizes that immigrants today, especially from countries like China, India, and Japan are better educated and better off economically than immigrants from Mexico or El Salvador, and even than some native born. Since not all immigrants are uneducated and poor, it is a possibility that immigration may be beneficial at least in certain cases to reduce crime. Moreover, Lee et al. (2001) make the argument that immigrants may not turn to crime as a result of being disadvantaged, as it was suggested in differential opportunity structures theory. Although immigrants may not be as skilled as the native born, those immigrants with low-paying jobs may be more motivated to work as they compare working conditions and salaries here to those in their homeland and place greater value on the opportunities available here. Also, some ethnic groups engage in entrepreneurship. Koreans, for example, have opened many stores in Southern California, contributing to the economy rather than to crime rates. Consistent with this perspective, several studies have failed to find support for linking immigration and crime.

Using incarceration rates as a measure of crime, Hagan and Palloni (1999) studied whether Hispanic immigration and crime were related. They argued that misperceptions about immigration and crime are fueled by reports of growing numbers of immigrants, especially Hispanics, in U.S. prisons and that specific policies and practices in the criminal justice system inflate their incarceration rates. To have a clearer idea of the actual involvement of Hispanics in crime, the authors adjusted for age and sex since most immigrants who come to the US are relatively young males (at least in part as a result of this country’s demand for low wage and unskilled labor). They also adjusted for pretrial detention policies and practices which may be biased. The authors suggested that these policies work systematically against the immigrants who are detained before trial since they are perceived as more dangerous and less likely to return for trial. This is significant because when immigrants are detained before trial, the chances that they will receive a prison sentence are increased. The authors concluded that when controlling for age, gender and pretrial policies and practices, Hispanics’ involvement in crime is less than that of the native born.

Differences among immigrants

A common problem when referring to immigrants and their involvement in crime is that they are referred to as a homogenous group (Hickman et al., 2008). However, immigrants can be from many different nationalities or ethnic groups; they can be deportable, non-deportable, or previously deported; they can be immigrants who recently immigrated to the country or who have been here for a long period of time. Statistics and rates of incarceration can be misleading as the amount of crime committed or incarceration rates might be different for each specific group. Moreover, their rates of involvement in crime can also be different depending on whether we look at studies at the micro level (e.g. comparing rates of immigrants to those of citizens) or at the macro level (the impact of immigration in crime rates in metropolitan areas), and they can also be different when looking at a specific crimes like homicide.

Rumbaut et al. (2006) took ethnicity into account in his study and found that Asian immigrant groups have lower incarceration rates than any group of Latin Americans. Among the Latin Americans, those who had the lowest levels of education (Salvadorans, Guatemalans, and Mexicans) had the lowest incarceration rates even when they are stereotyped as being the most criminal among immigrants. However, involvement with the criminal justice system increases for immigrants from all ethnic backgrounds as the number of years they live in the country increases. Mexicans are the only group for which this fact holds true only partially as their rates of incarceration increase slightly over the years but their rates are the lowest of all groups even after being in the country for decades.

Butcher and Piehl (1999) analyzed data from 1980 to 1990 and found that immigrants who had been in the country for a couple of year or less had lower incarceration rates than those who had been here for a longer period of time and those who were native born. In fact, the incarceration patterns of immigrants who had been here for an extended period of time were similar to those of native born. It seems as if immigrant cohorts progress to higher and higher incarceration and crime rates over time. The findings are intriguing since indicators of crime such as low levels of education, socialization, and job skills, are perceived to be more frequent and abundant for recent immigrants rather than for those who have been in the country longer. Rumbaut et al. (2006) referred to the process of ‘Americanization’ to explain this finding. Specifically, they suggest that immigrants experienced downward mobility over time and an increased risk of being involved with the criminal justice system.

Moreover, individuals who are second generation immigrants have been found to have significantly higher incarceration rates than first generation immigrants. In fact, nativity was found to be a stronger predictor of incarceration than even age and education (Rumbaut et al., 2006). Rumbaut et al. argue that incarceration rates are very low among new immigrants but they sharply rise for US born second generation immigrants who become acculturated.

Butcher and Piehl (2007), using a model of ‘immigrant-self selection’ (refers to how the process of migration selects certain individuals with specific characteristics), examined data from 1980 to 2000 and attempted to assess why recent immigrants despite having poor market outcomes still have lower crime and incarceration rates. Their study suggested that, within those 3 decades, the immigrants’ relative incarceration rates improved (by 2000, immigrant’s rates were one-fifth those of the native born). The findings were examined to see whether the results were driven by deterrence, immigrant self-selection, or increased deportation. Evidence was found that the process of migration selects people who respond better to the effects of deterrence than the native born. Although deportation may have mechanically removed some immigrants from the country and thus incarceration, deportation was not driving the results. More over, those immigrants who were naturalized citizens, and therefore not deportable, also lowered their incarceration rates.

Although several studies have found that immigrants are generally not any more involved in crime or incarcerated than the native born, the general public still believes that immigrants, especially those who are illegal, are a special threat to the nation. The general assumption made about illegal or deportable aliens is that they commit crimes and recidivate at higher rates than other immigrants (Hickman & Suttorp, 2008). Hickman et al. (2008) compared the recidivism rates of a large number (1,249) of deportable and non deportable aliens released from a California jail. The data were collected following a one year period after the immigrants were released. In the study, those described as deportable were individuals who entered the country illegally or those who entered legally, but their residency had expired. The authors failed to find a substantial difference between the two groups in terms of recidivism. The results also indicated that those who were younger and those who were convicted for a drug offense recidivated at higher rates.

Immigration specific to a crime and specific to location

When studying the link between immigration and crime, it is also important that the perceived link between the two be studied in the context of a specific crime since linking immigration and crime is too general and this link might be more or less apparent when looking at specific crime. Lee, Martinez, and Rosenfeld (2001) studied the effect of immigration on homicide in El Paso, Miami, and San Diego. All three of these cities have been known for housing a significant number of immigrants and for having high levels of deprivation, instability, and violence. The authors found that there was a significant negative relationship in El Paso and Miami (less homicides as a result of immigration) and no relationship at all in San Diego (immigration had no effect on homicide). The only exception to the findings is the fact that immigration was positively correlated to black homicide in San Diego. This finding was explained as new immigrants settle in predominantly black neighborhoods and are not present in a large enough number to have a different type of effect on homicide. In general, the findings suggest that in the context of these three border cities and of homicide, the popular stereotypes and theories that immigration should have a negative effect on crime are not supported. It is however important to point out that these findings constitute only one study specific to one crime and more research has to be done to further support these findings.

Most of the research conducted on the link between immigration and crime, or the lack there of, has been done at the individual level, but there is almost no research examining how immigration impacts the structural factors that lead to crime. Reid et al. (2005), using data from the 2000 US Census and data from the 2000 Uniform Crime report, studied the impact of immigration at the macro level in metropolitan areas and found that it does not increase crime and even reduces it in some areas. In the authors’ view, research that studies crime and immigration must take into account the effect that immigrants have on ecological factors. They argue that while individual immigrants may not commit more crime than natives, they might have an effect in the sociological environment that might lead to crime. Examples of these could include immigrants taking over jobs essential to the well being of residents of the areas where they emigrate, or hindering the organization of those places and thus leading to crime. Unlike research on individual level studies of immigration and crime that generally fail to find a positive correlation between the two, the few studies at the macro level had mixed results. According to Butcher el al. (1998) and Reid et al. (2005), in neighborhood-level studies where there is a large number of recent immigrants, the impact on the level of risk for violent victimization is non-existent and sometimes reduced. On the other hand, at the national level, it was found that in suburban areas, immigration is positively associated with crime, while in central cities it is negatively associated with crime.

When examining how levels of immigration shape the ecological structures that are conducive to crime, Reid at el. (2005) found that immigration does not affect those ecological structures in a way that increases crime. This was true not only for property crime, but for violent crime as well. On the contrary, recent immigration has a reducing effect on homicides and thefts. It has been stated earlier in this paper that immigration may sometimes have a negative effect on crime as it displaces other native born minorities. This is due mainly because more recent immigrants, especially Hispanics, are more likely to get chosen for jobs over other minorities like blacks. However, this study found that although it might be true that recent immigrants take jobs, the jobs taken are almost always the lowest paying jobs available. Because immigrants take these jobs, and in a way rejuvenate different industries within the different cities, they actually create jobs in other sectors (education, public sector, etc.). In short, even though immigrants take some jobs, they create other jobs that are better paid and are often taken by the native born. Since the native born are given better paying jobs and the economy is rejuvenated, the rates of crime are in some part stabilized or even reduced.

Methodology

Although the misperception that immigration is positively correlated to crime and other social problems in the United States has been around for almost as long as the criminal justice system itself, actual empirical evidence to support this link is limited. This research paper has used the main existing empirical studies available, as well as peer reviewed articles. Moreover, sources used for this research include the writings of notable authors such as LeMay, Hing, Hickman, Palloni, Butcher, Piehl, and many others who specialize in the recognized subjects.

Findings and Discussions

In this research paper, the aim was to address the claim that immigration represents a special threat to the United States as it adds to the crime problem. In a general sense, this link is a mythology. The literature, in its majority, does not support this claim as studies show over and over again that generally immigrants do not commit more crime than other individuals. An overview was presented of how the public has linked immigration and crime and how these misperceptions in the part of the public have an influence on immigration laws and policies. Moreover, several theories, such as criminal subculture and social disorganization theory, which support the notion that immigrants should commit more crime, were presented and analyzed. Many of the assumptions made by these theories were criticized. An example of these assumptions is that immigrants are believed to be uneducated and poor. Immigrants today are relatively better educated and better off economically than when these theories were first used to explain the immigrant crime relationship. On the other hand, theories and evidence that contradict a link between immigration and crime were also presented. These theories and evidence suggest that immigrants are not a threat or commit more crime, and that in fact, in many cases are revitalizing in many ways to society.

A common trend is that immigrants are often seen as a homogenous group. This view was challenged and several studies were presented in which different groups of immigrants were studied to assess their relationship to crime. The link between immigration and crime was shown almost no support even when differentiating among different types of immigrants. Moreover, the link was also assessed by presenting studies that look at the immigration-crime problem specific to a crime and specific to certain locations at the micro and macro levels. Once again, little evidence was found to support the notion that immigrants or immigration represent a special threat to the crime problem.

References

Akram, M. S. & Johnson, R. K. (2002). Race, civil rights, and immigration law after September 11, 2001: The targeting of Arabs and Muslims. NYU Annual Survey of American Law, 58, 295-356.

Butcher, K. F., & Piehl, A. M. (1998). Recent immigrants: Unexpected implications for crime and incarceration. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 51, 654-679.

Butcher, K. F., & Piehl, A. M. (2007). Why are immigrants’ incarcerations rates so low? Evidence on selective immigration, deterrence, and deportation. Ethnic and Racial Studies. doi: 10.1080/0141987032000147968

Chomsky, A. (2007). "They Take Our Jobs!": and 20 Other Myths about Immigration. Boston:

Beacon Press. http://www.amazon.com/They-Take-Our-Jobs- Immigration/dp/0807041564/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1284512373&sr=1-1

Cornelius, A. W. (1989). Impacts of the 1986 US immigration law on emigration from rural Mexican sending communities. Population Council, 15(4), 689-705.

Cornelius, A. W. (2001). Efficacy and unintended consequences of the US immigration control policy. Population Council, 27(4), 661-685.

Hagan, J. & Palloni, A. (1999). Sociological criminology and the mythology of Hispanic immigration and crime. Social Problems, 46, 617-632

Hickman, L. J. & Suttorp, M. J. (2008). Are deportable Aliens a unique threat to public safety? Comparing the recidivism of deportable and non deportable Aliens. Criminology and Public Policy, 7, 59-82.

Hickman, L. J. & Suttorp, M. J. (2008). The recidivism patterns of previously deported Aliens released from a local jail: Are they high risk offenders? Crime & Delinquency OnlineFirst. doi: 10.1177/0011128708317636

Hing, O. B., (1999). Contemporary Legal Issues: Immigration and the law, A dictionary. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, inc.

Lee, E. (1999). Immigrants and immigration law. Journal of American Ethnic History, 18(4), 85-

114.

LeMay, M. & Barkan, R. (1999). A documentary history: US immigration and naturalization laws and issues. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press.

Lee, M. T., Martinez, R., & Rosenfeld, R. (2001). Does immigration increase homicide? Negative evidence from three border cities. The Sociological Quarterly, 42, 559-580

Lopez, P. G. (1981). Undocumented Mexican migration: In search of a just immigration law and policy. UCLA Law Review, 28, 615-713.

Males, M. and D. Macallair (2010). Scapegoating Immigrants: Arizona’s Real Crisis

Is Rooted in State Residents’ Soaring Drug Abuse. San Francisco: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. http://www.cjcj.org/files/Scapegoating_Immigrants.pdf

Menjivar, C, & Bejarano, C. L. (2004). Latino immigrants’ perceptions of crime and police authorities in the United States: A case study from the Phoenix Metropolitan area. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 27, 120-148.

Motomurat, J. (1991). Immigration law after a century of plenary power: Phantom constitutional norms and statutory interpretation. The Yale Law Journal, 100, 546-607.

Reynolds, W. C. & McCleery, K. R. (1988). The political economy of immigration law: Impact of Simpson-Rodino on the United States and Mexico. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2(3), 117-131.

Rumbaut, R. G., Gonzales, R. G., Komaie, G., & Morgan, C. V. (June, 2006). Debunking the myth of immigrant criminality: Imprisonment among first-and second-generation young men. University of Californian, Irvine. Retrieved from Migration Information Source: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=debunking+the+myth+of+immigrant+criminality&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2001&as_sdtp=on

Reid, L.W., Weiss, H. E., Adelman, R.M., & Jaret, C. (2005). The immigration-crime relationship: Evidence across US metropolitan areas. Social Science Research, 34, 757-780. doi: 10.1016j.ssresearch.2005.01.001

Schildkraut, J. D. (2002). The more things change…American identity and mass and elite responses to 9/11. Political Psychology, 23(3), 511-535.