Contrary to popular stereotypes, areas undergoing immigration are
associated with lower violence, not spiraling crime, according to a
new study.

Harvard University sociologist Robert Sampson examined crime and
immigration in Chicago and around the United States to find the truth
behind the popular perception that increasing immigration leads to
crime.

Sampson's study results, detailed in the winter issue of the American
Sociological Association's Contexts magazine, summarizes patterns from
seven years' worth of violent acts in Chicago committed by whites,
blacks and Hispanics from 180 neighborhoods of varying levels of
integration. He also analyzed recent data from police records and the
U.S. Census for all communities in Chicago.

Based on assumptions that immigrants are more likely to commit crimes
and settle in poor, disorganized communities, prevailing wisdom holds
that the concentration of immigrants and an influx of foreigners drive
up crime rates.

However, Sampson shows that concentrated immigration predicts lower
rates of violence across communities in Chicago, with the relationship
strongest in poor neighborhoods.

Not only does immigration appear to be "protective" against violence
in poverty areas, violence was significantly lower among
Mexican-Americans compared to blacks and whites. Sampson refers to
this as the "Latino Paradox," whereby Hispanic Americans do better on
a range of social indicators - including propensity to violence - than
one would expect, given their socioeconomic disadvantages.

Sampson's analysis also revealed that first-generation immigrants were
45 percent less likely to commit violence than third-generation
Americans. Controlling for immigrant generation even narrowed the
violence gap between whites and blacks in Chicago by 14 percent.

"The pattern of immigrant generational status and lower crime rates is
not restricted to Latinos; it extends to help explain white-black
differences as well," Sampson said. "We're so used to thinking about
immigrant assimilation that we've failed to fully appreciate how
immigrants themselves shape their host society."

Immigration is therefore not just a Hispanic issue; although little
noticed, increasing foreign-born diversity among blacks (e.g., from
the West Indies and Africa) is associated with lower crime even within
segregated black communities.

Sampson's arguments are supported at the national level as well.
Significant immigration growth - including by illegal aliens -
occurred in the mid-1990s, peaking at the end of the decade. During
this time, the national homicide rate plunged. Crime dropped even in
immigration hot spots, such as Los Angeles (where it dropped 45
percent overall), San Jose, Dallas and Phoenix.

Reasons commonly cited for the apparent paradox of first generation
immigrants, especially Mexicans, are motivation to work, ambition and
a desire not to be deported, characteristics that predispose them to
low crime. Sampson also argues that contemporary immigrants tend to
come from a multitude of cultures around the world where violence
isn't rewarded as a strategy for establishing reputation or preserving
honor, as in American "street culture."

"In today's society," Sampson said, "immigration and the increasing
cultural diversity that accompanies it generate the sort of conflicts
of culture that lead not to increased crime but nearly the opposite."