The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science

This article relies on local area variation in immigration policies, specifically the local implementation of the 287(g) program, and economic conditions to estimate their impact on changes in the size of local Mexican immigrant populations between 2007 and 2009. The author also investigates the impact of the 287(g) program on the employment prospects of low-skilled native black and white workers. The study finds that outside of four influential outliers (Dallas, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Phoenix), there is no evidence that the 287(g) program impacted the size of the Mexican immigrant population. In addition, there is no evidence that immigration enforcement policies mitigated the negative impact of the economic recession on the native population, even in the four outliers where the program was strongly enforced. The author highlights the limited efficacy of immigration enforcement as a way to resolve the issue of the undocumented immigrant population and for altering the employment opportunities of native workers.

In the often polarized discussions over immigration, the point is sometimes missed that immigration often brings immediate and tangible benefits. Nowhere is this truer than in the hollowing-out parts of America. Many nonmetropolitan counties in America have seen net out-migration for decades. While young people have always left small towns, the loss of this group comes at a time when opportunities for those who stay have been severely reduced. One trend that runs counter to the decline of many nonmetro areas is the influx of immigrants, the majority of Hispanic origin, during the 1990s and 2000s. The authors argue that if immigration is “done right,” it can provide a lifeline to many places that are hollowing out. In this article, the authors outline the complex nature of immigration in rural America and offer two case studies of small towns, one where immigration became a lightning rod for controversy and division and one where the process has occurred with little divisiveness and a great deal of success. The authors conclude with some policy suggestions as to how to better accommodate immigration in rural America.

Since the 1990s, immigrant settlement has expanded beyond gateway cities and transformed the social fabric of a growing number of American cities. In the process, it has raised new questions for urban and migration scholars. This article argues that immigration to new destinations provides an opportunity to sharpen understandings of the relationship between immigration and the urban by exploring it under new conditions. Through a discussion of immigrant settlement in Nashville, Tennessee, it identifies an overlooked precursor to immigrant incorporation—how cities see, or do not see, immigrants within the structure of local government. If immigrants are not institutionally visible to government or nongovernmental organizations, immigrant abilities to make claims to or on the city as urban residents are diminished. Through the combination of trends toward neighborhood-based urban governance and neoliberal streamlining across American cities, immigrants can become institutionally hard to find and, thus, plan for in the city.

Frustrated by federal inaction on immigration reform, several U.S. states in recent years have proposed or enacted laws designed to stem the flow of illegal immigrants into the United States and to facilitate their removal. An underappreciated implication of these laws is the potential alienation of immigrant communities—even law-abiding, cooperative individuals—from the criminal justice system. The ability of the criminal justice system to detect and sanction criminal behavior is dependent upon the cooperation of the general public, including acts such as the reporting of crime and identifying suspects. Cooperation is enhanced when local residents believe that laws are enforced fairly. In contrast, research reveals that cynicism of the police and the legal system undermines individuals’ willingness to cooperate with the police and engage in the collective actions necessary to socially control crime. By implication, recent trends toward strict local enforcement of immigration laws may actually undercut public safety by creating a cynicism of the law in immigrant communities. Using data from a 2002 survey of New York City residents, this study explores the implications of perceived injustices perpetrated by the criminal justice system for resident willingness to cooperate with the police in immigrant communities.

Immigration and crime have received much popular and political attention in the past decade and have been a focus of episodic social attention for much of the history of the United States. Recent policy and legal discourse suggests that the stigmatic link between immigrants and crime has endured, even in the face of evidence to the contrary. This study addresses the relationship between immigration and crime in urban settings, focusing on areal units where immigrants tend to cluster spatially as well as socially. The authors ask whether immigration creates risks or benefits for neighborhoods in terms of lower crime rates. The question is animated in part by a durable claim in criminology that areas with large immigrant populations are burdened by elevated levels of social disorder and crime. In contrast, more recent theory and research suggest that “immigrant neighborhoods” may simply be differentially organized and function in a manner that reduces the incidence of crime. Accordingly, this research investigates whether immigrants are associated with differences in area crime rates. In addition, the authors ask whether there are differences in the effects of immigration on neighborhood crime rates by the racial and ethnic makeup of the foreign-born populations. Finally, the authors examine the effects of immigration on patterns of enforcement.

In this article, the authors present an overview of the relationship between immigrant households and crime and violence, drawing on sociological and public health literature. They present a critique of popular culture perspectives on immigrant families and youth violence, showing that crime and violence outcomes are if anything better for youth in immigrant families than one would expect given the social disadvantages that many immigrant households find themselves living in. They examine the extent to which exposure to violence among immigrant youth is comparably lower than among nonimmigrants living in similar social contexts and the extent to which social control and social learning frameworks can account for the apparent lower prevalence of violence exposure among immigrant youth. Their analyses show a persistent lower rate of violence exposure for immigrant youth compared to similarly situated nonimmigrant youth—and that these differences are not meaningfully understood by observed social control or social learning mechanisms. The authors focus then on the apparent paradox of why youth living in immigrant households in relative disadvantage have lower violence exposure compared to nonimmigrants living in similar social contexts. The answers, they argue, can be viewed from an examination of the effects that living in poverty and underclass neighborhoods for generations has on nonimmigrants in American cities.

Contrary to popular opinion, scholarly research has documented that immigrant communities are some of the safest places around. Studies repeatedly find that immigrant concentration is either negatively associated with neighborhood crime rates or not related to crime at all. But are immigrant neighborhoods always safer places? How does the larger community context within which immigrant neighborhoods are situated condition the immigration-crime relationship? Building on the existing literature, this study examines the relationship between immigrant concentration and violent crime across neighborhoods in Los Angeles and Chicago—two cities with significant and diverse immigrant populations. Of particular interest is whether neighborhoods with high levels of immigrant concentration that are situated within larger immigrant communities are especially likely to enjoy reduced crime rates. This was found to be the case in Chicago but not in Los Angeles, where neighborhoods with greater levels of immigrant concentration experienced higher, not lower, violent crime rates when located within larger immigrant communities. We speculate on the various factors that may account for the divergent findings.

One of American society’s enduring debates centers on the immigration and violent crime relationship. This classic debate is revisited using data for individual homicide incidents and census-tract-level homicides in Miami, Florida, and San Antonio, Texas, in the 1980s and 1990s, respectively. The article starts with these two comparative cases because they mirror the immigration influx, Latino growth, and homicide decline seen throughout the country since 1980. These findings are also replicated in an analysis of the immigration and crime influx across the nation using U.S. counties in 2000. In sum, results from comparative cases, different time points, homicide motivations, and individual/community/national levels—and even controlling for Latino regional concentration—are reported. The findings were clear and unequivocal: more immigrants did not mean more homicide, and that outcome held across time and place.

This project studied the effect of immigrant in-mobility on the trajectory of socioeconomic change in neighborhoods. The authors suggest that immigrant inflows may impact neighborhoods due to the consequences of residential mobility and the extent to which these new residents differ from the current residents. The authors use Southern California over a nearly 50-year period (1960 to 2007) as a case study to explore the short- and long- term impact of these changes. The authors find no evidence that immigrant inflow has negative consequences for home values, unemployment, or vacancies over this long period of time. Instead, the authors find that a novel measure they develop—a general measure of social distance—is much better at explaining the change in the economic conditions of these neighborhoods. Tracts with higher levels of social distance experienced a larger increase in the vacancy rate over the decade. The effect of social distance on home values changed over the study period: whereas social distance decreased home values during the 1960s, this completely reversed into a positive effect by the 2000s.

Residential integration with the dominant native-born population is believed to be a crucial stage in immigrants’ overall assimilation process. It is argued that without residential integration it would be difficult, if not impossible, for immigrants to achieve full incorporation into the host society. This article compares the sociospatial experiences of African immigrants in the United States and Ireland. Results show that African immigrants in Ireland have achieved spatial integration with Irish nationals, while their counterparts in the United States remain spatially separated from white Americans. The extent to which African immigrants’ integration in Ireland can produce other forms of assimilation is questionable, however. Likewise, despite being segregated from whites, African immigrants in the United States have made some modest spatial gains that may facilitate their integration. The cross-national comparison draws into question the generally accepted notion that residential integration is an important intermediary substage in the assimilation process.

After a prolonged period during which studies of immigration and crime virtually disappeared from the literature, the topic has reemerged as a central theme of contemporary criminology. However, unlike the classic immigration studies that appeared in the first half of the twentieth century, most modern studies combine the various countries of origin into broad pan-ethnic groupings (such as Hispanic/Latino or Asian) that implicitly assume that criminological dynamics are relatively homogeneous within these aggregations despite the important social, cultural, and historical differences that are subsumed. This article utilizes data from the Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study to illustrate the systematic within-category variation that such approaches can mask.