Immigration ≠ Crime

Does immigration fuel crime? Do immigrants make us safer? In the wake of Arizona’s Immigration Law and media commentary, people question whether countries are safer without immigrants. Brian Bell, Francisco Fasani, and Stephen Machin look at the data of two different immigrant waves in the United Kingdom in “Crime and Immigration: Evidence from Large Immigrant Waves” in The Review of Economics and Statistics. They want to see how differences in labor market opportunities of different migrant groups shape their potential impact on crime. Ultimately, the authors conclude that differences in labor market opportunities of different migrant groups may affect their potential impact on certain crime rates.

In the past few decades, the UK has experienced several periods of immigration. The first major influx of immigrants was due to the large number of asylum seekers associated with wars and country breakdowns in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia in the 1990s and early 2000s (with peaks in 1992 and 2001). The United Kingdom was the second highest recipient of asylum seekers in the world over this period, receiving about twice as many as the United States.

At the peak, asylum seekers accounted for over 20 percent of all non-British migrants entering the United Kingdom. The authors refer to this period as the asylum wave. The second major flow of immigrants was due largely to the opening of the UK labor market to the citizens of the eight countries that joined the European Union in 2004 (Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia). This is referred to as the A8 wave.

Immigrants in both waves were younger, more likely to be male, and have lower educational qualifications than natives. Individuals in the A8 wave were much more likely to be single and have no dependent children compared to natives, other immigrants, and the asylum wave. This data strengthens the argument that the A8 wave was dominated by young people coming to take up employment rather than for family relocation. The labor market participation and employment rates for this wave are higher than natives, whereas the asylum wave has low labor participation rates and unemployment rates are twice as high as for natives. The first wave had poor employment outcomes, while the A8 wave had the opposite experience.

The authors choose to look at the change in crime (notified offenses) rate among the resident adult population. These were taken with where the immigrants resided as well. The authors find a significant increase in property crime after the asylum wave, whereas the evidence points to a decrease in property crime after the A8 wave. The effect on violent crime is statistically insignificant in both waves. Moreover, while property crime rose concurrently with the influx of asylum seekers, the authors found no significant causal relationship between either wave and that increase in crime.

It is possible that the rise in crime may be a result of crime against immigrants, but it was found that the victimization rates are in fact lower against the two waves than for natives in general. These differences are important in examining any possible links between immigration and crime. The authors believe that if someone has a good job, with a good income, they are less likely to commit a crime.

Ultimately, this research shows that there should be more attention on localized crime risks, but national crime rates were overall unaffected by the asylum wave. By focusing on the limited labor market opportunities of asylum seekers, there is an opportunity to generate crime reductions and potential cost savings. Additionally, it would be beneficial to allow asylum seekers to seek employment while immigration paperwork was being filed, since this can be a long and arduous process. Moreover, job training and language courses are likely to be particularly helpful for such migrants. This type of approach could significantly tilt the labor market opportunities of migrants relative to illegal activities. The disadvantage, however, is that it signals to potential migrants that asylum application could be used as a method of seeking work in the United Kingdom rather than as a route for those fleeing persecution.

Article Source: Brian Bell, Francisco Fasani, and Stephen Machin, “Crime and Immigration: Evidence from Large Immigrant Waves,” The Review of Economics and Statistics (October 2013). 

Feature Photo: cc/(DFID-UK Department for International Development)