Immigrant-Friendly and Unfriendly Cities: Impacts on the Presence of a Foreign-Born Population and City Crime

Abstract

Immigration continues to be an issue in the USA. In the absence of substantive Federal law, some local governments have passed ordinances related to immigrants living in their community. Some of these have had pro-immigrant orientations and some have had anti-immigrant orientations. In the literature, these types of policies have been found to have mixed effects on immigrant decisions to live in those communities. These cities have passed these ordinances in order to attract or repel them because of perceived impacts on city crime among other reasons. This study is the first assessment on whether these policies have attracted or repelled the foreign-born population in these cities, and it contributes to the ongoing literature on whether that foreign-born population is having an effect on city crime. It was found that these policies are not having a significant effect on attracting or repelling immigrants while the impact of this population on city crime is significantly negative. Further research is recommended on this important topic.

Consequences of the American States’ Legislative Action on Immigration

“…Future research should consider the consequences of using a restrictive policy approach to immigration for crime rates. Restrictive policy tones seem to drive away immigrant populations, which have been shown elsewhere to have lower levels of criminal activity (Adelman et al 2017;Hummel 2016;Lee and Martinez 2009). Another consequence we observed is that passing restrictive policies seems to reduce unemployment and poverty rates for states through decreases in the percentages of foreign-born residents.…”

“…In other policy areas, Hummel (2016) found that restrictive local-level ordinances do not have a significant effect in terms of attracting or repelling foreign-born residents and that localities with larger foreign-born populations have lower rates of crime. Ellis et al (2016) found evidence that Latinos, both naturalized and undocumented, were less likely to move to states with Bhostile^immigrant policies, while a survey of Mexican unauthorized immigrants after their return to Mexico (both voluntarily and through deportation) indicated that restrictive policies reduced interstate mobility among voluntary returnees and made it less likely that deportees would return to the USA (Amuedo-Dorantes et al 2013).…”

The Narrative Policy Framework, Agendas, and Sanctuary Cities: The Construction of a Public Problem

“…Studies reported in the popular press reveal that sanctuary cities do not have higher crime rates (Collingwood, Gonzalez‐O'Brien, & El‐Khatib, ) and argue that San Francisco's murder rate declined since it became a sanctuary city (Harkinson, ). Furthermore, an academic study focusing on immigrant‐friendly cities found that immigration and rates of crime are inversely correlated (Hummel, ). Gonzalez, Collingwood, and El‐Khatib (), controlling for variables including income, poverty, and education, find “no discernible difference on each type of crime between sanctuary and nonsanctuary cities” (p. 29).…”

Can we get them moving? The impact of mobility assistance on cross‐country migration of young adults in Europe

“…Overall, previous research in this field reveals a non-negligible impact of policies and regulations on migration flows that often goes in the intended direction (Amuedo-Dorantes & Pozo, 2018;Brekke et al, 2017;Ortega & Peri, 2013;Tatsiramos, 2009). At the same time, certain regulations and initiatives have either weak or no impact (Cerna, 2014;Hummel, 2016) or even unintended and undesirable (paradox) side effects (de Haas et al, 2019). For example, Bissat (2013) shows that tighter restrictions on migration from Thailand to Iceland have led to an increase of fraudulent marriages to circumvent the new regulations.…”