Immigration, Crime and Terrorism

A few months ago, a journalist from a left-wing (not merely liberal) publication was interviewing me about the H-1B work visa. He had quoted me before, and was generally sympathetic to my views. At one point, the conversation turned to Pres. Trump’s views on immigration. I mentioned that though I hadn’t voted for Trump and had been critical of him in this blog and elsewhere, I feel he is often treated unfairly by the press, e.g. on the issue of immigration and crime — contrary to press claims, Trump never said that most immigrants, or even most Mexican immigrants, are criminals. His choice of words was, as always, completely blunt and unrefined, and without the obligatory disclaimers, but all he really said was that immigration brings some crime.

The reporter was mystified by this. He replied, in a “this is the fundamental truth and it’s a settled issue” kind of tone, “It’s well established that the crime rate among immigrants is lower than in the society at large.” This statement has been questioned by some, but my point is that it is not relevant; if safety is the concern, then what matters is the absolute number, not the rate.

According to the U.S. Dept. of Justice, as of 2013 there were over 70,000 noncitizens in state and federal prisons. In addition, there is a certain number who haven’t been caught, or are awaiting trial, some naturalized citizens etc. Some are white collar criminals, of course, but even if the number of immigrants in prison for violence, drugs, prostitution/trafficking, burglary and so on is “only,” say, 50,000, that should worry almost anyone. This is 50,000 criminals who would not be in the U.S. if we had zero immigration. In terms of concern for our person and our property, this 50,000 figure is what counts, not the rate, i.e. not the percentage of immigrants who commit crimes. Even the left-wing reporter seemed taken aback when I pointed this out.

Clearly, I am not advocating a zero-immigration policy. No government policy is without drawbacks, and those of us who value immigration (who, I claim, comprise the vast majority of Americans) know that there will be some downsides. The questions, though, are: How many? Who? With what responsibilities? And so on. More simply: Where do we draw the line?

Whether deliberately or unconsciously, by simplistically dismissing the crime issue by saying, “The immigrant rate is lower,” the politicians and the press are not allowing the American people to develop informed opinions on this vital issue. This is criminal. (Pun intended; originally I planned  to title this post, “Criminal Statistics.”)

Keep this in mind in the coming weeks especially, as the trial of the accused killer of Kate Steinle in San Francisco is now starting. You will hear repeatedly from the pundits and immigration advocates that “The immigrant crime rate is lower,” when in fact that really is not the issue for public safety.

The issue of Pres. Trump’s temporary immigration ban from certain majority-Muslim countries is quite similar. Neither Trump, AG Sessions, White House Adviser Steve Bannon nor any other policymaker has claimed that most Muslims are possible terrorists. Obviously the rate is quite minuscule. And I personally opposed the ban even when it was just in the talking stage.

Nevertheless, it is a legitimate issue, not something for the Trump bashers. Remember, the Trump policy, still in litigation, took an Obama policy as its foundation, even listing the same seven Middle Eastern countries. And as with the crime case, the absolute number of terrorist incidents is what matters, not the rate.

Yet it is the rate, not the absolute number, that is the focus of an article in Scientific American, reprinted in today’s San Francisco Chronicle, titled, “Why Data Science Argues against a Muslim Ban.” This one is especially insidious, as it is cloaked in one of the hottest areas in today’s tech industry, Data Science. (Also known as Artificial Intelligence, Big Data, Predictive Analytics and so on.) The author is Eric Siegel, founder of the Predictive Analytics World conference series.

As you read the article, watch for the tell-tale signs, e.g. phrases like “more likely” and “less likely” — in other words, rates. That, after all, is what Data Science (DS) is all about. For instance, one of the big applications of DS is marketing, i.e. identifying customers who are more likely to purchase a certain product if shown an ad for it. So, let’s take a closer look at that, putting aside the absolute numbers vs. rate question, and focus on rates. They will be quite relevant to the Trump policy, in ways that Siegel isn’t telling you.

A good data scientist is really interested not just in direct rates, but also expected utility. If say in real estate even the most likely customers have low individual rates of responding to an ad for a $20 million estate, it still makes economic sense to target those most likely customers, since the payoff is so great.

In the case of potential terrorism, the expected utility is negative. But for the very same reasons, it pays to target the most likely candidates, even if their individual probabilities of terrorist activity are quite low. As Siegel points out, it would be ideal to use personal behavior to try to compute such probabilities. Yet look at the outrage from the immigrant advocates when the U.S. government has recently been attempting to do exactly that, by requiring that travelers from the specified countries provide their social media passwords.

Highly intrusive? Of course. But when weighed against the possibility of terrorism on U.S. soil, we must strike a balance, and it again becomes a question of, Where do we draw the line? Siegel is hypocritically obfuscating that issue.

And there is more: As we all know, the Obama people constructed the list of seven countries for travel restrictions (though not outright bans) specifically because those countries were identified as harboring terrorists. Any data scientist worth her logistic regression coefficients would use this information in her prediction model. Yet this is precisely what the article here is objecting to, Pres. Trump’s singling out those seven countries, because Siegel doesn’t like the fact that they are majority-Muslim.

Returning to the issue of absolute numbers, so far we have had just a few per year in the U.S., say 5-6 including foiled plots. Is that tolerable? What if it were to rise to 25-26?

So, one more time: The question is, Where do we draw the line? Do we want Trump’s line, Obama’s line, or Siegel’s line? These are ordered from safest to most dangerous, while also being ordered from least- to most-protective of civil liberties. You be the judge. Just don’t let people like Siegel fool you in the name of Data Science.

 

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “Immigration, Crime and Terrorism

  1. Thank you Norm for tackling a tough topic connected with immigration.

    The unfortunate truth is that some immigrants are criminals. According to Title 8, U.S. Code § 1182, Section (2) Criminal and related grounds – there is a lengthy list of grounds for Inadmissibility connected with the criminal conduct of non-U.S. citizens. See https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182 for details.

    Like

  2. I would note further that while it is true that “immigrants” have a lower crime rate than Americans generally, that is because criminals are not given US citizenship and the current game is to pool the large pool of legal immigrants (having a lower crime rate than American natives) with “illegal immigrants,” who have a higher crime rate than American natives. Obviously the fact that immigrants (legal and illegal) have a lower crime rate than American natives cannot be used to discredit proponents of enforcement of existing US immigration law. Yet another example of how easily the general public is deceived by a seemingly applicable media factoid.

    Like

  3. Good points, Norm. The issue of immigration is almost a religious one (well, MORE than almost for many people). Some believe that open-borders (as Pres. Obama put it, “just another jurisdictional district” or something like that) is a *starting point*. Others believe it is a death-wish. And most of us are somewhere in between.

    It’s foolish of leaders to believe that, if you just open the door wide enough, “we’ll all just get along”. Different countries have, not merely language distinctions — which can be overcome with education — but moral, cultural, and social differences that don’t show up in statistics. In many cases, it’s not even legal to track such distinctions.

    Open borders would only work in a “frictionless society” where most everyone on both sides of the line have similar social, moral, cultural, and educational similarities. In other words, “get along” first, THEN open up the borders.

    Look at the “borders” between U.S. states, for example. Nobody really wants to see a “visa” requirement to go in or out of California, for example. This is because we expect children raised on either side of the line have been taught similar values and a common language, so we don’t expect to see problems from there being a “jurisdictional district” difference. However, more and more people are talking about “migration from Blue States” and recognizing that there is a demographic and social impact from people moving across state lines. It just so happens that a “migration from Red States” (people leaving WV and KY, and moving to OH, PA, MI, and WI) was a factor in the 2016 election.

    If people recognize such impacts on a state-to-state basis, it’s really intentional ignorance for them to believe that there are no significant issues when it happens on a nation-to-nation basis.

    Like

  4. Great topic, though it gets caught in the weeds a little. I believe these are some additional issues / facts.

    1. The Left mixes crime from legal and illegal immigrants. I believe the former is lower, and the latter highet than the norm.

    2. I think Trump wants to communicate that crime by illegal immigrants is disproportionate.

    3. I recently heard that Mexico is the second most violent country, haven’t confirmed the assertion.

    4. I recently looked at the DEAs Most Wanted website, for Northern California it was almost 100 percent Mexican and Central American individuals. Most for dealing hard drugs.

    5. The GAO conducted a study about crime and illegal immigrants. Not well publicized. The report broke down the crime estimates, one percent which was murder, which were estimated at 5,000 per year for illegal immigrants!

    6. My guess is that a big chunk of that is the drug trade and gangs.

    Great topic.

    Like

  5. People like Siegel are much like religious fanatics that are devoid of analytical thinking or common sense.

    It is scary that such a large percentage of the “educated” population is led by unsupportable thought doctrine.

    All arguements aside, how many people in the USA will be enough for them? 500 million? 1 billion? More? Do we keep going until we are out of food and water? I have never seen a number from the people pushers.

    Like

  6. “It’s well established that the crime rate among immigrants is lower than in the society at large.”

    How do those making this argument account for the fact that prosecutors routinely use their “discretion” when deciding whether or what to charge, in order to shield immigrants from deportation?

    Like

  7. “if safety is the concern, then what matters is the absolute number, not the rate.”

    NYC had 335 murders last year, 3.0 murders per 100,000 people.
    New Orleans had 175 murders last year, 41.7 murders per 100,000 people.

    I would rather live in NYC because the murder rate is lower. What matters is the murder rate, not the absolute number.

    Like

      • OK, it is not relevant.

        How about the following.

        “if safety is the concern, then what matters is the absolute number, not the rate.”

        How do you measure “safety”? I need this info so that I can do calculations.

        Like

        • My point was that in setting immigration policy, we have a choice of allow immigrants or not allowing them. There are of course the details, e.g. how many to allow, but the point is that we have that choice. If we choose to let in immigrants, we are increasing the absolute number of crimes. There is no direct policy issue in terms of your choosing to live in NYC vs. NOLA.

          I’m not proposing any numerical measure of safety.

          Like

  8. “Where do we draw the line?”
    Apparently not at the border. (pun intended)
    We’ve two issues
    – illegal immigration, either upon arrival or upon visa expiration. And when the US does nothing about it, it means we have _no_ immigration policy.
    – “legal” “temporary” immigration – it’s not a “policy” to hand over the rulebook to employers.

    Like

  9. Ideological crime and clash of cultures issues are a whole different issue. But for non-ideological crime, it is the rate that matters, not the absolute numbers. I disagree with Matloff on this.

    But even there, the idea that receiving new population inflows can only lower crime rates is absurd on the surface. It depends on the demographics. If you immigrate Chinese people to California, sure the crime rate will be super low. If you immigrate Somalians to Minnesota, I would bet that that raises crime. And maybe you can average them together and if you have more of the former you can show a net win, but that’s dishonest in the least.

    How can people make so much noise about how certain ethnic groups are “over-represented” in arrest/incarceration statistics but then insist that importing large numbers of those same ethnic groups can only lower crime rates?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s