Immigration gone wrong?

Harvard Magazine presents interesting results about the propensity for immigrants to be violent.

First-generation immigrants are more likely to be law-abiding than third-generation Americans of similar socioeconomic status, reports Robert Sampson, Ford professor of the social sciences. These new findings run counter to conventional wisdom, which holds that immigration creates chaos. The prevailing “social disorganization theory” first gained traction in the 1920s and ’30s, after the last big wave of European immigrants poured into the United States. Scholars have maintained that the resulting heterogeneity harmed society. “They weren’t saying that this was caused by any trait of a particular group,” Sampson explains. “Rather, they were saying that lots of mixing would make communication accross groups difficult, make it hard to achieve consensus, and create more crime.”

Yet in Sampson’s recent study, first-generation Latino immigrants offer a particularly vivid counterexample to this common assumption. “They come into the country with low resources and high poverty, so you would expect a high propensity to violence,” Sampson says. But Latinos were less prone to such actions than either blacks or whites—providing the latest evidence that Latinos do better on a range of social indicators, a phenomenon sociologists call the “Latino paradox.”

Furthermore the author reaches an interesting conclusion about the costs and benefits of parallel societies:

The study also revealed that neighborhoods matter. “Kids living in neighborhoods with a high concentration of first-generation immigrants have lower rates of violence,” he explains, “even if they aren’t immigrants themselves.”

What makes new arrivals more law-abiding? Sampson theorizes that people who relocate here for the sake of greater opportunity come with a strong work ethic: “They may have a certain motivation to work and not get arrested,” he says. The young Latinos in Sampson’s study were also more likely to live with married adults, which correlated with a lower risk of violence, and to hold conservative opinions regarding drug use and crime, all of which might deter them from breaking the law. Finally, living in a neighborhood with many first-generation immigrants—who appear to bond over their shared experience—generates a dense social network that may steer young people away from crime. It’s likely, Sampson adds, that many of these immigrants are in the country illegally, which may give them “extra incentive to keep a clean record and not commit crimes, in order to avoid deportation.” After a few generations here, however, America’s tradition of “frontier justice” may prompt greater violence, he speculates. “It’s that notion of reacting to insults and taking the law into your own hands,” he says. “You would expect more exposure to that over time.”