Does the Texas Homicide Conviction Rate for Illegal Immigrants Exceed the Rate for Native-Born Americans in Texas?
Properly interpreted, the DPS data suggests that illegal immigrants in Texas are convicted of homicide and sexual assault at higher rates than the state average.
So write Sean Kennedy, Jason Richwine, and Steven A. Camarota in “Misuse of Texas Data Understates Illegal Immigrant Criminality,” Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), October 2022. DPS is the Texas Department of Public Safety.
Their short report is a critique of earlier work that found lower rates of serious crime among illegal aliens in Texas. One of the studies they criticize is by Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute. (Disclosure: I donate a small amount of money annually to Cato, which gave me my start as a policy analyst in 1979, and I consider Alex Nowrasteh to be a friend.)
Nowrasteh has responded that the three authors made two mistakes in computing the homicide conviction rate for illegal aliens. According to Nowrasteh, they overestimated the numerator and underestimated the denominator. Nowrasteh discusses both in detail. I don’t know enough to judge his analysis of the raw homicide numbers, but he does make a strong case that they underestimated the denominator, that is, the number of illegal aliens in Texas.
Nowrasteh writes:
The CIS crime report uses the second lowest available estimate of the illegal immigrant population in Texas provided by the Center for Migration Studies(CMS), which also produces the lowest nationwide estimate. A lower illegal immigrant population mechanically results in a higher illegal immigrant crime rate by reducing the denominator (assuming the numerator stays the same or increases). Oddly, CIS did not use their own estimates of the illegal immigrant population that they produced elsewhere and instead chose to rely on the far lower CMS population estimates. What’s even more odd about CIS’s choice to ignore their own pure population research on the number of illegal immigrants in their crime paper is that both pieces of research are coauthored by Steven Camarota.
CIS’s own research on the size of the illegal immigrant population in their pure population research paper estimates a nationwide illegal immigrant population of 11,390,000 in 2018 and 11,480,000 in 2019, compared to CMS’s estimate of 10,565,000 in 2018 and 10,348,884 in 2019 – a difference of 825,000 in 2018 and over 1.1 million in 2019. In other words, in its paper focused on illegal immigrant population estimates, CIS estimates a nationwide illegal immigrant population that is eight percent higher than CMS in 2018 and 10.9 percent higher in 2019. Yet, the CIS authors used CMS’ lower illegal immigrant numbers for its paper on illegal immigrant crime rates in Texas. CIS’s pure population estimates imply a Texas illegal immigrant population of 1,940,000 (what DHSfound using the same methods) but CMS found 1,781,752. CIS thus used a population estimate for the number of illegal immigrants in Texas that is 7.5 percent below their pure population estimates in 2018 and 8.9 percent lower in 2019.
He later writes:
In their pure population research, CIS bragged that their estimates of the illegal immigrant population were in line with DHS’s own population estimates. CIS’s pure population research didn’t break out their estimates by state, but DHS did. Since the DHS and CIS methods are nearly identical (they use different data sources), I can use DHS’ Texas‐level estimates in the following example. CIS’s slightly higher counts of illegal immigrant crime, coupled with with CIS’s pure population research that implies a Texas illegal immigrant population of 1,940,000 in 2018, reveals that illegal immigrant homicide rates are below what Cato’s illegal immigrant population estimation methods would have been if compared to CIS’s crime data (Figure 1). CIS’s pure population research, combined with their illegal immigrant homicide convictions data, produces a homicide rate of 2.9 per 100,000 illegal immigrants compared with Cato’s three per 100,000. Both rates are below Cato’s native‐born American homicide rate in Texas in 2018.
DHS is the Department of Homeland Security.
You might wonder why the focus on Texas. The main reason is that their data are more finely divided.
See this October 2020 paper co-authored by Alex Nowrasteh for an earlier comparison of various serious crime rates.
Note: I updated this to note that the data are on the homicide conviction rate, not on the homicide rate. HT2 Ross Levatter for pointing out my error.
READER COMMENTS
Monte
Oct 15 2022 at 6:49pm
OK. So we can accept that Mr. Nowrasteh’s estimates may be more accurate. But is this in any way relevant to the debate of illegal immigration? Isn’t the larger point that these crimes shouldn’t have occurred in the first place due to their presence here?
David Henderson
Oct 15 2022 at 7:52pm
You write:
I think it is.
You write:
For you it may be. For others, it’s not. If you look at the amount of attention that has been given to the issue, it’s hard to believe that many people on both sides don’t think the crime rate matters.
Monte
Oct 16 2022 at 3:04am
As an economist and immigrant “who favors the free movement of labor” I suspect so, but you’d be in the minority. According to a recent Gallup poll, over half of Americans believe we’re experiencing an invasion at the southern border and are more concerned about illegal immigration in general, rather than relative crime rates. Whether or not those fears are valid is a separate argument.
As justification for more immigration and/or open borders as a policy issue, I’m sure you’re right. The larger point, as I see it, is that this debate is meaningless to the families of the 1245 victims of murder perpetrated by illegal immigrants. I don’t think they care a whit about illegal immigrants committing 2.5 murders per 100,000 vs native Texans committing 3.3 murders per 100,000.
David Henderson
Oct 17 2022 at 5:35pm
You write:
So if I take you literally, I conclude that even if no illegal immigrant ever committed any violent crime, you would still favor enforcing the law against them. Am I understanding you correctly?
Monte
Oct 17 2022 at 6:40pm
Yes, based on Title 8, Section 1325 of the U.S. Code (U.S.C.). Whether or not I think it should be amended or removed is a different issue. But until then, it’s the law.
Mark Z
Oct 15 2022 at 8:57pm
Why wouldn’t they have happened? Do you think Mexicans don’t commit crimes in Mexico? It’s only after they move to the US that any commit crimes?
Let’s think about this mathematically. Suppose immigrants commit crimes at the same rate as natives, and their crime rate post-immigration is the same pre-immigration. Let’s also suppose that immigrant and native criminals alike target victims randomly. If these premises hold, then immigration does not increase the probability of either natives or immigrants being victims of crimes. Some natives are victims of crimes committed by immigrants, but then an equal or greater number of native criminals will end up committing crimes, by chance, against immigrants rather than native victims, leaving the probability of being a victim, for natives, exactly the same as it would be absent immigration.
Realistically, native and immigrant criminals alike disproportionately target native and immigrant victims, respectively. However, the only way an immigrant population with equal or lower crime rate could increase the rate of victimhood for natives would be if immigrant criminals were more likely to target native victims than natives criminals to target immigrant victims, and I’ve not seen that claimed here.
If your goal is to reduce the absolute number of crimes committed, then there’s not surer way to reduce that than to reduce the population, and you should also be a strident anti-natalist. Of course, no one should really care about the total number of crimes. It’s obviously the rate of victimhood that matters.
Mark Z
Oct 15 2022 at 8:59pm
“equal or greater” is actually just “equal” in paragraph 2.
Monte
Oct 16 2022 at 3:19am
Hans Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation in this article sums it up perfectly for me:
Mark Barbieri
Oct 16 2022 at 5:24pm
It doesn’t sum it up well for me. By that logic, if some of our low crime rate states like ME, VT, and NH ceded and joined Canada, there would be fewer crimes in the US but the crime rate would be higher. Would you be celebrating that fewer American’s were victims of crime or bothered by the fact that a higher percentage of American’s were victims of crime?
Monte
Oct 16 2022 at 5:47pm
Try selling that convoluted way of framing the crime problem to the victim’s families.
David Henderson
Oct 16 2022 at 7:51pm
Monte,
If you’re going to argue that it’s convoluted, then make that argument. You haven’t yet. You’ve just asserted it.
On the issue of the victims’ families, are you saying that they should be the ones who get to judge what kind of enforcement against illegal immigration we should have? And if so, would you apply that rule to crimes by Americans against Americans, namely, that victims’ families should have a disproportionate say about the laws?
Monte
Oct 17 2022 at 12:24pm
I invite you to explain to these families and their neighbors at a town hall meeting that, according to Nowrasteh and others, there are fewer murders committed by illegal immigrants on a per capita basis than by native Americans (although this more recent study by the Center for Immigration Studies disputes that claim). Be sure to rationalize this position by pointing out that “if some of our low crime rate states like ME, VT, and NH ceded and joined Canada, there would be fewer crimes in the US but the crime rate would be higher” and to simply apply this same logic to their situation. I’ll be sitting ringside.
The bottom line is that these murders were committed by illegal immigrants. Illegal immigration falls outside the rule of law and, IMO, renders moot all arguments about relative crime rates as a justification for open borders.
No, I’m a constitutionalist. I believe in equal representation. I also believe in justice for the victims of these crimes, which isn’t served by a deliberate lack of enforcement against illegal immigration.
Mark Barbieri
Oct 17 2022 at 9:17pm
I’m sorry that you didn’t follow my analogy. I guess I’m not very good at explaining ratios and fractions because my kids also had a hard time with it in school. But I’m going to try again with you.
You seem focused on the total amount of crimes rather than the rates. I can’t argue that, if more people come into the country, more crimes will be committed in the country. You are absolutely right about that. But the more important measure is not the number of crimes but the crime rate.
Not only do more immigrants mean more people committing more crimes, it also means more people that are victims of crimes. If the immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than non-immigrants, the number of crimes will increase but the crime rate will go down. That means that, for any given person, the likelihood that they will be a victim of crime will be lower with the immigrants here than without them.
I do agree with you that we should fix the illegal immigration problem. If we allowed a similar number of people to immigrate here legally, the problem would be quickly solved and you would no longer have to worry about people being here illegally.
Mark Z
Oct 17 2022 at 4:12am
And I reiterate my point that, unless immigrant criminals target native victims more than vice versa (or immigrants have higher rates of criminality), there would not be more crimes committed (since the same crimes would’ve been committed in Mexico), nor would more American-born citizens be victims of crimes. All that would change is the composition of the criminals, not the frequency of victimization.
Monte
Oct 17 2022 at 2:24pm
This is pure conjecture based on statistical inference, not a statement of fact.
Mark Z
Oct 17 2022 at 6:11pm
A conjecture based on statistical inference is better than conjecture that goes against statistical inference.
Mark Z
Oct 17 2022 at 6:13pm
Put another way: why doesn’t your argument also imply that we should try to minimize the number of children Americans have? When people have children, some of those children will grow to commit crimes. So, fewer children, fewer crimes, fewer victims of crimes.
Monte
Oct 17 2022 at 7:02pm
Because I’m not a eugenicist. The more we procreate, the better chance there is for someone to give birth to a person who might some day cure cancer or solve world hunger, or even lead the Dallas Cowboys to another Super Bowl championship.
David Henderson
Oct 17 2022 at 7:52pm
Cancer or world hunger, I get.
But the Dallas Cowboys winning another Super Bowl? Now that’s a big ask. 🙂
Thomas Lee Hutcheson
Oct 16 2022 at 8:58am
Not. think, in the straightforward way this post implies.
Cost effective border enforcement is but one part of immigration reform to attract and select the right number of the best immigrants (best compliments for existing residents). Crime committed by immigrants is one of the costs that should go into designing the border interdiction/asylum claims processing/deportation sub-system. Misestimating any of the costs or benefits of immigration will lead to suboptimal design.
Monte
Oct 17 2022 at 10:43pm
@Mark Barbieri
Thanks for the detailed explanation, and I agree with you on the relative vs absolute comparison. But the question of immigrant vs non-immigrant crime rate remains remains debatable. See this Misuse of Data Understates Illegal Immigrant Criminality report.
The whole thing really has become a humanitarian crisis and a very politically charged one, at that. Short of open borders, I’m in favor of more immigration. I agree with Dr. Henderson and most other economists that it’s is a net gain for our economy. I say let’s get it done…legally.
It really is a humanitarian crisis and a very politically charged one, at that. It’s a privilege to debate these issues on this forum
Comments are closed.