>In this case, I’m not too concerned about the bias of the justice system resulting in spurious conclusions. For the result they report to be incorrect, the justice system would have to be biased in the favor of immigrants. The authors (and I) think this is unlikely; they cite Light, Robey, and Kim 2023, Goncalves and Mello 2021 and Tuttle 2023 that the opposite is likely true.
This ignores the existence of concerted lobbying activity by NGO and activist groups, the pro-bono support offered by the legal profession, the phenomena of judicial activism, activist pressure placed upon civil servants and law enforcement (even setting aside the question of institutional capture), and casting a critical eye over the biases of social scientists (especially pertinent in the context of the broader crises of methodology and replication).
One setting that seems ideal to study this question is Switzerland's random assignment of refugees to cantons (studied here https://drive.google.com/file/d/1b9sQ_h53t648PTA-CmGIH9gpwq7oP40f/view?usp=sharing). This paper doesn't do it and I don't know if any other papers use the same setting. Though there would be external validity concerns (from the first cross country correlation graph, Switzerland is probably an outlier in the immigration-crime relationship, and refugees are not typical voluntary migrants)
There's a handful - I'll write them up. There's a couple of Secure Communities papers (which I don't love because staggered difference-in-difference designs + possible pre-trend issues), Alex Nowrasteh has a paper on 287(g), Conor Norris has one on SB 1070 in Arizona, and Charis Kubrin has one on SB 54 in CA.
>In this case, I’m not too concerned about the bias of the justice system resulting in spurious conclusions. For the result they report to be incorrect, the justice system would have to be biased in the favor of immigrants. The authors (and I) think this is unlikely; they cite Light, Robey, and Kim 2023, Goncalves and Mello 2021 and Tuttle 2023 that the opposite is likely true.
This ignores the existence of concerted lobbying activity by NGO and activist groups, the pro-bono support offered by the legal profession, the phenomena of judicial activism, activist pressure placed upon civil servants and law enforcement (even setting aside the question of institutional capture), and casting a critical eye over the biases of social scientists (especially pertinent in the context of the broader crises of methodology and replication).
One setting that seems ideal to study this question is Switzerland's random assignment of refugees to cantons (studied here https://drive.google.com/file/d/1b9sQ_h53t648PTA-CmGIH9gpwq7oP40f/view?usp=sharing). This paper doesn't do it and I don't know if any other papers use the same setting. Though there would be external validity concerns (from the first cross country correlation graph, Switzerland is probably an outlier in the immigration-crime relationship, and refugees are not typical voluntary migrants)
👍
There's not much literature specific to undocumented immigrants,sadly.
The famous paper is the Tx-DOT paper that destroyed the mythology of the evil,criminally inclined median undocumented immigrant.
Not much outside of that.
So it's easy for xenophobes to demagogue.
There's a handful - I'll write them up. There's a couple of Secure Communities papers (which I don't love because staggered difference-in-difference designs + possible pre-trend issues), Alex Nowrasteh has a paper on 287(g), Conor Norris has one on SB 1070 in Arizona, and Charis Kubrin has one on SB 54 in CA.