Lettera da Lhasa numero 81. Bassa criminalità tra gli immigrati negli Stati Uniti
by Roberto Scaruffi
Butcher, K. F. and A. Morrison Piehl, Why are Immigrants' Incarceration Rates so Low? Evidence on Selective Immigration, Deterrence, and Deportation, Working Paper 13229, NBER, Cambridge, MA, USA, July 2007,
http://papers.nber.org/papers/W13229
(Butcher, July 2007).
Kristin F. Butcher,
by Roberto Scaruffi
Butcher, K. F. and A. Morrison Piehl, Why are Immigrants' Incarceration Rates so Low? Evidence on Selective Immigration, Deterrence, and Deportation, Working Paper 13229, NBER, Cambridge, MA, USA, July 2007,
http://papers.nber.org/papers/W13229
(Butcher, July 2007).
Kristin F. Butcher,
Anne Morrison Piehl
Negli Stati Uniti, la percezione che l’immigrazione incrementasse i tassi di criminalità produsse legislazioni che, negli anni ’90, elevarono le pene per crimini commessi da stranieri. Al contrario, i tassi di incarcerazione degli immigrati sono ora sull’ordine di 1/5 rispetto a quello dei nativi ed in progressiva riduzione.
La ricerca mostra, o ipotizza, come questo risultato non dipenda dalle politiche di aumentata espulsione quanto piuttosto dal processo di immigrazione che seleziona individui o con bassa propensione a delinquere o più sensibili dei nativi alla deterrenza, dunque con minore propensione al rischio da comportamenti delinquenziali.
In realtà, dipendendo le politiche di selezione da una molteplicità di fattori, le politiche di espulsione contribuiscono alle politiche di selezione. Si noti che si parla di selezione in senso generale, non di una qualche selezione formale da parte di una qualche autorità. Infatti, è un’autoselezione, autoselezione da intendersi, si può supporre, come selezione sia da parte di chi sceglie la via dell’immigrazione che da parte di chi chiede o “procura” gli immigrati. Comunque, si tratta di una selezione “privata”, sia essa autoselezione individuale o contribuiscano altri soggetti od entità, non di una qualche selezione di Stato soggetto per soggetto, anche se vi sono, negli USA, politiche d’immigrazione. Si potrebbe dire che una cosa sono scafisti che ti riversano immigrati in mare, sulle spiagge e nelle strade, altra organizzazioni che reclutino per chi, negli USA, domandi lavoro (aziende varie) eventualmente non qualificato o con qualificazioni generiche. Comunque, vi sono sempre una molteplicità di fattori che interagiscono, in queste cose e contribuiscono a certi o cert’altri risultati finali.
La ricerca rileva come le caratteristiche sociologiche dell’immigrato medio siano del tutto simili a quelle delle popolazione statunitense più propensa a delinquere. Inoltre, negli anni ’90, i tassi di criminalità tra gli immigrati erano alti e crescenti:
“Much of the concern that immigration to the United States adversely affects crime derives from the fact that immigrants tend to have characteristics in common with native-born populations that are disproportionately incarcerated. That is, immigrants have low average levels of education and very low average wages, and many are young, male, and Hispanic. For similar reasons, there are general concerns that immigration adds to the “underclass” in the United States by increasing dependence on cash assistance and subsidized medical care, decreasing homeownership, and creating pockets of entrenched poverty with adverse social outcomes. During the 1990s, when immigration rates were high and crime rates were high and rising, observers feared a link between immigration and crime, and several significant pieces of federal legislation increased criminal penalties for noncitizens.”
La ricerca si basava su alcune domande:
“Important laws enacted in the 1990s increased penalties for criminal noncitizens by broadening the crimes for which they could be deported. Did this mechanically lower immigrants’ institutionalization rates by ensuring that criminal aliens were deported? Or did the greater punishment change immigrants’ criminal activity in the U.S.? Beyond laws specifically increasing punishments for criminal aliens, the 1980s and 1990s saw increased punishment for crimes more generally. Did these changes affect immigrants’ behavior more than the native born? Or did increased punishment for criminal activity combined with welfare reform—which decreased immigrants’ access to social welfare programs—change the type of person who self-selects to immigrate to the United States?”
Nel testaggio econometrico vengono verificati vari effetti.
Il primo è l’espulsione rispetto alla carcerazione, cioè se esista relazione, e di che genere, tra una politica d’espulsioni e l’arresto dell’immigrato a causa d’un qualche delitto. Si verifica quindi se l’espulsione abbia un effetto d’intimidazione o meno rispetto al commettere crimini.
“First, we consider the mechanical effect of deportation on incarceration. The number of immigrants deported (both voluntary departures and formal removals) rose over the three decades we examine. From 1971 to 1980, about 7.5 million immigrants were expelled (Yearbook of Immigration Statistics 2002); from 1981 to 1990, about 10.2 million immigrants were expelled; and from 1991 to 2000, about 14.5 million immigrants were expelled (Immigration Statistics Reports 2002).18 Among those deported, not simply excluded, the most common administrative reasons given during the 1990s were “attempted entry without proper documents” (35%) and “criminal activity” (31%).
“This increase in deportation might be expected to decrease immigrants’ relative institutionalization rates.19 However, the countervailing effects of this policy may increase the probability that an immigrant will be institutionalized. [...]”
Poi, si considera l’effetto deterrenza di maggiori pene rispetto alla propensione a delinquere: “The 1980s and 1990s saw the adoption of many policies that increased criminal penalties and thus had the potential to deter criminal activity of both immigrants and the native born.”
Terzo, la ricerca si pone il problema dell’influsso dei cambiamenti negli USA sull’auto-selezione degli immigrati verso gli stessi:“Changes in the legal, economic, and social environment during the 1980s and 1990s may have affected the type of immigrant who self-selects to come to the United States.”
Le conclusioni enfatizzano il minore tasso di incarcerazione degli immigrati dal 2000 rispetto ai nativi. Le cause sono o sono ipotizzate essere varie. Sotto si trova il dettaglio. Come già detto, si nega che ciò dipenda dalle politiche di espulsione mentre si riconduce tutto all’autoselezione, cioé al processo di immigrazione. Viene notato come coloro che nel 2000 sono già immigrati vedano ridursi il proprio tasso di incarcerazione, mentre i nuovi immigrati da allora siano particolarmente estranei al coinvolgimento in attività criminali, nel senso almeno dell’identificazione e condanna al carcere.
“Using the 1980, 1990, and 2000 Censuses, we show that 18-40 year-old male immigrants have lower institutionalization rates than the native born in each year. The gap in these institutionalization rates widens over the decades, and by 2000 immigrants have institutionalization rates that are one-fifth those of the native born.
“The fact that immigrants have lower relative incarceration rates in 2000 than in earlier years may be due to several factors. Legislation passed in the 1980s and 1990s raised penalties for criminal activity; and legislation passed in the 1990s increased penalties for criminal noncitizens in particular. The 1990s legislation may have increased the probability that immigrants are deported for their crimes, thus mechanically lowering their incarceration rates. Alternatively, immigrants’ criminal behavior may have changed in response to the general deterrence from increased criminal penalties. Or, the type of person choosing to immigrate to the U.S. may have changed in response to these general increases in penalties for criminal activity, or in response to the specific penalties (deportation after serving one’s sentence) that apply to noncitizens. We exploit the fact that some of these effects will pertain for some groups and not others to distinguish among these explanations.
“We find that deportation is not driving the decline in relative institutionalization rates of immigrants, because naturalized citizens, who are not subject to deportation, also reduced their relative institutionalization rates. There is evidence that the process of migration selects individuals who have lower criminal propensity or are more responsive to deterrent effects than the average native. Similar to the foreign born, the native born who live outside their state of birth also reduced their relative institutionalization rates over time. Immigrants who were already in the country reduced their relative institutionalization probability over the decades; and the newly arrived immigrants in the 1980s and 1990s seem to be particularly unlikely to be involved in criminal activity, consistent with increasingly positive selection along this dimension. However, we find little evidence of a dramatic change in the 1996–2000 cohort, the only cohort for which the decision to migrate may have been affected by the increased penalties specific to criminal aliens.”
Butcher, K. F. and A. Morrison Piehl, Why are Immigrants' Incarceration Rates so Low? Evidence on Selective Immigration, Deterrence, and Deportation, Working Paper 13229, NBER, Cambridge, MA, USA, July 2007,
http://papers.nber.org/papers/W13229
Negli Stati Uniti, la percezione che l’immigrazione incrementasse i tassi di criminalità produsse legislazioni che, negli anni ’90, elevarono le pene per crimini commessi da stranieri. Al contrario, i tassi di incarcerazione degli immigrati sono ora sull’ordine di 1/5 rispetto a quello dei nativi ed in progressiva riduzione.
La ricerca mostra, o ipotizza, come questo risultato non dipenda dalle politiche di aumentata espulsione quanto piuttosto dal processo di immigrazione che seleziona individui o con bassa propensione a delinquere o più sensibili dei nativi alla deterrenza, dunque con minore propensione al rischio da comportamenti delinquenziali.
In realtà, dipendendo le politiche di selezione da una molteplicità di fattori, le politiche di espulsione contribuiscono alle politiche di selezione. Si noti che si parla di selezione in senso generale, non di una qualche selezione formale da parte di una qualche autorità. Infatti, è un’autoselezione, autoselezione da intendersi, si può supporre, come selezione sia da parte di chi sceglie la via dell’immigrazione che da parte di chi chiede o “procura” gli immigrati. Comunque, si tratta di una selezione “privata”, sia essa autoselezione individuale o contribuiscano altri soggetti od entità, non di una qualche selezione di Stato soggetto per soggetto, anche se vi sono, negli USA, politiche d’immigrazione. Si potrebbe dire che una cosa sono scafisti che ti riversano immigrati in mare, sulle spiagge e nelle strade, altra organizzazioni che reclutino per chi, negli USA, domandi lavoro (aziende varie) eventualmente non qualificato o con qualificazioni generiche. Comunque, vi sono sempre una molteplicità di fattori che interagiscono, in queste cose e contribuiscono a certi o cert’altri risultati finali.
La ricerca rileva come le caratteristiche sociologiche dell’immigrato medio siano del tutto simili a quelle delle popolazione statunitense più propensa a delinquere. Inoltre, negli anni ’90, i tassi di criminalità tra gli immigrati erano alti e crescenti:
“Much of the concern that immigration to the United States adversely affects crime derives from the fact that immigrants tend to have characteristics in common with native-born populations that are disproportionately incarcerated. That is, immigrants have low average levels of education and very low average wages, and many are young, male, and Hispanic. For similar reasons, there are general concerns that immigration adds to the “underclass” in the United States by increasing dependence on cash assistance and subsidized medical care, decreasing homeownership, and creating pockets of entrenched poverty with adverse social outcomes. During the 1990s, when immigration rates were high and crime rates were high and rising, observers feared a link between immigration and crime, and several significant pieces of federal legislation increased criminal penalties for noncitizens.”
La ricerca si basava su alcune domande:
“Important laws enacted in the 1990s increased penalties for criminal noncitizens by broadening the crimes for which they could be deported. Did this mechanically lower immigrants’ institutionalization rates by ensuring that criminal aliens were deported? Or did the greater punishment change immigrants’ criminal activity in the U.S.? Beyond laws specifically increasing punishments for criminal aliens, the 1980s and 1990s saw increased punishment for crimes more generally. Did these changes affect immigrants’ behavior more than the native born? Or did increased punishment for criminal activity combined with welfare reform—which decreased immigrants’ access to social welfare programs—change the type of person who self-selects to immigrate to the United States?”
Nel testaggio econometrico vengono verificati vari effetti.
Il primo è l’espulsione rispetto alla carcerazione, cioè se esista relazione, e di che genere, tra una politica d’espulsioni e l’arresto dell’immigrato a causa d’un qualche delitto. Si verifica quindi se l’espulsione abbia un effetto d’intimidazione o meno rispetto al commettere crimini.
“First, we consider the mechanical effect of deportation on incarceration. The number of immigrants deported (both voluntary departures and formal removals) rose over the three decades we examine. From 1971 to 1980, about 7.5 million immigrants were expelled (Yearbook of Immigration Statistics 2002); from 1981 to 1990, about 10.2 million immigrants were expelled; and from 1991 to 2000, about 14.5 million immigrants were expelled (Immigration Statistics Reports 2002).18 Among those deported, not simply excluded, the most common administrative reasons given during the 1990s were “attempted entry without proper documents” (35%) and “criminal activity” (31%).
“This increase in deportation might be expected to decrease immigrants’ relative institutionalization rates.19 However, the countervailing effects of this policy may increase the probability that an immigrant will be institutionalized. [...]”
Poi, si considera l’effetto deterrenza di maggiori pene rispetto alla propensione a delinquere: “The 1980s and 1990s saw the adoption of many policies that increased criminal penalties and thus had the potential to deter criminal activity of both immigrants and the native born.”
Terzo, la ricerca si pone il problema dell’influsso dei cambiamenti negli USA sull’auto-selezione degli immigrati verso gli stessi:“Changes in the legal, economic, and social environment during the 1980s and 1990s may have affected the type of immigrant who self-selects to come to the United States.”
Le conclusioni enfatizzano il minore tasso di incarcerazione degli immigrati dal 2000 rispetto ai nativi. Le cause sono o sono ipotizzate essere varie. Sotto si trova il dettaglio. Come già detto, si nega che ciò dipenda dalle politiche di espulsione mentre si riconduce tutto all’autoselezione, cioé al processo di immigrazione. Viene notato come coloro che nel 2000 sono già immigrati vedano ridursi il proprio tasso di incarcerazione, mentre i nuovi immigrati da allora siano particolarmente estranei al coinvolgimento in attività criminali, nel senso almeno dell’identificazione e condanna al carcere.
“Using the 1980, 1990, and 2000 Censuses, we show that 18-40 year-old male immigrants have lower institutionalization rates than the native born in each year. The gap in these institutionalization rates widens over the decades, and by 2000 immigrants have institutionalization rates that are one-fifth those of the native born.
“The fact that immigrants have lower relative incarceration rates in 2000 than in earlier years may be due to several factors. Legislation passed in the 1980s and 1990s raised penalties for criminal activity; and legislation passed in the 1990s increased penalties for criminal noncitizens in particular. The 1990s legislation may have increased the probability that immigrants are deported for their crimes, thus mechanically lowering their incarceration rates. Alternatively, immigrants’ criminal behavior may have changed in response to the general deterrence from increased criminal penalties. Or, the type of person choosing to immigrate to the U.S. may have changed in response to these general increases in penalties for criminal activity, or in response to the specific penalties (deportation after serving one’s sentence) that apply to noncitizens. We exploit the fact that some of these effects will pertain for some groups and not others to distinguish among these explanations.
“We find that deportation is not driving the decline in relative institutionalization rates of immigrants, because naturalized citizens, who are not subject to deportation, also reduced their relative institutionalization rates. There is evidence that the process of migration selects individuals who have lower criminal propensity or are more responsive to deterrent effects than the average native. Similar to the foreign born, the native born who live outside their state of birth also reduced their relative institutionalization rates over time. Immigrants who were already in the country reduced their relative institutionalization probability over the decades; and the newly arrived immigrants in the 1980s and 1990s seem to be particularly unlikely to be involved in criminal activity, consistent with increasingly positive selection along this dimension. However, we find little evidence of a dramatic change in the 1996–2000 cohort, the only cohort for which the decision to migrate may have been affected by the increased penalties specific to criminal aliens.”
Butcher, K. F. and A. Morrison Piehl, Why are Immigrants' Incarceration Rates so Low? Evidence on Selective Immigration, Deterrence, and Deportation, Working Paper 13229, NBER, Cambridge, MA, USA, July 2007,
http://papers.nber.org/papers/W13229
