{"id":24123,"date":"2021-02-08T07:41:44","date_gmt":"2021-02-08T12:41:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/?p=24123"},"modified":"2021-02-08T07:41:46","modified_gmt":"2021-02-08T12:41:46","slug":"sanctuary-cities-media-misreport-data-immigrationreform-com","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/2021\/02\/08\/sanctuary-cities-media-misreport-data-immigrationreform-com\/","title":{"rendered":"Open-Borders Proponents Keep Pushing \u201cSanctuary Cities\u201d Myth"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Anti-immigration enforcement advocates have long touted the thoroughly debunked myth that sanctuary cities make America safer because illegal aliens will become more likely to report crimes if they face no risk of deportation. This argument is always based on either pure opinion, or extremely shaky data. A February 5 \u201canalysis\u201d<\/a> written by Harvard PhD candidates in The Washington Post<\/em> is no different.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, the authors make no effort\nto hide that they already made up their minds on this issue before beginning\ntheir research. This, of course, hampers their credibility as professional researchers\nwho are supposedly following the scientific method (which includes approaching\na topic from a standpoint of skepticism to combat cognitive biases). Second,\nwhile they claim that their research is \u201cempirical,\u201d it is actually nothing\nmore than a collection of poorly constructed conclusions based on largely\ninapplicable correlations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For example, the authors tried to claim that immigration enforcement measures hamper crime reporting because, in the cities they examined, \u201cas the intensity of [law enforcement measures]increased, the reported crime rate decreased.\u201d However, this assumes that crime still occurs at the same rate, but that people are less willing to report it to the authorities. However, it is a well-established fact<\/a> that when the law is enforced vigorously, fewer people tend to break the law, making crime rates decrease. This is for a simple reason \u2013 people are more likely to break the law when they know they can get away with it. So this correlation fails to prove their hypothesis at all. On the contrary, it suggests that increased enforcement of our immigration laws indeed caused overall crime to decrease.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The only half-hearted effort made to provide empirical proof that sanctuary cities increase the likelihood that immigrants will report crimes was the reference of a recent study<\/a> called \u201cImmigrant Sanctuary Policies and Crime-Reporting Behavior: A Multilevel Analysis of Reports of Crime Victimization to Law Enforcement, 1980 to 2004.\u201d However, this study is fatally flawed for two reasons:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. It only uses data from before 2004, when sanctuary cities were relatively rare. In fact, there were only<\/a> 11 sanctuary jurisdictions in 2000, compared to more than 550 today. This means that there certainly was not enough data available to make any kind of relevant comparison to the issue as it exists today.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. The report\nalso admits that no studies exist which prove a causal link between sanctuary\npolicies and an increased willingness to report crimes. Instead, the authors\ncreated a set of variables derived from broad correlations not directly\nassociated with immigration status and applied them to hypothetical scenarios\nthat did relate to immigration status. As the common statistical adage goes:\n\u201ccorrelation does not equal causation.\u201d This is especially true when the\ncorrelation is not directly related to the issue being studied. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, the biased authors also bemoaned the fact that \u201cwhen the risk of deportation goes up, undocumented immigrants and their relatives are less likely to apply for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), to rely on Medicaid for health care, or to seek help from the Women, Infants and Children Program (WIC).\u201d This is for good reason \u2013 it is unlawful <\/a>for illegal aliens to receive federal welfare. Suggesting that sanctuary policies are a good thing because they encourage welfare fraud is not a particularly strong argument for their existence. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

As is often the case with\nout-of-touch academics who promote open borders, this so-called \u201canalysis\u201d\nactually offers more proof that sanctuary cities harm Americans than it suggests\nthat they help. It hardly takes a collection of PhD candidates to understand\nthat if a jurisdiction openly declares that the law will not be enforced,\nlawlessness will increase. However, facts and data rarely get in the way of\nanti-immigration enforcement advocates. Their goal is to use whatever means\nnecessary \u2013 including false science \u2013 to prop up their Americans-last agenda.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Anti-immigration enforcement advocates have long touted the thoroughly debunked myth that sanctuary cities make America safer because illegal aliens will become more likely to report crimes if they face no risk of deportation. This argument is always based on either pure opinion, or extremely shaky data. A February 5 \u201canalysis\u201d written by Harvard PhD candidates<\/p>\n

Read More<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":43,"featured_media":17112,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0},"categories":[3],"tags":[1524,275,640,1349],"yst_prominent_words":[10855,10859,10852,2772,2075,1995,10860,2008,1963,3559,2030,10857,10854,10851,2295,10856,10853,2063,3575,2059],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24123"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/43"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=24123"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24123\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":24124,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24123\/revisions\/24124"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/17112"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24123"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24123"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24123"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=24123"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}