(Source: Crime Prevention Research Center, January 17, 2018—NEW RESEARCH: The impact of illegal aliens on crime rates, data codebook, and “do file”).
GAO examined five states that had large SCAAP illegal alien populations in 2008—Arizona, California, Florida, New York, and Texas. Arizona was the only state where traffic offenses were a substantial percentage of SCAAP illegal-alien convictions. Setting aside traffic offenses, 41 percent of the SCAAP illegal-alien convictions in Arizona were for drug offenses and assault. In California, “about 50 percent of California’s primary convictions related to SCAAP illegal aliens were for drugs, assault, and sex offenses.” Texas had a similar breakdown of SCAAP illegal-alien offenses. In Florida, “about 50 percent of all Florida state convictions of SCAAP illegal alien inmates were for drugs, sex offenses, burglary, and robbery.” And shockingly, in New York, 27 percent of SCAAP illegal-alien primary convictions were for homicide—more than the 23 percent convicted for drug-related offenses
(Source: National Review, “Illegal Immigration and Crime,” January 20, 2018).
Once again, I must digress to address a few issues. There is good news and bad news on the amount of data available to the general public on the internet. The good news is that there is almost an inexhaustible amount of data. The bad news is there is almost an inexhaustible amount of data.
There appear to be two main sources of documentation when applying numbers to the illegal immigration numbers.
The first is the SCAAP (State Criminal Alien Assistance Program), a program that reimburses states and localities for some of the cost of incarcerating illegal aliens and suspected illegal aliens.
State and local entities wishing to get reimbursed for incarcerating eligible criminal aliens submit identification data each year, such as the individual alien’s name and date and country of birth to DOJ by means of a web-based system. DOJ then sends this data to ICE, which researches DHS databases to try to determine the individual’s immigration or citizenship status. For each individual name submitted, ICE reports to DOJ that it (1) verified the individual was illegally in the United States at the time of incarceration (called SCAAP illegal aliens), (2) lacked documentation to confirm an individual’s immigration status (called SCAAP unknown aliens), or (3) verified that the individual was an alien legally in the United States or a United States citizen and therefore not eligible for reimbursement under SCAAP. According to ICE officials, some of the unknown aliens may be in the United States illegally but have not come into contact with DHS authorities, which is why ICE could not verify their immigration status.
The opponents of this avenue claim “the SCAAP aliens are a measure of the stock and flow of illegal immigrants into state and local correctional facilities over a year. SCAAP is used to compensate local communities and states for the costs of incarcerating some illegal immigrants, it is not designed to be used to estimate illegal immigrant incarceration rates”
(Source: CATO Institute, FAIR SCAAP Crime Report Has Many Serious Problems, February 6, 2019).
There are more accusations of the shortcomings in this article. Please feel free to google the article for a more complete analysis.
The second method for obtaining data seems to be from US Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS).
The proponents of this system use ACS data to estimate the incarceration rate and other demographic characteristics for immigrants ages eighteen to fifty-four in 2016. Ordinarily collected by or under the supervision of correctional institution administrators, ACS inmate data are reliable; however, the quality of the data for the population that includes the incarcerated was not always so reliable. The response rate for the group quarters population, which includes those incarcerated in correctional facilities, was low in the 2000 census. Recognizing that problem with data collection from the group quarters population, the Census Bureau substantially resolved it in the 2010 census and the ACS, making several tweaks over the years that have continually improved the size and quality of the group quarters sample.
The ACS counts the incarcerated population by their nativity and naturalization status, but local and state governments rarely record whether prisoners are illegal immigrants. As a result, we have to use common statistical methods to identify incarcerated illegal immigrant prisoners by excluding prisoners with characteristics that illegal immigrants are unlikely to have
(Source: CATO Institute, Incarcerated Immigrants in 2016: Their Numbers, Demographics, and Countries of Origin, June 4, 2018).
Peter Kirsanow makes a strong argument in his National Review The Corner article titled “Illegal Immigrants and Crime,” February 8, 2018.
He stands his ground when his data sampling is attacked from Alex Nowrasteh at Reason.
He states,
Nowrasteh states that the 2008 American Community Survey data says there were only 156,329 non-citizens incarcerated in federal, state, and local facilities, and thus it’s impossible that the 296,959 SCAAP incarcerations represent individuals. I’m willing to concede that there may be some individuals who account for more than one SCAAP incarceration. But I’m skeptical that survey data are more reliable than the SCAAP data. Nowrasteh writes elsewhere that the ACS data are reliable “because it’s ordinarily collected by or under the supervision of correctional institution administrators.” But incarcerated foreign nationals have a particular incentive to conceal their citizenship status. It’s unlikely that the process followed by correctional-institution administrators is much more thorough than that followed by DOJ and ICE in calculating SCAAP reimbursement.
Adding to the above, I came cross this fact, five of the top 10 SCAAP grants to localities, and four of the top 10 grants to states went to jurisdictions that are considered sanctuaries in 2010.
1 Los Angeles County*: $14,292,913
2 New York City*: $13,450,977
3 Orange County, California: $5,287,229
4 Cook County, Illinois: $3,382,266
5 Maricopa County, Arizona: $2,819,911
6 Harris County, Texas*: $2,656,448
7 San Diego County*: $2,218,643
8 Suffolk County, New York: $2,176,889
9 Clark County Nevada: $2,127,110
10 Nassau County, New York: $1,971,434
1 California: $88,106,548
2 New York: $17,927,031
3 Texas: $16,049,239
4 Florida: $13,842,030
5 Arizona: $9,775,269
6 Illinois: $5,357,246
7 New Jersey: $4,990,601
8 Oregon*: $4,939,427
9 North Carolina: $4,515,838
10 Massachusetts: $4,257,629
Sources: Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance
* denotes sanctuary jurisdiction
Center for Immigration Studies makes a point in their article.
Subsidizing Sanctuaries
The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, November 4, 2010
“There is an easy fix. Congress should restrict eligibility for SCAAP funding to those jurisdictions that actively participate in immigration law enforcement programs such as Secure Communities, the Criminal Alien Program, or the 287(g) program. These three programs enable ICE, or designated specially trained local officials, to identify and process illegal aliens who have committed