Dispelling Myths and Misinformation

Conservative talking points frequently portray immigrants as a drain on public resources or as being disproportionately involved in criminal activity. These claims are often exaggerated or false, as research consistently shows that immigrants contribute positively to the economy and are less likely to commit crimes than native-born citizens. 

     According to the ACLU, a central promise of Trump’s 2024 campaign is to “carry out the largest domestic deportation operation in American history” once in office. Trump is attacking birthright citizenship, barring undocumented children from schools, and again forcibly separating children from their parents at the border. The Trump team’s strategy is to dismantle our nation’s asylum protection system and attack human rights at the border. 

     Trump in October suggested that migrants who are in the U.S. and have committed murder did so because “it’s in their genes” AP News reports. There are, he added, “a lot of bad genes in our country right now.” It’s the latest example of Trump alleging that immigrants are changing the hereditary makeup of the U.S. Last year, he evoked language once used by Adolf Hitler to argue that immigrants entering the U.S. illegally are “poisoning the blood of our country.” 

     This rhetoric fosters anti-immigrant sentiment and contributes to xenophobic policies and political agendas that target immigrant communities. It also diverts attention away from the positive economic and social contributions immigrants make to society.  I will be debunking Trump’s claims on immigration being linked to higher crime rates with the use of trusted academic sources, as well as giving some tips on how to identify misinformation coming from politicians. 

Image from The New Yorker

Source 1: “Do immigrants increase crime? Spatial analysis in a middle-income country.”

     Using spatial econometrics, the study analyzes data at the municipal level to examine how varying concentrations of immigrants across different regions correlate with changes in crime, particularly violent crime. This method allows Leiva to account for geographic and social factors that might influence both crime and immigration. Leiva emphasizes that the relationship between immigration and crime is complex and mediated by local factors, including socioeconomic conditions, policing practices, and the existing demographic makeup of communities. 

     The analysis suggests that there is no clear, consistent relationship between the presence of immigrants and increased crime rates. In fact, some areas with higher concentrations of immigrants did not experience higher crime rates, challenging the common assumption that immigration leads to more crime. 

     The study concludes that immigration, in and of itself, does not appear to be a major driver of increased crime in the studied country. Instead, the crime rate variations are more likely influenced by broader social, economic, and political factors. Leiva’s work challenges the simplistic narrative that immigration inherently leads to higher crime rates, suggesting that context-specific factors and local conditions are more significant in understanding the dynamics of crime in immigrant communities. 

Source 2: Intervening in Anti-Immigrant Sentiments: The Causal Effects of Factual Information on Attitudes toward Immigration.

     Abascal investigates whether misinformation or lack of knowledge contributes to anti-immigrant sentiment and whether the presentation of factual information about immigration can alter people's views. Given the rise of anti-immigrant rhetoric, especially in political discourse, the study seeks to understand if offering accurate information can counteract negative stereotypes and biases. The paper employs a randomized controlled experiment, where participants are exposed to different types of information about immigration. Some participants received factual data about the economic contributions of immigrants, crime rates, and other related topics, while others were exposed to misinformation or no information at all. 

     The results show that presenting factual information did have a significant impact on attitudes toward immigration. Specifically, those who were provided with accurate information about the positive impacts of immigration—such as immigrants contributing to the economy and not being disproportionately involved in crime—became more favorable toward immigrants. Abascal’s research provides evidence that factual information can reduce anti-immigrant attitudes, but its effectiveness is contingent upon the existing beliefs of individuals. While information is a powerful tool, it’s not a universal solution, especially for those whose views are strongly influenced by ideology or pre-existing biases.

Figure 1: Beliefs about immigrants before (prior) and after (posterior) receiving the information. Sample of US respondents, 2016. 

Source 3: Is Immigration Responsible for the Crime Drop? An Assessment of the Influence of Immigration on Changes in Violent Crime Between 1990 and 2000.

     This paper examines the relationship between immigration and the decline in violent crime rates in the United States during the 1990s. Wadsworth investigates whether the increasing immigrant population during this period contributed to the significant drop in violent crime rates, a trend that puzzled many policymakers and researchers. Wadsworth acknowledges the sharp decline in violent crime rates between 1990 and 2000, especially in urban areas, and sets the stage for exploring possible causes. 

     The article explores the common hypothesis that immigrants, particularly those from Latin America, may have played a role in reducing crime. Previous research had suggested that higher immigration could correlate with lower crime rates, but the mechanisms behind this relationship were unclear. Wadsworth conducts a statistical assessment to determine whether immigration could be directly linked to the crime drop, controlling for other factors such as economic conditions, policing strategies, and demographic changes. 

     The study finds that although immigration increased, particularly in major cities, the drop in crime was not uniquely explained by this factor. Other elements, such as changes in policing practices, economic improvements, and demographic shifts, played more substantial roles in the reduction of violent crime. 

What does this mean? 

     The claims that immigrants contribute to higher crime rates, as frequently espoused by figures like Donald Trump, are not supported by empirical evidence. The studies examined—Leiva’s spatial analysis, Abascal’s investigation into the impact of factual information, and Wadsworth’s assessment of immigration’s role in crime reduction—demonstrate that immigration does not drive crime rates up and may, in some cases, be linked to positive social and economic outcomes. These findings underscore the importance of basing policy discussions on reliable data rather than rhetoric aimed at stoking fear and division. In light of this evidence, it is crucial that public discourse focus on the real contributions of immigrants to society rather than perpetuating harmful stereotypes and misinformation. 

How to identify misinformation coming from politicians 

     Identifying misinformation from politicians can be challenging, especially in an era of fast-moving news and partisan rhetoric. However, there are several strategies and tips that can help you critically evaluate the information being presented:

Image from Thompson Coburn LLP

1. Check the source of the information: Politicians may selectively cite sources or rely on studies that align with their agenda. Check if the source is reputable and unbiased.

2. Look for selective use of data: Be wary of misleading comparisons between unrelated data points. For example, comparing crime rates in one country to another without accounting for socioeconomic, cultural, or policy differences can be deceptive.

3. Examine the language used: Politicians may use emotionally charged words or sensational language to provoke fear, anger, or sympathy. Terms like "invading," "criminals," or "radical" are often used to frame issues in a way that appeals to emotions rather than logic.

4. Use fact checking tools: Websites like PolitiFact, FactCheck.org, and The Washington Post Fact Checker can help you quickly verify the accuracy of claims made by politicians. Use tools like Google Reverse Image Search or TinEye to verify images, videos, or memes. Misinformation can often spread through manipulated media, so fact-checking visuals is essential.

5. Pay attention to context: Politicians may present information in a misleading way by stripping it of its full context. Ensure that quotes, data, or anecdotes are presented in a way that accurately reflects the original source.