May, 14 2010, 01:20pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Bill Malone 202-464-8180,bmalone@bread.org,Shawnda Hines 301-960-4913,shines@bread.org
Crime and Immigrants
It may be
a hackneyed lament, but it's true: much of the debate regarding
immigration is driven by hysteria.
WASHINGTON
It may be
a hackneyed lament, but it's true: much of the debate regarding
immigration is driven by hysteria. Hype dominates and facts are
secondary, if they're lucky.
As the recent Arizona frenzy demonstrates, one of the most
provocative facets of the immigration debate is immigrant criminality.
Immigrants - particularly Mexicans - are portrayed as harbingers of gangs, drugs, and violence.
And one of the major reasons for the public support for Arizona SB 1070
was concern regarding the criminal element that immigrants allegedly
imported to the Grand Canyon State.
Although we have a long tradition of blaming immigrants for crime
(and other social ills), the facts show that - all else being equal -
unauthorized immigrants commit crimes at rates far lower than natives. In fact, immigration lowers violent crime.
For example, as the immigrant population of the United States boomed during the 1990s, violent crime across the country plummeted, including in big-city immigrant gateways like Los Angeles and New York.
Perhaps the correlation of falling nationwide crime rates and the largest immigration surge in recent history is the most intuitive proof that the vast majority of immigrants don't aspire to be drug cartel kingpins. But there is also growing empirical evidence for the notion that an individual's status as an unauthorized immigrant is "a stronger indicator of a dispropensity to violence than any other factor."
One study in Chicago found that first-generation immigrants - mostly
from Mexico - were 45 percent less likely to commit violence than
third-generation Americans. The study also found that "living in a
neighborhood of concentrated immigration was directly associated with lower violence (again, after taking into account a host of correlated factors, including poverty and an individual's immigrant status)."
As the author of the study, Harvard University Sociologist Robert
Sampson states, "immigrants appear in general to be less violent than
people born in America, particularly when they live in neighborhoods
with high numbers of other immigrants.... Cities of concentrated
immigration are some of the safest places around." Even in Arizona,
where complaints of immigration-related violence fueled the passage of
SB 1070, crime has actually gone down in recent years as immigration flows through the state increased.
Most social scientists claim that immigrants' low crime rate is due
to the predisposition of those unauthorized persons that choose to
enter the United States. As a general rule, they are particularly
ambitious, highly motivated to work, focused on saving money to send
home, and interested in not calling attention to themselves for fear of
deportation.
Getting in trouble with the law would not only jeopardize
immigrants' single-minded focus on working and saving in the United
States. It also would hurt migrants' parents, siblings, partners, and
children who depend on them for the remittances that keep many families
afloat in Mexico and Central America.
Bread for the World is a collective Christian voice urging our nation's decision makers to end hunger at home and abroad. By changing policies, programs and conditions that allow hunger and poverty to persist, we provide help and opportunity far beyond the communities in which we live.
LATEST NEWS
'Cruel and Unconstitutional': Trump, RFK Jr. Escalate War on Trans Youth With Threat Against US Hospitals
"These proposed actions would put Donald Trump and RFK Jr. in those doctor’s offices, ripping healthcare decisions from the hands of families," said one critic.
Dec 18, 2025
President Donald Trump and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Thursday unveiled new policies aimed at cutting transgender minors off from gender-affirming care.
As reported by the New York Times, Kennedy announced new proposed rules that would bar Medicare and Medicaid from sending any funds to hospitals that carry out gender-affirming care on transgender minors, a move that would essentially force these facilities to shut down given that spending from those two programs account for nearly half of all spending on hospital care.
Dr. Mehmet Oz, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, warned during a news conference announcing the proposed rules that hospitals are "going to pay a very steep price" if they continue providing gender-affirming care to minors.
Many hospitals throughout the US are already under financial strain while bracing for the impact of the Medicaid cuts in this year's Republican-passed budget law, which are projected to total $1 trillion over the next decade.
Dr. Susan Kressly, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), slammed Trump administration health officials for their "unprecedented actions and harmful rhetoric" while announcing the new proposed rules, which she described as a vast overreach by the federal government.
"These rules are a baseless intrusion into the patient-physician relationship," said Kressly. "Patients, their families, and their physician—not politicians or government officials—should be the ones to make decisions together about what care is best for them. The government’s actions today make that task harder, if not impossible, for families of gender-diverse and transgender youth."
Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, hammered the Trump administration for being "relentless in denying healthcare to this country, and especially the transgender community."
"Families deserve the freedom to go to the doctor and get the care that they need and to have agency over the health and well-being of their children," Robinson added. "But these proposed actions would put Donald Trump and RFK Jr. in those doctor’s offices, ripping healthcare decisions from the hands of families and putting it in the grips of the anti-LGBTQ+ fringe."
The ACLU wasted no time in announcing that it would sue the administration if it goes forward with enacting the proposed rules, which it described as an unconstitutional attack on healthcare practices that have been endorsed by both the the American Medical Association and the AAP.
Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Rights Project, accused the administration of launching "cruel and unconstitutional attacks on the rights of transgender youth and their families."
"By attempting to strip away essential healthcare, the administration is not 'protecting' anyone," Strangio added. "It is weaponizing the federal government to target a vulnerable population for political gain. Healthcare decisions belong to families and their doctors, not politicians. The latest proposals from the administration would force doctors to choose between their ethical obligations to their patients and the threat of losing federal funding."
Keep ReadingShow Less
FTC Opens Investigation Into Instacart Pricing After 'Bombshell Report'
Groundwork Collaborative revealed this month that artificial intelligence-enabled pricing experiments used by the shopping app have charged users up to 23% more than others for the same products.
Dec 18, 2025
The executive director of Groundwork Collaborative, the advocacy group behind a "bombshell report" that exposed Instacart's artificial intelligence-powered pricing schemes, welcomed the news that the federal government US opening an investigation into the business practice, and urged the Federal Trade Commission to follow the probe with concrete consumer protection actions.
The FTC told Gizmodo that "like so many Americans, we are disturbed by what we have read in the press about Instacart’s alleged pricing practices.”
Groundwork joined Consumer Reports and More Perfect Union in examining Instacart's practice, using the AI pricing software Eversight, of quoting different prices to different shoppers using the company's app, which allows people to order groceries and send a shopper to pick them up.
Some customers at a Safeway in Seattle were charged a price that was 23% higher than other shoppers for Skippy peanut butter, Oscar Mayer turkey, and Wheat Thins crackers. In Washington, DC, customers using the Insacart app saw eggs priced at $3.99, while others who logged on at the exact same time were charged $4.79 for the same brand at the same store.
Instacart has the ability to change prices based on data such as ZIP code or income, though the groups did not find it is currently using that information in its pricing experiments.
Groundwork noted that the scheme is taking place as American families are already struggling to afford groceries, electricity, healthcare, and other essentials.
“At a time when families are being squeezed by the highest grocery costs in a generation, Instacart chose to run AI experiments that are quietly driving prices higher," said Lindsay Owens, executive director of Groundwork. "While the FTC’s investigation is welcome news, it must be followed with meaningful action that ends these exploitative pricing schemes and protects consumers. Instacart must face consequences for their algorithmic price gouging, not just a slap on the wrist.”
In its report, the group called on the FTC to take action under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits “unfair methods of competition," or to bring enforcement cases or initiate rulemaking to officially classify AI-enabled pricing strategies as "unfair and deceptive" strategies.
The progressive think tank Roosevelt Institute applauded Groundwork and its partners for the "major investigation" that pushed the FTC to act.
Instacart's shares dropped by about 7% following the news of the FTC probe.
On Thursday, the agency announced that Instacart would pay $60 million in refunds to settle separate allegations that it falsely advertised "free delivery" while charging a service fee, falsely advertised a "100% satisfaction guarantee" that suggested it would offer full refunds, and failed to disclose terms regarding Instacart+ membership.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'No War With Venezuela,' Says Maine US Senate Candidate Graham Platner
"It should not be an option in our government to allow a failing presidency to just start a war because they feel like it's politically expedient," said the progressive running to unseat Republican Sen. Susan Collins.
Dec 18, 2025
The progressive running to unseat Republican US Sen. Susan Collins of Maine is speaking out forcefully against President Donald Trump's march to war with Venezuela, warning of alarming parallels with the invasion of Iraq over two decades ago.
In a video posted to social media on Wednesday night, Graham Platner—a Marine Corps and US Army veteran who served multiple combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan—said it is "terrifying" to witness the US government "yet again trying to lead us into an illegal war that is going to do absolutely nothing for the average American."
"What is happening in Venezuela should not fool you into thinking that we are under attack, that we are under threat from Venezuela," said Platner, who accused the increasingly unpopular Trump administration of falling back on the "most tried and true method of failing governments, which is to go start a war."
"This is why we need to claw back war powers from the executive branch," he added. "It should not be an option in our government to allow a failing presidency to just start a war because they feel like it's politically expedient. That shouldn't even be possible, and the only reason it is possible is that we have allowed it to become possible."
Watch:
Platner's remarks came a day after Trump, who has repeatedly threatened to launch military strikes inside Venezuela, announced a "total and complete" blockade on "sanctioned oil tankers" approaching and leaving the South American nation—a move that was widely condemned as an act of war.
"No war with Venezuela," Platner wrote on social media in response to the president's announcement, expressing a view shared by 63% of US voters, according to one new poll.
Platner's vocal condemnation of Trump's military aggression toward Venezuela and warnings about regime change contrast sharply with his electoral opponents' relative silence on the issue, which has drawn international alarm and outrage.
Maine Gov. Janet Mills, Platner's establishment-backed competition in the Senate primary, told Common Dreams in a statement that "Congress should be exercising its oversight and war powers authority" to constrain Trump. The comments appeared to be Mills' first public statement on the potential military conflict with Venezuela.
"Unsurprisingly, the president's objectives and strategy are unclear as he drives us closer to a costly and unnecessary war," Mills said, adding that, "unlike Susan Collins," she would have supported a recent war powers resolution that nearly every Republican senator voted to block last month.
Collins, according to the Associated Press, gave opponents of the war powers resolution "the decisive 50th vote to defeat it" when it came up for a vote on November 6.
If passed, the measure would have required Trump to "direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Venezuela that have not been authorized by Congress."
"The power to wage war constitutionally was given to the legislative branch to make sure that this exact kind of scenario did not happen."
Senate opponents of Trump's military aggression toward Venezuela directly and his ongoing, deadly strikes on boats in international waters are not giving up on efforts to rein in the lawless president.
Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), an Iraq War veteran who has warned Trump is on the verge of launching "Iraq War 2.0," introduced a resolution on Wednesday aimed at halting the president's campaign of extrajudicial executions in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific.
"The decision to use military force is one that requires serious debate, and the power to declare war unambiguously belongs to Congress under the Constitution,” said Gallego. “As an Iraq War veteran, I know the costs of rushing into an unnecessary war and that the American people will not stand for it.”
Platner echoed that sentiment in his video message on Wednesday.
"The power to wage war constitutionally was given to the legislative branch to make sure that this exact kind of scenario did not happen," said the US Senate candidate. "The only way that we can keep it from happening again is to make sure that the power to wage war returns to the representatives of the people."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


