The folks at WND have highlighted a new study by researchers at the University of California-Riverside and Highline College in Des Moines, Wash. The researchers exposed their biases right from the beginning of the report when they explained why they were undertaking the study.
“Since undocumented immigrants face deportation in addition to criminal charges, it is logical that they would avoid breaking the law to a greater extent than the native born population,” they wrote. “We expect to see no statistically significant difference between sanctuary and non-sanctuary cities.”
In addition, their introductory comments on what they expected to find in the data included this statement: “We find it unlikely that sanctuary cities will have more crime – be it violent, property, or rape as claimed by some political candidates and opponents of sanctuary cities.”
However, what the researchers actually found was quite different.
From 2000 to 2014 the crime rate in so-called “Sanctuary Cities” was actually higher than in other cities, and over that period of time the disparity actually grew worse!
The researchers examined 54 cities in 19 states, plus the District of Columbia – cities listed by the National Immigration Law Center that implemented sanctuary ordinances post-9/11, during or after 2002. Using city-level crime data compiled by the FBI, they assessed crime rates at the city level immediately following the implementation of a sanctuary policy.
They then matched each sanctuary city to a similarly situated non-sanctuary city – based on relevant census and political variables, creating a scenario where the two cities are as similar as possible with the exception of the sanctuary policy.
Oddly, when it came time to summarize their findings the researchers decided to claim that while the evidence did not support their initial hypothesis it actually showed that the sanctuary policies actually had little impact on the crime rates!
“Taken together, the average change in crime is not statistically significant,” they wrote…
Sanctuary policies are typically designed to increase trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement, they noted. “Thus, crime reporting – but not necessarily crime itself – might actually increase in these locations if undocumented immigrants are more likely to work with police and local authorities. Taken together, these explanations may explain what we observe in these data: a sanctuary city designation does not produce a significantly higher crime rate.”
Sadly, this conclusion proves that the researchers never intended to conduct a truly scientific “study,” because the conclusion is false on its face and the data clearly shows that Sanctuary cities have significantly higher crime rates than non-sanctuary cities. Joseph Farrah of WND explains how the researchers could have the data and still come to the wrong conclusion.
Like a mantra, officials of sanctuary cities have insisted that their policies are intended to foster more cooperation between local law enforcement agencies and illegal aliens. Yet, there is no evidence of such cooperation or the expected results.
No data have ever been collected to suggest illegal immigrants are offering such cooperation in preventing crime in these jurisdictions. Concurrently, there is no study, scientific or anecdotal, to suggest illegal immigrants cooperate in fighting crime in these jurisdictions. At the same time, data show criminal aliens being released by sanctuary jurisdictions commit more crimes when they get out than do non-aliens…
Apparently, the best the researchers could do was to minimize the consistent and significant differences between crime rates in sanctuary cities and non-sanctuary cities in their conclusions.
There’s a reason, though, that this study has not been widely used by proponents of sanctuary cities as the evidence they’ve been hoping to see. While the data collection methodology is sound, the conclusions ignore what the data actually show.
Will sanctuary city activists come to their senses by looking at the facts? Not likely. Sanctuary city policies have nothing to do with the quality of life in their jurisdictions. They have to do with an ideology unaffected by rational thought and facts on the ground. They have to do with the politics of government power over a permanent and growing underclass in America’s cities.