"Go Back!": Examining the Relationship between Violent Crime in Sanctuary vs. Non-Sanctuary Jurisdictions in the U.S.
Abstract
National debates over immigration policy are being fueled by the more recent appearance of so-called "sanctuary cities" across the United States. Despite the "melting pot" perception, public opinions have driven law-makers, politicians and community leaders to endorse immigration policies that have no base in statistical fact, create social division, and are counterproductive. Lack of transparency from the federal government and previous research only dating back a couple of decades makes the debate uninformed and harmful to the foreign-born population. Within the convoluted classification of "sanctuary city", which includes counties, states, and other areas as well, there are varying rules and regulations, but all have policy in place nonetheless. The main issue is over public safety, which by collecting violent crime data statistics and metropolitan city data for testing will determine significance between sanctuary and regular cities, and how it is affected by the adoption of a sanctuary policy. Two separate categories are run in a Chi-Square Test for Independence to find if there is dependence between the city's policy type and the amount of violent crime that occurs there. Data is evaluated numerically and statistically for significance to find indicators of three safety levels and how two categories may differ.Understanding the cause, purpose, and effects of sanctuary cities will benefit immigration policy and improve conditions for the foreign-born population by debunking immigration myths perpetuated in the media. Ending the debate over safety concerns will center attention to larger immigration issues and prevent the continued disparity between policy and reality.
"Go Back!": Examining the Relationship between Violent Crime in Sanctuary vs. Non-Sanctuary Jurisdictions in the U.S.
National debates over immigration policy are being fueled by the more recent appearance of so-called "sanctuary cities" across the United States. Despite the "melting pot" perception, public opinions have driven law-makers, politicians and community leaders to endorse immigration policies that have no base in statistical fact, create social division, and are counterproductive. Lack of transparency from the federal government and previous research only dating back a couple of decades makes the debate uninformed and harmful to the foreign-born population. Within the convoluted classification of "sanctuary city", which includes counties, states, and other areas as well, there are varying rules and regulations, but all have policy in place nonetheless. The main issue is over public safety, which by collecting violent crime data statistics and metropolitan city data for testing will determine significance between sanctuary and regular cities, and how it is affected by the adoption of a sanctuary policy. Two separate categories are run in a Chi-Square Test for Independence to find if there is dependence between the city's policy type and the amount of violent crime that occurs there. Data is evaluated numerically and statistically for significance to find indicators of three safety levels and how two categories may differ.Understanding the cause, purpose, and effects of sanctuary cities will benefit immigration policy and improve conditions for the foreign-born population by debunking immigration myths perpetuated in the media. Ending the debate over safety concerns will center attention to larger immigration issues and prevent the continued disparity between policy and reality.