http://ccj.sagepub.com/ Justice Journal of Contemporary Criminal http://ccj.sagepub.com/content/27/3/278 The online version of this article can be found at: DOI: 10.1177/1043986211412560 2011 27: 278Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice Michele Stacey, Kristin Carbone-López and Richard Rosenfeld Immigration on Anti-Hispanic Hate Crime in the United States Demographic Change and Ethnically Motivated Crime: The Impact of Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com can be found at:Journal of Contemporary Criminal JusticeAdditional services and information for http://ccj.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts: http://ccj.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions: http://ccj.sagepub.com/content/27/3/278.refs.htmlCitations: What is This? - Jul 19, 2011Version of Record >> at SEIR on January 16, 2012ccj.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://ccj.sagepub.com/ http://ccj.sagepub.com/content/27/3/278 http://www.sagepublications.com http://ccj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts http://ccj.sagepub.com/subscriptions http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav http://ccj.sagepub.com/content/27/3/278.refs.html http://ccj.sagepub.com/content/27/3/278.full.pdf http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml http://ccj.sagepub.com/ CCJ412560CCJ27310.1177/1043986211412560Stacey et al.Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 1Virginia Union University, Richmond, VA, USA 2University of Missouri, St. Louis, MO, USA Corresponding Author: Kristin Carbone-López, Assistant Professor, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Missouri, St. Louis, 324 Lucas Hall, One University Boulevard, St. Louis, MO 63121, USA Email: carbonelopezk@umsl.edu Demographic Change and Ethnically Motivated Crime: The Impact of Immigration on Anti- Hispanic Hate Crime in the United States Michele Stacey1, Kristin Carbone-López2, and Richard Rosenfeld2 Abstract In recent years, Hispanic immigration to the United States has become a politically charged public issue, with significant consequences for immigration policies, communities, individual immigrants, and the U.S. residents who resemble them in language, customs, and appearance. We examine one possible collateral consequence of the fear and tension surrounding recent immigration trends, anti-Hispanic hate crime. Drawing on traditional theories of intergroup conflict—and particularly minority threat theory—we hypothesize that recent changes in Hispanic immigration are positively related to hate crimes targeting Hispanics. We find support for this hypothesis in a multivariate state-level panel analysis of anti-Hispanic hate crime from 2000 to 2004. Other predictions, however, are not supported. We conclude that the impact of immigration patterns on hate crime is an important area for continued criminological inquiry and that the notion of cultural threat should receive greater attention as studies of intergroup conflict move beyond the Black–White dichotomy. Keywords hate crime, immigration, Hispanics, social threat Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 27(3) 278 –298 © 2011 SAGE Publications Reprints and permission: http://www. sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1043986211412560 http://ccj.sagepub.com Article at SEIR on January 16, 2012ccj.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://ccj.sagepub.com/ Stacey et al. 279 Immigration patterns to the United States have changed considerably over the past century. While the beginning of the 20th century saw an influx of immigrants largely from European countries, by 2007 80% of the U.S. foreign-born population hailed from Latin American or Asian countries (Grieco, 2009). Recent changes in the ethnic com- position of immigrant populations coincide with increased public and political concern over U.S. immigration policy (particularly after the World Trade Center attacks of 2001) and have resulted in political lobbying for increased security and funding to build up border-control mechanisms. Immigration legislation and policy increasingly focus on the criminalization and deportation of undocumented individuals, and local and state law enforcement agencies have begun to vigorously enforce federal immi- gration laws and in some cases supersede them. For example, recent state legislation, such as the passage of Senate Bill 1070 in Arizona in 2010, aims to control illegal immigra- tion through stepped up enforcement of documentation requirements. Policies such as these are born out of and perpetuate an immigrant-as-threat narra- tive (Ibrahim, 2005) wherein immigrants are portrayed as threatening national security (through their supposed links to terrorist organizations), economic security (by “taking” jobs away from natural-born citizens), and cultural security (by bringing with them dif- ferent languages, customs, and religions). The extent to which these threat narratives have filtered down to relationships between individuals, however, is not certain. Immigration and the resultant anti-immigrant sentiment may contribute to increased intolerance of immigrants and even, in some instances, to crimes against them. Recent reports from civil rights advocacy groups, drawing on Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) data, as well as a handful of highly publicized cases of violent attacks on Hispanic immi- grants, provide initial anecdotal evidence of violent—even lethal—hostility directed toward immigrants (Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund [LCCREF], 2009; Southern Poverty Law Center [SPLC], 2008). In this article, we begin to empirically examine the question of whether population shifts and changes in immigration patterns are associated with ethnically motivated hate crime. Specifically, we ask, “To what extent is anti-Hispanic hate crime related to patterns of Hispanic immigration to the United States?” While research on hate crimes has increased substantially in the past decade, much of the focus has been on crimes against racial or sexual minorities. Less attention has been paid to the role of ethnicity, specifically with regard to Hispanics, who are often perceived to be foreigners in spite of their long history in the United States. Because crimes against immigrant groups are not considered to be “hate crimes”—immigrants are not a protected category in hate crime law—we focus on hate crimes against Hispanics, who are often assumed to be immigrants, and hypothesize that they may be targeted in response to fear over chang- ing immigration trends. Using the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and Census data, we build on the existing knowledge base regarding bias moti- vated or hate crimes in a number of important ways. First, we examine the role of recent Hispanic-specific immigration to the United States as opposed to a more gener- alized immigration indicator or Census data on the percentage of the population that is at SEIR on January 16, 2012ccj.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://ccj.sagepub.com/ 280 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 27(3) “foreign-born.” Recent immigration trends have fundamentally changed the ethnic composition of the United States; Hispanics now represent the largest ethnic minority group at more than 15% of the total U.S. population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009). The extent to which these population shifts—and the corresponding group conflict they engender—are related to the victimization experiences of group members, however, is unclear and our research begins to address such issues. Finally, while much hate crime research is confined to a particular geographic location, we examine state variation in the number of anti-Hispanic hate crimes using a population-averaged model to account for changes within and between states over time. Demographic Shifts: Changes in Hispanic Immigration to the United States and the Impact on Public Perceptions Changes in legislation, and particularly the abolition of national origins quotas through amendments to the Immigration Act of 1965, transformed the face of immigration in the United States by the end of the 20th century (Rumbaut, 1994). Historically, the majority of immigrants to the United States were from Europe, but most of the immi- grants arriving after 1970 were from countries in Latin America and Asia (Hirschman & Massey, 2009). By 2007, there were more than 38 million foreign-born persons in the United States, and more than 53% of the foreign-born came from Latin American countries. Immigration from Central America, including Mexico, accounts for more than two thirds of the foreign-born from Latin American countries and more than one third of the total foreign-born population (Grieco, 2009). Thus, in the past four decades, Hispanic immigration has been a major force in changing the ethnic composition of the U.S. population. At the same time, research on Hispanic immigration to the United States suggests that migration patterns have changed considerably over the past four decades. Settlement patterns have become more diverse and have been redirected in recent years away from the traditional resettlement or “gateway states” such as California, Texas, Florida, New York, and New Jersey where, until the 1990s, nearly three quarters of all immigrants settled (e.g., Schmidley, 2001). Newly arrived Hispanic immigrants began to settle not just in large cities along the coasts but also in small towns and in areas within the interior of the country that historically experienced very low immigration rates (Massey & Capoferro, 2009). The “virtual absence” of Hispanic immigrants in such regions prior to the 1990s means that even small increases in absolute numbers of new immigrants translate into huge relative growth in immigrant communities in these new destinations (Massey & Capoferro, 2009). What, then, are the consequences of Hispanic immigration for these new reception areas? An influx of immigrants changes the population structure of communities, transforms the ethnic makeup of social classes, and may also change local politics. The increased presence of Hispanics—and particularly Mexicans—means that certain at SEIR on January 16, 2012ccj.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://ccj.sagepub.com/ Stacey et al. 281 music and foods become more common and Spanish may be heard in public spaces. The arrival of these newcomers may also create new interethnic and linguistic tensions as suddenly communities grapple with questions of ethnic diversity and assimilation and with concerns over the availability and necessity of Spanish resources and educa- tion for residents (Cornelius, 2002; Hernández-León & Zúñiga, 2003). Increasing fears of the social, economic, cultural, and political impact of these newcomers—which some refer to as the “new nativism”—are fueled by the growing presence of immigrants in nongateway areas as well as the concentration of new immigrants in just a few states. Evidence from recent ethnographic studies suggests that the new nativism has found fertile ground in communities within these destination areas as newly arrived immigrants face anti-immigrant sentiment and struggle for acceptance (e.g., Montero- Sieburth & Meléndez, 2007). This ambivalent reception stems in part from concerns that crime rates rise as a result of the influx of immigrants. The public perception, often sustained by the media, is that immigrants, particularly those who are undocumented, are in large part respon- sible for crime rate increases (Rumbaut & Ewing, 2007). Yet, although it is true that immigrants struggle with acculturation and assimilation processes and often settle into communities that have structural characteristics (e.g., ethnic heterogeneity and increased rates of poverty) that are associated with crime (Martinez & Lee, 2000), there is little systematic evidence that immigrants themselves are more likely to be involved in criminal activity than U.S.-born individuals (e.g., Lee, Martinez, & Rosenfeld, 2001; Morenoff, Sampson, & Raudenbush, 2001). Indeed, research largely suggests the opposite conclusion, with recent studies finding that the reductions in violent crime in the United States in recent years are at least partly attributable to increasing immigra- tion rates (e.g., Stowell, Messner, McGeever, & Raffolovich, 2009). Studies of the relationship between immigration and crime commission, however, are not paralleled by research on the victimization experiences of immigrants. This may be due to insufficient information; it is impossible to determine immigration status using existing data sources such as the UCR and the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) and so it is unclear to what extent immigrants may be particularly vulnerable to victimization. While in recent years more attention has been paid to those crimes to which immigrants may be particularly vulnerable, including human smug- gling and labor exploitation, less attention has been paid to hate crimes against immi- grants.1 A potential collateral consequence of anti-immigrant sentiment—and one that has not been examined in any systematic fashion—may be that immigrants are targeted in racially or ethnically motivated crime, in other words, because of who they are. Importantly, anti-immigrant sentiment fueled by changing patterns of immigration also may put nonimmigrant Hispanics at risk of being victimized by hate crime. The fear surrounding immigration and its impact on communities is not necessarily focused solely on foreignness but also contains a strong racial and ethnic component. The fur- ther scrutiny triggered by foreignness presents a special problem for Hispanics (Chang & Aoki, 1997). Akin to racial profiling, the assumption exists that all Hispanics are immigrants (Perea, 1997). Therefore, the ambivalent reception and fear of immigrants at SEIR on January 16, 2012ccj.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://ccj.sagepub.com/ 282 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 27(3) likely affect Hispanics generally, even those who are U.S.-born. In sum, then, immigrants or individuals who are perceived to be immigrants (because of their skin color, their occupation, or their language) may be targeted by crime. Interethnic Relations and Mechanisms of Informal Social Control A prominent theory of intergroup relations is Blalock’s (1967) thesis on minority threat. Blalock argues that minority groups pose a threat to the majority group in times or situations of limited resources. As minority populations grow, and as minority members increasingly compete with majority members for scarce economic and political capital, group conflict may increase and strengthen incentives for the majority group to dis- criminate against members of the minority group, by both formal and informal means. When economic opportunities are scarce, a growing minority group competes with the established majority for jobs and income. Economic competition may breed animosity between the groups, which can manifest itself in many ways. Likewise, minority and majority groups compete for political power, presumed to be in limited supply. As minority groups grow in size, they gain access to greater political capital; as a conse- quence, majority groups may feel their own political strength is weakened, increasing animosity and possibly resulting in further conflict between the minority and majority groups. Empirical tests generally suggest that minority threat—an increasing minority population—is positively related to formal mechanisms of social control against minor- ity group members, in particular, control by the criminal justice system including arrest and prosecution (e.g., Eitle, D’Alessio, & Stolzenberg, 2002). While laws may act as instruments by which dominant groups “maintain power and exercise control over ‘threatening’ populations” (King, 2007, p. 195), there are alter- native ways by which control can be exercised. Indeed, scholars have recently noted that hate crimes can be conceptualized as a means of informal social control against minority group members (King, Messner, & Baller, 2009). From this perspective, such crimes are not merely crimes against individual victims but also serve as an effective (though illegal) means of controlling entire groups of persons through intimidation, fear, and even violence (King et al., 2009; Perry, 2001). In this manner, hate crimes serve both a symbolic and instrumental function (Craig, 2002). The redistribution of immi- grants into new destinations—and resulting concerns over the social, economic, cul- tural, and political impact of these new arrivals—may translate into increased intergroup animosity and conflict and, perhaps, to hate crime as a means of informal social control against members of the minority. Demographic Change and Hate Crime: What Do We Know? Over the past decade, hate crime research has focused increasingly on the social and ecological context in which hate crime occurs. Focusing on neighborhoods, prior at SEIR on January 16, 2012ccj.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://ccj.sagepub.com/ Stacey et al. 283 studies have found a relationship between demographic change and hate crime rates. Specifically, an influx of minority group members is related to increases in racially motivated hate crime. For example, Green, Strolovitch, and Wong, (1998b) found that crimes directed against racial and ethnic minorities in New York City were highest in predominantly White neighborhoods, particularly those that had experienced recent in-migration of minority groups. Likewise, Grattet (2009) found that changes in the minority population result in increased hate crime of all types in predominantly White neighborhoods in Sacramento, but decreases in hate crime against Blacks in pre- dominantly non-White neighborhoods. Such findings provide increasing support that demographic changes explain at least some of the variation in hate crimes across neighborhoods. Macroeconomic conditions and the “threat” posed by immigrants taking employ- ment opportunities from native-born citizens may also engender increased hostility toward those immigrants. Thus, an alternative explanation for the link between demo- graphic change and hate crime explored in prior research is that hate crimes directed at minority groups are related to economic conditions in the neighborhood. Research on the relationship between economic conditions and racially motivated hate crime provides mixed results. Lyons (2007) found that racially motivated hate crime was more prevalent in the more affluent neighborhoods in Chicago. However, Green, Glaser, and Rich (1998a) found that changes in economic conditions in New York, specifi- cally the unemployment rate, were not significantly related to monthly counts of hate crime incidents in the city. Although revealing, these studies focus on a single community and are unable to provide insight regarding the broader impact of demographic change on hate crime. Given the recent political attention to immigration in the United States, and particu- larly the focus on Hispanics, an important research task is to determine whether an association exists between immigration trends and hate crime victimization experi- ences of Hispanics. Scholars have reinvigorated research on the relationship between immigration and criminality, but less attention has been paid to the hate crime victim- ization experiences of immigrants and, particularly, of Hispanics. To address this gap in the literature, we draw on the minority threat perspective, typically used to describe Black–White relations, to examine the relationship between the Hispanic immigration rate and hate crimes directed against Hispanics in U.S. states. Research Hypotheses Given recent demographic shifts in immigrant populations and the sometimes inhos- pitable reception of new Hispanic immigrants, we hypothesize that Hispanic immigra- tion has a positive effect on anti-Hispanic hate crime.2 Specifically, taking into account recent formulations of the minority threat framework (e.g., King & Wheelock, 2007), we predict that hate crimes against Hispanics will be elevated when and where Hispanic immigration has grown. We also expect, in line with the traditional minority threat framework (Quillian, 1995), that the relative size of the Hispanic population in at SEIR on January 16, 2012ccj.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://ccj.sagepub.com/ 284 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 27(3) a state should be positively related to anti-Hispanic hate crime. But the threat frame- work also predicts that minority group size may have a nonlinear effect on social control. When the minority grows large enough to exert significant political power, it may be able to limit the majority group’s social control efforts. We test for such non- linear effects in our analysis. Finally, the minority threat thesis predicts that social control of minority groups should be related to their economic status relative to the majority group. To test this hypothesis, we examine the effect of the ratio of White to Hispanic unemployment on anti-Hispanic hate crime as well as the effect of general economic conditions on hate crime. In addition, we test for the presence of mediating and moderating effects of the White–Hispanic unemployment ratio and general economic conditions on the effect of Hispanic immigration and group size on hate crime, as explained below. Data and Method Data for the current study are drawn from five sources. The hate crime data come from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports (UCR). The UCR is released annually and includes all criminal incidents, including hate crimes, reported to police for the previ- ous year. Data from the UCR’s Hate Crime Program for the years 2000-2004 are used in the current study. State characteristics, including population and unemployment rates, are drawn from the 2000 Decennial Census and the 2002-2004 American Community Survey (ACS); data for 2001 were interpolated from the two sources. The ACS is based on a sample of housing units in the United States and Puerto Rico and provides data on the majority of geographic areas with populations of 65,000 or more. In addition, a measure of overall economic growth is drawn from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). Finally, additional measures are drawn from the 2000 to 2004 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics produced by the Office of Immigration Statistics within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This source provides estimates of the amount of legal immigration each year.3 Given our emphasis on recent immigration patterns during a period of heightened concern and tension regarding Hispanic immigrants, our analysis is limited to state immigration patterns from 2000 to 2004. Missing immigration data preclude the use of data prior to 2000. Although 5 years is a fairly short time span for assessing trends, it is suitable for analytic purposes because both Hispanic immigration and anti-Hispanic hate crimes exhibited marked year-to-year variability during this period (see Figures 1 and 2). States are a particularly salient unit of analysis for the examination of hate crime because hate crime policies (and, increasingly, policies related to immigration) are formulated at the state level. Data sparseness on the hate crime measure (see below) would make comparative analysis at the city or county level unreliable. Moreover, relevant immigration data (i.e., by country of origin) are not publicly available at lower levels of aggregation. Because states are highly heterogeneous units, we control for many state structural characteristics in our analysis that may be related to immigration or reflect differences in how states define and handle hate crime. at SEIR on January 16, 2012ccj.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://ccj.sagepub.com/ Stacey et al. 285 –2 1.5 –1 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2000 Hispanic Hate Crime Rate per 100,000 Immigration Rate per 100,000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Z -S c o re Figure 1. Hispanic hate crime rate by Hispanic immigration rate Dependent Variable The dependent variable in our analysis is the number of anti-Hispanic hate crimes known to the police in U. S. states and the District of Columbia between 2000 and 2004 (Hate crime count). The FBI defines hate crime as “criminal offenses that are motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity/national origin, or disability and are committed against persons, property, or society” (FBI, 2004). An offense qualifies as a hate crime if, after careful investigation, there is “sufficient evidence to lead a reasonable and prudent person to conclude that the offender’s actions were motivated . . . by his or her bias” (FBI, 2004). On average, 9.9 anti-Hispanic hate crimes were recorded annually by the police in each state between 2000 and 2004, with a range from 0 to 206. Of these, approxi- mately 56% were personal crimes, with intimidation representing the majority of those offenses, closely followed by simple assaults and then aggravated assaults. The remain- ing 44% were property crimes, primarily acts of vandalism. Because of low counts in many states, we combine personal and property offenses in our analysis. Independent Variables and Controls The primary independent variable of interest is a measure of Hispanic immigration taken from the Yearbook of Immigration Statistics each year from 2000 to 2004. This at SEIR on January 16, 2012ccj.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://ccj.sagepub.com/ 286 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 27(3) –2 –1.5 –1 –0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 –2 –1.5 –1 –0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 Z -S c o re California Hispanic HC Rate Hispanic Immigration Rate Hispanic HC Rate Hispanic Immigration Rate Hispanic HC Rate Hispanic Immigration Rate Hispanic HC Rate Hispanic Immigration Rate Z -S c o re Texas –1.5 –1 –0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Z -S c o re Idaho –2 –1.5 –1 –0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 Z -S c o re Illinois 2000 2000 2000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2001 2002 2003 2004 2001 2002 2003 2004 2001 2002 2003 2004 Figure 2. Hispanic hate crime rate by Hispanic immigration rate for four states measure indicates the number of legal immigrants entering each state who originate from one of four countries of Hispanic origin (Mexico, the Dominican Republic, Cuba, and El Salvador).4 We divide this number by the number of foreign-born Hispanics in each state, and multiply by 100,000, to create the Hispanic immigration rate. This measure indicates the level and rate of growth in the Hispanic immigrant popu- lation between 2000 and 2004. To correct for skewness, we transformed the Hispanic immigration rate to its natural log. at SEIR on January 16, 2012ccj.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://ccj.sagepub.com/ Stacey et al. 287 The traditional indicator of minority group threat in prior research has been the relative size of the minority population. Therefore, the analysis also incorporates the percentage of the state population that is Hispanic (% Hispanic). The Hispanic immi- gration rate and the relative size of the Hispanic population may have independent effects on hate crime. Moreover, the two measures are not necessarily related and may trend in opposite directions, especially in “new destination” states with small Hispanic populations. For example, in 2004 Maine’s Hispanic population was less than 1% of the total population, and the Hispanic proportion of Maine’s population grew by 13% over the previous year. During the same period, however, the Hispanic immigration rate plunged by 83% from 4,755 immigrants per 100,000 foreign-born to 827 per 100,000 foreign-born. As indicated, the minority threat thesis predicts that the relationship between the social control of minority groups and their relative size may be curvilinear. To test for possible nonlinear effects of Hispanic immigration and group size on hate crime, we include squared terms for these measures in our analysis. We include as an indicator of economic threat the ratio of the non-Hispanic White unemployment rate to the Hispanic unemployment rate (W/H unemployment). According to the minority threat argument, economic threat may mediate or moderate the relation- ship between group size and social control. That is, increases in Hispanic immigration or group size may result in greater White unemployment relative to Hispanic unemploy- ment, which in turn may trigger more hate crime against Hispanics (mediation effect). Or, in states where the ratio of White to Hispanic unemployment is greater, the associa- tion between hate crime and immigration or group size may be strengthened (moderation effect). Finally, the White–Hispanic unemployment ratio may have an additive effect on hate crime. We examine each of these possibilities in our analysis. We also control for overall economic conditions in the state, reasoning that hate crimes against Hispanic immigrants (or those so perceived) may be elevated where general economic conditions are poor or deteriorating. We include Gross State Product per capita in chained dollars from the Bureau of Economic Analysis as a measure of state economic output and growth (Per capita GDP). We examine the additive effect of this measure on anti-Hispanic hate crimes and also the extent to which it may condi- tion the relationship between hate crime and Hispanic immigration or group size. As a measure of the size of the potential offending population, we include from the Census and ACS the percentage of the state population consisting of White males between the ages of 15 and 29 (% young White males). Because Hispanics are more heavily concentrated in the West than other regions, we include a binomial measure indicating whether a state is located in the West. A major source of heterogeneity among U. S. states is the extent to which they are urbanized. We therefore control for the percentage of the state population that resides in cities with populations of 100,000 or more (Urbanization). Additional sources of heterogeneity across the states are cap- tured by the state effects included in the models. Finally, we incorporate dummy indi- cators for Year to control for time-varying omitted variables that have common effects across the states. at SEIR on January 16, 2012ccj.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://ccj.sagepub.com/ 288 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 27(3) To ensure we are not simply picking up differences in the likelihood of police agen- cies and/or states reporting hate crimes to the UCR (i.e., adherence to the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990 that mandated data collection), two correlates of reporting are included, both taken from the UCR’s Hate Crime Reporting Program. The participa- tion of law enforcement agencies in the UCR’s Hate Crime Reporting Program has grown over time but was far from complete during the period under study. We there- fore control for the percentage of the state population covered by the agencies report- ing to the Hate Crime Reporting Program (% population covered). Many agencies report zero hate crimes against Hispanics in their jurisdictions, which may be accurate, especially in places with very small Hispanic populations, or may indicate a lack of fidelity with the Hate Crime Reporting Program and therefore constitute a source of measurement error. We therefore control for the percentage of agencies reporting non- zero hate crime counts (% nonzeros). Analytic Strategy To assess changes in anti-Hispanic hate crime over time, we use a generalized esti- mating equation with a first-order autoregressive correlation structure, log link func- tion, and negative binomial family of distributions. This approach allows us to estimate a population averaged negative binomial regression model for panel data while correcting for autocorrelation in the errors and overdispersion in the state hate crime counts, both of which are present in the data. Given the sparseness of anti- Hispanic hate crimes in many states, our dependent measure is the absolute frequency of anti-Hispanic hate crimes for each state-year. The logged Hispanic population size is included in the model as the indicator of exposure, with the coefficient constrained to 1. The population averaged model assesses average within-state change in the num- ber of anti-Hispanic hate crimes from one year to the next as a function of variation in the predictors. The model incorporates both the within and between unit variation in the covariance matrix. The outcome for this model is the mean response over time across all states. In other words, the coefficients for these models are interpreted as population averaged or marginal effects. Results Table 1 provides descriptive statistics for the variables included in the analysis. The distributions are presented for all states and by region given the uneven regional dis- tribution of the U.S. Hispanic population. On average, states reported approximately 10 anti-Hispanic crimes each year between 2000 and 2004, but this varies consider- ably by region, with nearly twice as many hate crimes against Hispanics reported in the West as in the Northeast and four times as many as in the Midwest and South. Hispanic immigration, on the other hand, appears to be more evenly distributed across regions, with an average overall Hispanic immigration rate of 1,464 per 100,000 Hispanic foreign-born (not shown). On average, Hispanics constituted about 8% of at SEIR on January 16, 2012ccj.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://ccj.sagepub.com/ 289 T a b le 1 . D es cr ip ti ve S ta ti st ic s fo r V ar ia bl es in t he A na ly si s O ve ra ll W es t So ut h M id w es t N o rt he as t V ar ia bl e M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD H at e cr im e co un t 9 .9 45 21 .1 19 19 .9 69 43 .2 75 4 .5 06 8 .3 87 5 .5 17 6 .4 14 11 .6 44 14 .4 73 H is pa ni c im m ig ra ti o n (l n) 7 .2 89 0 .5 43 7 .4 04 0 .4 32 7 .1 16 0 .6 13 7 .4 33 0 .5 36 7 .2 56 0 .4 74 % H is pa ni c 8 .2 68 9 .1 48 15 .2 60 12 .1 79 6 .4 36 7 .9 53 4 .2 12 3 .2 21 7 .0 39 5 .4 74 W /H u ne m pl o ym en t 0 .7 21 0 .3 04 0 .6 80 0 .2 44 0 .7 73 0 .3 02 0 .6 92 0 .3 45 0 .7 24 0 .3 25 P e r ca pi ta G D P 35 ,0 46 12 ,1 04 33 ,7 28 5 ,1 73 36 ,1 53 19 ,7 62 33 ,2 54 2 ,5 87 37 ,2 48 3 ,1 63 % y o un g W hi te m al es 9 .5 29 0 .9 95 9 .8 31 1 .2 95 9 .4 68 0 .8 72 9 .9 71 0 .4 66 8 .6 18 0 .5 25 W es t 0 .2 55 0 .4 37 U rb an iz at io n 21 .5 36 19 .0 61 30 .1 37 20 .8 02 20 .3 71 23 .0 43 19 .0 46 9 .0 24 14 .6 34 13 .2 64 % p o pu la ti o n co ve re d 81 .3 97 28 .3 35 79 .3 33 30 .7 36 78 .9 49 34 .0 82 78 .6 44 23 .1 86 92 .6 70 12 .8 06 % n o nz er o s 21 .4 40 23 .9 43 24 .9 47 26 .1 47 17 .4 42 23 .5 60 21 .3 01 25 .9 88 24 .1 12 17 .1 28 N o te : L n = n at ur al lo g at SEIR on January 16, 2012ccj.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://ccj.sagepub.com/ 290 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 27(3) state populations during the period, with a strong concentration of Hispanics in west- ern states. The average White-to-Hispanic unemployment ratio was 0.721. The UCR’s Hate Crime Reporting Program covered about 81% of state populations, with somewhat higher coverage in the Northeast than other regions. Finally, about 21% of the reporting agencies reported nonzero anti-Hispanic hate crime counts, which underscores the importance of controlling for nonzero hate-crime counts in the multi- variate analysis. Figure 1, introduced earlier, presents the relationship between the average state trend in the anti-Hispanic hate crime rate and the Hispanic immigration rate between 2000 and 2004. To place them on the same scale, the two series have been expressed in units of standard deviation from their respective means. After rising through 2002, the Hispanic immigration rate dropped in 2003 and then rose in 2004. The hate crime rate fell through 2003 and also rose in 2004. Although suggestive, the nationally aggre- gated data conceal variation across the states in both trends. Figure 2 illustrates these state differences by comparing the hate crime and immigration trends (in stan- dard scores) in two traditional Hispanic immigrant “gateway” states (California and Texas) and two states with low rates of Hispanic immigration during the observation period (Illinois and Idaho). In each case, we observe a rough correspondence between the fluctuations in the hate crime and immigration trends. However, the question remains whether a significant relationship exists between Hispanic immigration and hate crime controlling for other state characteristics. The results of the multivariate analysis are shown in Table 2. Model 1 presents the effects of each of the predictors on anti-Hispanic hate crimes, excluding moderating and nonlinear effects. In this model, the effect of Hispanic immigration is significant and positive, consistent with the minority threat thesis. By contrast, the relative size of the Hispanic population is inversely related to anti-Hispanic hate crime, whereas minority threat theory would predict a positive effect of minority group size on hate crime. The ratio of White-to-Hispanic unemployment, the measure of economic threat, does not have a significant effect on anti-Hispanic hate crime, nor does per capita GDP, the measure of overall state economic conditions. Neither measure, therefore, mediates the relationship between hate crime and either Hispanic immigration or group size. Anti-Hispanic hate crime is not significantly related to the size of the young White male population or to the degree of urbanization in the state, but hate crime targeting Hispanics is more prevalent in western than nonwestern states. Finally, both of the reporting controls are significant and positive, suggesting as would be expected that states with a greater level of participation in the Hate Crime Reporting Program and fewer law enforcement agencies reporting zero hate-crime counts have more reported hate crime. Model 2 of Table 2 incorporates squared terms for the Hispanic immigration rate and the Hispanic percentage of the state population. In neither case do we observe a signifi- cant effect, suggesting that these measures do not have nonlinear effects on anti-Hispanic hate crime. Model 3 adds interaction terms for the immigration and group size variables and the measures of economic threat and overall state economic conditions, respectively. at SEIR on January 16, 2012ccj.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://ccj.sagepub.com/ Stacey et al. 291 Table 2. Regression Analysis of Anti-Hispanic Hate Crimes on Predictors, 2000-2004 (Robust SE) Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Coefficient SE Coefficient SE Coefficient SE Intercept −15.541** 1.128 −14.430* 7.346 −14.464 7.588 Hispanic immigration (ln) 0.366** 0.127 0.118 1.935 0.110 2.008 Hispanic immigration (ln)2 — — 0.015 0.130 0.012 0.134 % Hispanic −0.066** 0.009 −0.112** 0.038 −0.119** 0.040 % Hispanic2 — — 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 W/H unemployment 0.568 0.441 0.571 0.460 0.569 0.456 W/H unemployment × Immigration — — — — 0.003 0.028 W/H unemployment × % Hispanic — — — — −0.000 0.001 Per capita GDP −0.000 0.000 −0.000 0.000 −0.000 0.000 GDP × Immigration — — — — −0.000 0.000 GDP × % Hispanic — — — — −0.000 0.000 % young White males 0.040 0.062 0.029 0.062 0.047 0.074 West 0.457* 0.193 0.537* 0.212 0.539* 0.214 Urbanization −0.001 0.007 0.001 0.008 0.002 0.008 % population covered 0.026** 0.003 0.027** 0.003 0.027** 0.003 % nonzeros 0.016** 0.004 0.018** 0.004 0.018** 0.004 Exposure: Hispanic population — — — — — — Wald chi-square 265.19 236.91 353.35 Obs 255 255 255 Grps 51 51 51 Note: Year effects not shown. Obs = observations; grps = groups *p < .05. **p < .01. The interaction terms are introduced to determine whether the effects of Hispanic immi- gration and group size on anti-Hispanic hate crime are moderated by the economic indi- cators. The results reveal no support for the moderating hypotheses. at SEIR on January 16, 2012ccj.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://ccj.sagepub.com/ 292 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 27(3) Robustness of Results Consistent with expectations, we observe higher levels of anti-Hispanic hate crime in periods and places with higher levels of Hispanic immigration. Yet, contrary to expec- tations, we find less hate crime against Hispanics when and where Hispanics consti- tute a larger fraction of the population. To test the robustness of these results against reasonable modifications in the data and model specification, we conducted a number of sensitivity analyses. We first restricted the sample to those state-years with at least one anti-Hispanic hate crime. This resulted in 152 observations across 31 states. The immigration measure remains positive and significant and the group size measure remains negative and significant, and neither has a nonlinear effect on hate crime, when estimated on the restricted data. In addition, the White-to-Hispanic unemploy- ment ratio becomes significant (p < .05) in this model but, contrary to expectations based on the minority threat framework, its effect on hate crime is negative. In other words, anti-Hispanic hate crime is reduced as White unemployment grows in relation to Hispanic unemployment. Second, we reestimated Model 1 of Table 2 after dropping the nonsignificant predic- tors from the equation. This produced no change in the results for the immigration and group size measures. Third, it is possible that the level of economic deprivation in a state has greater relevance for hate crime than the measure of general economic condi- tions used in the analysis. We therefore substituted the state poverty rate for per capita GDP in our models. The poverty rate does not have a significant additive effect on hate crime nor does it moderate the effects of Hispanic immigration or group size. Finally, prior research reveals important similarities in patterns of hate crime and aggravated assaults not associated with a hate or bias motive (Messner, McHugh, & Felson, 2004). The majority of hate crimes against Hispanics are interpersonal while overall crime pat- terns (such as the index crime rate) tend to be heavily influenced by larceny offenses that rarely carry a bias motivation. This raises the possibility that our measure of hate crime may be confounded to some degree with state trends in interpersonal violence such as aggravated assault. We therefore controlled for the UCR rate of aggravated assaults per 100,000 state residents in our models. The aggravated assault rate is consis- tently nonsignificant in these estimations and our major findings remain unchanged.5 Conclusion Recent Hispanic immigration to the United States has become a politically charged public issue with significant consequences for immigration policy, the communities in which immigrants settle, and not least, the immigrants themselves. Although political conflict centers largely on illegal immigration, in practice legal and illegal immigrants are not easily distinguished, nor are immigrants readily distinguished from coethnic residents who resemble the new arrivals in language, customs, and appearance. Any Hispanic person, regardless of residency status, may be targeted by the new nativism. at SEIR on January 16, 2012ccj.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://ccj.sagepub.com/ Stacey et al. 293 Therefore, one collateral consequence of recent Hispanic immigration, we have hypoth- esized, is hate crime. The results of our analysis of anti-Hispanic hate crime reveal a positive relationship between state-level variation in anti-Hispanic hate crime and recent Hispanic immi- gration. This result is consistent with the minority threat framework, which implies that growth in a potentially threatening group will result in an increase in actions, informal as well as formal, to control that group. But other results do not support minority threat theory and are more consistent with the defended communities’ per- spective although that perspective, developed to explain bias crime at the neighbor- hood level, cannot be directly tested at the state level. We find a significant negative linear relationship, and no evidence of a nonlinear relationship, between anti-Hispanic hate crime and the relative size of the Hispanic population. Where Hispanics are more numerous, hate crimes against them are less frequent. Furthermore, we find little evi- dence that anti-Hispanic hate crime is triggered by economic threat to the majority Anglo population, another implication of minority-threat theory. Taken together, these results suggest that anti-Hispanic hate crime is a consequence of Hispanic immigra- tion, and arguably the fear and anger it produces in segments of the majority popula- tion, rather than the relative size or economic position of the Hispanic minority, which if anything may serve as protective factors. Our results withstand controls for several state characteristics, including the degree of urbanization, general economic conditions, the size of the potential offender popula- tion, unobserved state and period effects, and reasonable modifications to the sample and predictors. Nonetheless, we must acknowledge several limitations of the analysis. States are highly relevant policy units for an analysis of hate crime, but we cannot assume that similar research based on smaller, more homogeneous population aggre- gates, such as cities or neighborhoods, would have yielded the same findings. An important direction for future research, therefore, is to examine the relationship between Hispanic immigration and hate crime using different units of analysis. Our analysis is limited to the relationship between hate crime and legal immigra- tion, even though current political debates and public concerns focus on the control of undocumented immigrants. The validity of our analysis rests heavily on two assump- tions regarding the connection between legal and illegal immigration. The first is that undocumented immigrants have generally the same destination and settlement pat- terns as legal immigrants. The second is that, as a practical matter, potential hate crime offenders cannot reliably distinguish legal and illegal immigrants or, for that matter, immigrants and the longstanding residents who resemble them. Although both assump- tions appear reasonable, much more research is needed to validate them. Existing esti- mates of illegal immigration are imperfect and vary considerably depending on the source. Criminologists should be particularly concerned with understanding the factors affect- ing target selection by hate crime offenders. While the measurement of hate crimes has improved in the years since the FBI first began collecting data, many agencies consistently fail to report any hate crimes in their jurisdiction. The large number of zero counts in the hate crime data indicates the at SEIR on January 16, 2012ccj.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://ccj.sagepub.com/ 294 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 27(3) continuing need to improve hate crime reporting by both victims and law enforcement. Immigrant victims may fail to report hate crime incidents because they fear deporta- tion. Although Congress has created a number of special visa categories (the S, T, and U visas) to encourage and facilitate reporting of particular crimes by undocumented immigrants, it is unclear to what extent these efforts alleviate the underreporting prob- lem (Kittrie, 2006). There are strict limits on the number of such visas that can be extended each year and only victims of certain crimes (i.e., human trafficking or domestic violence, or victims who offer substantial assistance in the prosecution of a criminal or terrorist organization) are eligible. An alternative approach to increase reporting may be the implementation of “sanctuary policies” within law enforcement agencies to ensure that undocumented immigrant crime victims are not reported to federal immigration authorities (Kittrie, 2006). In addition, specialized training of police officers in hate crime identification and formal policies within police depart- ments on how to handle hate crime could improve the accuracy and integrity of hate crime statistics. In any case, further inquiry into such matters is crucial and, in particu- lar, greater attention should be paid to those crimes experienced by immigrants that go unreported to police. In summary, our analysis is based on strong assumptions regarding our key mea- sures. We therefore regard our results as provisional and encourage other researchers to evaluate the relationship between immigration and hate crime with alternative mea- sures, methods, and data. In particular, researchers should incorporate other important contextual characteristics such as gateway status (perhaps at lower levels of aggrega- tion) as well as both minority and majority political strength. If future research confirms our finding that anti-Hispanic hate crime is a consequence of immigration, we suggest several directions for policy and theory development. Assuming that Hispanic immigra- tion is a robust predictor of anti-Hispanic hate crime, immigration data may prove use- ful in forecasting such crime for law enforcement. Policy makers in the United States should also consider extending current hate crime statutes by including immigrants as a protected category. The response to immigration from policy makers has, in general, been to make it more difficult for immigrants to enter the country. Even policy makers who would toughen current immigration laws, however, should want to minimize vio- lence and other crimes motivated by bias against immigrants, or those who are per- ceived to be immigrants, and to make it easier to identify immigrant victims. Finally, the current research highlights the importance of continued development and, perhaps, modification, of the minority-threat framework by incorporating immi- gration and nationality as sources of threat to majority cultural identity. Our results imply that the primary threat posed by immigration may be cultural rather than economic. Prior research has shown that public views of immigration are shaped more by per- ceived cultural threats, especially to English language dominance, than by economic position or outlook, political ideology, or even fear of crime (Chandler & Tsai, 2001). In addition to moving beyond the Black–White dichotomy, a renewed focus on immi- gration would enrich minority-threat theory by directing attention to culture as a source of group conflict and social control. at SEIR on January 16, 2012ccj.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://ccj.sagepub.com/ Stacey et al. 295 Acknowledgments We wish to thank Elizabeth Aranda, the guest editors, and the reviewers for their feedback. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Notes 1. Although numerous media accounts exist of violent and lethal attacks on immigrants and a handful of reports highlight the “human faces” of anti-immigrant sentiment (see, for exam- ple, LCCREF, 2009; SPLC, 2008), the growth in anti-Hispanic crimes reported by the FBI has gone “relatively unnoticed” by policy makers (Martinez, 2010). There is evidence of such research elsewhere, however. For example, Bunar (2007) analyzes the increase from 1997 to 2003 in xenophobic crimes in Sweden. 2. Minority group threat predicts a positive relationship between minority population growth— in our case, immigration—and hate crimes against Hispanics. The defended communities’ perspective (Green et al., 1998b; Suttles, 1972) also proposes a positive relationship between minority population and the use of social control. The argument is that ethnically homoge- neous neighborhoods develop a sense of cohesion which, when threatened, will be defended through the use of mechanisms of informal social control. Thus, racially motivated crimes will occur most frequently in areas where the majority (Whites) have long dominated and in areas experiencing a rapid influx of minorities. Given the focus on community cohesion, we believe that this perspective is more suitable for analyses involving neighborhoods as the unit of analysis, yet we do consider it in the discussion of our results. 3. Although there is a considerable amount of “illegal” or undocumented immigration into the United States, there are a number of difficulties in determining a reliable estimate of the number of undocumented persons entering the country each year. The Census Bureau and other government agencies do not count the number of undocumented immigrants directly, but rather use a “residual method” to estimate the size and characteristics of the undocu- mented population (Passel, 2006). Such estimates rely on a number of assumptions that are difficult to verify. 4. Data from other Latin and South American countries are missing for a number of years and are excluded. The four countries of origin included in the analysis represent a large propor- tion of recent Hispanic immigrants to the United States. Specifically, with the exception of 2002 when Cuba contributed only 9,000 immigrants, each of these four countries contrib- uted more than 20,000 immigrants each year. Together, they account for about 70% of all Hispanic immigrants and about 25% of total immigration each year. 5. The results of the sensitivity analyses are available from the authors by request. at SEIR on January 16, 2012ccj.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://ccj.sagepub.com/ 296 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 27(3) References Blalock, H. M. (1967). Toward a theory of minority-group relations. New York NY: John Wiley. Bunar, N. (2007). Hate crimes against immigrants in Sweden and community responses. American Behavioral Scientist, 51, 166-181. Chandler, C. R., & Tsai, Y.-M. (2001). Social factors influencing immigration attitudes: An analysis of data from the General Social Survey. Social Science Journal,38, 177-188. Chang, R. S., & Aoki, K. (1997). Centering the immigrant in the inter/national imagination. California Law Review, 85, 1395-1447. Cornelius, W. A. (2002). Ambivalent reception: Mass public responses to the “new” Latino immigration to the United States. In M. Súarez-Orozco (Ed.), Latinos: A research agenda for the 21st century (pp. 165-89). Berkeley: University of California Press. Craig, K. M. (2002). Examining hate-motivated aggression: A review of the social psycho- logical literature on hate crimes as a distinct form of aggression. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 85–101. Eitle, D., D’Alessio, S. J., & Stolzenberg, L. (2002). Racial threat and social control: A test of the political, economic, and threat of black crime hypotheses. Social Forces, 81, 557-576. Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2004). Hate crime statistics, 2003. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Grattet, R. (2009). The urban ecology of bias crime: A study of disorganized and defended neighborhoods. Social Problems, 56, 132-150. Green, D. P., Glaser, J., & Rich, A. (1998a). From lynching to gay bashing: The elusive con- nection between economic conditions and hate crime. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 82-92. Green, D. P., Strolovitch, D. Z., & Wong, J. S. (1998b). Defended neighborhoods, integration, and racially motivated crime. American Journal of Sociology, 104, 372-403. Grieco, E. M. (2009). Race and Hispanic origin of the foreign-born population in the United States: 2007 (American Community Survey Reports, ACS-11). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Hernández-León, R., & Zúñiga, V. (2003). Mexican immigrant communities in the South and social capital: The case of Dalton, Georgia. Southern Rural Sociology, 19, 20-45. Hirschman, C., & Massey, D. S. (2009). Places and people: The new American mosaic. In D. S. Massey (Ed.), New faces in new places: The changing geography of American immigration (pp. 1-21). New York, NY: Russell Sage. Ibrahim, M. (2005). The securitization of migration: A racial discourse. International Migra- tion, 43, 163-187. King, R. D. (2007). The context of minority group threat: Race, institutions, and complying with Hate Crime Law. Law and Society Review, 41, 189-224. King, R. D., Messner, S. F., & Baller, R. D. (2009). Contemporary hate crimes, law enforce- ment, and the legacy of racial violence. American Sociological Review, 74, 291-315. King, R. D., & Wheelock, D. (2007). Group threat and social control: Race, perceptions of minorities and the desire to punish. Social Forces, 85, 1255-1280. at SEIR on January 16, 2012ccj.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://ccj.sagepub.com/ Stacey et al. 297 Kittrie, O. F. (2006). Federalism, deportation, and crime victims afraid to call the police. Iowa Law Review, 91, 1449-1508. Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund. (2009). Confronting the new faces of hate: Hate crimes in America. Retrieved from http://www.civilrights.org/publications/ hatecrimes/lccref_hate_crimes_report.pdf Lee, M. T., Martinez, R., Jr., & Rosenfeld, R. (2001). Does immigration increase homicide? Negative evidence from three border cities. Sociological Quarterly, 42, 559-580. Lyons, C. J. (2007). Community (dis)organization and racially motivated crime. American Journal of Sociology, 113, 815-863. Martinez, R., Jr. (2010). Crime and immigration. Criminologist, 35, 16-17. Martinez, R., Jr., & Lee, M. T. (2000). On immigration and crime. In G. LaFree (Ed.), The nature of crime: Continuity and change, Vol. 1: Criminal justice 2000 (pp. 485-524). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Massey, D. S., & Capoferro, C. (2009). The geographic diversification of American immigra- tion. In D.S. Massey (Ed.), New faces in new places: The changing geography of American immigration (pp. 25-50). New York, NY: Russell Sage. Messner, S. F., McHugh, S., & Felson, R. B. (2004). Distinctive characteristics of assaults moti- vated by bias. Criminology, 42, 585-618. Montero-Sieburth, M., & Meléndez, E. (2007). The new nativism and Latinos in a changing soci- ety. In M. Montero-Sieburth & E. Meléndez (Eds.), Latinos in a changing society (pp. 3-33). Westport, CT: Praeger. Morenoff, J. D., Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2001). Neighborhood inequality, collec- tive efficacy, and the spatial dynamics of urban violence. Criminology, 39, 517-559. Passel, J. S. (2006, March 7). The size and characteristics of the unauthorized migrant popula- tion in the U.S.: Estimates based on the March 2005 Current Population Study. Pew His- panic Center. Retrieved from http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/61.pdf Perea, J. F. (1997). Introduction. In J. F. Perea (Ed.), Immigrants out: The new nativism and the anti-immigrant impulse in the United States (pp. 1-10). New York: New York University Press. Perry, B. (2001). In the name of hate: Understanding hate crimes. New York, NY: Routledge. Quillian, L. (1995). Prejudice as a response to perceived group threat: Population composition and anti-immigrant and racial prejudice in Europe. American Sociological Review, 60, 586-611. Rumbaut, R. G. (1994). Origins and destinies: Immigration to the United States since World War II. Sociological Forum, 9, 583-621. Rumbaut, R. G., & Ewing, W. A. (2007). The myth of immigrant criminality and the paradox of assimilation: Incarceration rates among native and foreign-born men. Washington, DC: Immigration Policy Center, American Immigration Law Foundation. Schmidley, A. D. (2001). Profile of the foreign-born population in the United States: 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, Series P23-206). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Southern Poverty Law Center. (2008). Hate crimes: Anti-Latino hate crimes up for fourth year. Retrieved from http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/ 2008/winter/hate-crimes at SEIR on January 16, 2012ccj.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://ccj.sagepub.com/ 298 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 27(3) Stowell, J. I., Messner, S. F., McGeever, K. F., & Raffalovich, L. E. (2009). Immigration and the recent violent crime drop in the United States: A pooled, cross-sectional time-series analysis of metropolitan areas. Criminology, 47, 889-928. Suttles, G. D. (1972). The social construction of communities. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. U.S. Census Bureau. (2009). Estimates of the Resident Population by Race and Hispanic Origin United States and States: July 1, 2008 (SC-EST2008-04). Retrieved from http://www.census .gov/popest/states/asrh/SC-EST2008-04.html Bios Michele Stacey is assistant professor of criminology and criminal justice at Virginia Union University. Kristin Carbone-López is assistant professor of criminology and criminal justice at the University of Missouri–St. Louis. Richard Rosenfeld is curators professor of criminology and criminal justice at the University of Missouri–St. Louis. He is a fellow and immediate past president of the American Society of Criminology and currently serves on the Science Advisory Board of the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. at SEIR on January 16, 2012ccj.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://ccj.sagepub.com/