IMMIGRANTS AND CRIME: TIME FOR A SENSIBLE DEBATE

The Gardeners And Maids Who Cross The Border Illegally Are Very Different
From The Tattooed Salvatrucha Gang Member Who Lives By Extortion And
Drug-Dealing.

There is a widespread perception of a strong link between immigrants
and crime. It is common to hear those who oppose immigration argue
that the first act illegal immigrants commit on U.S. soil is to break
the law-that is, our immigration laws-and that they are ipso facto
criminals who will continue to disregard U.S. laws once in the
country. Those making this argument are generally steadfastly opposed
to any immigration reform that will provide the 10 million to 12
million illegals already in the country any path to citizenship, on
the grounds that such an "amnesty" would reward law-breaking.

The association of immigrants with crime is strengthened by the weekly
barrage of news about drug and gang violence in Mexico as the
government of Mexican President Felipe Calderon seeks to crack down on
that country's powerful drug mafias. And long before the Mexican drug
war, Americans were threatened by Colombian cartels, Salvadoran street
gangs, and other criminal groups from Latin America. Moreover, it is
perfectly true that the simple fact of being an illegal immigrant
induces one to break further laws: One is reluctant to buy mandated
auto insurance, pay taxes, or register businesses for fear of
deportation.

There is indeed a huge problem of crime originating in Latin America
and spilling into the United States. This is almost wholly driven by
the enormous demand for drugs from the U.S. There are many things we
can and should do to mitigate this problem, but it will persist as
long as that demand remains high.

But the problem of gangs and drug violence should not be confounded with
the behavior of the vast majority of illegal immigrants to the U.S., who by
and large are seeking the same thing that every immigrant to America has
wanted since the time of the Mayflower: to better their condition and that
of their families. They are not criminals in the sense of people who make a
living by breaking the law. They would be happy to live legally, but they
come from societies in which legal rules were never quite extended to them.
They are therefore better described as "informal" rather than "illegal."

Understanding this distinction requires knowing something about the
social order in Latin America or, for that matter, in many other
developing countries. These societies are often characterized by sharp
class distinctions between a relatively small, well-educated elite and
a much broader and poorer population.

The rule of law exists in places like Mexico, Colombia and El
Salvador; the problem is that access to the legal system tends to be a
privilege of the well-to-do. The vast majority of illegal immigrants
to the U.S. come from poor rural areas, or shantytowns in large
cities, where the state-in the form of courts, government agencies and
the like-is often absent. Registering a small business, or seeking
help from the police, or negotiating a contract requires money, time
and political influence that the poor do not possess. In many Latin
American countries, as much as 70%-80% of the population lives and
works in the informal sector.

The lack of legal access does not make everyone in these regions
criminals. It simply means that they get by as best they can through
informal institutions they themselves create. The Peruvian economist
Hernando de Soto has written extensively about the lack of formal
property rights, not just in his own country but throughout the
developing world. The poor do not hold legal title to their homes,
despite having lived in them for years, because of the insuperable
barriers the system throws up to formal registration. So they squat in
their homes, constantly insecure and unable to use their property as
collateral.

The poor are entrepreneurial and form businesses like restaurants and
bus companies, but they are unlicensed and don't conform to official
safety rules. They and everyone else would be much better off if they
could be brought into the formal legal system, but it is a
dysfunctional political system that prevents that from happening.

What illegal immigrants to the U.S. have done is to recreate the
informal system within our borders. The Americans who hire them are
often complicit in this system by not providing benefits or helping
them avoid taxes through cash payments. The gardeners and maids and
busboys who participate in this game, along with their employers, are
indeed breaking the law. But they are in a very different category
from the tattooed Salvatrucha gang member who lives by extortion and
drug-dealing.

A comprehensive immigration reform that provides hardworking illegal
immigrants with an ultimate path to citizenship should not be regarded
as rewarding criminal behavior. It should be seen as an effort to move
people from a dangerous informal system to one characterized by a
modern rule of law.

We need, of course, to control much better the total number of people
coming into the country, which can ultimately be done only through
stronger enforcement of employment rules. If we can better distinguish
between illegal and informal in our political discourse, then we can
begin to concentrate our resources on going after those in the
immigrant population who are genuinely dangerous criminals.

Mr. Fukuyama is a professor of international political economy at
Stanford University's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies.