Reply #83: It would stand to reason that a demographic trend takes a while to take

[Zynx]

effect just like the Baby Boom. It would be very unreasonable indeed to expect that a slow in immigration in a law passed in 1924 and not put in effect until 1925 would have any effect the next few years. There was a cumulative effect of all those years and the fact that the younger immigrants would be coming of age in the next couple decades after the flow stopped. It would take a while. Demographic trends do not turn on a dime.

Let me be clear here, I am not endorsing that bill at all as it resulted in the deaths of millions of European Jews who were unable to flee to the United States as a result of its restrictions that were still in place as of WWII. It was an awful bill in many many respects. However, it does stand to reason that due to problems with assimilation and economic dislocation massive new numbers of immigrants would have an effect on crime rates. I am in no way saying southern and eastern European immigrants were more disposed towards crime as my ancestors were from Eastern Europe at exactly that time. I am saying that demographic disruptions on a massive scale have economic and social effects considering the drastically changing economic scene of the time.

I have looked up states with stable demographic trends compared to those with volatile ones. Pennsylvania during the 1945-2000 period has a far more stable crime rate than does Nevada, Kansas has a far more stable crime rate than does California, Ohio more stable than Florida, and so on. The more stable the demographic trends the more stable the crime rates. This is almost uniformly true.

Do you have another explanation for that surge of crime between 1905 and 1920?