Social disorganization theory would feel that immigration is responsible for crime. It feels immigration and high population growth are the key components of crime because the increased crowded conditions in urban centers create chaos. This chaos results in friction between the residents of the community and a higher demand for employment. This in turn increases tension and causes crime. Social disorganization theory contends people commit crimes because they are deprived in some way. If immigration creates social conflict and a loss of employment, this in turn negatively impacts the community, so the individuals that remain rather than seek a new environment are more likely to commit crime. The theory does not blame government, social and political beliefs for crime, merely social discord.
The thing is immigrants simply do not commit more crime. Also, would crime disappear if immigration ceased? Certainly not. Therefore, this is a major flaw with this theory. Even if one were to examine anomie-strain theory as an alternative approach, that does not cover all the foundations either as this theory blames crime on the American ideal. Supporters of this theory feel that if people do not attain socially, politically and economically what they are supposed to as espoused by Western culture, they feel like a failure and resort to crime. Therefore, it rejects the American ideal and states positive goals should be reinforced as well as promoted. Unfortunately, are there supposed to be limits placed on what individuals attain to limit crime? Like social disorganization theory, this too has its faults. Immigrants often have lower levels of crime because they are working towards something and are willing to contend with some of the social discord that comes with that. They are looking to fit in and not create trouble. This is not addressed by either theory. Although they are helpful in addressing crime, there are still many more questions that have yet to be answered.