US Immigration & Crime: What Research Actually Shows

Immigration and crime have been intertwined in public debate in the United States for well over a century. Politicians, media outlets and advocacy groups often use the issue as a proxy for wider discussions about social order, public safety and national identity. Yet the question of whether immigration increases crime has been the subject of intensive academic research, and the weight of evidence consistently points in the opposite direction of public perception.

What this article is about: This article explains the relationship between immigration and crime in the United States. It draws on historical and contemporary research to assess incarceration and arrest trends, the impact of immigrant populations on community-level crime rates, and the role of policing and enforcement policies such as sanctuary city rules and federal programmes. It also considers the gap between perception and reality, showing how misrepresentation distorts public understanding of crime and immigration.

Section A: Historical & Contemporary Incarceration Trends

Understanding the relationship between immigration and crime begins with examining incarceration data. Incarceration rates are one of the most reliable long-term measures of criminality and law enforcement response, allowing comparisons between immigrants and U.S.-born citizens across time.

1. Historical patterns

Since at least 1870, official statistics and academic studies have shown that immigrants are consistently less likely to be incarcerated than native-born Americans. This finding holds across multiple generations of migrants and different waves of immigration, from the late 19th-century European influx to contemporary Latin American and Asian migration. Researchers describe this as part of the “immigrant paradox,” where immigrants perform better than expected on social outcomes, including law-abiding behaviour, despite facing economic and cultural disadvantages.

2. Contemporary data

Recent research demonstrates that the disparity in incarceration rates has grown more pronounced. Analyses by major research institutions estimate that immigrants are around 60% less likely to be incarcerated than U.S.-born citizens today. In 2023, one widely cited policy analysis estimated incarceration rates at approximately 1,221 per 100,000 for native-born citizens, compared to about 319 per 100,000 for lawful immigrants and 613 per 100,000 for undocumented immigrants. Methodologies vary across studies, but the direction of the disparity is consistent across sources.

3. Policy implications

Incarceration patterns matter for policymakers because they counter common assumptions used to justify restrictive immigration enforcement. Claims that immigrants disproportionately contribute to crime are not supported by the balance of evidence. Instead, immigrant communities are generally safer and less criminally involved. This has implications for how immigration enforcement and policing resources are prioritised at federal, state and local levels.

Section A summary: Incarceration data across more than 150 years demonstrates a consistent trend: immigrants are less likely to be incarcerated than native-born Americans. This finding is confirmed in both historical and contemporary studies and applies to lawful and undocumented immigrants alike. The evidence undermines the claim that immigration drives up crime and highlights the need for policy to be grounded in empirical research rather than perception or political rhetoric.

Section B: Crime Rates by Offender Group & Local Patterns

While incarceration rates provide a broad view, crime rates by offender group and location offer a closer look at how immigration interacts with everyday public safety. Researchers use arrest records, crime reports and demographic data to test whether immigrants commit more, fewer, or the same amount of crime compared to U.S.-born citizens.

1. Arrest patterns by immigration status

State-level data show that immigrants are arrested at significantly lower rates than U.S.-born individuals. Texas, which uniquely maintains systematic records on arrests by immigration status, illustrates this pattern clearly. Both lawful and undocumented immigrants are arrested at less than half the rate of native-born citizens for violent and drug-related crimes. For property crimes, immigrant arrests are about one-quarter the rate of those among U.S.-born residents. Texas provides a rare but partial insight; nonetheless, these findings align with nationwide research using alternative methods.

2. Community-level crime rates

National studies analysing the relationship between immigration levels and community crime rates reveal a neutral or negative correlation. Over recent decades, violent crime in the U.S. declined substantially even as the immigrant population increased. At the local level—whether neighbourhoods, cities, or metropolitan areas—research consistently finds that immigration either has no impact on crime or is associated with reductions in property and violent crime.

3. Regional and demographic variations

Not every community experiences immigration in the same way. Some localities with rapid demographic change may face short-term social tensions. However, empirical studies show these do not translate into higher crime rates. Instead, areas with sustained immigrant populations often benefit from lower levels of serious crime, partly because immigrant communities tend to be tightly networked, with strong social ties discouraging criminal activity.

Section B summary: Arrest and crime rate data consistently demonstrate that immigrants are less likely to be offenders than U.S.-born citizens. At the community level, immigration is linked to stable or reduced crime rates, rather than increases. This evidence shows that immigration has not undermined public safety in U.S. cities or towns, but in many cases has coincided with safer communities.

Section C: Misperceptions vs. Empirical Reality

Despite the robust evidence showing lower rates of crime among immigrants, public opinion in the United States often leans in the opposite direction. Misperceptions have been shaped by political discourse, selective media coverage and high-profile cases, creating a disconnect between perception and empirical reality.

1. Public beliefs about immigration and crime

Surveys consistently show that a majority of Americans believe immigrants increase crime rates. This belief cuts across political lines but is more pronounced among groups exposed to anti-immigration rhetoric. The persistence of this view, despite the evidence, reflects the powerful role of narrative in shaping public understanding of complex social issues.

2. Media and political narratives

Media coverage of crime involving immigrants tends to be amplified compared to similar crimes involving U.S.-born citizens. Political figures have historically used such cases to argue for restrictive immigration policies, even when they are outliers. This selective framing leads the public to overestimate the prevalence of immigrant crime. In reality, empirical studies confirm that immigrants, including those without legal status, commit fewer crimes on average than native-born Americans.

3. The data vs. the narrative

Rigorous studies conducted at state, national and metropolitan levels have repeatedly demonstrated the same conclusion: immigration does not increase crime. In many cases, immigration reduces crime or has no measurable effect. The persistence of contrary beliefs underscores the challenge of aligning public policy with evidence-based findings.

Section C summary: Public perception of immigration and crime is often at odds with the data. While many Americans believe immigrants drive up crime, decades of research show the opposite. Media amplification of exceptional cases and political rhetoric explain much of the gap between perception and reality. Recognising this divide is vital for informed policymaking.

Section D: Policing, Sanctuary Cities & Enforcement Policies

Beyond crime and incarceration data, the role of policing and immigration enforcement policies is central to understanding the relationship between immigration and public safety. The evidence suggests that how law enforcement interacts with immigrant communities can influence crime outcomes, often in ways contrary to popular assumptions.

1. Sanctuary cities and public safety

Sanctuary jurisdictions, which limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, have been the subject of significant debate. Critics argue that such policies attract crime, but research generally finds no evidence that sanctuary cities experience higher crime rates. In some studies, sanctuary jurisdictions report lower rates of certain property crimes. These outcomes suggest that fostering trust between local police and immigrant communities can enhance public safety rather than undermine it.

2. Federal enforcement programs

Initiatives such as Secure Communities, designed to increase cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities, have shown little or no measurable impact on crime reduction in evaluations. While these programs expand deportation activity, studies indicate they do not improve local safety outcomes. Instead, they may discourage immigrant communities from reporting crime, out of fear that contact with authorities could trigger immigration consequences.

3. Legalisation and amnesty effects

Historical evidence from the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), which granted amnesty to millions of undocumented immigrants, suggests a modest reduction in crime—often estimated in the range of 3–5%—in subsequent years. Causation is complex, but improved labour-market opportunities and community stability likely contributed. This indicates that policies integrating immigrants into the social and economic mainstream may deliver greater public safety benefits than enforcement-heavy approaches.

Section D summary: Policing and enforcement policies influence the immigration–crime debate. Evidence shows that sanctuary policies and legalisation measures do not increase crime, and may reduce it. In contrast, federal enforcement initiatives like Secure Communities have not been shown to improve safety. These findings reinforce the argument that building trust and offering legal stability can support safer communities more effectively than punitive enforcement. Debates in this area also intersect with constitutional protections and federal enforcement powers under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), underscoring the need for policy rooted in evidence and legal balance.

FAQs

1. Do undocumented immigrants commit more crime than U.S.-born citizens?

No. Multiple studies indicate that undocumented immigrants are less likely to be arrested or incarcerated than native-born citizens. Texas data—one of the only systematic state sources—show undocumented immigrants are arrested at less than half the rate of U.S.-born residents for violent and drug crimes, and roughly one-quarter the rate for property crimes.

2. Does immigration increase community crime rates?

No. At the neighbourhood, city and metropolitan levels, immigration is generally associated with stable or declining crime rates. Nationally, crime has fallen in recent decades even as immigration has risen.

3. Are sanctuary cities less safe than other jurisdictions?

Research generally finds no evidence that sanctuary cities experience higher crime. In some analyses they report lower levels of certain property crimes, suggesting that limiting immigration enforcement can enhance trust in local policing and support public safety.

4. Why does the public often believe immigrants are more crime-prone?

Public opinion is shaped by high-profile cases, political rhetoric and disproportionate media coverage of crimes involving immigrants. This creates a distorted picture, even though the overall evidence shows immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans.

5. What role do legalisation or amnesty programmes play in crime trends?

Evidence associated with the 1986 IRCA amnesty suggests modest reductions in crime, likely linked to improved economic opportunities and community stability. Effects vary by context, but the research does not indicate an increase in crime following legalisation.

Conclusion

The relationship between immigration and crime in the United States has been the subject of long-standing public debate, often marked by strong rhetoric and widespread misconceptions. Yet more than a century of evidence shows a clear and consistent pattern: immigrants, including those without legal status, are less likely to commit crimes than native-born citizens.

Incarceration and arrest data confirm that immigrants are underrepresented in prisons and jails relative to their share of the population. Community-level studies demonstrate that higher levels of immigration are associated with stable or lower crime rates. At the same time, sanctuary policies and legalisation measures have been shown to enhance public safety, while enforcement-heavy programmes deliver little measurable benefit.

The persistence of public misperceptions highlights the gap between empirical evidence and political narrative. For policymakers, this disconnect has serious consequences. Policies grounded in myth risk diverting resources from effective safety strategies, undermining trust in law enforcement and misrepresenting immigrant communities. Debates in this area also intersect with constitutional protections and the federal enforcement framework under the INA.

A balanced understanding of the evidence is critical. Immigration does not fuel crime. On the contrary, the data suggest immigrant presence can contribute to safer, more cohesive communities. Effective policy should recognise this reality and prioritise approaches that strengthen trust, integration and fairness in the U.S. immigration system.

Glossary

Useful Links

Gill Laing

Gill Laing is a qualified Legal Researcher & Analyst with niche specialisms in Law, Tax, Human Resources, Immigration & Employment Law. Gill is a Multiple Business Owner and the Managing Director of Prof Services - a Marketing & Content Agency for the Professional Services Sector.

See Full Bio