Fact check: Can undocumented immigrants be prosecuted for non-immigration crimes like theft or assault in the U.S.?

1. What advocates and statutes actually claim — the sharp, documented assertions that matter

Analyses of U.S. law and practice make a clear, overlapping set of claims: criminal prosecution of noncitizens for ordinary crimes is routine and lawful, and certain statutes and administrative practices require detention or make immigration outcomes harsher after convictions. Federal statute 8 U.S.C. § 1226 is cited as authorizing custody of aliens who have committed offenses like burglary, theft, larceny, shoplifting, or assault of an officer, indicating a statutory basis for detention tied to criminal conduct ^[1]. Enforcement data compiled by U.S. Customs and Border Protection also show numerous arrests and convictions for offenses such as assault, domestic violence, burglary, robbery, larceny, theft, and fraud among noncitizens, illustrating how criminal justice and immigration systems intersect on the ground ^[5]. Civil‑rights advocates counter that immigration status alone is not predictive of criminality and caution against laws that single out noncitizens for harsher treatment ^[4].

2. The federal legal architecture — detention, removal, and criminal statutes that reach noncitizens

Federal law operates on multiple tracks: criminal statutes that penalize immigration conduct (for example, unauthorized entry and reentry under Sections 1325 and 1326) sit alongside tools that make noncitizens subject to civil immigration detention, removal, or both after criminal convictions. Analysts note the interplay between criminal convictions in state or federal court and immigration consequences such as designation as an aggravated felon, deportability for crimes of moral turpitude, or ineligibility for relief—complex rules judges and defense counsel must parse when a noncitizen faces charges ^{[6] [7]}. Mandatory detention provisions under INA section 236(c) and statutory custody authorities can remove bond eligibility for particular categories of noncitizens with certain offenses, making custody decisions a key immigration lever ^{[1] [8]}.

3. Laken Riley Act — what it would change and who is pushing back

Recent legislative activity crystallizes tensions: the Laken Riley Act, described in analyses from February 2025, would expand mandatory detention by adding crimes such as theft, burglary, shoplifting, and assaults resulting in serious bodily injury to the list that can bar bond hearings and secure detention without bail for certain noncitizens, particularly those inadmissible for entering without inspection or for fraud ^{[3] [8]}. Supporters frame the Act as a public‑safety measure, while opponents — including the National Immigration Law Center — argue it exploits tragedies to push anti‑immigrant policy, undermines constitutional protections, and conflates immigration status with criminality ^[4]. The debate highlights competing agendas: congressional proponents emphasizing crime control and opponents emphasizing civil liberties and the lack of demonstrated correlation between immigration status and elevated crime rates ^{[4] [3]}.

4. How state prosecutions feed federal immigration outcomes — a complicated crossover

State and local prosecutions for theft, assault, drug offenses, and other common crimes commonly have direct immigration consequences because federal immigration law classifies many convictions as grounds for removal or mandatory detention. Bench guidance and practitioner resources stress the critical importance of defense attorneys understanding immigration‑criminal law cross‑over because a plea that resolves a state case can trigger deportation or bar relief under federal statutes that define aggravated felonies or crimes involving moral turpitude ^{[7] [9]}. Practitioners and legal‑aid organizations therefore emphasize case‑specific analysis and highlight that outcomes vary by jurisdiction and statutory definitions in the state where the offense occurred ^{[7] [9]}.

5. Enforcement data and narrative framing — numbers, arrests, and contested interpretations

Government compilations like CBP’s Criminal Alien Statistics report arrests and convictions across a range of offenses, which enforcement advocates cite to justify detention and prosecution policies; these data demonstrate that noncitizens have been arrested and convicted for crimes from larceny to violent offenses ^[5]. Civil‑rights groups counter that selective legislative attention and mandatory detention laws create disproportionate burdens on noncitizens and that statistics alone do not establish causation between immigration status and criminal propensity, arguing policy should focus on evidence and constitutional safeguards rather than political narratives ^[4]. The two interpretations reflect different priorities: enforcement and incapacitation versus civil liberties and due‑process protection.

6. Practical takeaway and remaining questions for policymakers and practitioners

The settled legal fact is that undocumented immigrants can be prosecuted for non‑immigration crimes and that such prosecutions can produce severe immigration consequences, including detention and deportation; recent legislative proposals would broaden mandatory detention for particular offenses, intensifying those consequences ^{[1] [3]}. Open questions remain about the empirical effects of expanded detention on public safety, costs to the immigration and criminal justice systems, and discriminatory impacts—concerns raised by civil‑rights groups and defense organizations calling for data‑driven review and procedural safeguards ^{[4] [9]}. Practitioners recommend coordinated criminal and immigration defense to mitigate risks, while policymakers debate whether statutory expansion of mandatory detention advances public safety or entrenches punitive outcomes without measurable benefits ^{[2] [8]}.