How do crime rates for undocumented immigrants compare to US citizens by violent vs property crime?

1. What the best-available data reports: lower violent and property crime rates for undocumented immigrants

A flagship, NIJ-funded analysis of Texas criminal-history records covering 2012–2018 found undocumented immigrants had substantially lower felony arrest rates than U.S.-born citizens for violent, drug, and property offenses—reporting undocumented rates at less than half for violent and drug crimes and roughly one-quarter for property crimes relative to native-born citizens ^{[1] [4] [2]}. The same Texas study, published in PNAS, reported U.S.-born citizens were over twice as likely to be arrested for violent crimes and more than four times as likely for property crimes compared with undocumented immigrants—patterns that held under alternative specifications and population estimates ^{[2] [4]}.

2. Corroboration across researchers and organizations

These Texas results are echoed by broader reviews and academic work: the Migration Policy Institute and think-tank summaries note a growing body of research finding immigrants—documented and undocumented—commit crimes at lower rates than the U.S.-born ^{[5] [6]}. Historical analyses using incarceration as a proxy also show immigrants have been incarcerated at lower rates than U.S.-born people in recent decades, with some studies estimating immigrants are substantially less likely to be incarcerated today than in the past ^{[3] [7]}. Major criminal-justice organizations and policy centers have used these findings to argue that immigration is not a primary driver of increased crime rates ^{[7] [6]}.

3. Important measurement caveats: arrests ≠ offending, and data coverage matters

The dominant empirical base for the lower-rate conclusion rests on arrest and incarceration records, which reflect law enforcement activity as much as underlying offending; researchers acknowledge arrests are an imperfect proxy for true crime incidence ^[1]. The most detailed studies rely heavily on Texas data—valuable because the state records immigration status at arrest, but not automatically generalizable to every state or time period ^{[2] [4]}. Homicide statistics are also noisier and often undercount unsolved cases, so small-number violent crime comparisons require caution ^{[8] [1]}.

4. Alternative viewpoints, political framing, and hidden agendas

High-profile individual crimes by noncitizens can dominate media narratives despite contrary aggregate evidence; analysts warn politicians and some outlets may amplify anecdote over data to support restrictive immigration agendas ^{[7] [9]}. Critics of the “low-crime” conclusion note methodological constraints—geographic focus, reliance on arrests, and the difficulty of estimating undocumented populations—arguing these limits make absolute claims risky; proponents counter that multiple independent datasets show the same direction and magnitude of effect ^{[1] [2] [4]}. Policy debates often conflate undocumented status with absolute criminal threat, but the empirical literature presented by NIJ, PNAS, MPI, and university studies consistently shows lower arrest and incarceration rates for undocumented immigrants on both violent and property offenses ^{[1] [2] [5]}.

5. What this means for policymakers and public discourse

The empirical record implies that blanket policies premised on the assumption that undocumented immigrants drive violent or property crime are unsupported by multiple rigorous studies, but policy should still account for hotspots, community effects, and the limits of arrest-based measurement ^{[2] [1] [7]}. Effective public-safety strategies should follow the evidence—targeting specific criminal activity and criminal networks—while avoiding broad-brush narratives that overstate the criminality of undocumented populations; transparency about data limits and regional differences is essential to prevent misuse of findings for political ends ^{[7] [4] [5]}.