What peer‑reviewed research exists on crime rates among unauthorized immigrants at the state level, including Minnesota?
Executive summary
Peer‑reviewed research and high‑quality government‑funded analyses consistently find that immigrants, including unauthorized immigrants, do not have higher crime rates than U.S.‑born residents and in many cases have lower rates; however, state‑level peer‑reviewed evidence is sparse, with Texas the only state in the academic literature that systematically tracks arrests and convictions by immigration status and has produced rigorous analyses (Migration Policy Institute; NIJ/University of Wisconsin) [1] [2]. The broader literature notes methodological limits—especially poor recording of immigration status in crime data and possible underreporting by immigrant communities—that constrain confident claims about specific states such as Minnesota [3] [4] [5].
1. Texas: the single state with peer‑reviewed, status‑specific analysis
Researchers using Texas administrative data—the rare jurisdiction that records immigration status in arrest and conviction databases—have produced the most robust, state‑level findings: an NIJ‑funded analysis concluded undocumented immigrants in Texas were arrested at substantially lower rates than native‑born residents for violent, drug, and property crimes, and found no evidence that undocumented crime prevalence has grown across categories [2] [3]. Migration Policy and other syntheses highlight Texas as the one state where status‑specific comparisons have been possible, and where results align with the broader finding that unauthorized immigrants are not driving crime increases [1] [6].
2. National and multi‑state peer‑reviewed work finds no link or a negative association
Several peer‑reviewed, multi‑jurisdictional studies—using state or metropolitan repeated cross‑section designs and improved estimates of unauthorized population size—report null or negative relationships between increases in unauthorized immigrant shares and violent crime, and sometimes reductions in specific offense categories; these studies use improved population controls such as Center for Migration Studies estimates and methods vetted in the literature [7] [8]. Reviews and syntheses by academic and policy‑research bodies echo this pattern, reporting that immigration overall is not associated with higher crime and may correlate with lower rates in many contexts [9] [10].
3. Methods matter: why state‑level inference is hard and Minnesota is missing
A central methodological barrier is that most crime databases (FBI UCR, NCVS, NIBRS) do not record immigration status, forcing researchers to infer undocumented populations from indirect estimates; consequently, most studies treat immigrants as a single group rather than separating documented and undocumented persons, limiting state‑level precision [3] [5]. Scholars warn that underreporting of victimization and fear of interaction with police may further bias measures of crime involving unauthorized immigrants, and that state‑level cross‑sectional studies can be sensitive to unobserved confounders [4] [11]. None of the sources provided identify peer‑reviewed, state‑level analyses specifically for Minnesota; Migration Policy explicitly cites Texas as the one state with status‑specific tracking, implying a lack of comparable peer‑reviewed state studies for Minnesota in the reviewed literature [1] [6].
4. Nuance, competing findings, and the role of non‑peer analyses
While peer‑reviewed and government‑funded studies largely point to lower or neutral crime rates for unauthorized immigrants, there are contested findings in non‑peer reports—some think‑tank or local analyses claiming higher rates—which the academic literature treats with caution because they often lack peer review and rely on weaker denominators or cross‑sectional snapshots [3]. Researchers also note heterogeneity: a few analyses find positive associations for particular offense types or in particular periods, and some studies suggest legal status matters relative to lawful immigrants, so blanket statements ignore nuance [8] [7].
5. Bottom line for policy and reporting
The peer‑reviewed and high‑quality government‑funded evidence that exists shows no broad elevation in crime rates among unauthorized immigrants and in Texas actually shows lower arrest rates for multiple crime categories; nonetheless, the evidence base at the state level beyond Texas is thin, methodological limits (missing status in crime records, underreporting) constrain certainty, and there is no peer‑reviewed, state‑level study of Minnesota identified in the provided sources [2] [3] [4] [1]. Readers should weigh the strong consensus from multi‑state and national analyses against these data gaps and be wary of claims about specific states that lack status‑disaggregated, peer‑reviewed analysis.