What peer-reviewed studies exist on immigrant crime and incarceration rates in the US since 2010?
Executive summary
Major peer‑reviewed studies since 2010 consistently find that immigrants — including undocumented populations in several analyses — do not drive higher crime or incarceration rates; some large, peer‑reviewed pieces report immigrants are substantially less likely to be incarcerated than U.S.‑born residents (e.g., “60% less likely” in a 150‑year incarceration study) and state‑level work in Texas finds undocumented arrestees had lower felony arrest rates than natives between 2012–2018 [1] [2] [3].
1. The long view: a 150‑year, peer‑reviewed incarceration study
A recent comprehensive analysis assembling census and survey data across 1870–2020 concludes immigrants have been incarcerated at similar or lower rates than the U.S.‑born for most of U.S. history, and that in recent decades immigrants are about 60% less likely to be incarcerated than all U.S.‑born men (30% less likely relative to white U.S.‑born men) — a finding the authors publish and describe as the broadest historical look at immigrant incarceration [1] [4] [5].
2. State‑level microdata: Texas as a “natural experiment”
Researchers using Texas Department of Public Safety arrest records — notable because Texas flags immigration status in arrest files — compared undocumented, legal immigrant, and native‑born felony arrest rates for 2012–2018 and found undocumented immigrants had substantially lower felony arrest rates than legal immigrants and U.S.‑born citizens; NIJ summarized these results as undocumented arrestees being arrested at less than half the rate of U.S.‑born citizens for violent and drug crimes and one‑quarter the rate for property crimes [2] [3].
3. Macro and longitudinal studies: no positive link between immigration flows and crime
Longitudinal, state‑ and city‑level research since 2010 generally reports no positive relationship between immigration increases and violent or property crime; some studies even find immigration associated with declines in homicide or property crime in municipalities with established immigrant communities, and national syntheses conclude immigration does not significantly raise local crime rates [6] [7] [8].
4. Surveys and self‑reports: the ‘immigrant paradox’ in modern datasets
Population surveys analyzed in peer‑reviewed journals — for example, analyses of NESARC‑III (2012–2013) — show first‑generation immigrants self‑report lower rates of crime, legal problems, and victimization than U.S.‑born adults, reinforcing the “immigrant paradox” theme in multiple contemporary studies [9].
5. Peer‑reviewed reviews and meta‑analyses: growing consensus, with caveats
Annual reviews and meta‑analyses of the immigration–crime literature find a mounting consensus that immigration is not a driver of higher crime and that methodological choices matter: longitudinal designs and careful denominators (accurate population estimates) tend to find null or negative associations, while cross‑sectional work and studies that lack reliable unauthorized population estimates are more variable [10] [11].
6. Methodological strengths and persistent limitations
Strengths in the recent literature include long time series, unique administrative data (e.g., Texas arrest records), and improved unauthorized‑population estimates; critics note limitations remain — underreporting of victimization among immigrant groups, differences between arrests and convictions, and challenges in measuring the undocumented denominator — and some studies explicitly call for cautious interpretation because data and methods influence outcomes [6] [12] [10].
7. Conflicting perspectives and politicized interpretations
Think tanks and advocacy groups interpret overlapping evidence differently: libertarian and pro‑immigrant outlets cite the same empirical papers to argue immigrants lower incarceration and arrest rates, while some policymakers and enforcement agencies emphasize criminal‑alien counts and enforcement statistics in public messaging; reporting outlets like Reuters and NPR highlight peer‑reviewed journal studies that contradict claims of an immigrant crime wave [13] [14] [15] [16].
8. What peer‑reviewed works you can read next (select examples from provided sources)
Key peer‑reviewed and widely cited pieces include the Texas PNAS study “Comparing crime rates…” (2012–2018 arrest analysis) and the 150‑year incarceration gap study available through NBER/AER‑Insights authors (both are cited in NIJ and major outlets summarized above) — these papers are entry points for more technical methods and appendices [2] [1] [4].
Limitations and takeaway: the peer‑reviewed literature since 2010 — including longitudinal national work, state administrative‑data studies, survey analyses, and systematic reviews — overwhelmingly finds no evidence that immigrants increase crime or incarceration rates and often finds lower rates for immigrants (including some undocumented analyses). Available sources do not mention every single peer‑reviewed article in this field; if you want, I can compile direct citations and links to the primary journal articles (PNAS, Criminology, Annual Review pieces, NBER working papers) cited here for deeper reading [2] [1] [10].