How have state‑level studies (e.g., Texas, California, New York) differed in findings about immigrant homicide and conviction rates since 2010?

1. Texas as a “laboratory” and the dominant finding

Texas is uniquely central because it records immigration status at arrest, and multiple analyses using Texas Department of Public Safety records from roughly 2012–2018 find undocumented immigrants have lower arrest and conviction rates for violent crime — including homicide — than native‑born residents, with some studies reporting undocumented arrest rates at less than half the native‑born rate for violent crimes and lower homicide conviction rates in many multi‑year windows ^{[2] [3] [6]}.

2. Methodological nuance: arrests versus convictions and timing

Researchers and reviewers stress that comparisons hinge on whether the unit is an arrest, a charge, or a conviction and on the lag between arrest and later reclassification of immigration status; NIJ‑funded work and related studies often analyze charges at arrest and note that some arrestees are later reclassified, complicating long‑run conviction comparisons ^{[7] [2]}.

3. California: corroborating but distinct patterns

California analyses using criminal history and arrest records also show immigrants generally have lower rates of serious violent crime than U.S.‑born residents, and some authors report immigrant violent‑crime rates in California that are lower than in Texas, but the California datasets sometimes cover limited counties or rely on different classifications, reducing direct comparability ^{[1] [7]}.

4. New York: a gap, not a contradiction

The searchable corpus provided contains limited state‑level empirical studies of New York analogous to Texas’s DPS record work; while New York appears among states where federal spending to house noncitizen inmates has been high — indicating heavy enforcement presence — clear, statewide peer‑reviewed analyses of immigrant homicide and conviction rates like those for Texas and California are not represented in the available sources, so claims about New York can’t be definitively assessed here ^{[3] [4]}.

5. Disputes and alternative readings — Cato, CIS, and the politics of data

Think tanks and advocacy groups interpret the same Texas records differently: the Cato Institute has published analyses finding lower homicide conviction rates for illegal immigrants in Texas across 2013–2022, while the Center for Immigration Studies and other critics argue that under‑identification of immigration status at arrest biases results downward and that fuller identification would raise illegal‑immigrant conviction rates (Cato summary; CIS critique) ^{[4] [5]}.

6. What the consensus looks like and where uncertainty remains

A broad academic consensus and major reviews (Migration Policy, NIJ summaries, peer‑reviewed PNAS work) coalesce around the conclusion that immigrants do not raise violent crime or homicide rates and often have lower offending and conviction rates than U.S.‑born residents, but important uncertainties persist about measurement — particularly the timing of status identification, differences between arrests and convictions, and limited state coverage ^{[8] [1] [3] [2]}.

7. Practical implications for interpretation and policy

Policymakers and reporters should treat state‑level findings as contingent: Texas and California data robustly suggest immigrants are less likely to be arrested or convicted for homicide than the native‑born in the studied windows, but critics correctly flag data‑classification and lag issues that could change magnitudes; for New York, the absence of comparable public analyses in these sources means any claim about immigrant homicide or conviction rates for the state requires fresh, transparent data ^{[3] [5] [7] [1]}.