What do state‑level studies (beyond Texas) show about undocumented immigrant crime rates and trends?
Executive summary
State-level research beyond Texas generally aligns with national studies: higher immigrant shares are not associated with higher overall crime, and in many analyses immigrants—documented and undocumented—have lower arrest and conviction rates than U.S.-born residents [1] [2]. However, findings vary by methodology, time period, offense type and weighting choices, and researchers caution against overgeneralizing from single-state or short-term snapshots [3] [4].
1. What multi‑state analyses find: no clear “migrant crime wave”
Researchers working with state-level data across the country — including FBI Uniform Crime Reporting and Census population data — report no statistically significant positive correlation between a state’s immigrant share and its total crime rate for 2017–2022, and broader syntheses conclude immigration is not driving recent crime trends [1] [5]. Migration Policy Institute’s review of state and local research likewise concludes immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than the U.S.-born in aggregate, and that immigrant settlement often does not increase local crime and can even reduce violent crime in inclusive contexts [2].
2. Longitudinal state analyses: rising undocumented shares, flat or lower violent crime
Longitudinal studies that estimate within-state changes in undocumented populations (using Center for Migration Studies or Pew estimates) generally find either no effect or a modest negative association between increases in undocumented population shares and violent crime rates over time, though some coefficients are sensitive to model weighting and control choices [3]. Authors of these papers explicitly note that longitudinal designs carry more weight than cross-sectional snapshots and still recommend caution because effects can vary across state types [3].
3. The Texas exception is informative but not definitive
The Texas Department of Public Safety dataset—unique in recording arrestee immigration status—shows substantially lower felony arrest rates among undocumented immigrants relative to legal immigrants and native-born Texans between 2012–2018, and the Texas study has become a key reference point for national debates [4]. Multiple advocacy and research organizations cite Texas as consistent with national patterns, but scholars warn that Texas is only one state and that data availability, policing practices, and local enforcement priorities can shape observed rates [4] [2].
4. Federal and law‑enforcement summaries echo lower offending rates but note data limits
U.S. government summaries and National Institute of Justice reporting have highlighted lower arrest and conviction rates for undocumented immigrants compared with U.S.-born citizens for violent and drug crimes in some periods, while also flagging the difficulty of measuring the undocumented denominator and changes in data quality over time [6]. These official accounts underline that reliable state-by-state estimates of the undocumented population have improved recently, but data on criminality (the numerator) remain uneven [6] [4].
5. Where studies disagree and why — measurement, weighting, and selection
Discrepancies among state-level studies stem from several methodological fault lines: whether analyses use cross-sectional vs. longitudinal designs, which estimates of undocumented population are chosen (CMS vs. Pew), whether models are weighted by state population, and how policing/reporting differences are handled; these choices can flip results from weakly negative to statistically nonsignificant in some specifications [3]. Scholars explicitly call for cautious interpretation and further research to parse heterogeneity across states and offense categories [3] [4].
6. What this means for policy discourse and reporting
The balance of state-level evidence beyond Texas favors the conclusion that larger immigrant or undocumented populations are not a reliable driver of higher crime rates, and in many contexts correlate with equal or lower offending [1] [2]. Yet researchers and organizations—from Migration Policy Institute to the Brennan Center and academic teams—warn that politics, selective media attention to isolated incidents, and differences in local enforcement can distort public perception; the literature’s caveats about data limits and state heterogeneity should temper sweeping claims used to justify broad enforcement or deportation policies [5] [2] [6].