Chart compaing violet crime illegal immigrants v citizens in America
Executive summary
A consistent body of empirical research finds that immigrants — including undocumented/illegal immigrants where data permit — are not more likely to commit violent crimes than U.S.-born citizens and in many studies are substantially less likely to do so; several landmark analyses using Texas arrest data and national incarceration or arrest series report undocumented immigrants arrested at less than half the rate for violent and drug crimes compared with native-born citizens [1] [2] [3]. That consensus is reinforced by multi‑decade and historical studies showing immigrants’ incarceration and arrest rates have generally been equal to or lower than U.S.-born rates, though important methodological caveats and geographic variation remain [4] [5].
1. What the best, peer‑reviewed data show
The most cited academic source comparing groups is a Texas study that used Department of Public Safety arrest records and found undocumented immigrants had substantially lower felony arrest rates across violent, property and drug offenses — U.S.-born citizens were over twice as likely to be arrested for violent crimes, 2.5 times for drugs and more than four times for property crimes relative to undocumented immigrants [1] [6]. The National Institute of Justice summarized these Texas findings as undocumented immigrants being arrested at less than half the rate of native-born U.S. citizens for violent and drug crimes and roughly a quarter the rate for property crimes [2].
2. Corroborating evidence from broader and historical studies
Longer-term and national studies align with the Texas result: analyses of 150 years of census and incarceration data show immigrants have never been incarcerated at higher rates than the U.S.-born and, in recent decades, are substantially less likely to be incarcerated — one study finds immigrants 60% less likely to be incarcerated than U.S.-born citizens in recent periods [4] [7] [5]. Aggregate time‑series work also documents that the rise in immigrant population share between 1980 and 2022 coincided with large declines in violent and property crime rates nationally, undermining a simple causal link between immigration and higher violence [8].
3. Where nuance and uncertainty matter
Scholars warn about limits: many studies aggregate immigrants and cannot always cleanly separate recent arrivals, lawful vs unlawful presence, or account for enforcement and reporting differences across jurisdictions [9] [10]. The Texas data are unusually detailed because Texas records immigration status in arrest files, but results from one state may not capture every local context; likewise, some research signals the potential for variation by origin country or age composition, and rare outcomes such as homicides fluctuate year to year [10] [1].
4. Why political narratives diverge from the evidence
Political and media claims of a “migrant crime wave” often emphasize isolated incidents or enforcement encounters rather than population-level rates; multiple policy analysts and advocacy outlets have pushed back, noting that documented studies find no increase in violent crime from undocumented immigration and that sanctuary‑policy comparisons show no discernible crime penalty [11] [8]. At the same time, agencies like CBP and ICE do report apprehensions of people with criminal records entering at the border, a fact that gets amplified politically even as population‑level studies show overall lower offending rates among immigrants [12].
5. Bottom line and reporting limitations
The preponderance of available, peer‑reviewed and government‑summarized research indicates undocumented immigrants are arrested and incarcerated at rates equal to or lower than U.S.-born citizens — in Texas data, markedly lower for violent crimes — and broader historical and metropolitan analyses reach similar conclusions [1] [2] [4]. However, this assessment rests on the studies cited, which acknowledge methodological limits (geographic scope, classification of immigration status, rarity of some violent crimes), so claims about short‑term local spikes or specific subgroups require separate, locale‑specific investigation [9] [10].