Which U.S. cities or states have higher immigrant-related crime rates and why?

Executive summary — short answer up front: Research across multiple recent studies and policy reviews finds no evidence that U.S. cities or states with higher immigrant shares have higher crime rates; in many analyses immigrant presence correlates with equal or lower crime. Claims that sanctuary cities or places with large immigrant populations experience crime spikes have been repeatedly tested and debunked by academic and policy researchers using city-, state-, and national-level data ^{[1] [2]}. Below is a concise, source-linked synthesis of the central claims, the weight of evidence, and the political narratives that persist despite the research.

1. The claim that immigrants drive higher crime — what supporters assert and why it sticks

Advocates of the claim point to anecdotal high-profile incidents and aggregate arrest counts to argue that cities or states with large immigrant populations have higher crime. This argument is politically salient because it links immigration control to public safety and is frequently amplified in national campaigns; critics note the rhetorical advantage of simple, vivid examples. Empirical testing of the claim requires controlling for socioeconomic differences, policing practices, and local policy choices — factors often omitted from political messaging. Peer-reviewed and policy research shows that when researchers account for these variables, the association between immigrant share and higher crime disappears or reverses, undermining the simple causal claim made in popular discourse ^[1].

2. The evidence base: national and metropolitan studies that contradict the “immigrants = more crime” story

Multiple recent analyses find immigrants commit crime at lower rates than U.S.-born residents and that rising immigrant shares have coincided with falling crime over decades. A 2024 review of FBI Uniform Crime Reporting and Census-derived population shares found that from 1980 to 2022 the total crime rate dropped while the immigrant share more than doubled, with no positive correlation between immigrant share and higher state-level crime ^{[3] [2]}. Metropolitan-area and neighborhood studies likewise show neighborhoods with more immigrants often have lower crime, especially where policies encourage trust between police and immigrant communities ^{[4] [1]}. These findings hold across multiple methodologies and datasets, including state-level arrest tracking where available ^[5].

3. Sanctuary policies and the “crime spike” narrative — why sanctuary cities tend to show different results

Claims that sanctuary jurisdictions experience crime spikes were tested directly; the empirical pattern moves the opposite direction. Studies find that sanctuary policies are associated with reduced homicide and robbery rates and increased cooperation with law enforcement, as undocumented residents are more willing to report crimes and serve as witnesses when they do not fear immigration enforcement ^[1]. Researchers argue that sanctuary policies can produce a “spiral of trust” that strengthens informal social controls and policing effectiveness. Political actors who equate sanctuary status with permissiveness on crime often omit this empirical nuance and focus on isolated incidents to sustain a narrative of danger.

4. Stronger findings from states that track immigration in criminal justice data — Texas and beyond

Where jurisdictions track arrests and convictions by immigration status, the pattern is clear and contrary to the alarmist narrative. Texas data analyses find immigrants — including unauthorized immigrants — have lower arrest rates for violent, property, and drug crimes than U.S.-born residents, with unauthorized immigrants showing some of the lowest offending rates among groups compared ^[5]. These jurisdiction-specific datasets provide a more direct test than population-level correlations and buttress the broader research consensus that immigration is not a driver of higher crime. Limitations include uneven data collection across states and potential underreporting in some contexts, which researchers call out when interpreting results ^[2].

5. What the research leaves unanswered and how political agendas shape public perception

While the weight of research indicates no causal link between higher immigrant shares and higher crime, important questions remain about causality, selection effects, and heterogeneity across immigrant groups and local contexts. Some studies are older or rely on proxies for undocumented status; data gaps persist in real-time tracking and differentiating subpopulations. Political messaging often exploits these gaps: anti-immigrant actors emphasize isolated events and anecdote, while pro-immigrant advocates highlight aggregate trends and policy experiments ^{[6] [7]}. Readers should weigh both the robust cross-national and state-level analyses and the acknowledged data limitations when evaluating claims about immigrant-related crime in any specific city or state.