Research shows that immigrants in prison have fewer personal risk factors for crime and shorter criminal histories than mainland-born nationals. This suggests that policies targeting immigrants as a unique threat to public safety are based on inaccurate stereotypes. The findings were published in the journal Psychology, Public Policy, and Law.
In U.S. public discourse, immigrants are routinely portrayed as a serious danger to public safety. Rhetoric around border security often paints immigrants as potential perpetrators of violence. However, sociological research consistently contradicts this theory. Studies have shown that immigrants are actually less likely to break the law than U.S.-born people.
Scholars commonly refer to this phenomenon as the migration paradox. People who immigrate from other countries often have better health and behavioral outcomes than mainland-born nationals. This occurs despite the fact that immigrants frequently face severe economic disadvantages and the severe psychological strain of adapting to a new society. Low socio-economic status and severe stress are usually strong predictors of rule-breaking behavior.
While broader population trends are well documented, specific psychological mechanisms are poorly understood. Previous studies have primarily focused on macro-level data such as neighborhood crime rates. Researchers have spent less time assessing individual characteristics that predict whether someone will commit a crime.
Criminal psychologists refer to these individual characteristics as criminogenic risk factors. Justice systems often focus on a collection of key characteristics known as the Center 8. These mental and behavioral markers include an established history of illegal behavior, antisocial personality patterns, and antisocial thinking styles that justify breaking rules.
The remaining core components evaluate a person’s immediate environment and daily life. They focus on issues such as dealing with peers who break the rules, struggling with substance abuse, and experiencing deep family problems. It also assesses educational or employment difficulties and a general lack of active recreational hobbies.
The team of researchers wanted to know how these individual predictors differ based on a person’s immigration status. Jennifer Eno Louden, a psychology researcher at the University of Texas at El Paso, led a project to evaluate people already caught up in the legal system. She worked with Theodore R. Curry, Bethel Hernandez, Elena Vaudreuil, and Osvaldo F. Morella. They sought to provide an objective behavioral profile of prison detainees in border areas.
Researchers conducted two separate studies in El Paso, Texas. The area borders Mexico, and state and federal border enforcement agencies are expected to be heavily involved. In the first study, the team obtained booking records from local county jails. They analyzed data from more than 5,000 consecutive intakes over several months.
The team investigated the most serious charges currently holding each person in custody. They also considered the results of a standard pretrial risk assessment conducted by prison staff. The facility does not officially record immigration status, so the researchers estimated this based on each person’s recorded country of birth and citizenship.
They divided the data into three groups. These groups included U.S.-born individuals, immigrants from Mexico, and immigrants from other countries. The researchers then compared the formal criminal histories of all three categories.
They found that both immigrant groups had fewer criminal histories than the same-born immigrant group. Mexican immigrants had lower rates of drug abuse offenses than the other two groups. However, Mexican immigrants had higher arrest rates related to driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
When looking at the overall pretrial risk assessment, native-born individuals received the highest scores. They were more likely to have previously been convicted of a felony and more likely to be under some type of legal supervision. Native-born nationals also had higher rates of housing instability than immigrant groups.
The second study aimed to build on the first by collecting detailed personal information through direct interviews. Over 18 months, the team approached randomly selected individuals who had recently entered the same prison. They successfully interviewed approximately 300 participants.
Participants were divided into three categories based on self-reported information. These groups were native-born nationals, documented immigrants, and illegal immigrants. Trained research assistants conducted psychological assessments that are widely used to assess eight core risk factors for crime. Interviewers also asked participants about their lifetime criminal behavior and degree of acculturation.
The results of the interviews were consistent with the results of the initial archival search. Undocumented immigrants had the highest average age of first legal offense. Native-born nationals and documented immigrants are reported to engage in more crime over their lifetime.
When measuring eight key risk factors, native-born nationals had the highest scores. Of the three groups, documented immigrants had the lowest scores, while undocumented immigrants had the lowest scores.
Undocumented immigrants had lower risk scores on seven of the eight rating scales. The only categories in which they scored higher than mainland-born nationals were difficulties in education and employment. Indigenous-born citizens scored highest in categories measuring anti-social behavior, substance abuse and dealing with problematic co-workers.
The formal charges keeping these people in prison also varied widely by group. Native-born nationals and documented immigrants had higher rates of violent and property crimes. Undocumented immigrants were mainly detained for immigration-related crimes such as illegal entry.
The researchers also investigated the process of acculturation. This indicator assesses how strongly an individual adopts the mainstream culture of their new country. They found a positive association between adaptation to US culture and increased behavioral risk. Participants who expressed a strong orientation toward mainstream American culture had increased risk scores in nearly every category.
Conversely, maintaining strong ties to one’s culture of origin was associated with lower risk. Researchers suggest that rapid acculturation can expose individuals to new psychological stressors. They may also connect with homegrown peers who encourage and support rule-breaking behavior.
The researchers planned several caveats regarding their study. Because all data is from people incarcerated in a specific county jail, the findings may not be generalizable to individuals living freely in the community. Changes in local police practices and officer bias can also influence who ends up in prison in the first place.
Relying on self-reported interview data carries the risk that participants may underestimate their past criminal behavior. The researchers attempted to minimize this problem by conducting interviews in private locations. We also instituted strict confidentiality protocols to ensure participants felt safe and honest.
Another limitation includes the original study’s reliance on official U.S. records, which may exclude crimes committed in other countries. The research team designed a second study that aimed to capture international history through direct questioning, which helped corroborate the first findings. The researchers stress that their results do not reflect crime rates across the region, but instead focus on individuals already within the justice system.
Future research should examine how these specific individual characteristics predict recidivism in minority communities. Risk assessment tools used by judges and parole boards may need to be adjusted to reflect the actual behavior of immigrant populations. The authors suggest that criminal psychological risk may take different forms depending on a person’s cultural background.
This finding suggests that border security strategies based on the assumption that immigrants pose a threat to public safety are flawed. Exposing immigrant communities to intense police surveillance diverts resources away from people who actually have high psychological risk factors. Policies that focus solely on an individual’s legal residency status fail to address the true drivers of criminal behavior.
The study, “Criminal Risk Factors for Immigrants in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region,” was authored by Jennifer Eno Louden, Theodore R. Curry, Bethel Hernandez, Elena Vaudreuil, and Osvaldo F. Morella.
