New Research Again Debunks the Myth Linking Undocumented Immigrants to Crime, by Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D. August 27, 2026

New Research Again Debunks the Myth Linking Undocumented Immigrants to Crime

by 

Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D. 

August 29, 2026*

A recent HuffPost article by Ian Kumamoto, published August 19, 2026, highlights new research that complicates one of the most durable claims in contemporary immigration politics: the idea that undocumented immigration is associated with higher crime.

The study, published in the Journal of Urban Affairs, examined roughly 11,500 neighborhoods across 100 U.S. cities representing about 46 million people. Rather than finding that increases in undocumented immigration were followed by increases in violent crime, the researchers found no such relationship. In neighborhoods where the undocumented population grew, property crime actually declined more sharply, and violent crime did not increase.

That finding deserves attention not simply because of what it says about crime, but because of what it reveals about the power of political narratives.

For years, immigrants—especially undocumented immigrants from Mexico, Central America, and other parts of Latin America—have been portrayed as threats to public safety. Political speeches routinely connect immigration with criminality, disorder, danger, and invasion. Those associations have helped justify increasingly aggressive enforcement policies and have shaped public attitudes toward people who often possess relatively little political power of their own.

The difficulty is that the evidence repeatedly refuses to cooperate with the stereotype.

The study examined neighborhood change between 2010 and 2018 and adds to a much longer body of scholarship questioning the presumed relationship between immigration and crime. Lead researcher Charis Kubrin summarized the findings plainly: unauthorized immigration does not appear to drive neighborhood crime rates.

What makes this especially revealing is how long the underlying myth has survived.

Researchers have challenged the immigrant-crime association for generations. Even the Wickersham Commission, nearly a century ago, found lower involvement in crime among immigrants than among people born in the United States. Yet the assumption that immigrants bring disorder remains deeply embedded in American political discourse.

That persistence should make us ask a larger question.

What happens when a political narrative survives repeated empirical refutation?

At that point, we are no longer dealing only with an argument about evidence. We are dealing with a story that serves a political function.

Constructing immigrants as dangerous outsiders makes exclusion appear reasonable. It turns enforcement into protection. It transforms communities seeking work, safety, family reunification, or opportunity into objects of suspicion. And because these narratives fall most heavily on racialized populations, they draw upon much older traditions in American history in which entire groups have been portrayed as inherently threatening in order to justify unequal treatment.

This is why the new research matters.

Public policy should be based on credible evidence rather than politically useful fear. When research covering thousands of neighborhoods repeatedly fails to show the crime effects so often invoked in political rhetoric, responsible public debate requires us to acknowledge that fact.

None of this means that immigration policy is simple or that questions concerning borders, legal status, or enforcement do not deserve serious discussion. They do.

But serious discussion should begin with accurate premises.

If undocumented immigration is not producing the increases in violent crime that political rhetoric so frequently attributes to it, then we should stop treating that claim as self-evident truth.

The Kumamoto article and the underlying Journal of Urban Affairs study are therefore valuable not merely because they challenge a stereotype, but because they remind us of something fundamental to democratic policymaking:

Evidence should shape our understanding of social problems. We should not reshape the evidence to preserve a politically convenient story.

References

Kumamoto, I. (2026, August 19). In a plot twist for conservatives, new data finds no link between immigrants and crime. HuffPost.

Kubrin, C. E., Christopher, D., Hodgen, C., Luo, X. I., & Hipp, J. R. (2026). Does unauthorized immigration drive community crime rates? Evidence from 11,500 U.S. neighborhoods. Journal of Urban Affairs. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2026.2699123

*Originally puplished 8.28.26 Updated 8.29.26
In A Plot Twist For Conservatives, New Data Finds No Link Between Immigrants And Crime
Awkward.

Ryan Murphy via Associated Press

By Ian Kumamoto
Aug 19, 2026, 02:18 PM EDT
|Updated Aug 19, 2026

While undocumented immigrants continue to serve as conservatives’ favorite boogiemen, they also conveniently happen to be a demographic with few legal protections. By painting them as dangerous criminals threatening the safety of American citizens, many Republicans have justified violent campaigns that have involved arresting and detaining thousands of innocent people, some of them with legal status, all across the country.

But an affirming new study found no detectable change in violent crime in neighborhoods with increases in undocumented residents. In fact, “neighborhoods where the share of undocumented immigrants actually grew saw greater reductions in property crime,” per the research published in the Journal of Urban Affairs.

The study tracked crime rates across a vast 11,500 neighborhoods and across 100 cities that represented 46 million people. Their findings joyfully and completely fly in the face of all of conservatives’ racist and xenophobic claims about immigrants — especially those who are undocumented — being the scourge of their communities.

In order to come to their conclusions, researchers examined correlations between the number of undocumented immigrants and different types of crimes, such as property crime and aggravated assaults. Although there are several studies published that examine the connections between immigration and crime, few differentiate among immigrants with legal status and undocumented immigrants. One of the most fascinating findings from this particular study was that neighborhoods that saw a growth in the percentage of undocumented immigrants also saw a 2.5% decrease in aggravated assaults and other violent crime.

For those of us who are immigrants or have spent time around undocumented people, this is actually not very surprising. People who leave their home countries often do so out of desperation, often to flee violence, poverty and other factors that dramatically affect their quality of life. The last thing many of them want to do once they reach the U.S. is call attention to themselves by breaking the rules.

One of the most fascinating findings from this particular study was that neighborhoods that saw a growth in the percentage of undocumented immigrants also saw a 2.5% decrease in aggravated assaults and other violent crime.

This fear of being perceived negatively is even more pronounced now that ICE has been unleashed indiscriminately nationwide, which has left many immigrants literally too afraid to even step outside. That fear seems pretty justified, considering several cases of unjustified violence and a new plan to arm ICE officers with electric shock gloves.

The correlation between reduced violent crime in areas with an increasing number of undocumented immigrants is so notable that the researchers even make a spicy suggestion at the end of their study: “All else equal, our findings suggest that law enforcement activity to prevent property crime and violent assaults would be optimally concentrated in neighborhoods where residents are disproportionately U.S. citizens,” they write.

Of course, we’re not really holding our breaths for these very insightful, revealing studies to lead to a change of heart on the part of cowardly bigots. The vitriol against undocumented immigrants is already so widespread and has become more of an emotional reaction than it is a logical or scientifically backed one.

But for everyone else who recognizes data, respects human rights and understands the pitfalls of historical racism, it’s evident that blaming violence on outsiders seeking asylum is ignorant and uninformed.

"I Taught My 4th Grade Class About White Privilege and Their Response Was Eye-Opening," by J. Mazzola | Huffington Post

Stories like these illustrate well how the "problem of race" is less of one for children than for adults who have so much baggage that they project this onto the children themselves, as well as onto their classroom teachers who are simply teaching the truths of history. 

Our children can totally handle this. Plus, they should, if they are to be adequately educated and prepared for the world they face.

-Angela Valenzuela

I Taught My 4th Grade Class About White Privilege and Their Response Was Eye-Opening

"Students tackled the Louisiana literacy test, which was given to would-be Black voters in the 1960s. Every one of them failed."

One of the author's students taking the Louisiana Literacy Test from the 1960s., COURTESY OF JUSTIN MAZZOLA
August 22, 2022 Justin Mazzola  HUFFPOST

When I’d ask my students this at the beginning of each school year, someone always said they look old. Another would point out that most of them aren’t smiling, and I’ll never forget the boy who said matter-of-factly that a lot of them are not handsome.

Students would also realize they’re all men, and, except for President Barack Obama, they’re all white. I’d then ask the natural follow-up questions: Why do you think that is and how do you think it’s affected our country? After discussing with a partner, they’d suggest that only white men were allowed to vote (previously true), while another would theorize the elected leaders made laws that favored white men (mostly true, specifically the wealthy). Like our presidents, almost every student in my class was white.

To be clear, this is not critical race theory, despite what many conservatives will have you believe. They argue that teaching kids about race sows segregation and shame, even if the history lesson involves events long before they were born. Some critics go so far as to claim we live in a colorblind society where racism no longer exists, citing Oprah and Obama as proof everyone has a fair shot at success. Many of those critics also have children who are likely to adopt their views, unless professional educators teach them to think for themselves.

I was one of those kids, a Xennial growing up lower-middle class in a small New Hampshire city with my parents and younger brother. In 1990, the state was 98% white. In my high school graduating class of 264, only three students were nonwhite. Needless to say, I was not exposed to meaningful discussions about race. Instead, my family was indoctrinated by Rush Limbaugh, whose radio show provided a soundtrack for our home. My Republican father criticized affirmative action because it gave minority groups an unfair advantage in a country where, he claimed, everyone has an equal opportunity “as long as they work hard.” My mother, a French immigrant, adopted his views by osmosis. I did too, and held on to them throughout my 20s, until one professor changed everything.

While obtaining my master’s degree in education in 2009, I was required to take a course called “Language, Power and Democracy.” The monthlong class explored white privilege and America’s ongoing racial divide, and was taught mostly through documentaries and discussions. Redlining and Reconstruction were just some of the topics covered. My belief that class outweighed race in determining opportunities began to erode. After a month of evidence-based lectures and thoughtful conversations with my racially diverse classmates, I began to see America’s institutional racism.

Upon graduating, I taught at an independent school in San Francisco for nearly a decade. Autonomy over the curriculum allowed me to incorporate current events and marginalized voices into developmentally appropriate fourth grade content. Drawing inspiration from my graduate course, as well as authors Howard Zinn and James Loewen, I provided various perspectives while teaching social studies.

Each October, my students reviewed what they learned in third grade about Christopher Columbus. Then I would read “Encounter” to provide them with a different point of view. The children’s book is told through the eyes of a young Taino boy recounting the Italian explorer’s arrival, and the ensuing enslavement and brutality he unleashed on the native people. My students were simultaneously fascinated and shocked, leading most to write essays about why Columbus Day should no longer be celebrated.

During our World War II unit, students questioned a U.S. propaganda video, then analyzed photos of Japanese Americans being forcibly removed from the West Coast and images from the camps where they were incarcerated. They asked how Japanese Americans could be imprisoned based on their ethnicity, and why German Americans were spared the same treatment. This is not critical race theory, but students certainly raised critical questions about race in American history.

Why Some White Liberals Will Probably Vote For Donald Trump

In a study of “dog-whistle politics” involving hundreds of white people by Brown and Stanford University professors, respectively, Rachel Wetts and Robb Willer, they found that Donald Trump’s racism appears to be particularly effective with self-identified liberals that harbor racial resentment.  These are the whites who voted for Trump after having voted for Obama in the previous election (this article references several studies since 2016 that corroborate this).

That is, the overtly racist messages do not impact as powerfully as the implicit ones, particularly for resentful whites that perceive a loss of centrality in society.  As we know well, however, whites still pretty much dominate the upper-echelons of society, but they are vulnerable to manipulation which is what Trump is all about.  He himself is in power and sees himself and “his people” as “victims.”

This is a preemptive political strike from within via dog-whistles, or coded language, that amounts to yet another ploy to suppress the voices, perspectives, and needs of diverse communities. 

-Angela Valenzuela

Why Some White Liberals Will Probably

Vote For Donald Trump

A new study demonstrates that racist dog whistles work.

by Arthur Delany | Huffington Post 8.20.19

Reporters often describe President Donald Trump’s

racism as a strategy to excite Republican voters,

may actually work better on certain self-identified

liberals. That’s the conclusion a pair of academic

researchers reached after conducting an experiment

with hundreds of white Americans earlier this year.

Continue reading here.