Research Summary

In the early twentieth century, experts equated increased immigration with increased crime and “societal disorganization” (1). The real relationship between immigration and crime is far more complicated and nuanced than those experts believed. Contemporary scholars agree that no direct causal link exists between increased immigration and increased crime in major U.S. cities (1;2;3;4;5). In fact, some research finds that an influx of immigrants can actually decrease crime in many communities. Large portions of the American public nevertheless maintain that immigrants inherently increase  crime, instability, and cause other problems (6). Scholars, by contrast, do not single out immigrants as inherently criminal, although they do find several complex connections between increased immigration and increased crime. Many factors influence the increased crime rates that can accompany immigration (7). Increased numbers of immigrants means there are increased numbers of vulnerable targets for crime. Those immigrants who do commit crimes have multiple reasons for doing so, such as poverty or as a path to social inclusion.

Public opinion blaming immigrants for crime complicates relationships between municipal police and immigrants. Negative public attitudes towards immigrants fed into political pressure for policy changes that pulled municipal police agencies into immigration law enforcement.  After 2001, federal government reorganization placed the Department of Homeland Security (USDHS) and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) at the center of the War on Terror. In response to fears that terrorists, drug dealers, and other dangerous criminals entered the country illegally, ICE and the USDHS led initiatives to “fix” the “immigration problem” (2;8). Increasingly, these federal agencies draw state and municipal policy into entwined wars on crime, drugs and terrorism, increasing tension between police and immigrants. In particular, the Secure Communities Act (2008-14) required municipal police agencies to detain immigrants caught breaking any laws without trial, blurring the lines between immigration and criminal law (2). Immigrant communities became more fearful and distrusting of municipal law enforcement as a result of these policies (1;2;4).

Mistrust and fear complicate police efforts to implement effective community policing practices, which otherwise dominate current U.S. policing methods (9;10). Language and cultural barriers in immigrant communities further weaken ties and complicate positive community policing practices (9).

Despite the numerous barriers to positive police-immigrant relations, municipal governments and their elected officials throughout the United States often work hard to achieve them. Scholars expect that municipal police agencies with active language and cultural training programs can develop stronger ties with the communities they police, but more research about their efficacy is needed (1;9;11;12). Some municipalities attempted to opt out of many federal laws concerning immigration, citing federalism and constitutional infringements, but researchers do not agree on the efficacy of these motions (2;4).

Scholars continue to debate the best practices for relieving immigrant-police tensions. Research points to multicultural and multilingual training as the best option, but many municipal police agencies do not implement such programs (1;9;11;12). Other debates revolve around the efficacy of avoiding or opting-out of federal immigration laws based on claims of unconstitutionality. Al-Khatib insists that local law enforcement agencies should, on an ethical and legal basis, refuse to participate in such laws (2). Tidwell argues the opposite and questions the wisdom in opting-out of federal immigration laws like Secure Communities (4). She argues that law enforcement officers develop legitimacy through the perception of their actions, and any regulation to these actions creates a “concealment” of the true nature of law enforcement (4).