In recent years, the number of undocumented immigrants in the United States has risen again, with Pew Research Center (2024) estimating that in 2022 there were roughly 11 million living in the country—an increase of about half a million from the previous year, reversing more than a decade of decline. At the same time, the Biden administration adopted a more lenient approach to border enforcement and admitted approximately 500,000 people through programs such as CHNV and U4U (Pasell). This increase has fueled public concerns about safety, as political rhetoric often links undocumented immigrants with crime and threats to national security. However, academic studies demonstrate that the equation of “undocumented immigrant equals criminal” is not supported by evidence. The United States should strengthen lawful border management while avoiding the excessive criminalization of undocumented immigrants, because data show their crime rates are lower than those of citizens, while political discourse exaggerates their danger, and state-level crackdowns create fear without resolving the problem.
This gap between rhetoric and reality becomes clearer when looking at how the law itself classifies immigration violations. Although political rhetoric often equates “undocumented immigrant” with “criminal,” the law does not fully support this claim. Entering the country without inspection may be treated as a misdemeanor, while reentry after removal can be a felony (8 U.S.C. §1325). However, roughly 40 percent of undocumented immigrants are visa overstayers, which constitutes a civil violation rather than a criminal offense (Heslin; Williamson). In other words, “illegal” is more often a matter of legal status than of criminal behavior, making it essential to examine actual crime data to uncover the gap between rhetoric and reality.
First, recent empirical research indicates that undocumented immigrants do not commit crimes at higher rates than U.S. citizens and, in many categories, are actually less involved. In Maricopa County, Arizona, for example, a study of nearly two thousand arrestees found that only about 4% of undocumented immigrants reported committing property or violent crimes, compared to more than 22% of U.S. citizens, while drug use was roughly 37% versus 66% (Nuño and Herrera). Yet in some anti-immigrant states, particularly Arizona, local policies such as strict identity checks, traffic stops, and cooperation with federal programs have continually reinforced the public perception that “undocumented immigrant equals criminal” (Freeman). Paradoxically, even under this intense enforcement environment, the data show that undocumented immigrants remain significantly less represented in these offenses and are not the primary source of crime. In short, there is a clear gap between the severity of policy and the reality reflected in the evidence.
Second, the reason undocumented immigrants are still frequently portrayed as potential criminals lies in institutional practices and political discourse rather than in actual behavior. In her study, Racializing Crimmigration, Amada Armenta argues that immigrants, particularly Latinos, are treated as criminals not because they are more prone to crime but because local police and courts often use minor, nonviolent infractions such as driving without a license as entry points into the criminal justice system. Since undocumented immigrants cannot legally obtain licenses, these routine violations can escalate into detention and even deportation (Armenta). In other words, the “criminalization” of undocumented immigrants stems less from their own conduct than from enforcement practices that construct and amplify it. As Armenta emphasizes, this is not the result of individual malice but of institutional mechanisms that are framed as neutral or even “colorblind” (Armenta).
This point aligns closely with David Bacon’s central argument in Illegal People: the issue is not whether undocumented immigrants are inherently more likely to commit crimes, but rather how institutions transform their identity, labor, and presence into labels of “illegality” or “criminality.” Bacon emphasizes that the label “illegal” does not reflect an objective propensity toward crime; instead, it is a political and institutional construction (Bacon). In this sense, from local enforcement practices to broader policy frameworks, the perception of undocumented immigrants as “potential criminals” arises primarily from institutional classifications and enforcement logics, rather than from crime statistics alone.
Third, beyond institutional practices and law enforcement, certain state-level anti-immigrant policies have further reinforced the perception that “undocumented immigrant equals criminal,” while failing to deliver meaningful governance outcomes. For example, historian Raymond A. Mohl, in The Politics of Expulsion, analyzes Alabama’s HB 56 and argues that the law was rooted in racism and the logic of “self-deportation.” It not only drove undocumented immigrants into the shadows of society but also inflicted severe economic and social costs. Mohl described it as “Arizona on steroids,” underscoring that it functioned more as a political gesture than as effective public policy (Mohl).
Similarly, Allen’s study in the American Journal of Public Health shows that Texas’s SB4 law, which compels local governments to fully cooperate with ICE, has not reduced crime rates. Instead, such “criminalization policies” have heightened fear and health risks in communities. These tough measures have failed to achieve their stated security goals and have instead created a hostile environment that further links undocumented immigrants with the image of criminality. More troubling, this climate of fear has weakened trust between undocumented immigrants and law enforcement, leading many victims to avoid reporting crimes or cooperating with investigations out of fear of deportation (Allen). As a result, genuine crimes become harder to detect and address, ultimately undermining public safety itself.
However, conservatives often emphasize a different logic: that undocumented immigrants are unlawful by definition. As a study in Homeland Security Affairs points out, roughly 40% of undocumented immigrants in the United States are visa overstayers who entered legally but remained beyond their authorized period, thereby violating immigration law and staying long-term (Heslin). The study cites 2010 congressional testimony showing that the scale of “overstays” was significant—about 4.4 million people—and notes that visa overstays have historically been tied to national security concerns, such as the fact that two of the 9/11 hijackers had overstayed their visas (Heslin). This analysis highlights structural weaknesses in immigration enforcement and helps explain why conservatives frame immigration not only as a social challenge but also as a matter of public safety and national security.
Correspondingly, the Trump administration’s 2025 executive order Protecting the American People Against Invasion explicitly defined illegal entry as an “invasion,” linking it to terrorism, espionage, and fiscal burdens. Within this framework, the criminalization of immigrants was presented not as a social construct but as the natural outcome of law: if the government failed to enforce detention and removal, it would essentially condone illegality, undermine the rule of law, and erode fairness and safety for both lawful immigrants and citizens. Supporters of this approach argue that such policies protect the integrity of immigration law, safeguard domestic employment, preserve social order, and uphold fairness in the immigration system (The White House). Yet while the principle of “breaking the law means facing consequences” was clear under Trump, in practice, enforcement at the ground level often was driven by numerical targets, leading to mechanical and utilitarian policing. This “numbers-driven” style of enforcement generated impressive arrest statistics but did little to address underlying security risks and, in turn, sparked significant social controversy.
In conclusion, crime data from anti-immigrant states demonstrate that undocumented immigrants commit offenses at lower rates than U.S. citizens, and the perception that “undocumented immigrant equals criminal” stems more from policies and institutions that construct such an image than from objective reality. While strict state and local immigration measures have generated fear and pressure among undocumented immigrants, they have also undermined community trust and weakened public safety. To avoid these consequences, the government must improve enforcement by strengthening visa overstay monitoring and border management to preserve the integrity of the system. At the same time, more humane reforms should be considered at the policy level, such as the recently proposed bipartisan “Dignity Act,” which would provide legal pathways for immigrants who have worked or studied in the United States for an extended period (Salazar et al. 2). Finally, the government must also reduce the political and media overstatement of the idea that “undocumented immigrant equals criminal” and instead prioritize enforcement resources on those who are genuinely involved in criminal activity. By pursuing this dual-track strategy, the government can uphold national security and the rule of law while reducing social division and restoring public trust in immigration policy.
References:
Armenta, Amada. “Racializing Crimmigration: Structural Racism, Colorblindness, and the Institutional Production of Immigrant Criminality.” Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, vol. 3, no. 1, 2017, pp. 82–95. SAGE Journals, https://doi.org/10.1177/2332649216648714.
Allen, Chenoa D. “Toward Evidence-Based Policies and Programs That Promote Immigrant Well-Being.” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 109, no. 9, Sept. 2019, pp. 1177–78. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2019.305256.
Bacon, David. Illegal People: How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants. Beacon Press, 2008. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/valencia-ebooks/detail.action?docID=3117998.
Freeman, Katherine. “Neocolonial Biopolitics in Southern Arizona: Lessons Learned from the SB 1070 Boycott.” Feminist Formations, vol. 28, no. 3, 2016, pp. 222–43. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26776843. Accessed 12 Sept. 2025.
Heslin, Brian. "Overstays: The Lesser-Known Illegal Immigration Issue." Homeland Security Affairs, 2018. ProQuest, https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/overstays-lesser-known-illegal-immigration-issue/docview/2204833058/se-2.
Nuño, L. E., and V. M. Herrera. “Immigration Status and Crime: A Comparison Between Hispanic Undocumented Immigrants and US Citizens.” Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, vol. 0, no. 0, 2025, https://doi.org/10.1177/07399863251348681.
Mohl, Raymond A. "The politics of expulsion: a short history of Alabama's anti-immigrant law, HB 56." Journal of American Ethnic History, vol. 35, no. 3, spring 2016, pp. 42+. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A451531201/AONE?u=lincclin_vcc&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=ff0bc967.
Pasell, Jeffrey S., and Jens Manuel Krogstad. “What We Know about Unauthorized Immigrants Living in the U.S.” Pew Research Center, 22 July 2024, www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/22/what-we-know-about-unauthorized-immigrants-living-in-the-us/.
Salazar, Maria Elvira, and Veronica Escobar. The Dignity Act of 2025: Section by Section Analysis. U.S. House of Representatives, 2025. PDF file, escobar.house.gov/uploadedfiles/the_dignity_act_of_2025_section_by_section.pdf.
The White House. “Protecting the American People against Invasion.” The White House, 20 Jan. 2025, www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-american-people-against-invasion/.
United States Code. 8 U.S.C. §1325: Improper Entry by Alien. U.S. Government Publishing Office, current through 11 Sept. 2025, uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1325.
Williamson, Kevin D. “Houston: Sanctuary City.” National Review, vol. 67, no. 17, Sept. 2015, pp. 31–34. EBSCOhost, research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=f2a1f5d5-4d6c-3dd1-81e7-3ccf3b62499c.
Comments
Post a Comment