By Huyen Pham & Pham Hoang Van.

As the Biden Administration decides whether to continue the 287(g) program (the controversial program deputizing local law enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration laws), our research shows that the program has broader negative effects on policing behavior than previously identified. To date, debate about the 287(g) program has focused exclusively on the policing behavior of law enforcement agencies like sheriff’s offices that sign the agreements, and on concerns that these signatory local enforcement agencies (“LEAs”) engage in racial profiling. Our research shows that the agreements also negatively affect the behavior of nearby, non-signatory law enforcement agencies. Using 18 million traffic stops drawn from the Stanford Open Policing Project, we find that the agreements caused state troopers in North Carolina and South Carolina to stop Hispanic drivers more often than White drivers, in order to funnel them into the intensive immigration screening conducted by signatory LEAs at the shared jails. Because trooper agencies did not sign the agreements, statistical associations between the presence of agreements and the differential treatment of drivers by race are not contaminated by unobserved confounding factors. Our identification of these previously unnoticed spillover effects raises important policy questions about the program’s impact and the adequacy of existing legal and administrative controls.

Arizona Law Review, 2022. 41p.

By Jonathan Haggerty

  Research suggests there is little connection between immigration and crime; and, to the extent any such relationship exists, immigration reduces crime rates. One frequently cited example—an analysis of 51 studies on immigration and crime conducted between 1994 and 2014—showed that the relationship between immigration and crime is either nonexistent or negative, which means that immigration appears to reduce crime rates. Nonetheless, immigration and crime—specifically related to Latin American gang members—was a major theme of the 2016 presidential election, as opposition to immigration was fundamental to then-candidate Donald Trump’s campaign. Because much of the opposition to immigration stems from a conviction that immigrants are uniquely prone to crime, it is important to review the current evidence. This paper looks specifically at the evidence on illegal immigration and crime, as many supporters of President Trump claim to only oppose illegal immigration, and not immigration itself. There is limited research on the crime rates of illegal immigrants due to data restrictions; however, much of the current, impressive body of evidence that suggests immigrants commit crime at lower rates than native-born Americans combines data on legal and illegal immigrant populations  The most frequently cited studies specifically on illegal immigration can be divided into two categories: those looking at institutionalization rates—the rate at which a given population is arrested or incarcerated—and experimental studies measuring illegal immigration’s impact on crime rates in particular geographic areas. Both categories suggest that illegal immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than native-born citizens. Of the nineteen studies examined in this policy brief, only one suggested a higher crime rate for illegal immigrants, while the rest suggested that illegal immigrants commit fewer crimes than native-born Americans, that they have no effect on crime rates or that they decrease crime rates in areas where they settle. These findings are largely consistent with the overall empirical evidence on immigration and crime.

  R STREET SHORTS NO. 97  

Washington, DC: R Street, 2020. 4p