Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Jan 6.
Published in final edited form as: Deviant Behav. 2020 May 6;42(12):1525–1531. doi: 10.1080/01639625.2020.1758371

Immigration, Criminal Involvement, and Violence in the U.S.: Results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions-III

Kelly E Moore a,*, Theddeus Iheanacho b, Brian P Pittman b, Sherry A McKee b, Charles Dike b
PMCID: PMC8734575  NIHMSID: NIHMS1599728  PMID: 35001991

Abstract

Topics of immigration and crime often receive national attention, despite evidence of the “immigrant paradox,” in which immigrants have lower than expected crime and violence given their extreme social disadvantage. Research examining the immigrant paradox using an expanded set of crime outcomes and the latest available population data is needed. Using the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions Wave III data (2012–2013; n = 36,309), we analyzed the association between first-generation immigrant status alongside violence (i.e., other-directed, self-directed, victimization) and criminal involvement (i.e., crime, legal problems, incarceration) outcomes. Immigrants self-reported lower rates of all outcomes compared to U.S.-born adults, providing continued support for the immigrant paradox. Future research considering later generations of immigrants, as well as differential mechanisms through which immigrants and U.S.-born adults engage in violence and crime, is needed.

Keywords: immigrant paradox, violence, crime, incarceration, victimization

Immigration to the U.S. has increased since the 1990s, with 13% of the U.S. population being foreign-born in 2013 (Ewing, Martinez, and Rumbaut 2015). Immigrants often experience multiple sources of disadvantage that increase risk for crime, violence, and victimization, including poverty, cultural isolation, lack of social support/capital, employment difficulties, and discrimination (Goncalves and Matos 2016; Menjivar and Sallcido 2002). However, population-based research finds that first-generation immigrants are less likely to have violent and nonviolent arrest/incarceration records (Harris and Feldmeyer 2013; Ousey and Kubrin 2009; Martinez 2000) and self-reported antisocial behaviors (Vaughn, Salas-Wright, DeLisi et al. 2014; Vaughn, Salas-Wright, Maynard et al. 2014; Vaughn, Salas-Wright, Quian et al. 2015; Salas-Wright, Vaughn, and Goings 2017). Immigrants from several countries are also less likely to report perpetrating and being victimized by intimate partner violence (Vaughn, Salas-Wright, Cooper-Sadlo et al. 2015; Yoshihama 2009) and have lower rates of self-directed violence (e.g., suicide attempts) than U.S.-born adults (Singh, Rodriguez-Lainz, and Kogan 2013; Singh and Siahpush 2001).

Lower crime, violence, and victimization among immigrants contradicts negative stereotypes (e.g., “criminals”) and is unexpected given immigrants’ social disadvantage, creating the “immigrant paradox” (Vaughn, Salas-Wright, DeLisi et al. 2014). Given the current U.S. social-political climate, it is important to expand upon and examine immigration, crime, violence, and victimization using current population data to inform policy development. The objective of this study is to build upon prior research demonstrating evidence of the immigrant paradox by examining the association between first generation immigrant status and a comprehensive set of perpetration and victimization experiences in the current U.S. population. We hypothesized that immigrants would have lower rates of crime, violence, and victimization compared to U.S.-born adults.

Methods

Procedures

The sample was drawn from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions Wave 3 (NESARC-III), a survey conducted by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) from April 2012 to June 2013 (Grant et al. 2014), and included 36,309 non-institutionalized U.S. adults whose addresses were randomly selected from the 2010 census. Subjects provided written informed consent and completed in-person computer-assisted interviews (Hasin et al. 2015). The response rate was 60.1% overall, comparable to other national surveys (Blackwell, Lucas, and Clarke 2014). Data were weighted to adjust for nonresponse. Detailed methods are published elsewhere (Grant et al. 2014). Data collection and secondary analysis were approved by the institutional review board.

Measures

Immigrant Status

Participants who reported not being born in the U.S. were coded as first-generation immigrants (n = 6,404, 17.6%). Immigrants reported how long they lived in the U.S. (range=1 to 90 years; M = 20.9, SD = 14.3).

Crime

Participants who endorsed illegal activities since age 15 (i.e., fraud, forgery, driving while intoxicated, property destruction, arson, theft, burglary, illegal income, sexual assault, assault, harassment, weapons offenses, hurt animals, “something you could have been arrested for”) were coded as having committed crime. Participants who reported having been in jail, prison, or a correctional facility since age 18 were coded as having been incarcerated, and participants who reported having serious trouble with the police/law in the past 12 months were coded as having current legal problems (all items were yes/no).

Violence

Participants who endorsed violent behaviors since age 15 (i.e., hit/bully, throw things, destroy property, start fires, steal from someone, force sex, start fights, harass/threaten/blackmail, use weapon in a fight, hurt animals) were coded as having engaged in other-directed violence. Participants who reported having attempted suicide, tried/threatened to hurt or kill themselves, or burned/scratched themselves on purpose were coded as having engaged in self-directed violence. Participants who endorsed stressful or traumatic events (i.e., caused or threatened death, serious injury, sexual violation) that were violent (i.e., sexually/physically abused or assaulted, beaten up, kidnapped/held hostage, mugged, held up, threatened/assaulted with weapon) were coded as having been violently victimized.

Covariates

Analyses were adjusted for sociodemographics often controlled for in population research (i.e., gender, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, marital status, income, urbanicity, region, religious service attendance, employment status [Fearn et al. 2016; Chou et al. 2016; Grant, et al. 2015]), variables associated with violence/crime (i.e., substance use [Harford et al. 2017]), and potential confounds (i.e., years in U.S. [Vaughn, Salas-Wright, DeLisi et al. 2014]). Detailed information about the coding of sociodemographic variables is available in other publications using NESARC-III data (e.g., Grant et al., 2015).

Analysis

Data were analyzed using PROC SURVEYLOGISTIC in SAS, version 9.4 (Cary, NC), which allows for incorporating stratification, clustering (i.e., primary sampling unit (PSU)), and unequal weighting of the sampling design. Logistic regressions examined immigrant status with crime and violence outcomes, controlling for covariates. Tests were two-tailed with an alpha level of p<.05. Parameter estimates as well as adjusted odds ratios (AOR) and 95% confidence intervals are reported in Table 1. Wald chi square goodness of fit (GOF), R2, and percent concordance is reported for each model.

Table 1.

Association of immigrant status with violence and crime (n = 36,309)

Violence Outcomes
Other-directed Self-directed Victimization
% b SE Wald AOR 95% CI % b SE Wald AOR 95% CI % b SE Wald AOR 95% CI
US-born 25.0% 1.0 0.1 200.4 2.6** 2.3; 3.0 7.9% 0.6 0.1 27.4 1.8** 1.5; 2.3 24.5% 0.6 0.1 80.0 1.8** 1.6; 2.0
Immigrant 11.6% Ref 4.0% Ref 14.2% Ref
Crime Outcomes
Criminal Behavior Current Legal Problems Incarceration
% b SE Wald AOR 95% CI % b SE Wald AOR 95% CI % b SE Wald AOR 95% CI
US-born 32.0% 1.0 0.1 202.9 2.8** 2.4; 3.2 2.0% 1.4 0.2 45.4 4.0** 2.7; 6.0 12.9% 0.7 0.1 35.5 2.1** 1.6; 2.6
Immigrant 11.8% Ref 0.9% Ref 4.5% Ref
Open in a new tab

Note. AOR=Adjusted Odds Ratio.

*

p < .05

**

p < .001.

All models control for the following sociodemographics (gender, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, marital status, income, urbanicity, region, religious service attendance, employment status, presence of substance use problems, and years lived in the U.S.).

Results

In the U.S. population, about 28.5% of adults reported criminal behavior, 11.4% reported some history of incarceration, 1.8% reported current legal problems, 22.7% reported having engaged in other-directed violence and experiencing violence victimization, and 7% reported having engaged in self-directed violence. Results from the logistic regressions are reported in Table 1. Controlling for sociodemographic variables, U.S.-born adults were 2.5 times more likely to report having engaged in other-directed violence (Wald GOF x2 (21) = 2432.8, p < .0001; R2 = .14; 70.4% concordance), about twice as likely to report having engaged in self-directed violence (Wald GOF x2 (21) = 1757.2, p < .0001; R2 = .14; 73.0% concordance), and twice as likely to report having experienced violence victimization (Wald GOF x2 (21) = 1378.8, p < .0001; R2 = .09; 65.9% concordance) compared to first-generation immigrants. U.S.-born adults were almost 3 times more likely to report crime (Wald GOF x2 (21) = 6482.4, p < .0001; R2 = .25; 76.5% concordance), two times more likely to report a history of incarceration (Wald GOF x2 (21) = 3363.6, p < .0001; R2 = .24; 80.2% concordance), and 4 times more likely to report legal problems (Wald GOF x2 (21) = 712.2, p < .0001; R2 = .19; 80.4% concordance) than first-generation immigrants.

Discussion

This study provides updated and expanded research on immigration and criminal outcomes in the U.S. Consistent with other research, U.S.-born adults were more likely than immigrants to report crime, incarceration, legal problems, other- and self-directed violence, and violence victimization. Researchers have posited several explanations for why immigrants engage in less crime and violence. It has been suggested that first-generation immigrants may have more respect for the U.S. justice system and identify more costs of punishment (Piquero et al. 2014), may be deterred from antisocial behavior due to deportation fears (Vaughn, Salas-Wright, DeLisi et al. 2014; Vaughn Salas-Wright, Maynard et al. 2014), or may have higher levels of ambition and hence lower antisocial propensity (Ousey and Kubrin 2009) when compared to U.S.-born adults. Research examining these potential explanatory mechanisms is needed. However, these results should not minimize the potential impact of acculturation stress or other immigration factors on crime and violence; the immigrant paradox appears to be unique to first-generation immigrants, as rates of crime among second-and third-generation immigrants more closely resemble U.S.-born adults (Vaughn, Salas-Wright, Maynard et al. 2014).

Immigrants also reported less violence victimization in this U.S. sample, which is expected given their lower rates of violence perpetration. Experiencing certain types of violence (e.g., intimate partner violence, IPV) varies depending on country of origin, with immigrants from Latin America being more likely to perpetrate IPV than U.S.-born adults (Vaughn, Salas-Wright, Cooper-Sadlo et al. 2015). In addition, first-generation (not second-generation) immigrants are found to have lower rates of adverse childhood experiences than U.S.-born adults, including physical or sexual abuse and witnessing violence (Vaughn, Salas-Wright, Huang, et al. 2017).

Our results were consistent with several studies showing immigrants engage in less self-directed violence than U.S. born individuals. Research using national datasets shows immigrants have lower mortality risk in general (all causes combined) compared to U.S.-born adults, including suicide (Singh, Rodriguez-Lainz, and Kogan 2013; Singh, and Siahpush 2001). Research on specific forms of self-directed violence (i.e., deliberate self-harm) among immigrants is rare, despite evidence that self-harm varies as a function of race/ethnicity (Cooper et al. 2010) and country of residence (Laloe 2004). It may be fruitful to assess other self-directed violence behaviors like deliberate self-harm in future research with immigrant populations.

Limitations

This study has several limitations, including its cross-sectional and self-report nature and the fact that self-reported crime and violence for immigrants may have reflected experiences that occurred in their country of origin, information that was not captured in the dataset. Future research should account for immigrants’ countries of origin when examining crime outcomes, as some may have higher rates of violence than others. In addition, future research should use more precise assessments of crime and violence; this study was limited to the questions asked in the NESARC-III survey and crime outcomes did not refer to specific time frames. It is important to note that research does suggest immigrants are less likely to report crimes to police (Gutierrez and Kirk 2017), and thus this may have occurred in the context of the NESARC-III survey.

Conclusions and Implications

In conclusion, research in the past two decades consistently shows that first-generation immigrants in the U.S. have lower risk for criminal involvement, violence, and victimization compared to U.S.-born adults. Research on mechanisms explaining the immigrant paradox is needed to identify protective factors that can reduce crime and violence risk among other immigrant populations, such as second and third generation immigrants who have higher risk of crime and violence. The results from this study can influence the dialogue around immigration and crime in the U.S. in a positive way, correcting misconceptions about increased criminal involvement and thereby reducing criminal stigma among an already marginalized group. These results can also be used to inform social and economic policy development around immigration which considers the relatively low crime risk first-generation immigrants pose.

Acknowledgments

Funding: This work was funded in part by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA; T32DA019426-12; KEM), and the State of Connecticut, Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services (DMHAS). The National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions-III (NESARC-III) was sponsored by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), with supplemental support from NIDA. Support is acknowledged from the intramural program, NIAAA, National Institutes of Health. Sponsors and funders of the NESARC-III, and specific funders of this study, had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. This publication does not express the views of DMHAS, the State of Connecticut, NIDA, or NIAAA.

Biographical Notes

Kelly E. Moore, PhD is a licensed clinical psychologist and Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychology at East Tennessee State University. Dr. Moore received her PhD in Clinical Psychology from George Mason University in 2016 and completed a postdoctoral fellowship at Yale School of Medicine. Her research interests include understanding and reducing factors that contribute to criminal justice system involvement and poor adjustment after release from incarceration, and the adaptation of evidence-based treatments for justice-involved populations and settings. Dr. Moore has focused much of her work on understanding the psychological and behavioral consequences of stigma associated with a criminal record.

Theddeus Iheanacho, MD is an Associate Professor of Psychiatry at Yale School of Medicine and Medical Director, Errera Community Care Center, VA Connecticut Health Care System. Dr. Iheanacho’s background involves addressing the needs of homeless adults with severe mental illness and co-morbid substance use disorders and other chronic disorders. He is interested in increasing access to evidence-based interventions for underserved and vulnerable populations with mental and substance use disorders.

Brian Pittman, MS has been a statistician within the Department of Psychiatry at the Yale School of Medicine since 2003. He earned his Master of Science degree in Biostatistics from Columbia University in 1993. Prior to joining Yale, he spent ten years studying oncology at the Institute for Cancer Prevention (aka, American Health Foundation), serving as the primary statistician on numerous basic science, epidemiologic, and clinical studies focused on cancer prevention. Throughout the span of his career, Brian has co-authored more than 190 scientific, peer-reviewed manuscripts. His collaborative work has focused on the analysis of longitudinal/correlated data, utilizing general linear models and non-parametric methods for the analysis of repeatedly measured psychiatric data with floor effects or other skewed distributions. He is proficient in SAS, SPSS and numerous statistical power software. Brian serves as editor and frequent reviewer on numerous scientific journals in the fields of oncology and psychiatry.

Sherry A. McKee, PhD is a Professor of Psychiatry at the Yale Medical School, Director of the Yale Behavioral Pharmacology Laboratory, and Clinical Director of the Forensic Drug Diversion Clinic. Dr. McKee directs a translational program of research focused on treatment development for addictive disorders, with an emphasis on women and more recently criminal justice populations. Her work spans clinical trials, behavioral pharmacology, survey research, and epidemiological research to uncover mechanisms underlying poor outcomes and to translate these finding into improved interventions. She is the PI for Yale’s Translational Center to Develop Gender Sensitive Therapeutics for Addiction (Yale-SCOR). For this effort, she directs an interdisciplinary team conducting translational cross-species research focused on expediting the development of gender-sensitive therapeutics, mentoring junior faculty, and providing a national resource on women and addiction. Dr. McKee also leads a federally funded partnership between Yale University, the of Connecticut Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services, and the State of Connecticut Department of Correction, to develop and implement an integrated system of addiction care for offender re-entry.

Charles Dike, MD, MPH is an Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Associate Program Director or the Law and Psychiatry Fellowship Program at Yale University School of Medicine. He is also Medical Director, Office of the Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services. He is a Distinguished Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, Fellow of the Royal College of Psychiatrists of England and Fellow of the American College of Healthcare Executives. He also holds a Master of Public Health degree, with concentration in health policy administration, and a Diploma in Clinical Psychiatry from the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ireland. His research interests include psychiatric and medical ethics, reduction of restraint and seclusion, management of aggression, pathological lying, domestic violence in immigrant groups in the US and global mental health.

Footnotes

Declaration of Interest Statement

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest

Note: The original data is available from (https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/research/nesarc-iii).

References

  1. Blackwell DL, Lucas JW, and Clarke TC. 2014. “Summary Health Statistics for U.S. Adults: National Health Interview Survey, 2012.” Vital Health Stat 10:1–171. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Chou PS, Goldstein RB, Smith SM, Huang B, Ruan WJ, Zhang H, Jung J, Saha TD, Pickering RP, and Grant BF. 2016. “The Epidemiology of DSM-5 Nicotine Use Disorder: Results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions-III.” J Clin Psychiatry 77:1404–1412. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Cooper J, Murphy E, Webb R, Hawton K, Bergen H, Waters K, and Kapur N. 2010. “Ethnic Differences in Self-Harm, Rates, Characteristics and Service Provision: Three-City Cohort Study.” British J Psychiatry 197:212–218. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Ewing WA, Martinez DE, and Rumbaut RG. 2015. “The Criminalization of Immigration in the United States.” American Immigration Council Special Report, 1–20. (https://ssrn.com/abstract=2631704). [Google Scholar]
  5. Fearn NE, Vaughn MG, Nelson EJ, Salas-Wright CP, DeLisi M, and Qian Z. 2016. “Trends and Correlates of Substance Use Disorders Among Probationers and Parolees in the United States 2002–2014.” Drug Alcohol Depend 167:128–139. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Goncalves M, and Matos M. 2016. “Prevalence of Violence Against Immigrant Women: A Systematic Review of the Literature.” J Fam Violence 31:697–710. [Google Scholar]
  7. Grant BF, Amsbary M, Chu A, Sigman R, Kali J, and Sugawana Y.2014. “Source and Accuracy Statement: National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions-III (NESARC-III).” National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. [Google Scholar]
  8. Grant BF, Goldstein RB, Saha TD, Chou SP, Jung J, Zhang H, Pickering RP, Ruan WJ, Smith SM, Huang B, et al. 2015. “Epidemiology of DSM-5 Alcohol Use Disorder.” JAMA Psychiatry 72:757–766. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Gutierrez CM, and Kirk DS. 2017. “Silence Speaks: The Relationship Between Immigration and the Underreporting of Crime.” Crime Delinq 63:926–950. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Harford TC, Chen CM, Kerridge BT, and Grant BF. 2017. “Self- and Other-Directed Forms of Violence and their Relationship with Lifetime DSM-5 Psychiatric Disorders: Results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol Related Conditions-III (NESARC-III).” Psychiatry Res 262:384–392. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Harris CT, and Feldmeyer B. 2013. “Latino Immigration and White, Black, and Latino Violent Crime: A Comparison of Traditional and Non-Traditional Immigrant Destinations.” Soc Sci Res 42:202–216. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Hasin DS, Greenstein E, Aivadyan C, Stohl M, Aharonovich E, Saha T, Goldstein R, Nunes EV, Jung J, Zhang H. et al. 2015. “The Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule-5 (AUDADIS-5): Procedural Validity of Substance Use Disorders Modules through Clinical Re-Appraisal in a General Population Sample.” Drug Alcohol Depend 148:40–46. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Laloe V 2004. “Patterns of Deliberate Self-Burning in Various Parts of the World: A Review.” Burns: J Int Soc Burn Injuries 30:207–215. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Martinez R 2000. “Immigration and Urban Violence: The Link Between Immigrant Latinos and Types of Violence.” Soc Sci Quart 81:363–734. [Google Scholar]
  15. Menjivar C, and Salcido O. 2002. “Immigrant Women and Domestic Violence Common Experiences in Different Countries.” Gend Soc 16:898–920. [Google Scholar]
  16. Ousey GC, and Kubrin CE. 2009. “Exploring the Connection Between Immigration and Violent Crime Rates in U.S. Cities 1980–2000.” Soc Prob 56:447–473. [Google Scholar]
  17. Piquero AR, Bersani BE, Loughran TA, and Fagan J. 2014. “Longitudinal Patterns of Legal Socialization in First-Generation, Second-Generation, Immigrants, and Native-Born Serious Youthful Offenders.” Crime Delinq 62:1403–1425. [Google Scholar]
  18. Salas-Wright CP, Vaughn MG, and Goings TC. 2017. “Immigrants from Mexico Experience Serious Behavioral and Psychiatric Problems at Far Lower Rates than US-Born Americans.” Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 52:1325–1328. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Singh GK, Rodriguez-Lainz A, and Kogan MD. 2013. “Immigrant Health Inequalities in the United States: Use of Eight Major National Data Systems.” Sci World J. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Singh GK, and Siahpush M. 2001. “All-Cause and Cause-Specific Mortality of Immigrants and Native Born in the United States.” Am J Public Health 91:392–399. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Vaughn MG, Salas-Wright CP, Maynard BR, Quian Z, Terzis L, Kusowd AM, and DeLisi M. 2014. “Criminal Epidemiology and the Immigrant Paradox: Intergenerational Discontinuity in Violence and Antisocial Behavior Among Immigrants.” J Crim Just 42:483–490. [Google Scholar]
  22. Vaughn MG, Salas-Wright CP, Huang J, Qian Z, Terzis L, and Helton JJ. 2017. “Adverse Childhood Experiences Among Immigrants to the United States.” J Interpers Viol 32:1543–1564. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Vaughn MG, Salas-Wright CP, DeLisi M, and Maynard BR. 2014. “The Immigrant Paradox: Immigrants are Less Antisocial than Native-Born Americans.” Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 49:1129–1137. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Vaughn MG, Salas-Wright CP, Cooper-Sadlo S, and Larson M. 2015. “Are Immigrants More Likely than Native-Born Americans to Perpetrate Intimate Partner Violence?” J Interpers Viol 30: 1888–1904. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Vaughn MG, Salas-Wright CP, Quian Z, and Wanga J. 2015. “Evidence of a ‘Refugee Paradox’ for Antisocial Behavior and Violence in the United States.” J Forensic Psychiatry Psychol 26: 624–631. [Google Scholar]
  26. Yoshihama M 2009. “Intimate Partner Violence in Immigrant and Refugee Communities: Challenges, Promising Practices, and Recommendations.” Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Report. (https://folio.iupui.edu/handle/10244/788). [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES