Assessing the Relationship between Immigration Status and Drug Use

Abstract

The immigration–crime connection has been the basis for numerous immigration policy decisions. However, there are theoretical arguments and empirical evidence both for and against the positive relationship between immigration and crime. Moreover, much of this research has failed to focus specifically on illegal immigrants. The current study examines drug use patterns among 3,050 recently booked arrestees in Maricopa County, Arizona, from April 2007 to September 2008. Using logistic regression, the authors isolate the effects of immigration status on several types of drug use while controlling for relevant individual and situational characteristics. Findings show that illegal immigrants are generally less likely to use drugs when compared to US citizens, with the exception of powder cocaine use. The paper concludes with a discussion of the study's implications for the larger body of research on immigration and crime, as well for immigration and enforcement policy and practice.

Keywords:

• illegal immigrants
• crime
• drug use

Acknowledgments

This manuscript is a revised version of a paper presented at the 2009 Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The research was funded, in part, by the Maricopa County, Arizona Managers office. The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of Maricopa County. This research was also supported by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security through the National Center for Border Security and Immigration under grant number 2008‐ST‐061‐BS0002. However, any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect views of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Notes

1. Proposition 187 was passed by California voters in November 1994 by a vote of 59% to 41%. Several lawsuits were immediately filed challenging the constitutionality of the Act. After the issuance of a permanent injunction prohibiting enforcement of the Act pending trial and the passage of federal immigration reform in 1996, the case was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In 1998, a federal judge ruled that large portions of Proposition 187 were unconstitutional, and in 1999 Governor Davis withdrew all appeals, essentially killing the Proposition (http://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/cas-anti-immigrant-proposition-187-voided-ending-states-five-year-battle-aclu-righ).

2. Hickman and Suttorp (2008) define deportable aliens as those who entered the country illegally, or who entered with legal permission that has since lapsed or been revoked.

3. Marcelli (2001, p. 492) notes that “legal status was correctly assigned approximately 85% of the time, using these four variables,” when using another data set at his disposal.

4. We omitted juveniles from the present study because the sampling strategies used to obtain our juvenile and adult samples are distinct enough that sample selection bias might be in issue, and separate analyses would be required.

5. As a reliability check, all specimens that test positive with EMIT methods are retested using gas chromatography with mass spectrum detection (GC/MS).

6. Violent offenses included the following charges: assault, kidnapping, robbery, rape, sexual assault, weapons, domestic violent, other assault, and other crimes against persons. Property offenses included the following charges: arson, burglary, burglary tools, damage/destroy property, forgery, fraud, larceny/theft, stolen property, stolen vehicle, and trespassing. Drug use and sales offenses included the following charges: drug possession, drug sale, other drug offense. Alcohol offenses included: DUI and other alcohol violations. All other offenses were included as technical charges: prostitution, flight/escape/warrant, obscenity, resisting arrest, public peace, unspecified ROR violation, driving offense, and warrant.

7. We also have measures of heroin/opiate use. However, levels of use are too low for this category of drugs to support multivariate analyses.

8. As a reminder, urinalyses could not differentiate between crack and other forms of cocaine; therefore, UA results were presented under powder cocaine.