As former President Donald Trump campaigns for the 2024 election, immigration—especially crime linked to migrants—has become a central theme in his messaging. Prominent sheriffs, such as Richard Jones from Ohio, have voiced support for Trump’s stance, arguing that crimes committed by immigrants are financially straining local taxpayers. However, when questioned further, Jones acknowledged he does not have evidence showing that immigrants in his area commit crimes at a higher rate than native-born citizens.
Research consistently shows that immigrants do not commit crimes at higher rates than U.S.-born residents. Nonetheless, Trump’s campaign continues to highlight what he terms “migrant crime.” Trump has shared stories of alleged crimes by immigrants, often invoking fear of violence and harm. Recently, some sheriffs have taken to supporting these claims, citing increased costs due to arrests and legal processing of immigrants, though no clear evidence of a crime surge has emerged.
Across various states, including Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Florida, some sheriffs have voiced concern about migrant crime. Yet, when interviewed, they could not provide concrete statistics linking immigrants to a specific increase in criminal activity. Even in cases where crimes were attributed to immigrants, these incidents did not represent a pattern of ongoing risk. Authorities from cities like Aurora, Colorado, have had to address and dismiss false claims regarding supposed gang-related crimes by immigrants.
A recent poll by Reuters/Ipsos found that immigration is a top priority for U.S. voters, especially among Republicans. Roughly 76% of Republicans view immigrants as a safety threat, compared to 15% of Democrats. Some voters, particularly those aligned with Trump, are drawn to his strong rhetoric on the issue, while others worry it may alienate undecided or moderate voters.
Maryland Sheriff Jeffrey Gahler highlighted a couple of tragic crimes involving undocumented immigrants as justification for stricter border policies. While these cases are tragic, they do not suggest a widespread issue. Gahler admitted that he believes deportation is a powerful tool, but one he wishes could be applied to anyone convicted of a crime, regardless of origin.
In Michigan, Sheriff Daniel Abbott also mentioned migrant-related crime concerns but offered no data to confirm an increase due to immigrants. He joins other sheriffs in echoing Trump’s message but without backing claims with statistical support. This pattern has raised concerns among some analysts who believe that Trump’s message while resonating with his base, could alienate others if not balanced with facts.
Additionally, sheriffs in smaller jurisdictions are experiencing rising costs associated with immigration, from increased jail occupancy to language interpretation. Yet, these costs are not necessarily linked to an actual increase in crime but to handling immigration cases overall. In rural Pennsylvania, for example, a recent rumor that migrants were flooding a small town turned out to be untrue, though local police had to address it.
As immigration continues to shape campaign conversations, the divide over the actual impact of migrant crime highlights both political divides and the challenge of basing policies on concrete evidence. Trump and sheriffs supporting his claims may resonate with voters eager for tougher immigration controls, though a closer examination reveals a lack of evidence for the heightened concerns they describe.