In Southern California’s heated debates over crime and immigration, UC Irvine researchers are throwing cold water on a favorite talking point: that more immigrants mean more crime. Their work, which many scholars now describe as myth‑busting, has turned criminologist Charis Kubrin into a key voice in the conversation.
Kubrin has spent more than two decades dissecting the immigration‑crime relationship, and that body of work helped earn her a share of the 2026 Stockholm Prize in Criminology. Her research repeatedly finds no general link between immigration and higher local crime rates and, in many analyses, shows a negative association instead. In plain English, immigrants often have lower offending rates than native‑born residents, and rising immigration typically does not push crime up, a pattern highlighted in the Annual Review of Criminology.
The Stockholm Prize jury said the 2026 award “shines the spotlight on how criminology is myth‑busting on immigration and rehabilitation,” praising work that systematically reviews and synthesizes decades of research. The prize is scheduled to be formally presented in Stockholm in June, according to the Stockholm Prize in Criminology.
What the research actually shows
Major reviews of the field show a consistent pattern: pooled analyses and meta‑reviews find no average positive link between immigration and crime. When researchers do see statistically significant relationships, they more often point to decreases in some offenses rather than increases.
One widely cited synthesis by Graham Ousey and Charis Kubrin lays out that evidence and stresses that results can vary by place, time, and the specific offenses being measured, so context and nuance matter, according to the Annual Review of Criminology.
How SoCal is taking it
The renewed attention to these findings prompted a street‑level reality check. FOX 11 Los Angeles took the research out to the public to see how it landed. Reactions across Southern California were mixed: some people said they were surprised but open to the data, while others were skeptical, leaning on personal experiences or political concerns.
The station’s reporting captured that split and underscored a familiar problem for academics. Even when the evidence stacks up on one side, public opinion often moves slowly, according to FOX 11 Los Angeles.
Policy implications for California
Kubrin has also taken the debate straight into the policy arena. A 2020 UC Irvine analysis used a synthetic‑control approach to test whether California’s SB‑54, the California Values Act, altered statewide violent or property crime rates. The study found no significant effect either way.
That result directly addresses claims that sanctuary policies make communities less safe and suggests that changing immigration enforcement rules is unlikely to trigger large swings in crime, as reported by KQED.
Bottom line
For Southern California policymakers and residents, the message is straightforward: a large and growing body of research undercuts the idea that immigrants are a primary driver of crime. The harder task is getting that evidence to compete with long‑standing fears and political narratives.
Kubrin told UC Irvine News that the Stockholm Prize gives her a bigger platform to push for more evidence‑based debate and policy. Whether that shifts the conversation in Southern California may depend less on the next study and more on who is willing to listen.
