Citizenship and Sentencing: Assessing Intersectionality in National Origin and Legal Migration Status on Federal Sentencing Outcomes

Abstract

Objectives: This study seeks to understand how national origin and legal migration status of noncitizen defendants in federal criminal courts shape incarceration and sentence length decisions. Method: The authors use annual United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) Monitoring of Federal Criminal Sentences (MFCS) datasets (2011–2016) to examine the impact of defendant’s (1) national origin and (2) legal versus illegal migration status on incarceration and sentence length decisions in federal criminal courts. In addition, in order to account for effects of immigration cases, supplemental analyses are conducted for (1) non-immigration offenses and (2) immigration-only offenses. Results: For the incarceration decision, noncitizen defendants have higher odds of incarceration than U.S. citizens, net of other factors. These effects are less consistent in the sentence length decision. These relationships systemically differ across national origin and legal migration status. Conclusions: Punishment disadvantages based on one’s citizenship are particularly pronounced for defendants from Mexico, Latin America, and Africa and especially for those with “illegal” migration status. As noncitizen populations continue to grow in federal courts and in the U.S. more broadly, understanding and addressing these citizenship disparities in punishment will be increasingly important.

The Noncitizen Penalty in U.S. Federal Courts: Differences in Punishment by Region of Citizenship

“…In addition, Koo et al (2022) find that the punishments Asian noncitizens receive are not as severe as the punishments that groups of other regions face, and conclude that these results align with the focal concerns perspective. However, it is uncertain that this is the case, for they place countries from both the Middle East and East Asia under their “Asian” regional category.…”

“…A recent study by Koo, Feldmeyer, and Holmes (2022) is the only study to have done so, though our study extends their contribution in several ways. The theoretical framework in Koo et al (2022) relies on the notion that certain groups are perceived to be more dangerous to the community than are other groups. As will be discussed in more detail, this theoretical contention is problematized by some of their regional categorizations.…”

“…We extend this contribution in several ways. Our study analyzes more recent data (2018–2020), which is warranted because previous research has produced mixed results on the regional variation of the noncitizen penalty (e.g., Koo et al 2022; cf. Iles and Adegun 2018)—variation that could be attributed to the different time periods that have been examined.…”

“…Furthermore, prior research on the regional variation of the noncitizen penalty has produced mixed findings regarding which regions are penalized most severely (e.g., Koo et al 2022; cf. Iles and Adegun 2018).…”

“…Selective dynamics of focal concerns and group threat theory are used to conceptually guide and inform our analyses. As is common in sentencing literature (e.g., Iles and Adegun 2018; Koo et al 2022), we are unable to provide explicit tests for all of the theoretical mechanisms we consider (for more details on this limitation, see Lynch 2019). Our findings show that immigrants are not treated equally to U.S. citizens in federal courts, though there is variation in the severity of citizen-noncitizen disparity across the regions of national origin.…”