Immigration is one of the most debated issues in many countries, often sparking strong opinions about its social, economic, and political consequences. But what does the research actually show? From mental health outcomes to attitudes shaped by uncertainty, from the role of high-skilled migrants in entrepreneurship to the psychological roots of conspiracy theories, these seven recent studies offer a data-driven look at the complex realities of immigration and its impact on both immigrants and host societies.
A large-scale study published in Psychiatry Research found that immigrants in the United States are significantly less likely than native-born individuals to experience anxiety, depression, or trauma-related disorders. The research analyzed data from over 36,000 adults using the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Even after controlling for key demographic and family mental health factors, the findings consistently supported the “healthy migrant hypothesis”—the idea that people who choose to migrate are typically more physically and psychologically resilient than those who do not. This pattern echoes previous findings in areas like substance use and obesity.
The protective effect was strongest for those who migrated after age 12 and held across immigrants from Africa, Asia, Europe, and Latin America. However, people who arrived as children resembled U.S.-born individuals in terms of mental health risk. Researchers believe that early acculturation to American norms—and increased exposure to discrimination or stressors in childhood—may play a role in this convergence. Overall, the study adds to growing evidence that immigrants tend to experience better mental health and behavioral outcomes than native-born Americans.
A study published in the Journal of Social and Political Psychology examined how uncertainty about immigration shapes nationalist attitudes among Portuguese citizens. The research found that when people feel unsure about the effects of immigration, they are more likely to perceive immigrants as a threat to national resources and culture. These perceived threats were linked to stronger nationalist beliefs and support for stricter immigration policies.
Across two studies, participants who experienced uncertainty—either naturally or through experimental manipulation—were more likely to endorse economic concerns about immigration, such as job competition or pressure on public services. These realistic threats were more influential than symbolic threats related to cultural identity. The findings suggest that in Portugal, a country marked by economic hardship and recent political shifts, feelings of uncertainty may drive nationalist sentiment more through material concerns than through cultural fears. The researchers called for further cross-national studies to examine whether these patterns hold in other countries with different immigration histories.
New research published in Frontiers in Psychology found that social media use contributes to negative emotions toward immigrants, particularly among individuals with lower cognitive ability. In an analysis of over 86,000 posts from Singapore-based platforms like Facebook and Reddit, researchers found that discussions about immigrants were significantly more negative in tone than other topics. These posts often centered on economic and cultural threats, such as job loss or perceived erosion of local identity.
In a follow-up survey of over 1,000 Singaporeans, the researchers confirmed that frequent social media users who perceived immigrants as threats reported more anger, fear, and other negative emotions. Importantly, individuals with lower cognitive ability were more susceptible to these emotional reactions, suggesting they may be more influenced by simplistic or emotionally charged narratives. Those with higher cognitive ability were less likely to be swayed, possibly due to greater resistance to misinformation or biased content. The findings highlight the role of cognitive capacity in shaping susceptibility to online prejudice.
A study published in Crime & Delinquency challenges the belief that tougher immigration policies lead to lower immigrant crime rates. Researchers analyzed arrest data from California and Texas—states with very different immigration policies—between 2015 and 2018, spanning the early years of the Trump administration. Despite heightened enforcement efforts, the study found no significant changes in arrest patterns among immigrants in either state.
Immigrants consistently had lower arrest rates than non-immigrants across most crime categories, particularly violent offenses. While some minor decreases were observed in traffic and property offenses in Texas, these mirrored similar trends among non-immigrants and likely reflected broader societal shifts rather than policy effects. The researchers concluded that Trump-era immigration policies did not meaningfully alter immigrant crime rates and that sanctuary policies in California did not lead to increased crime. These findings contribute to a growing body of research suggesting that immigrants are not a significant driver of crime and that punitive immigration policies may have limited public safety benefits.
A study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that an influx of high-skilled immigrants, particularly those on H-1B visas, is linked to increased entrepreneurship in U.S. metropolitan areas. The researchers found that doubling the number of newly arrived H-1B visa holders in a region was associated with a 6% increase in new business formation within three years. This effect persisted even after accounting for startup quality and other economic factors.
Interestingly, the positive impact was limited to new high-skilled immigrants, not those already residing in the United States or those on low-skilled visas like H-2B. The effect was especially strong in regions with immigrant enclaves and in industries with large, established firms, suggesting that social networks and workplace knowledge transfer play important roles. While the study did not directly measure how knowledge is shared, the findings support the idea that high-skilled immigrants contribute to the broader entrepreneurial ecosystem, even if they are not founding businesses themselves.
A nationally representative study published in Politics, Groups, and Identities found that about one-third of Americans endorse some version of the White Replacement conspiracy theory—the belief that white Americans are being systematically replaced by immigrants through deliberate policies. Surprisingly, these beliefs were not strongly tied to political party or ideology. Instead, they were more closely associated with psychological traits such as antisocial tendencies, authoritarianism, and generalized distrust of the political establishment.
The study found that believers in the conspiracy theory were more likely to report negative views toward immigrants, minorities, and women, and to engage in behaviors such as sharing misinformation or expressing openness to political violence. Individuals with higher consumption of fringe media were especially likely to hold these beliefs. The findings suggest that White Replacement thinking is fueled more by deep-seated personality traits and alienation than by conventional political divides. The researchers emphasized the need for more research into the origins and behavioral consequences of these beliefs, particularly in light of their connection to real-world violence.
A follow-up study published in Preventive Medicine Reports explored how belief in White Replacement and feelings of social or economic disadvantage relate to support for political violence. Using data from nearly 6,000 white Americans, researchers found that those who agreed with replacement-related beliefs were more than twice as likely to justify political violence. Status threats—such as low income, limited education, and perceived racial isolation—were also linked to higher support for violence, independently of replacement beliefs.
Interestingly, white individuals living in either predominantly white or predominantly non-white neighborhoods were more likely to endorse political violence than those in racially mixed areas, pointing to a U-shaped relationship. Gender also played a role: men with low income and women in non-white neighborhoods were especially prone to supporting violence. The findings suggest that both ideological beliefs and contextual social conditions—like perceived loss of dominance or isolation—can interact to increase political radicalization. While cross-sectional, the study adds to concerns about the societal impacts of replacement narratives and social alienation.
