Research has recently shown a renewed interest in the effect of citizenship status on sentencing outcomes. This line of investigation, however, is limited to the individual-level analysis. In addition, research on the threat hypothesis has overwhelmingly focused on racial and ethnic threat. This study extends prior research by testing the social/group threat hypothesis in terms of citizenship and examines two primary variables of interest—the size of the noncitizen population and offender citizenship status. This study seeks to find how the size of the noncitizen population as a macro-level factor and offender citizenship status as a micro-level factor independently and jointly affect federal sentencing. The independent effects of other macro-level factors in the context of courts and areas on sentencing decisions, as well as their interactions with offender citizenship status, are also examined. With all offenses considered together, the cross-level finding provides support for social threat posed by noncitizen offenders, revealing that judges in districts with a large noncitizen population impose longer sentences on noncitizen offenders than those in districts with a small noncitizen population.
AndersonA. L.SpohnC. C. (2010). Lawlessness in the federal sentencing process: A test for uniformity and consistency in sentence outcomes. Justice Quarterly, 27, 362–393.
2.
BlalockH. M. (1967). Toward a theory of minority-group relations. New York, NY: John Wiley.
3.
BollaE. W. (2006). An unwarranted disparity: Granting fast-track departures in non-fast-track districts. Cardozo Law Review, 28, 895–930.
4.
Bonilla-SilvaE. (1997). Rethinking racism: Toward a structural interpretation. American Sociological Review, 62, 465–480.
5.
BontragerS.BalesW. D.ChiricosT. G. (2005). Race, ethnicity, threat and the labeling of convicted felons. Criminology, 43, 589–622.
6.
BridgesG. S.CrutchfieldR. D.SimpsonE. E. (1987). Crime, social structure and criminal punishment: White and nonwhite rates of imprisonment. Social Problems, 34, 345–361.
7.
BrittC. L. (2000). Social context and racial disparities in punishment decisions. Justice Quarterly, 17, 707–732.
8.
BrownM. C.WarnerB. D. (1992). Immigrants, urban politics, and policing in 1900. American Sociological Review, 57, 293–305.
9.
BuckB.HobbsM.KaiserA.LangS.MonteroD.RominesK.ScottT. (2003). Immigration and immigrants: Trends in American public opinion, 1964-1999. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 12, 73–90.
10.
ButcherK. F.PiehlA. M. (1998). Recent immigrants: unexpected implications for crime and incarceration. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 51, 654–679.
11.
ButcherK. F.PiehlA. M. (2006). Why are immigrants’ incarceration rates so low? Evidence on selective immigration, deterrence, and deportation. Retrieved March 10, 2012, fromftp://snde.rutgers.edu/Rutgers/wp/2006-05.pdf
12.
CrawfordC.ChiricosT.KleckG. (1998). Race, racial threat, and sentencing of habitual offenders. Criminology, 36, 481–511.
13.
CrowM. S.JohnsonK. A. (2008). Race, ethnicity, and habitual-offender sentencing: A multilevel analysis of individual and contextual threat. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19, 63–83.
14.
CurranD. A. (1983). Judicial discretion and defendant’s sex. Criminology, 21, 41–58.
15.
DalyK.BordtR. L. (1995). Sex effects and sentencing: An analysis of the statistical literature. Justice Quarterly, 12, 141–169.
16.
DavisJ. A.SmithT. W.MarsdenP. V. (2007). General Social Surveys, 1972-2006 [Cumulative File]. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research.
17.
DixonJ. (1995). The organizational context of criminal sentencing. American Journal of Sociology, 100, 1157–1198.
18.
EspenshadeT. J. (1995). Unauthorized immigration to the United States. Annual Review of Sociology, 21, 195–216.
19.
FeldmeyerB.UlmerJ. T. (2011). Race/ethnic threat and federal sentencing. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 48, 238–270.
GoodeE.Ben-YehudaN. (1994). Moral panics: The social construction of deviance. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
22.
HaganJ.LeviR.DinovitzerR. (2008). The symbolic violence of the crime-immigration nexus: Migrant mythologies in the Americas. Criminology & Public Policy, 7, 95–112.
23.
HaganJ.PalloniA. (1999). Sociological criminology and mythology of Hispanic immigration and crime. Social Problems, 46, 617–632.
24.
HartleyR. D.ArmendarizL. F. (2011). Border Justice? Sentencing federal narcotics offenders in southwest border districts: A focus on citizenship status. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 27, 43–62.
25.
HartleyR. D.TillyerR. (2012). Defending the homeland: Judicial sentencing practices for federal immigration offenses. Justice Quarterly, 29, 76–104.
26.
HogarthJ. (1971). Sentencing as a human process. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
JacksonP. I. (1989). Minority group threat, crime, and policing: Social context and social control. New York, NY: Praeger.
29.
JohnsonB. D. (2003). Racial and ethnic disparities in sentencing departures across modes of convictions. Criminology, 41, 449–490.
30.
JohnsonB. D. (2005). Contextual disparities in guidelines departures: Courtroom social context, guidelines compliances, and extralegal disparities in criminal sentencing. Criminology, 43, 761–796.
31.
JohnsonB. D. (2006). The multilevel context of criminal sentencing: Integrating judge- and county-level influences. Criminology, 44, 259–298.
32.
JohnsonB. D.BetsingerS. (2009). Punishing the “model minority”: Asian-American criminal sentencing outcomes in federal district courts. Criminology, 47, 1045–1090.
33.
JohnsonB. D.StewartE. A.PickettJ.GertzM. (2011). Ethnic threat and social control: Examining public support for judicial use of ethnicity in punishment. Criminology, 49, 401–441.
34.
JohnsonB. D.UlmerJ. T.KramerJ. H. (2008). The social context of guidelines circumvention: The case of federal district courts. Criminology, 46, 737–783.
KramerJ. H.UlmerJ. T. (1996). Sentencing disparity and departures from guidelines. Justice Quarterly, 13, 81–106.
37.
LeungS. F.YuS. (2000). Collinearity and two-step estimation of sample selection models: Problems, origins, and remedies. Computational Economics, 15, 173–199.
38.
LiskaA. E. (1992). Introduction to the study of social control. In LiskaA. E. (Ed.), Social threat and social control (pp. 1–29). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
39.
LogueM. A. (2009). The price of being Mexican: Sentencing disparities between noncitizen Mexican and non-Mexican Latinos in the federal courts. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 31, 423–445.
40.
MartinezR.Jr (2002). Latino homicide: Immigration, violence, and community. New York, NY: Routledge.
PasselJ. (2005). Estimates of the size and characteristics of the undocumented population. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.
44.
QuillianL. (1995). Prejudice as a response to perceived group threat: Population composition and anti-immigrant and racial prejudice in Europe. American Sociological Review, 60, 586–611.
45.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
46.
SampsonR. J. (2008). Rethinking crime and immigration. Contexts, 7, 28–33.
47.
SellinT. (1938). Culture conflict and crime. New York, NY: Social Science Research Council.
48.
SpohnC. C.FornangoR. (2009). U.S. attorneys and substantial assistance departures: Testing for interprosecutor disparity. Criminology, 47, 813–846.
49.
SteffensmeierD.DemuthS. (2006). Does gender modify the effects of race-ethnicity on criminal sentencing: Sentences for male and female white, black, and Hispanic defendants. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 22, 241–261.
50.
SteffensmeierD.KramerJ. H.StreifelC. (1993). Gender and imprisonment decisions. Criminology, 31, 411–446.
51.
SteffensmeierD.KramerJ. H.UlmerJ. T. (1995). Age differences in sentencing. Justice Quarterly, 12, 583–602.
52.
SteffensmeierD.MotivansM. (2000). Older men and older women in the arms of criminal law: Offending patterns and sentencing outcomes. Journal of Gerontology, 55B, S141–S151.
53.
SteffensmeierD.UlmerJ. T.KramerJ. H. (1998). The interaction of race, gender, and age in criminal sentencing: The punishment cost of being young, black, and male. Criminology, 36, 763–797.
54.
StolzenbergR. M.RellesD. A. (1997). Tools for intuition about sample selection bias and its correction. American Sociological Review, 62, 494–507.
55.
UlmerJ. T. (1997). Social worlds of sentencing: Court communities under sentencing guidelines. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
56.
UlmerJ. T.EisensteinJ.JohnsonB. D. (2010). Trial penalties in federal sentencing: Extra-guidelines factors and district variation. Justice Quarterly, 27, 560–592.
57.
UlmerJ. T.JohnsonB. D. (2004). Sentencing in context: A multilevel analysis. Criminology, 42, 137–177.
58.
United States v. Rodriguez-Montelongo, 263 F.3d 429 (5th Cir. 2001).
59.
U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1996). Noncitizens in the federal justice system, 1984-94 (BJS Publication No. NCJ-160934). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
60.
U.S. Census Bureau. (1990). The decennial census: 1990 Summary Tape File 3 (STF3) sample data. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
61.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2006). Historical census statistics on the foreign-born population of the United States: 1850 to 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
62.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2008). A compass for understanding and using American Community Survey data: What general data users need to know. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
63.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). 2010 American Community Survey: 1-year estimate. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
64.
U.S. Department of Justice. (2005). Report on the Department of Justice’s fast track programs. Washington, DC: Author.
65.
U.S. Department of Justice. (2009). Memorandum for all United States attorneys: Authorization for certain early disposition programs. Washington, DC: Author.
WangX.MearsD. P. (2010a). Examining the direct and interactive effects of changes in racial and ethnic threat on sentencing decisions. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 47, 522–557.
72.
WangX.MearsD. P. (2010b). A multilevel test of minority threat effects on sentencing. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 26, 191–215.
73.
WeidnerR. R.FraseR. S.PardoeI. (2004). Explaining sentence severity in large urban counties: A multilevel analysis of contextual and case-level factors. Prison Journal, 84, 184–207.
74.
WeidnerR. R.FraseR. S.SchultzJ. S. (2005). The impact of contextual factors on the decision to imprison in large urban jurisdictions: A multilevel analysis. Crime and Delinquency, 51, 400–424.
75.
WolfeS. E.PyroozD. C.SpohnC. C. (2011). Unraveling the effect of offender citizenship status on federal sentencing outcomes. Social Science Research, 40, 349–362.
76.
WooldredgeJ. D.GriffinT.RauschenbergF. (2005). (Un)anticipated effects of sentencing reform on the disparate treatment of defendants. Law and Society Review, 39, 835–873.
77.
WuJ. (2011). Citizenship status, race, ethnicity, and their effects on sentencing. El Paso, TX: LFB Scholarly Publishing.
78.
WuJ.SpohnC. C. (2010). Interdistrict disparity in sentencing in three U.S. district courts. Crime and Delinquency, 56, 290–322.
79.
ZiliakS. T.McCloskeyD. N. (2008). The cult of statistical significance: How the standard error costs us jobs, justice, and lives. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
