Migrant Perceptions of Criminal Justice Systems: A Comparative Study of U.S. and Home Country Systems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors' offer a compelling work on the experience of migrants.  The focus is singular and clear and the prose is succinct.  In all, the work is a great addition to the literature that often encounters in their pre- or post-migration lives.  this work offers a glimpse into migrants as they are beginning this new life full of the optimism one would expect--particularly in the Biden years.  

While the merits of the work are without question I think the authors' could add a bit more scaffolding for readers.  First, in the introduction/literature review there is space to discuss the U.S.'s complicated relationship with migration from Latin America.  It is not enough to say they are treated differently than Europeans.  To wit, there seems a reticence to discuss American style racialization that is at play as recently as 2016 and certainly in the 2024 election cycle where the specter of Latino migrants fueled, and won, a highly (racially) charged election.  This context is important and I think would be an interesting "hook" to draw the reader in.  This backdrop is hard to ignore and seems glaring in its omission.  Further,  the Trump 2.0 deportation machine is in full swing and using the alleged criminality of these same Latino migrants as justification for their expulsion, this seems too big to miss in the conclusion. While I think the authors are correct in the conclusions they draw and the policy implications they cite, it seems, again, ignoring the contemporary political landscape that would be downright hostile to much, if not most, of what the authors suggest seems worth mentioning.

Lastly, and I think most importantly, the authors' question seems to be a chicken or the egg question.  That is, those who choose to leave are not necessarily like those who choose to stay in their home country.  Are those that choose to leave just more pessimistic about their home country, on all metrics, so that their ideas about the CJS aren't unique? Moreover, what is informing their confidence in the US justice system? Simple lack of encounters with the US CJS? The fact that their home country CJS is so poor that even basic shows of competence make the US CJS seem better by comparison?  Had any of these individuals had any US experience before? Or contacts with their home country CJS? These may be questions the authors can't answer, but I think it least worth considering whether the respondents' confidence in the US CJS is simply a product of their general home country pessimism.  

Author Response

Comment 1: The authors offer a compelling work on the experience of migrants. The focus is singular and clear, and the prose is succinct. In all, the work is a great addition to the literature that often encounters in their pre- or post-migration lives. This work offers a glimpse into migrants as they are beginning this new life full of the optimism one would expect--particularly in the Biden years.

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for the favorable comments about this manuscript.

Response 2: We thank the reviewer for the insightful suggestion. We have revised the introduction to include a more nuanced discussion of how US immigration discourse has racialized Latino migrants. The following is added:   “It is important to situate migrants’ perceptions of the criminal justice system within the broader socio-political climate of immigration discourse. Unlike earlier waves of European immigration, Latin American migrants have been systematically racialized and politicized. For example, during the 2016 and 2024 presidential elections, Latino migrants were portrayed as threats to national security and economic stability (Viladrich, 2023). These narratives not only had significant impacts on the elections but also directly influenced immigration enforcement practices. This racialized framing not only affects how migrants are perceived but also informs their expectations and interactions with the US criminal justice system.”

Comments 3: Further, the Trump 2.0 deportation machine is in full swing and using the alleged criminality of these same Latino migrants as justification for their expulsion, this seems too big to miss in the conclusion. While I think the authors are correct in the conclusions they draw and the policy implications they cite, it seems, again, ignoring the contemporary political landscape that would be downright hostile to much, if not most, of what the authors suggest seems worth mentioning.   Response 3: Thank you for the comments. We have added the following content to the conclusion to connect the empirical findings to broader socio-political dynamics:   “It is also important to consider that the current political environment, which is marked by anti-immigration and mass deportation, may undermine migrants’ confidence in the US criminal justice system. Such rhetoric can intensify fear and alienation among migrants, especially those newly arrived individuals. This context underscores the significance of the study’s findings and policy recommendations. Promoting procedural justice, cultural competence, and access to resources is critical to facilitate the integration of migrants and can also counteract narratives that may erode confidence in the U.S. criminal justice system. Ensuring fair and respectful treatment is vital to increase the legitimacy of the system among marginalized groups.”   Comments 4: Lastly, and I think most importantly, the authors' question seems to be a chicken or the egg question. That is, those who choose to leave are not necessarily like those who choose to stay in their home country. Are those that choose to leave just more pessimistic about their home country, on all metrics, so that their ideas about the CJS aren't unique? Moreover, what is informing their confidence in the US justice system? Simple lack of encounters with the US CJS? The fact that their home country CJS is so poor that even basic shows of competence make the US CJS seem better by comparison? Had any of these individuals had any US experience before? Or contacts with their home country CJS? These may be questions the authors can't answer, but I think it least worth considering whether the respondents' confidence in the US CJS is simply a product of their general home country pessimism.   Response 4: Thank you for the thoughtful comments. We agree that self-selection of individuals who choose to migrate may play a role in shaping their confidence in the criminal justice systems in the two countries. This current study does not directly measure their prior experience with criminal justice institutions or contact with the US criminal justice system. We recognize the importance of considering these factors and have added the following content in the discussion to acknowledge this possibility and encourage future research to consider these factors.   “An important consideration is that the migrants interviewed in this study represent a self-selection group. It is possible that their low confidence in their home country's criminal justice system may reflect a broader pessimism about institutional trust. In this context, even minimal signs of procedural fairness or basic competence in the U.S. system may appear comparatively favorable. In addition, migrants’ confidence in the U.S. criminal justice system may also be shaped by media, word-of-mouth, or negative experiences with their home countries. This study did not include measures of previous encounters with either the criminal justice system. This limits the ability to disentangle these effects fully. Future research should examine how these factors shape migrants’ perceptions of the criminal justice systems in their home countries and the US.”

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study examines how various individual-level features impact confidence in the criminal justice system among recent arrives in both the U.S. and their countries of origin. The results show that satisfaction with border officials, English ability, legal status, employment, and other measures impact confidence and trust in the U.S. criminal justice system among new arrivals. In contrast, interview language, contract with immigration officials, and bus support affects trust in migrants' home countries' criminal justice system. Below are my comments.

1. It is never clear what your research questions are. For example, there is a section in the front-end on procedural justice, but there is no indication on how this should affect new arrivals' views of the criminal justice system at home and in the U.S. And, the second part of this paragraph focuses on public rhetoric connecting new migrants with increases in violence. This has nothing to do with procedural justice.
2.  Paragraphs in the paper are jumping from topic to topic. For instance, the first paragraph focuses on immigration to the U.S., the second describes where most new arrivals are coming from, while the third paragraph discusses Menjivar and Bejarano's (2004) theoretical positions on immigrants' attitudes to the criminal justice system in the U.S. and in their home countries.
3. How does this study advance research? This question can only be answered by describing what has already been done on the topic of immigrants' attitudes towards various criminal justice institutions. What is the gap and how is your research addressing this limitation?
4. Discussing why various nationality groups (e.g., Venezuelans) are migrating to the U.S. is informative but cannot explain how these reasons for migrating affect their confidence and trust in the U.S. criminal justice system.
5. Variable about Bus Support is unclear? Does this refer to funds for a local bus or one that is going to take them to another destination within the interior U.S.?
6. I think your study's contribution lies in examining attitudes and confidence in the criminal justice system--both in the U.S. and their countries of origin--among new arrivals. In my interpretation, most of the prior research is on established immigrants.
7. Also, there is little research that separates the foreign-born by legal status. This should be emphasized more in the paper and it seems like it matters for determining confidence in the U.S. criminal justice system. Why is that?
8. It should be noted that this is a convenience sample and as such, the results are not generalizable.
9. Finally, I would revise the paper and emphasize how this study is examining perceptions of the criminal justice system in the U.S. and countries of origin for immigrants. Next, focus on how procedural justice and other factors (i.e., victimization) could affect these perceptions.

Author Response

Comment 1: This study examines how various individual-level features impact confidence in the criminal justice system among recent arrivals in both the U.S. and their countries of origin. The results show that satisfaction with border officials, English ability, legal status, employment, and other measures impact confidence and trust in the U.S. criminal justice system among new arrivals. In contrast, interview language, contract with immigration officials, and bus support affect trust in the migrants' home countries' criminal justice system. Below are my comments. 1. It is never clear what your research questions are. For example, there is a section in the front-end on procedural justice, but there is no indication on how this should affect new arrivals ' views of the criminal justice system at home and in the U.S. And, the second part of this paragraph focuses on public rhetoric connecting new migrants with increases in violence. This has nothing to do with procedural justice.

 

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this important issue. We have clearly stated our research questions at the end of the introduction:

 

“This study explores two central research questions: (1) How do migrants perceive the criminal justice system in the United States compared to their home countries? and (2) What factors impact their confidence in the criminal justice system in the US and their home countries? ”

 

In addition, we have revised the procedural justice section to more explicitly link it to new migrants’ perceptions of legitimacy and fairness in both the US and their home country systems.

 

“One of the factors is perceived procedural justice, which refers to the fair procedure and legitimacy of authorities (Sunshine and Tyler 2003). Perceptions of fairness during interactions with officials can impact confidence in the criminal justice system. For recent migrants who may have limited direct experience with U.S. institutions, perceived fairness and legitimacy during their interaction with customs and border protection (CBP) officers can significantly shape their views of and confidence in the broader criminal justice system in the host country.”

 

Comment 2: Paragraphs in the paper are jumping from topic to topic. For instance, the first paragraph focuses on immigration to the U.S., the second describes where most new arrivals are coming from, while the third paragraph discusses Menjivar and Bejarano's(2004) theoretical positions on immigrants' attitudes to the criminal justice system in the U.S. and in their home countries.

 

Response 2: Thanks for the comment. We have reorganized the early section of the manuscript to improve flow and cohesion. We have also added subheadings such as “Migration context”, “Theoretical framework”, and “factors shaping migrant’s confidence in criminal justice systems” to structure the content.

 

Comment 3: How does this study advance research? This question can only be answered by describing what has already been done on the topic of immigrants' attitudes towards various criminal justice institutions. What is the gap and how is your research addressing this limitation?

 

Response 3: We agree that more clearly identifying the gap in existing research is important. We have added content to highlight how this study addresses an understudied population—recent migrants and offers comparative insights into confidence in both systems. The following content is added to the introduction:

 

“Existing research on confidence in the criminal justice system has primarily focused on native-born citizens or long-established immigrant groups (Griffiths 2017; Han et al. 2019; Ren et al. 2022). Few studies have examined recently arrived migrants, especially those in transit or experiencing first encounters with the US institutions. In addition, most prior research tends to examine confidence in a single justice, rather than drawing comparative insights between migrants’ home and host countries. This study addresses these gaps by focusing on recent migrants and examining how factors such as immigration encounters, documentation status, language ability, and fear of crime shape their confidence in both the U.S. and home country criminal justice systems. It can contribute to a more nuanced understanding of confidence formation and institutional legitimacy within transnational migration contexts.”

 

Comment 4: Discussing why various nationality groups (e.g., Venezuelans)are migrating to the U.S. is informative but cannot explain how these reasons for migrating affect their confidence and trust in the U.S. criminal justice system.

 

Response 4: We thank the reviewer for this clarification. We agree that migration motivations, while important, may not directly explain migrants’ trust in the criminal justice system. These are intended as background context and do not serve as predictors in our models. This content was organized under the subheading “Migration context”.

 

Comment 5: Variable about Bus Support is unclear? Does this refer to funds for a local bus or one that is going to take them to another destination within the interior U.S.?

 

Response 5: The bus support refers to whether migrants had the financial means to board a long-distance bus that would take them to their intended destination in the U.S.  

 

Comment 6: I think your study's contribution lies in examining attitudes and confidence in the criminal justice system--both in the U.S. and their countries of origin--among new arrivals. In my interpretation, most of the prior research is on established immigrants.

 

Response 6: We appreciate this observation and agree that this is a unique contribution of this study. We have highlighted this point more explicitly in both the introduction and discussion sections. We added the following content to the introduction and discussion:

 

“Existing research on confidence in the criminal justice system has primarily focused on native-born citizens or long-established immigrant groups (Griffiths 2017; Han et al. 2019; Ren et al. 2022). Few studies have examined recently arrived migrants, especially those in transit or experiencing first encounters with the US institutions. In addition, most prior research tends to examine confidence in a single justice, rather than drawing comparative insights between migrants’ home and host countries. This study addresses these gaps by focusing on recent migrants and examining how factors such as immigration encounters, legal status, language ability, and fear of crime shape their confidence in both the U.S. and home country criminal justice systems. It can contribute to a more nuanced understanding of confidence formation and institutional legitimacy within transnational migration contexts.”

 

“Unlike much of the existing literature that focuses on established immigrants, this study centers on recently arrived migrants residing in a transitional institution. These individuals are navigating their initial encounters with U.S. institutions, and their experiences are likely to shape their long-term attitudes toward the host country’s justice system. This study contributes to the growing literature on confidence in criminal justice institutions by examining how recent migrants perceived two distinct systems: the U.S. system and the systems in their home countries. Using a comparative framework, this research examines how individual-level factors shaped confidence in these systems.”

 

Comment 7: Also, there is little research that separates the foreign-born by legal status. This should be emphasized more in the paper and it seems like it matters for determining confidence in the U.S. criminal justice system. Why is that?

 

Response 7: Thank you for highlighting the importance of documentation status. We have revised the discussion section to highlight the importance of this variable and its policy implications. We added the following content to the discussion:

 

“ Lastly, documentation status emerged as a significant predictor of confidence in the U.S. criminal justice system. migrants with documentation reported higher levels of confidence than those without documentation. This highlights the importance of institutional accessibility and perceived security. It is possible that migrants with documented status feel more comfortable engaging with US institutions and may interpret their treatment as more legitimate or protective. On the other hand, migrants who are undocumented may experience greater anxiety and alienation from authorities, which may have impacted their levels of confidence. This aligns with past research that shows legal vulnerability can influence perceptions of fairness and procedural justice (Han et al, 2019).”

 

Comment 8: It should be noted that this is a convenience sample and as such, the results are not generalizable.

 

Response 8: Thanks for pointing this out. We agree and have added this to the limitation section.”

 

“This study relies on a convenience sample drawn from a single transitional institution, which limits the generalizability of the findings. While the sample provides valuable insights into recently arrived migrants, future studies should employ broader and probability sampling to enhance the generalizability of results. Including migrants from various locations would increase the sample diversity and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the issue. ”

 

Comment 9: Finally, I would revise the paper and emphasize how this study is examining perceptions of the criminal justice system in the U.S. and countries of origin for immigrants. Next, focus on how procedural justice and other factors (i.e., victimization) could affect these perceptions.

 

Response 9: Thank you for the suggestion. We have revised the framing of the manuscript to more clearly focus on migrants’ perceptions of the U.S. and home country criminal justice systems. This comparative framing now appears in the title, abstract, introduction, and discussions. We also highlighted factors such as procedural justice, victimization, and other individual-level factors. For example, the following section is added to the introduction section. All newly added content is highlighted in blue in the revised manuscript.

 

“Factors shaping migrants’ confidence in criminal justice systems

 

Much of the existing literature on confidence in criminal justice institutions focuses on native-born populations of long-term immigrant groups. These studies have identified several variables that influence individuals’ confidence in the criminal justice system. One of the factors is perceived procedural justice, which refers to the fair procedure and legitimacy of authorities (Sunshine and Tyler 2003). Perceptions of fairness during interactions with officials can impact confidence in the criminal justice system. For recent migrants who may have limited direct experience with U.S. institutions, perceived fairness and legitimacy during their interaction with customs and border protection (CBP) officers can significantly shape their views of and confidence in the broader criminal justice system in the host country.

17. Fear of crime and prior victimization have also been shown to reduce confidence in law enforcement. These effects may be especially pronounced among migrants due to violence during transit or in their countries of origin (Singer et al. 2019). Documentation status further shapes how immigrants and migrants perceive and interact with legal authorities. Documented immigrants tend to report higher confidence in justice institutions, while undocumented individuals often experience alienation or fear of deportation, which can discourage interaction with justice systems and reduce institutional confidence (Han et al. 2019). Language barriers are another factor that may impact migrants’ confidence in the justice system. Greater language proficiency has been associated with more positive evaluations of enforcement and perceived fairness in the host country (Han et al. 2019). Finally, encounters with border or immigration officials, such as CBP officers, can influence immigrants' and migrants’ perceptions of justice systems. Positive and respectful interactions can enhance confidence, while hostile treatment may undermine it (Griffiths 2017; Han et al. 2019). ”

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper addresses a veritable gap in the literature examining the perceptions of immigrants about the criminal legal system. This topic is very timely and important. With a more thorough engagement with work that can buttress the conceptual framework in the paper and also previous work especially about immigrant-specific factors predicting perceptions of the criminal legal system, this paper has great potential to contribute to the literature. 

Conceptual Framework: First, engagement with universal (factors that predict views of the justice system for the general population) vs. immigrant-specific factors (factors that specifically predict immigrant perceptions of the police) would enrich the manuscript. Especially immigrant-specific factors (what the authors call the importance of the journey) need to be discussed more thoroughly. Various works by Yuning Wu and Ivan Sun discuss different factors specific to immigrants that affect their views of the justice system, such as: 1) the length of settlement--the longer immigrants spend in the host nation, the worse their views get (e.g., Wortley and Owusu-Bempah 2009; 2) country of origin (e.g., Correia 2010; Jung et al. 2019); and 3) extent of integration into the host country (e.g., Weitzer 2010; Bradford et al. 2018). 

Secondly, a discussion of the theoretical frameworks that would give rise to different expectations about the perceptions of immigrants should be further developed. For example, the existing literature draws on three main perspectives: 1) the importation model; 2) dual lens (which is mentioned by the manuscript)/"leap of faith" argument; and 3) group positions perspective. 

1)The importation model suggests that people "import" their views of the police from their country of origin and then projects it to the host country (Wals 2011; Wu et al. 2011), so if they didn't trust in the police back in their country of origin, they are not going to trust police in the host country. 2) Dual lens/"leap of faith" argument suggests that immigrants compare what they are seeing in the host country with their perceptions of the home country. If the host country appears better off in comparison, people "take a leap of faith" (Bradford et al. 2018) and evaluate the host country more positively (Menjivar and Bejarano 2004-which the article mentions). 3) The group positions theory argues that immigrants that resemble the in-group majority will have better perceptions of the police than immigrants who are marginalized and resemble the out-group minority in the host nation (Bradford et al. 2017). 

Situating and expanding the front matter in these types of literature and conceptual frameworks would definitely help the manuscript. 

By engaging with these theories and previous works, it can also lead to a more nuanced discussion at the end about how the findings may be consistent or inconsistent with some of these perspectives. Furthermore, linking the discussion to the more negative views of police minority communities of the police can add more nuance to the conclusion. If other studies have found that marginalized communities tend to have more negative views of the police, how do we situate the more positive views that immigrants had in this study? Is there a way we can keep and build on these initially more positive views of the police? How/why do these views change and become more negative over time? 

Author Response

Comment 1: This paper addresses a veritable gap in the literature examining the perceptions of immigrants about the criminal legal system. This topic is very timely and important. With a more thorough engagement with work that can buttress the conceptual framework in the paper and also previous work, especially about immigrant-specific factors predicting perceptions of the criminal legal system, this paper has great potential to contribute to the literature.

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for the positive comments about the manuscript. We have provided a detailed responses to all the comments below. 

 

Comment 2: Conceptual Framework: First, engagement with universal (factors that predict views of the justice system for the general population) vs. immigrant-specific factors (factors that specifically predict immigrant perceptions of the police) would enrich the manuscript. Especially immigrant-specific factors (what the authors call the importance of the journey) need to be discussed more thoroughly. Various works by Yuning Wu and Ivan Sun discuss different factors specific to immigrants that affect their views of the justice system, such as: 1) the length of settlement--the longer immigrants spend in the host nation, the worse their views get (e.g., Wortley and Owusu-Bempah 2009; 2) country of origin (e.g., Correia 2010;

Jung et al. 2019); and 3) extent of integration into the host country (e.g., Weitzer 2010; Bradford et al. 2018).

 

Response 2: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We have added a section titled “Factors shaping migrants’ confidence in criminal justice systems” to discuss factors that impact migrants’ confidence. Please see the manuscript for details. All revised content is marked in blue in the revised manuscript.

 

Comment 3:  Secondly, a discussion of the theoretical frameworks that would give rise to different expectations about the perceptions of immigrants should be further developed. For example, the existing literature draws on three main perspectives: 1) the importation model; 2) dual lens (which is mentioned by the manuscript)/"leap of faith" argument; and 3) group positions perspective. 1)The importation model suggests that people "import" their views of the police from their country of origin and then projects it to the host country (Wals 2011; Wu et al. 2011), so if they didn't trust in the police back in their country of origin, they are not going to trust police in the host country. 2) Dual lens/"leap of faith" argument suggests that immigrants compare what they are seeing in the host country with their perceptions of the home country. If the host country appears better off in comparison, people "take a leap of

faith" (Bradford et al. 2018) and evaluate the host country more positively (Menjivar and Bejarano 2004-which the article mentions). 3) The group positions theory argues that immigrants that resemble the in-group majority will have better perceptions of the police than immigrants who are marginalized and resemble the out-group minority in the host nation (Bradford et al. 2017). Situating and expanding the front matter in these types of literature and conceptual frameworks would definitely help the manuscript.

 

Response 3: We thank the reviewer for the constructive suggestion. We have added a section titled “Theoretical Framework” to enrich the theoretical framework:

 

“Theoretical framework

The existing literature draws on three main perspectives that help explain immigrants’ perceptions of the criminal justice system: 1) The Importation Model; 2) The Dual Lens or Importation Model; and 3) The Group Positions Perspective. These frameworks suggest that immigrants’ trust in legal institutions is shaped by individuals' experiences as well as broader social contexts and their premigration orientations. 

Importation model. This model posits that immigrants “import” political and institutional trust or skepticism from their countries of origin, a concept described as carrying a political suitcase (Wals, 2011). Wals' study noted that immigrants’ premigration experience significantly shapes their trust in governmental institutions in their host country.  For example, Mexican immigrants to the US with greater trust in the Mexican government were more likely to trust American institutions such as the police. Additionally, those who had formed political attachments in Mexico were more engaged in civic life in the U.S. Therefore, migrants carry this trust in authority with them to their host country. Similarly, Wu et al. (2011), studying Chinese immigrants in the U.S., noted that perceptions of American police were not only shaped by current experiences but also by attitudes toward law enforcement in migrants’ home countries. Some immigrants who had negative experiences with police in their country of origin expressed higher satisfaction with U.S. police by comparison, while others remained distrustful. These findings underscore how pre-migration socialization continues to influence migrants’ sense of security, fairness, and legitimacy in the host country's justice system.

Dual Lens/Leap of Faith Model. This model suggests that migrants evaluate host country institutions by comparing them to those in their home countries. Bradford et al (2017) found that some immigrants reported higher trust in police than native-born residents. This paradox is explained by the moral and psychological frameworks that immigrants bring with them. The migrants’ journey may be based on a generalized trust of institutions and belief that the host country offers a superior governance system to that of the country they left.

Bradford et al. Claim that this trust may be an act of faith do to the uncertainty that the migrant faces in their transition. Immigrants frequently have limited direct experience with host country institutions and may rely on their own trust and hope for legal fairness and legitimate democratic governance.  Giddens (1991) views this choice and commitment as an emotional investment in the development of self-identity relating to symbols.  These institutions in America are interpreted as havens in an unfamiliar environment. However, this trust may decline if the migrant’s interaction with these symbols does not meet their expectations. Therefore, Bradford et al show that immigrants who have been in the country longer tend to have less trust in the police. So, over time, continuous interaction with institutions such as the police recalibrates the immigrants’ lens, or sentiments relative to their original leap of faith.

Group Positions Theory. A third model for explaining immigrants’ trust is Group Position Theory, which emphasizes intergroup dynamics and perceived social hierarchy.  Bradford et al (2017) state that the majority of group members perceive police more favorably because they view police as protectors of their values and maintain security.  However, immigrants, especially immigrants subject to racial biases and labeled as “other,” who frequently occupy lower socioeconomic status, will more often see police as enforcers of exclusion rather than protectors of justice.

This theory joins with the “out-group” lens that many immigrants experience when they arrive in the host country.  The immigrants often feel that police participate in racial profiling and immigration enforcement. One key variable that Bradford highlights is that when immigrants locate in areas with high degrees of diversity, they are more likely to trust the police.  However, if immigrants are isolated into communities lacking diversity, or if they themselves experience acts of discrimination, their perceptions match those of other racial minorities that have historically had contentious relationships with law enforcement.  Therefore, group position creates opportunities to build relationships of trust based on their settlement location.  Police are seen as acting differently in various communities.  Therefore, if the immigrant believes that they are part of a diverse community that is not targeted, they trust the police. If they are marginalized or targeted, their view of police is significantly more skeptical. ”

 

Comment 3: By engaging with these theories and previous works, it can also

lead to a more nuanced discussion at the end about how the findings may be consistent or inconsistent with some of these perspectives. Furthermore, linking the discussion to the more negative views of police minority communities of the police can add more nuance to the conclusion. If other studies have found that marginalized communities tend to have more negative views of the police, how do we situate the more positive views that immigrants had in this study? Is there a way we can keep and build on these initially more positive views of the police? How/why do these views change and become more negative over time?

 

Response 3: Thanks for the suggestion. We have added content discussing these questions.

 

“The findings from this study also offer insights into how immigrant perceptions of the criminal justice system may align with or diverge from existing theoretical perspectives. The positive views expressed by recent migrants toward the U.S. system are consistent with the “Dual lens” model in which immigrants compare their current experience to institutions in their country of origin and give the host system the benefit of the doubt. This optimism may also reflect limited direct experience of the migrants or a desire for stability. However, researchers have pointed out that these positive perceptions may decline over time with more exposure to systematic inequalities or marginalization (Wortley and Owusu-Bempah 2009; Morales and Curry 2021). The group positions framework helps explain why perceptions may shift as migrants become more assimilated in the U.S. society and begin to encounter structural challenges. Understanding how and why this shift occurs is essential for designing interventions that preserve early confidence and prevent the erosion of legitimacy over time.”

 

We sincerely thank the reviewers for their thoughtful and constructive feedback, which has significantly strengthened the manuscript.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper still needs major work in the front-end. In my opinion, everything before the data and methods section is choppy to read and jumps from topic to topic. Revise the beginning to focus on what we know, what we don't know, and how this study is going to address some of those gaps in the literature. Next, discuss what prior research shows affects immigrants' perceptions of local police and the U.S. criminal justice system, ending with how there is no research examining how newly arrived migrants perceive the criminal justice system in the U.S. and their home countries.

Author Response

2. Point-by-Point Response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors   Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

The paper still needs major work in the front-end. In my opinion, everything before the data and methods section is choppy to read and jumps from topic to topic. Revise the beginning to focus on what we know, what we don't know, and how this study is going to address some of those gaps in the literature. Next, discuss what prior research shows affects immigrants' perceptions of local police and the U.S. criminal justice system, ending with how there is no research examining how newly arrived migrants perceive the criminal justice system in the U.S. and their home countries.

 

Response to reviewer: We thank the review for the helpful comments. We have revised the introduction and background sections to enhance clarity, coherence, and logical flow.

 

Specifically, we have reorganized the front-end of the manuscript using clear subheadings such as “What We Know and We Don’t know” and “How this study addresses the gaps” to guide readers through the exiting literature, highlight key limitations and significance of this study.

 

We also streamlined the migration context and theoretical framework to avoid abrupt topic shirts and ensure logical flow.

 

In addition, we have expanded the discussion of the theoretical frameworks to more clearly demonstrate how they inform our findings.

 

For example, the following content is revised and added:

 

“What We Know and We Don’t Know

 

Research consistently shows that immigrants’ perceptions of the criminal justice system (CJS) are shaped by a complex interplay of factors, including their pre-migration experiences, encounters with law enforcement in their host country, social networks, and language proficiency (Menjivar & Bejarano, 2004; Han et al., 2019). Theoretical models, such as the Importation Model, the Dual Lens/Leap of Faith Model, and Group Position Theory, have provided critical frameworks for understanding these perceptions. The Importation Model suggests that immigrants bring pre-existing attitudes toward legal institutions from their home countries, which influence their trust in host country institutions (Wals, 2011). The Dual Lens Model highlights the comparative nature of migrants' assessments, where they evaluate host country institutions relative to those in their countries of origin (Bradford et al., 2017). Group Position Theory emphasizes the social context of immigration, where racialization and marginalization affect how migrants view law enforcement and the legal system (Bradford et al., 2017). These frameworks help explain the complex ways migrants develop trust or skepticism toward justice systems.

 

Despite these insights, significant gaps remain in the literature. Most existing studies focus on long-established immigrant groups and overlook perceptions of newly arrived immigrants who may have recently endured trauma or instability. In addition, prior research typically examines confidence in a single country context, usually the host country, without a comparative analysis of perceptions in both the host and home countries. There is limited empirical work exploring how first impressions of the U.S. criminal justice system are shaped during the early stages of the migration journey. Key factors such as direct encounters with U.S. border officials, documentation status, language proficiency, and victimization during the migration journey have been understudied in relation to confidence in the justice system.

 

How This Study Addresses the Gaps in the Literature

 

This study seeks to fill these gaps by focusing on newly arrived migrants who have just experienced their first encounters with U.S. institutions at a transitional facility along the U.S.-Mexico border. We surveyed 500 adult migrants, primarily from Latin American countries to assess their confidence in the criminal justice system in both the United States and their home countries. This comparative approach allows for a nuanced understanding of how migrants evaluate two distinct systems.

 

We specifically examine how factors such as satisfaction with interactions with the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers, documentation status, English proficiency, health, and fear of crime impact migrants’ confidence in these systems. Our findings provide critical insights into how migrants’ pre-migration experiences, direct encounters with US institutions, and social context influence their perceptions of justice systems. This study is one of the few that directly compares migrant perceptions of the CJS in both their home countries and the U.S., contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of confidence formation, trust, and legitimacy within transnational migration contexts.”

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is overall stronger. Just two minor things: 

1) Line 121: "2) The Dual Lens or Importation Model" should read: "The Dual Lens or Leap of Faith Model"

2) In the discussion of the dual lens/leap of faith model, the discussion would be strengthened by specifically addressing work by Jung et al. (2010) in the British Journal of Criminology that showed that immigrants from less democratic regimes tended to have better views of the justice system in the host country. This discussion could also link to the fact that much of the new Latino immigrant population in the US originate from regimes in Central and South American that are less than full democracies (especially with a great portion of the sample coming from Venezuela with a very problematic regime), and also link to the conclusion that shows support for the dual lens/leap of faith model. It seems to be in the bibliography but not discussed in the body of the paper. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

 

The manuscript is overall stronger. Just two minor things: 1) Line 121: "2) The Dual Lens or Importation Model" should read: "The Dual Lens or Leap of Faith Model"

 

Response to reviewer: thanks for catching this. We have updated the model accordingly. 

 

2) In the discussion of the dual lens/leap of faith model, the discussion would be strengthened by specifically addressing work by Jung et al. (2010) in the British Journal of Criminology that showed that immigrants from less democratic regimes tended to have better views of the justice system in the host country. This discussion could also link to the fact that much of the new Latino immigrant population in the US originate from regimes in Central and South American that are less than full democracies (especially with a great portion of the sample coming from Venezuela with a very problematic regime), and also link to the conclusion that shows support for the dual lens/leap of faith model. It seems to be in the bibliography but not discussed in the body of the paper.

 

Response to reviewer: we appreciate this insightful suggestion. We have now integrated a more detailed discussion of Jung et al. (2019) into the Dual Lens or Leap of Faith section of the manuscript to highlight the finding that immigrants from flawed regimes tend to express higher trust in host-country systems. We also revised the discussion section to reinforce how our results support the Dual lens Model. The following content are added to the manuscript:

 

“This pattern has been observed across other contexts as well. Jung et al. (2019), using data from Canada, found that immigrants from flawed or hybrid political regimes were significantly more likely to have positive evaluations of host-country police than those from full democracies. The findings suggest that recent migrants’ perceptions of policing are shaped by the quality of governance in their home countries and more dysfunctional home regimes heighten the perceived legitimacy of host country institutions. This framework aligns with the idea that migrants make a psychological “leap of faith” and assume that democratic host countries will offer more just and reliable institutions (Giddens, 1991).”

 

“The findings in this study are consistent with the Dual Lens or Leap of Faith model, which suggests that immigrants compare their host country's systems to those in their home countries and give the host country system the benefit of the doubt. Jung et al. (2019) support this idea empirically and indicate that immigrants from less democratic regimes held more favorable views of the host country police, especially recently arrived immigrants. Given that over half of our sample respondents originated from Venezuela, a country facing profound democratic backsliding and institutional dysfunction, it is likely that migrants’ low confidence in their home systems amplified their positive views of the U.S. system. This comparative lens, shaped by political context and early interactions, helps explain the optimism many migrants express.”