The Crime–Immigration Nexus: Cultural Alignment and Structural Influences in Self-Reported Serious Youth Delinquent Offending Among Migrant and Native Youth

• Published date: 01 November 2019
• Date: 01 November 2019
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/1043986219881827
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986219881827

Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice

2019, Vol. 35(4) 431 –460

© The Author(s) 2019

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1043986219881827

journals.sagepub.com/home/ccj

Article

The Crime–Immigration

Nexus: Cultural Alignment

and Structural Influences

in Self-Reported Serious

Youth Delinquent

Offending Among

Migrant and Native Youth

Renske S. van der Gaag1,2

Abstract

Young people with a migrant background are often overrepresented in crime

statistics. This study used data from the third International Self-Report Delinquency

(ISRD3) study to examine to what extent cultural alignment—cultural resemblance

between host and heritage country—and structural influences—socioeconomic

starting position and related disadvantage—mediated differences in offending between

native students and students of four different migrant backgrounds—Western, Post-

Communist, Asian, Middle Eastern—in five Western European countries. This study

showed that all migrant groups, except for the Asian group, had significantly higher

lifetime serious offending rates than native students. Opposed to the expectations,

however, the Western group with the highest levels of cultural alignment—

suggesting easier adaptation to the host country—also had the highest offending

rates. In the mediation analysis, cultural alignment and structural disadvantage did not

satisfactorily explain the relatively large differences in offending between Western

and native students and further research would be needed to better understand

these differences. In contrast, for the Middle Eastern group, structural disadvantage

fully explained differences in offending with native students, also when accounting for

cultural alignment; in other words, mechanisms related to structural disadvantage—

1Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands

2Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, the Netherlands

Corresponding Author:

Renske S. van der Gaag, Department of Political Science and Public Administration, Faculty of Social

Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1081, 1081 HV Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Email: r.s.vander.gaag@vu.nl

881827CCJXXX10.1177/1043986219881827Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justicevan der Gaag

research-article2019

432 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 35(4)

for example, exposure to risks of delinquent development—for this group appeared

to be more determining in explaining differences in offending with natives than their

level of cultural alignment or background. For Asian and Post-Communist students,

structural disadvantage mediated the largest part of the difference in offending with

natives, but cultural alignment for these groups also explained part of this difference.

This finding suggests that for these two groups mechanisms related to both cultural

alignment—for example, acculturation processes, higher probability of parent–child

conflict, and so on—and structural disadvantage are needed to understand differences

in offending with native students.

Keywords

youth delinquency, migrant youth, migration, social disadvantage, culture, adolescent

development

Introduction

Immigration is a highly debated issue in many Western countries. Youth delinquent

behavior is one outcome that is frequently linked to immigration in public debate.

Popular media often represent immigration as a cause of crime and the growing fear of

crime fostered by these media is dominating the public perception of immigration.

Indeed, young people with a migrant background are often overrepresented in crime

statistics (Junger-Tas et al., 2010). Previous international research, however, found

that some countries produce better outcomes for youths with a migrant background

than others, for instance, in educational achievement and well-being but also in lower

levels of delinquent behavior (Fossati, 2011; Junger-Tas et al., 2010; Killias, 1989).

These findings imply that migrant background—if at all—is not the only factor in

youth delinquent development.

In the academic literature, theoretical perspectives regarding the so-called crime–

immigration nexus generally fall into two groups: “culturalist” and “structuralist” per-

spectives (Portes & Rivas, 2011). Culturalists tend to focus on adaptation to the host

country and developmental problems that could result from adolescents developing in

the context of several, possibly conflicting, cultural frameworks at home, at school,

and in the neighborhood (see, for example, Atzaba, Poria, & Pike, 2007; Marsiglia,

Nagoshi, Parsai, Booth, & Castro, 2014; Phinney, Ong, & Madden, 2000). Structuralists,

on the contrary, emphasize structural factors, such as socioeconomic position of

migrant families, and related advantages or disadvantages that may influence adoles-

cent development (e.g., Brody et al., 2001; Elliott et al., 1996; Sampson, Morenoff, &

Raudenbush, 2005).

Despite global significance, most knowledge on the crime–immigration nexus and

related theories derives from single city- or country-based studies, many of which situ-

ated in the United States (e.g., Davies & Fagan, 2012; Martinez, 2006; Morenoff &

Astor, 2006; Ousey & Kubrin, 2009; Sampson et al., 2005). Many of these US studies

find no evidence for increased rates of migrant offending and even report protective

influences of migration on offending. Research, however, suggests that the context of