Notes from prior lectures on marginalization and immigrants
Outline:
1. Common sense
2. Historical trends in Norway, Europe, and USA (immigrants, refugees, etc.)
3. Differences in types of marginalization (definitional issues)
4. Marginalization as one of four cultural adaptation styles
5. Differences among immigrant groups regarding employment, economic, and social marginalization. Empirical evidence of differenes in marginalization in Norway (A study of living conditions among native Norwegians and eight groups of immigrants)
6. Immigrants and crime: The international picture (the Tonry and Eldering & knorth papers)
------
On the concept "Immigrant".
A person born abroad by two foreigners or who is born in the country by parents both born abroad. The concept immigrant is partly different from minority groups such as African Americans, Hispanics, or the commonly used term "Blacks" or "Nonwhites" (USA) who has been part of the United States for several generations.
1. Is it common sense that immigrants are marginalized? Are immigrants as a group marginalized, Are immigrants of all cultures marginalized to the same extent, and are every member of an immigrant group marginalized? What are the important explanatory factors here: social, political and economic factors at the macro level or personal and family factors at the micro level?
2. Immigration to Norway has gone through three distinct phases. (1) From the 1950s until 1975 immigrants were basically guest workers. Due to the strengthened economic situation, Norway, as many of the other western industrialized countries, needed to import working force from various countries, western and non-western. (2) By 1975, when the world economy was laying down with a broken back, the Norwegian government decided not to allow any further work related immigration. However, Norway, as the other western industrialized countries permitted family reunion of guest workers. (3) The final phase of immigration to Norway started in 1985. Then Norway permitted refugees in relatively small numbers to immigrate. These were qualified refugees in accordance with the UN convention of refugees (1951/ 1967). Compared to Sweden, Denmark and other European countries, however, the Norwegian authorities' gave asylum to only a fraction of those in need (political opposition, race, religion, or nationality). More or less we "closed the doors."
3. Different conceptualizations of marginalization in the immigrant literature. We are now familiar with Svedbergs (1995) definition of marginalization and Johannessens various forms of marginalization. Alternative definitions are given by Eldering & Knorth (1998) who says that: "Marginalization refers to a process by which a person becomes distant from the conventional institutions in society (e.g., family, school, labor market)."
These persons (adolescents) run the risk of becoming delinquent. Hence E & K seems to equalize the concepts marginalized with delinquent when adolescents are concerned. We must, however, keep in mind that being delinquent is only a label given those adolescents who are targeted by the police or other official authorities for their delinquent behavior. Delinquency is certainly not necessary, nor sufficient for being marginalized.
4. Marginalization as an individual cultural adaptation style involve the rejection of both the values of the dominant "host" culture and the values of the culture of origin. For more details, see contributions of Berry and Phinney (identity). Assimilation as an outcome has been strongly encouraged by the authorities in the USA ("the melting pot") and in the north-western part of Europe (conformity). A strong "push" towards assimilation in the western industrialized countries. "Guest workers" are "guests"?
- Two Norwegian studies of the living conditions of Norwegians and eight different immigrant groups (Published by SSB, Central Bureau of Statistics, 1995, 1996). Operationalized measures of job/economic marginalization and social marginalization are: Participation rate in the job marked, Dispositional houshold income, Problems managing daily expenses, Refused renting or bying a flat or house, Being harassed at work, and Having a close (good) Norwegian friend.
In the discussion of the two question: (1) To what extent are immigrants as a group marginalized in Norway, and (2) Are the various immigrant groups marginalized equaly? the results suggest the following:
Not nescessarily a close link between job marginalisation and social marginalization. Immigrants from Sri Lanka, Chilli, and former Jugoslavia are marginalized only to a small extent. Immigrants from Vietnam and Iran are relatively strongly marginalized, while immigrants from Somalia are more or less excluded from the Norwegian social life and labor marked (although the few who were employed did report on little harassment at work, partly due to the nature of their work as cleaners).
Explaining these differences is not a straight forward task. A number of factors may be relevant excluding the "one large explanatory model". Possible differences in marginalization among the various groups of immigrants may linked to characteristics of the immigrants, characteristics of the dominant/ majority population, and institutional or structural factors.
Colors of the skin
Geographical distance
Cultural distance/closeness
Language competence
Level of education
Cultural refusal (vegring) The majority of Somalis and Irans are coming from relatively rich, well educated and well respected families in their country of origin.
Stereotypes about africans (lazy, passive, dull, superstitious, primitive, unable to think abstract thoughts, sexual, living social welfare, etc.) Much of these stereotypes may have been formed during colonial times, and possibly even back to the times of the slave trade. More recent influential factors may incorporate the fact the many African countries are receiving aid after hunger catastrophes and civil wars.
6. Immigrants and crime: The international picture (the Tonry introductory chapter)
"Members of some disadvantaged minority groups in every Western country are disproportionally likely to be arrested, convicted, and imprisoned for violent, property, and drug crimes." (p.1)
Nearly every immigrant groups live in highly social and economic disadvantaged areas. Their situation as a group can best be described as marginalized.
"Minority groups characterized by high crime and imprisonment rates are also characterized by various indicators of social and economic disadvantage." (p. 13)
Not all economically and social disadvantaged groups are disproportionally involved in crime. Who are these group, and why are they not involved in crime?
The following is an outline of what is known about racial and ethnic patterns of crime and justice systems involvement in nine countries and the present some reasons for differences that exist. (United States, Canada, Australia, England and Wales, Sweden, Germany, The Netherlands, France, Switzerland). Some of the conclusions drawn here apply to immigrants as well.
In all these nine countries disproportionate crime involvement among minority groups often fosters negative stereotypes leading to many forms of discrimination, most likely in the criminal justice system as well. According to Tonry (p.2), in areas of rapid social and economic changes, such as Europe with its persistent high unemployment, and in North America with declining real wages, many people feel threatened and insecure, quickly blaming minority and immigrant groups for much of what seems wrong. In Europe hate crimes involving violent attacks against minority groups have been increasingly common during the past decade. In turn, victimized minority groups are likely to become even more alienated for the majority population.
(Because definitions of offences vary greatly between countries, it is necessary to look beyond formal definitions making sure that similar criminal behavior are being compared. Besides the criminal processes vary substantially between countries.)
No cross-national comparison study is performed regarding immigrants and crime. However, several national studies are carried out describing and explaining the unique situation for each of these countries.
Do the arrests, convictions and imprisonment really reflect the level of offending among various groups of immigrants, or are these outcomes biased?
"In countries in which research has been conducted on the causes of racial and ethnic disparities in imprisonment, (real) group differnces in offending, not invidious (unjust) bias, appear to be the principal cause." (p. 14)
Unfortunately, the amount of research on immigrant groups' criminal behavior regarding unofficial (self-reported) and official crime rates is rather scarce. Although there is every reason to believe that there exist a bias regarding arrests and convictions, we must turn to racial disparities on these matters in order to examine the extent of bias in arrest rates, convitions and incarcerations.
In the USA, the incarceration rate among "blacks" (12% of the American population) is between 6 and 7 times that of whites. In England, the incarceration rate among Afro-Caribbeans is 7 times that of whites. Similarly, in Canada and Australia, two countries with sizable aboriginal populations, the difference between these minority groups and the majority white population incarceration rates are between 12:1 and 16:1.
"In every country, crime and incarceration rates for members of SOME minority groups greatly exceed those of the majority population" (p. 12). Tonry's introductory chapter gives examples from England and Wales, Australia, Canada, Sweden (Finns, Arab countries, Chileans, East Europeans), Germany (Romanis), France (Algerians, Moroccans, Tunisians). There is, however, a great variation of the types of offences these groups are arrested, convicted, and incarcerated for. For example, the reports from Sweden and Germany describes the Easters Europeans and Romanians primarily involved in theft and shoplifting, crimes that, according to Tonry, are reflctions of materially deprived people moving into consumer oriented societies without the legitimate means to get access to the consumer "goods".
If we look at unofficial crime rates among "blacks" and whites" in the USA, and restrict our examination to those crimes most likely leading to incarceration, namely serious violent acts, the black/white difference is these behaviors are much smaller. Data from the National Youth Survey (Elliott, 1994) clearly shows that "black" males are approximately 20-30% more involved in serious violence than are whites, and "black" females are nearly twice as involved in these behaviors compared to whites. Furthermore, nearly twice as many "blacks" committing serious violent acts prior to the age of 21, continue to perform similar acts after age 21 (33% vs. 18% continuation rates). (2x Overheads)
These findings show quite clearly that African Americans are disproportionately involved in serious violent crimes, and that their violent behavior sustain to a greater extent than for the "white" population. However, there is little agreement on the "black/white" incarceration ratios and the self-reported "black/white" ratios of serious violent behavior. Therefore, it is not controversial to maintain that that African-American minority population (12%) in the US is the subject of discrimination at various stages of the criminal process. A number of studies published from the beginning of the 1990s has supported this, and further claimed that particulary are young, black and unemployed targets of harsh sentencing and to some degree police brutality (Holmes, 2000; Crawford, 2000; Spohn & Holleran, 2000).
"Whether bias or behavior was the primary cause of racial and ethnic disparities in arrests and imprisonment has been highly controversial question in the English speaking countries." The question has been thoroughly addressed through a number of studies and several times summarized (Wilbanks, 1987; Mann, 1993; Tonry, 1995; Sampson & Lauritsen, 1997 this volume). With few exceptions, according to Tonry, these studies indicate that past and present criminal behavior is the major determinant of officials' descisions. Bias plays a role, however, but is a less important factor. (p. 15).
How does racial and ethnical bias work and how can we study it?
If race and ethnicity matters, we should be able to demonstrate that after controlling for offence circumstances and criminal histories, individuals of minority groups are disproportionally targeted and arrested by the police, disproportionally charged, convicted, and imprisoned.
"Seemingly neutral case processing practices, especially pretrial confinement decisions and sentence reductions for guilty pleas, operate to the systematic disadvantage of members of minority groups." (p. 16) (Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, England, Canada, and the USA) (
1. Pretrial detention problem (minority groups are disproportionately detended. All else being equal, being detained increases the risk that a prison sentence will be imposed after trial.
2. Rewarding prisoners who plead guilty, sentence reduction (minority groups are less likely to to it and at a later point in the criminal process)
3. Police targeting (individuals of minority groups are more often stopped by the police, possibly leading to individual defiance and hostility, again leading to increased police hostility and use of force).
4. Stereotypes and sub-cultural behaviors sometimes associated with minority group members often work to their disadvantage in contact with the justice system (generalizations from some individuals to the whole group "attribution", social signals: dressing, pimp-rolling, etc.)
Special Issue: Immigration and Crime (pp. 19-26)
Large-scale immigration into the United States stopped after 1924. Until then, three comprehensive scientific works had be published on the immigration-crime topic. The general conclusion drawn from these studies was that it is not the foreign born who contribute to the increased levels of crime, but their children.
The explanation given for these findings are regarding first generation immigrants that they were self-selected economic migrants leaving their homes for America to improve their and their children's lives. Most of them were hard working, ready to defer immediate gratification in the interest of longer-term advancement, and therefore to be conformists and behave themselves. Their children, however, were more or less caught between two worlds living in disadvantaged neighborhoods in a country with infinite opportunities. They perceived their opportunities for legitimate economic advancement less available compared to many nonimmigrant young people (blocked opportunities leading to frustration). Other theoretical explanations cover alienation, lack of role models, deviant sub-cultural values of youth gangs which young immigrants joined as a source of self-identification and self-esteem.
However, this general conclusion does not apply well to the European situation:
1. Self-selected Economic Migrants from many Asian cultures have lower crime rates than the local population in the first and in subsequent generations
- Cultural differences between structurally similarly situated immigrants can result in sharply different crime patterns (Moroccans and Turks in the Netherlands. Differences in family patterns (Traditional vs. Egalitatian)
3. There are grounds for hypothesizing that, all else being equal, some countries' policies for aiding immigrants' assimilation can reduce crime rates, including those of their second- and third-generation descendants (Sweden's social welfare system)
4. The reasons groups migrate powerfully shape criminality and other indications of successful adaptation (Jugoslavian guest workers and war refugees in Sweden)
5. Many categories of immigrants do not fall within any of the preceding generalizations
------