Abstract
The criminal immigrant narrative (CIN) is the embodiment of stereotypes suggesting that foreign nationals are engaged in crime. Research has documented how this narrative has influenced discourse, policies, and enforcement, but none to date has addressed how the CIN affects the stereotyping and interactions of crime-involved individuals with those deemed “immigrants.” This study draws from in-depth, semi-structured interviews of 25 individuals actively engaged in street crime from Atlanta, Georgia, to understand their beliefs regarding immigration, stereotyping of “immigrants,” and their interactions with perceived immigrants, including targeting. Our findings suggest that interviewees’ stereotypes of immigrants and their ascribed attributes are based on perceived nationality, nativity, documentation status, work ethic, criminality, and prior interactions with foreign nationals. Participants demonstrated an understanding of immigration policies from media and political rhetoric. This understanding influenced the stereotyping of immigrants as “illegal” or “doing illegal things,” shaping participants’ views of foreign nationals as vulnerable or dangerous.
“The US has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems . . . When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best . . . They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems . . . They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” Former President Donald Trump, June 16, 2015.
Foreign nationals (i.e., migrants), particularly those who lack valid documentation, have long been viewed as threats to the native-born population’s economic, safety, and political dominance (Berg, 2009; Wang, 2012), with fears often concentrated on foreigners of Latinx ethnicity/Mexican nationality (Chavez, 2013; Eitle & Taylor, 2008). In particular, perceptions of migrants as public safety threats have dominated the political discourse for decades, providing the foundation for the “criminal immigrant narrative” (CIN). This discourse has contributed to anti-immigrant prejudice (Quillian, 1995), support for punitive social control and enforcement policies (Pickett, 2016), and—consequently—targeting for crime (Barranco & Shihadeh, 2015; Lockwood & Cuevas, 2020). However, little research exists on the personal beliefs and biases of individuals actively engaged in street crime toward migrants and the interactions between these stigmatized groups. While crime-involved individuals are still community members exposed to the mainstream discourse, they are unlikely to be well represented in polls and surveys and yet are assumed to be acutely aware of the political environment and actively influenced by mainstream discourse. To address this gap, we interviewed 25 individuals who—at the time of data collection—were actively engaged in acquisitive street crimes to explore their beliefs and understanding about immigration, as well as their interactions with perceived migrants.
Numerous studies have been conducted on the public’s views on immigration and crime (Berg, 2009; Buckler, 2008; Burns & Gimpel, 2000), African Americans’ views of immigration (Diamond, 1998; Nteta, 2013), and the impact of “crimmigration” policies on the vulnerability of migrants (Velazquez & Kempf-Leonard, 2010). However, no studies to date address the impact of mainstream political discourse on the views and subsequent interactions with “immigrants” by individuals who actively offend. This represents a critical gap in the literature because prior research has demonstrated that the discourse intertwines Latinx identity with immigration status, which may influence the attractiveness of perceived migrants as targets for crime. In particular, the targeting of foreign nationals for street crime has garnered increasing attention, with African American men accused of perpetrating a significant proportion of these crimes (Cepeda et al., 2012; Negi et al., 2013). This contradicts the well-established intraracial targeting patterns (see Caraballo & Topalli, 2023 for a discussion on this dynamic). Therefore, it is critical to understand the extent to which individuals who engage in street crime absorb the mainstream biases and prejudices, adopt beliefs related to the CIN, and use this information to shape their interactions with migrants. To date, most studies on the interactions between migrants and those involved in street crime use reported crimes (Barranco & Shihadeh, 2015; Cancino et al., 2009) or victim accounts (Fussell, 2011; Negi et al., 2013, 2019), thus speculating on the perceptions and motives of those involved in street crime (Barranco & Shihadeh, 2015).
We first provide an overview of the relevant intersecting bodies of literature, including the CIN, stereotyping, the “immigration-crime nexus,” and foreign nationals’ known interactions with crime-involved individuals. A detailed methodology section then articulates the study setting and context, recruitment and sampling characteristics, data collection procedures, and the transcription and data analyses. Next, the results are presented by themes. We conclude with a discussion on the implications of the findings on future research.
Stereotypes, Stigma, and Faulty Attributions in Offending
Substantial research in social cognition has focused on how individual’s beliefs and attitudes about others drive their behaviors (Fiske, 1998; Greenwald & Lai, 2020). Stereotyping—the perception of individuals based on their group membership (Blair, 2002) and prejudice—the behavioral outcome of such perceptions (Fiske, 1998) has been implicated in an array of discriminatory attitudes and behaviors across social contexts. In criminology, these concepts have focused on the macro-level effects of racism on the criminal justice system (CJS; Silver et al., 2022). At the micro-level, some work has studied police engagement in stereotype-based discriminatory practices (Armenta, 2017; Warner, 2005). However, the extent to which individuals actively engaged in illicit behaviors ascribe to and are influenced by mainstream stereotypes of migrants in their offending remains largely unexplored.
Stereotypes provide important—yet faulty—information to crime-involved individuals about whom to target based on assumptions about the target’s ability to resist or retaliate, their access to formal mechanisms of social control or informal protection, and their possession of coveted items (i.e., cash, drugs). These beliefs accrue through the typical routes of stereotype establishment (Stangor & Ford, 1992) noted in the general population; a lack of familiarity with the outgroup and adoption of biased beliefs portrayed (un)consciously in the larger culture. Here, we argue that many of the stereotypical beliefs these individuals hold about Latinx migrants broadly, and the undocumented specifically, are driven by a mainstream socio-political atmosphere that has historically stigmatized migrants as “criminal aliens” (Cervantes & Menjivar, 2018; Warner, 2005). However, what distinguishes those who habitually offend from mainstream society is their active involvement in crime. Therefore, while the mainstream society often pushes for social control, it is unclear how such stereotypes influence the interactions between these groups.
Criminological and sociological perspectives on stereotyping and prejudice draw heavily from the symbolic interactionist tradition (Müller, 2019), laying the groundwork for multiple frameworks that identify “criminogenic” groups, including the minority/group threat hypothesis (King & Wheelock, 2007), the symbolic assailant narrative (Jiang & Erez, 2017), and central to our discussion here, the CIN (Warner, 2005). These perspectives link inflammatory discourse to moral panics (Longazel, 2013; Tosh, 2019) and systemic racism within institutions to the racial and ethnic groups associated with undesirable attributes (Feagin, 2013). This results in unjust practices and disparities in the CJS including racist socio-legal structures (Holbrook et al., 2022), profiling (Provine et al., 2016), sentencing (Valadez & Wang, 2017), and correctional outcomes (Berg & DeLisi, 2006) based on individuals’ identities. Although the societal referent for this relationship is between the CJS and individuals accused of criminal behavior, how stereotyping processes potentially impact the relationship between criminalized groups is less known. 1
The Criminal Immigrant Narrative
Stereotypes originate from a perceived collective understanding; in this case, who constitutes a “criminal alien.” While research suggests the primary motivations for migration are the search for economic opportunities and asylum from political and drug-related violence (Hiskey et al., 2018; Stanley, 1987), “receiving” countries are not always or equally receptive to migrants. Former President Trump’s infamous 2015 quote about Mexicans embodies the sentiment underlying the CIN (Pendergast et al., 2018). The public and political discourse that people fleeing poor conditions in their home countries are bringing those “problems” with them has translated to viewing impoverished migrants as “stealing jobs,” “mooching” off public benefits, and increasing crime in the host country (Berg, 2009; Burns & Gimpel, 2000; Wang, 2012). Such foreigners are often labeled the “wrong” kind of migrants (Peña-Sullivan, 2020) and subject to rigorous social control (Chiricos et al., 2014).
The CIN exposes the political duality of immigration and crime. Immigration law has long distinguished between “types” of migrants, particularly those “deserving” or “undeserving” of humanitarian aid (Calavita, 1996), creating a complex structure of admission, surveillance, and expulsion of foreigners who may be deemed to stray from social expectations. Although research on the immigration-crime nexus overwhelmingly suggests that foreign nationals are less crime-prone than native-born citizens (Martinez Jr & Stowell, 2012; Ousey & Kubrin, 2014; Wang, 2012), the CIN has long been used to justify laws, policies, and enforcement practices explicitly targeting “criminal” migrants (Chiricos et al., 2014).
Although historically applied across racial groups (Pendergast et al., 2018), the CIN has concentrated on Latinx groups in recent decades (Armenta, 2017). Within the narratives of this “undeserving group,” undocumented Latinx migrants are placed at the forefront (Chavez, 2013). Their intersecting statuses as foreign-born, ethnic minorities, and lacking documentation simultaneously incite nativism, xenophobia, and public safety fears. Former President Trump’s quote further exemplifies the public intermingling of nationality and immigration status, namely the association between Mexicans and the “illegal alien” label (Cervantes & Menjivar, 2018; Chavez, 2013). The invisibility of undocumented status has encouraged profiling based on “Mexican appearance” by enforcement agencies (Armenta, 2017) and sanctioned by the U.S. Supreme Court. 2 By condoning racialized profiling at systemic levels, it potentially legitimizes the use of stereotyping for interpersonal forms of violence (Caraballo & Topalli, 2023).
The CIN portrays migrants as violent criminals who migrate with the intent to harm Americans. In his quote, Trump suggests migrants bring violence from their country of origin to the United States (i.e., a “dumping ground for everyone else’s problems”), thereby conflating those fleeing violence with violence perpetration (“they’re bringing crime”). These claims are often reinforced by crime along the borderlands that act as evidence of a putative spillover effect (Finklea et al., 2010). The media portrayal of asylum seekers thus intertwines with the imagery of gang members and drug cartels (Pendergast et al., 2018). The disproportionate media attention on select gangs—such as MS-13—further fuels the conflation between ethnicity/nationality and criminality (Pendergast et al., 2018). Research finds that young Latinos—particularly Mexicans—have been stereotyped as involved in gang activity by the general public and politicians (Correa-Cabrera & Garrett, 2014), by law and immigration enforcement (Vega, 2017), and even after deportation for non-gang-related offenses (Dingeman & Rumbaut, 2009), despite Department of Homeland Security (DHS) data between March 2015 and April 2019 showing only 1.5% of 500,000+ detainees with criminal records had their most serious conviction related to gang activity (Transnational Clearinghouse Records [TRAC], 2019).
The fundamental discourse underpinning the CIN has led to decades of research on the association between immigration and crime rates, known as the immigration-crime nexus (Mears, 2001). Exploration of the immigration-crime nexus has addressed differences in race/ethnicity (Harris & Feldmeyer, 2013), generation (Bersani et al., 2014; Jiang & Peguero, 2017), and citizenship status (Polczynski Olson et al., 2009). Academic research and government reports often support that migrants are less involved in criminal activity than their U.S.-born peers (Kubrin, 2013; Ousey & Kubrin, 2018), with some variation across locations, data sources, and migrants’ “legality” (Nowrasteh, 2018).
That said, the discrimination and isolation resulting from the stigma of the “criminal alien” label may encourage maladaptive coping mechanisms. Scholars have documented the use of drugs or alcohol, particularly by migrant men, to cope with economic insecurity (Raj & Silverman, 2002) and social isolation (Cepeda et al., 2012). While alcohol use is not inherently illegal, it may result in exposure to police or individuals engaged in crime, thereby increasing the likelihood of justice involvement or victimization. Similarly, Freedman et al. (2018) found restrictions to employment in the formal labor market increased criminal behavior among migrants, especially for “income-generating crimes” (p. 131). Engagement in offenses like drug dealing has been documented among young deportees of color who resided in low-income, high-crime U.S. neighborhoods where drugs were “openly sold” (Brotherton & Barrios, 2011, p. 90) and “. . . selling drugs was part of the neighborhood fabric . . .” (Golash-Boza, 2015, p. 124).
While criminal justice agencies often lack data on immigration status or country of origin, the TRAC collects data from the DHS and other agencies, including the criminal histories of migrants who interact with those systems. By June 30, 2018, the majority (58%) of the 44,435 individuals in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody had no criminal record. An even larger proportion—four out of five—either had no record or committed a minor offense such as a traffic violation. The remaining one out of five had been convicted of what ICE classified as a felony, of which only 16% were defined as a serious (Level 1) offense (TRAC, 2018). The most common Level 1 convictions were assault (16.6%), burglary (7.24%), and drug trafficking (6.13%) (TRAC, 2019). ICE’s data reveal that the fraction of detainees with a serious offense declined from nearly 47% under the Obama administration to around 34% during the Trump administration. Between October 2016 and April 2019, the number of overall Level 1 detainees declined by 19%, with detainees whose most serious conviction was burglary or drug trafficking dropping by about 30%, and assaults falling by 12% (TRAC, 2019). These data suggest that during our data collection, when the CIN was pervasive in public discourse, government sources recorded a downward trajectory in serious offending by foreign nationals.
Interactions Between Foreign Nationals and Individuals Engaged in Street Crime
Prior research has long demonstrated that individuals engaged in crime are embedded within the larger community and, therefore, interact with others who may or may not also be engaged in illicit behavior. Such interactions may occur through familial ties, employment, or other social networks. These interactions may also take a predatory form. The few studies that explore the interactions between foreign nationals and individuals engaged in street crime center on a victimized-victimizer dynamic, without addressing other forms of interactions. The existing literature emphasizes the CIN’s impact on punitive policies resulting in unique structural vulnerabilities such as reluctance to report victimization to police (Kittrie, 2005). Using this logic, many scholars argue that foreign nationals have been targeted due to the vulnerabilities resulting from their actual or perceived legal status (see Caraballo & Topalli, 2023).
However, gaps remain in this research. First, there is an assumption that individuals engaged in street crime are aware of the impact of the socio-political environment on migrants’ vulnerabilities. We are unaware of any research in the United States that directly addresses this dynamic. Second, due to the CIN’s emphasis on migrants’ alleged criminality, there may be a divergent impact on interactions. The criminalization of the undocumented status increases victimization risk and is compounded by engagement in risky, stigmatized, or illicit behaviors such as alcohol use (Wheeler et al., 2010), drug use (Cepeda et al., 2012; Velazquez & Kempf-Leonard, 2010), and criminality (Miller & Gibson, 2011). Alternatively, individuals engaged in street crime may perceive and interact with migrants as collaborators rather than targets. This may help explain the inconsistent findings across the literature (see Caraballo & Topalli, 2023). Finally, drawing from the Code of the Street literature (Anderson, 2000), the violent and dangerous reputation put forth by the CIN may serve as a deterrent during interactions between migrants and individuals engaged in street crime. Without engaging with individuals actively involved in crime about their political awareness, views on immigration policies, and interactions with “immigrants,” much of the theoretical underpinning of victimization and other forms of interactions remain speculative.
The Current Study
We use interview data from individuals actively engaged in street crime to understand their awareness of rhetoric regarding immigration policies, stereotyping of migrants as “criminal aliens,” and the influence such beliefs had on subsequent interactions. Research on active street offending has been used to gain insight into the lives and law-breaking of those not easily captured by traditional crime statistics or research methods (Topalli et al., 2020). In line with the conceptual goals of this article, active offending research has also enhanced the understanding of the cultural and structural context of law-breaking, providing insight into how criminally involved individuals make decisions in light of factors such as race and ethnicity (Sandberg, 2008).
Given the limited research on the political awareness of individuals actively engaged in crime, the role of the CIN, and their views and interactions with migrants, we sought to address the following questions: What are the perceptions of individuals engaged with crime toward immigration and migrants? Do these individuals’ views parallel the CIN? Finally, to what extent are interactions between assumed migrants and individuals perpetrating crime influenced by stereotypical beliefs? This study addresses critical gaps in the perceptions and stereotyping of migrants by individuals actively engaged in crime, the influence of the CIN, and the resulting interactions between these two criminalized groups.
Method
Setting and Context
According to the Uniform Crime Reports, Atlanta’s crime rate consistently exceeds that of most U.S. cities. The 2018 figures show murder, robbery, and aggravated assault rates roughly double the national average. Similarly, property crimes have rates of offenses two to three times the national average for burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft.
According to the U.S. Census, foreign-born persons comprised 1,064,073 residents or 10.1% of Georgia’s population in 2018. Of these, 45.1% were naturalized citizens, and 54.9% were not citizens. The main nationalities of foreign-born residents were Latin American (48.2%), Asian (30.9%), and African (10.8%). Atlanta is a “new destination” for immigration, especially for Latinx migrants. New destinations had foreign-born groups grow at or above twice the national average (Terrazas, 2011). The Latinx population comprised 1.1% of Atlanta and the adjacent areas in 1980 and increased to 11.4% in 2020 (National Equity Atlas, 2020). In 2015, the DHS estimated Georgia was home to 390,000 undocumented persons (Baker, 2018). If accurate, this estimate would account for 3% of the U.S. undocumented population (Baker, 2018).
Atlanta is segregated along racial and demographic lines in many areas. In 2019, African Americans made up 51% of Atlanta’s population. The Greater Atlanta area, which includes multiple ethnic enclaves, has a 34% African American population, which is significantly higher than the 13.4% national average. Despite racial segregation in these areas, there is considerably more overlap between African American and Latinx communities than between these communities and white neighborhoods (Monardo, 2019).
Recruitment and Sample Characteristics
Participants were solicited using a recruiter, an African American male formerly engaged in criminal activity for over 25 years who lived and operated in the south and central areas of Atlanta. He was tasked with using his networks to recruit adults actively engaged in street crime who derived their income primarily from illicit activities. Based on his locale, upbringing, and history in the city, his network of current and former associates who fit this criteria was primarily African American. Although the inclusion criteria did not limit the sample to a specific racial group, individuals from other racial groups (e.g., white, Asian, Latinx) do not predominate in the areas where most of Atlanta’s interpersonal violent crime is concentrated. Thus, establishing rapport with individuals of other racial groups who engaged in crime was not a realistic prospect because the recruiter simply did not interact with them. Therefore, the current sample may not be representative of all individuals engaged in street crime in Atlanta or elsewhere. 3 There may also be unique social interactional effects between African Americans and Latinos based on the unique facet of street crime in Atlanta or these specific residents. Thus, in the absence of a sample that equally distributes race across participants, we are unable to fully disentangle the extent to which decision-making is solely driven by the opportunity potentials of migrants’ perceived identities.
Twenty-five original, semi-structured interviews were conducted. After initial recruitment, the authors verified participants’ ages and that they actively derived the majority of their income from illegal activities through a series of questions on age, employment, and sources of income. To obscure the study’s specific goals and reduce the possibility of researcher demand effects (Chenail, 2011), our interest in individuals who explicitly target undocumented migrants was not presented as an inclusion criterion. This strategy allowed us to gauge participants’ views of immigration, stereotyping of “immigrants,” and interactions with this population while also ensuring we did not inadvertently identify migrants as potential targets.
The final sample yielded 24 male and one female participant, all U.S.-born African Americans. Participants’ age ranged from 18 to 49 years, averaging 32 years. The majority (14/25) were legally employed, while 9 of 25 exclusively obtained their income through crime. Participants’ preferred “trades” primarily consisted of drug dealing, robbery, burglary, or a combination of offense types, consistent with long-established research on criminal careers (Roebuck & Johnson, 1962). Supplemental Table S1 provides a breakdown of participant demographics.
As is standard procedure with active offending research, the recruiter received $50 for each successful recruitment, and interviewees received $50 for their participation. The authors conducted interviews in private university offices between September 2017 and April 2018. Interviews were semi-structured, lasted an average of 48 minutes, and were audio-recorded with each participant’s consent. Names or other identifying data were redacted from ensuing transcriptions in keeping with the standards and requirements set forth by Georgia State University’s Institutional Review Board.
Data Collection
This article stems from a larger project on the perception and targeting of migrants by individuals actively engaged in street crime. The interview process followed a semi-structured protocol with pre-established questions drawing broadly from prior active offending and immigration research. To build rapport, we initiated interviews with questions about participants’ homelife, neighborhoods, and how they “make money,” transitioning from questions about legal employment to illicit activities. Interviews were then guided by conventional offending decision-making research topics, particularly on expertise and crime execution, to gauge the cognitive and logistical influences on target selection. Questions probed participants’ assessments of target vulnerability, the prospect of resistance, and so on. This helped establish the typical victim profile for this sample, which corresponded with descriptions of preferred victims featured in prior research (Jacobs & Wright, 1999; Topalli et al., 2015). Before asking any immigration-related questions, we prompted participants with a series of questions regarding their general targeting preferences, particularly concerning acquisitive crimes such as robbery, burglary, and car theft. We asked participants who they typically target for these crimes and why. Participants who specialized in drug offenses were asked about their networks and experiences with drug robbery (either through victimization or perpetration). In the latter portion of interviews, we explored why some individuals were better targets than others (Jacobs et al., 2000). We further inquired about the extent to which participants “watched the news,” were aware of political issues, and their views on the Obama and Trump Presidential Administrations. This study coincided with the end of the 2016 Presidential Election, and engaging participants in political discussions was intended to increase the chances that immigration would arise as a topic of interest without overtly identifying immigration as the study’s focus. When the topic of undocumented migrants arose—either through participants’ identification of migrants as victims or immigration as a key political issue—our discussions explored interviewees’ preconceived notions of immigration including their views of migrants as economic and public safety threats and the extent to which the current political climate had influenced their opinions, beliefs, and interactions with migrants. Consequently, this article focuses on participants’ views of “public safety” threats, the influence of the larger socio-political environment, and their subsequent interactions.
Transcription and Data Analysis
Interviews were transcribed verbatim using the ExpressScribe transcription software by two doctoral students. Verbatim transcriptions included the use of filler phrases, 4 grammatical errors, objectionable language, and the phonetic spelling of words. The first author then audited all transcripts. The auditing process was vital for ensuring each transcript’s accuracy and included filling in areas inaudible by other transcribers and addressing discrepancies between transcribers before transitioning to the coding phase.
Audited transcripts were coded and analyzed solely by the first author using NVivo 12. Each transcript underwent a manual coding process, which included an initial pass-through reading of all transcripts identifying broad themes and domains and determination of specific themes by the authors. A more regimented coding process, whereby each interview was read line-by-line and manually coded in NVivo, then took place using a combination of predetermined codes based on the literature, the initial reading of transcripts, and themes emerging within and across interviews. This produced a hierarchical pattern of interrelated concepts with themes and subthemes (Spradley, 1979). The data generated 56 codes. 5 Select pre-established codes stemming from the immigration literature included “offender-immigrant interactions” and elements of the CIN such as “perception of foreigners,” “criminality,” and “views of undocumented/illegal status.” Select predetermined codes from the offending decision-making research included “current criminality,” “perceived vulnerability,” and “targeting.” As stereotyping was thought to result from mainstream discourse, codes involving “mainstream engagement” included “primary source of information,” views on “political issues,” “President Trump,” “President Obama,” and “immigration.” Codes that emerged during transcription included “terminology” used to describe migrants, “retaliation risk,” and “solidarity.” Once all transcripts were coded, queries were run for each code using the “Explore—coding query” feature of NVivo 12. The references for select codes are discussed in the following section.
Results
The perceptions and interactions between the participants and assumed migrants paralleled the mainstream discourse around immigration. Contrary to expectations based on prior studies, roughly three-quarters (18/25) of the interactions between our interviewees and migrants were not predatory. However, all reported awareness of the undocumented as targets or potential targets of predatory crime. While some participants openly discussed their targeting of migrants, many simply did not engage in the type of offending that would necessitate a “victim.” Participants candidly expressed their views on immigration, their beliefs surrounding the CIN, and their own interactions with migrants.
Perception and Stereotyping of Migrants
Stereotyping was widespread among participants who relied on physical and social cues as proxies for immigration status. Although referencing our population of interest as “immigrants” and “people from other countries” during conversations, interviewees made broad assumptions regarding who constituted this group. The majority of our interviewees (18/25) conflated ethnicity with immigration status, evidenced by their use of the label “Mexican.” For example, NO stated, “. . . you can call them Mexicans, that’s what they are.” In line with the mainstream immigration discourse, most participants stereotyped Mexicans as migrants and assumed our reference to foreign nationals was synonymous with this nationality. In addition, some distinguished between “types” of migrants.
I know some esés that go hard, but there’s a difference between an esé and an amigo. An amigo is a farmer. And an esé is a gangster.
How do you tell the difference between an esé and an amigo on the street?
See how they move. They gonna go and me like, buying so much dope and all this shit, when I went up there I went up to the main spot. I know ICE method like it’s a live organism. I’ve seen how they make it . . . I seen them putting it underground . . ..
The duality of the “criminal immigrant” begins with the notion that there are two “types” of migrants. As FL notes, the “amigo” is a migrant with a legitimate 6 form of income (i.e., farmer) while an “esé” is engaged in criminal activity. FL suggests that these groups can be distinguished based on “how they move” and implies that, due to his involvement in drug distribution, he buys drugs from esés. Although not all interviewees used this same terminology, several distinguished between not being “legal” and engaging in “illegal” ..activities.
“They are either not legal or they are doing not legal things. Or like they’re involved in the circle like . . . I’m selling cocaine to you, but I know your brother is the plug.
7
I know your brother is the one with all the drugs. I’m going to keep serving you. So, then now we just built the relationship. Now, I’m coming in your circle.” ~MA “. . . I know some amigos be doing a little side hustle thing but . . . some of them ain’t but most of them is. Some of them selling dope, powder, weed . . .” ~YB “. . . the street uhh Mexicans way different from work Mexicans.” ~AP “. . . you have like scammers for instance. They might have a job, they got a nice car. But you’ll never know that they are jerking people everyday for tens of thousands of dollars. And then you got your folks that come over here and they are working good . . .. They are not necessarily doing anything illegal but they have a illegal ties . . ..” ~MA
Participants argue some migrants come to “work,” some are “plugs,” and some have “illegal ties” with relatives or associates who are engaged in crime. As such, the stereotyping surrounding their perceptions of “immigrants” is multifaceted. These nuances expand the oversimplified view of the “criminal immigrant” as a homogeneous category and set the foundation for the layered perceptions regarding immigrant vulnerabilities, risk factors, and dangerousness. Participants then ascribed positive and negative stereotypes to each group, further distinguishing characteristics. Amigos were more likely attributed to positive stereotypes such as being a “hard worker” while esé’s were often described as dangerous.
Amigos: Farmers and Construction Workers
The distinctions between migrant “types” parallel the broader discourse demarcating “deserving” versus “undeserving” foreigners. 8 Furthermore, the distinction between “illegals” and those who engage in illegal behavior shaped participants’ views of undocumented immigrants’ vulnerabilities and interactions. Interviewees’ views of amigos were heavily influenced by the latter’s perceived work ethic, premigratory victimization history, and sense of shared “minority” status. For example, FL stated, “When you get to a certain level, a minority is a minority. So all of us is together . . . It becomes a family thing.” Participants’ views of amigos reinforced the image of the poor foreigner who sought a better life for himself and his family.
“. . . I feel like everybody need a chance . . . But at the same time, it’s what they do with the chance, but if they ain’t here tryin ta make sure they family straight like they in Mexico making 1,000 millions off of what they doing, but tryin ta come here cuz they can’t get the rewards of having their money in they country cuz they got poor countries or dictators . . . I believe they should have a chance to come here and enjoy theyselves, see what good livin is, but they know on the other side of the grass. We ain’t doing great ourself.” ~DS “. . . the immigrants, I don’t have nothing to do with them. Everybody is equal . . . You came over here looking for something better . . . I respect it . . . You have left . . . where you from and left your family . . . and you came over here to start over . . . I respect that.” ~OR
In line with this view, some participants also challenged the rhetoric of migrants as threats to American jobs or public safety, instead arguing that “people in the community” do not want to work and “want something for free.” “. . . a lot of immigrants . . . they’re struggling and stuff in their native land . . . people come over to work, they want a better life—more than they have, so I don’t feel like they’re taking jobs and . . . if they’re able to do the job—they’re qualified well then they should—I don’t think they’ll take the jobs from people, but a lot of people do think they’ll take the jobs . . . like outdoor jobs, constructions, and landscaping and . . . jobs like that . . ." ~CO “No, they not taking jobs from the community, ‘cause the peoples in the community, 9 times out 10, they young. They don’t want, no nobody wanna work. Everybody want something for free out here. Those folks come over here and work. They work, work, shit, numerous of hours to take care of they family. They not just over here thinking about, I come over here to sell drugs. Everybody wanna do better and get on they feet. Which to peoples that I know up here around, they not trying to do.” ~HW
Research suggests that exposure to outgroups reduces negative stereotypes of its members, including migrants (Cervantes & Menjivar, 2018). Such an interaction effect is evident among participants. The comradery some expressed was, in part, due to their exposure to migrants in their social networks, legal employment, or community interaction.
“. . . I’m not colorblind. I have white friends, I have blacks, I have Haitian friends, Mexican, and I got a Mexican homeboy. He’s illegal, he ain’t supposed to be here but if you was to see him, he’s American but it’s like his thought of training is like. To him, the United States is the Land of the Free . . .” ~GR “. . . Like some these amigos, they be standing down the street up by [location redacted], running up and down the street telling people we work, we work. They might help people move. They might work on some of these . . . construction sites . . . . amigos gotta get money. They always out here . . . most of the amigos, they ain’t even supposed to be down here . . . they ain’t even born down here . . . like they snuck across the border . . .. So, . . .they might do a little construction job . . . they might sell weed in a dime bag. But 9 times out of 10, they gonna have like a little construction job. Buy them a little trailer or some of em will go back to work, cuz when I was at that construction site, it was a lot of amigos.” ~JT “. . . I’m from Connecticut. Italians, Puerto Ricans, Caucasians, and African Americans basically, and Jewish. Here in Atlanta, Mexicans . . . I’m cool with everybody. My thing in life, you respect me, I respect you. I don’t care who you are—a citizen—whatever. I’m gonna respect you until you disrespect me. That’s . . . how I live . . .” ~CC
DS, a self-proclaimed “military brat,” traveled often as a child and described being exposed to different groups of people during his travels.
“So, they much cooler than average peoples . . .. I was just working at [employer and location redacted]. Most of family was up there. It was mostly immigration peoples up there. Different nationalities. They treated me better than the peoples I was up there with . . .. I feel like them being the folks who been cleaning my schools up half my life. Like, they the ones making sure the floors clean, not us. We the ones messing it up for them to clean up. That’s how they get paid.” ~DS
When asked, “Do you work with any of them in your [landscaping] job?”, one participant replied: “Yeah . . . I have worked with a lot of Mexican guys. Worked hard with those guys, and those guys are workers and stuff so that’s why I said I don’t have a problem with them taken—I don’t feel like they’re just taken jobs from us . . .. It’s just the thing that they’re illegal immigrants—that’s probably what people have problems with—come from the illegal resident stuff—they just come over and get the jobs without being legal citizens and stuff . . .. But for their work ethic and stuff, companies are going to hire them whether they’re legit or not.” ~CO
CO highlights a point that immigration scholars have long acknowledged; foreign nationals are seen as “hardworking” and “manageable.” For those who are undocumented, their precarious status contributes to this “work ethic” by making them less likely to report abuses, thus “ideal workers” (Fussell, 2011; Maldonado, 2009).
Esés: Gangsters, Cartels, and Plugs
While many participants perceived undocumented migrants as hard workers who support their families, others reinforced views aligned with the CIN.
“And then it’s like with this Trump movement . . . in the moment, I ain’t gonna say Mexicans is the dominant but in a way, they is. They commit more crime than black people, white people. They really the ones committing all these crimes right now . . . [T]omorrow they might be back in Mexico and a lot of them you gotta look at they came from Mexico for a reason. It might not be cause they want a better life, cause they running from somebody . . .. You just can’t say we gonna take all the people that ain’t from here cause . . . those people bringing money to the United States. The farmers, they the ones who own the stores, they the ones who got the McDonalds, the Dairy Queens.” ~GR
Paralleling this article’s opening quote, GR suggests that migrants are not always looking for a better life, but rather they are “running from somebody.” Yet, he also describes migrants as entrepreneurs who bring money into the United States, highlighting the divergent views of foreign nationals. In addition, DE, below, notes that “Mexicans” “smuggle drugs,” are “killing,” and are “dangerous.” Interestingly, unlike political and media discourse that amplify the CIN to incite fear in native-born U.S. citizens, DE believes that most of the violence is directed at other Mexican nationals.
“The ones that cool involved in crime. You not gonna see ‘em . . .. They too damn sneaky. They too good . . .. They smuggle drugs, Mexicans . . . they killin, they dangerous. Most of it to they own kind though . . . they’re not targeting blacks and whites and none of that.” ~DE
DE and others further reiterated that “illegals” are smuggling drugs and engaged in violence.
“. . . they breaking the law like, they smuggling the drugs in here . . .. They killin, you know. They, shit, they not on paper [author’s note: undocumented].” ~DE “. . . [S]ome of the ones over here sellin drugs, like the cartels, they might get with them and try to lay on ‘em, double back and hit ‘em. A lot of those folks that’s illegal too that sellin drugs.” ~GW
Other interviewees, however, did not limit criminality to a “certain type” of migrant. Below, CO discussed the highly publicized tragedy of a professional football player who was killed by a migrant who was driving drunk in the weeks leading up to the interview.
“. . . I think that immigrants commit crimes everywhere and in every city. Not just one certain type of immigrants, all immigrants do a lot of things. For instance I was watching the news the other day and . . . an immigrant was . . . driving drunk and he killed a professional football player and his Uber driver . . . [the player] went to school here in Atlanta. And he was coming back from somewhere like 2:30 in the morning, and the immigrant was driving drunk and killed both of them instantly.” ~CO
Interactions With Foreign Nationals
Positive or negative stereotypes were not absolute predictors of participants’ interactions with migrants, including targeting. To illustrate, participants’ positive views of amigos may have resulted in targeting based on the perceived ease of the opportunity or may have increased compassion for this group, thus diminishing motivation. Alternatively, interviewees’ negative perceptions of esés may have increased the motivation to offend based on anticipated reward (i.e., drugs, cash) or deterred targeting based on perceived dangerousness or self-interest. Table 1 illustrates the interactions between stereotypes and targeting.
Participants’ Stereotyping and Targeting of “Immigrants”
In line with previous research, some participants noted that “Mexicans” were robbed because they were “illegal” and could not “do nothing” about it.
“. . . [L]ast year [authors’ note: 2017], they were robbin all them Mexicans . . . the Mexicans couldn’t hardly do nothing about it because they illegal and taking punishment that they don’t need to be taking, and can’t call the police . . . I ain’t like that . . . I seen a lot of that going on . . .” ~JV “. . . [A]migos are getting robbed so, so many times for so many stuff . . . they get robbed all the time. Like . . . amigos, they start to drop . . . amigos be trying to do stuff . . . Amigos got to be deep. You catch one amigo by hisself or you just . . . catch em down bad. They gonna give it up cuz they got families . . . They ain’t gonna wanna die over no money when they know they can get it right back.” ~JT
The belief that some migrants are engaged in crime could be further delineated into three subthemes: engagement in risky behaviors increasing vulnerability, association with violent people, and individual level of dangerousness. In the first theme, participants described engagement in risky or illegal activity such as drug use or hiring sex workers made—as well as legal activities such as consuming alcohol—perceived migrants more prone to victimization.
“I only rob a n***** or something . . . somebody like me . . . cause y’all ain’t what I want. I want dope. I want drugs and shit. So, I ain’t doing none of that petty shit . . .” ~BT “. . . when the Colombians had all the money, all the drugs . . . they, they were the big guy, but now, the Latinos, the Mexican, they in the driver seat. So, that’s why they target, because they got all the drugs.” ~JV
They be carrying straight cash on them.
Does that make them more . . .
Of a target? Yeah. “cause we had done some of them back then too. They be drunk. They be real drunk and intoxicated and it makes it easier . . . they be under the influence of different drugs like cocaine, you know. This one time, this dude he had ordered some pizza. He was like drunk. He was staggering. I was like “aye” you know, “mota, mota. 9 ”
Oh, you speak a little Spanish huh. What’s “mota” mean?
Its marijuana, like a little reef, ok. He’s like no no no mas, no more. I just knew he had money on ‘em. So I was like boom. He had like $2500 . . . cash.
In addition to carrying cash, a known risk factor for robbery, GW explains how he targeted a migrant perceived to be intoxicated. GW presents an interesting parallel to the claim by Negi et al. (2013) that Latino migrants who sought to purchase drugs were cheated by dealers. Here, he offers marijuana (“mota”) to an individual he profiled as a migrant. The target appeared inebriated and replied, “no more” (“no mas”) in Spanish. GW capitalized on the target’s vulnerability and stole $2,500. Other participants shared similar sentiments. Below, DD explains that his acquaintances are afraid to rob individuals engaged in drug dealing, like he does, but they will target migrants perceived to be “easy.”
“I think it was easy . . . they go to the store and get beer and stuff, they be got drunk. You know, and they’re still goin’ back to get more beer, so that’s an easy target for them . . . they was kinda scared to go in, like, do what I was doing . . .”
But you’re robbing drug dealers?
“Yeah, . . . and they know that those guys, they gonna have guns, those guys might come back at them . . . but those people down there, [immigrants] just getting drunk and whatever, that’s an easy mark for them.”
In addition to substance use, two participants addressed victims’ alleged involvement with sex workers as a risk factor for targeting. RI discussed targeting migrants at check-cashing locations on known paydays, accompanied by female sex workers who seduce and rob targets.
“. . . A lot of times, I don’t have to do nothin. They get drunk and they trick out with the money and the women and they just cut the pockets . . . they just cut the edge with a razor blade and just slide it on out. A lot of them just keep the cash in their pockets. I don’t really like to get involved in what I call ‘petty cash’ and I think what’s in his pocket is petty cash but I will (inaudible) . . . 3 or 4 of them, make 8, 9 thousand.” ~RI
While RI states that he dislikes involvement in “petty cash,” the combination of having multiple targets and partners who commit the actual robbery result in a more appealing payout. Likewise, MA discussed his experience burglarizing the home of a Jamaican “immigrant” who seemed to have his own business and came to his attention after hiring an individual engaged in sex work.
“And we knew that he kept cash on him because . . . me and one of my friends, we know this girl and she a prostitute. She be turning tricks. So, the Jamaican, he tricks out with her and she tell us everything that is going on like in his house, like how—downstairs in his basement, he might have two safes open on the pool table, they full of money, throwing money at em, ballin,’ buyin’ cocaine—whatever they want and all this type of stuff. So one day, she told us . . . her and her boyfriend broke into the house and when they went in, they went to his room, went to the closet and they found the shoebox and had about $90,000 in it but they only took 30. So, one night, . . . my friend called me . . . and then he was like, ‘Get up, I’m outside right now. I got a lick.’ . . . [S]he left [the basement window] open for us. So, when we went in . . . it had just turned like 4:00 o’clock in the morning. So, of course everybody got guns . . .. [F]irst, we just search the whole basement level . . .. He got big pool table, big speakers, big TVs and projectors and stuff downstairs. So, he had like these little tile things . . . that you can push in. So, we went through those, we found the gun up there. He must be getting up to go to work. So, he took a shower whatever . . ., we can hear him moving upstairs. So, then we heard the door open. So, my friend arrived. He went outside the window and he went on the other side . . . of the house and he had just crock up his van. So, he got it outside, warmed up. Okay, he is going to go to work. Now, we’re debating, shall we kick the door in while he here or should we just wait till he leave? And the part of the town where we was at, he was in . . . a nice neighborhood and so if we had to shoot him . . . we would have been in some trouble . . . So, we wait till he leaves. We went up the stairs, broke the door open, went in and start searching around, rooms and rooms and rooms and we found nothing. We found a clip to .45 but we can’t find the gun. The gun that was downstairs, it was a .38 . . . he has two Range Rovers there and one of them is connected to a pickup truck. So, we had to unhook it from the pickup truck so we can leave. So, we got a couple of laptops and TV but then I find the jackpot . . . he had like this champagne case . . . Oh, man, I was like, ‘Hey, brothers, lets go, let’s go.’ . . . My friend, [name redacted] his brother he went to go get the car from around the corner. Soon as we open the garage, it was a older white man out there in his yard and he was cutting his grass and he just happened to be . . . mowing like looking right at us. We . . . got bandanas on, we got guns and stuff . . .. We just threw what we can in the car and we left both of the safes, we grabbed a couple TVs, left the laptop. I was really just concerned about the cash.” ~MA
Here, MA talks about how the victim came to his accomplice’s attention through the initial contact with the sex worker. One of his friends then mobilized a group prepared to steal anything of value. This quote highlights the decision-making process in target section, deciding whether or not to hold the victim hostage, prioritizing stolen goods, and so on.
Alternatively, if participants viewed these individuals as instrumental to their own offending (such as “business partners”), they were unlikely to target perceived migrants.
“. . . We cool with them. We do business with them . . . I don’t have no issue with ‘em. I feel like they stay in their own lane, we stay in our own lane but, I mean, . . . I’ve made a lot of money with Mexicans. I pretty much trust them . . . I know Mexicans know how to get dope. I know they can get it at. I know how fast it can get here . . . Especially heroin. They love it. With the Mexicans, if you wit it, . . . if you show them you loyal, it ain’t matter . . . Atlanta is a drug-hub city like. This is where it’s at . . . we love the Mexicans if you can believe that . . . with the Hispanics and Mexicans so much because business with them has been for so long that you don’t want to fuck up a plug. Why? . . . If we getting it for the cheap . . . I used to sell to ‘em, now I buying [weed] from ‘em.” ~DS
In the second subtheme of the CIN, some participants addressed the “association” of “Mexicans” to the “cartels.” This association was often perceived to increase their vulnerability, particularly if they were engaging in dealing or distribution on behalf of the cartels. As MA notes, “. . . in the streets, the company . . . you keep could get you killed.” Participants talked about how they, or their acquaintances, targeted “Mexicans” supposedly involved in the drug trade.
“Like, if it’s an immigrant and I know like he a Mexican and he having bricks and he ain’t supposed to be here legally, I really don’t care he here legally, like we gotta get that. I need that. . . . Plenty of Mexicans get knocked off cause they the plug. They the ones who got the 20 something bricks and hundred thousands of dollars. Plenty of plugs get knocked off. My homeboy doing time right now ‘cause he knocked a plug off and then his wife went to run out the door and she caught it. Pow. Pow.” ~GR “One of my friends, he still does it . . . he has some Mexicans he was messing with that he was getting weed and stuff from . . . he was getting like big bags of weed from ‘em . . . he called me about 2-3 days ago, asked me why I hadn’t came and get no weed from him . . . he was like yeah, I robbed a Mexican the other day . . . he gonna get the ones that got a lot of money or a lot of weed . . .” ~DD “Nah, they was robbin the . . . crew got the drugs . . . not . . . single out robbery. ‘Oh, hey, he a Mexican, rob him.’ No, not like that. It’s he a Mexican, he got that dope, get it.” ~JV
Alternatively, this association may have acted as a form of protection, as noted in gang research.
“Most people won’t be friends with the Mexicans because they’re part of the cartel. They are the dope delivers, the dope providers . . . they bring the drugs into the country.” ~NO
Finally, the perceived level of dangerousness was a simultaneous motivator and deterrent for participants who stereotyped migrants as esés. Below, ON notes a time he was robbed at knifepoint by a “Mexican” and the differing reactions he and his cousin had to the event.
“I’ve been pulled with a knife by a Mexican when I was selling in Cali. I was trying to get my weed. I was meeting up with him, first time don’t know the dude. I had met him. I got this good shit, he had showed me. I’m like, alright. He like . . . I’m gonna go to my house, I’m gonna come back to you. Alright. I go over there. He, he jumped in my car, we go to this house, he knocked on the door . . . he come back give me the bag in the car, and I’m feeling it like . . . I don’t feel no nugs. So, I was trying to hurry up and unwrap the shit, cuz he’s already . . . walking. So, after I unwrapped it, . . . it was fucking dreadful . . . and I’m like, oh hell no I ain’t paying for that shit. And it was shake . . . I go bang on their door like, nah, and a lady answered. She was like, no, dude came he had the wrong house. Oh, that motherfucker played me. So, I speed off and catch him now. I have my cousin in the car with me . . .. I flag him, like n***** get your ass back in the car. That’s when he pulled a knife out on me . . . [My cousin] was in the back . . . when I got him back in the car, he pulled that knife on me . . . I’m still rowdy like, dog I’m about to beat your ass. I don’t give a fuck about no blade. I’ll take a couple cuts, but my cousin . . . he’s paranoid. He’s panicking like, no just let him have it . . . let it go. I don’t wanna die.” ~ON
Some participants believed they could identify an “immigrant’s” level of dangerousness solely based on visual cues and decide whether or not to target them based on these cues.
“You know who green and you know who ain’t. Like . . . ‘o I might need a pistol for him’ or I can straight take his shit or I ain’t gonna fuck with him . . . you got some Mexican out here right now, that you look at ‘em and you like ‘o shit, I ain’t fuckin with him and he’s a real killer . . .” ~GR
A key determiner of perceived dangerousness was the likelihood of retaliation (see Jacobs et al., 2000). These individuals were viewed not only as difficult to intimidate but also as threats to the participant and his family.
“Not unless you dealing with the cartels . . . But when you dealing with the big, big man, you might have to worry about retaliation . . . they already be knowing your family.” ~GW “. . . This is my connect . . . where I buy my weed. His wife just had a newborn baby, she’s sitting on the sofa . . . I can’t count the money and he keeps asking me to count the money. I can’t count it cause there ain’t no money to count . . . I’m looking at my buddy like I can’t stall no more. So he puts the gun on the baby and the dude’s wife. You know what the Mexican said? ‘I don’t care, I don’t care. You wanna kill her. Kill her. I don’t care.’” ~RI
Unlike the ever-looming threat of retaliation when individuals engaged in crime target each other, the distinction between amigos and esés created a pseudo-hierarchy of risk based on degree of criminality, assumed associations with cartels, dangerousness, potential payoffs, and likelihood of police involvement. The following paradigm (see Figure 1 below) overlaps participants’ perceptions of criminality and dangerousness of foreign nationals with the previously noted ICE deportation data for migrants apprehended for Level 1 “criminal” offenses.
Risk Assessment: Offenders’ Stereotypes and Perceived Dangerousness of Immigrants
Mainstream Engagement
To determine the extent to which the mainstream political environment shaped their views, we asked interviewees to “talk politics” with us. Here, we inquired about media consumption, social and political issues important to them, and their feelings toward the Obama and Trump administrations. Many participants watched the news—mostly local—almost every day and identified gun violence, cuts to social services, and immigration as important issues. Many expressed neutral or positive views of President Obama—often based on shared race—but were divided over President Trump. Despite both administrations’ influence on immigration policy, discussions of the Trump Administration overlapped more directly with participants’ understanding of immigration.
Some participants voiced their disagreement with deportation policies, emphasizing that migrants from various countries came to the United States and “built this country.” As CC noted, “. . . I don’t think you got no right to push nobody out of no country that ain’t yours.” Below, JV adamantly disagreed with punishing all migrants for the actions of a few.
“Like the Mexican peoples, they come over here, they done built the country up, and now you just gonna send em back. ‘Hey, get the hell out of here.’ I don’t think that’s right . . . it need to be dealt with in a better way than what I’ve been hearing . . . a lot of kids over here from different countries . . . trying to get an education . . .. All the Mexicans, and Africans, and all these people, everybody ain’t bad . . . I just always been a firm believer in get the one you want . . . get the one you looking for. Get the one you need. Get the one that caused the problem . . . nobody should have to pay for your mistake. Pay for your own mistake. So, if a Mexican ran over somebody, get him, cause the rest of em ain’t did nothing . . .. Black guy do something, get him, the rest of em ain’t did nothing . . .” ~JV “Far as that dang immigration . . . people got to do their real history . . . all these poor African Americans and Mexicans that built this country, now you wanna put out now that you you’ve used them. . . . that’s my thang on that. And then, I don’t care how high you put the wall, when you put the wall sky high, I’ma go up under the wall.” ~CC
These quotes highlight the view that migrants have been instrumental in the infrastructure and economy of the United States, that many are seeking better opportunities, Mexicans are unfairly targeted for deportation, punishment should be imposed on individuals engaged in crime (i.e., “ran over somebody”) rather than those who have done “nothing” wrong, and current policies are ineffective at deterring migration.
“If you ask me though, what Trump doin is a bad move . . . ‘Cause, like I said from the beginning, them the people who hire me . . . Mexican, the Saudi Arabians, the Ethiopians . . .. I love America you know, cause I’m American but it’s like, c’mon Trump . . . It’s bad business when you wanna judge this person cause of what his cousin did. C’mon, that’s crazy . . . you gotta look at it, Mexicans not the only ones committin’ crime. Ethiopians committin’ crime . . . You just talkin’ about Mexicans like Mexicans, Mexicans. You got dope coming from Jamaica. You got dope comin’ from Puerto Rico, Columbia.” ~GR “. . . You can build a wall, them folks still gonna come over here . . .” ~DV “I think Trump is full of shit . . . he tryin’ to make us hate each other, I feel like. He tryin’ to make Black people hate White people. He tryin’ to make Mexicans hate Blacks and Asians and all of ‘em. I disagree with everything Trump saying, for real . . .” ~AT
Discussion
In this study, we explored the perception, stereotyping, and subsequent interaction between individuals actively engaged in street crime and assumed migrants. In doing so, our study addresses the formers’ attitudes toward immigration, influences from mainstream discourse, and how these factors affect subsequent interactions with migrants. Our findings suggest that participants’ stereotypes of migrants and their ascribed attributes are based on perceived nationality, documentation status, work ethic, criminality, and prior interactions with foreign nationals. Paralleling mainstream discourse, participants also inextricably linked “Mexican” nationality with immigration status. Regarding our first research question on participants’ attitudes toward immigration and migrants, we found they demonstrated a basic understanding of immigration policies, including the Trump administration’s punitive stance on immigration. This awareness, obtained primarily through news media, shaped participants’ views of migrants’ vulnerability and criminality. They further differentiated between migrants based on “illegality” versus “doing illegal things.” These findings suggest that individuals engaged in crime are exposed to—and influenced by—mainstream rhetoric through media consumption and their own interactions with “migrants” in their communities and places of employment.
Participants ascribed positive or negative stereotypes to migrants based on their “amigo” or “esé” subcategorization. The amigo label was often associated with hard-working migrants seeking opportunities in the United States due to dire conditions in their home countries. Many held positive or neutral views of amigos, suggesting they should be given the “chance” to live in the United States. Alternatively, others reinforced economic or public safety threat narratives, echoing elements of the Minority Threat Framework (King & Wheelock, 2007). While many participants believed all migrants engage in crime, the most violent or dangerous were often referred to as esés or cartels.
With regard to our second research question whether participants’ views parallel the CIN, we find not only do these views mirror the perception of migrants as criminals in public and political discourse (Buckler, 2008; Burns & Gimpel, 2000) but their views could also be delineated into three subgroups: individuals (a) engaged in risky behaviors that increased their vulnerability, (b) associated with violent people, and (c) who were dangerous. Unlike prior studies that only focus on migrants as a vulnerable population, these subthemes provided social context as to how the CIN may influence interactions between these groups in divergent ways. This nuance can aid in expanding scholarly research on the immigration-crime nexus and established criminological theories such as the victim-offender overlap, code of the street, and strain theory.
With regard to our final research question—the extent to which stereotypical beliefs influence interactions with “immigrants”—we found participants’ dichotomized views of migrants set the parameters for their perceived vulnerabilities and risk assessment. Amigos were often described as construction workers, and their vulnerability centered on their ease of targeting and reluctance to resist or report victimization (see, also, Caraballo & Topalli, 2023). Nevertheless, many participants were not interested in targeting this group due to a sense of solidarity, their own social interactions with migrants, or because migrants were perceived to have “petty cash” not worth the effort. Alternatively, migrants doing “illegal things” were often described as engaging in drug use, distribution, prostitution, or violence. On the one hand, this group was deemed vulnerable due to their use/access to drugs and cash and may be targeted for these resources. On the other hand, many participants viewed them as valued business partners in the drug trade and, therefore, contrary to their own interests. Interviewees also referenced cartels’ street reputations for violence and their interactions with individuals they perceived as dangerous. These views, although potentially inflammatory, drive offending behavior and decision-making. As such, their effects are consistent with prior scholarship suggesting that the fear of spillover violence from cartels is pervasive in the public discourse, individuals who abide by the code of the street may deter victimization (Anderson, 2000), and the most vulnerable migrants may be seen as “walking ATMs” and targeted due to their vulnerability (Caraballo & Topalli, 2023).
There are limitations to this study that point to potentially fruitful directions for further work. First, while participants’ reliance on stereotyping supports prior literature, we could not verify the immigration status of any individuals referenced, acquaintance or target. Participants’ views, regardless of accuracy, are colored by their own social networks and experiences and should not be taken as a valid indicator of foreign nationals’ criminality. Institutional review board (IRB) restrictions on the recruitment and interviewing of participants in the community may have also limited the sample’s representativeness. Our results may also be endemic to prevailing local conditions—legal, social, and economic—and, thus, may not be typical of interactions elsewhere.
This study contributes to several bodies of literature, including African American views of immigration (Diamond, 1998; Nteta, 2013), interracial crime (Harris & Feldmeyer, 2013), the CIN (Pendergast et al., 2018), and the “Walking ATM” phenomenon (Barranco & Shihadeh, 2015). While prior studies have explored the interaction of African American men as perpetrators of crime and Latinx migrants as victims, there were notable gaps in the literature including the assumption that crime-involved individuals are aware of the political rhetoric around immigration and use this information to influence their decision-making, the inconsistent finding of this interaction (Barranco & Shihadeh, 2015), the rationale underlying a deviation from established intra-racial targeting, and the alternative ways the CIN may influence interactions between these groups. In this study, we establish that individuals involved in street crime are actively attuned to the political environment through media consumption, that interactions may be predatory in nature but does not represent the majority of interactions, and the rhetoric surrounding the CIN combined with participants’ own perceptions of foreign nationals as dangerous may, in fact, deter targeting. Of course, this is not to suggest that the discourse underlining the CIN is based in fact or should be deemed as a protective factor. A well-established body of literature supports that a small fraction of foreign nationals are engaged in serious criminal activity and that the criminalization of the immigrant status has increased the vulnerability of undocumented migrants. However, this article demonstrates that the scholarly literature sometimes reinforces incomplete narratives by focusing on the victimizer/victimized dynamic. Future studies should further expand upon our findings with samples across varying locations, offending “trades,” and racial backgrounds, as well as explore the influence of conventional and social media on interaction patterns between criminalized and marginalized groups.
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-1-cjb-10.1177_00938548231180631 – Supplemental material for El Amigo y El Esé: Stereotyping of the “Criminal Immigrant”
Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-cjb-10.1177_00938548231180631 for El Amigo y El Esé: Stereotyping of the “Criminal Immigrant” by Krystlelynn Caraballo and Volkan Topalli in Criminal Justice and Behavior
Footnotes
AUTHORS’ NOTE:
This research was supported, in part, by the National Science Foundation (grant #1252125) and the American Society of Criminology Ruth D. Peterson Fellowship for Racial and Ethnic Diversity.
Notes
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
