Well there's this part in the 2005 report:

”CHILDREN OF IMMIGRANTS” ARE MORE COMMONLY REGISTERED FOR TYPICAL YOUTH CRIMES

On the whole, those born in Sweden to at least one overseas born parent assume an ’in-between’ position as regards the question of being suspected of criminal offences. It is less common for members of this group to be suspected in connection with various types of crime than it is for those who were themselves born overseas, but it is more common than among persons born in Sweden to two Swedish born parents. There are however certain types of offences that are more common within this group than they are in  73 either of the other two groups. These offence types primarily involve categories of crime where a large proportion of the offences are generally committed by youths (irrespective of background). These involve car thefts, vandalism, drunken driving, drug offences including offences that only involve personal consumption, and crimes against the Weapons Act (vapenlagen) and the Knives Act (knivförbudslagen).

You can find this summary on Page 72. The findings are more in between what you and Slimebeast are claiming.

Ask that yourself:

In conclusion we can say that criminality amongst the children of immigrants
is, to a certain extent, exaggerated. The supposition that the children of immigrants
are very prone to commit crime is unfounded, with the exception of certain
limited groups. These groups are highly visible and contribute to a distorted
picture ofthe actual situation. However, it is important to follow-up the continued
development of criminality amongst the children of immigrants. If residential
segregation is allowed to continue at the same time as more and more children
ofimmigrants are excluded from the labour market, there is a real risk that
criminality will increase in the long-term within this population group.

Do you even know what a claim is? Are you kidding me?

You said: "Just like it's done in research and in official statistics all over the world. You see, the offspring largely inherit the behaviour of their parents."
That's a claim by you where I asked for proof that the offspring largely inherint the behaviour of their parents. Whereas you replied in a condescending way:

"You believe there are no sources to backup such a basic, elementary fact in behaviour biology? LOL "

You provided NONE!

Now you spinning it around like you never made that claim.

I'm not making the claim. I don't agree with Slimebeast's claim that the children of immigrants will be as criminal as their parents. As his source says, that the children of immigrants are less open to criminal activities. Meaning, they do not "largerly inherit" their parents behaviour in the spoken context of criminal activity. Like I already stated: "Nothing indicates that these children display a clearly higher tendency towards crime participation than the generation of their parents. On the contrary."

No.

47% are "Swedes"

13% are immigrants with a Swedish passport (citizenship)

40% are immigrants without a Swedish passport.
-------
= 100% long term inmates.

So where are the children of immigrants?? They're counted in the 47%.

Though the problem still remains that children immigrants have a larger tendency to commit youth crimes than native children. It also largely depends on their upbringing. This part is important:

"If residential segregation is allowed to continue at the same time as more and more children of immigrants are excluded from the labour market, there is a real risk that criminality will increase in the long-term within this population group."

Why do you put quotation marks in there? It's the Swedish government/court that determines whether their nationality is a Swede, much in the same way that they determine who is a criminal. If we can dispute that they're Swedes, then we can also dispute that they're criminals.

Do you know what a "conclusion" of a scientific study is? It's a section where ths writer is free to interpret and speculate about his findings. This is in all scientific studies.

You are citing from it, and that conclusion is worded in relation to a strawman that never existed.

"to a certain extent, exaggerated. " exaggerated by whom exactly? It doesn't say.

"very prone" according to whom? It doesn't say.

These are not fact statements, they're value statements. You have to understand that the authors are leftists who's interest it is to downplay the findings.

I already told you, the study proves that children of immigrants (what I called offspring) are clearly overrepresented versus ethnic Swedes.

But you also forget what I claimed in the sentence by me that you originally quoted, it was me addressing VGPolygot where he questioned that "immigrant offsrping" is a target of study in crime science. I have clearly demonstrated that it is in fact a relevant object to analyze.

So, even if they have Swedish citizenship, you don't consider them Swedish because of their skin colour?

It's not something from a court or a government, it's data from prison authorities.

Listen to what Im saying. In those 47% are included the children of immigrants. You may think they are Swedes, the Swedish fucking-whatever may think they are Swedes, BUT I DONT COUNT ALL OF THEM AS ETHNIC SWEDES. I've been arguing and explaining this for several pages now.

I make a separation between immigrants, immigrant offspring and ethnical Swedes, because all those groups are statistically distinguishable from each other when it comes to criminal behaviour. And"immigrant children" as a statistical entity is strongly related to the integration problems, the occurence of crime and problems with mass immigration and the transformation of Swedish society.