Immigrant Political Participation

Political Science 126C / Chicano/Latino Studies 163

Lecture 9February 5, 2009

Revisiting Models of Immigrant Incorporation

From Sociology:1. [Traditional] Assimilation2. “New assimilation” with particular

attention to status at entry3. Segmented assimilation

[Traditional] Assimilation

Immigrants 2nd generation 3rd+ generation

“New Assimilation” (particular attention to

status at entry)

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Immigrants 2ndgeneration

3rd+generation

Labor migrant

Skilled migrant

Unauthorizedmigrant

Segmented Assimilation

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Immigrants 2nd generation 3rd+generation

Labor migrant -neutral reception

Labor migrant -negative reception

Skilled migrant -neutral reception

Skilled migrant -positive reception

Unauthorized migrant- neutral reception

Unauthorized migrant- negative reception

These Are General Models

Not predictive at individual level They look for patterns across national

origin groups, regions, religious groups, and skill sets

Likely that different patterns will appear on different measures of assimilation

What’s Unique About Political Assimilation?

Key “formal” measure – what the state cares about – naturalization occurs or doesn’t in the first generation 14th Amendment guarantees that all people born

in the United States are U.S. citizens Citizenship also extended to children of U.S.

citizens born abroad Is there a consequence for the second generation

of immigrant parents who don’t naturalize? Very small third generation – grandchildren

of immigrants – in today’s polity So political incorporation models primarily speak

to change between immigrant parents and 2nd generation

A Model for Immigrant Political Incorporation

We’ll talk about aspects of this for the next two classes

Today: The [positive] role of challenges to immigrant status

Human Capital

Institutional Resources

Group Dynamics

Challenges to Immigrant Status

Formal Incorporation

Participation

1.5, 2nd, 3rd Generation

Immigrants

Parental Incorporation

Human Capital & Group Resources

Political Values,Attitudes, &Behaviors

2006 Immigrant Rights Protests (and Response)

Short-Term Goal Met Criminalization provisions of HR 4437 quickly

left the debate … at some cost

700 miles of wall authorized Expansion of Border Patrol and interior

enforcement (raids) Arguably, this victory and the generally

positive nature of the protests should have been an empowering experience for immigrant families

How to Assess Longer-Term Implications?

1. Public opinion on immigration issues2. Change in immigrant naturalization

behaviors3. Congressional/presidential politics

2006 2008 and beyond

4. New immigrant organizational infrastructure

1. Mass Public Opinion General pattern – unfocused, internally

contradictory, and highly responsive to the way the question is asked

1. Immigration at current levels too high, but immigrants are an asset

2. Opposition to unauthorized migration, support for increasing barriers to unauthorized migration, but support for a path to legal residence

Patterns unchanged by 2006 protests Overall, protestors viewed unfavorably by twice

as many as view them favorably

Group that Did See Some Change – Latino U.S.

Citizens Historically, Latino U.S. citizens have

had arms-length relationship with Latino immigrants

Immigrant protests reminded Latino U.S. citizens of their immigrant roots More than half supported legalization Immigration/immigrant rights not top

important issue for Latino voters

2. Naturalization Applications increased dramatically in

March 2006 and have stayed high Feb. 2006 – 57,000 March 2006 – 78,000 Average March 2006-February 2007 –

65,000/month Protests, not the only cause

Revised naturalization exam Proposed fee increase

3. Electoral Consequences

2006 – Protests came to late to shape primaries (most likely point of influence)

Lesson to officeholders – California 48 (preceded protests) Campbell (R) Gilchrist (I)

Immigration an issue in a few Congressional races – No consistent outcome to shape Congressional debate California 50 (Brian Bilbray) Arizona 8 (Randy Graf)

Continuing Influences Potentially immigration-moderate

Republicans made more strident Some surprise Democratic victories in

border states/South – ran on anti-legalization platforms, dividing Democratic caucus

Emergence of single-issue immigration candidates

Reduces likelihood of compromise in the House