immigrant political participation political science 126c / chicano/latino studies 163 lecture 9...
TRANSCRIPT
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