Immigrant Political
Participation
Political Science 126C /
Chicano/Latino Studies 163
Lecture 9
February 5, 2009
Revisiting Models of
Immigrant Incorporation
1.
2.
3.
From Sociology:
[Traditional] Assimilation
“New assimilation” with particular
attention to status at entry
Segmented assimilation
[Traditional] Assimilation
Immigrants
2nd generation
3rd+ generation
“New Assimilation” (particular
attention to status at entry)
120
100
80
60
Labor migrant
40
Skilled migrant
20
0
-20
-40
-60
Immigrants
2nd
generation
3rd+
generation
Unauthorized
migrant
Segmented Assimilation
120
100
Labor migrant neutral reception
80
Labor migrant negative reception
60
40
Skilled migrant neutral reception
20
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
Immigrants
2nd generation
3rd+
generation
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
Immigrants
Human Capital
Group Dynamics
Formal
Incorporation
Participation
Institutional
Resources
Challenges to
Immigrant Status
1.5, 2nd, 3rd Generation
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 LongerTerm Implications?
Public opinion on immigration issues
Change in immigrant naturalization
behaviors
Congressional/presidential politics
1.
2.
3.


4.
2006
2008 and beyond
New immigrant organizational infrastructure
1. Mass Public Opinion
General pattern – unfocused, internally
contradictory, and highly responsive to the way
the question is asked

1.
2.
Immigration at current levels too high, but immigrants
are an asset
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