Immigrant Incorporation and Political Participation in the United States
Author(s): S. Karthick Ramakrishnan and Thomas J. Espenshade
Source: International Migration Review, Vol. 35, No. 3 (Autumn, 2001), pp. 870-909
Published by: The Center for Migration Studies of New York, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2675847 .
Accessed: 21/03/2011 13:31
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cmigrations. .
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
The Center for Migration Studies of New York, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to International Migration Review.
http://www.jstor.org
and
Incorporation
Immigrant
in
Participation
the
United
Political
States1
S. Karthick Ramakrishnan
Princeton University
Thomas J. Espenshade
Princeton University
This article examines several factors related to immigrant incorporation
that have been ignored in previous studies of voting participation. We
add various immigrant-related variables to a model that controls for indi?
vidual resources, social incorporation, institutional barriers and contexts
of political mobilization. We find little support for straight-line assimilationist theories of immigrant adaptation. We also find that coming from
a repressive regime has no significant effect on voting and that living in
areas with Spanish-language ballots does not increase the likelihood of
voting among first generation Latinos. Our results also suggest that antiimmigrant legislation has a positive effect on participation among first
and second generation immigrants. Overall, the immigrant-related vari?
ables introduced in our analysis add significantly to the existing theoret?
ical knowledge on voting participation in the United States.
In the past decade, there has been a substantial amount of research on the
demographic, economic and social incorporation of immigrants in the Unit?
ed States. In the demographic arena, researchers have investigated how
migrants' patterns of fertility,health and mortality, and settlement compare
with those of natives (Kahn, 1994; Guendelman
et al, 1990; Frey, 1996;
White and Omer, 1997).
Studies of the economic
and social incorporation of immigrants have
analyzed immigrants' earnings and employment opportunities in relation to
those of the native-born and how immigrants' education, occupational
mobility, and English-language ability change with the passage of time in the
1Anearlierversionof thispaperwas presentedat the annual meetingof the PopulationAsso?
ciation of America,Los Angeles,CA, March 23-25, 2000. We thankthe anonymousreview?
ers fortheirvaluable suggestions.We also thankR. Douglas Arnold, LarryBartels,Jennifer
Hochschild,JaneJunn,Tali Mendelberg,Debbie Schildkrautand Min Zhou fortheirfeed?
back and criticisms.Finally,we thank Sipra Roy forher help with creatingthe graphsand
tablesforthispaper,and the Officeof PopulationResearchCenterGrant#P30HD32030 for
the use of facilitiesat the Officeof PopulationResearchat PrincetonUniversity.
reserved.
? 2001 bytheCenterforMigration
StudiesofNewYork.All rights
0198-9183/01/3503.0135
870
IMR Volume 35 Number 3 (Fall 2001): 870-909
Immigrant Incorporation and Political Participation in the U. S.
871
United
States (Borjas, 1999; Stevens, 1992; Portes and MacLeod,
1999;
Espenshade and Fu, 1997; Lopez, 1999).
Studies of political incorporation have focused primarily on the determi?
nants of naturalization
ferent nationalities
and differences in citizenship acquisition across dif?
(Portes and Mozo, 1985; Liang, 1994; Yang, 1994).
Scholars of immigrant incorporation have paid considerably less attention to
voting and other forms of political participation occur after naturalization.
Although first and second generation constitute nearly 15 percent of eligible
voters in the United States, there have been few systematic studies of voting
participation across immigrant generations. Many of the studies have had a
limited scope, applying either to particular ethnic populations or to particu?
lar localities. Examples of early works on generational differences in partici?
pation include articles by Lamar Kellstedt (1974) and James Lamare (1982).
study of Buffalo, New York showed that second generation
respondents have higher rates of voting participation than either immigrants
or nonethnic first or higher generation respondents. Lamare noted in his
Kellstedt's
study of Chicano children in El Paso, Texas that third generation respondents
had the highest levels of psychological identification and affect towards the
political system.2 More recently, there have been a few cross-ethnic studies of
immigrant political incorporation in particular states such as California and
Texas (Uhlaner et al, 1989; Cho, 1999; Junn, 1999) or in metropolitan areas
such as New York and Los Angeles (Mollenkopf et al, 1999; Wong, 2000).
In their study of political participation in California, Uhlaner et al, note that
voting among immigrants is influenced by the duration of their stay in the
United States, as well as by their ability to speak English. Cho (1999) also
finds such factors to be important and suggests that immigrants educated
abroad are less likely to vote than those educated in the United States. Final?
that immigrants may be less likely to participate in
"system-directed" activities such as voting, but they are just as likely as the
native born to participate in "direct" political activities such as protests. While
these studies all offer important insights regarding immigrant political incor?
ly, Junn (1999)
concludes
poration, they are limited by the fact that they examine only particular states
or metropolitan areas.
studies of generational status and voting
During the past
participation, but these, too, have had their limitations.
decade, there have been three national-level studies on generational status and
There are a few national-level
voting participation, two of which have been restricted to Latino subpopula2Lamarerefersto childrenwhose parentswerebornin theUnitedStatesas 'secondgeneration.'
872
International Migration Review
tions (Bass and Casper, 1999; DeSipio,
1996b; also see Hill and Moreno,
1996).3 None of these recent studies explicitly considers generational status
in their analyses, as they focus solely on differences between native-born and
foreign-born citizens. As we shall see, separating out the second generation
offers some important insights on processes of political adaptation among
immigrants. In addition, these studies are largely demographic in nature,
paying little attention to how political contexts affect individuals' propensi?
ties to vote. For example, this research fails to account for institutional bar?
riers to registering and voting, as well as the intensity of electoral competition.
Our goal in this paper is to build a more complete model of voting par?
ticipation, drawing on some of the recent theoretical insights on the effects of
political mobilization and macropolitical contexts on electoral participation
(Rosenstone and Hansen, 1993; Shachar and Nalebuff, 1999). After review?
ing the standard theoretical literature on voting participation, we introduce
several factors related to immigrant incorporation that have not previously
been considered in studies of voting participation. An analysis of voting par?
ticipation is conducted using data from three recent Current Population Sur?
vey Voter Supplements (CPS). Although we incorporate such factors as indi?
vidual resources and contexts of political mobilization, our empirical analysis
Finally, the theoreti?
emphasizes factors related to immigrant incorporation.
cal implications of the results of our model are discussed, especially as they
relate to assimilationist accounts of immigrant adaptation
immigrant legislation on political participation.
TRADITIONAL
MODELS
OF
VOTING
and the impact of
PARTICIPATION
Theories
of electoral turnout have tended to emphasize one or more of the
characteristics and individual
following sets of factors: 1) demographic
resources related to socioeconomic
status, 2) incorporation into social net?
works, 3) institutional barriers to registering and voting, 4) strategic mobi?
lization by political actors, and 5) attitudinal factors such as partisanship,
political interest and political efficacy.4 Our theoretical model incorporates
the first four sets of factors. Factors related to individual attitudes and orien3AlthoughHill and Moreno are interestedin the question of whethersecond-generation
Cubans are more likelyto participatein politics,theydo not explicitlyinclude generational
statusin theirmultivariatemodel. Instead,theyuse a continuousvariablethat measuresthe
percentof one's lifethe respondenthas spentin the United States.
refersto the
4In the standardtheoreticalliteratureon votingparticipation,"externalefficacy"
extentto which respondentsbelieve that theirparticipationmattersand "internalefficacy"
refersto the extentto which respondentsfeelthattheyunderstandgovernmentand politics.
Immigrant Incorporation and Political Participation in the U. S.
873
tations are set aside because the CPS does not provide any meaningful mea?
sures for such variables. The issue of individual-level data on political atti?
tudes is addressed later in the discussion of data sources.
Individual
Resources and Demographic
Theorists have devoted considerable
Characteristics
attention to individual resources such as
education and income on electoral participation. Studies both of the Current
Population Survey and the National Election Study (NES) have shown that
educational
attainment has the strongest effects on voting, serving both as an
indicator of political skills and the likelihood of being mobilized (Wolfinger
and Rosenstone, 1980; Rosenstone and Hansen, 1993).
Income has also
been shown to be a significant predictor of voting participation, although its
effects are generally weaker than those of education.
In addition
to resources, theorists have also drawn attention to the
of
individual
importance
demographic characteristics such as age and race.
has
a
positive, curvilinear relationship to voter turnout; older citizens
Age
tend to have higher levels of political knowledge and partisan identification
Racial gaps in voting have been shown to
(Rosenstone and Hansen, 1993).
be significant for Latinos and Asian-Americans, but not for African-Ameri?
cans. Since the passage of the National Voting Rights Act in 1965, racial gaps
in registration and voting between blacks and whites have narrowed consid?
erably. Even as early as 1980, scholars began to note that, after controlling
for other demographic factors, whites did not have a significant advantage in
By contrast,
participation over blacks (Wolfinger and Rosenstone, 1980).
studies of Latino political participation have shown a persistent gap in voting
(Calvo and Rosenstone,
participation between Latinos and non-Latinos
1984; Hero and Campbell, 1996). There have been few national studies of
voting participation among Asian-Americans; most studies have focused on
particular states such as California or particular metropolitan areas such as
Los Angeles (Lien, 1997; Uhlaner et al, 1989; Nakanishi, 1986). However,
one recent analysis of CPS data reveals that Asian-Americans were the group
least likely to vote in the 1992 general election (Lien, 1998).
Social
Incorporation
In addition to individual-level factors, theorists have also paid attention to the
incorporation of individuals into communities or social contexts that encour?
age or discourage political participation. Chief among the social-contextual
variables mentioned are employment status, residential stability and marital
International Migration Review
874
unemployed are less likely to participate in politics, not only
because they tend to have lower incomes, but also because they do not par?
ticipate in social networks in the workplace that reward political participation
status. The
(Wolfinger and Rosenstone, 1980; Rosens tone and Hansen, 1993).
People
with low levels of residential stability are less likely to participate because they
are less likely to be vested in their communities and are less likely to have sta?
ble networks of friends and neighbors. These networks are considered to be
important in fostering political participation because they subsidize the costs
of obtaining political information. Furthermore, peer influences among
spouses and social networks are believed to foster participation by applying
selective sanctions for noncompliance
and Hansen,
(Rosenstone
1993).
While peer influences can indeed operate in the opposite direction (towards
political apathy and abstention from voting), past evidence from both the
CPS and the NES indicate otherwise; those who are more embedded in social
networks are indeed more likely to vote (Wolfinger and Rosenstone,
Rosenstone and Hansen, 1993).
Institutional
1980;
Barriers
While an individual's
resources and degree of "social connectedness" have a
strong influence on his or her likelihood to vote, macropolitical contexts also
matter. Institutional barriers to voting can have a substantial impact on voter
turnout, as witnessed by low levels of black turnout during the Jim Crow era
of poll taxes and literacy tests. After the elimination of such restrictions dur?
ing the 1960s, the most significant barriers that remain are state-level rules on
registration and absentee voting. States with restrictive eligibility for absen?
tee voting decrease the probability of voting among registered citizens (Oliv?
er, 1996). Similarly, citizens who live in states with early closing dates for reg?
istration are less likely to register in time for elections.
Political
Mobilization
The level of political mobilization in a given state or congressional district can
have a significant influence on voter turnout. From the early works of V.O.
Key (1949) and E. E. Schattschneider (I960),5 political scientists have noted
the importance of political mobilization and party competition in inducing
5ln his comparativestudyof Southernpolitics,Key (1949) noted thatstateswithhigherpar?
tisan or factionalcompetitionhad higherlevelsof voterturnout.Indeed, Key attributedthe
low turnoutamong poor Southernwhites,not as much to poll taxesor literacytests,but to
the lack of two-partycompetitionin the South.
Immigrant Incorporation and Political Participation in the U. S.
875
higher levels of voter turnout. Recent studies of electoral turnout have revived
in general
concerns about party competition and political mobilization
(Rosenstone and Hansen, 1993; Schachar and Nalebuff, 1999). They show
that individuals who live in states where presidential contests are close are
more likely to vote than those living in states where there is a clear favorite.
This is due largely to differences in state-level mobilization by political actors.
put it, "campaigns, interest groups, and the
in
inch
every
campaigns that stand to be decided by tenths
of percentage points, and they tacitly concede campaigns that look to be
blowouts" (179).
Political mobilization also varies by the number of major electoral contests
As Rosenstone
and Hansen
media...contest
in a given election. States that have a governor's race or a senate race concurrent
with presidential or house elections have higher levels of political mobilization
and voter turnout. The effects can be especially strong during midterm elec?
tions, when there is no presidential contest to generate interest among poten?
tial voters (Rosenstone and Hansen: 184). Finally, the historical legacy of mobi?
lization and participation in a particular state or region can have a significant
influence on individuals' propensities to register and vote. Indeed, political sci?
entists in the 1970s and 1980s noted a kind of regional "political culture" in the
South, a vestige of one-party competition and racial disenfranchisement that
led to lower turnout among Southern blacks and whites.
IMMIGRANT
VOTING
INCORPORATION
- AN EXPANDED
MODEL
OF
PARTICIPATION
When considering political participation, as well as other processes of immi?
grant adaptation, it is useful to think of such processes as having at least two
- across time within a
particular immigrant generation
temporal dimensions
and across generations. For example, researchers have typically found that
earnings and English-language ability improve the longer immigrants live in
the United States. At the same time, there are also differences in language
across generations. Foreign-born individuals frequently do not
speak English as well as their native-born children, and second generation
immigrants often retained some understanding of their parents' mother
acquisition
tongue. Those in the third generation or higher typically lose all proficiency
in the original migrants' language unless they make some special effort
to regain it (Fishman, 1972; Lopez, 1999). This study incorporates both these
temporal dimensions and other new features as predictors of political
participation.
International Migration Review
876
Generational
Status
Traditional theories of immigrant adaptation considered assimilation to be a
unilinear process, whereby the economic and social conditions of individuals
and ethnic groups improve over each succeeding generation. Over the past
decade, several studies have challenged the applicability of "straight-line" the?
ories of immigrant adaptation to the "new" second generation (Gans, 1992;
Portes and Zhou, 1993; Rumbaut, 1997; Zhou, 1997).
Many of the revi?
sionist perspectives present a model of "segmented assimilation," in which
different group characteristics and modes of incorporation lead to diverse
that can include second generation decline. In order to test the
applicability of the straight-line and segmented assimilation models of immi?
outcomes
grant incorporation, we analyze generational patterns in participation across
different racial/ethnic groups. We expect to find different generational pat?
terns across racial groups because of stark differences in the historical recep?
tion given to immigrants from Europe versus those from Asia and Latin
America (Espiritu, 1992). While urban machines and mobilization under the
New Deal ensured the political incorporation of immigrants from Europe,
exclusionary laws and discriminatory practices prevented many Asian and
immigrants from exercising their political voice until the 1970s (de
la Garza, 1996; Espiritu, 1992) .6
Within each racial/ethnic group, we expect first generation citizens to be
the least likely to vote because of linguistic and cultural barriers that make it
Mexican
more difficult for them to obtain political information or vote in areas with
English-only ballots. First generation citizens are also more likely than those
in higher generations to retain ties to political institutions in the home coun?
try. On the other hand, there may indeed be selection effects whereby those
who choose to naturalize have unusually high levels of commitment to polit?
ical participation or high levels of political awareness after preparing for the
citizenship exam. Even with these selection effects, however, we still expect
participation to be lowest among first generation respondents because of the
overriding importance of linguistic barriers, cultural barriers and immigrant
political orientations.
Duration
of Stay in the United States
For the foreign-born, duration of stay in the United States can be an impor?
tant indicator of the extent to which immigrants are incorporated into
were not able to naturalizeuntil 1952.
6Indeed,mostAsian immigrants
Immigrant Incorporation and Political Participation in the U. S.
877
domestic political institutions. Based on previous findings among Latino and
Asian-American populations (Uhlaner et al, 1989, Hill and Moreno, 1996),
we expect longer residence in the United States to lead to greater political par?
ticipation among first generation citizens. Just as immigrants who have lived
in the United States for a longer period of time are more fluent in English,
they also tend to have greater contact with, and stronger commitments to, the
mainstream political system. For example, Cain, Kiewiet and Uhlaner (1991)
note in their study of California residents that partisan identification among
Latinos, Chinese and Korean immigrants becomes stronger the longer they
stay in the United States.
Political
Socialization
For naturalized
in the Home
Country
prior experience with repressive or democratic
referred
to as "prior political experience") can have a sig?
regimes (hereafter
nificant impact on the propensity to vote. Those fleeing regimes with long
citizens,
histories of political repression may be mistrustful of the political system and
therefore be less likely to vote in elections. On the other hand, they may rel?
ish the freedom of choosing among competing candidates for political office
and therefore be more likely to vote. So far, only comparative studies of
Cuban and Mexican immigrants have examined whether prior political expe?
rience has a significant impact on subsequent
participation. Based on
precinct-level data from Miami, Portes and Mozo (1985) argue that CubanAmericans have higher levels of turnout than other Hispanic subgroups.
Multivariate analyses of the Latino National Political Survey add further cre?
dence to the prior political experience hypothesis - Cuban immigrants are
more likely to vote than Mexican immigrants, even after controlling for age,
income and length of stay in the United States (Arvizu and Gar?
cia, 1996).
However, given the small number of countries of origin in such
studies (Cuba and Mexico), the effect of prior political experience on voting
education,
participation has not been systematically tested. It remains to be seen whether
the voting participation of Cuban Americans is consistent with that of immi?
grants from other communist or repressive regimes.
Finally, just as prior political experience may influence voting participa?
tion among foreign-born citizens, it may also influence participation among
children of the first generation. Studies of political socialization have shown
exposure to political activities or discussions by parents has a
significant impact on subsequent adult participation (Jennings and Niemi,
1981; Verba, Schlozman and Brady, 1995). Thus, if an immigrant family's
that childhood
International Migration Review
878
"prior political experience" does indeed have a significant impact on political
participation in the United States, we would expect the impact to be present
among the second generation as well, albeit perhaps to a lesser degree.
Linguistic
Barriers to Participation
The traditional literature on barriers to voting participation has focused the
effects of absentee ballot restrictions, registration requirements and racial ger?
rymandering on voter turnout. When considering the political incorporation
of immigrants, linguistic barriers to participation can play just as important
a role as some of the other barriers to participation. The presence or absence
of multilingual ballots should have their greatest impact on individuals with
the lowest levels of English proficiency. Thus, for example, living in a Span?
ish-ballot area versus an English-only-ballot area should increase turnout
among Latino immigrants, and the difference should be greater for the first
generation than for higher generation Latinos.
Ethnic Residential
Concentration
Those who live in states or metropolitan areas with high concentrations of coethnics are more likely to have contacts with, or exposure to, ethnic media and
community organizations. Having higher concentrations of co-ethnics there?
fore lowers the per-capita cost of ethnic mobilization by interest groups, party
organizations and candidate organizations. At the same time, previous studies
of Latino participation have shown that areas of high ethnic concentrations can
also be areas of lower mobilization and participation (DeSipio, 1996a; de la
Garza, 1996). This may be due to the effect of other social contextual factors
associated with high Latino and immigrant concentrations: higher residential
poverty, greater proportions of noncitizens, and peers with low English profi?
ciency (Cho, 1999; Espenshade and Fu, 1997). If proximity to co-ethnics does
indeed lead to higher electoral mobilization, we would expect such mobilization
to have a stronger effect on the voting participation of those in the second gen?
eration or higher. While firstgeneration citizens may have deeper ties to their
co-ethnic communities, such ties may not lead to greater participation in the
United States because firstgeneration ethnic organizations tend to orient them?
selves more towards homeland politics than U.S. politics (Jones-Correa, 1998).
Mobilization
While
over Anti-Immigrant
mobilization
Legislation
among residential co-ethnics may have their strongest
effects among those in higher generations, we expect anti-immigrant legislation
Immigrant Incorporation and Political Participation in the U. S.
879
to have a distinct mobilizing effect on firstand second generation immigrants.
Those in the firstor second generation are more likely to mobilize against laws
that threaten to cut off public benefits to immigrants because they are more like?
ly to have relatives that stand to lose those benefits. Media reports of the 1996
election indicate that immigrant legislation in 1996 was indeed more salient for
immigrants than for the rest of the population (Glastris et al, 1997; McDon?
nell and Ramos, 1996). This article assesses the impact of anti-immigration leg?
islation on turnout by examining whether mobilization over Proposition 187 in
California led to a disproportionate increase in voting participation among first
and second generation immigrants.
To summarize, traditional theories of political participation have exam?
ined the effects of individual resources, social incorporation and political
mobilization
on voter turnout. In this study, we introduce additional vari?
ables related to immigrant incorporation that may influence voting partici?
Some of these variables have been included in previous studies of
pation.
political participation that have been limited to particular ethnic groups or to
particular regions. We examine the effects of these new immigrantrelated variables across racial/ethnic groups by using national data on voting
by participation.
DATA
AND
METHODS
This analysis relies on the Current Population Survey November Voter Sup?
plements (CPS) from 1994, 1996 and 1998. The CPS offers several advan?
tages in the study of voting participation across immigrant generations. First,
it is the only national survey since 1994 that includes questions on voting as
well as questions on the nativity of respondents and their parents. Similar
questions have been absent from the National Black Election Study and from
the National
Election Study (NES) since 1994. As for Latinos, a 1996 sur?
the
Tomas
Rivera Policy Institute (TRPI) includes questions on the
vey by
generational status of respondents, but the sample is limited to three states
(California, Florida and Texas). The last national survey of Latinos on voting
participation that included generational status was the Latino National Polit?
ical Survey in 1990. The CPS, then, remains the only source of information
on voting that has consistently asked questions on the generational status of
respondents in recent elections.
There are several other advantages to using the CPS to analyze immigrant
One is the size of the sample for each election year,
voting participation.
which yields large subsamples
of immigrant generations across racial/ethnic
880
International Migration Review
groups. In 1998, for instance, the sample of firstgeneration citizens included
1,817 whites, 263 blacks, 1,051 Asian-Americans and 1,046 Latinos.7 Anoth?
er advantage to the CPS is the richness of the data on immigrant characteris?
tics. For instance, the NES
contains information on whether respondents and
were
in
their parents
born
the United States or abroad, but it does not include
country-of-origin information for firstand second generation immigrants. The
lack of country-of-origin data prevents us from examining the effect of repres?
sive-regime origins on voting participation. Furthermore, the national data in
the CPS has greater variation than the three-state TRPI survey on factors such
as state concentration of Latinos and access to Spanish-language ballots. Final?
ly, neither the NES nor the TRPI datasets include information such as the dura?
tion of stay in the United States for firstgeneration citizens.
At the same time, there are two limitations to utilizing Current Population
Survey data to analyze voting participation. First, the CPS does not include any
individual-level information on political attitudes or party contact that have
been known to lead to greater participation. It has been well documented that
individual contact with party organizations, strong party identification, and
feelings of political efficacy increase the likelihood that a person will vote
(Rosenstone and Hansen, 1993; Miller and Shanks, 1996; Verba, Schlozman
and Brady, 1995). Another limitation is that the CPS does not include vali?
dated measures of voting that confirm whether or not an individual's reported
vote matches public records of registration and voting. Although misreporting
in the CPS is considerably lower than misreporting in other surveys such as the
National Election Study (Presser et al, 1990), past studies have shown that lev?
els of misreporting among blacks and Latinos are higher than those among
whites (Abramson and Claggett, 1992; Shaw et al, 1999).8
We address the first limitation by including contextual measures of polit?
ical mobilization and state legacies of voting participation, but we cannot find
a similar solution for other attitudinal factors such as political efficacy and
and
7These figuresare based on valid responsesamong adult U.S. citizensto the registration
voting questions in the CPS Voter Supplement.Those who identifyas "AmericanIndian,
Aleut, Eskimo" are dropped fromthe analysisbecause theirgenerationalsubsamplesare too
small to providereliableestimates.
8Thereis some disagreementas to whetherthe higherlevelof mismatchbetweenreportedand
validatedvotes among blacks is due to the higherpropensityof black to misreportor to the
and
of registrations
factthatblacks are more likelyto live in areas with poor record-keeping
in the qualityof
votes.Abramsonand Claggett(1992) do not findany substantialdifferences
Presseretal. (1990), based on
by race,based on self-reports
byvoterregistrars.
record-keeping
find that blacks in the NES are twice as likelyas
requestsforinformationby investigators,
whitesto come fromareaswithpoor record-keeping.
Immigrant Incorporation and Political Participation in the U. S.
881
party identification.9 Next, in order to address the problem of vote misreporting, we examined validated data in the TRPI and NES to determine whether
there are any generational differences in the propensity to misreport the vote.
There were no significant generational differences in vote misreporting among
Latinos in the TRPI survey. We used the NES to examine vote misreporting
only among white respondents because the size of the black, Asian- American
and Latino subsamples were too small for our analysis. Second generation
whites in the NES were less likely to misreport their votes than those in other
immigrant generations. As we shall see, if a similar pattern of misreporting
occurs for whites in the CPS as it does in the NES, then the true generational
differences in voting participation would be even larger than the difference
found in our analysis. On balance, then, we consider the Current Population
Survey to be a valuable dataset with which to examine the various questions that
we have raised related to immigrant incorporation.
Our sample for the CPS is limited to U.S. citizens who are at least 18
years old. We designate those born outside the United States as "first gener?
ation," those born in the United States with at least one foreign-born parent
as "second generation," and those born in the United States with U.S.-born
We fit a logistic regression model to the data
parents as "3+ generation."
because the dependent variable - voted or did not vote in the November elec?
tions - is dichotomous.
Our independent variables include not only indi?
vidual-level data from the CPS, but also several contextual variables from
information on registration requirements
from the League of Women Voters and data on absentee ballot requirements
from a recent study of voting participation (Oliver, 1996). We also use infor?
other data sources.
We obtained
of senatorial, gubernatorial and presidential races
surveys in Congressional Quarterly Weekly Reports and
mation on the closeness
from pre-election
Associated Press Research
(Cranford, 1994; Babson and Groppe, 1994;
Greenblatt and Wells, 1996; Yoachum, 1996; Cassata,
1998; Foerstel, 1998). Finally, we obtained aggregate state-level data on voter
turnout from the Federal Election Commission.
Instead of using the dummy
Greenblatt,
1996;
variable "South" to capture the effect of historical legacies of voting partici?
pation on contemporary turnout, we use an average of voter turnout from
for each state. We find this measure of state political culture to
1972-1992
9Admittedly,
contextualmeasuresof electoralmobilizationhave a muchweakereffecton indi?
vidual votingthan individual-levelmeasuresof partycontact.Partof the reasonis the endogeneitybetweenindividual-levelcontactand participation.Partiesare more likelyto contact
individualswho have participatedin the past, or who are pre-disposedto participatebecause
of theirsocioeconomicstatus.
882
International Migration Review
be superior for two reasons. First, it looks at contemporary political culture,
taking into account changes in registration and turnout in the South after the
Civil Rights era and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Furthermore, the mea?
sure allows for state-level variation and does not limit the effect of "political
culture" to one regional bloc - namely the Confederate South. We provide a
more complete description of the variables and their sources in the Appendix.
EMPIRICAL
RESULTS
There are considerable differences in voting participation, both within the first
generation as well as across immigrant generations (Figure 1). Looking firstat
the tabulated data on voter turnout within the first generation, we see a pro?
gressive increase in voting participation as immigrants spend more of their lives
in the United States. This pattern appears for all racial/ethnic groups. Across
immigrant generations, however, there are considerable differences in voter
turnout for members of different racial groups. Among whites, we do not find
a linear increase in participation from the firstgeneration to higher generations.
Instead, we see a pattern of "second generation advantage" - a progressive
increase in participation within the first generation by duration of stay in the
United States, a peak in participation among the second generation, followed
by a decline among "3+ generation" respondents.
Among blacks, we do not find a second generation advantage. Voting
among blacks is highest among those first generation respondents who have
lived in the United States for 20 years or more. Similar results hold true for
Latinos, while for Asian- Americans turnout is highest among those in the third
generation or higher. The bivariate results for generational status and voter
turnout therefore indicate that the second generation advantage applies only to
whites. Among Asian-Americans, a more straight-line pattern seems to hold,
where there is a progressive increase in participation by immigrant generation.
Blacks and Latinos experience a similar monotonic increase in participation,
except that the highest level of turnout is among long-term immigrant citizens.
Since there are many factors related to individual resources, social incor?
poration, institutional barriers and political mobilization that may account
for differences in turnout, we need to re-examine the issue of generational dif?
ferences in a multivariate model that controls for such factors. In our multivariate analyses, we fit our model to the entire sample of adult citizens and
then apply the same model to each immigrant generation separately. Many
of the traditional variables mentioned in the background literature are signif?
icant across all immigrant generations
{see Appendix
Tables A-l
to A-3).
Immigrant Incorporation and Political Participation in the U. S.
Figure 1
883
Generational Differencesin Voting Participation,Midterm
Elections 1994-1998a
100%
90%
80%
I I FirstGen, <10 years
70%
60%
50%
40%
?
FirstGen, 10-19 years
H
FirstGen, >19 years
H Second Generation
30%
Thirdand Higher
Generation
20%
10%
0%
White
Black
Asian
Latino
Source:
Current
November
1994,1998.
Survey,
Population
in
thegeneral
levelofturnout
Note:^Tabulated
results
elections
of1994and1998because
areonlyforthemidterm
allracial
in
inturnout
arestillpresent
elections
is
much
Generational
differences
among
presidential
groups
higher.
forallgroups
whites.
thedifferences
other
thannon-Hispanic
aresmaller
1996,although
Regardless of generation, the likelihood of voting increases with age and
reaches a peak among 70-79 year olds before decreasing among the very old.
Education also has similar effects across all immigrant generations, with vot?
ing highest among college graduates and those with graduate degrees.10 High?
er income consistently leads to greater voting participation, except for first
generation respondents for whom the effect is weaker and varies from year to
year. Among factors related to social incorporation, marital status and resi?
to voting participation across
are consistently more likely to
vote than those who are not married, while those who have lived three or more
dential stability show a robust relationship
immigrant generations. Married individuals
10Whilethe findingsforage and education are in line with the standardaccounts of voting
participation,theyrun contraryto the findingby Cho (1999) that older Asian and Latino
immigrantsare less likelyto vote thanyoungerones, and thathighereducationdecreasesthe
thesampleto only
Even whenwe restrict
likelihoodofparticipationamongAsian immigrants.
Asians and Latinos,the traditionalpatternshold - age and education increasethe likelihood
is due to the factthat the datasetthatCho
of participation.It is possible thatthe difference
utilizesis fromthe mid 1980s and is limitedto California.
International Migration Review
884
years in a given address are more likely to vote than recent movers. Employ?
ment status has an inconsistent relationship to voting across generations and
over time. The coefficients for the variable display inconsistent signs and are fre?
quently statistically insignificant. Finally, contextual variables such as the close?
ness of presidential races and eligibility for absentee ballots show weak and
inconsistent relationships to voting. On the other hand, restrictive registration
requirements are consistently associated with lower voting participation and the
closeness of senate/governor races with higher participation in midterm elec?
tions. In sum, our empirical results confirm findings from previous studies that
age, education, marital status and residential stability all have a significant effect
on voting participation that is consistent across immigrant generations. Con?
textual factors such as registration requirements and the closeness of senate/gov?
ernor races also have a significant impact on voting participation. On the other
hand, factors such as employment status, absentee voting eligibility and the
closeness of presidential races do not have a significant impact on voter turnout.
Even after controlling for traditional factors related to voting participation,
many of the new variables of immigrant incorporation prove to be significant
in all three election years (see Figures 2-4 below). These new variables are also
jointly significant. The null hypothesis that the newly-included variables are
jointly insignificant was rejected based on chi-squared likelihood-ratio tests in
both the full samples and in the generational subsamples.11 For the rest of our
discussion, we shall focus on the new set of variables introduced in the analysis.
We do so primarily because many of these variables have not received system?
atic attention in studies of voting participation and because they shed new light
on the political incorporation of different immigrant generations.
IMPACTS
Generational
OF
THE
NEW
EXPLANATORY
Patterns across Racial/Ethnic
VARIABLES
Groups
Even after controlling for individual resources, social incorporation and con?
texts of political mobilization, generational differences in the likelihood of
voting remain significant for all racial/ethnic groups. Looking across immi?
grant generations, the full model reveals that the "second generation advan-
11We
rejectthe null hypothesisby using the likelihood-ratiotest.For example,in 1996 the
likelihood-ratiostatistic,-2*(log likelihood of traditionalmodel - log likelihood of full
model), is 836.35. This is well beyond the .01 chi-squaredcriticalvalue of 49.59 for 29
statisticsforthegenerationalsub-samplesin 1996 are
degreesof freedom.The likelihood-ratio
164.64 forthe firstgeneration(.01 chi-squared=4l.63 for23 d.f.), 85.20 forthe second gen?
eration (.01 chi-squared=29.l4 for 14 d.f.) and 521.80 for the 3+ generation(.01 chisquared= 27.69 for 13 d.f).
Immigrant Incorporation and Political Participation in the U. S.
Figure 2
885
ImmigrantIncorporation and Voting Participation in 1994
Estimates
in FullSampleModel
ofSelectedVariables
LogisticRegression
1stGen<10ys
1stGen10-19
ys
1stGen19ys
Second
Generation
1stGen<10ys
Black,
1stGen10-19
ys
1stGen19ys
Generation
Second
Third
andHigher
Gen
1stGen<10ys
Asian,
1stGen10-19
ys
1stGen19ys
Second
Generation
Third
andHigher
Gen
1stGen<10ys
Latino,
1stGen10-19
ys
1stGen19ys
Second
Generation
andHigher
Gen
Third
From
Repressive
Regime
Parent
from
Repressive
Regime
InSpanish
Ballot
Area
Latino
xinSpanish
Ballot
Area
State% Black
Black
xState% Black
State% Asian
xState% Asian
Asian
State% Latino
Latino
xState% Latino
StateVoting
History
California
White,
-2.00
-1.50
-1.00
-0.50
0.00
COEFFICIENT
0.50
*p<0.1,
**p<0.05,
***p<0.01
For
full
A-2
intheAppendix.
seeTable
model,
tage" still holds among whites. Depending on the election year, second gen?
eration whites are 22 percent to 34 percent more likely to vote than those in
higher generations and 30 percent to 40 percent more likely to vote than
long-term immigrant residents.12 The fact that second generation whites are
12A word about terminology.If p is the probabilityof voting, then p/(l-p) represents
the "odds" of voting. If (j is a logistic regressioncoefficient,then the exponentiatedform
[exp(P)-l]xl00 equals thepercentagechangein the odds (or,loosely,the "likelihood")ofvot?
ing when the associatedexplanatoryvariableis increasedby one unit. For example,0.2217 is
the coefficient
on "White,Second Generation"in the fullmodel for 1994. Here the odds (or
likelihood)ofvotingare expectedto be [exp(0.2217)-l]xl00=25 percenthigherthantheodds
forwhitesin the 3+ generation.
886
Figure 3
International Migration Review
ImmigrantIncorporation and Voting Participation in 1996
in FullSampleModel
Estimates
ofSelectedVariables
LogisticRegression
1stGen<10ys
1stGen10-19
ys
1stGen19ys
Generation
Second
Black,
1stGen<10ys
1stGen10-19
ys
1stGen19ys
Generation
Second
andHigher
Gen
Third
Asian,
1stGen<10ys
1stGen10-19
ys
1stGen19ys
Second
Generation
andHigher
Gen
Third
Latino,
1stGen<10ys
1stGen10-19
ys
1stGen19ys
Second
Generation
andHigher
Gen
Third
From
Repressive
Regime
Parent
from
Repressive
Regime
Ballot
Area
InSpanish
xinSpanish
Ballot
Area
Latino
State% Black
xState% Black
Black
State% Asian
xState% Asian
Asian
State% Latino
xState% Latino
Latino
StateVoting
History
California
White,
-0.50
COEFFICIENT
*p<0.1,
**p<0.05,
***p<0.01
For
full
seeTable
A-2intheAppendix.
model,
less likely to misreport the vote in the NES than whites in other immigrant
generations does not diminish the significance of the second generation
advantage. Indeed, if a similar generational pattern of misreporting occurred
in the CPS, the magnitude of the second generation advantage would be even
greater with validated data than with reported data.13
For blacks, voting participation increases in a stepwise manner from the
first generation to higher generations. A similar straight-line pattern can be
13Sincethose in the second generationwould be less likelyto misreportthe vote, using vali?
dated data would lead to an evenhigherlikelihoodofvotingamongsecond generationrespon?
dentswhen comparedto those in the firstgenerationor the 3+ generation.
Immigrant Incorporation and Political Participation in the U. S.
Figure 4
887
ImmigrantIncorporation and Voting Participation in 1998
ofSelectedVariables
in FullSampleModel
Estimates
LogisticRegression
1stGen<10ys
1stGen10-19
ys
1stGen19ys
Second
Generation
1stGen<10ys
Black,
1stGen10-19
ys
1stGen19ys
Generation
Second
Third
andHigher
Gen
1stGen<10ys
Asian,
1stGen10-19
ys
1stGen19ys
Second
Generation
Third
andHigher
Gen
1stGen<10ys
Latino,
1stGen10-19
ys
1stGen19ys
Second
Generation
Third
andHigher
Gen
From
Repressive
Regime
Parent
from
Repressive
Regime
InSpanish
Ballot
Area
xinSpanish
Latino
Ballot
Area
State% Black
xState% Black
Black
State% Asian
Asian
xState% Asian
State% Latino
xState% Latino
Latino
StateVoting
History
California
White,
-0.50
COEFFICIENT
*p<0.1,
***p<0.01
**p<0.05,
For
full
seeTable
A-3intheAppendix.
model,
found among Asian-Americans, although the increase in participation seems
to taper off after the second generation.14 This tapering off in participation
means that racial gaps in participation persist for Asian-Americans in the
third generation and higher. Even after being in the United States for three
or more generations, Asian-Americans are considerably less likely to vote than
their white, black and Latino counterparts. Finally, among Latinos, the high?
of participation is among first generation citizens who have
est likelihood
141998 was the only year in which the likelihood of participationamong Asian-Americans
increasedfromthe second generationto the 3+ generation.
888
International Migration Review
lived in the United States for 20 years or more.15 The likelihood of partici?
pation actually decreases for second generation Latinos and remains low for
those in the third generation and higher. So, we see that generational patterns
vary across racial/ethnic groups
highest participation
among long-term immigrants for Latinos, a straight-line pattern among
in participation
blacks, a tapering off in participation for Asian-Americans, and a second gen?
eration advantage among whites.
What accounts for these different generational patterns in participation?
Looking first at whites, we see that conventional assimilationist accounts of
cultural and political adaptation may explain why participation among sec?
ond generation citizens is higher than that among first generation citizens.
Second generation respondents may be less likely to face societal discrimina?
tion and linguistic barriers to participation and may be less likely than first
generation citizens to be oriented towards homeland politics. However,
"straight-line" assimilationist theories cannot account for why second gener?
ation whites are consistently more likely to participate than those in higher
generations. One plausible explanation for the second generation advantage
among whites is that those in the "3+ generation" may be less attached to
political institutions than their parents' generation.16 The second generation
advantage may also be driven by a sense of relative deprivation based on dis?
crimination against the first generation. In their book Immigrant America,
Alejandro Portes and Ruben Rumbaut (1996) note that hostile reactions to
first generation immigrants stir "ethnic militancy among subsequent genera?
tions... descendants of the first immigrants have gained Voice' and have used
15Pantojaand Segura (2000) find,in theiranalysisof the 1996 TRPI survey,thatCalifornia
residentswho recentlynaturalizedhad the highestratesof votingparticipationamong Lati?
nos. Their findingsdo not necessarilycontradictours. First,even theTRPI surveyshowsthat
immigrantsotherthan those recentlynaturalizedin Californiawere less likelyto vote than
the date of naturalizationamong Latinos is not
higher-generation
respondents.Furthermore,
stronglyrelated to the date of arrivalin the United States (Portes and Rumbaut, 1996).
Indeed, duringthe mid-1990s, manyof thosewho naturalizedwere long-termresidentswho
afterbeinglegalizedundertheImmigrationReformand ControlAct (IRCA)
gained eligibility
of 1986 (Immigrationand NaturalizationServices,1997). We cannot have an exact compar?
ison betweenthe CPS and the TRPI surveysbecause the latterdo not ask questionson the
durationof stayin the United States.
16Inhis pioneeringworkon immigrantadaptation,Marcus Lee Hansen (1938, 1987) suggests
that second-generationenthusiasmforAmerican institutionsmay springfroma desire to
escape fromthe immigrantgeneration'sculturalinfluences.Accordingto Hansen, thisdesire
wanes by the thirdgeneration:"What theson wishesto forgetthe grandsonwishesto remem?
ber" (1987, p. 15). It is unclear,however,whetherthis resurgencein ethnicityby the third
generationleads to a decreasein attachmentto domesticpolitics.
Immigrant Incorporation and Political Participation in the U. S.
889
it to reaffirm identities attacked previously with so much impunity" (95).
Whatever the reason, it is clear that straight-line assimilationist theories can?
not account for the generational differences in participation among whites.
Just as straight-line assimilationist theories are unable to account for the
generational pattern in participation among whites, they are of limited value
in accounting for the patterns among non-whites. First, it is important to
note that, unlike their white counterparts, many blacks, Asian-Americans and
Latinos in the third generation and higher confronted significant barriers to
social incorporation and political participation until the 1970s. Despite this
legacy of disenfranchisement, blacks in the third generation and higher have
been able to reach parity in participation with whites, thanks largely to the
mobilizing effects of the civil rights movement. Several studies have shown
that, even though blacks faced enormous barriers to participation until the
1960s, the civil rights movement was a powerful mobilizer that enhanced cit?
izens' sense of group consciousness and political efficacy (Verba and Nie,
1972; Rosenstone and Hansen, 1993). Asian-Americans and Latinos also
faced several institutional barriers to participation until the 1970s, but they
did not experience a social movement on the scale of the civil rights move?
ment.17 As other scholars have noted, the absence of such broad-scale move?
ments among third and higher generation Asian-Americans and Latinos may
racial gap in participation for such groups (DeSiet al, 1989).18 The persistence of this racial gap thus
challenges conventional assimilationist accounts of immigrant incorporation
that would suggest convergence in participation by the third generation.
account for the continued
pio, 1996a;
Duration
Uhlaner
of Stay in the United States
For some racial/ethnic groups, longer stay in the United States among firstgen?
eration citizens dramatically increases the likelihood of voting. Among firstgen?
eration Latinos, those living in the United States for 20 years or more ("longterm residents") were 39 percent more likely to have voted in the 1996 election
than those living in the United States for 10 to 19 years ("medium-term resi?
dents"). The difference was even greater in the 1994 midterm election, where
long-term Latino residents were twice as likely to have voted as medium-term
residents. Similarly, among firstgeneration whites, long-term residents were 43
most of whom were not
^Institutionalbarrierswere especiallystrongforAsian immigrants,
able to naturalizeuntil 1952 (Espiritu,1992).
18Indeed,Pantoja and Seguras studyof Latino participation(2000) suggeststhatimmigrants
who naturalizedin Californiaduringthe 1990s weremore likelythan native-bornLatinos to
be mobilizedin the 1996 election.
International Migration Review
890
percent to 70 percent more likely to vote than medium-term residents, depend?
ing on the election year.19 For black and Asian-American immigrants, however,
there is no clear relationship between duration of stay in the United States and
the likelihood of voting. So, even though duration of stay is associated with
higher turnout for all racial/ethnic groups in the bivariate analysis (Figure 1),
the relationship has a positive slope only for Latinos and whites when control?
ling for the various other factors in our full model.
Political
Experiences
in the Home
Country
Prior political experience with repressive regimes has no consistent effect on
voting participation. Looking at the first generation subsamples within each
election year, we see that those who emigrate from repressive states do not have
higher rates of voting than those who come from democratic states. While
some may argue that the experience of immigrants from communist countries
is distinct from those that come from other repressive regimes, the results were
almost identical when we ran a separate model using "Communist Regime Ori?
gin" instead of "Repressive Regime Origin." Just as fleeing from communism
may increase the motivation to participate among some groups such as CubanAmericans, it can also lower the likelihood of participation among groups such
as Vietnamese-Americans, many of whom harbor a distrust of the political sys?
tem (Collett, 2000). Thus, on balance, coming from a communist regime or
repressive regime has no net significant effect on voting participation. Finally,
given the weak effects of repressive regime origins on participation among first
generation respondents, it is perhaps not surprising that such experiences have
even weaker effects on the second generation.
Linguistic
Barriers to Participation
As indicated earlier, studies have shown that first generation respondents have
lower levels of English proficiency than those in higher generations. We would
19Itis possiblethatpartof thelow voterturnoutamong short-term
immigrantresidentsis due
to the misreportingof citizenshipstatus,especiallyby undocumentedmigrantswho may
reportbeing citizenswhen in facttheyare not. However,our findingthatlongerdurationof
as well as Latino immi?
stayleads to greaterpoliticalparticipationholds forwhiteimmigrants
grants(the formerare much less likelyto be undocumentedthan the latter).Finally,even
among Latinos, the relationshipbetween longer duration and greaterparticipationholds
across medium-termand long-termimmigrantsforall electionyears.This findingstrongly
suggeststhat political socialization is occurringand that the differencein participation
of cit?
is not due solelyto the misreporting
and medium-termimmigrants
betweenshort-term
izenshipstatusby recentarrivals.
Immigrant Incorporation and Political Participation in the U. S.
891
therefore expect Spanish-language ballots to increase turnout among first gen?
eration Latinos. Our analysis reveals that the presence of Spanish ballots is not
sufficient to ensure higher voting among first generation Latinos.20 Some may
argue that the coefficient is insignificant because the CPS is conducted entirely
in English and therefore does not include those who are most likely to benefit
directly from Spanish-language ballots. While the CPS is conducted in Eng?
lish, non-English speakers are still included in the survey because respondents
who can speak English can report data for household members who do not
speak English well. First generation respondents who have another household
member report for them tend to have a lower level of English proficiency than
those who responses are self-reported (Espenshade and Fu, 1997). We per?
formed an alternative test of the effects of Spanish-language ballots by restrict?
ing the sample to firstgeneration Latinos who had lower levels of English pro?
ficiency by excluding self-reported responses. In results not reported here, we
found that even in this restricted sample an individuals residence in areas with
Spanish ballots does not increase the likelihood of voting. Our evidence there?
fore casts doubt on the importance of Spanish language ballots in stimulating
turnout among firstgeneration Latinos.21
Ethnic Residential
Concentration
Proximity to co-ethnics has weak effects on voting participation, both in the
full sample and across immigrant generations. The only exception is among
"3+ generation" Asian-Americans, who are consistently more likely to vote in
states with high proportions of co-ethnics. It is possible that the proportion
of co-ethnics in a respondent s metropolitan area is a better measure of ethnic
mobilization than the proportion of co-ethnics in a respondents state.22
However, when we substitute metropolitan concentrations for state concen?
trations of co-ethnics, we find the results to be similar. The lack of any sig?
nificant effect of ethnic concentration on voting participation thus seems to
support the findings of earlier studies among Latinos, in which factors such
as residential poverty and in high proportions of noncitizens produce lower
than expected mobilization states with high concentration of Latinos (DeSipio, 1996a).
20Evenwhen we modifiedthe interactiontermto account forthe percentof one s lifea Lati?
no firstgenerationrespondenthad spent in the U.S., livingin Spanish-ballotareas had no
effecton the likelihoodof voting.
21Thisis consistentwith tabulatedreportsfromthe Latino National PoliticalSurvey,which
indicatethatthe presenceof Spanish-languageballotshas a modesteffecton turnoutamong
Spanish-dominantspeakers(de la Garza et al, 1992).
International Migration Review
892
State History of Voting Participation
A state's political culture, as measured by its recent history of voting partici?
pation, leads to a significant increase in an individuals likelihood to vote.
Although the coefficients for the variable are relatively small, their impact is
significant when one considers the wide variation in the legacy of voting par?
across states. Depending
on the election year, those living in
a state one standard deviation above the mean level of participa?
tion, were 49 percent to 58 percent more likely to have voted than those liv?
ticipation
Delaware,
ing in Tennessee, whose history of voting participation is one standard devi?
ation below the mean. What is significant for our study of immigrant voting
participation is that this increase is similar across all immigrant generations.23
If, as traditional assimilation theories would suggest, first generation cit?
izens are less likely to be incorporated into social and political institutions in
the United States, then one would expect them to be the group least affected
- even first
by their state's political culture. Our results indicate otherwise
generation citizens are influenced
their state of residence.
Mobilization
over Anti-Immigrant
by the legacy of voting participation
in
Legislation
We hypothesized that anti-immigrant legislation would have a differential
We do not
impact on voting participation across immigrant generations.
have individual-level data on whether respondents were aware of anti-immi?
grant legislation or were motivated to vote because of it. However, we do
know that anti-immigrant legislation emerged in California in 1994, two
years before the passage of national legislation restricting immigrant access to
187, which sought to deny public benefits to
a prominent election issue in 1994, and
was
immigrants,
Governor Pete Wilson made it a major part of his re-election campaign. By
welfare benefits.
Proposition
undocumented
contrast, anti-immigrant legislation did not enter the national legislative
agenda until after the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994 and did not
become law until the summer of 1996. Thus, mobilization over anti-immi?
grant legislation began in California months before the 1994 general election,
22Forstate-widecontestsand presidentialelections,we assume thatethnicgroups,partyorga?
nizationsand candidateorganizationsattemptto mobilizeethnicvotersfromacrossthe state.
However,it is likelythattheper-capitacost of ethnicmobilizationwill be lowerin citieswhere
thereare higherconcentrationsof co-ethnics.
23Theonly exceptionis forfirstgenerationimmigrantsin 1994.
Immigrant Incorporation and Political Participation in the U. S.
893
whereas in the rest of the country mobilization did not occur until well after
the election. Given this difference in the exposure to anti-immigrant legisla?
tion, we would expect first and second generation immigrants in California
to be much more likely to vote in 1994 than their generational peers else?
where. Furthermore, since anti-immigration legislation was no longer con?
fined to California by 1996, we would not expect California residence to have
a unique impact on immigrant participation after the 1994 election.24
The evidence from 1994 through 1998 supports our hypothesis regard?
ing anti-immigrant legislation and voting behavior. In 1994, first generation
immigrants in California were twice as likely to have voted as their genera?
tional counterparts in other states that did not have similar measures. Simi?
larly, second generation immigrants in California were 83 percent more like?
ly to have voted as their generational peers elsewhere. By contrast, "3+ gen?
eration" citizens in California were only 32 percent more likely to have voted
than their generational peers in other states. By 1996, the unique mobiliza?
tion among first and second generation citizens in California seems to have
dissipated. After the passage of national legislation in 1996, the enormous
"California
effect" for first and second generation immigrants disappeared,
roughly the same for "3+ generation" respondents.25
whereas it remained
Similar results held true for 1998, an election that had a governors race in
California like in 1994, but that did not have a ballot initiative related to
immigration.26 During that year, the "California effect" was significant only
among first and 3+ generation respondents. Even among first generation
respondents, the magnitude of the California advantage paled in comparison
to that in 1994 - 33 percent in 1998 versus 105 percent in 1994. The results
therefore suggest that anti-immigrant legislation in 1994 did indeed have a
significant and selective impact on voting among first and second generation
citizens in California. While a true test of our hypothesis would require indi?
vidual-level data on political knowledge and opinions, these findings suggest
a strong link between anti-immigrant legislation and immigrant participa?
tion.
24In 1998, the initiativeon bilingualeducation in California(Proposition227) capturedthe
attentionof many immigrantvoters,but the measurewas part of the Juneprimary,not the
Novemberelection.
25Basedon theiranalysisof theTRPI survey,Pantoja and Segura (2000) arguethatanti-immi?
grantlegislationcontinuedto have a positiveimpacton votingin 1996 among recently-nat?
uralizedLatinos in California.Our evidence indicatesthat such an impact was not present
among the restof the naturalizedpopulation.
26UnlikeProposition187, the 1998 initiativeon bilingualeducation (Proposition227) was
held in theJuneprimaryand not the Novemberelection.
894
International Migration Review
DISCUSSION
This article has examined
the influence of immigrant generational status on
in
U.S.
elections. Adding to the accumulating evidence
voting participation
other
recent
from
studies of immigrant incorporation, our analysis casts
doubt on the applicability of straight-line assimilationist theories to contem?
porary immigrant adaptation. Immigrant political incorporation proceeds in
a different manner for members of different racial/ethnic groups. Blacks are
the only group for whom participation increases in a linear manner from the
first generation to higher generations. For whites, we find that voting partic?
ipation is highest among second generation respondents. As we had suggest?
ed earlier, this second generation advantage may be due to higher levels of
cynicism among those in the third generation or higher or to a greater sense
of relative deprivation among second generation respondents. Further exam?
ination of surveys such as the National Election Study or historical studies of
particular communities may shed additional light on the reasons why second
For Asiangeneration whites have the highest rates of voting participation.
is
an
in
there
increase
after
the
first
Americans,
voting participation
genera?
tion, but it tapers off after the second generation. For Latinos, the likelihood
of voting is lower among
second
and "3+ generation" respondents than
The persistence of a racial gap in par?
residents.
among long-term immigrant
challenges assimilationist
ticipation among Latinos and Asian-Americans
accounts of immigrant incorporation that would suggest a convergence in
participation by the third generation. What we find instead is evidence of
segmented assimilation, whereby different processes of political socialization
produce different generational patterns in participation that do not lead to
convergence by the third generation.
The durability of racial differences in political participation is not the
only limitation of straight-line assimilationist theories of immigrant incorpo?
ration. We also find that first generation citizens are just as likely to be influ?
enced by their state "political culture" as citizens from higher generations.
Furthermore, linguistic barriers may not be the primary obstacles to voting
ballots do not
among first generation Latinos, because Spanish-language
increase the likelihood of participation among first generation citizens. Final?
ly, longer stay in the United States leads to greater participation for whites
and Latinos of the first generation, but not for blacks or Asian-Americans.
Thus, the evidence presented in this study raises serious doubts about the
applicability of straight-line assimilationist theories across immigrant genera?
tions and across racial/ethnic groups.
Immigrant Incorporation and Political Participation in the U. S.
895
Our analysis also indicates that prior political experience is not as impor?
tant to voting participation as has been previously suggested. Immigrants
from communist states or other repressive regimes do not have higher rates of
participation than immigrants from democratic countries. Furthermore, sec?
ond generation citizens whose parents emigrated from repressive regimes are
not more likely to vote than those whose parents came from democratic
regimes. Thus, the high level of voting participation among first and second
generation Cuban-Americans seems to be an exception that does not hold for
immigrants from other repressive regimes.
What does lead to higher voting participation among first and second
generation immigrants is the presence of anti-immigrant legislation. Immi?
grant legislation in 1994 had profound impacts on turnout among first and
second generation immigrants in California. Some may argue that the loss of
a "California effect" among first and second generation immigrants in 1996
is indicative of the generalized mobilization of a national election and not of
immigration issues in particular. However, the fact that the California advan?
"3+ generation" respondents through 1998 while it
largely disappeared among first and second generation respondents suggests
that anti-immigrant legislation in California did indeed have a selective
tage persisted among
impact on voting among first and second generation immigrants.
Taken together, these findings add substantially to our knowledge of the
determinants of voting participation and extend in important ways the
lessons from more traditional models of voting behavior. Our findings also
point to the need for more systematic research on immigrant incorporation
and political participation. We need more studies of generational differences
in political participation for activities other than voting - attending rallies,
writing legislators, working for a campaign, and contributing money for
political causes.27 There also needs to be more research on the attitudinal fac?
tors and historical processes that have led to a higher level of participation
among second generation whites. It remains to be seen whether the patterns
and trends noted in this analysis will continue into the 2000 elections and
beyond. With record numbers of immigrants applying for naturalization,
with the "new" second generation reaching voting age, and with parties and
interest groups attempting to mobilize ethnic voters, generational differences
in voting participation may not remain the same in the next decade as they
have during the 1990s.
27Louis Desipio (1999) providesa preliminaryanalysisof differencesin such activitiesas
reflectedin the Latino National PoliticalSurveyand the Citizen ParticipationSurvey.
International Migration Review
896
APPENDIX
Data
on individual
characteristics and voting participation were obtained
from the Voter Supplement to the November Current Population Survey in
1994, 1996 and 1998. Data sources for other variables are noted below.
INDIVIDUAL
RESOURCES
Age. Series of dummy variables with "Age 18?29" as the omitted category.
Income. Series of dummy variables with Family Income below $10,000 as the
omitted category.
Education. Less than High School as the omitted category.
High School Grad: 1 if respondent graduated or obtained GED
alent, 0 otherwise.
or equiv?
Some College. 1 if respondent received associate's degree or did not com?
plete college, 0 otherwise.
College Grad: 1 if respondent received a bachelor's degree, 0 otherwise.
Post Graduate. 1 if respondent received a graduate degree, 0 otherwise.
RACE/ETHNICITY
AND
OTHER
DEMOGRAPHIC
VARIABLES
white as the omitted category.
Race/Ethnicity: Non-Hispanic
Black. 1 if black, non-Hispanic, 0 otherwise.
Asian: 1 if Asian, non-Hispanic, 0 otherwise.
Latino: 1 if respondent of Hispanic
Female. 1 if female, 0 otherwise.
Origin (any race), 0 otherwise.
First Generation: 1 if born outside the United States or outlying territories, 0
otherwise.
First Generation 0?9 ys. in the United States: First Generation
United States less than ten years.
and lived in the
ys. in the United States: First Generation and lived in
the United States 10 to 19 years.
First Generation 20+ ys. in the United States-.First Generation, and lived in the
First Generation 10-19
United States more than 20 years.
Second Generation: 1 if born in the United States or outlying territories and
either parent not born in the United States or outlying territories, 0 other?
wise.
3+ generation: 1 if respondent born in the United States with U.S.-born
ents, 0 otherwise.
par?
International Migration Review
SOCIAL
897
INCORPORATION
Long-Term Resident 1 if respondent has lived in the same address for five years
or more, 0 otherwise.
Married: 1 if married, 0 if unmarried, widowed,
divorced or separated.
Employed. 1 if currently employed, 0 otherwise.
Self-Report 1 if response if self-reported, 0 otherwise.
INSTITUTIONAL
BARRIERS
Liberal Absentee Eligibility. 1 if Universal Eligibility (anyone can vote absen?
tee) or Expanded Eligibility (automatic eligibility for citizens of a certain age
or who live a certain distance from the polls), 0 otherwise.
1996.
Source: Oliver,
Early Registration Deadline. Individual lives in state where one has to register
at least 21 days prior to election day. Data obtained from the League of
Women Voters (www.lwv.org)
MOBILIZATION
CONTEXTS
Presidential Toss-up: 1 if state ranked as "Clinton Slightly Favored," "Dole
= 1, 0 otherwise. Source: Associated Press
Slightly Favored," or "Toss-up"
Research, as reported in the San Francisco Chronicle (Yoachum, 1996).
Senate or Governor Toss-up: 1 if state ranked as Highly Vulnerable of Vulner?
able by the Congressional Quarterly. During each election season, the Con?
gressional Quarterly comes up with a survey of Senate and Governor Races
based on opinion polls and surveys of candidate and party organizations
(Sources: Babson and Groppe, 1994; Cassata, 1998; Cranford, 1994; Foerstel, 1998; Greenblatt, 1996; Greenblatt and Wells, 1996).
OTHER
VARIABLES
From Repressive Regime. 1 if respondent came from a repressive regime at the
time of entry to the United States, 0 otherwise. Regime coded as "repressive"
if it was ranked as partly free' or not free' by Freedom House.
Freedom
rankings of countries began in 1972. For years prior to 1972, coun?
tries were coded as repressive if they were communist countries or if they were
ranked as repressive in 1972, and continued to be repressive for more than 75
House
percent of the years since 1972.
domhouse.org/ratings)
Source: Freedom House
(http://www.free-
International Migration Review
898
Parents from Repressive Regime. 1 if one or both of respondent's parents are
from Repressive Regime, 0 otherwise.
In Spanish Ballot Area: 1 if respondent lives in a County, State or Metropoli?
tan Area with Spanish language ballots.
Source: United States General
Accounting Office, 1997.
% State Black, % State Asian, % State Latino: State ethnic proportions are
reports that take into account the total state population.
based on Census
Bureau of the Census, "1990 to 1998 Annual Time Series of
State Population Estimates By Race and Hispanic Origin." http://www.cenSource: U.S.
sus.gov/population/www/estimates/st_srh.html
State Voting History. Average of percent voting in each state from 1972-1992.
Source:
Federal
Election
Commission
(http://www.fec.gov/ votregis/turn/
turn.htm)
California: 1 if respondent is resident of California, 0 otherwise.
APPENDIX
on individual characteristics and voting participation were obtained from the V
ber Current Population Survey in 1994, 1996 and 1998. Data sources for other vari
Data
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70-79
80+
Income:
$10,000-$25,000
$25,000-$50,000
$50,000-$75,000
$75,000+
Not Reported
Education:
HighSchoolGrad
SomeCollege
CollegeGrad
PostGraduate
Resident
Long-Term
Married
Employed
Female
LiberalAbsentee
Eligibility
Deadline
EarlyRegistration
Senate/Governor
Toss-up
White,
lstGen<10ys.
1stGen 10 - 19 ys.
1stGen > 19 ys.
SecondGeneration
Age:
TABLE 1
Logistic RegressionEstimatesof Voting in the 1994 Election
Secon
FirstGeneration
FullSample_
Beta
Std.Err.
Std.Err.
Beta
Beta
0.l446c
-0.090
0.0254
0.1353
-0.3717c
0.0266
0.1628
0.4881c
0.1336
0.2543
0.1462
0.2344
0.5901
0.0310
0.7812c
0.1629
0.9391
0.9721c
1.3030c
0.0353
1.175
0.0395
1.0225c
0.1772
1.5333c
0.0486
0.1941
0.8923
1.0854c
0.9350c
0.1504
0.3376
0.2728c
0.0329
0.6837c
0.4261
0.1541
0.4079c
0.0337
0.6726c
0.6224c
0.6202c
0.1751
0.5591
0.0386
0.8394c
0.1785
0.4663
0.6243c
0.0423
0.0426
0.1809
0.3735
0.3928c
0.3499a
0.1174
0.5574
0.0274
0.4367c
0.7H7C
0.8426c
0.1283
1.004
1.2303c
0.0300
0.1456
1.364
1.2331c
1.7460c
0.0358
1.8116C
0.1779
2.0776c
0.0473
1.779
0.0848
0.0185
0.5917c
0.7131
0.7731c
0.0931
0.4988c
0.0191
0.3255c
0.5756
0.0222
0.1036
-0.136
0.2434b
0.0658c
0.0868
0.0817
0.0491c
0.0176
0.1709b
0.0214
0.1176
-0.1903
-0.051
0.0671c
0.1417
0.0292
0.0254
-0.0519b
-0.0456
0.0188
0.1268
0.0996
0.1922c
0.3628
0.4074
-1.7606c
0.4137
-1.6857c
0.1706
-0.4320b
-0.4292b
0.1717
-0.0346
0.0650
0.2217c
0.0370
Black,
lstGen<10ys.
1stGen 10 - 19 ys.
1stGen > 19 ys.
SecondGeneration
ThirdandHigherGen
Asian,
lstGen<10ys.
1stGen 10-19 ys.
lstGen>19ys.
SecondGeneration
ThirdandHigherGen
Latino,
lstGen<10ys.
1stGen 10 - 19 ys.
lstGen>19ys.
SecondGeneration
ThirdandHigherGen
FromRepressive
Regime
ParentfromRepressive
Regime
In SpanishBallotArea
Latinox In SpanishBallotArea
State% Black
Blackx State% Black
State% Asian
Asianx State% Asian
State% Latino
Latinox State% Latino
StateVotingHistory
California
Constant
pseudoR2
ap< 0.1,bp< 0.05,cp<.01
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Logistic RegressionEstimatesof Voting in the 1994 Election
Secon
FirstGeneration
FullSample_
Beta
Beta
Std.Err.
Beta
Std.Err.
0.8448
0.8901
0.5536
0.1986
0.6860
0.2862
-0.1285
0.3423
-0.2248
0.6578
0.3226
0.2927
-0.348
0.0484
0.2590
0.0641
0.1621b
0.3654
0.3681
-1.5244c
-1.5680c
0.1707
-1.1504c
0.1511
-1.1598c
0.1702
-0.9199c
-0.854lc
0.1530
-0.938
0.1699
-0.7442c
0.1821
-0.7847c
0.4177
-1.4736c
0.3889
-1.3628c
0.2663
0.2129
-0.57353
-0.7452c
0.2249
0.1998
-0.0538
0.1565
-0.710
-0.4430c
0.1301
0.1001
-0.5037c
0.1728
-0.1092
-0.2447b
0.1147
-0.022
-0.1641
0.0640
0.1683
-0.0433
0.0268
-0.l429
0.1078
0.0213
-0.0485a
0.1426
0.2044
0.0858
0.2521c
0.0851
0.0096
0.0005
0.0023
-0.0360c
0.0015
0.0044
0.0175
0.0384
0.0032
-0.0305
0.0128
0.0038
0.0025
-0.0196
0.0056b
0.0241a
0.0132
0.0138
0.0133c
0.0038
0.0014
0.0017
0.0053c
-0.0158b
0.0078
0.0104
0.0087
0.0039
-0.0093
0.0056
0.0022
0.0310
0.0130
-0.0436c
0.0267c
0.1821
0.6057
0.3303c
0.0473
0.7185c
-3.846
0.8791
-4.1964c
0.1475
0.8698
0.1556
0.1488
3,952
87:596
40-49
50-59
60-69
70-79
80 +
Income:
30-39
$10,000-$25,000
$25,000450,000
$50,000-$75,000
$75,000+
Not Reported
Education:
HighSchoolGrad
SomeCollege
CollegeGrad
PostGraduate
Resident
Long-Term
Married
Employed
Female
LiberalAbsentee
Eligibility
Deadline
EarlyRegistration
Presidential
Toss-up
Senate/Governor
Toss-up
1stGen < 10 ys.
White,
1stGen 10 - 19 ys.
1stGen > 19 ys.
SecondGeneration
1stGen < 10 ys.
Black,
1stGen 10- 19 ys.
1stGen > 19 ys.
SecondGeneration
ThirdandHigherGen
TABLE 2
Logistic RegressionEstimatesof Voting in the 1996 Election
FirstGeneration
FullSample
Secon
Beta
Beta
s.e.
Beta
0.1627
0.1219
-0.131
0.1023c
0.0267
0.0282
0.2005
0.1236
0.2743
0.3791c
0.6416
0.6897c
0.0328
0.2501a
0.1436
1.165
1.2274c
0.0393
0.7711c
0.1559
0.1820
1.402
0.0432
0.8897c
1.3438c
0.1993
0.7683
0.9179c
0.7212c
0.0532
0.1681C
0.1527
0.3409
0.0366
0.0357
0.1509
0.4653
0.3481c
0.0763
0.0364
0.1689
0.4834
0.0413
0.1754
0.5905c
0.1826
0.6986
0.4969c
0.7401c
0.0455
0.0440
0.1795
0.3101
-0.4115b
0.3918c
0.1150
0.5989
0.0283
0.3561c
0.6948c
0.1255
1.209
1.3348c
0.0314
0.9757c
0.1351
1.784
1.8946c
1.0749c
0.0383
0.1872
1.6098c
2.2131
2.3005c
0.0551
0.6064c
0.0854
0.3202c
0.7785
0.0199
0.0900
0.5070
0.0205
0.1194
0.4105C
0.0981
0.0382
0.0536b
-0.0199
0.0236
0.0802
0.1620C
0.0188
0.0755
0.l670
0.0181
0.1230
0.0432a
0.1277
0.0237
0.0000
0.1496
-0.1417
0.0378
0.0278
0.1201
0.0411
-0.1604
0.1263
0.0245
0.1059
0.0971
-0.0330
0.0213
-0.1555
-1.5110c
0.2687
-1.4789c
0.2696
0.1542
-0.6278c
-0.4998c
0.1557
0.0317
0.0769
0.0446
0.2906c
0.8005
-0.6928
0.6803
-1.3653a
0.46l2a
0.0431
0.4756
0.2859
0.5453
0.1131
-0.1367
0.2932
0.0668
0.3762
0.2470
0.3771c
0.0654
1stGen < 10 ys.
1stGen 10- 19 ys.
1stGen > 19 ys.
SecondGeneration
Thirdand HigherGen
1stGen < 10 ys.
Latino,
1stGen 10- 19 ys.
1stGen > 19 ys.
SecondGeneration
Thirdand HigherGen
FromRepressive
Regime
ParentfromRepressive
Regime
In SpanishBallotArea
Latinox In SpanishBallotArea
State% Black
Blackx State% Black
State% Asian
Asianx State% Asian
State% Latino
Latinox State% Latino
StateVotingHistory
California
Constant
pseudoR2
Asian,
: 0.05,
:.01
TABLE 2 (Continued)
Logistic RegressionEstimatesof Voting in the 1996 Election
FullSample
FirstGeneration
Secon
Beta
Beta
s.e.
Beta
0.2800
-0.6707b
-0.6250b
0.2965
0.1410
-0.9160C
-0.8858c
0.1636
0.1642
-1.0908c
-0.8672c
0.1762
-0.7747c
0.1547
-0.806
0.1890
-0.8257c
-0.1983
0.2892
-0.3041
0.2968
0.1818
-0.0130
0.0357
0.2457
0.6156C
0.3157b
0.1613
0.2322
-0.1594
0.1245
0.4331
0.0947
-0.2159b
-0.0078
0.1127
-0.1850
0.1584
0.0660
-0.1481
0.0081
-0.0051
0.1573
-0.0871
-0.0691b
0.0320
0.1205
-0.l643
0.1141
0.1065
0.0513
0.2296
-0.157
0.0020
0.0080
0.0046
0.0058c
0.0017
0.0040
-0.028
0.0032
0.0156
0.0295
-0.0042a
0.0140
0.0019
0.0025
-0.001
0.0114C
0.0001
0.0148
0.0002
0.0038
0.0028
0.0018
0.0102
0.0086
0.0103
0.0110
0.0003
-0.0230b
0.0045
0.0073
0.0124
0.0023
0.0267c
0.0295b
0.0255
0.1682
0.0493
0.0984
0.2987c
0.1954
-2.1104c
-3.4555c
0.1530
0.7919
-3.278
0. 1435
0.1047
76,656
3,811
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70-79
80 +
Income:
$10,000-$25,000
$25,000-$50,000
$50,000-$75,000
$75,000+
Not Reported
Educai
HighSchoolGrad
SomeCollege
CollegeGrad
PostGraduate
Resident
Long-Term
Married
Employed
Female
LiberalAbsentee
Eligibility
Deadline
EarlyRegistration
Senate/Governor
Toss-up
lstGen< lOys.
White,
1stGen 10- 19 ys.
1stGen > 19 ys.
SecondGeneration
1stGen < 10 ys.
Black,
1stGen 10- 19 ys.
1stGen > 19 ys.
SecondGeneration
ThirdandHigherGen
TABLE 3
Logistic RegressionEstimatesof Voting in the 1998 Election
Secon
FirstGeneration
FullSample
Beta
Beta
Beta
s.e.
0.1282
-0.0004
-0.008
0.0279
0.1405C
0.2628b
0.2446
0.1209
0.0276
0.4687c
0.1324
0.3803
0.0308
0.7314C
0.7648c
0.1415
1.177
0.7824c
1.3428c
0.0371
0.0412
0.9869c
0.1653
1.292
1.5512c
0.2218
0.44l4b
1.096lc
0.0516
0.6925
0.0418
0.1728
0.3248
-0.29303
0.1805c
0.1661
0.3310c
-0.1095
0.3865
0.0413
0.0448
0.1827
0.4714
-0.1273
0.4559c
0.1850
0.4974c
0.0436
0.4969
0.0463
0.1861
-0.2210
0.2217
0.336lc
0.0465
0.1141
0.6266c
0.4716
0.0300
0.5166C
0.1241
1.021
1.1819c
0.0321
0.7766c
1.1182c
0.1366
1.257
1.5780c
0.0369
0.0468
0.1674
1.727
1.9671c
1.4518c
0.0835
0.7284c
0.6709c
0.7185
0.0195
0.0202
0.0869
0.4894c
0.3377c
0.5156
-0.18183
0.0988
-0.202
-0.0047
0.0236
0.0110
0.0648
0.0784
0.0183
0.0522c
0.1120
0.0220
0.0496
0.0920c
0.1136
-0.050
0.0269
-0.1505
0.1516
-0.1158c
0.228l
0.0933
0.3204c
0.4235c
0.0194
-1.0001c
0.3043
0.3130
-0.9554c
0.1810
0.1838
-0.5186c
-0.4355b
-0.1581b
0.0692
0.2016c
0.0414
-0.3421
0.5766
-0.4889
0.4934
0.3674
-0.4487a
-0.1585
0.2558
0.3451
0.0659
-0.2341
0.1970
-0.630
-0.1213
0.2015
0.2247c
0.0645
1stGen < 10 ys.
1stGen 10-19 ys.
1stGen > 19 ys.
SecondGeneration
Thirdand HigherGen
1stGen < 10 ys.
Latino,
1stGen 10 - 19 ys.
lstGen>19ys.
SecondGeneration
Thirdand HigherGen
FromRepressive
Regime
ParentfromRepressive
Regime
In SpanishBallotArea
Latinox In SpanishBallotArea
State% Black
Blackx State% Black
State% Asian
Asianx State% Asian
State% Latino
Latinox State% Latino
StateVotingHistory
California
Constant
pseudoR2
n_75,485
ap< 0.1,bp< 0.05,cp < .01
Asian,
TABLE 3 (Continued)
Logistic RegressionEstimatesof Voting in the 1998 Election
Secon
FirstGeneration
FullSample
Beta
Beta
s.e.
Beta
-1.1327c
0.3598
-1.3368c
0.3490
-1.2921c
0.1815
-1.546lc
0.1588
-1.2426c
0.1542
0.1291
-0.9528c
-1.1016C
-1.336
0.1569
-0.6367c
0.1795
-1.4179C
-1.4966c
0.4005
0.3778
-0.4828b
0.2483
-0.5240b
0.1933
0.2062
-0.0913
-0.1132
0.1376
-0.618
-0.3978c
0.1253
-0.3060c
0.0903
0.1470
0.1020
0.2071
-0.0051
0.0618
-0.096
-0.3829c
0.1471
-0.1363b
0.1084
0.0406
0.1090
0.0584
0.0277
0.1742
0.2087
0.0543
0.1875a
0.0991
0.0l61b
0.0016
0.0022
0.0077
0.0053
0.0185
0.0297
0.0171c
0.0007
0.0031
0.0114
0.0282b
0.0098
0.0027
0.0037
0.0212c
0.0178
0.0025
0.0125
0.0038
-0.0028
0.0016
0.0077
0.0075
0.0038b
0.0046
0.0048
0.0092
0.0023
0.0039
0.0104
0.0021
0.0364c
0.0375
0.0325c
0.0486
0.1716
0.1711
0.2827a
0.1825c
0.1444
-3.8551c
0.7026
-4.215
-4.4790c
0.1375
0.1473
4,177
Immigrant Incorporation and Political Participation in the U.S.
905
REFERENCES
Abramson,P. and W Claggett
1992 "The Qualityof RecordKeepingand Racial Differencesin ValidatedTurnout,"Journal
ofPolitics,54(3):871-882.
Arvizu,J. R. and F. C. Garcia
Latino VotingTurnout,"
1996 "Latino VotingParticipation:Explainingand Differentiating
HispanicJournalofBehavioralSciences,18(2): 104-128.
Babson, J. and M. Groppe
1994 "Governors'Races May End in November Surprise,"Congressional
QuarterlyWeekly
Report,52(30):2165-2168.
Bass, L. and L. Casper
1999 "AreThere Differencesin Registrationand Voting BehaviorbetweenNaturalizedand
Native-BornAmericans?"Population Division WorkingPaper No. 28. Washington,
DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census.
Bobo, L. and F. Gilliam,Jr.
1990 "Race, Socioeconomic Status and Black Empowerment,"AmericanPolitical Science
Review,84(2):377-394.
Borjas, G.
1999 Heavens Door: Immigration
Policyand theAmericanEconomy.Princeton,NJ: Princeton
UniversityPress.
Cain, B. E., R. D. Kiewietand C. J. Uhlaner
AmericanJournal
1991 "The Acquisitionof Partisanshipby Latinos and Asian-Americans,"
Political
Science,
35(2):390-422.
of
Calvo, M. A. and S. J. Rosenstone
San Antonio,TX: SouthwestVoterResearchInstitute.
1989 HispanicPoliticalParticipation.
Camarota,S.
1999 "Immigrantsin the United States- 1998." January1999 Backgrounder.
Washington,
DC: CenterforImmigrationStudies.
CarnegieCenterforInternationalPeace
on Immigration,
1:3.
1997 "New Americansand Co-EthnicVoting,"ResearchPerspectives
Cassata, D.
1998 "California, The
56(28):1865-1868.
Coveted
Prize,"
Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report,
Cho, W K. T.
1999 "Naturalization,Socialization,Participation:Immigrantsand (Non) Voting,"Journalof
Politics,61(4):1140-1155.
Collett,C.
2000 "The Determinantsof VietnameseAmericanPoliticalParticipation:Findingsfromthe
January2000 Orange County RegisterPoll." Paper preparedfor presentationat the
annual meetingof theAssociationof Asian AmericanStudies.Scottsdale,Arizona.
Cranford,J.
1994 "The Senate: Election Slate Full of Close Calls Puts Democratson the Edge," Congres?
sional QuarterlyWeekly
Report,52(4l):2996-2999.
906
International Migration Review
de la Garza, R. O.
1996 "The Effectsof PrimordialClaims, Immigration,and the VotingRightsAct on Mexi?
can-AmericanSociopoliticalIncorporation."In ThePoliticsofMinorityCoalitions:Race,
and SharedUncertainties.
Ed. W. C. Rich. Westport,CT: GreenwoodPress.
Ethnicity
de la Garza, R. O. et al.
on AmericanPolitics.Boul?
1992 Latino Voices:Mexican,PuertoRican and Cuban Perspectives
der,CO: WestviewPress.
DeSipio, L.
1999 "The Second Generation:PoliticalBehaviorsof Adult Childrenof Immigrantsin the
United States."Paper preparedforpresentationat the annual meetingof theAmerican
PoliticalScience Association.Atlanta.
1996a Countingon the Latino Voice:Latinos as a New Electorate.Charlottesville:University
Pressof Virginia.
1996b "Making Citizens or Good Citizens?Naturalizationas a Predictorof Organizational
and ElectoralBehavioramong Latino Immigrants,"HispanicJournalofBehavioralSci?
ences,18(2):194-213.
Espenshade,T. J. and H. Fu
AmericanSoci?
1997 "AnAnalysisofEnglish-LanguageProficiency
among U.S. Immigrants,"
ologicalReview,62 (2): 288-3 0 5.
Espiritu,Y. L.
1992 Asian-American
Philadelphia,PA: Temple UniversityPress.
Panethnicity.
Fishman,J.
1972 The SociologyofLanguage.Rowley,MA: NewburyHouse.
Foerstel,K.
1998 "Senate Hopefuls' Trial By Fire," Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report,
56(28):1860-1864.
Frey,W H.
1996 "Immigration,Domestic Migrationand Demographic Balkanizationin America:New
Evidence forthe 1990s," Popidationand DevelopmentReview,22(4):74l-763.
Fulwood, S.
1998 "Decision '98: The Final Count," Los AngelesTimes,November5, p. 2.
Gans, H.
1992 "Second-GenerationDecline: Scenarios forthe Economic and Ethnic Futuresof the
Post 1965 AmericanImmigrants,"Ethnicand Racial Studies, 15(2): 173?192.
Glastris,P. et al.
1997 "ImmigrationBoomerang,"U.S. News and World Report.March 17
Greenblatt,A.
1996 "Open GovernorshipsProvidea Measure of Suspense," Congressional
QuarterlyWeekly
Report,54(40):2961-2963.
Greenblatt,A. and R. Wells
1996 "Senate Elections: Still Anybody's Call," CongressionalQuarterlyWeeklyReport,
54(40):2954-2959.
Immigrant Incorporation and Political Participation in the U. S.
907
Guendelman,S. et al.
1990 "GenerationalDifferencesin PerinatalHealth among the Mexican AmericanPopula?
tion: FindingsfromHHANES 1982-84," AmericanJournalofPublicHealth,80:61-65.
Hansen, M. L.
A Republication
1987 TheProble?noftheThirdGeneration
ofthe1937 Addresswith
Immigrant:
Introductions
by PeterKivistoand Oscar Handlin. Rock Island, IL: Swenson Swedish
ImmigrationResearchCenterand AugustanaCollege Library.
Rock Island, IL: Augustana Historical
1938 The Problemof Third GenerationImmigrants.
Society.
Hill, K. and D. Moreno
1996 "Second-GenerationCubans," HispanicJournalofBehavioralSciences,18(2): 175-193.
Hero, R. E. and A. G. Campbell
1996 "UnderstandingLatino PoliticalParticipation."HispanicJournalofBehavioralSciences,
18(2):1129-141.
Jennings,K. and R. Niemi
and Politics:A Panel StudyofYoungAdultsand TheirParents.Princeton,NJ:
1981 Generations
PrincetonUniversityPress.
M.
Jones-Correa,
in New YorkCity.
1998 BetweenTwoNations:The PoliticalLifeofLatin AmericanImmigrants
Ithaca,NY: Cornell UniversityPress.
Junn,J.
1999 "Participationin LiberalDemocracy:The PoliticalAssimilationof Immigrantsand Eth?
nic Minoritiesin the United States,"AmericanBehavioralScientist,
42(9): 1417-1438.
Kahn, J. R.
1994 "Immigrantand Native Fertility
duringthe 1980s: Adaptationand Expectationsforthe
Future,"International
MigrationReview,28(3):501?519Kellstedt,L.
1974 "Ethnicityand Political Behavior: Inter-Groupand Inter-GenerationalDifferences,"
(1):393-415.
Ethnicity,
Key,V. O.
1949 SouthernPoliticsin Stateand Nation. New York:A. A. Knopf.
Lamare,J.W
1982 "The PoliticalIntegrationof Mexican-AmericanChildren:A GenerationalAnalysis,"
International
MigrationReview,16(1):169?188.
Liang, Z.
1994 "Social Contact, Social Capital and the NaturalizationProcess: Evidence from Six
23(4):407-437.
ImmigrantGroups," Social ScienceResearch,
Lien, P.
1998 "Does the Gender Gap in Attitudesand BehaviorVaryacrossRacial Groups?"Political
ResearchQuarterly,
51(4):869-895.
1997 The PoliticalParticipationofAsian-Americans:
VotingBehaviorin SouthernCalifornia.
New York:Garland Publishing.
908
International Migration Review
Lopez, D. E.
1999 "Social and LinguisticAspectsofAssimilationToday." In TheHandbookofInternation?
Ed. C. Hirschman,P. Kasinitzand J. DeWind.
al Migration? TheAmericanExperience.
New York:RussellSage Foundation.
McDonnell, P. and G. Ramos
1996 "LatinosMake StrongShowingat the Polls," TheLos AngelesTimes,November8.
Mollenkopf,J.,T. Ross and D. Olson
1999 "ImmigrantPoliticalParticipationin New Yorkand Los Angeles."New York:Centerfor
Urban Research,City Universityof New York.
Miller,W E. and J. M. Shanks
1996 TheNew AmericanVoter.Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversityPress.
Nakanishi,D. T.
1986 "The UCLA Asian PacificAmericanVoter RegistrationStudy." Los Angeles: Asian
PacificAmericanLegal Center.
Neal, T. and R. Morin
1998 "For Voters,It's Back towardthe Middle," The Washington
Post,November5.
Oliver,J. E.
and PartyActivityon AbsenteeVotingand Over?
1996 "The Effectsof EligibilityRestrictions
all Turnout,"AmericanJournalofPoliticalScience,40(2):498-513.
Pantoja,A. and G. Segura
2000 "Citizensby Choice, Votersby Necessity:Patternsin PoliticalMobilizationby Natural?
ized Latinos." Paper preparedforpresentationat the annual meetingof the Midwest
PoliticalScience Association.Chicago.
Portes,A. and D. MacLeod
1999 "Educating the Second Generation:Determinantsof Academic Achievementamong
Childrenof Immigrantsin the United States,"JournalofEthnicand MigrationStudies,
25(3):373-396.
Portes,A. and R. Mozo
1985 "The PoliticalAdaptationProcessof Cubans and Other EthnicMinoritiesin the Unit?
ed States:A Preliminary
Analysis,"International
MigrationReview,19(l):35-63.
Portes,A. and R. G. Rumbaut
America:A Portrait,SecondEdition.Berkeley,CA: Universityof California
1996 Immigrant
Press.
Portes,A. and M. Zhou
1993 "The New Second Generation:SegmentedAssimilationand ItsVariants,"Annalsofthe
AmericaAcademyofPoliticaland Social Science,530:74?96.
Presser,S., M. W Traugottand S. Traugott
1990 "Vote 'Over' Reportingin Surveys:The Recordsor the Respondents."TechnicalReport
No. 39, National Election Study.<http://www.umich.edu/^nes/>
Rosenstone,S. J. and M. Hansen
and Democracyin America.New York:Macmillan Publishing
1993 Mobilization,Participation
Company.
Rumbaut,R.
1997 "Assimilationand Its Discontents:BetweenRhetoricand Reality,"International
Migra?
tionReview,31(4):923-960.
Immigrant Incorporation and Political Participation in the U. S.
909
Scales,A.
1998 "Blacks,Especiallyin South,Answeredthe Democrats' Call," BostonGlobe,November
5, p. A34.
Schachar,R. and B. Nalebuff
1999 "FollowtheLeader:Theoryand Evidenceon PoliticalParticipation,"TheAmericanEco?
nomicReview,89(3):525-547.
E. E.
Schattschneider,
New York:Holt, Rinehartand
1960 The Semi-Sovereign
People:A RealistsViewofDemocracy.
Winston.
Shaw, D., R. O. de la Garza and J. Lee
2000 "Examining Latino Turnout in 1996: A Three-State,Validated SurveyApproach,"
AmericanJournalofPoliticalScience,44(2):338-346.
Stevens,G.
1992 "The Social and DemographicContextof Language Use in the United States,"Ameri?
can SociologicalReview,57(2):171?185.
Uhlaner,C, B. Cain and R. Kiewiet
1989 "Political Participation of Ethnic Minorities in the 1980s," Political Behavior,
11(3):195-231.
United StatesGeneralAccountingOffice
1997 "Bilingual Voting Assistance- AssistanceProvided and Costs." GAO-GGD-97-81.
May.
United StatesImmigrationand NaturalizationService
1999 September
FY1999 YearEnd Report.Washington,DC: United StatesImmigrationand
NaturalizationService.
Verba,S. and N. H. Nie
1972 Participationin America.Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.
Verba,S., K. L. Schlozman and H. E. Brady
1995 Voiceand Equality.Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversityPress.
White,M. J. and A. Omer
1997 "Segregationby Ethnicityand ImmigrantStatus in New Jersey."In Keysto Successful
Ed. T. J. Espenshade.Washington,DC: Urban InstitutePress.
Immigration.
Wolfinger,R. E. and Ss. J. Rosenstone
1980 Who Votes?New Haven: Yale UniversityPress.
Wong,J.
2000 "InstitutionalContext and PoliticalMobilization among Mexican and Chinese Immi?
grantsin New York and Los Angeles." Paper presentedforpresentationat the annual
meetingof theAmericanPoliticalScience Association.Washington,DC.
Yang, P.Q.
1994 "Examining Immigrant Naturalization," International Migration Review,
28(3):449-477.
Yoachum,S.
1996 "Clinton Seems to Have Enough ElectoralVotes," San FranciscoChronicle.November
l,p.A3.
Zhou, M.
1997 "SegmentedAssimilation:Issues, Controversiesand Recent Researchon the New Sec?
ond Generation,"International
MigrationReview,31(4):975-1008.