Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies
ISSN: 1369-183X (Print) 1469-9451 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjms20
Beyond the ballot box: age-at-arrival, civic
institutions and political participation among
Latinos
Van C. Tran
To cite this article: Van C. Tran (2016): Beyond the ballot box: age-at-arrival, civic institutions
and political participation among Latinos, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, DOI:
10.1080/1369183X.2016.1194745
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2016.1194745
Published online: 08 Jun 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 75
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjms20
Download by: [Columbia University Libraries]
Date: 15 December 2016, At: 14:21
JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES, 2016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2016.1194745
Beyond the ballot box: age-at-arrival, civic institutions and
political participation among Latinos
Van C. Tran
Department of Sociology, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
ABSTRACT
ARTICLE HISTORY
Sociologists mostly treat age-at-arrival as a dichotomous variable
whereas economists often approach it as a continuous variable.
This article extends this debate by addressing a set of political
behaviours that has mostly been the purview of political scientists.
Analysing restricted, geocoded data from the National Survey of
Latinos on Politics and Civic Participation, this article examines
how age-at-arrival and civic institutions shape political
participation among Latino immigrants. Logistic regression and
random effects models suggest three key findings. First, age-atarrival has a strong impact on participation, with child arrivals
showing the highest level of participation and midlife arrivals
reporting the lowest level of participation. Second, there are no
ethnic differences in the likelihood of participating in nonelectoral politics among Latinos. Third, involvements with civic
institutions significantly shape political participation, confirming
these institutions’ potential role in cultivating political efficacy and
participatory skills. At the same time, the impact of civic
organisations on political participation is contingent on both the
type of organisation and the immigrant’s age-at-arrival, with
ethnic organisations playing an important role in the political
resocialisation process. Finally, ethnic concentration at the county
has limited positive impact on political participation.
Received 16 December 2015
Accepted 23 May 2016
KEYWORDS
Age-at-arrival; civic
institutions; political
participation; integration;
Hispanic/Latino
Introduction
The 2016 presidential primaries in the United States have once again highlighted the central
role of Latino politics in American politics. Among a crowded field of Republican presidential
contenders, Donald Trump has emerged as the presumptive nominee despite his incendiary
remarks that characterised Latinos, especially Mexicans, as ‘criminals’ and ‘rapists’. At the
same time, pundits have been writing about the paradox of ‘Latinos for Trump’ – individuals
of Latino descent who support Trump despite his public anti-immigration stance because they
believe in his message about job creation and a more secured American future (Navarrette
2016). The other two front-runners in the Republican primaries were Senator Ted Cruz
and Senator Marco Rubio, both of Latino descent, who together won more than half of the
Republican vote in the Iowa caucuses in February, 2016. And yet, both do not fit conventional
definitions of a ‘Latino candidate’ because neither claim to speak for the Latino community
CONTACT Van C. Tran
[email protected]
© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2
V. C. TRAN
nor base much of their political ideology on their Latino identity (Suro 2016). While these
examples highlight the contradictions and complexities behind Latinos as an emerging
voting bloc, this exclusive focus on Latino voting participation during presidential election
cycles misses the substantial forms of non-voting participation among non-citizen Latinos
in local communities across the country.
Moving beyond the voting booth, this article examines how Latino immigrants are integrated into the civic and political sphere. Specifically, this article addresses two related questions using restricted, geocoded data from the 2004 National Survey of Latinos: Politics and
Civic Participation (hereinafter 2004 NSL). First, how does age-at-arrival affect political
participation? Second, what roles do civic institutions play in cultivating political participation? These questions are important in light of the transformations that have taken
place in American politics as a direct result of the growing Latino population. This emerging
Latino electorate has captured the attention of both politicians and academic researchers,
precisely because of its potential to influence national and local election outcomes if
Latinos were to form a coherent voting bloc (de la Garza 2004; Espino, Leal, and Meier
2007; Fraga et al. 2010). One example of the community’s growing political presence was
the immigration marches in spring 2006. Millions of immigrants – the majority of whom
were Latinos – took to the streets to stage their protest to the Border Protection, Anti-terrorism and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 (or the Sensenbrenner bill), which proposed treating undocumented status as a criminal felony (Voss and Bloemraad 2011). From
Seattle to Los Angeles, media coverage of the marches included images of rallies with protesters holding the popular placard ‘Today We March, Tomorrow We Vote’. The widespread street marches not only epitomised the Latinos’ increasing demographic presence,
but also pointed to their potential weight and influence in American politics.
Indeed, Latino demographic growth has been striking. First, the size of the Latino population as a proportion of the U.S. population has grown from 3.6% in 1960 to 16.3% in
2010. It is also projected to grow to 22.5% or one in four Americans by 2030 (Tienda
and Mitchell 2006). Second, the size of the Latino population as a percentage of the American electorate has almost doubled from 6.1% in 1996 to 10.8% in 2012 (File 2013). In both
the 2008 and 2012 elections, Latinos’ solid support for President Barack Obama played a
key role in determining the outcomes in many battleground states from Florida to North
Carolina. Looking ahead, the competition for the Latino vote is a priority that has shaped
political discussion from both Democratic and Republican parties in the 2016 election.
More generally, understanding Latino political participation is central to the study of
both American and minority politics (Barreto and Segura 2014; Segura and Rodrigues
2006; Espino, Leal, and Meier 2007; Junn and Haynie 2008).
Theoretically, this article adopts a life-course perspective to provide one of the first analyses of the impact of age-at-arrival on Latino political participation. Although previous
research has noted the importance of age-at-arrival in shaping the socioeconomic adaptations of first-generation immigrants (Rumbaut 2004; Myers, Gao, and Emeka 2009;
Lee and Edmonston 2011), legal consciousness among the undocumented (Abrego
2011) and propensity to naturalise (Peters, Vink, and Schmeets 2016), these studies
have not examined the gradient of age-at-arrival on political participation. This study
extends this literature by shifting attention away from cultural and socioeconomic dimensions into the realm of politics. Whether immigrants arrive in the United States as children
or as young adults has implications for their participation because age-at-arrival
JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES
3
determines the balance of political socialisation and resocialisation they receive in their
host and home country (Peters, Vink, and Schmeets 2016). Specifically, this article disaggregates the first generation into four categories based on their age-at-arrival: child arrivals
(i.e. before the age of 12), teen arrivals (i.e. between the ages of 12 and 18), adult arrivals
(i.e. between the ages of 19 and 35) and midlife arrivals (i.e. after the age 35). The decision
to use this four-category schema is in keeping with three prior studies that advocated for a
more refined understanding of the effect of age-at-arrival (Rumbaut 2004; Myers, Gao,
and Emeka 2009; Lee and Edmonston 2011), while also taking into consideration the availability of data and sample size in the 2004 NSL.
Substantively, this article examines how institutional involvements and Latino concentration shape political participation among four Latino groups: Mexicans, Cubans, Puerto
Ricans and ‘other Latinos’ (i.e. a residual group). Because many studies have focused on
voting behaviours, this article focuses on forms of political participation beyond the
ballot box. These non-electoral activities include attending public and political rallies, fundraising and working on a campaign, contacting elected officials, etc. Although many firstgeneration Latinos are not eligible to vote because they lack citizenship status, they can
engage in these non-electoral forms of participation (Fraga et al. 2010; Pearson-Merkowitz
2012). These political activities are not only open to all Latinos, but also encompass a
broader range of political behaviours.
Instead of focusing on political integration, this article shifts the lens towards the
process political socialisation and resocialisation, which occurs within a particular civic
organisational context (Bloemraad 2006; Tran et al. 2013; de Graauw 2016). This
process of political (re)-socialisation centres on cultivating norms of political participation, which includes both the beliefs in the importance of participation, the sense of political efficacy, the development of civic habits and the acquisition of skillsets that facilitate
meaningful participation. Age-at-arrival is central to this socialisation process and the
impact is especially pronounced among those who arrived in the U.S. at a young age.
Age-at-arrival is also a key predictor of acculturation, English language acquisition, socioeconomic attainment and cultural familiarity with the American political system.
Although immigrants who arrived later in life might have more developed beliefs about
the meaning and impact of their participation, they are also open to changing these
beliefs if they encounter a social context that provides them with the opportunity to cultivate these skillsets. Focusing on the organisational context in which immigrants are
embedded, this article differentiates how participation varies across four different types
of civic organisations: religious groups, educational groups, community groups and
ethnic associations. The focus on civic institutions helps clarify the process through
which immigrants learn how to participate in American politics by highlighting the importance of these institutions in facilitating civic learning and participatory skills.
Theoretical background
From electoral to non-electoral political participation
Given the centrality of participation to American democracy, political incorporation is an
important dimension of assimilation and a prerequisite for full integration into American
society. Five decades into the post-1965 immigration, scholars have explored patterns of
4
V. C. TRAN
civic and political participation among immigrants and their offspring (Gerstle and Mollenkopf 2001; Ramakrishnan 2005; Lee, Ramakrishnan, and Ramírez 2006; Wong 2006;
Hochschild and Mollenkopf 2009). Specifically, scholarship on Latino politics has
brought renewed attention to the role that Latinos might play in both local and national
elections (DeSipio 1996; de la Garza 2004). This body of research has also documented the
relatively low turnout rates among Latinos, the variation in voting behaviour across Latino
groups, the emergence of a Latino community and the potential for coalition building with
other minority groups (Espino, Leal, and Meier 2007; Fraga et al. 2010).
Other studies in this tradition have focused on the determinants of and variations in
naturalisation rates across groups in different contexts (Bloemraad 2006; Bueker 2006;
Aptekar 2015). Though naturalisation is an important first step in making politically
active citizens, it does not always lead to political mobilisation or equity in the voting
booth. Other scholars have focused on how voting registration and turnout might differ
between naturalised citizens and natives (DeSipio 1996) or across ethnic/racial groups
(Junn 1999; Ramakrishnan 2005). Among Latinos, a population increase has not translated into an increase in Latino voter turnout rates because many Latino immigrants
are non-citizens and/or are under the legal voting age of 18.
The majority of prior studies on Latino politics have focused on voting behaviours
(DeSipio 1996; de la Garza 2004; Espino, Leal, and Meier 2007). Although voting continues to be the primary means through which individuals participate in politics, it is
restricted to citizens and does not adequately capture the range of political activities
that many first-generation Latinos routinely engage in, from attending community meetings to marching in the streets (Martínez 2005). Theoretically, Lee et al. (2006) pointed to
the need to move beyond the narrow purview of voting turnout, ethnic representation and
minority coalitions in our understanding of political incorporation because other forms of
participation potentially matter more for the day-to-day lives of many immigrants. For
example, Junn (1999) found that although immigrants may be less likely to participate
in activities such as voting, they are just as likely as natives to participate in ‘direct’ political
activities such as protests. Barreto and Muñoz (2003) also found that foreign-born Mexicans were no less active than natives in attending a rally, volunteering for a campaign or
donating money to a political cause. Non-voting behaviours can be as meaningful as
voting in incorporating newcomers and providing them with opportunities to cultivate
civic skills that promote integration (Wong 2006).
Age-at-arrival and political socialisation
Another robust literature has documented the importance of immigrant generation in
shaping the cultural, political and socioeconomic assimilation of immigrants and their
descendants (Portes and Rumbaut 2001; Alba and Nee 2003; Kasinitz et al. 2008; Hochschild and Mollenkopf 2009; Tran and Valdez 2015). The overall trajectory has been intergenerational progress for most ethnic groups in both the historical and contemporary
periods. This article asks a related, but different, question: how does age-at-arrival
matter for political participation among Latino immigrants? Age-at-arrival indicates
variation among the immigrant first generation by further dividing them into the 1.75generation, the 1.5-generation and the 1.25-generation, indicating those who arrived in
the U.S. before age six, twelve and eighteen, respectively (Rumbaut 2004). Theoretically,
JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES
5
age-at-arrival captures differential levels of socialisation and acculturation between the
host and home societies by incorporating a life-course perspective into the study of participation (Peters, Vink, and Schmeets 2016). Empirically, age-at-arrival is correlated with
many, though not all, measures of socioeconomic outcomes, including educational and
occupational attainments, poverty, homeownership and English proficiency (Rumbaut
2004; Myers, Gao, and Emeka 2009; Lee and Edmonston 2011).
Both assimilation and political socialisation theories would predict higher levels of
participation among those arriving at early ages compared to those arriving at later
ages. This is simply because those arriving in the United States at an early age will
have more opportunities to interact with and to learn from the American political
system over their life course. Substantively, disaggregating the first generation into subgroups based on age-at-arrival takes into consideration two different experiences: (1)
socialisation into and familiarity with American institutions, and (2) knowledge and
balance of home country vs. host-country politics (de la Garza 2004). At the same
time, there is the possibility of political resocialisation upon arrival in the U.S., especially
among ethnic groups who came from political regimes where their freedom and political
voices were curtailed or limited. For these groups, their propensity to participate might
increase upon arrival in the U.S., especially among adult and midlife arrivals because
they are more likely to have vivid memories of home country politics as well as appreciate the contrast between the lack of opportunity to participate in their home country and
the abundance of opportunity to engage in the U.S. More broadly, this article addresses
the questions raised by Myers, Gao, and Emeka (2009, 211): ‘for what outcomes and at
what age(s) does age-at-arrival matter?’ Put differently, does age-at-arrival matter for
political participation as it does for language proficiency, educational and occupational
attainment? As Myers, Gao, and Emeka (2009) have observed, sociologists mostly
treated age-at-arrival as a dichotomous variable whereas economists approached it as
a continuous variable. This article extends this debate by addressing a set of political
behaviours that has mostly been the purview of political scientists, while borrowing
well-established concepts and methods from within the sociology and economics of
immigration.
Civic organisations and political resocialisation
How do institutional involvements shape participation among Latinos? Are certain types
of institutions more effective in promoting participation? A strand of scholarship on participation has emphasised the importance of civic associations in making good citizens
and in strengthening American democracy (Putnam 2000). More generally, civic institutions matter because they provide opportunities for the cultivation of skills, promotion
of political discussions, unintentional political socialisation, political learning and targeted
recruitment (Bloemraad 2006; Wong 2006; Lim 2008; Baggetta 2009). One reason Latino
immigrants participate at a lower rate compared to natives might be their lower level of
organisational connectedness. For example, Ramakrishnan and Bloemraad (2008) find
that immigrants are not only connected to fewer organisations than natives, but the organisations they are part of tend to be more marginalised and do not garner much attention
from elected officials. Similarly, Marrow (2009) highlights the role of ‘bureaucratic incorporation’ by showing that immigrants are increasingly being integrated by local
6
V. C. TRAN
bureaucratic institutions in the American South. More importantly, bureaucrats in different institutional spheres responded to Hispanic newcomers with different levels of inclusiveness, with public schools and healthcare services being the most inclusive and law
enforcement and court systems being the least inclusive.
Other qualitative case studies have also shown that civic institutions are instrumental in
facilitating immigrant incorporation by promoting higher levels of naturalisation, voting
turnouts and non-voting participation. In her study of Portuguese and Vietnamese in
Toronto and Boston, Bloemraad (2006) argued that immigrants must mobilise themselves
to be politically incorporated – a process that she referred to as ‘structured mobilisation’
(i.e. political learning and mobilisation that are nested in the social organisation of both
the ethnic and mainstream communities). Specifically, she highlighted the role of institutional arrangements and governmental policies in providing immigrants with the
resources to organise and mobilise. In a case study of Mexicans and Chinese in
New York and Los Angeles, Wong (2006) also documented the centrality of community
organisations in involving new immigrants in politics. In the absence of political party
machines’ outreach at the local level, civic institutions – labour organisations, social services agencies, ethnic and religious associations – played an increasingly important role in
mobilising new immigrants for both political and apolitical causes.
Put differently, organisations can serve as one key mechanism that promotes participation. In her qualitative study, Mora, (2013) finds that small prayer groups in churches
provide immigrants with an intimate environment in which to build social networks, to
learn concrete skills and to share resources. In addition, churches connect immigrants
to other secular organisations that inform immigrants about public debates and facilitate
further engagements. Similarly, Morales and Ramiro (2011) document the importance of
migrants’ organisational and social capital in shaping participation in Spain. Drawing on
interview data from San Francisco, de Graauw (2016) also shows that non-profits not only
help immigrants develop civic skills and foster their political interests, but also mobilise
them for political participation. Finally, civic participation is habit-forming and starts at
an early age. For example, McFarland and Thomas (2006) found that participation in
voluntary groups – from belonging to the debate team and the student council to being
part of the school orchestra and playing team sports – significantly increased students’
propensity to vote, volunteer in a civic or community organisation, work for a political
campaign or become a member of political organisations in young adulthood.
Hypotheses
The political socialisation perspective suggests that the development of political attitudes,
orientations, behaviours, interests and activism tends to occur during the formative years.
These formative years are consequential because one’s political orientation is least stable
and most in flux, lending an opportunity for the social context to shape political participation. Because political participation is highly habit-forming, these earlier experiences of
participation are likely to have a life-long effect on participation. Therefore, we would
expect child and teen arrivals to participate at a higher rate compared to adult and
midlife arrivals because they are more likely to be socialised in the U.S. context, to be familiar with U.S. political institutions, to have higher socioeconomic status in adulthood and
to be proficient in English. In contrast, adult arrivals and midlife arrivals spent their
JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES
7
formative years outside of the U.S. and were socialised in a different political system that
might not be as conducive to participation.
Hypothesis 1: Child and teen arrivals are more likely than adult and midlife arrivals to participate in political activities in the U.S.
As a counterargument, there is the possibility of political resocialisation upon arrival in
the U.S. This is the case especially among those who might have grown up in countries that
did not provide opportunities for meaningful political engagement (i.e. communist
regimes such as Cuba). As a result, they not only appreciate the opportunity to be part
of the political system in the U.S., but also strongly embrace it when given the chance
to do so. This also points to the role of political system in country of origin in shaping
participation in the U.S. (Bloemraad 2006).
Hypothesis 2: Among Latinos, Cubans participate at higher rates compared to Mexicans and
Puerto Ricans because they came from a political regime that did not promote participation.
At the same time, the political socialisation and resocialisation perspectives have not
been attentive to the civic context in which this political (re)-socialisation process
occurs. This insight builds on an emerging body of work that highlights the importance
of organisational context in shaping participation (Aptekar 2009; Mora, 2013; Tran
et al. 2013; de Graauw 2016). The organisational context in which immigrants are
embedded can help them overcome their initial participatory disadvantage, especially
among immigrants who arrived later in life. Specifically, community and ethnic organisations not only connect recently arrived co-ethnics to relevant political resources, but also
supply them with the political knowledge to participate.
Hypothesis 3: Involvements with civic organizations should promote political participation.
Specifically, the impact of civic involvement on political participation is stronger among adult
and midlife arrivals compared to child and teen arrivals.
Broader residential and policy context also matters (Filindra, Blanding, and Coll 2011).
On the one hand, ethnic concentration can render ethnic communities insular and limits
immigrants’ exposure to the mainstream (Huntington 2004). On the other hand, ethnic
communities can be helpful in giving immigrants access to other co-ethnics who might
have the information to help facilitate the process of integration (Fraga et al. 2010). For
example, Abascal (2015) finds that concentration of naturalised co-ethnics positively
predict naturalisation among Latinos because co-ethnic social networks serve as conduits
for information dissemination and provide the immigrants with a sense of belonging.
Hypothesis 4: Latino immigrants in counties with higher concentrations of Hispanic and
Spanish-speaking population are more likely to engage in political participation.
Data and methods
The 2004 National Survey of Latinos was a telephone survey with a stratified random
sample of Hispanic/Latino adults conducted by the Pew Hispanic Center and the
Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation to collect information from both Latino voters and
non-voters on respondents’ beliefs in the political system, interests in the political
process, perceived and actual experiences of discrimination, civic and political
8
V. C. TRAN
involvements. It was conducted by telephone between 21 April and 9 June 2004 among a
nationally representative sample of 2288 Latino adults, 18 years and older, who were
selected at random. Latinos were identified based on the question ‘Are you, yourself, of
Hispanic or Latino origin or descent, such as Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Dominican,
Central or South American, Caribbean, or some other Latin background?’ Representatives
of the Pew Hispanic Center and The Kaiser Family Foundation worked together to
develop the survey questionnaire and analyse the results. International Communications
Research of Media, PA conducted the fieldwork in either English or Spanish, based on the
respondent’s preference. The sample design employed a highly stratified disproportionate
RDD sample of the 48 contiguous states. The 2004 NSL data has three key advantages.
First, it gathers extensive information on respondents’ involvement with civic institutions
and participation in a wide range of political activities. Second, it contains information on
nativity and migration history to disaggregate the immigrant first generation into subgroups based on age-at-arrival into the United States. Third, the restricted version contains geocoded information on the counties where the respondents live, which allows
for the merging of county-level census characteristics from the decennial census to
capture the geographical context in which the respondents live. The final sample in this
analysis includes 1436 first-generation immigrants from 236 counties. The analysis
excludes second- and later-generation Latinos because the main goal is to assess how
age-at-arrival affects political participation.
Dependent variables
The dependent variables include six dichotomous indicators of political participation: (1)
attending a public demonstration or meeting, (2) contacting any elected officials, (3)
attending a political party meeting, (4) working for a political campaign, (5) making a
campaign donation and (6) a composite index on whether the respondent participates
in any of the above five activities. Specifically, respondents were asked if they had participated in any of the five activities listed above, among a battery of other measures of voting
and volunteering activities. One example of a survey question is as follows: ‘People express
their opinions about politics and current events in a number of ways. In the United States,
in the past year have you attended a public meeting or demonstration in the community
where you live, or not?’ The response categories include: (1) yes; (2) no; (3) don’t know;
and (4) refused. Altogether, these measures capture a range of non-electoral political behaviours that all immigrants can and do participate in regardless of immigration status.
Whereas citizenship status is a prerequisite for voting, these outcomes seek to broaden
the spectrum of participatory activities common among immigrants.
Independent variables
The key independent variable is age-at-arrival which is coded into four categories based on
respondents’ nativity and age-at-arrival in the United States. Following Rumbaut (2004)
and Myers, Gao, and Emeka (2009), this article divides the immigrant first generation
into four subgroups: (1) those arriving before the age of 12 (i.e. child arrivals), (2) those
arriving between the ages of 12 and 18 (i.e. teen arrivals), (3) those arriving between
the ages of 19 and 35 (i.e. adult arrivals) and (4) those arriving after the age of 35
JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES
9
(midlife arrivals). Those who arrived before the age of 12 are used as the reference group
because their experiences are closest to the second generation.
A unique strength of the 2004 NSL dataset is the availability of multiple measures of
institutional involvements to capture how participation is shaped across institutional contexts. Another set of variables captures the respondents’ institutional involvement. This
includes four dichotomous measures of respondents’ involvements in four different
domains: church or religious groups; school or tutoring programmes; neighbourhood,
business or community groups; and ethnic and racial organisations. One example of
the survey question is as follows: ‘I would like to talk with you about volunteer (spending
time helping without being paid for it) activity. In the past year have you volunteered your
time to any church or religious group?’
Control variables
In addition, the models control for a set of background characteristics, including respondents’ age, ethnicity, gender, education, income, marital and employment status, number
of children under 18, religious affiliation and political party identification, language proficiency, perceived discrimination against Latinos as a group, and actual experiences of
discrimination and interest in transnational politics. For ethnicity, Mexican is used as
the reference group. Language proficiency was coded based on an individual’s ability to
read, write, understand and speak English and Spanish and contains three categories:
(1) English dominant; (2) Spanish dominant and (3) Fluently bilingual. Two dichotomous
variables for ‘English dominant’ and for ‘fluently bilingual’ were included in the final
model. Perceived discrimination against Latinos was measured on a three-point scale in
response to the question: ‘do you think discrimination against Latinos is a major
problem, minor problem, or not a problem in preventing Latinos in general from succeeding in America?’ (1 = Not a problem; 2 = A minor problem and 3 = A major problem). Personal experience with discrimination was a dichotomous variable based on the following
question: ‘In the past 5 years, have you or a family member experienced discrimination?’
Descriptive statistics for all variables are available in the Appendix.
The inclusion of these control variables is theoretically anticipated. Standard accounts of
political participation point to the importance of socioeconomic resources, psychological
engagement and interpersonal mobilisation as key predictors of participation (Verba, Schlozman, and Brady 1996). Among the immigrant population, English proficiency and citizenship status, coupled with a low sense of political efficacy, account for the relatively low
level of participation in both voting and non-voting activities among Latinos (de la Garza
2004; Ramakrishnan 2005; Tienda and Mitchell 2006). In addition, perceived or actual
experiences of discrimination often affect participation, because these experiences strengthen
the sense of ‘linked fate’ or ‘reactive ethnicity’ among Latinos (Martínez 2005).
One migration-specific variable – length of U.S. residency – is not included because it is
linearly dependent with both age and age-at-arrival. Though previous studies have found
that length of residency is a positive predictor of participation (Ramakrishnan and Espenshade 2001; Ramakrishnan 2005; Wong 2006), its effect on participation is indirect and
mediated by other covariates in the model, such as education, income, employment,
English proficiency and institutional involvements, all of which will be controlled for in
the multivariate models.
10
V. C. TRAN
Analytic methods
To explore individual determinants of participation, a series of two logistic regression
models was applied to each outcome and odds ratios were reported for ease of interpretation of results. The first model includes only age-at-arrival as a predictor to explore variations within the immigrant first generation. The second model includes other observable
covariates. These two multivariate models are as followed:
Yi = b0 + b1 A + 1i ,
(1)
Yi = b0 + b1 A + b2 O + bi Xi + 1i ,
(2)
where Yi is the dichotomous outcome of interest for respondent i; A is age-at-arrival; O is
organisational involvement; Xi is the vector of control variables for respondent i; and εi is
the error term for respondent i. For parsimony, the tables with the multivariate results
present only odds ratios for age-at-arrival, ethnicity and institutional involvements.
Because organisational participation might either magnify the higher level of political
participation among child and teen arrivals or compensate for the lower level of political
participation among adult and midlife arrivals, the following model tests for the interactions between age-at-arrival and organisational participation in which A*O is the interaction term.
Yi = b0 + b1 A + b2 O + b3 A∗O + bi Xi + 1i .
(3)
To explore contextual determinants of participation, the following models introduce
random effect at the county level. The individual level, the county level and the combined
models are as followed:
Yij = b0 + b1 Aij + b2 Oij + bi Xij ,
(4)
b0 = g00 + g01 C0j + 10j ,
(5)
Yij = g00 + b1 Aij + b2 Oij + bi Xij + g01 C0j + 10j .
(6)
where Yij is the dichotomous outcome of interest for respondent i in county j; Xij is the
vector of control variables for respondent i in county j; C0j is a vector of county-level predictors; and ε0j is the county-level random effect, whereby counties are allowed to have
independent mean participation rates.
Results
Predicting political participation
Table 1 presents the bivariate frequency of political activities by age-at-arrival. Overall,
13.9% of the sample attended a public demonstration,1 6.9% contacted an elected official,
5.1% attended a political meeting, 2.7% worked for a campaign, 3.8% made a political
donation and 20% reported participation in any of the five activities in the 12 months
prior to the survey. Attending a public demonstration is the most frequent activity and
is also the least formalised. In contrast, the other four political activities require either
more formal commitments or cultural and financial resources. Across the six measures,
JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES
11
child arrivals reported the highest level of participation. This is consistent with the view
that these individuals most resemble the immigrant second generation and are more
assimilated than the immigrant first generation. For the measure on public demonstration
and the composite index, the bivariate pattern is linear, with Latinos arriving later in life
reporting lower level of participation. For the remaining four measures, there is an advantage among child arrivals whereas adult and midlife arrivals generally report lower levels of
participation.
Table 2 presents multivariate results from the two nested logistic regression models for
the first three measures of participation. Overall, those arriving at a later age are less likely
than those arriving at an earlier age to be politically active. On likelihood of public demonstration attendance, Model 1 shows that both adult arrivals and midlife arrivals are 0.57
and 0.39 times less likely to attend one compared to those arriving before the age of 12.
Model 2 introduces institutional involvements, along with ethnic origin and other observable covariates as additional controls. Midlife arrivals are still significantly less likely than
child arrivals to participate in a public demonstration. Among the covariates, all four indicators of institutional involvements are significant predictors of participation. Those
reporting involvement with a voluntary group are also 1.6–2.6 times more likely to participate in a public demonstration. Among the control variables, personal experience with discrimination is a strong predictor for attendance at a public rally whereas perceived
discrimination against Latinos as a group has no significant effect. On likelihood of contacting elected officials, Model 3 shows that those arriving after the age of 12 are significantly less likely to do so, compared to those arriving before the age of 12. In Model 4,
these differences were explained away by observable covariates, especially measures of
institutional involvements. Controlling for all covariates, language barrier is an important
factor explaining the relatively lower rate of contacting elected officials among the firstgeneration: Latinos with English proficiency are twice as likely as those who are
Spanish dominant to do so. Education is positive and significant in explaining the
initial difference, because educated individuals are more likely to have the skills required
(Verba et al. 1996). On attendance of political meeting, we observe a similar pattern in
Model 5 with child arrivals reporting higher likelihood of participation, compared to
Table 1. Frequency of political activities by age-at-arrival.
Age-at-arrival
Second
generation
First generation
Child arrival
(0–11)
Teen arrival
(12–18)
Adult arrival
(18–35)
Midlife arrival
(35 plus)
Total of all
ages
Attend public
meeting
Contact
elected
official
Attend
political
meeting
Work for a
campaign
Make a
political
donation
Any political
behaviour
26.3 (5.6)
16.2 (1.6)
17.8 (2.9)
5.2 (0.7)
13.5 (1.1)
40.3 (1.0)
21.2 (1.4)
16.0 (5.4)
8.2 (2.1)
3.9 (1.4)
9.4 (1.2)
29.7 (2.0)
15.6 (3.3)
4.5 (1.0)
4.2 (1.6)
2.5 (1.5)
3.3 (0.9)
21.02 (3.5)
12.6 (0.4)
5.7 (1.0)
4.0 (0.5)
2.2 (0.8)
2.5 (0.7)
18.0 (0.8)
8.8 (1.3)
5.4 (2.6)
6.9 (2.9)
3.4 (1.4)
2.9 (1.1)
15.7 (3.0)
13.9 (1.2)
6.9 (0.5)
5.1 (0.7)
2.7 (0.5)
3.8 (0.6)
20.0 (1.3)
Source: 2004 National Survey of Latinos: Politics and Civic Engagement.
Notes: All numbers are percentages. Standard deviations in parentheses.
12
Table 2. Logistic regressions on political participation: demonstration, contact and political meeting.
Age-at-arrival
Teen arrival
Adult arrival
Midlife arrival
Ethnic origin
Puerto Rican
Cuban
Other Hispanic
Org. involvements
Church groups
Educational groups
Community groups
Ethnic associations
Other control variables
Age
Female
Education (in years)
Income (in thousands)
Married
Employed
No. of kids under 18
Catholic
Democrat
Republican
English dominant
Fluently bilingual
Group discrimination
Personal discrimination
Constant
N
Public meeting
Model 1
.660 (.152)
.570** (.111)
.385*** (.098)
.283*** (.045)
1436
Public meeting
Model 2
1.035 (.276)
.874 (.227)
.471* (.176)
Elected officials
Model 3
.453** (.127)
.403*** (.093)
.332*** (.099)
Elected officials
Model 4
1.026 (.342)
.984 (.304)
.433 (.204)
Political meetings
Model 5
.483* (.148)
.325*** (.087)
.461* (.141)
Political meetings
Model 6
.934 (.346)
.462* (.172)
.308* (.157)
.964 (.278)
1.154 (.291)
1.035 (.230)
1.425 (.468)
.814 (.267)
.838 (.247)
1.089 (.448)
1.276 (.446)
1.079 (.360)
1.639** (.282)
1.598* (.306)
2.575*** (.504)
2.104*** (.454)
1.399 (.311)
2.008** (.479)
2.530*** (.612)
2.040** (.536)
1.476 (.364)
1.933* (.514)
3.228*** (.868)
2.746*** (.774)
1.017** (.007)
.746 (.128)
.978 (.032)
1.000 (.002)
1.233 (.225)
1.578* (.321)
.759 (.140)
1.524* (.283)
1.335 (.287)
1.177 (.280)
1.363 (.528)
1.422 (.310)
1.125 (.124)
.642* (.117)
.050*** (.030)
1436
1.034*** (.008)
.538** (.121)
1.089* (.045)
1.006** (.002)
.838 (.196)
.970 (.252)
.909 (.217)
1.211 (.278)
2.668** (.900)
2.231* (.805)
2.955* (1.268)
1.870* (.515)
1.056 (.152)
.759 (.183)
.002*** (.002)
1436
1.037*** (.009)
.573* (.141)
.996 (.045)
1.003 (.003)
.674 (.172)
.953 (.277)
1.160 (.310)
1.550 (.408)
2.410* (.964)
3.467** (1.404)
2.230 (1.063)
.865 (.278)
1.195 (.186)
.911 (.254)
.003*** (.003)
1436
.203*** (.036)
1436
.155*** (.029)
1436
Source: 2004 National Survey of Latinos: Politics and Civic Engagement.
Notes: Standard errors in parentheses. Reference group for age-at-arrival is child arrival. Reference group for ethnicity is Mexican. Reference group for language proficiency is Spanish dominant.
*** p < .001.
**p < .01.
*p < .05
V. C. TRAN
Variables
JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES
13
those arriving after the age of 12. These differences were attenuated, but remained significant, in Model 6 after controlling for other observable covariates.
Table 3 presents multivariate results from the two nested logistic regression models for
the last two measures of participation and the composite index. On working for a political
campaign, adult arrivals are least likely to have participated whereas there is no difference
between child arrivals and midlife arrivals. Once again, involvement with civic institutions
significantly predicts campaign work, confirming Wong’s (2006, 197) observation that
civic institutions ‘bring people together, build trust between individuals, allow people to
share information, and instil citizens with democratic habits’. On making a political
donation, there is a consistent gradient: those arriving later in life are less likely to do
so in comparison to those arriving at a younger age. In contrast to the other political activities, institutional involvement does not predict political donation, suggesting that this is an
individual activity and is more closely linked to the availability of resources. Finally, the
composite measure shows a clear gradient with regards to age-at-arrival: those arriving
at a later age are more likely to have participated in any of the five political activities, compared to those arriving at a younger age.
Figure 1 presents the predicted probabilities of political participation by age-at-arrival
based on the results in Tables 2 and 3. The main pattern is clear: child arrivals reported the
highest level of participation across six indicators whereas midlife arrivals reported the
lowest level of involvement. The slope is steepest for participation in public demonstrations whereas it is more flat for participation in political meetings. For the summary
index, the predicted probability is highest among child and teen arrivals, about twice
the rate for midlife arrivals.
Age-at-arrival, institutional involvement and political participation
Table 4 summarises these results with regards to age-at-arrival, ethnic origin and the type
of institutional involvements. First, the findings on age-at-arrival are consistent with political socialisation theory and Hypothesis 1, which posits more familiarity with American
culture and political institutions among those arriving at an earlier age. More generally,
age-at-arrival matters for four reasons. First, it is a key predictor of socioeconomic attainment, which is positively correlated with political participation. Second, it is a key predictor of acculturation and familiarity with American institutions, which also facilitates
political participation. Third, it is a measure of political socialisation. Because many
Latino immigrants came from home countries where participatory democracy might
not have been the norm, this process of political learning becomes crucial in promoting
participation and the balance of political socialisation favours those who arrived in the
United States at an early age. Finally, it is a strong measure of English proficiency,
which has a direct impact of political socialisation and civic learning in the U.S.
Second, there are no differences across the different ethnic groups, lending no support
to Hypothesis 2. This is important in light of the clear differences in voting propensity that
has been documented across Latino groups (Fraga et al. 2010). For example, Cubans are
often the most active when it comes to electoral politics whereas Mexicans are least active
(de la Garza 2004). In contrast, the three major Latino ethnic groups do not differ significantly from each other in the likelihood of participating in non-electoral activities. This
also highlights the need to understand Latino political behaviours beyond the ballot box
14
Table 3. Logistic regressions on political participation: donation, campaign, and overall participation.
Age-at-arrival
Teen arrival
Adult arrival
Midlife arrival
Ethnic origin
Puerto Rican
Cuban
Other Hispanic
Org. involvements
Church groups
Educational groups
Community groups
Ethnic associations
Other control variables
Age
Female
Education (in years)
Income (in thousands)
Married
Employed
No. of kids under 18
Catholic
Democrat
Republican
English dominant
Fluently bilingual
Group discrimination
Personal discrimination
Constant
N
Campaign work
Model 1
.605 (.246)
.365** (.134)
.470 (.203)
.069*** (.019)
1436
Campaign work
Model 2
1.479 (.722)
.706 (.360)
.531 (.365)
Political donation
Model 3
Political donation
Model 4
Any Pol. Behaviour
Model 5
.500* (.147)
.282*** (.075)
.241*** (.087)
.977 (.343)
.510 (.181)
.151*** (.082)
.639* (.125)
.521*** (.0872)
.394*** (.0820)
Any Pol. Behaviour
Model 6
1.242 (.297)
.921 (.211)
.431** (.137)
1.092 (.537)
1.394 (.658)
.731 (.332)
1.845 (.744)
1.528 (.566)
1.774 (.633)
1.284 (.314)
1.172 (.257)
1.175 (.229)
1.444 (.472)
1.363 (.477)
2.693** (.996)
2.941** (1.067)
1.560 (.396)
1.248 (.358)
1.008 (.305)
1.505 (.504)
1.789***
1.957***
2.020***
2.872***
1.019 (.012)
1.063 (.352)
.910 (.058)
1.004 (.004)
.485* (.161)
1.224 (.477)
.855 (.295)
.639 (.208)
5.641** (3.600)
5.431** (3.559)
1.748 (1.129)
.828 (.352)
1.127 (.239)
.420* (.151)
.031** (.036)
1436
1.040*** (.009)
.895 (.224)
.980 (.045)
1.009*** (.003)
.791 (.209)
1.125 (.330)
.798 (.219)
1.195 (.309)
1.231 (.468)
2.744** (1.014)
2.866* (1.411)
1.993* (.647)
1.288 (.202)
.847 (.246)
.003*** (.003)
1436
1.024*** (.006)
.752 (.113)
.987 (.028)
1.004 (.002)
.998 (.155)
1.224 (.210)
.735 (.118)
1.290 (.203)
1.607* (.302)
1.816** (.368)
1.721 (.573)
1.511* (.284)
1.145 (.109)
.602** (.098)
.057*** (.030)
1436
.167*** (.031)
1436
.540*** (.075)
1436
(.267)
(.334)
(.365)
(.587)
Source: 2004 National Survey of Latinos: Politics and Civic Engagement.
Notes: Standard errors in parentheses. Reference group for age-at-arrival is child arrival. Reference group for ethnicity is Mexican. Reference group for language proficiency is Spanish dominant.
*** p < .001.
** p < .01.
* p < .05
V. C. TRAN
Variables
JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES
15
Figure 1. Predicted probabilities of political participation by activity among Latinos. Notes: Results are
based on the sample of first-generation Latino respondents. Predicted probabilities are based on multivariate models which controlled for all observable covariates specified in Tables 2 and 3. The age categories in the graph correspond to child-arrival, teen-arrival, adult-arrival and midlife-arrival Latinos.
Table 4. Key variables and their impact on political participation.
Child arrival
Teen arrival
Young adult
arrival
Midlife arrival
Mexican
Cuban
Puerto Rican
Other Hispanic
Religious
groups
Educational
groups
Community
groups
Ethnic
associations
Attend public
meeting
Contact
elected
official
Attend
Political
Meeting
Work for a
campaign
Make a political
donation
Any political
behaviour
Ref.
0
–
Ref.
0
0
Ref.
0
–
Ref.
0
0
Ref.
0
0
Ref.
0
0
–
Ref.
0
0
0
+
0
Ref.
0
0
0
0
–
Ref.
0
0
0
0
0
Ref.
0
0
0
0
–
Ref.
0
0
0
0
–
Ref.
0
0
0
+
+
+
+
0
0
+
+
+
+
+
0
+
+
+
+
+
0
+
Notes: These summaries are based on multivariate results in Tables 2 and 3. Specifically: ‘+’ denotes a significant, positive
effect. ‘–’ denotes a significant, negative effect. ‘0’ denotes no significant effect.
16
V. C. TRAN
because doing so will broaden the purview of their actual involvement and potential influence. Furthermore, these activities tend to be more inclusive of all Latinos, regardless of
ethnicity, social class and, most importantly, legal status.
Third, the multivariate analyses include four categories of involvement as predictors of
participation: religious groups, educational groups, community groups and ethnic associations. Because these civic institutions are non-political in nature, these findings would
suggest that institutional involvements provide Latinos with the opportunity to cultivate
civic and participatory skills. But which type of institutional involvements matter? On
the one hand, involvements with religious groups predict only attendance of public
meeting, but not other activities. On the other hand, involvements with community
groups and ethnic associations are predictive of four measures of political activities.
These results suggest that community and ethnic groups are fertile grounds for political
engagement, whereas the impact of religious groups is more limited. At the same time,
none of these measures of institutional involvements predicts political donation,
suggesting that the latter is a highly individualised activity.
Table 5 presents results from multivariate models that interact age of arrival with each
of the four types of organisational involvements. Across the six outcome measures, the
interaction terms are mostly not statistically significant for religious and educational
groups whereas they are significant for community organisations and ethnic associations.
For community groups, adult and midlife arrivals who participate in these groups are significantly less likely than child arrivals to attend rally and to do campaign work. For ethnic
organisations, midlife arrivals who participate in these groups are significantly more likely
than child arrivals to attend rally and to contact officials. These results suggest significant
variation in the impact of organisational context on participation by age of arrival, with
community organisations and ethnic associations being more conducive to cultivating
political participation than religious and educational groups. These results lend support
for Hypothesis 3, while also pointing to heterogeneity across groups.
To illustrate these interactive results, Figure 2 provides the predicted probabilities of
organisational participation on the summary measure of political participation (i.e.
having participated in any of the five political activities), while holding all the other covariates at their mean value. Consistent with prior research, those who reported organisational involvement in the previous 12 months are also more likely to report political
participation, regardless of age-at-arrival. However, there are also clear differences that
emerged. For example, the impact of participation in community organisations is strongest among child arrivals whereas the impact of participation in ethnic organisations is
strongest among midlife arrivals. The interactions between age-at-arrival and organisational participation is complex, with the impact of civic organisations on participation
is contingent on organisational type and the immigrants’ life stage.
Latino concentration and political participation
In addition to individual-level covariates, previous research has pointed to the effect of
group size (i.e. Latino concentration), residential stability and Spanish language context
as important predictors of participation (Leighley 2001; Ramakrishnan 2005; de la
Garza 2004). However, this body of research has mainly been suggestive and inconclusive,
due to the use of different levels of geographical aggregation and the lack of high quality
Table 5. Interaction effects between age-at-arrival and participation in civic organisations.
Variables
Attend rally
Model 1
Contact officials
Model 2
Political meeting
Model 3
Campaign work
Model 4
Political donation
Model 5
Any Pol. behaviour
Model 6
JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES
Age-at-arrival (Ref. Child)
.735 (.417)
1.352 (.486)
Teen arrival
.982 (.402)
1.061 (.607)
.667 (.393)
7.568† (9.126)
Adult arrival
.659 (.253)
1.184 (.573)
.241* (.136)
2.930 (3.532)
.704 (.351)
1.084 (.358)
Midlife arrival
.489 (.242)
.562 (.368)
.180* (.123)
2.816 (3.710)
.140** (.103)
.499 (.213)
Interaction terms
Church groups
.989 (.367)
1.026 (.431)
1.250 (.563)
1.433 (.978)
1.127 (.502)
1.442 (.482)
1.170 (.858)
1.575 (1.540)
2.990 (2.186)
1.966 (.936)
Teen × Church
2.069 (1.111)
3.414† (2.311)
1.285 (.717)
.973 (.622)
1.013 (.903)
1.330 (.841)
1.133 (.459)
Adult × Church
2.214† (1.008)
Midlife × Church
.830 (.507)
.790 (.601)
1.388 (1.007)
.876 (.904)
2.024 (1.664)
1.193 (.595)
1.164 (.565)
.942 (.645)
1.209 (.602)
1.956† (.716)
School groups
.887 (.362)
2.389† (1.067)
Teen × School
1.452 (.838)
.629 (.438)
1.716 (1.284)
1.204 (1.202)
2.004 (1.526)
.893 (.458)
.946 (.537)
2.526 (1.636)
1.873 (1.696)
.673 (.499)
1.197 (.522)
Adult × School
2.459† (1.203)
Midlife × School
2.195 (1.551)
.637 (.539)
1.889 (1.565)
1.097 (1.328)
.271 (.349)
.493 (.328)
Community groups
7.517** (3.101)
4.370** (1.963)
3.536** (1.718)
21.470** (23.910)
1.340 (.646)
4.531** (1.634)
Teen*Community
.153** (.097)
.325 (.246)
.449 (.370)
.125 (.169)
.623 (.537)
.162** (.094)
Adult × Community
.260** (.132)
.631 (.368)
1.301 (.854)
.078* (.099)
.598 (.450)
.421† (.191)
†
†
.198 (.169)
.793 (.637)
.048*–.073
.998 (1.024)
.346† (.213)
Midlife × Community
.310 (.215)
2.971* (1.568)
1.521 (.654)
Ethnic associations
.871 (.397)
1.246 (.615)
1.534 (.826)
3.248† (2.196)
4.081* (2.848)
Teen × Ethnic orgs.
4.543* (3.238)
1.352 (1.184)
3.754 (3.297)
.127 (.176)
.0804† (.108)
Adult × Ethnic orgs
2.359 (1.319)
1.383 (.897)
1.901 (1.352)
1.282 (1.168)
.373 (.298)
1.593 (.834)
Midlife × Ethnic orgs
4.555* (3.476)
12.71** (11.04)
2.292 (2.029)
2.056 (2.526)
.818 (.938)
5.721* (4.099)
1.041** (.009)
1.025** (.006)
Age
1.017* (.007)
1.036** (.009)
1.036** (.009)
1.022† (.013)
.510** (.117)
.582* (.144)
.976 (.329)
.872 (.223)
.742* (.113)
Female
.743† (.129)
Constant
.057*** (.034)
.002*** (.001)
.004*** (.004)
.007*** (.010)
.003*** (.002)
.049*** (.028)
Background controls
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Observations
1436
1436
1436
1436
1436
1436
Source: 2004 National Survey of Latinos: Politics and Civic Engagement.
Notes: Standard errors in parentheses. Background characteristics control variables include education, income, marital and employment status, number of children, religious and partisan identification, language proficiency and perceptions of discriminations.
***p < .001.
**p < .01.
*p < .05.
†
p < .10.
17
18
V. C. TRAN
Figure 2. Predicted probabilities of overall political participation by organisational type.Notes: Results
are based on the sample of first-generation Latino respondents. Predicted probabilities are based on
multivariate models with interactions between age of arrival and type of organisational involvement
in Table 5 which controlled for all observable covariates specified. The age categories in the graph correspond to child-arrival, teen-arrival, adult-arrival and midlife-arrival Latinos. The two lines in each subgraph represent the predicted probabilities of political participation for those who indicated
involvement with each organisational type over the last 12 months (red lines) and those who did
not (blue lines).
data. Theoretically, Latino concentration should predict higher levels of engagement and
participation, given the existence of the dense network of co-ethnics that might facilitate
participation. This analysis tackles this question using county-level data. Table 6 presents
results from two-level random effects logistic regression models, taking into account
county-level contextual effects using the geocoded version of the 2004 NSL. Specifically,
these models account for four county-level measures: per cent household living in
poverty, per cent Hispanic population, per cent Spanish speaking and residential stability.
Residential stability is an index combining per cent owner-occupied household and per
cent individuals living in the same county in the previous five years. County-level data
came from the 2000 Decennial Census and were merged to the 2004 NSL dataset using
the county FIPS code provided by the survey firm who fielded the survey for the Pew
Research Center.
Among the individual-level covariates, the effect of age-at-arrival is significantly weakened after controlling for these contextual covariates whereas the impact of institutional
involvements remains strong. Midlife arrivals are still significantly less likely to participate
in all six political activities compared to child arrivals. On ethnicity, there are no
Table 6. Two-level random effects logistic regressions predicting political participation.
Variables
Contact officials
Model 2
Political meeting
Model 3
Campaign work
Model 4
Political donation
Model 5
Any pol. behaviour
Model 6
1.083 (.296)
.917 (.244)
.504 (.191)
1.134 (.386)
1.076 (.339)
.462 (.220)
.977 (.370)
.480 (.181)
.321* (.165)
1.492 (.751)
.678 (.354)
.485 (.343)
1.103 (.400)
.571 (.207)
.170** (.0933)
1.343 (.328)
.992 (.232)
.471* (.152)
.807 (.246)
1.423 (.389)
.936 (.219)
1.328 (.463)
.675 (.246)
.762 (.236)
1.043 (.460)
1.110 (.437)
.983 (.349)
.819 (.434)
1.095 (.576)
.618 (.292)
1.512 (.646)
1.846 (.747)
1.516 (.570)
1.098 (.282)
1.336 (.318)
1.057 (.218)
1.657** (.286)
1.611* (.311)
2.557*** (.504)
2.090*** (.454)
1.401 (.313)
2.087** (.502)
2.593*** (.632)
2.006** (.529)
1.484 (.367)
1.989* (.532)
3.266*** (.881)
2.712*** (.765)
1.429 (.469)
1.306 (.465)
2.762** (1.036)
2.824** (1.041)
1.580 (.401)
1.286 (.371)
.991 (.301)
1.486 (.499)
1.807*** (.270)
2.004*** (.344)
2.012*** (.366)
2.831*** (.581)
1.025 (.023)
.986† (.008)
1.013 (.016)
.993 (.013)
.023** (.027)
−512.77
236
1436
Yes
.986 (.029)
1.013 (.009)
1.043† (.023)
1.004 (.018)
.000*** (.000)
−326.14
236
1436
Yes
.979 (.0352)
1.011 (.0113)
1.034 (.027)
1.002 (.0211)
.000*** (.001)
−277.83
236
1436
Yes
1.055 (.048)
.982 (.014)
1.012 (.035)
1.061* (.029)
.002* (.006)
−173.99
236
1436
Yes
1.016 (.036)
.990 (.011)
1.038 (.026)
.990 (.022)
.001*** (.002)
−267.93
236
1436
Yes
1.017 (.020)
.993 (.006)
1.024 (.014)
.991 (.012)
.018*** (.017)
−640.14
236
1436
Yes
Source: 2004 National Survey of Latinos: Politics and Civic Engagement.
Notes: Standard errors in parentheses. Background characteristics control variables include age, gender, education, income, marital and employment status, number of children, religious and
partisan identification, language proficiency and perceptions of discriminations.
***p < .001.
**p < .01.
*p < .05.
†
p < .10.
JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES
Individual-level variables
Age-at-arrival (ref: Child)
Teen arrival
Adult arrival
Midlife arrival
Ethnic origin (ref: Mexican)
Puerto Rican
Cuban
Other Hispanic
Institutional involvements
Church groups
Educational groups
Community groups
Ethnic associations
County-level variables
% Poverty
% Hispanic
Residential stability
% Spanish speaking
Constant
Log likelihood
N (counties)
N (individuals)
Other individual controls
Attend rally
Model 1
19
20
V. C. TRAN
differences across the Latino subgroups. Among the county-level covariates, only three of
the twenty-four coefficient estimates is statistically significant at the p < .10 or p < .05 level.
First, the proportion of Latinos in the county slightly reduces the likelihood of attending a
public demonstration (γ = .986). For example, Pearson-Merkowitz (2012) also finds that
ethnic segregation depresses civic engagement because their immigrant neighbourhoods
lack the vibrant civic institutions that provide the infrastructure for participation. The
mechanism behind this remains unclear, but it might be due to legal status. In other
words, counties with a larger presence of the Latino population also include a larger
share of undocumented Latinos who are less likely to participate or are too fearful to participate, which serves to depress participation. Second, the proportion of Spanish-speaking
individuals increases the likelihood of campaign work. One way to interpret this finding is
the need for campaign workers who are of Latino descent is also higher in counties with a
higher proportion of Spanish-speaking individuals. Third, residential stability has the
most consistent effect in promoting participation. This is only statistically significant
for the likelihood of contacting officials, but the directionality is consistent across all
measures of participation, even when the coefficients do not reach statistically significant
level. Overall, support for Hypothesis 4 is rather mixed. The county-level effects are weak,
and justifiably so, because contextual effects have been rather small in previous studies
(Espino, Leal, and Meier 2007) and are notoriously difficult to pin down. Although a
robust literature in sociology and economics have pointed to the impact of place of residence on educational outcomes and socioeconomic mobility, contextual effects are often
most robust at the neighbourhood or census-tract level. Unfortunately, the 2004 NSL only
has data at the county level, so future research should focus on more fine-grained analysis
of contextual effect at the neighbourhood or at the census tract.
Discussion and conclusion
These results support the following observations. First, age-at-arrival significantly impacts
political behaviours. The evidence for a life-course effect among the immigrant firstgeneration points to age-at-arrival as a variable that structures participation and suggests
the centrality of political socialisation and resocialisation within the context of civic organisations. Specifically, adult-arrival Latinos are less likely than child-arrival and teen-arrival
Latinos to participate in political activities. Overall, there is suggestive evidence for a lifecourse effect, with those arriving after the age of 18 experiencing a participatory deficit.
These findings point to the role of political socialisation in childhood and adolescence in
shaping participation and suggest that participation of any form can be highly habitforming (de la Garza 2004). More generally, those arriving before the age of 12 participate
at about the same rate as the second and third generation (results not shown, but available
upon request), because they would have more exposure to American political institutions
and are more familiar with the political system. There is a clear need among the adultarrival immigrants and future civic programmes should think of creative ways to get them
connected. At the same time, these findings should assuage concerns that Latinos are not
assimilating into American civic life. Although political participation generally decreases by
age-at-arrival, it is also clear that the 1.5-generation is more assimilated politically than the
first generation. This is consistent with theory of straight-line assimilation, which posits
increasing integration with American society both over time and across generations.
JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES
21
Second, this article highlights the importance of civic institutions in shaping participation among Latinos. Though much scholarship has focused on the role of civic institutions in shaping American democracy (Putnam 2000), researchers have only recently
begun to examine how they might matter for the integration of post-1965 immigrants
into the polity (Bloemraad 2006; Wong 2006; Ramakrishnan and Bloemraad 2008;
Aptekar 2015). Among non-Latino groups, research has documented that associational
membership – even in apolitical organisations like choral societies or arts associations –
provides individuals with ‘the opportunities to meet people beyond their core social networks, to gain experience in governing through the practice of executive management and
representative leadership and to connect with broader networks of institutions within and
across communities’ (Baggetta 2009, 181). At the theoretical level, the connection between
civic engagement and political participation has not been fully explored among scholars
who conduct research on Latino politics. Though these results clearly show that involvements with civic institutions matter for Latinos, more qualitative research is needed to
better understand how engagement with civic institutions promotes participation and
why participation varies across different types of institutional context. If involvements
in local institutions foster political efficacy and cultivate civic skills among Latinos, then
the key to Latinos’ successful incorporation will lie in strengthening of these local networks
of civic, ethnic, religious or political organisations. The presence of such civic infrastructure is crucial in both immigrant gateways and new immigrant destinations where local
institutions constantly adapt to serve the emerging needs of new waves of Latino
immigrants.
Third, the focus on non-electoral political behaviours provides a more comprehensive
understanding of political incorporation among Latinos. At the individual level, we need a
better understanding of why immigrants choose to participate in politics (Aptekar 2015).
At the institutional level, we need to pay attention to the role of community organisations
and the mechanisms that connect individual residents to these institutions (Ramakrishnan
and Bloemraad 2008). At the contextual level, we need to think about how and why coethnic concentration might promote or depress participation. Looking forward, qualitative
research on how immigrants and their offspring understand the political process and
engage with the political system will provide insight into the dynamics underlying their
political participation.
This article also has the following limitations. First, although age-at-arrival is a good
proxy for different levels of political resocialisation, future research should include
more direct measures of political socialisation and their impact on Latino political behaviours. Doing so will require data collection efforts that are more attentive to the mechanisms behind participation of both qualitative and quantitative natures. Second, the lower
level of participation documented among midlife arrivals does not imply that these individuals are not politically active. Although they are less likely to participate in electoral
politics in their home country (Waldinger and Thomas 2013), they are rather invested
in the civic causes (Levitt 2001; Smith 2006). Although they might not be active in ‘American’ politics, they can still be deeply engaged with home-country-oriented ethnic politics
within their communities, a topic that goes beyond the scope of this article. Third, the
current analysis cannot speak to whether Latinos are participating at the same rate compared to non-Latinos, as the 2004 NSL did not include non-Latino respondents. Fourth,
this analysis focuses only on the first generation, for whom there are barriers to
22
V. C. TRAN
participation, and does not engage with how political assimilation varies across generations among Latinos.
Note
1. This figure is rather high and captures a specific moment in time where protests for immigrant rights were rather widespread. The immigration rallies were rising in the early 2000s
and peaked in 2006 where millions of people across the country marched in support of immigrant rights (Voss and Bloemraad 2011; Silber Mohamed 2013).
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Mary Waters, Chris Winship, William J. Wilson, Orlando Patterson, Jennifer
Hochschild, Michael Jones-Correa, Helen Marrow, the JEMS editors and reviewers for their helpful
comments on previous drafts. David Dutwin provided access to the restricted version of the 2004
NSL for geocoding purposes.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Funding information
This work was supported by a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship and a
Soros Fellowship for New Americans. This research was presented at the Harvard Migration and
Immigrant Incorporation Workshop and the annual meetings of the Eastern Sociological Society
and the American Sociological Association.
ORCID
Van C. Tran
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2532-6811
References
Abascal, Maria. 2015. “Tu Casa, Mi Casa: Naturalization and Subjective Belonging among Latino
Immigrants.” International Migration Review doi:10.1111/imre.12221.
Abrego, Leisy. 2011. “Legal Consciousness of Undocumented Latinos: Fear and Stigma as Barriers
to Claims Making for First and 1.5 Generation Immigrants.” Law & Society Review 45 (2): 337–
370.
Alba, Richard, and Victor Nee. 2003. Remaking the American Mainstream: Assimilation and
Contemporary Immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Aptekar, Sofya. 2009. “Organizational Life and Political Incorporation of Two Asian Immigrant
Groups: A Case Study.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 32 (9): 1511–1533.
Aptekar, Sofya. 2015. The Road to Citizenship: What Naturalization Means for Immigrants and the
United States. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Baggetta, Matthew. 2009. “Civic Opportunities in Associations: Interpersonal Interaction,
Governance Experience and Institutional Relationships.” Social Forces 88 (1): 175–199.
Barreto, Matt, and Gary Segura. 2014. Latino America: How America’s Most Dynamic Population is
Poised to Transform the Politics of the Nation. New York, NY: Public Affairs Books.
JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES
23
Barreto, Matt A., and Jose A. Muñoz. 2003. “Reexamining the ‘Politics of In-Between’: Political
Participation among Mexican Immigrants in the United States.” Hispanic Journal of
Behavioral Sciences 25 (4): 427–447.
Bloemraad, Irene. 2006. Becoming a Citizen: Incorporating Immigrants and Refugees in the United
States and Canada. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Bueker, Catherine S. 2006. From Immigrant to Naturalized Citizen: Political Incorporation in the
United States. New York: LFB Publishing.
de Graauw, Els. 2016. Making Immigrant Rights Real: Nonprofits and the Politics of Integration in
San Francisco. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
de la Garza, Rodolfo. 2004. “Latino Politics.” Annual Review of Political Science 7: 91–123.
DeSipio, Louis. 1996. Counting on the Latino Vote: Latinos as a New Electorate. Charlottesville:
University of Virginia Press.
Espino, Rodolfo, David L. Leal, and Kenneth J. Meier. 2007. Latino Politics: Identity, Mobilization,
and Representation. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
File, Thom. 2013. “The Diversifying Electorate—Voting Rates by Race and Hispanic Origin in 2012
(and Other Recent Elections).” Current Population Survey Reports, P20-569. U.S. Census Bureau,
Washington, DC.
Filindra, Alexandra, David Blanding, and Cynthia Garcia Coll. 2011. “The Power of Context: StateLevel Policies and Politics and the Educational Performance of the Children of Immigrants in the
United States.” Harvard Educational Review 81 (3): 407–438. .
Fraga, Luis, John A. Garcia, Gary M. Segura, Michael Jones-Correa, Rodney Hero, and Valerie
Martinez-Ebers. 2010. Latino Lives in America: Making It Home. Philadelphia, PA: Temple
University Press.
Gerstle, Gary, and John Mollenkopf. 2001. E Pluribus Unum? Contemporary and Historical
Perspectives on Immigrant Political Participation. Cambridge, MA: Russell Sage Foundation.
Hochschild, Jennifer L., and John H. Mollenkopf. 2009. Bringing Outsiders In: Transatlantic
Perspectives on Immigrant Political Incorporation. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Huntington, Samuel P. 2004. Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity.
New York: Simon & Schuster.
Junn, Jane. 1999. “Participation in Liberal Democracy: The Political Assimilation of
Immigrants and Ethnic Minorities in the United States.” American Behavioral Scientist
42 (9): 1417–1438.
Junn, Jane, and Kerry Lee Haynie. 2008. New Race Politics in America: Understanding Minority and
Immigrant Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kasinitz, Philip, John H. Mollenkopf, Mary C. Waters, and Jennifer Holdaway. 2008. Inheriting the
City: The Children of Immigrants Come of Age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lee, Sharon M., and Barry Edmonston. 2011. “Age-at-Arrival’s Effects on Asian Immigrants’
Socioeconomic Outcomes in Canada and the U.S.” International Migration Review 45 (3):
527–561.
Lee, Taeku, S. Karthick Ramakrishnan, and Ricardo Ramírez. 2006. Transforming Politics,
Transforming America: The Political and Civic Incorporation of Immigrants in the United
States. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press.
Leighley, Jan E. 2001. Strength in Numbers? The Political Mobilization of Racial and Ethnic
Minorities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Levitt, Peggy. 2001. The Transnational Villagers. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lim, Chaeyoon. 2008. “Social Networks and Political Participation: How Do Networks Matter?”
Social Forces 87 (2): 961–982.
Marrow, Helen B. 2009. “Immigrant Bureaucratic Incorporation: The Dual Roles of Professional
Missions and Government Policies.” American Sociological Review 74: 756–776.
Martínez, Lisa M. 2005. “Yes We Can: Latino Participation in Unconventional Politics.” Social
Forces 84 (1): 135–155.
McFarland, Daniel A., and Reuben J. Thomas. 2006. “Bowling Young: How Youth Voluntary
Associations Influence Adult Political Participation.” American Sociological Review 71: 401–
425.
24
V. C. TRAN
Mora, Cristina G. 2013. “Religion and the Organizational Context of Immigrant Civic Participation;
Mexican Catholicism in the USA.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 36 (11): 1647–1665.
Morales, Laura, and Luis Ramiro. 2011. “Gaining Political Capital through Social Capital. Inclusion
in Policy Making and Network Embeddedness of Immigrants’ Associations in Spain.”
Mobilization: An International Journal 16 (2): 147–164.
Myers, Dowell, Xin Gao, and Amon Emeka. 2009. “The Gradient of Immigrant Age-atArrival Effects on Socioeconomic Outcomes in the U.S.” International Migration Review 43:
205–229.
Navarrette, Ruben Jr. 2016. “Yes, Donald Trump Won Latinos Over Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz.
Here’s Why.” The Daily Beast. February 25.
Pearson-Merkowitz, Shanna. 2012. “The Limits of the Homogeneity Model: Segregation and C
Civic Engagement in Latino Communities.” American Politics Research 40 (4): 701–736.
Peters, Floris, Maarten Vink, and Hans Schmeets. 2016. “The Ecology of Immigrant Naturalization:
A Life Course Approach in the Context of Institutional Conditions.” Journal of Ethnic and
Migration Studies 42 (3): 359–381.
Portes, Alejandro, and Ruben G. Rumbaut. 2001. Legacies: The Story of the Immigrant SecondGeneration. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Putnam, Robert D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community.
New York: Simon & Schuster.
Ramakrishnan, S. Karthick. 2005. Democracy in Immigrant America. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Ramakrishnan, S. Karthick, and Irene Bloemraad. 2008. Civic Hopes and Political Realities:
Immigrants, Community Organizations, and Political Engagement. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Ramakrishnan, S. Karthick, and Thomas J. Espenshade. 2001. “Immigrant Incorporation
and Political Participation in the United States.” International Migration Review 35 (3):
870–909.
Rumbaut, Ruben G. 2004. “Ages, Life Stages, and Generational Cohorts: Decomposing the
Immigrant First and Second Generations in the United States.” International Migration
Review 38 (3): 1160–1205.
Segura, Gary M., and Helena Alves Rodrigues. 2006. “Comparative Ethnic Politics in the United
States: Beyond Black and White.” Annual Review of Political Science 9: 375–395.
Silber Mohamed, Heather. 2013. “Can Protests Make Latinos ‘American’? Identity, Immigration
Politics, and the 2006 Marches.” American Politics Research 41 (2): 298–327.
Smith, Robert C. 2006. Mexican New York: Transnational Lives of New Immigrants. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Suro, Roberto. 2016. “Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio Made History. Didn’t You Hear?” The New York
Times. February 3. Page A23.
Tienda, Marta, and Faith Mitchell. 2006. Multiple Origins, Uncertain Destinies: Hispanics and the
American Future. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Tran, Van C., Corina Graif, Alison D. Jones, Mario L. Small, and Christopher Winship. 2013.
“Participation in Context: Neighborhood Diversity and Organizational Involvement in
Boston.” City & Community 12 (3): 187–210.
Tran, Van C., and Nicol M. Valdez. 2015. “Second-Generation Decline or Advantage? Latino
Assimilation in the Aftermath of the Great Recession.” International Migration Review.
doi:10.1111/imre.12192
Verba, Sidney, Kay L. Schlozman, and Henry E. Brady. 1996. Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism
in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Voss, Kim, and Irene Bloemraad. 2011. Rallying for Immigrant Rights. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Waldinger, Roger, and Thomas Soehl. 2013. “The Bounded Polity: The Limits to Mexican Emigrant
Political Participation.” Social Forces 91 (4): 1239–1266.
Wong, Janelle. 2006. Democracy’s Promise: Immigrants & American Civic Institutions. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press.
JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES
25
Appendix: Means and standard deviations of variables after recoding
Variables
Dependent variables
Attended public meeting or demonstration
Contacted elected official
Attended political meeting
Contributed money to a political candidate
Worked for a political campaign
Participated in any of the above activities
Independent variables
First generation, child arrival
First generation, teen arrival
First generation, adult arrival
First generation, midlife arrival
Mexican
Cuban
Puerto Rican
Other Latino
English dominant
Bilingual
Spanish dominant
Discrimination against Latinos(3-point scale)
Personal experiences of discrimination (1 = Yes; 0 = No)
Involvement with church or religious groups
Involvement with school or tutoring programmes
Involvement with neighbourhood groups
Involvement with ethnic organisations
Age
Education (in years)
Income (in $10,000)
Female
Employed
Married
Children under age 18
Catholic (1 = Yes; 0 = No)
Democrat
Republican
Independent/Other
% poverty in county
% Hispanic population in county
% Spanish-speaking population in county
% population in the same address last 5 years in county
N
Mean
SD
.15
.09
.07
.07
.04
.23
.35
.29
.25
.25
.19
.43
.16
.19
.45
.19
.49
.25
.10
.22
.05
.30
.42
1.71
1.69
.33
.22
.17
.11
43.78
12.02
38.36
.55
.45
.63
.51
.69
.39
.29
.26
24.93
35.23
24.93
51.45
1436
.37
.39
.49
.39
.49
.43
.30
.41
.22
.46
.49
.81
.46
.47
.41
.37
.32
18.37
2.94
36.18
.49
.48
.48
.50
.46
.49
.46
.44
7.60
19.61
7.60
5.94
Source: 2004 National Survey of Latinos: Politics and Civic Engagement.
Notes: For dichotomous or categorical variables, means are actual percentages.