Suchergebnisse

That U.S. immigration policy has shaped the demography, size, and potential for routine political influence of Latino and Asian American populations is a truism. What is perhaps less acknowledged, but also increasingly clear is that debates over U.S. immigration policy (and Congressional and Executive inaction and posturing) are shaping the politics of Latino and Asian American communities for the next generation. In this paper, I examine the factors that shape Latino and Asian American attitudes toward U.S. immigration policy with a particular eye to whether generational differences in Latino and Asian American communities predict different preferred outcomes of the national debate on immigration policy. This generational question is one that will take on increasing influence in coming years as the children and grandchildren of today's immigrants make up a larger and larger share of these panethnic populations. This paper speaks to three sets of scholarly questions. First, I analyze the predictors of attitudes toward immigration policies in the contemporary debate among Latinos and Asian Americans. Second, I assess whether there are predictable differences in these attitudes across immigrant generations. Finally, I compare Latino and Asian American attitudes. I find that Latinos and Asian Americans do not speak with one voice on immigration reform. Interestingly, the starkest differences are seen across immigrant generations in these communities. Latino immigrants are more likely than other Latinos to prefer legalization as the core policy outcome. Asian immigrants are more likely than other Asian Americans to prefer a policy outcome that creates opportunities for migrants with skills to migrate. Needless to say, these are not mutually exclusive as bills being debated in Congress today include both elements, but they certainly offer a different staring point for shaping policy.

The provocative question raised by Rogers Smith's "Living in a Promiseland? Mexican Immigration and American Obligations" is whether the tortured history of U.S.-Mexican relations and the racialized context of Mexican immigrant reception can best be ameliorated through targeted immigration policies that would create added opportunities for Mexican migrants relative to others. I argue that the current, more universally-principled system of U.S. immigration policy, supplemented by an inclusive legalization program, can better serve the needs of potential Mexican migrants and Mexican immigrants resident in the United States. Also, I am more skeptical than Smith is about the depths of Mexico's commitment to seeking binational strategies to address the needs of its émigrés abroad.

In this article, the author analyzes five domains of immigrant incorporation and participation in the United States—civic and community engagement among immigrants; naturalization patterns; immigrant (and co-ethnic) partisanship and electoral behaviors; the election of naturalized citizens, and their U.S.-born co-ethnics, as elective officeholders; and immigrant transnational efforts to influence the civic or political life of their communities or countries of origin—in an effort to highlight both the opportunities immigrants and naturalized citizens have seized in U.S. politics and the barriers, particularly, institutional barriers, they continue to face. Although the primary analytical focus is immigrants in the United States, the author is attentive to the challenge raised by Irene Bloemraad (2011 [this issue]) in her introductory article to identify opportunities for comparative insights from the Canadian case. As will be evident, the author ultimately identifies more apples and oranges in the comparison of the U.S. and Canadian cases than peas sharing an analytical pod.

Examines the bases for the general lack of political impact by Illinois Latinos in the 2000 presidential elections & the national implications for Latino mobilization & participation. In Illinois in 2000, neither major party courted Latino voters, nor did Latinos themselves mobilize toward turnout. They were insignificant in the election's outcome & surely would have been had no Latino voter cast a ballot. The state's Latinos mainly fall into two demographic groups: Mexican Americans & Puerto Rican Americans. Only rarely have these two communities been able to form a robust pan-Latino coalition that mobilizes voters in national elections. Given the rise of similar, multiple-demographic characteristics in a number of states, the Illinois Latino experience in 2000 may bode ill for voter mobilization & participation across the US. Tables. K. Coddon