Suchergebnisse

"Chris Haynes and S. Karthick Ramakrishnan also move beyond the issue of political participation to investigate immigrants' knowledge of politics in the United States. Though it is a key component of citizen competence, political knowledge has rarely been studied in the context of immigrant political integration. Recognizing that immigrants are not a homogeneous group, Haynes and Ramakrishnan describe the levels of knowledge of American politics among the three main ethnic-minority groups in the United States – namely, Latinos, Asian Americans and African Americans. Haynes and Ramakrishnan also provide an innovative approach to the field of immigrant political integration by examining the role of the ethnic media in structuring the levels of knowledge of American politics among these three groups; this is an increasingly salient question in the United States with the growth in the number and popularity of such media." – Antoine Bilodeau, from book introduction

Immigration law is no longer the exclusive domain of the federal government. That was certainly clear in the mid 2000s, with restrictive laws on immigration enforcement in many states and localities. Starting in 2012, however, momentum shifted away from these restrictionist laws, and towards a growing number of state laws that push towards greater immigrant integration, on matters ranging from in-state tuition and financial aid to undocumented students, to expanded health benefits and access to driver's licenses. California has gone the furthest in this regard, both with respect to the number of pro-integration laws passed since 2000, and in their collective scope. Indeed, as we argue in this paper, these individual laws have, over time, combined to form a powerful package of pro-integration policies that stand in sharp contrast to the restrictive policies of states like Arizona. In this paper, we provide a deeper look into the "California package" of immigrant integration policies, and ask two fundamental questions, one empirical (Why do pro-integration laws pass in some states and not in others, and in some years but not in others?), and the other theoretical (what are the implications of the "California package" of immigrant integration laws for our notions of citizenship?). As we elaborate, California has created a de facto regime of state citizenship, one that operates in parallel to national citizenship and, in some important ways, exceeds the standards of national citizenship, as currently established and as envisioned in Congressional attempts at comprehensive immigration reform.

We begin our review with research related to the racial formation and racial position of Asian Americans. How we define this fast-growing group and how it is situated in the broader racial landscape are critical to understanding its politics. We then turn to research on the history of Asian American civic engagement. These two research areas provide important context for the rest of the review, which covers three additional themes: ( a) political participation; ( b) partisanship, vote choice, and issue orientations; and ( c) political representation. The last section returns to the theme of racial position, including its role in contemporary Asian American activism and its centrality to future research in the field.

Asian Americans are the fastest-growing group in the United States, increasing from 0.7 percent in 1970 to nearly 6 percent in 2016. The U.S. Census Bureau projects that by 2065, Asian Americans will constitute 14 percent of the U.S. population. Immigration is fueling this growth: China and India have passed Mexico as the top countries sending immigrants to the United States since 2013. Today, two of three Asian Americans are foreign born—a figure that increases to nearly four of five among Asian American adults. The rise in numbers is accompanied by a rise in diversity: Asian Americans are the most diverse U.S. racial group, comprising twenty-four detailed origins with vastly different migration histories and socioeconomic profiles. In this article, we explain how the unique characteristics of Asian Americans affect their patterns of ethnic and racial self-identification, which, in turn, present challenges for accurately counting this population. We conclude by discussing policy ramifications of our findings, and explain why data disaggregation is a civil rights issue.

"While undocumented immigration is controversial, the general public is largely unfamiliar with the particulars of immigration policy. Given that public opinion on the topic is malleable, to what extent do mass media shape the public debate on immigration? In Framing Immigrants, political scientists Chris Haynes, Jennifer Merolla, and Karthick Ramakrishnan explore how conservative, liberal, and mainstream news outlets frame and discuss undocumented immigrants. Drawing from original voter surveys, they show that how the media frames immigration has significant consequences for public opinion and has implications for the passage of new immigration policies. The authors analyze media coverage of several key immigration policy issues—including mass deportations, comprehensive immigration reform, and measures focused on immigrant children, such as the DREAM Act—to chart how news sources across the ideological spectrum produce specific "frames" for the immigration debate. In the past few years, liberal and mainstream outlets have tended to frame immigrants lacking legal status as "undocumented" (rather than "illegal") and to approach the topic of legalization through human-interest stories, often mentioning children. Conservative outlets, on the other hand, tend to discuss legalization using impersonal statistics and invoking the rule of law. Yet, regardless of the media's ideological positions, the authors' surveys show that "negative" frames more strongly influence public support for different immigration policies than do positive frames. For instance, survey participants who were exposed to language portraying immigrants as law-breakers seeking "amnesty" tended to oppose legalization measures. At the same time, support for legalization was higher when participants were exposed to language referring to immigrants living in the United States for a decade or more. Framing Immigrants shows that despite heated debates on immigration across the political aisle, the general public has yet to form a consistent position on ...