This study examines the relationship between country of origin and political incorporation among ten immigrant groups in the contemporary United States. Country of origin also affects political incorporation indirectly by mediating the effect of other characteristics. More recently, the effect of country of origin on voter turnout has been considered as a mobilization mechanism.
LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY
In this study, the concern lies with the individual's choice not to participate because of their immigration or citizenship status. Some comfort can be found in the fact that previous researchers tracking the naturalization course of Mexican immigrants found no difference between those who "disappeared" and those who were followed throughout the process (Portes and Bach, 1985; Portes and Curtis, 1987). Finally, over-reporting on turnout questions is common as respondents want to appear as if they are "doing their civic duty". A study of Latino voter turnout in the 1996 election found significant overreporting when aggregate self-reports were examined against aggregate validated rates (Shaw et al, 2000).
The self-reported rate of voter participation in the CPS is lower than that recorded in other surveys, such as the National Election Study, seen as the "gold standard" of election data. In comparing the self-reported voter turnout rates of all CPS respondents to the current Federal Election Commission report for the years and 2000, I found an overreporting rate of approximately 10 percent. The main concern with over-reporting is that it may not be distributed randomly, with particular groups such as the best.
An immigrant who falsely reports having voted in his own way indicates a form of political incorporation by recognizing the pressure to vote. I formed these transnational groups to gain insight into the political.
HYPOTHESES
Even with these shortcomings, these data are still the best available for studying country of origin and its influence on political . establishment. et al, 1987; Finifter and Finifter, 1989). Although previous work (Black et al, 1987; Finifter and Finifter, 1989) has identified these trends, this hypothesis has not yet been tested on voter turnout in the United States, leading to another hypothesis. Translation hypothesis: The political environment of the country of origin affects the degree of political integration of the immigrant in the United States.
An immigrant group's initial reception in the United States has consequences for its long-term incorporation (Portes, 1995). Immigrants who are welcome and targeted to receive financial aid and assistance will have a greater likelihood of integration, as has happened in Cuban society. Settlement patterns also play a role, with concentrations of immigrants both helping to integrate new waves from the home community into the political and economic systems of the United States (Forment, 1989), as well as increasing the interest of major political parties, which identify a worthy voting block for courtship.
Assimilation Hypothesis: As education, income, and length of eligibility in the United States increase, so does the propensity to immigrate from all countries. Gender Diversity Hypothesis: The effect of gender on political involvement should vary by country of origin in both the naturalization process and voting.
DATA AND METHODS
Individuals are assigned this status based on poverty thresholds in the year in which they participated in the SPSH. I have chosen to measure the duration of an immigrant's eligibility in the United States rather than the length of his or her stay, since documented immigrants are unable to formally participate in the political sphere for the first five years. I calculated the duration of eligibility in the United States using the "year of entry" variable in the survey.
In doing so, it would be difficult to determine the effect of cohort versus period versus length of eligibility in the United States. I also included control variables for the year in which the respondent participated in the survey. The total number of naturalized cases from the citizenship sample does not equal the total number in the voting sample, as approximately 10 percent, or 751, of the 7,392 individuals who naturalized are missing voting information.
I have calculated the median income for the respective immigrant group and filled in the missing information with these values. Splitting a sample serves the same goals as adding an interaction term to each of the subsamples in the overall model.
FINDINGS
Mexicans have the highest poverty rate at over 45 percent, while Indians have the lowest at under 6 percent. These are the same two groups that determine the upper and lower limits of voting rates, indicating a correlation between turnout and length of eligibility. Both Tables 1 and 2 indicate the relationship between country of origin and political involvement, but at the same time some important differences.
Table 1, with information on those eligible for naturalization, shows a lower level of education and income on average than among those who have been naturalized (Table 2). In particular, British and Canadians who have been naturalized show lower average income and education levels than among the larger sample of their eligible (but not necessarily naturalised) compatriots. Interestingly, naturalized Britons and Canadians have a higher voter turnout than any other voting group.
Both the prima faci evidence of a relationship between country of origin and political incorporation and the variation in other types of predictors through.
MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS: NATURALIZING
But is the effect of country of origin real, or is it a proxy for another characteristic. After holding constant education, length of eligibility, and poverty status, as well as other predictor variables discussed above, Mexicans still have the lowest naturalization rates, being only about one-third as likely to naturalize as all other immigrants included in the study . Filipinos now have the highest naturalization rates, and are about three times as likely to become citizens as all other immigrants.
Southeast Asians are second only to Filipinos, with naturalization rates nearly two and a half times higher than the rest of the sample, followed by former Soviet Unions, who are nearly twice as likely to naturalize as all other groups. Slightly above one and one are the Italians, who had the highest naturalization rate in the bivariate relationship. Britons, Canadians, and Mexicans are the least likely to become naturalized, about half as likely to become citizens, as other immigrants.
These results show that country of origin does matter, even after controlling for a large number of factors. The findings from Figure II suggest that immigrants who have migrated from greater geographic distances, such as Filipinos, as well as immigrants from non-democratic societies, such as Southeast Asians, former Soviets, Cubans, and Chinese, are most likely to naturalize.
MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS: VOTING
The numbers reported are the odds ratio of each voting group, compared to all other immigrant groups combined. Figures II and III support the argument that country of origin matters in both naturalization and voting, even after controlling for key variables such as income, education, length of eligibility, and gender, but these two numbers. While country of origin influences both naturalization and voting, its effect on naturalization is stronger and greater.
Furthermore, country of origin is never the biggest factor in voting, while naturalization is the biggest factor for four of them. Country of origin is clearly important in determining political inclusion, but its effect varies by type of integration. Based on the mixed findings by immigrant group, with the most likely citizens being the least likely to be voters and vice versa, citizenship appears to be acquired for a multitude of reasons, with the opportunity to participate in the electoral process being only one motivation.
What these previous multivariate models do not tell us is how the factors differ in their influence on political involvement by country of origin. To examine how these characteristics influence country of origin and influence different types of political involvement, I divided
SPLIT MODELS
In the naturalization model, the absence of education is more likely to predict citizenship status. The varying effects of education, both between types of political activity and between immigrant groups, can also influence the political institutions in the country of origin. Immigrants from communist societies are generally less likely to vote than immigrants from democratic countries for a variety of reasons, but the political, social and economic environment in the country of origin does.
The longer immigrants have the right to incorporate politically in the United States, the more likely they are. The duration of eligibility in the United States affects the voting process in the same way as the naturalization process. Increasing the years of eligibility may boost voting in different ways than in the citizenship process.
In the naturalization model, the duration of eligibility is the only variable that is significant and positive for all ten immigrant groups – the strongest evidence for the assimilation hypothesis. The longer an immigrant is eligible to participate in the political process, the more likely he or she is to be politically incorporated, in all countries of origin.
CONCLUSION
A shared country of origin can influence the political integration of its respective sons and daughters in different ways. Unfortunately, these findings provide little insight into the mechanisms that mediate gender and PO. literal integration among immigrants from different countries of origin. For many of the immigrants included in this study, country of origin matters in both citizenship and the voting process, but in different ways.
This study went beyond simply establishing the importance of country-of-origin variables as significant predictors of political involvement. Finally, the different effects of country of origin on naturalization and voting point to the different nature of these two political processes. This study is only the first step toward understanding the important role that home country plays in naturalization and voting in the modern United States.
Did immigrants from the same countries of origin see changes in patterns and predictors of political integration over time. Furthermore, students of political incorporation should examine other types of political activity as measures of political integration between and across various country of origin groups.
1999 "Theories of International Migration and Immigration: A Preliminary Reconnaissance of Ideal Types." In The Handbook of International Migration: The American Experience. 2000 "Participation in a Liberal Democracy: The Political Assimilation of Immigrants and Ethnic Minorities in the United States." In Immigration Research for a New Century. 1999 "Immigration and Political Incorporation in the Contemporary United States." In The Handbook of International Migration.
