Redefining America: Key Findings from the 2006 Latino National Survey Luis Fraga

1. Redefining America: Key Findings from the 2006 Latino National Survey Luis Fraga Associate Professor of Political Science, Stanford University John Garcia Professor of Political Science, University of Arizona Rodney Hero Professor of Political Science, Notre Dame University Michael Jones-Correa Associate Professor of Government, Cornell University Valerie Martinez-Ebers Associate Professor, Texas Christian University Gary M. Segura Associate Professor, University of Washington

3. Sources of Funding • Annie E. Casey Foundation • Carnegie Corporation • Ford Foundation • Hewlett Foundation • Irvine Foundation • Joyce Foundation • Kellogg Foundation • National Science Foundation • Russell Sage Foundation • Texas A&M University: MALRC, PERG

4. Percent Hispanic of U.S. Population, 1960-2030

5. Hispanic Births and Net Immigration by Decade: 1960-2030

6. Latino Diversity 44 million Latinos in the US Census Bureau (American Community Survey, Released August 2006) Mexican 63.9% Puerto Rican 9% Cuban 3.5% Salvadoran 2.9% Dominican 2.7% Guatemalan 1.7% Colombian 1.8% ALL OTHERS 14.3% Native-born (not Island-born): 35.4% Foreign-born 61% Island-born PR 3.6% No high school diploma 43% College graduate 11.1% • Latino National Survey (unweighted N) Summer 2006 • *Mexican 66.1% (5704) • *Puerto Rican 9.5% (822) • *Cuban 4.9% (420) • *Salvadoran 4.7% (407) • *Dominican 3.9% (335) • *Guatemalan 1.7% (149) • *Colombian 1.6% (139) • *All Others 7.6% • *Native-born 28.4% (2450) • Foreign-born (adults) 66.2% (5717) • *Island-born PR 5.4% (467) • *No high school diploma 37% • *College graduate 16.2%

7. Separate but Related: The Realities of Pan Ethnicitywithin the Latino National Survey

8. A Multiplicity of Identities • Simultaneous strong sense of pan-ethnic identity, national origin identity, and American-ness • Puerto Ricans illustrate best that identities are not mutually exclusive • Cuban pan-ethnicity surprisingly high • Mexican sense of American-ness high considering the share foreign born

9. Extent of Pan Ethnic Identificationby National Origin • Variation among national origin groups modest • Lowest groups are Cubans and Spaniards • Highest groups are Central Americans, Puerto Ricans, and Dominicans • Order of bars- So. Amer; Cen. Amer.;Mex.; Puerto Rican; Cuban; Dominican; Salvadoran; Guatemalan; Spaniards

10. Correlates of Pan Ethnic Identity and Background Characteristics

11. Pan Ethnic Identity and Preferred Label • Two in five Latinos consider either pan- ethnic label as acceptable • Hispanic is preferred term by 43% of the respondents • Pan ethnic identifiers more prevalent than 1989 LNPS Latino

12. Correlates of Pan Ethnic Identity and Political Interest and Media Use

13. Levels of Pan Ethnicity and Party Identification • One fourth of LNS respondents identified as Democrats • Second largest category was do not know-12.5% • Self-identified independents exceed Latino Republicans

14. Correlates of Pan Ethnic Identity and Political Participation

15. Correlates of Pan Ethnic Identity and Political Participation

16. Correlates of Pan Ethnic Identity and Sense of a Pan Ethnic Community

17. Levels of Pan Ethnicity and ConnectivenessOf One’s Subgroup to Other Latinos • One-half of LNS Latinos perceive a lot of commonalities with one’s group and other Latinos • Stronger pan-ethnic identifiers are more inclined to see this connection. • Over three- fourths of the combined stronger pan-ethic identifiers see their own national origin group as having a similar fate with other Latinos

18. Forced Choice: Boxing in Latinos • However, forced choice reveals more traditional patterns: • American-ness suffers among foreign-born but improves greatly across generations • Puerto Ricans least “Latino” and most stand alone as a group • Share of Mexicans choosing pan-ethnicity equals share choosing national origin • We caution that this is an artificial choice, one not required of people in the real world • Preference for pan-ethnicity still more than double what was found in LNPS 1989

19. Clearer evidence of active presence of pan-ethnicity among Latinos Transcends nativity and immigrant background. Reflects multiplicity of group related identities for Latinos living in America There is a political connection among those with stronger levels of pan-ethnicity and political involvements Stronger pan-ethnic identifiers more inclined to be politically aware and tied to their fellow Latinos. Partisan and ideological implications with stronger pan-ethnic identifiers Real indicators of ongoing and inter-related pan-ethnic community and inter-group commonalities Less Separate and More Related: A Broader and Integrated Latino Community

20. Latinos and Racial Identification

21. Racial Identification More complex than previously understood with confounding notions of phenotype and skin-tone. Self-identification distribution among LNS respondents: 67.2% some other race 22.8% white .8% black Fully 51% of respondents say Latino/Hispanic is a different race! But… is Race the same as Skin-tone?

22. Determinants of Racial Self-identification • Racial identification doesn’t obviously vary by citizenship or generation in US. • With one exception, no obvious differences by national origin or state of residence. • Cubans (and Floridians) are outliers (25% difference with six other major Latino ethnic groups). • As previously documented, Cuban Americans are more likely than other Latinos to self-identify as white. • But…. Even Cuban response is a big shift from LNPS in 1989.Cuban Distribution white other 1989 92.5 3.8 2006 49.9 43.0 • But

23. Question: “Latinos can be described based on skin tone or complexion shades. Using a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 represents very dark and 5 represents being very light, where would you place yourself on that scale?” A plurality selects the exact middle category of skin-tone. Percent Very dark = 1 3.31 2 7.67 3 40.68 4 19.62 Very light = 5 22.61 REFUSED 9 6.11 ---------------------------------- Total 100.00 Skin-tone

24. A Closer Look at Skin-tone • Cuban responses for skin-tone is not significantly different from other groups: • 9 % answering ‘dark’ or ‘very dark,’ compared to 10-11% of other national origin groups. • Darker skin-tone is associated with lower outcomes in income and home ownership but NOT with employment or education. • Darker skin-tone also associated with more negative incidents with police, obtaining housing, and service in restaurants.

25. In general, how strongly or not do you think of yourself as American? - Very strongly, somewhat strongly, not very strongly, or not al all. The plurality answer for all respondents was “very strongly” but the ones most likely to feel this way were the lightest skin-tone. Not at Very AllStrongly Darkest 20% 14% Neutral 16% 35% Lightest 14% 44% -------------------------------- All Respondents 15% 39% Skin-tone and “American” Identification

26. Racial Identity By Skin-tone(in percentages) Skin-tone Race IDDarkerNeutralLighter White 11 32 58 Other race 12 47 41 Black 19 50 32 Total 12 43 45

27. Latinos and Partisanship

28. Patterns of Partisanship Overall U.S. Born Puerto Rico Born Outside U.S. Democrat 42.1 55.9 56.3 33.9 Republican 21.5 26.0 22.9 18.8 Independent 8.1 5.6 3.1 10.0 Don’t Care 12.7 4.8 5.5 17.4 Don’t Know 15.6 8.6 12.7 20.0

29. Partisanship Among Citizens U.S. Born Naturalized Registered Not Registered Democrat 55.9 39.1 55.9 33.6 Republican 26.0 40.0 26.1 22.3 Independent 5.6 25.7 6.1 8.2 Don’t Care 4.8 15.9 3.9 15.4 Don’t Know 8.6 20.2 8.1 20.6

30. Partisanship and Gender MaleFemale Democrat 41.2 40.7 Republican 23.7 18.7 Independent 9.3 7.6 Don’t Care 11.7 14.6 Don’t Know 14.1 18.4

31. Partisanship and the Bush Effect:Presidential Approval Registered Not Registered Democrat 23.6 30.0 Republican 52.7 37.9 Independent 29.6 31.8 Don’t Know 28.5 30.7 Don’t Care 26.6 31.3 “How strongly do you approve or disapprove of how President Bush is doing as President?”

32. Partisanship and the Bush Effect:Presidential Favorability Registered Not Registered Democrat 24.1 29.3 Republican 53.8 38.7 Independent 31.4 31.3 Don’t Know 28.3 19.0 Don’t Care 27.1 22.2 “Now I would like to ask you about your feelings toward President Bush. Thinking about the kind of person he Is, would you say you view him very favorably, somewhat favorably, …?”

33. Foundations of Bush Favorability His policy positions 25.2 Likeability 9.5 Leadership 25.4 Ability to speak Spanish 5.3 Relates well to Latinos 19.1 Commitment to his Christian Faith 15.6

34. Citizenship and Issue Positions:Problem Facing the Country Citizen Non-citizen Iraq War 30.0 33.2 Economy 14.7 12.4 Illegal Immigration 8.4 14.8 Education/ Schools 4.2 4.7 Other 12.4 6.6 “What do you think is THE one most important problem facing the country today?”

35. Partisanship and Issue Positions:Problem Facing the Country Democrat Republican Independent Iraq War 33.8 25.1 25.8 Economy 15.0 14.6 14.5 Illegal Immigration 6.9 9.0 10.6 Education/ Schools 5.4 4.5 5.0 Other 11.7 17.3 16.1 “What do you think is THE one most important problem facing the country today?”

36. Partisanship and Issue Positions:Party Approach Country Democrats Republicans Neither Don’t Know Democrat 39.4 7.4 43.1 10.1 Republican 14.6 26.2 46.3 13.0 Independent 12.1 6.8 63.8 17.2 Don’t Care 6.2 3.9 54.2 35.7 Don’t Know 6.1 4.8 48.5 40.6 “Which political party do you think has a better approach to address this problem?”

37. Citizenship and Issue Positions:Problem Facing Latinos Citizen Non-citizen Illegal Immigration 25.0 35.1 Education/ Schools 13.9 3.6 Unemp/Jobs 11.7 12.6 Iraq War 1.5 1.6 Other 13.6 9.2 “What do you think is THE one most important problem facing the country today?”

38. Partisanship and Issue Positions:Problem Facing Latinos Democrat Republican Independent Illegal Immigration 24.7 23.7 27.5 Education/ Schools 18.2 15.3 11.3 Unemp/Jobs 12.4 11.0 9.7 Iraq War 1.8 0.9 1.9 Other 13.8 16.4 14.4 “What do you think is THE one most important problem facing the Latino community today?”

39. Partisanship and Issue Positions:Party Approach Latinos Democrats Republicans Neither Don’t Know Democrat 44.8 6.7 37.1 11.4 Republican 19.3 21.0 42.1 17.6 Independent 14.4 7.8 55.7 22.0 Don’t Care 12.1 6.2 48.2 33.5 Don’t Know 7.7 6.2 40.5 45.6 “Which political party do you think has a better approach to address this problem?”

40. Latinos in New and Traditional Areas • The Latino population, especially immigrants, has moved well beyond traditional states such as California, Texas, and New York to include considerable and increasing presence in such states as Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa and North Carolina. • These latter states -- Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa and North Carolina – are also states that had previously had little experience with immigrants and/or have substantially large African-American populations.

41. Latinos Seeing Commonalitieswith Other Groups • Response Choices: nothing, little, some, a lot, DK/no answer • Question: • Thinking about issues like job opportunities, educational attainment or income, how much do [selected ethnic term] have in common with other racial groups in the United States today? Would you say [selected ethnic term] have ….. in commonwith African Americans Results: • In all 7 states more respondents say “some” or “a lot” -- ranging from 46% to 57% -- than say “nothing” or “little.” • However, in the 4 “emerging states” 50 percent or less of respondents say “some” or “a lot,” while more in the other states say “some” or “a lot”: CA (51%), TX (52 %), NY (57%)

42. SocioeconomicCommonalities Question: Thinking about issues like job opportunities, educational attainment or income, how much do [selected ethnic term] have in common with other racial groups in the United States today? Would you say [selected ethnic term] have ….. in commonwith whites: Results: Varied pattern, hard to summarize, except that in all states fewer respondents answer “some” or “a lot” than they did for the similar question regarding Blacks. Also, CA only state where more say nothing /little than some/ a lot (47%/44%).

43. Inter –Group Competition: Latinos and Others Question: Some have suggested that [selected ethnic term] are in competition with African Americans . …Would you tell me if you believe there is strong competition, weak competition or no competition at all with African Americans? How about… competition in getting jobs Results: In all seven states (only) about a quarter (25-28 percent) perceived “strong competition” and about 15-20 percent or so sees “weak competition;” the plurality choice in every state is “no competition at all.” New York stands out in having clearly the highest proportion, 36 percent, saying “strong competition.”

44. Competition in ….having access to education and quality schools In 4 emerging states, 47-52 percent say “no competition at all;” consistently 25-27 percent in these states say “strong competition.” Percent saying “strong competition” is highest in NY (35%) and TX (32%) …getting jobs with the city or state government 42 to 48% in emerging states say “no competition,” and roughly 28 % say “strong competition.” GA stands out in this group, with 33% percent saying “strong competition” The other three states tend to have higher percentage (than “emerging”) saying “strong competition: CA 35%; TX 33% and, most strikingly, NY 43%.

45. Competition in … Political Representation Question: Competition in … “Having [selected ethnic term] representatives in elected office” Results: In all 4 emerging states “no competition” is the most common answer (41, 39, 42, and 28 percent for AR, GA, IA, and NC, respectively). GA is highest with “strong competition,” 36%. IN CONTRAST In the three others states, “strong competition” is the most common answer: CA 38%, TX 38%, and NY 42%

46. Concept of “Linked Fate” with Others Question: How much does [Latinos] doing well depend on African Americans doing well? Results: Percent saying “some” or “a lot” in 4 emerging states ranges from 58% (NC) to 65% (AR). Interestingly, percent saying “some” or “a lot” is highest in NY (67%). In TX is 64% and in CA 53% say this.

47. IMMIGRATION POLICY

50. THE DECLINE OF TRANSNATIONALISM