Immigrant Political Incorporation Workshop May 15-16, 2008 Cornell University

1. Immigrant Political Incorporation WorkshopMay 15-16, 2008Cornell University Sponsored by the Institute for the Social Sciences and the Committee for the Study of Ethnicity, Race and Immigration in the United States (CSERIUS), Cornell University

2. ScheduleThursday, May 158:30 – 9:30 a.m. Breakfast; Welcome remarks by Michael Jones-Correa9:30 – 10:45 a.m. Session I: Incorporation as Political Representation (Moderator: Jennifer Hochschild) Panelists: Claudine Gay, Monica McDermott, Kim Williams, Cara Wong10:45 – 11:00 a.m. Break11:00 – 12:15 p.m. Session II: Incorporation across Generations (Moderator: Michael Jones-Correa) Panelists: Maria Cristina Garcia, Dan Lichter, Dowell Myers12:15 - 1:15 p.m. Lunch1:15 – 2:45 p.m. Session III: The Multiple Contributors to Incorporation (Moderator: Claudine Gay) Panelists: Guillermina Jasso, Irene Bloemraad, David Hollinger, Ewa Morawska2:45 – 3:00 p.m. Break3:00 – 4:30 p.m. Session IV: The Possibility of Non-Incorporation (Moderator: Jennifer Hochschild) Panelists: Gary Gerstle, Claire Jean KimFriday, May 169:30 – 10:00 a.m. Remarks by Xavier Briggs, Associate Professor of Sociology and Urban Planning, MIT10:00 – 10:30 a.m. Remarks by Jane Junn, Associate Professor of Political Science, Rutgers University10:30 – 10:45 a.m. Break10:45 – 11:30 a.m. Discussion of models. Audience participation welcome. (Moderator: Michael Jones- Correa)11:30 – 12:00 p.m. Wrap up and next steps— Panelists only.

3. Session I:Incorporation as Political RepresentationClaudine GayMonica McDermottKim WilliamsCara Wong

4. Political Incorporation as Membership in Governing Coalition G = f (r, g, i) where, G = Governing coalition r = internal resources g = intergroup relations i = electoral institutions Resources: time, money, civic skills, interest, institutional capacity Governing Coalition:agenda-setting interest group; descriptive representation Inter-group relations:shared interests, inter-group contact Electoral institutions:voting, districts, term limits, campaign finance Claudine Gay

5. Monica McDermott

6. (1) Individual Circumstances (upon arrival) (3)Political Incorporation by Generation -- more to less (2) Receiving Context a) across levels of government: Kim Williams hostile welcoming b) at local level: immigrant rate of growth by race/ethnicity Demographic Mix partisan ward Elections non-partisan at large Institutional Structure strong Mayor weak centralized Service Delivery fragmented Economic Conditions global > national > state > local --- how to measure? Established Local Political Actors’ Disposition Immigrant and/or co-ethnic mobilization capacity Immigrant and/or co-ethnic descriptive representation (# and %)

7. Descriptive Representation as a Measure of Incorporation? Research Question: How can the number of immigrant members of the House of Representatives be maximized? Outcome: The % of the members of the House of Representatives who are immigrants at any given time Explanations: Supply / Candidate Characteristics of candidates that make them more or less likely to be successful: Examples at the level of the individual, including gender, race/ethnicity, income, religion, ability to speak languages other than English, experience; level of the district, like its composition; and level of the nation, including national party funds, presidential coattails Additional characteristics of immigrant candidates (in addition to those listed above): Length of residence, English language ability, knowledge of American history and civics, naturalized, legal arrival in the US, possessing a noticeable “foreign” accent Demand / Voters Characteristics of voters that make them more or less likely to register and vote Examples at the individual level include age, gender, race/ethnicity, income, marital status, home ownership, occupation, mobilization by a group. mobilization because of an event. Examples at the contextual level include the rate of demographic change in the district, the state of the economy Characteristics of voters that make them more or less likely to vote for a particular candidate: (in addition to the above list) partisanship, ideology, policy preferences, religion, prejudices of a wide variety Additional characteristics of immigrant voters: Length of residence, English language ability, knowledge of American history and civics, naturalized, citizenship in another country, engagement (political, social, economic) in another country, political socialization in a democratic regime Who are the Points of Reference? Cara Wong

8. Session II:Incorporation across GenerationsMaria Cristina GarciaDan LichterDowell Myers

9. Cuban Americans in South Florida

10. Daniel T. Lichter, Cornell 3rd generation children 3rd+ generation children Mixed race children less intermarriage intermarriage out-marriage Other race groups 1st 2nd 3rd+ Social Distance generation generation generation endogamy endogamy endogamy 2nd generation children 3rd generation children 3rd+ generation children more Incorporation

11. the cycle of roles Demography, Voters, and the Social Contract:Receptivity to Incorporating Ethnic Newcomers 1. Demography of Population Growth 3. Intergenerational Social Contract Spans Ethnic Differences Between Generations Immigration Injects Ethnic Differences NOT Preferred by Older Majority Weight of Seniors Soars in Aging Societies Precedence and Seniority Labor Contribution and Social Support Children Educational Investments Seniors per 100 working age in US $$ Future supporters Competing Interest Groups and Voting Majority Seniors Rewarded Pensions Health Care Home-Sellers Replacement Supporters New Workers New Taxpayers New Home Buyers $$ 2. How Self Interest is Conceived $$ Voting majority Economic majority $$ Present or Future? Individual or Social Contract? Mature Adults Make Maximum Financial Contributions Social Contract Definition: the underlying shared social understandings that structure cooperation within a world of self-interested people possessing unequal resources Dowell Myers University of Southern California Voting DecisionInvest in Young or Old?

12. Session III:The Multiple Contributors to Incorporation Guillermina JassoIrene Bloemraad David Hollinger Ewa Morawska

13. ModelingPolitical Incorporation • Politicalincorporation has legal and behavioral components • Stages and groups: legal nonimmigrants, illegals, LPRs, naturalized citizens • Explananda: naturalization; civic virtue • Explanatory factors: history of political attachments; components of ethnicity (COB, race, skin color, language, religion); pathways to LPR; host country behavior • Ladder of Political Incorporation • Foreign-born climbing, legally and behaviorally • Social science studyingextent & pace of climb

14. Modeling Immigrant Political Incorporation I. Contextual Structuring: Political Community A. Homeland/ Diaspora * Eco. conditions, socialization, govt & org. outreach, events B. Settlement community (country, sub-national) 1. Policy – on immig., diversity 2. Eco. sys – welfare state, inequality 4. Socio-pol attitudes – race, history, pol. culture 3. Political sys – electoral rules, federalism, etc. II. Collective Organization & Civil Society B. “Political” groups: * pol. party outreach, advocacy & interest groups, etc. C. “Economic” grps: * union strength, business lobbies D. “Non-ethnic” civic grps: * associations, churches, nonprofit service providers A. “Ethnic” groups: * based on immigrant specificity (homeland, religion, race, etc.) III. Individual Attributes & Attitudes A. Immigrants (& kids?) B. Native-born citizens (3+ gen?) Resources – income, education Knowledge of politics, motivation, efficacy, identity General Attitudes – to diversity, foreigners Sense of threat – economic, cultural, terrorism, other? IV. Outcome: Defining Political Incorporation E. Policy/ Power Inclusion: * electoral politics, non-electoral A. Legal Membership: * esp. citizenship B. National/discursive Membership: * legitimacy, standing C. Bureaucratic Inclusion: * in policy, d-ming D. Civic Inclusion: * associationalism – degree & legitimacy Bloemraad (2008)

15. David A. Hollinger--Cornell Workshop-- May 15, 2008 The process of incorporation of immigrant groups in the United States from 1789 to the present is governed by three social scientific laws. The Law of Incorporation by Perceived Physical and Linguistic Sameness is central, but it is significantly modified by the simultaneous operation of the Law of Class Compensation and of the Law of Religious Compatibility. The Law of Incorporation by Perceived Physical and Linguistic Sameness determines the pace of incorporation according to degree to which the immigrant group is perceived by the receiving social body as similar to it in physical characteristics and language. [Hollinger’s First Law] The Law of Class Compensation determines that immigrant groups who display physical and linguistic difference increase the pace of their incorporation to the extent that they possess strong capital holdings and household income and high levels of skills and education. [Hollinger’s Second Law] The Law of Religious Compatibility determines that immigrant groups that practice a religion perceived as exotic encounter resistance to incorporation even if they display physical and linguistic sameness, while immigrant groups that are not religiously identified or that practice a religion perceived as familiar will be more quickly incorporated even if they display physical and linguistic difference. [Hollinger’s Third Law] Some might express this set of laws as follows: X= S as modified by E and R. In this formula, X is the pace of incorporation; S is the degree of perceived physical and linguistic sameness between an immigrant group and the empowered, receiving population; E is economic standing; R is religious orientation. Or, one might formulate this set of three laws in a single prosaic sentence: The pace of incorporation increases or decreases according to the degree of physical (esp. skin color and facial shape) and linguistic similarity perceived by the aggregated population possessing the power to control incorporation, but resistance to the incorporation of difference-displaying immigrant groups diminishes according to the extent to which these groups a) deploy skills that the empowered, receiving population associates with itself or to which it aspires (e.g., engineering, medicine, and business as opposed to house-cleaning and agricultural labor), b) possess capital holdings and household income that enable the looking out for oneself and diminish vulnerability to social pathologies (e.g., crime, overcrowded housing, truancy) perceived to be common to difference-displaying immigrant groups, and c) practice religions perceived as familiar or do not define themselves religiously, while the incorporation of sameness-displaying immigrant groups is not retarded by deficient skill sets or by weak economic position but is retarded by the extent to which these groups practice religions perceived to be exotic. Proviso: What counts as similar and different will depend on the contingent character (as a result of past and ongoing incorporation) of the aggregated population in a position to control the process. Hence the operative sameness/difference standard varies from 1840 to 1920 to 2000, even as the laws connected to it remain constant.

16. Model of Immigrants’ Political Incorporation, Its contributing Factors and Effects time Ewa Morawska

17. Session IV:The Possibility of Non-IncorporationGary GerstleClaire Jean Kim

18. Immigrant Political Incorporation (and Non-Incorporation) in Three DimensionsGary Gerstle, May 8, 2008 Political- institutional Political-cultural Formal Naturalization Vote Hold office Serve on jury Join military “Free white persons” Asian exclusion Guest workers Illegal aliens Learn English Engage w/ popular culture Schooling Embrace US ideals & wars Religious/racial marginality “Alien Citizens” Refuse to assimilate Oppose US ideals and wars Paucity of institutions Transnational affiliations Radical organizations Govt. repression/ deportation Political parties Labor unions Religious organizations Advocacy groups Business networks OR OR OR Content of the modes varies with historical era, race/ethnicity, and immigrants’ activism. Incorporation can result from a dynamic of repression and inclusion. Incorporation can be “acquiescent” or “transformational.”

19. Claire Jean KimIPI WorkshopMay 2008 GROUP LOCATION (Racial, Social, Economic, Spatial) Trigger event IDENTITY/INTEREST ARTICULATION Resource Mobilization COLLECTIVE POLITICAL ACTION (Ethnic, Transnational) DENIAL OF STANDING? (Non-Citizens, Conditional Citizens)