Search

This paper addresses the relationship between the Mexican government and the organized Mexican immigrant community in the United States from a historical perspective and within a framework of transnational politics. We argue that transnational relations between the Mexican government and Mexican immigrants in the United States are not new; however, these relations vary across time depending on political and economic circumstances that involve U.S.-Mexico relations. These historical links have provided the basis for the existence of current organizations of Mexican immigrants in the United States as well as the recent creation and development of the Mexican government?s institutions to manage this relationship. In recent years, we identify a change in Mexico?s traditional approach to migration issues in the bilateral agenda, as well as a shift in the relationship between the Mexican immigrant communities and the government. The process of institutionalization of this new relation began with the Program for Mexican Communities Abroad (PCME, in Spanish) in 1990, and was strongly consolidated in 2003 with the creation of the Institute of Mexicans Abroad (IME, in Spanish). We argue that the IME is the first Mexican governmental transnational institution in the history of relations between the Mexican government and the Mexican community in the United States. As such, we explore some of the challenges it faces in order to achieve its objectives and exert influence in American ethnic politics. In the first part of the paper we present a theoretical overview about the historical perspective of transnational politics. The second part offers a historical account of the development of the transnational relations between the Mexican government and the organized Mexican immigrant community in the last 156 years. In the third part, we analyze the challenges faced by the IME and its potential influence in American ethnic politics. Finally, we conclude with a section of remarks from both theoretical and empirical standpoints. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper focuses on the recent immigrant mobilizations and the heightened presence of politically active Latinos (documented and undocumented; non-citizens versus native-born) in the United States. The recent marches and rallies of undocumented immigrants in spring 2006 were a powerful reminder of the importance of publicly enacting one's civic identity. Yet this paper argues that such embodied forms of breaking silence pose enormous dangers, since the undocumented struggle with being collectively visible yet publicly undifferentiated. Drawing on Hannah Arendt's theories of labor action, the paper explores how issues of political action and racial visibility effect the political practices of the undocumented as they attempt to lay claim to the public realm. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This essay attempts to provide an affirmative answer to three key questions: Is there a place for "global citizenship" in the political life of the United States? Can we improve our standards of political justice to include a greater voice among non-citizens, specifically immigrants and even more specifically as pertains to the issues of immigration? Can we contribute to this gesture in the direction of global citizenship through programs of non-partisan civic education?In answering these questions, the paper attempts five things: First, we adumbrate a model of good citizenship. Second we show that the model of citizenship can accommodate non-citizens. Third, we identify the major barrier to recognizing non-citizens - civic marginalization. Fourth, we suggest teaching and learning strategies centering on civic hermeneutics and civic staging that promise to yield accommodation. Finally, we ask how a program of civic education using these techniques might include acceptable strategies of assessment.Good liberal citizenship in the United States is liberal citizenship. There are five components of liberal citizenship: rights, interests, affections, duties and virtues. Effective citizenship requires the ability to be seen and heard in public. Good citizenship requires us to pay close attention to those who are unjustly excluded or consigned to second-class citizenship. The main challenge to this civic attention concerns our ability to pay attention to one another and get attention under conditions of diversity. Coming from a variety of backgrounds including class, sex, gender, ethnicity, religion, race and ideology makes it difficult for us to communicate effectively and respectfully.Learning how to teach respectful and effective civic communication between citizens and noncitizens when addressing the issue of immigration is at the heart of this paper. This civic learning must include recognition of the essential tension between the civic and the human. The authors invite readers to try the pedagogy of the excluded as presented here and explore the possibilities of informal citizenship in the United States and elsewhere. Informal citizens have rights and interests. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The political incorporation of immigrants and their children has long been critical to the civic health of the United States. From the nation's first days, governments, civic institutions, and ethnic organizations have faced the political consequence of the nation's continuing commitment to large scale immigration: the need to ensure that immigrants and, more importantly, their children become regular participants in the nation's civic and political life. The consequences of failure are potentially quite high. If immigrants and their descendants come to be excluded as a class from equal participation in the democratic process, the nation will not meet its ideals of equal participation. Over time, the excluded could potentially use their exclusion as a tool for mobilizing and come to organize in opposition to U.S. political institutions. The relative success of the United States at meeting this responsibility to incorporate most immigrants and their descendants has long been a subject of scholarly attention and popular concern. While this rich immigrant tapestry may create opportunities and tensions for the United States, it undoubtedly offers the foundation for rich scholarly analysis of the cross-generational process of immigrant incorporation. In this paper, I review available models of the role of generation in immigrant political adaptation and test these models using data from a survey of immigrant mobility in the Los Angeles region conducted in 2004 (IIMMLA). In this paper, I measure political attitudinal change across generations. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyses recent efforts to improve K-12 education in California, the state with the largest population of K-12 students (6.1 million), the highest percentage of students receiving Limited English Proficiency services (24.5 %) and a high percentage of stu-dents eligible for free and reduced price meals (46.6 %). California is compared to the five states with next highest K-12 enrollments (Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, and Pennsylvania) and its three contiguous states (Arizona, Nevada and Oregon). Special attention is paid to the impact of a law suit, Williams vs. State of California, upon education politics and policy making in that state. This suit claims that California unconstitutionally fails to provide adequate resources to its schools, especially in the areas of instructional materials, qualified teachers and school facilities. At least five major policy approaches are seeking to improve K-12 education today: (1) standards (applied to schools for learning outcomes by grade and subject and to students for mastering these materials, most notably in high stakes examinations for high school graduation), (2) parental/student choice (in the form of charter schools and vouchers), (3) reformed governance of schools (including most notably large city mayors taking over public schools), (4) increased school accountability (especially as seen in the national No Child Left Behind Act), and (5) claims for ?adequacy? tests for school financing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the last decade, there has been a great deal of scholarly interest and research on transnational politics–political engagement of immigrants and their children in their countries of origin or ancestry. Community-focused ethnographies of Latino immigrants have demonstrated that some emigrants are engaging the politics of their communities of origin. The experiences of these migrants have come at a time when Latin American immigrant-sending countries have invested extensively in creating opportunities for emigrants to maintain cultural and political ties with their countries of origin. Mexico’s offer of Mexican nationality to its émigrés is an example of this new international relationship that facilitates some forms of transnational politics. This paper examines the political consequences of transnationalism for the United States and what it means for immigrant political adaptation and naturalization in the United States. I measure the consequences of involvement in sending country community affairs and politics on immigrant political attachment, U.S. organizational membership, and naturalization in the United States. I tap a survey of 1,602 Latino immigrants/migrants from Mexico, Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, and El Salvador conducted by the Tomás Rivera Policy Institute (TRPI) in 2002. This survey offers a rich battery of measures of immigrant/migrant political and community engagement both before their migration (for adults) and since their migration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When immigrants arrive to the U.S., do they learn new political orientations and behaviors, or do their prior political socialization continue to shape their attitudes and behavior even in their new setting? If prior socialization continues in new settings, then how much does it matter if immigrants arrive from more or less authoritarian or democratic contexts in their in their countries of origin? Are individuals with less experience with the functioning of democracy in their countries of birth also less likely to be participants in the democratic process in the United States? Using data from the 2006 Latino National Survey this paper examines the prior political socialization of Mexican immigrants in the United States, finds some counter-intuitive results, and suggest some of the implications for participation in the U.S. stemming from the continuity and discontinuity of prior political socialization among immigrants. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper considers whether immigration is an issue that evolves, beginning in the 1990s. It is argued that whenever the immigrant population can be associated with high costs, then policy entrepreneurs will start the evolution process by dwelling on the cost symbol. This idea is tested by comparing partisan polarization for the entire United States, for the seven states that incurred a net deficit in spending on immigrants, and for California alone. As hypothesized, polarization increases the most in California, though not in a way that suggests issue evolution. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Supreme Court has determined Congress' authority over immigration policy to be one of its plenary powers. Classifying immigration as a plenary power effectively precludes any external involvement and/or interference from any other entity. From the early 1900s and into the 21st Century, Congressional plenary authority over immigration had come to be expected and desired in the United States. However, one event changed this, essentially rendering that power over immigration unconstitutional when taken in light of other doctrines the Court has iterated. The event that brought about this transformation was the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The attacks transformed the political and legal landscapes of immigration and security policy in the United States, and forced the citizenry to rethink the traditional roles of the state and federal governments. In the post-9/11 era, the states are precluded from creating and enacting immigration legislation, while being held accountable by residents for how they (the states) address their constituencies' immigration demands. It is in this way, Congress is overstepping its bounds and violating the Court's modern federalism doctrine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As the size of the foreign-born population in the United States has climbed, political scientists have directed more attention to the forces that encourage or impede immigrant incorporation into the party system. Using a large two-wave panel survey of Mexican immigrants administered in the fall of 2008, we examine whether candidate-centered campaign ads targeting Latinos can foster partisanship among Mexicans. We find strong evidence for this, but over the long-term these effects vary considerably based on regional contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A well-known finding in the political science literature is the association between negative racial attitudes and opposition to welfare. Research in this area provides important insights into the relationship between racial stereotypes of blacks, racial context, and welfare benefit levels, but little is known about how attitudes towards Hispanics and immigrants influence opposition to welfare. I use a multi-level model to examine how changes in the demographic patterns of blacks, Hispanics and immigrants in the American states influence individual welfare spending preferences over time. I also investigate how individual-level factors (e.g., economic self-interest, racial stereotypes, principled individualism) condition the relationship between racial context and welfare attitudes. To address these questions of theory, time, and space, my study combines U.S. census data with survey data from the General Social Survey from 1973 to 2006. During this thirty-four year timeline, the United States shifted from a black-white paradigm to a multi-racial paradigm with dramatic increases in both the Hispanic and immigrant populations. I find that states with larger black populations initially prefer more restrictive welfare spending policies than states with smaller black populations, but this relationship varies for both Hispanic and immigrant populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article proposes a framework to analyze cross-national variation in immigration policy-making in the U.S. It argues that immigration policy consists of multiple, distinctive issues and it can be disaggregated by applying intersectionality approach. It proposes that in context of disaggregating immigration policy, the country needs to identify the different causal mechanisms behind each type of policy, which encompasses relevant actors and political contexts.

The article presents a model capstone exercise designed to internationalize the political science curriculum by incorporating a global perspective into core General Education American Government courses through examinations of immigration policy. This exercise has been tested in both classroom and online offerings, and a marked increase was measured in the theoretical understanding of geopolitical, nationalistic and sociological forces, as well as an increased appreciation of the causes of waves of immigration and of domestic nativist responses.

Abstract: This research provides an empirical assessment of the relationship between places of socialization and ethnic self-identity preferences among Asian immigrants in the United States from separate parts of a politically divided homeland. Does place of socialization influence the (sub)ethnic self-identity of Chinese Americans growing up in China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong? How do socialization context and transnational political concerns, among other factors, help structure the relationship? Benefitting from recent advancements in targeted ethnic sampling and telephone survey methodology, this essay examines results of the 2007 Chinese American Homeland Politics survey to study the contour and sources of ethnic identity preferences among Chinese in the United States from separate homeland origins. We test the usefulness of a theoretical framework that contrasts primordial ties with transnational political ties in understanding the structuring of identity preferences at the subethnic level. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examines how neighborhood- and metropolitan-level racial heterogeneity relates to American public opinion toward immigrants and immigration policies. Using two sets of national survey data and the 2000 U.S. Census, we find that proximity to foreign-born residents corresponds to public attitudes toward immigration differently, depending on race and geographic unit: non-Hispanic white Americans living in neighborhoods populated by foreign-born people, particularly Asians, are more likely to be tolerant of immigrants, whereas both non-Hispanic whites and African Americans in the metropolis with a sizable number of immigrants (especially Latinos) are more likely to be prejudiced. Also, whites living in racially diverse neighborhoods are more likely to oppose strict qualifications for the legal status of immigrants, although they do not necessarily support liberal immigration policies. These findings suggest the significance of racial desegregation, which may facilitate interactions between native-born and immigrants, in alleviating interethnic tension in contemporary multiracial America. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]