Voting Behavior of Naturalized Citizens: 1996-2006 Sarah R. Crissey Thom File U.S. Census Bureau Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division Presented.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Citizenship Acquisition in the United States of America Ather H. Akbari (Saint Marys University & Atlantic Metropolis Centre)
Advertisements

Assessing the Potential Effect of Programmatic Changes in Medicaid and SCHIP on Childrens Uninsured Rates Matthew M. Davis, MD, MAPP Rachel M. Quinn, MPP,
Transitions from independent to supported environments in England and Wales: examining trends and differentials using the ONS Longitudinal Study Emily.
1 The Social Survey ICBS Nurit Dobrin December 2010.
Dec. 12/Warm-up: Which of these is an advantage of a representative democracy? A. Political Parties have similar platforms B. Citizens are able to vote.
Historical Changes in Stay-at-Home Mothers: 1969 to 2009 American Sociological Association Annual Meeting Atlanta, GA August 14-17, 2010 Rose M. Kreider,
1 1 Chapter 5: Multiple Regression 5.1 Fitting a Multiple Regression Model 5.2 Fitting a Multiple Regression Model with Interactions 5.3 Generating and.
1 Avalaura L. Gaither and Eric C. Newburger Population Division U.S. Census Bureau Washington, D.C. June 2000 Population Division Working Paper No. 44.
U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration U.S. CENSUS BUREAU Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage: 2009 September 2010.
Latino fathers’ childbearing intentions: The view from mother-proxy vs. father self-reports Lina Guzman, Jennifer Manlove, & Kerry Franzetta.
October 2013 CENSUS 2010 REVEALED.  Demographic Trends  Challenges & Opportunities  Discussion.
Program-stimulated change in network composition and behavior related to family planning in Ghana Marc Boulay Dynamics of Networks and Behavior Symposium.
Topic 2: Voting & Elections (Part 1). Part 1: The Right to Vote & Qualifications How have voting rights changed over time? What restrictions exist on.
Poverty Rates in Indiana An very brief IBRC Economic Brief September 13, 2011.
1 Health Status and The Retirement Decision Among the Early-Retirement-Age Population Shailesh Bhandari Economist Labor Force Statistics Branch Housing.
The Gender Gap in Educational Attainment: Variation by Age, Race, Ethnicity, and Nativity in the United States Sarah R. Crissey, U.S. Census Bureau Nicole.
Economics and Statistics Administration U.S. CENSUS BUREAU U.S. Department of Commerce 1 The U.S. Census Bureau’s 2010 Demographic Analysis Estimates:
An Assessment of the Cohort-Component-Based Demographic Analysis Estimates of the Population Aged 55 to 64 in 2010 Kirsten West U.S. Census Bureau Applied.
Transportation leadership you can trust. presented to TRB Census Data for Transportation Planning Meeting presented by Kevin Tierney Cambridge Systematics,
A Brief Demography of California Hans Johnson Public Policy Institute of California November 30, 2010.
HOME ALONE: DETERMINANTS OF LIVING ALONE AMONG OLDER IMMIGRANTS IN CANADA AND THE U.S. SHARON M. LEE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY POPULATION RESEARCH GROUP.
Lori Latrice Martin, PhD Assistant Professor John Jay College of Criminal Justice
BULLSEYE VOCABULARY UNIT 2. Political Culture, Political Socialization, Particiapation Good Luck on your Test!!!!
Native and immigrant fertility patterns in Greece: a comparative study based on aggregated census statistics and IPUMS micro-data Cleon Tsimbos 1, Georgia.
The Immigration Issue and the 2008 Presidential Election: Exit Poll of Hispanic Voters in Miami-Dade County, Florida and Los Angeles County, California.
Roomers and Boarders: Melissa Scopilliti, University of Maryland, Maryland Population Research Center; Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau.
Recent Trends in Worker Quality: A Midwest Perspective Daniel Aaronson and Daniel Sullivan Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago November 2002.
Chapter Eight Political Participation. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.8 | 2 From State to Federal Control Initially, states.
1 Representations of the Childhood Overweight Problem in Los Angeles County June 24, 2007 County of Los Angeles Public Health Department Nutrition Program.
New Alternatives for Estimating Net Migration to the United States Using the American Community Survey Alexa Kennedy-Puthoff David Dixon Sonya Rastogi.
American Community Survey Maryland State Data Center Affiliate Meeting September 16, 2010.
Economics and Statistics Administration U.S. CENSUS BUREAU U.S. Department of Commerce Assessing the “Year of Naturalization” Data in the American Community.
1 Basic requirements for using a household survey to produce good quality migration data Dean H. Judson, Ph.D. Immigration Statistics Staff.
Arnold School of Public Health Health Services, Policy, and Management 1 Drug Treatment Disparities Among African Americans Living with HIV/AIDS Carleen.
Texas Demographic Data Users Conference May 22, 2014 Austin, Texas.
American Community Survey “It Don’t Come Easy”, Ringo Starr Jane Traynham Maryland State Data Center March 15, 2011.
Are the number of bedrooms and number of bathrooms significant predictors of monthly rent in the multiple regression model we estimated in class? Jill.
Things that May Affect the Estimates from the American Community Survey Updated February 2013.
Chapter 16 Data Analysis: Testing for Associations.
Psychological Distress and Recurrent Pain: Results from the 2002 NHIS Psychological Distress and Recurrent Pain: Results from the 2002 NHIS Loren Toussaint,
Hofstra University September 26, 2013 Trudi Renwick Poverty Statistics Branch Social, Economic and Housing Statistics Division U.S. Bureau of the Census.
© 2006 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 1 Chapter 12 Testing for Relationships Tests of linear relationships –Correlation 2 continuous.
United Nations Workshop on Revision 3 of Principles and Recommendations for Population and Housing Censuses and Evaluation of Census Data, Amman 19 – 23.
Economics and Statistics Administration U.S. CENSUS BUREAU U.S. Department of Commerce The Foreign-Born Population in New Mexico Size, Distribution, and.
What it Takes to Make History Torbjorn Bjering Ho-Jung Hsiao Eric Griffin Chun-Hung Lin Gulsah Gunenc Gaoyuan Tian Laura Braeutigam Torbjorn Bjering Ho-Jung.
Why People vote Suffering through Suffrage. Clearly Communicated Learning Objectives Analyze the theories of why people vote and apply them to the 2008.
Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.8 | 1 Expanding the Franchise 1842 law: House members elected by district 15 th Amendment (1870):
Voting as a measure of social inclusion for natives, immigrants and descendants in Sweden Pieter Bevelander International Migration & Ethnic Relations,
Why Don’t People Vote? Voting and Opportunity Cost November 2012 Vasu Economics.
Issues in Estimating the Coverage and Cost Impacts of Public Insurance Expansion John Holahan November 10, 2004.
Quality of Race and Hispanic Origin Reporting on Death Certificates in the US Elizabeth Arias, Ph.D. Mortality Statistics Branch Division of Vital Statistics.
VOTING & VOTER BEHAVIOR FALL THE RIGHT TO VOTE SECTION 1.
Household Structure and Household Structure and Childhood Mortality in Ghana Childhood Mortality in Ghana Winfred Avogo Victor Agadjanian Department of.
Chapter Eight Political Participation. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.8 | 2 Figure 8.2: Voter Participation in Presidential.
Children’s Emotional and Behavioral Problems and Their Parents’ Labor Supply Patrick Richard, Ph.D., M.A. Nicholas C. Petris Center on Health Markets and.
Trends and Characteristics of the Elderly Population in West Virginia Christiadi WVU Bureau of Business and Economic Researc h.
Chapter 22 Inferential Data Analysis: Part 2 PowerPoint presentation developed by: Jennifer L. Bellamy & Sarah E. Bledsoe.
NURS 306, Nursing Research Lisa Broughton, MSN, RN, CCRN RESEARCH STATISTICS.
Measuring International Migration: An Example from the U. S
Mesfin S. Mulatu, Ph.D., M.P.H. The MayaTech Corporation
Voter Turnout Overview 2016 Results
Propensity Score Adjustments for Internet Survey of Voting Behavior:
Department of Public & International Affairs
How Hispanics Are Changing the Face of Nevada
Qualified to Vote Understanding the Latino American voting bloc reveals not only its growth and influence, but also insights about the nation’s Latino.
Voters and Voting Behavior
American Government: Politics and Policy
Experimental research methods.
Slide Deck 7A: Democratic Participation
Chapter 8 Political Participation
Presentation transcript:

Voting Behavior of Naturalized Citizens: Sarah R. Crissey Thom File U.S. Census Bureau Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America New Orleans, LA April 16-19, 2008

2006: 36.5 million foreign born in U.S., 14.4 million naturalized Nativity effect = naturalized less likely to vote than native citizens Baseline estimates from 1996 Current Population Survey (CPS) from Bass and Casper (2002). Since 1996, more than 5 million new naturalized citizens. Total population has increased by roughly 21 million. Political debate on immigration and naturalization policy has grown heated

Expands Bass and Casper’s 1996 analyses from RQ 1. Net of other predictors of voting behavior, are naturalized citizens less likely than native citizens to register and to vote in elections over the past decade? –Hypothesis: As found in 1996, nativity effect will exist from Research Questions and Hypotheses

RQ 2: Has the magnitude of the nativity effect changed across the last decade? –Hypothesis: With increasing and diversifying naturalized citizen population, nativity effect will decrease over time. RQ 3: Does nativity status have the same effect across election type? –Hypothesis: Nativity effect will be stronger in congressional elections since disengaged populations register and vote less frequently.

DATA AND METHODS Data –CPS bi-annual November Voting Supplement –Representative of the U.S. non- institutionalized civilian population –Analytic sample sizes between about 77,000 and 89,000 for each year.

Dependent variables –Two dichotomous voting behaviors for November election of survey year: 1. Registered to vote 2. Voted Independent variables –Nativity status 1=naturalized, 0=native –Demographic control variables

Analytical Plan –Logistic Regression Weighted models and standard errors adjusted for design effects –RQ 1: Estimate effect of nativity status for each survey year –RQ 2: Compare nativity coefficients across election years within election types –RQ 3: Compare nativity coefficients across election type with proximate years

Figure 1: Odds Ratios from Logistic Regression Predicting Voter Registration: 2006 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, November Voting Supplement: 2006 * = Coefficient is statistically significant at the p <.10 level

Figure 2: Odds Ratios from Logistic Regression Predicting Voting: 2006 * = Coefficient is statistically significant at the p <.10 level Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, November Voting Supplement: 2006

Table 1: Total Voting-Age Citizen Population Size, by Nativity Status and Year: Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, November Voting Supplements: Numbers in thousands

Figure 3: Percentage of Eligible Voting Population Who Registered to Vote, by Nativity Status and Year: Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, November Voting Supplements:

Figure 4: Percentage of Eligible Voting Population Who Voted, by Nativity Status and Year: Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, November Voting Supplements:

RESULTS Descriptive Findings –Table 1: U.S. Citizens 18+ population grew from about 180 to 201 million between Naturalized grew from 8 to 14 million –Figure 3: In each year, percentage of native citizens who registered to vote was statistically higher than naturalized –Figure 4: In each year, percentage of native citizens who voted was statistically higher than naturalized

Figure 5: Odds Ratios from Logistic Regressions Predicting Voter Registration for Naturalized Citizens Versus Native Citizens: Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, November Voting Supplements: = Coefficient is statistically significant at the p <.10 level *

Figure 6: Odds Ratios from Logistic Regressions Predicting Voting for Naturalized Citizens versus Native Citizens: Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, November Voting Supplements: = Coefficient is statistically significant at the p <.10 level *

RESULTS Multivariate Findings – RQ 1 –Figure 5: Registration in Individual Years In each year, naturalized citizens are statistically less likely than native citizens to register In 1996, the odds of registering were about 35% lower for naturalized than native citizens In 2006, the odds of registering were about 50% lower for naturalized than native citizens

–Figure 6: Voting in Individual Years Naturalized citizens statistically less likely than native citizens to vote each year In 1996, the odds of voting were about 25% lower for naturalized than native citizens In 2006, the odds of voting were about 40% lower for naturalized than native citizens

Figure 7: Comparison of Ratios from Logistic Regressions Predicting Voting Behavior for Naturalized Citizens versus Native Citizens: Presidential Election Years Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, November Voting Supplements: = Logistic regression coefficients are statistically different at the p <.10 level *

Figure 8: Comparison of Ratios from Logistic Regressions Predicting Voting Behavior for Naturalized Citizens versus Native Citizens: Congressional Election Years Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, November Voting Supplements: = Logistic regression coefficients are statistically different at the p <.10 level *

RESULTS Multivariate Findings – RQ 2 –Figure 7: Differences over Time (Presidential Election Years) Odds ratio for nativity in registration models was statistically different between 1996 and both 2000 and 2004 – effect was weakest in Odds ratio for nativity in voting models was statistically different from – effect is weaker in 1996

–Figure 8: Differences over Time (Congressional Election Years) No statistically significant differences across models predicting registration Odds ratio for nativity in voting models statistically different between —effect is weaker in 1998

Figure 9: Comparison of Odds Ratios from Logistic Regressions Predicting Voter Registration for Naturalized Versus Native Citizens, by Type of Election: Proximate Years Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, November Voting Supplements: = Logistic regression coefficients are statistically different at the p <.10 level *

Figure 10: Comparison of Odds Ratios from Logistic Regressions Predicting Voting for Naturalized Versus Native Citizens, by Type of Election: Proximate Years Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, November Voting Supplements: = Logistic regression coefficients are statistically different at the p <.10 level *

RESULTS Multivariate Findings – RQ 3 –Figure 9: Registration by Election Type Comparisons were statistically different in two comparisons: – – In these two cases, the effect was stronger in congressional versus presidential elections

–Figure 10: Voting by Type Comparisons were statistically significant in two cases: – – In these two cases, the effect was stronger in congressional versus presidential elections

RQ 1: Effect of Nativity –Support for hypothesis that naturalized citizens are less likely than native citizens to register and vote in elections in the past decade. –In 2006, naturalized citizens were 52% less likely to register and 42% less likely to vote compared to native citizens. –Provides further support for literature documenting lower electoral participation by naturalized citizens.

RQ 2: Nativity Effect Over Time –Mixed evidence for hypothesis that effect has changed over time. –In presidential years, effect increased between earliest and latest year. –In congressional years, no time trend in registration but nativity effect was larger in latest year compared to earliest year for voting. –Participation by naturalized citizens is not increasing over time, and some evidence it is decreasing compared to native citizens.

RQ 3: Nativity Effect by Election Type –Mixed evidence for hypothesis that effect varies by type. –For each statistically different comparison, the effect was stronger in congressional versus presidential elections. –Potentially, naturalized citizens are less likely to participate in congressional elections.

CONCLUSIONS Nativity continues to be an important social predictor of voting behavior –Compared to native citizens, naturalized citizens are less likely to take advantage of their right to participate in the democratic process. –Effect of nativity has not decreased in recent years –Effect of nativity potentially stronger in congressional elections