This article examines several factors related to immigrant incorporation that have been ignored in previous studies of voting participation. We add various immigrant‐related variables to a model that controls for individual resources, social incorporation, institutional barriers and contexts of political mobilization. We find little support for straight‐line assimilationist theories of immigrant adaptation. We also find that coming from a repressive regime has no significant effect on voting and that living in areas with Spanish‐language ballots does not increase the likelihood of voting among first generation Latinos. Our results also suggest that antiimmigrant legislation has a positive effect on participation among first and second generation immigrants. Overall, the immigrant‐related variables introduced in our analysis add significantly to the existing theoretical knowledge on voting participation in the United States.

Immigration has been a salient and contentious topic in the United States, with a great deal of congressional debate, advocacy efforts, and media coverage. Among conservative and liberal groups, there is a vigorous debate over the terms used to describe this population, such as “undocumented” or “illegal,” as both sides perceive significant consequences to public opinion that flow out of this choice in equivalency frames. These same groups also compete over the ways in which immigration policies are framed. Here, for the first time, we examine the use of both types of frames (of immigrants themselves, and the policies affecting them) in media coverage. Importantly, we also test for whether these various frames affect preferences on three different policies of legalization. Our results suggest that efforts to focus on the terms used to describe immigrants have limited effect, and that efforts to frame policy offer greater promise in swaying public opinion on immigration.

Objective. This article takes issue with the way that second‐generation immigrants have been traditionally defined. In most studies, respondents are considered to be “second generation” if they are born in the United States and if at least one of their parents was born outside the United States. This article considers whether the experiences and outcomes of those with one U.S.‐born parent and one foreign‐born parent (the “2.5 generation”) are different from those with no U.S.‐born parents (the “2.0 generation”) and those with two native‐born parents (the “third generation”). Methods. The article analyzes data from the March Current Population Survey (CPS) from 1999 to 2001. Results. The evidence indicates that the 2.5 generation is a numerically significant population, and that it varies from other groups in age structure, racial identification, educational attainment, and income. Conclusions. In studying the U.S.‐born children of immigrants, scholars should avoid lumping together the 2.5 generation with those who have no native‐born parents. The members of the 2.5 generation also should be treated as distinct from those born in the United States to two native‐born parents.

No abstract

This article explores the effect of explicitly racial and inflammatory speech by political elites on mass citizens in a societal context where equality norms are widespread and generally heeded yet a subset of citizens nonetheless possesses deeply ingrained racial prejudices. The authors argue that such speech should have an ‘emboldening effect’ among the prejudiced, particularly where it is not clearly and strongly condemned by other elite political actors. To test this argument, the study focuses on the case of the Trump campaign for president in the United States, and utilizes a survey experiment embedded within an online panel study. The results demonstrate that in the absence of prejudiced elite speech, prejudiced citizens constrain the expression of their prejudice. However, in the presence of prejudiced elite speech – particularly when it is tacitly condoned by other elites – the study finds that the prejudiced are emboldened to both express and act upon their prejudices.