Cross-Nativity Partnering and the Political Participation of Immigrant Generations

Abstract

This article defines cross-nativity intermarriage in four generations of Canadians and explores whether cross-nativity partnering is associated with political assimilation—in this case, similarity in voting and political activities between immigrants with native-born partners and third-plus-generation immigrants. We find that foreign-born residents with Canadian-born partners do not differ from third-plus-generation residents who have Canadian-born partners in their propensities to vote or in the number of political activities in which they participate. Conversely, the foreign-born with foreign-born partners are less likely than the third-plus generation to have voted in a previous federal election; if the foreign-born immigrated later in adolescence or in adulthood, they also are less likely to participate in other political activities. Differences in demographic and socioeconomic characteristics underlie the greater likelihood that second and third-plus generations will engage in political activities.

Cross-Nativity Partnering and Political Participation: The Effect of Partner's Immigration Background on Voting Across Immigrant Generations

“…Two broad findings emerge from these results: First, having a second or third+ generation partner has a positive effect on voting, and this is particularly important for first generation respondents for whom having a a second or third+ generation partner eliminates a gap in voting. This is consistent with theoretical explanations that US-born partners provide resources that immigrants may lack or that having a US-born partner signals a selection effect based on the immigrant partners' overall integration into US society (Boyd and Couture-Carron 2015). Second, and more surprisingly, there is small but significant variation in voting among the third+ generation based on their partners' immigrant generation.…”

“…Second, and more surprisingly, there is small but significant variation in voting among the third+ generation based on their partners' immigrant generation. While these differences are small, they indicate inadequacies in theorizing USborn partners solely as providers of resources and selection effects as based only on the immigrant partner's successful integration, because these theoretical explanations cannot account for or explain any changes or variation among the third+ generation (Boyd and Couture-Carron 2015). Instead, this finding is more consistent with a relational conceptualization of cross-nativity relationships that allows both partners to potentially experience political resocialization (López 2015).…”

“…An important exception to this is Boyd and Couture-Carron (2015), who argue that the same mechanisms resulting in socioeconomic gains for immigrant partners in cross-nativity relationships also facilitate their greater participation in civic and political life. They posit that cross-nativity partnering increases political participation among immigrant partners by providing them with resources, knowledge, and connections needed for participation; and, alternatively, that cross-nativity relationships represent a selection mechanism, where immigrants who are more integrated into the host society overall may be more likely to partner with non-immigrants and also participate in politics.…”

“…These findings provide evidence that cross-nativity partnering is associated with political participation, specifically, with a boost in participation for first generation immigrants. (Boyd and Couture-Carron 2015).…”

Toward building a conceptual framework on intermarriage

“…As far as we know, the political and identity-related aspects of intermarried migrants' integration have not been addressed in the literature until recently (e.g. Boyd and Couture-Carron, 2015; Rodríguez-García et al., 2015). Some of the key questions to be asked in relation to the putative link between intermarriage and integration are as follows: Are there differences in the political participation and belonging of intermarried versus nonintermarried migrants in the host country?…”