Overcoming the Political Exclusion of Migrants: Theory and Experimental Evidence from India

Abstract

Migrants are politically marginalized in cities of the developing world, participating in destination-area elections less than do local-born residents. We theorize three reasons for this shortfall: migrants’ socioeconomic links to origin regions, bureaucratic obstacles to enrollment that disproportionately burden newcomers, and ostracism by antimigrant politicians. We randomized a door-to-door drive to facilitate voter registration among internal migrants to two Indian cities. Ties to origin regions do not predict willingness to become registered locally. Meanwhile, assistance in navigating the electoral bureaucracy increased migrant registration rates by 24 percentage points and substantially boosted next-election turnout. An additional treatment arm informed politicians about the drive in a subset of localities; rather than ignoring new migrant voters, elites amplified campaign efforts in response. We conclude that onerous registration requirements impede the political incorporation, and thus the well-being, of migrant communities in fast-urbanizing settings. The findings also matter for assimilating naturalized yet politically excluded cross-border immigrants.

Extortion, Civic Action, and Political Participation among Guatemalan Deportees

“…There is robust evidence that international migrants tend to vote less in receiving countries when compared to natives (for example, Leal 2002;Lim 2023;. The same may be true for internal migrants (Gaikwad and Nellis 2021;Rozo and Vargas 2021). Migrants may vote less as a result of rules restricting participation (Bhavnani and Lacina 2018;Dancygier 2017), policies that make registration harder (Gaikwad and Nellis 2021), country of origin policies limiting voter enfranchisement abroad (Wellman 2021), or difficulties surrounding naturalization (Hainmueller, Hangartner, and Pietrantuono 2015).…”

“…The same may be true for internal migrants (Gaikwad and Nellis 2021;Rozo and Vargas 2021). Migrants may vote less as a result of rules restricting participation (Bhavnani and Lacina 2018;Dancygier 2017), policies that make registration harder (Gaikwad and Nellis 2021), country of origin policies limiting voter enfranchisement abroad (Wellman 2021), or difficulties surrounding naturalization (Hainmueller, Hangartner, and Pietrantuono 2015). Deportees, however, do not face these constraints, leaving the question of how deportees engage politically open.…”

Extortion and Civic Engagement among Guatemalan Deportees

“…Shaw et al, 2000;Cassel, 2002;Garcia, 2011;OECD, 2018). Internal migrants also participate less in formal and informal networks, and turnout declines in areas with larger proportions of migrants (Akarca and Tansel, 2015;Gay, 2012;Gaikwad and Nellis, 2020;Villamizar Chaparro, 2021). However, there is little literature on 1) the political participation among migrants who are deported to their country of origin or on 2) how variation in violence experienced while migrating affects political participation.…”

Group Ties amid Industrial Change

“… 13 Dancygier 2017; Gaikwad and Nellis 2021. Political incorporation (or integration) indicates migrants’ political engagement in a destination country or community.…”

“… 24 Dancygier 2010; Gaikwad and Nellis 2021; Walter 2010; Shertzer 2016. Political incorporation or naturalization is sometimes a prerequisite for accessing public welfare; Van Hook, Brown, and Bean 2006.…”