1 / 10

London Compared: Immigrants and Politics in New York City

London Compared: Immigrants and Politics in New York City. John Mollenkopf Center for Urban Research The Graduate Center, CUNY London School of Economics November 2012. Urban Democracy and the Immigrant ‘Other’. New York and London’s populatons are becoming increasingly immigrant-origin

sirvat
Download Presentation

London Compared: Immigrants and Politics in New York City

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. London Compared: Immigrants and Politicsin New York City John Mollenkopf Center for Urban Research The Graduate Center, CUNY London School of Economics November 2012

  2. Urban Democracy and the Immigrant ‘Other’ • New York and London’s populatons are becoming increasingly immigrant-origin • Yet many immigrants lack citizenship and do not have voting rights; immigrant-origin voting age citizens are less politically mobilized • This creates a “representation gap” between the size of an immigrant-origin group and their share of representatives (legislative and executive) • This contradicts basic democratic norms – and creates numerous practical challenges for public services • How is New York City closing this gap?

  3. How Urban Politics Can ‘Bring Outsiders In’? Some socio-economic inclusion is a pre-requisite for political inclusion But ‘bureaucratic incorporation’ takes place even for undocumented or illegal immigrants The multi-step process of legal entry, citizenship acquisition, political identification, political mobilization takes time Both sides must help this to happen

  4. The New York City Electorate • The “Funnel” of Political Participation: • 8.2 million residents (38.5% foreign born [CPS 2012]) • 5.1 million voting age citizens (32.1% foreign born [CPS 2012] • 2.5 million presidential votes cast in 2012 (30% foreign born & 18% children of FB [CPS 2012]) • 1.1 million votes in 2013 mayoral election • 692,000 Democratic Primary voters (Mayor 2013) (est. 30%FB) • Most NYC voters are Democrats (68.9%), followed by ‘no party declared (16.9%) and Republicans (11.2%) • In general elections, whites cast about 38% of vote, blacks 30% of vote, Latinos 21% of vote, and Asians 8% • White voters are 64.3% native stock, blacks voters 52.4% native stock, Latinos 49% native stock, and Asians 4% native stock. • Overall, just under half of NYC general election voters are immigrants or children of immigrants • Native stock whites made up only 25% of NYC voters in 2012

  5. How they Lean • Black groups most Democratic (correlation ~ .350) • African Americans (.346) and West Indians (.341) quite similar • Latino groups also highly Democratic (.200) • Dominicans (.213) a bit more Democratic than Puerto Ricans (.192) • Mexicans (.137) also trending Democratic • Colombians, Ecuadorans, Peruvians (.083) less Democatic • Asian groups least Democratic (.050) • Bangladeshis most Democratic (.114), Pakistanis least (-.028) • Chinese (.050) more Democratic than Koreans (.029)

  6. This is a vast change from 1990 • In 1990, native whites made up 46 percent of VAC, a figure that has been cut by at least a third • In 1990, immigrants made up 18 percent of VAC, a figure that has increased by three-quarters. • In 1990, the NYC Council had no first or second generation immigrant members. It gained two after the 1991 expansion and redistricting. • By 2013, it had 4 Dominican, 4 West Indian, 2 Asian, and 1 Mexican-origin members (or 21.6% of 51 members), joining 15 native stock minority members

  7. Immigrant Representation? • The “immigrant representation gap” between immigrant-origin share of eligible electorate and share of council seats held has thus been cut from 100% in 1990 to 56% in 2013. • Glass half empty or half full? At least it is progress • Immigrants per se do not vote as solid block in Council or mayoral elections, but are broken down by race and national origin • Thus political elites see them as ethnic groups, not and immigrant collectivity

  8. Role in Mayoral Votes • Success of “Koch Coalition” increasingly dependent on divisions among minority groups as white majority has slipped steadily • Black versus Latino competition in 2001, 2005, 2009 • Immigrant minorities slightly less Democratic than native minorities, but still vote along similar lines • De Blasio overcame white-black division, black-Latino division in 2013 Democratic primary (against a black opponent); benefitted from West Indian support and absence of Latino candidate

  9. Immigrant / Minority Empowerment • Greatest accent on class (inequality) issues in housing, paid sick leave, etc. • Municipal ID cards on the legislative agenda – but details to work out • Significant immigrant-origin appointees in de Blasio administration • Dominicans to DODC, Contracts, SBS, Community Affairs, Haitian to Finance, West Indian to DCAS, Indians to HHS and Immigrant Affairs…

  10. www.urbanresearch.org

More Related