Idea Transcript
Immigrants and Immigration in the Ocean State: History, Demography, Public Opinion and Policy Responses Prepared by Alexandra Filindra Assistant Professor University of Illinois, Chicago and Shanna Pearson-‐Merkowitz Assistant Professor University of Rhode Island
1
Page
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
Table of Contents 3 4 5 6 7 9 22 42 49 53
Page
2
About the Authors About this Report A Note on Terminology Executive Summary Introduction Part 1. Immigrants and Immigration in the State of Rhode Island Part 2. Public Opinion toward Immigration and Immigrants in the State of Rhode Island Part 3. Immigrant Perceptions of Their Status in the State of Rhode Island Part 4: Government Responses to Immigration Issues References
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
About the Authors
Page
3
Alexandra Filindra is Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Illinois, Chicago. She specializes in American immigration policy, public opinion and survey research. Dr. Filindra received her Ph.D. from Rutgers University and served as a post-‐ doctoral researcher at Brown University’s Taubman Center for Public Policy and American Institutions. Her work has appeared in State Politics and Policy, Social Science Quarterly, Urban Affairs Review, Harvard Education Review, International Migration and other scholarly journals. Her research has been supported by grants from the University of Illinois at Chicago, the Pew Center for the States, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Rhode Island Foundation. Shanna Pearson-‐Merkowitz is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Rhode Island. She received her Ph.D. in May of 2009 from the University of Maryland, College Park. Her research focuses on political participation, racial minorities, public policy, inequality, immigration policy, and political geography. Professor Pearson-‐Merkowitz's research has appeared in some of the top political science journals including the Journal of Politics and the American Journal of Political Science.
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
About This Report This report focuses on immigration in the Ocean State. Section one is based on data gathered from various publicly available sources including the Pew Research Center, the Migration Policy Institute, and the U.S. Census Bureau. Section two is based on a survey designed by Dr. Alexandra Filindra on attitudes toward immigrants and minorities in Southern New England. This survey was sponsored by the Rhode Island Foundation and Brown University’s Taubman Center for Public Policy and American Institutions. The survey was conducted on the phone in English and Spanish using an RDD methodology. Data collection took place in November 2010-‐January 2011. It includes 507 Rhode Island residents. Section three is based on data from two major surveys. The Latino National Survey (LNS), conducted in 2006 includes over 8,000 respondents in 18 non-‐New England States was designed to be nationally representative of the U.S. Latino population. The National LNS Survey was funded by the Ford Foundation, the Russell Sage Foundation, the National Science Foundation, the Irvine Foundation, the Hewlett Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation, the Joyce Foundation, the W. K. Kellogg Foundation, Texas A&M University, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, and the Inter-‐University Program for Latino Research at the University of Notre Dame. The study was designed by Professors Luis R. Fraga, John A. Garcia, Rodney Hero, Michael Jones-‐Correa, Valerie Martinez-‐Ebers, and Gary M. Segura. The second data source is the New England version of the Latino National Survey. This study replicated the Latino National Survey but only surveyed Latinos in Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Connecticut. The New England edition was funded by the Rhode Island Foundation and collected by Professors Evelyn Hu-‐Dehart, Matthew Garcia, Cynthia Garcia Coll, Jose Itzigsohn, Marion Orr, Tony Affigne, and Jorge Elorza. Section 4 is based on data from Lexis Nexis State Capitals, a database that tracks state-‐level legislation. The data collection was supported by a grant from the Pew Charitable Trusts and graduate assistant support from the University of Illinois at Chicago. We would like to thank Ajara Chekirova for her assistance gathering data for the report. We would also like to thank the Urban Initiative at the University of Rhode Island for funding the writing and data analysis that made this report possible.
4
Page
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
A Note on Terminology The terms “Latino” and “Hispanic” are used interchangeably in this report. Both terms refer to people who either a) identify as one of these two groups, b) originally come from a Spanish-‐speaking country, or c) whose parents or grandparents came from a Spanish-‐ speaking country. The term “Native born” refers to persons who are U.S. citizens by birth, including those born in the United States, Puerto Rico or other U.S. territories.
Page
5
“Foreign born” refers to persons born outside of the United States, Puerto Rico or other U.S. territories. “First generation” refers to foreign-‐born people who immigrated to the United States. The terms “foreign born,” “first generation” and “immigrant” are used interchangeably in this report.
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
Executive Summary • • •
The immigrant population of Rhode Island exceeded the national average through the 1970s but today tracks the national average. In earlier eras, most immigrants to Rhode Island came from Europe but today, the fastest growing immigrant groups are Latinos and Asians. The Latino immigrant population of Rhode Island is quite distinct from other states because it largely consists of Caribbean rather than Mexican or Central American immigrants.
• Rhode Islanders are divided on their attitudes about immigrants and immigration policy. • Most Rhode Islanders do not see immigrants in general as a threat to the state. However, attitudes toward Latino immigrants tend to be less positive. • Rhode Islanders tend to overestimate the percentage of the state’s population that consists of undocumented immigrants. • Two-‐thirds of state residents believe that undocumented children should not be charged out-‐of-‐state tuition at state colleges and universities. • Support for ESL and English learning programs for children is near universal (83 percent). • Latino parents in Rhode Island are optimistic about the socioeconomic mobility of their children. However, few rate their children’s schools highly and only 60 percent report having very favorable experiences with school officials.
• Almost universally, Latinos in Rhode Island believe that both the poor and Latinos can get ahead if they work hard. • Over a quarter of the Latino population in Rhode Island reports that they have been discriminated against at either work, in their interactions with the police, in restaurants or stores, or in housing.
• Very few Latinos in Rhode Island trust the government or feel the government is run by people who care about people like them. In many cases, Latinos in Rhode Island are slightly more pessimistic about government than the national average.
• Very little immigration-‐related legislation has been passed in Rhode Island. What immigration policy exists has mainly been implemented by agency regulations or executive orders.
6
Page
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
Page
Rhode Island has undergone massive population changes over the last twenty years as a result of immigration. Today, according to the U.S. Census, immigrants make up almost 12 percent of the state’s population and over 20 percent of the population speaks a language other than English at home (Rhode Island State Data Center 2013). Although Spanish is the language most frequently spoken at home, dozens of other languages ranging from Portuguese and Italian to Khmer, Chinese, Hindi and a variety of other languages are also spoken by Rhode Island immigrants. The vast majority of Rhode Island’s immigrant and foreign language speaking residents live in the urban centers of Providence, Central Falls, and Pawtucket. The future of these cities is linked to the educational and financial success of their immigrant populations. Demographic changes are socially disruptive: they can energize a region, bringing talented and hard-‐working young people to the local workforce, but they can also be unsettling as new habits, traditions, rituals and practices become part of the local social life. The effects of demographic change are reflected in public opinion. Public opinion is important in the context of immigration for two reasons: first, it signals how immigrant families may be treated in their local context; second, it informs public policy as elected officials tend to be sensitive to public opinion on issues such as immigration. Public opinion about immigration can drive public policy in one of two directions. A welcoming citizenry can urge policy makers to extend benefits to immigrants that facilitate integration and socioeconomic mobility. Conversely, an ethnocentric citizenry can cause policy makers to pass policy that excludes benefits to immigrants and hampers acculturation and socioeconomic mobility (Harwood 1986). There is growing evidence that the macro-‐social context has important direct and indirect effects on the socioeconomic trajectories of immigrant children and their families (Filindra, Blanding, and Garcia-‐Coll 2011; Menjívar 2008). Importantly, state policies can help immigrants and their children to find their footing in the U.S. marketplace and facilitate English learning, educational attainment, good nutrition and health, all of which are linked to upward socioeconomic mobility. Alternatively, the state can exclude categories of immigrants from the social welfare system, deny them access to institutions of higher learning and ignore or fail to fund the acculturation needs of immigrants who speak a foreign language (Ramakrishnan and Wong 2010). In this report, we describe four dimensions of immigration and its consequences to Rhode Island. Part 1 contains a brief history of immigration in Rhode Island. We then describe demographic trends of immigrants in Rhode Island as well as within the core cities of Providence, Central Falls, East Providence, and North Providence. Part 2 describes public opinion toward immigrants in Rhode Island. Based on a 2010 representative survey of state residents, we analyze public preferences related to immigrants and immigration policy overall and by citizenship status, racial group, age and education.
7
Introduction
Page
8
Part 3 presents data on the how Latinos in Rhode Island perceive their social position in the state, their experience with educational institutions, discrimination, and government and politics. Part 4 reviews the immigration-‐related legislation that has been introduced in the state house in recent years and the major policy changes affecting immigrants that have been enacted through executive order and by state agencies.
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
Page
Section 1.1. The History of Immigration to Rhode Island Beginning in the late 1800s, Rhode Island’s industrial economy demanded cheap labor and the state’s major port of Providence facilitated the transit of people from Europe. As a result, Rhode Island has been a popular immigrant destination for over two centuries. For most of the state’s history, the largest immigrant groups have been the Irish, French Canadians, Italians, and Portuguese-‐speakers from Portugal, the Azores, and the Cape Verde Islands and most recently Brazil. The early immigrants came from Europe and Canada. Although the Irish dominated if one counted children and grandchildren, the French Canadian immigrants outnumbered the Irish foreign born by at least 4,000 by 1910. During the early 20th century, there was a large influx of Italian and Portuguese immigrants. During this time, Rhode Island was also home to several smaller immigrant groups including communities of Polish, Armenian, Scandinavian, English, Scottish, and Anglo-‐Canadian immigrants. By 1910, only one-‐third of the population of Rhode Island was of “old Yankee stock”; the other two-‐thirds were either born abroad (33 percent) or had at least one parent born abroad (36 percent) (McLoughlin 1986, 156-‐157). Immigrants primarily settled in the northern, industrial, and urbanized part of the state. The French and English Canadians primarily settled in Woonsocket, Central Falls, and Pawtucket. The Irish, Italians and Portuguese primarily settled in Providence and the Pawtuxet Valley. The Portuguese population settled around the Providence waterfront in the area known as “Fox Point” (Library of Congress 2010). However, as Rhode Island historian William McLoughlin notes (1986, 157), “Rhode Island did not become a melting pot.” Immigrants in the late 1800s and early 1900s were segregated into distinct urban neighborhoods and a few rural mill villages and in these places they became a “group apart from the dominant political and social structure, partly by choice, partly by exclusion, partly by ignorance of the system” (McLoughlin 1986, 158). Section 1.2. Immigration, Immigrants, and Rhode Island Politics Beginning in the 1850s, Rhode Island embraced the Know-‐Nothing movement. The popularity of the Know-‐Nothing party stemmed from native antipathy towards the new immigrant population (McLoughlin 1987, 109). While this xenophobia was shared by many other parts of the country, in Rhode Island it was particularly strong. The need for a foreign workforce by the growing manufacturing industries in the state clashed with the native’s discomfort around newcomers. The Providence Journal fanned prejudice towards Irish Catholic immigrants and helped Know-‐Nothing party representatives win in town, city and state elections. Anti-‐Catholic politician and Providence Journal co-‐publisher, Henry Anthony, used the Journal to promote the views of various nativist societies in the state. According to articles from this era, allowing the naturalization of Irish immigrants meant that "civil and political institutions and public schools would come under the control of the
9
Part 1. Immigrants and Immigration in the State of Rhode Island
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
Page
Pope of Rome through the medium of thousands of naturalized foreign Catholics...." (Warwick Digital History Project n.d.). The Know-‐Nothing candidate William W. Hoppin was elected governor in 1855 (Rhode Island General Assembly n.d.). The Irish assimilated faster than other ethnic groups, a process quickened by their ability to speak English. By the 1920s, the Irish rose to dominance in the Democratic Party in the state’s major cities (Cornwell 1960). However, political incorporation was not easy for any immigrant group. The constitution of Rhode Island excluded naturalized citizens from voting by setting a high real-‐property qualification for immigrants that was not applicable to native citizens (McLoughlin 1986, 158). Thus, by 1910 much of the one-‐third of the state that was foreign born was excluded from voting simply because they were born abroad, even if they were naturalized citizens. Although the real-‐property requirement was eliminated by the Bourn Amendment (VII) in 1888, it was replaced by a $134 property-‐tax-‐ paying qualification for voting in city council elections. This requirement prevented many, including immigrants, from controlling the political institutions of the cities in which they resided (Rhode Island General Assembly n.d.). As a result, “the seven large factory towns around Providence (including that city) held two-‐thirds of the state’s population, but twenty-‐two small towns with populations of fewer than 5,000 controlled the state senate” (McLoughlin 1987, 158). While in 1909 the Progressive movement led to a constitutional change to make the state house more representative of the population, the agreement reached between the Democratic and Republican Party specified that no city could have more than twenty-‐five representatives, and every town was given at least one seat in the House and one seat in the Senate. For Providence, this meant an increase from 12 to 25 representatives in the House of Representatives but by population it deserved closer to fifty seats. The state senate had one representative per city until 1962 when the Rhode Island Supreme Court ruled in Sweeney v. Notte that state legislative districts had to be equal in population and that the current allotment of legislative seats violated this rule. For example, the town of Shoreham had one representative for 500 residents, while in Providence a legislative representative averaged over 8,500 residents (Leiter 1981). When the state reapportioned in 1966, the average population of a House district was 9,00, and the average Senate district had 18,000 people (Leiter 1981, 288). The Latino population of the state started to grow in the 1970s and 1980s but the growth rates accelerated in the 1990s and beyond. As a result of the large wave of Latino immigrants to the state, Latino residents are beginning to make political headway in Rhode Island. In 1998, Latino residents formed the Rhode Island Latino Political Action Committee (RILPAC). RILPAC launched voter registration initiatives and endorsed candidates for offices. In 1998, Luis Aponte became the first Latino to win a seat on the Providence city council. In October 2001, then Providence Mayor Cianci created an “Office of Hispanic Affairs” in response to growing demands and improved political representation among Latinos. Mayor Cianci appointed three Latinos to the nine-‐member school board, and in 1999, the school board named Diana Lam, the city’s first Hispanic school superintendent (Filindra and Orr 2013).
10
At the state level, Senator Juan Manuel Pichardo was sworn in as a state senator representing Providence, Rhode Island’s Senate District 2, on January 7, 2003. He was the first Dominican American and Latino elected to the Rhode Island Senate. Representative Grace Diaz was elected in 2004 to the Rhode Island House of Representatives to represent District 11 in Providence. She was the first Dominican-‐American woman elected to state office in the history of the United States. In 2011, Angel Taveras became Providence’s first Latino mayor and in 2013 James A. Diossa was sworn in as Central Fall’s first Latino mayor. Mayor Taveras is currently running for Governor and if his bid is successful, he will be the state’s first Latino governor. Section 1.3. The Immigrant Profile of Rhode Island: Changes over Time Figure 1.11 shows immigration trends for Rhode Island and the United States since 1860. The blue line represents the percent of the population in Rhode Island that was born outside the United States; the red line represents the same percentage for the United States as a whole. Until 1970, Rhode Island consistently was among the top ten immigrant-‐receiving states. Since 1970, however, the immigrant population in Rhode Island has tracked the national average fairly consistently. But because immigration varies greatly by state and many states have very few immigrants, Rhode Island has historically had, and continues to have, one of the larger immigrant populations in the country as a percent of the total population. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, as of 2010, 12.9 percent of Rhode Island’s population was born outside the U.S. Many more had at least one parent who was born outside the country, a fact that is exemplified by the large number of Rhode Islanders (21 percent) who speak a language other than English at home. As of 2012, only 11 states have larger immigrant populations as a percent of the total (Pew Research Center 2014).
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
Page
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Technical Paper 29, Table 13, “Nativity of the Population, for Regions, Divisions, and Sates: 1850 to 1990,” http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0029/tab13.html; Rhode Island Census 2000 Profile (August 2002), http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/c2kprof00-ri.pdf; Quick Facts, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/44000.html; and Elizabeth M. Grieco et al, “The Size, Place of Birth, and Geographic Distribution of the Foreign-Born in the United States: 1960 to 2010,” Population Division Working Paper No. 96, http://www.census.gov/population/foreign/files/WorkingPaper96.pdf..
11
1
Figure 1.1. Percent Foreign Born and Ethnicity in Rhode Island 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Rhode Island Foreign Born (%)
Hispanic (%)
Asian (%)
Section 1.4. The Origins of the Foreign Born in Rhode Island Tracking national trends, over the last 30 years, the fastest growing immigrant groups in Rhode Island are people from Spanish-‐speaking countries and Asia. In 1990, almost 48 percent of immigrants in the state came from Europe. Today, only 23 percent come from Europe, whereas 43 percent come from Latin and South America, 19 percent come from Asia and 12 percent come from Africa. Rhode Island is now one of twenty one states where Hispanics are the largest minority group and according to the Cooper Center (2012), by 2040, 23 percent of the state will be of Hispanic origin. However, Rhode Island continues to have a far larger European immigrant population than the nation as a whole. Twenty-‐ three percent of the foreign born population in Rhode Island is from Europe which is almost twice the national average. The number of Asian immigrants has increased over the last few decades as well. In 1990 15 percent of the immigrant population hailed from Asia, today 19 percent does. Compared to the national average, Rhode Island has a significantly smaller Asian immigrant population though. Nationally almost 30 percent of the immigrant population comes from Asia. However, the state has a much larger than average percentage of African immigrants. Nationally, immigrants from Africa make up 4.2 percent of the foreign born population, but in Rhode Island they make up over 12 percent.
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
Page
United States Foreign Born (%)
12
1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Table 1.1 Origin of Foreign Born Population of United States and Rhode Island Place of Birth United States Rhode Island Rhode Island Rhode Island Percent of Percent of Percent of Percent of Foreign Born Foreign Born Foreign Born Foreign Born (2012) (2012) (2000) (1990) Latin and South 52 43 37 22 America Europe 12 23 33 48 Asia 29 19 16 16 Africa 4 12 10 7 North American 2 2 4 7 Source: Migration Policy Institute Available at: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/data/state-‐profiles/state/demographics/RI
Of the immigrants who hail from Latin and South America, in Rhode Island, they are far more likely to have been born in the Caribbean compared to the national average. In Rhode Island, just over 40 percent of the Hispanic foreign born come from Central America (including Mexico, El Salvador and Guatemala as the largest immigrant sending countries) and another 40 percent come from the Caribbean. Caribbean immigrants make up 17.8 percent of the total foreign born population in the state, while nationally they make up only 9.5 percent. Similarly, in Rhode Island, Central Americans make up only 18.6 percent of the total foreign born population—a much smaller percentage than for the U.S. as a whole. One reason for the large Caribbean immigrant community is the history of Rhode Island as a destination for Dominican migrants. Providence has a larger Dominican population as a percent of the population than any other city in the country (Itzigsohn 2009). Table 1.2. Foreign Born Hispanic Population Origins, 2012 Place of Birth Number of Percent of Percent of Foreign Born Foreign Born Foreign Born (Rhode Island) (Rhode Island) (United States) Caribbean 24,968 18 10 Central America 26,032 19 36 South America 9,833 7 7 Source: Migration Policy Institute Available at: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/data/state-‐profiles/state/demographics/
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
Page
One of the greatest challenges of immigrant incorporation is linguistic accommodation. A substantial proportion of immigrants to the United States speak little English. Unlike in other countries such as Canada where the government provides strong incentives and financial support for programs that teach English to immigrants, the United States has adopted a more laissez-‐faire, market approach to language acquisition, leaving it up to non-‐ profit groups, cities and states to develop assistance programs (Bloemraad 2006).
13
Section 1.5. Language Acquisition and Languages Spoken at Home
Page
14
A state as diverse as Rhode Island has to contend with providing programs and essential services for immigrants in a variety of languages. Translation and interpreting services are needed in healthcare settings, social services, courts, state agencies such as the DMV, and schools. Data from the U.S. Census show that 21 percent of Rhode Islanders speak a language other than English at home. At the county level, almost a third of the population in Providence County (29.8 percent) speaks a language other than English, with Bristol second at 13.5 percent. The most frequently spoken language in Providence is Spanish (16.3 percent) while in Bristol it is a variety of other European languages such as French and Portuguese (11.2 percent). Table 1.3 Percent of Residents Speaking Language Other than English by County, 2013 Bristol Kent Newport Providence Washington (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Speaking 13.5 8.0 8.6 29.8 6.3 language other than English Spanish or 1.5 2.5 3.1 16.3 1.7 Spanish Creole Other Indo-‐ 11.2 3.9 4.2 9.7 3.0 European languages Asian languages 0.5 1.3 1.0 2.8 1.4 Other 0.3 0.4 0.3 1.1 0.2 Speak English 67.2 67.4 73.2 55.2 71.3 very well Source: http://www.city-‐data.com/states/Rhode-‐Island-‐Languages.html
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
The maps in Figure 1.2, below, show the density of Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese and French-‐ speaking populations in the state. Figure 1.2. Density of Various Languages Spoken in Rhode Island
Portuguese
Spanish
Chinese
French
Source: U.S. Census Language Map, 2011 (http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/language/data/language_map.html)
Section 1.6. Citizenship and Naturalization of the Immigrant Population
Page
15
Many of the immigrants in Rhode Island are naturalized citizens. In fact, about 5 percentage points more immigrants are naturalized citizens in Rhode Island than the U.S average. Of the Rhode Island population born outside the United States, just over half are naturalized citizens. While for many, citizenship acquisition is fairly recent (47 percent of the naturalized population in Rhode Island became citizens after 2000) compared to the national average, Rhode Island’s naturalized population is more likely to have been naturalized before 1990. Nationally, only 27 percent of the naturalized population was granted citizenship before 1990, whereas in Rhode Island 31 percent were (Table 1.4).
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
Table 1.4. Naturalization of the Foreign Born Population, 2012 Number of Percent of Foreign Born Foreign Born (Rhode Island) (Rhode Island) Naturalized 71,278 60 Noncitizens 68,847 49 Naturalized Number of Percent of Naturalized Citizens by Naturalized Citizens Citizens Period of (Rhode Island) (Rhode Island) Naturalization Before 1980 12,778 17.9 1980-‐1989 9,071 12.7 1990-‐1999 15,383 21.6 2000-‐2009 24,144 33.9 Since 2010 9,902 13.9
Percent of Foreign Born (United States) 46 54 Percent of Naturalized Citizens (United States) 13.5 13.1 24.5 37.8 11.1
Source: Migration Policy Institute Available at: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/data/state-‐profiles/state/demographics/RI
Relative to the rest of the Country, Rhode Island has relatively few undocumented immigrants. Today there are approximately 11.5 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States. However, only 30,000 of them live in Rhode Island. While that number has steadily increased since 1980, less than 3 percent of the residents of Rhode Island are estimated to be undocumented. While slightly below the national average of 3.62 percent, compared to other high-‐immigration states like New Jersey in which 6.25 percent of its population is undocumented, Rhode Island’s undocumented immigrant population is quite small. Table 1.5. Undocumented Immigrants in the United States and Rhode Island U.S.A RI RI RI RI 2010 2010 2000 1990 1980 Number of Undocumented 11,200,00 Immigrants 0 30,000 20,000 10,000 2,000 Percent of Population 3.6 2.8 1.9 1.0 .21
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
Page
Section 1.6. The Demographic Profile of Immigrant Children in Rhode Island Just under 25 percent of the population under 18 in the state of Rhode Island has at least one foreign born parent. However, only three and a half percent of children under 18 in Rhode Island were born outside the United States. However, children of immigrant parents
16
Source: Pew Hispanic Center, Jeffrey Passel and D’Vera Cohn, “Unauthorized Immigrant Population: National and State Trends 2010”. Available at: Available at: http://www.pewstates.org/research/data-‐ visualizations/us-‐immigration-‐national-‐and-‐state-‐trends-‐and-‐actions-‐85899500037
in the state are more likely to live below the poverty line. Almost 33 percent of the low income children in the state are children of one or more foreign born parents and almost five percent of low income children were born outside the United States themselves. Table 1.6. Characteristics of the Under-‐18 Population, 2012 RI RI U.S. Children under 18 (number) (%) (%) Children under age 207,495 18 with Foreign-‐ and Native-‐Born Parents Only native 157,431 75.9 75.2 parent(s) One or more 50,064 24.1 24.8 foreign-‐born parents Child is native 42,607 20.5 21.7 Child is foreign 7,457 3.6 3.1 born Children under age 6 65,968 Only native 51,452 78.0 75.4 parent(s) One or more 14,516 22.0 24.6 foreign-‐born parents Child is native 13,593 20.6 20.6 Child is foreign 6,534 4.6 4.0 born Children in Low-‐ 80,289 Income Families Only native 53,926 67.2 69.2 parents One or more 26,363 32.8 30.8 foreign-‐born parents
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
Page
Section 1.7. Immigrant Population in Cities While Rhode Island as a whole has a similar average as the nation in terms of its immigrant population, the vast majority of immigrants live in the state’s northern urban enclaves. Cities in the middle and southern part of the state have relatively few immigrants. Unfortunately, the Decennial Census stopped asking where residents were born after 2000, which prevents us from calculating foreign born residents by city for 2010. However,
17
Source: Migration Policy Institute Available at: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/data/state-‐profiles/state/demographics/RI
county level data is available from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. Figures 1.22 shows the percent of the population that was foreign born in 2010 for each of Rhode Island’s five counties and Figure 1.3 shows the number of immigrants that live in each of the five counties. Providence County—the home to most of Rhode Island’s urban cities—drives Rhode Island’s immigration rate and is the home to the vast majority of the immigrant population. Over 80 percent of the immigrant population lives in Providence County. Figure 1.3. Percent Foreign Born Population by County, 2010 17.9
13
8.1 6.1
5.8 4.1
Rhode Island
Newport County
Bristol County Kent County
Washington County
2
Page
18
Providence County
Source: U.S. Census Bureau. American Community Survey
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
Figure 1.4. Number of Foreign Born Residents by County, 2010
136833.71 112519.4
5056.168 Rhode Island
Newport County
4039.875
9637.164
Bristol County Kent County
5176.619 Providence County
Washington County
Figure 1.5 shows how the cities with the largest immigrant populations have changed since 1980. Central Falls, Providence and Pawtucket have always been immigrant destinations. But the rate of immigration in these three cities is the highest in the state and has grown drastically overtime. As of 2010, over a third of Central Fall’s population was born outside the United States and 25 percent of Providence’s population and 23 percent of Pawtucket’s population was born abroad. Figure 1.5. Percent Foreign Born in Large Urban Centers 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Providence
North Providence
Pawtucket
Central Falls
2000 East Providence
19
1990
Page
1980
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
Figure 1.63 shows the growth of the Hispanic population, Rhode Island’s largest immigrant group, in Rhode Island’s urbanized cities. Due to immigration from Latin and South America, the demographic make-‐up of these cities has changed drastically over the last 30 years. In 1980, Hispanics were less than 11 percent of the population of all of these cities; today, just over 40 percent of Providence residents, over 60 percent of Central Falls residents, and 20 percent of Pawtucket residents are Hispanic. As of 2012, by comparison, Hispanics made up 17 percent of the residents of the United States (U.S. Census Bureau 2013). Figure 1.6. Percent Hispanic in Rhode Island's Urban Centers 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1980
1990
2000
Providence
North Providence
Pawtucket
Central Falls
2010 East Providence
Source: U.S. Census Bureau estimates based on the American Population Survey. Data for 2010 is not available for North Providence. 4 Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
Page
3
20
The Asian population is almost entirely concentrated in Providence. Figure 1.54 shows that while in 1980, just over 1 percent of the city of Providence was of Asian heritage, that number has steadily increased. Today there are over 10,432 Asian residents in Providence, most of whom are first, second or third generation immigrants. Providence is home to one of the largest Cambodian population in the United States. While only half a percent of the Rhode Island population is Cambodian, most Cambodians in the state live in Providence.
Figure 1.7. Percent Asian In Rhode Island's Urban Centers 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 East Providence
2000 Pawtucket
2010 Central Falls
Because of the rapid growth in the immigration rate of both Latinos and Asians in the city of Providence, these two immigrant groups are becoming increasingly segregated into ethnic enclaves in which they have little exposure to the native white population. Instead, not only do a majority of Latino and Asian immigrant families live in Providence, but they also living in different neighborhoods than the native white and African American Providence residents. As of 1980, Providence was majority white, today, less than 40 percent of the population is white. Today, over 50 percent of the Hispanic population and over 30 percent of the Asian population in Providence would need to move in order to live in a neighborhood that was representative of the city as a whole. Unfortunately, this segregation of the Latino community in particular comes at a cost for Latino immigrants. Research shows that Latinos and Latino immigrants who live in segregated communities are less likely to move up the socioeconomic ladder (Pearson-‐ Merkowitz 2012a), face more challenges in educational outcomes (Goldsmith 2003) and are also less likely to participate in civic and political organizations (Pearson-‐Merkowitz 2012b). Unfortunately, the increased segregation of the Latino community, has also made segregated immigrant communities much more difficult to “escape” than ethnic enclaves of the past (Timberlake and Iceland 2007, 359).
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
21
Providence
1990
Page
1980
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
Page
2.1. Public Opinion and Public Policy toward Immigrants In a representative democracy, legislators get their cues from the public. In a whole host of issues, policy decisions are influenced by the demands and expectations of the public. In the domain of immigration, public opinion has been especially important in shaping public policy. Not only does public opinion influence public policy but public sentiment towards immigrants may have a direct and indirect effect on social and behavioral outcomes of immigrant populations (Filindra, Blanding, and Garcia-‐Coll 2011). Research across the social sciences suggests that the context of reception, that is, the social and political environment within which immigrants live, has an important effect on them. A hostile environment can interfere with educational outcomes and graduation rates (Filindra, Blanding, and Garcia-‐Coll 2011), and affect political participation and mobilization (Pantoja, Ramirez, and Segura 2001). In the late 19th century, negative public response to Asian migration led to federal laws that prohibited Asians from coming to the United States. States followed suit with discriminatory legislation that prevented those Asian immigrants already in the country from buying land. In the 1920s, public nativism contributed to the enactment of a series of restrictive national origins laws that all but halted immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe (Tichenor 2002). More recently, in the 1990s, concerns about undocumented immigration prompted the passage of Proposition 187 in California which excluded this population from essential public benefits such as healthcare and education. These changes were instituted through a popular initiative which suggests both the mood and the power of the citizenry in determining the fate of non-‐citizens. In 1996, the federal government followed on the same path when it passed legislation that streamlined deportations, made it more difficult for immigrants to appeal administrative decisions and criminalized undocumented entry. In recent years, Americans across the country have been skeptical of the benefits of immigration and ambivalent about the regularization of undocumented immigrants most of whom are Latinos. The citizens of Arizona have passed referenda that seek to discourage undocumented entry and force undocumented immigrants to leave the state. Other states have passed legislation to the same effect. We discuss attempts to address immigration-‐ related concerns through legislation in Section 4. Public opinion has not led only to restrictive laws and policies. Some states, especially those in the Northeast, have had a long tradition of in-‐migration and their populations have shown keen interest in supporting the integration and success of newcomers (Tichenor and Filindra 2013). In states such as New York, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, the influx of foreign labor from Europe in the early 20th century boosted the economy and helped built the regions success in manufacturing. In this region, citizen groups worked with state and
22
Part 2. Public Opinion toward Immigration and Immigrants in the State of Rhode Island
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
Page
local officials to provide assistance to immigrants and their children. Education and poverty alleviation were central to the region’s approach to immigrant integration. Rhode Island has a long history of immigrant integration programs. The International Institute of Rhode Island (now Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island, or DIIRI) was founded in 1921 to provide educational, legal and social services to immigrants and refugees. Today, the DIIRI provides services to more than 20,000 families each year. Although DIIRI is the state’s largest service provider to the immigrant population, it is hardly the only one. A number of organizations such as Catholic Charities, Progresso Latino, the Center for Southeast Asians (CSEA) , and the Rhode Island Family Learning Initiative (RIFLI) provide educational and social services to immigrants and refugees in the state. Much like in earlier eras, concerns about immigration have tended to stem from both material and social concerns. For some Americans, immigrants represent competition in the job market and drive wages down (Scheve and Slaughter 2001). Some studies have documented wage effects for some categories of employment (Borjas 1999). Other economic studies suggest that immigrants bring complementary skills to the job market, filling jobs –especially low-‐paying unskilled positions-‐that native-‐born individuals avoid. There is evidence that even within a given education/skills group, natives and immigrants are not perfectly substitutable. Natural experiments suggest that labor markets are efficient in absorbing newcomers without driving down wages (Card 1990). Overall, there seems to be little evidence of wage suppression as a result of immigration (Peri and Sparber 2010). A second material concern expressed by native-‐born Americans is that immigrants draw more from the state than they put in. Public opinion fears that immigrants do not contribute their fair share and are a burden to America. The concern is that natives subsidize the education of their children, their healthcare and possibly their incomes through social programs. Studies show that this view of immigration is not consistent with evidence. First, all working noncitizens contribute to Social Security and the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) programs. However, only a small portion of immigrants end up drawing on these programs. According to the National Foundation for American Policy, legal immigrants will add a net $611 billion to the Social Security system over the next 75 years (Center for American Progress 2013). This amount is net of what they are likely to draw out. The Social Security Administration (SSA) estimates that in 2010, undocumented immigrants added $12 billion to the program’s bottom line (Social Security Administration 2013). In addition to material concerns, Americans express social concerns. There are fears that today’s immigrants do not share the same values as native-‐born Americans and they don’t learn English. Concerns about social fit have been expressed by some scholars, politicians and journalists (Huntington 2004; Brimelow 1996; Buchanan 2007). These arguments have focused specifically on Latin-‐American immigrants and their children. Children of immigrants are more likely to live in low-‐income families, with parents who have had less (if any) formal education in their home country and speak little or no-‐English. These
23
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
Page
parents are also less familiar with the American school system. In 2008, almost one-‐in-‐ three foreign-‐born children of immigrant parents and 20 percent of U.S. born children of immigrant parents lived below the poverty line compared to 16 percent of children whose parents are U.S.-‐born. Also, more than a fourth of immigrant parents have not completed high school compared to 7 percent of American born parents. These factors have been used to bolster the argument that immigrants and their children are slow to integrate in American society (Coll, Filindra, and Hu-‐Dehart 2010). Historical experience and rigorous social science research shows that such concerns are unfounded. Immigrants and their off-‐spring tend to express high levels of support for America and view themselves as Americans (Citrin et al. 2007). Not only is the conventional view that the children of immigrants are resistant to learning English and fall behind in school wrong, but a series of recent studies show that in some cases, these children have stronger educational and behavioral outcomes than the children of native-‐ born Americans. Studies show that the children of immigrants have lower levels of juvenile delinquency and for some immigrant groups, their educational outcomes exceed those of their peers (Coll, Filindra, and Hu-‐Dehart 2010). What research has uncovered is that new immigrants seeming failure to move up the socioeconomic ladder is the product of changes in the economic structure of the United States which has stunted economic mobility, not a result of the actions of immigrants themselves (Goldsmith 2009; Pearson-‐Merkowitz 2012) While discrimination continues to hamper individual life chances for minorities in the United States, even more consequential is the absence of working class jobs that served as stepping-‐stones for the immigrants of the past—jobs that did not require high levels of education. Those jobs and the socioeconomic ladder they presented no longer exist. Today, if Latinos are to surpass their parents’ economic status, they first must attain a quality education. As a result of the bifurcated economy, we judge Latino socioeconomic assimilation over a single generation against the multi-‐generational assimilation process of white ethnics (see Huntington 2004). With the advent of an economy in which jobs are clustered at the unskilled and highly skilled tails, the socioeconomic ladder is no longer evenly spaced; instead, it is a series of leaps and bounds. “Increasing labor market inequality implies that to succeed socially and economically, children of immigrants today must cross, in the span of a few years, the educational gap that took descendants of Europeans several generations to bridge” (Portes and Rumbaut 2001, 58), and when they cannot, the second generation is left with few opportunities for advancement. 2.2. The Importance of the Context of Reception Portes and Rumbaut (2006) maintain that government policies are a most important part of the context of reception that has a strong influence on immigrant adaptation and incorporation. Studies of political behavior have tied the political and policy environment within which minorities and immigrants live to such outcomes as political participation, propensity to vote, or support for specific parties (Huckfeldt 1979). Within the
24
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
Page
immigration policy domain, exclusionary, passive or welcoming policies can influence the incorporation of immigrants in many ways(Portes and Rumbaut 2001). Exclusionary and punitive policies can push immigrants-‐especially undocumented migrants-‐ into the shadow economy, further limit their opportunities to improve their economic standing and affect the future of their children and the second generation’s ability to compete economically and be accepted socially(Portes and Zhou 1993; Zhou 1997). On the other hand, an exclusionary context can also mobilize naturalized immigrants and increase the level of solidarity within immigrant communities (Pantoja, Ramirez, Segura, 2001). Scholars have suggested that the passage of Proposition 187 in California in 1994 represents the point in time when the immigration policy context became a focus for scholars studying immigrant and especially Latino political behavior. Farga and Ramirez (2001) have shown that overwhelming majorities of Latinos voted against Proposition 187 and a number of researchers have focused on the response of California’s Latino and other minority populations to the initiative (Barreto and Woods, 2000; Morris, 2000; Newton, 2000). Barreto and Woods (2000) established that voter turnout among Latinos in Los Angeles was higher than that of any other group while Segura, Falcon and Pachon (1997) show that Proposition 187 led to major Latino defections away from the Republican Party, a pattern that has persisted to this day. Pantoja, Ramirez and Segura (2001) showed that Latino immigrants who naturalized during the period of the Prop. 187 controversy were significantly more likely to vote than Latinos who had naturalized earlier and even native-‐ born Latinos. This finding has led the authors to conclude that a threatening context can increase the mobilization of the immigrant electorate and bring them out to vote. Similarly, Pantoja and Segura (2003) compared the political attitudes of Latinos in California and Texas in 1997, have shown that the threatening discourse surrounding California’s Proposition 187 led Latinos in that state to ascribe more importance to race issues and to seek more information about politics than their Texas co-‐ethnics. Pantoja and Segura (2003) also indicate that a “context of threat” motivated foreign-‐born Latinos to pay more attention to politics and seek out more information than did native-‐born Latinos. More recent work in political science has looked at the role of the macro-‐context in the political socialization and the development of socio-‐political identities of adult immigrants. Ramakrishnan and Espenshade (2001) argue that punitive immigrant policies tend to increase first and second generation immigrant participation in elections. Studies of institutions have also indicated that direct democracy, that is the availability of referenda and ballot initiatives, can depress trust in government among certain minority groups (Hero and Tolbert 2005). Research in education shows that the context of reception can influence the educational outcomes of the children of immigrants. Graduation rates among immigrant children tend to be higher in states that are inclusive and supportive of their immigrant populations than in those that take a more hostile, or a laissez-‐faire position (Filindra, Blanding, and Garcia-‐Coll 2011). 2.3. Attitudes toward Immigrants in the State of Rhode Island Today’s native-‐born population is ambivalent about immigrants and especially Latino immigrants who are the fastest growing population group in the state. We explore Rhode
25
Page
26
Islanders’ attitudes towards immigration and immigrants using data from a 2010 study conducted by Dr. Alexandra Filindra at Brown University and funded by the Rhode Island Foundation. This survey is representative of the Rhode Island population and it allows us to discuss differences among socioeconomic, racial and ideological subgroups. A total of 507 Rhode Island residents were interviewed by phone in November 2010-‐January 2011. The data were collected by the Survey Research Center at the Taubman Center for Public Policy and American Institutions. The sample was drawn using RDD methodology. Spanish speaking respondents had the choice of being interviewed in English or Spanish. We also compare the attitudes of Rhode Islanders to a variety of national public opinion polls to discuss whether public opinion in Rhode Island tracks that of the nation. Because of differences in question wording and timing of the national polls, these comparisons must be interpreted with caution: they are indicative of similarities and differences, but not conclusive evidence of such. a. Material Considerations Rhode Islanders do not harbor strong material fears about immigration. Fewer than one-‐ in-‐five (18 percent) believe that most crimes in the state are committed by immigrants and only 17 percent characterize immigrants as a burden on the state. However, only one-‐in-‐ ten Rhode Islanders (10 percent) view immigrants as a net strength for the state; an alarming 80 percent believe that immigrants do not strengthen the state. When it comes to beliefs about job competition, Rhode Island public opinion seems to track national perceptions. A national poll conducted by the New York Times (2014) indicates that 22 percent of Americans believe that immigrants take jobs from citizens. Yet, a second New York Times poll (2010) suggests that Rhode Island may be an outlier, tilting towards a more xenophobic outlook than the nation overall.5 According to this poll, 49 percent of Americans believe that immigrants contribute to the country while 21 percent say that immigrants cause problems. By comparison, the Rhode Island survey suggests that only 9 percent of native born Rhode Islanders say that immigrants strengthen the state.
5 http://www.pollingreport.com/immigration.htm
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
Table 2.1 Material Competition and Concern About Immigration Total U.S.-‐born (%) (%) A Most crimes in our state involve 18 19 immigrants Immigrants today are a burden on 17 15 our state because they take our jobs, housing, and health care Immigrant today strengthen our 10 9 state because of their hard work and talents N 507 372
Foreign-‐born (%) B 13 29A 22A 124
Interesting differences emerge when we look at the perceptions of U.S-‐born and foreign-‐ born Rhode Islanders. Foreign-‐born residents are significantly more likely than native-‐ born residents to view newcomers as competition for jobs and state resources. This is consistent with the view that low skill new immigrants are more likely to compete for the same jobs with people in the same socioeconomic bracket, many of whom are immigrants themselves (Borjas 1999). As mentioned earlier, economists are divided on the effects of immigration on wages and job competition, but popular perceptions about job competition persist. Competition for jobs and resources notwithstanding, foreign-‐born Rhode Islanders (22 percent) are substantially more likely than U.S.-‐born residents (9 percent) to recognize the positive contributions of immigrants. This suggests a complex set of attitudes and a fair amount of ambivalence among foreign-‐born Rhode Islanders. Table 2.2 Material Competition and Concern About Immigration by Race Whites Latinos African-‐ (%) (%) Americans (%) A B C Most crimes in our state involve immigrants 19B 7 15 Immigrants today are a burden on our state 16 36AC 7 because they take our jobs, housing, and health care Immigrant today strengthen our state because of 6 27A 19A their hard work and talents N 281 101 89
Page
Source: New England Immigration Study, 2010, conducted by Dr. A. Filindra. Sponsors: Brown University and the Rhode Island Foundation
27
Source: New England Immigration Study, 2010, conducted by Dr. A. Filindra. Sponsors: Brown University and the Rhode Island Foundation Superscript notations denote statistically significant differences between columns ( p