By Teresa Irene Gonzales
Recently naturalized immigrants have the ability influence voting outcomes in several key states, including Florida, Nevada, Virginia, and Arizona. The researchers at the University of Southern California Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration (CSII) released a report, titled Rock the (Naturalized) Vote II, which builds upon findings that CSII published in 2012. In that report, researchers highlighted the link between populations that had a high recently-naturalized population and voting trends.
For instance, in the 2012 Presidential election, Obama won with 71% of the Latin@/x vote, and 73% of the Asian vote. At that time, roughly 25% of all Latin@s/x and 66% of all Asians were naturalized citizens. Part of this support came with the passage of the Delayed Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).
Undocumented individuals who were brought to the U.S. as children can apply for DACA. This allows a two-year, renewable, protection from deportation, and grants work authorization. Over the last four years, 728,000 undocumented immigrants have been awarded DACA status. According to a report by Migration Policy Institute, although DACA does not provide an avenue for citizenship, it has improved employment, earnings, educational attainment, and social integration. Although immigrants with DACA are ineligible to vote (as they do not have citizenship), this population, particularly among Latin@s/x, is linked through social and political networks to peers who can vote.
How might a high recently-naturalized population influence the presidential election in 2016?
By combining current trends in naturalization with the scholarship on immigration, researchers at CSII conclude that:
[F]or Latinos, those who naturalize in a politically charged environment on immigration issues…vote at rates substantially higher than native-born or longer-term naturalized Latino citizens…Scholars use the term “defensive naturalization’“to refer to the act of seeking citizenship as a form of mobilization or in response to anti-immigrant sentiment.
Given these trends and the knowledge that elections are often won on very slim margins, one could expect a shift in rhetoric and strategy towards more inclusionary language and polices by both political parties.
Yet, in the Rock the (Naturalized) Vote II researchers highlight the ways that the ultra-conservative Tea Party faction of the Republican Party has mobilized against inclusionary immigration policies. In 2013, a bi-partisan immigration reform died in the more conservative House. In 2014, the executive order that would support parents of undocumented youth (DAPA) and would expand the current bill that supports undocumented youth (DACA) suffered political backlash from conservatives in Texas, and with a deadlocked Supreme Court, “the executive action was put on hold.” These setbacks reflect a deep aversion to immigrants from certain parts of the world. This is evident in the rhetoric and imagery used in the current presidential election season.
Donald Trump, for instance, began his campaign with the promise of “building a wall” and deporting all undocumented immigrants. He coupled this plan with negative rhetoric aimed at Mexicans (nationals, immigrants, and of U.S. descent). He stated:
Mexico has taken advantage of us in another way as well: gangs, drug traffickers and cartels have freely exploited our open borders and committed vast numbers of crimes inside the United States. The United States has borne the extraordinary daily cost of this criminal activity, including the cost of trials and incarcerations. Not to mention the even greater human cost.
Trump’s statement reinforces a popular stereotype: that Mexicans are inherently criminal. These types of comments reflect a xenophobic and racist undercurrent to American culture and serve to further marginalize communities of color that are quickly becoming a major voting bloc nationally.
According to a report by the American Immigration Council published in 2015, immigrants are less likely to engage in criminal-activity than native-born Americans. Yet, policy makers continue to use fear and stereotypes to influence immigration laws. Furthermore, Mexican immigration has declined since 2000. According to the Pew Research Center, many Mexican immigrants have returned home (140,000 between 2009-2014). And, as of 2014, Mexican immigrants made up 27.6% of the immigration population (down from 29% in 2000). In 2014, unauthorized immigrants from Mexico made up 52% of this population, however, undocumented immigration from other parts of the world, such as Asia, Central American, and sub-Saharan Africa, accounted for the other 48%. The political conversation regarding immigration, however, continues to focus on “illegal criminal immigration” from Mexico.
As I discussed in a previous blog post on the child migrant crisis, rhetorical tactics of fear have been a central Republican strategy for swaying voters. With his overt racism, xenophobia, and nationalism, Trump has latched onto a fears that there is a border crisis and has expanded it to also include Muslims. This is most evident in his 10-point immigration plan.
Conversely, Hillary Clinton calls for comprehensive immigration reform that would provide a pathway to citizenship for current undocumented immigrants and support young undocumented people who were brought to the U.S. when they were children. Clinton’s plan makes an explicit distinction between immigrants with a violent criminal background and those who arrive to the U.S. looking for expanded opportunities.
Part of Clinton’s plan attempts to remediate current conditions that marginalize immigrant populations; this includes for-profit family detention centers that flourished under the Obama administration, and moving forward on DAPA and the expansion to DACA.
According to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Clinton’s immigration plan “would [also] boost economic output from the projected long-run growth rate of 2% to 2.3% a year on average, while Trump’s more restrictive policies would trim GDP growth from 2% to 1.7% over the next decade.” For Clinton’s plan, this translates to an additional $100 billion to the overall economy. Trump’s plan, however, would result in an additional $50 billion to the overall debt.
Both Democratic and Republican candidates (and presidents) have engaged in tactics that marginalize, vilify, and criminalize immigrant populations(particularly Mexican and, more recently, Muslim populations). However, with the growing numbers of naturalized immigrants, particularly from Latin America, the Democratic Party is focused on creating comprehensive policies that target immigrant-populations that are likely to vote Democratic in the future.
Thanks for sharing the information it is
Thanks for sharing
This is nice calendar template
There’s so much misinformation out there, and this piece does a great job of breaking down the facts. First off, undocumented immigrants and non-citizens cannot vote in federal elections. Yet, somehow, this myth keeps spreading every election cycle.
One of the biggest takeaways is how much immigrants do want to participate in democracy once they become citizens. The naturalization process isn’t easy—it takes years of waiting, paperwork, and tests. So when immigrants finally become eligible to vote, they take it seriously. Many see it as a privilege and a way to have a say in policies that affect their lives and communities.
Another interesting point is how voting patterns shift across generations. First-generation immigrants might be more focused on issues like immigration policy, while second- and third-generation voters tend to align more with broader national concerns.
At the end of the day, immigrant voters are an essential part of the electorate. Instead of falling for fear-based narratives, we should focus on ensuring that every eligible voter—immigrant or not—has access to the ballot and can fully participate in democracy.
There’s so much misinformation out there about immigrants and voting, and this piece does a great job of calmly and clearly breaking it all down. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve heard someone throw around claims about non-citizens voting, especially around election season, and honestly, most of it is just fear-mongering.
What I really appreciated is how the article explains who actually can vote in U.S. elections—citizens. Period. It’s not some open-door system where anyone who walks in can cast a ballot. The safeguards are already in place, and the idea that undocumented immigrants are somehow swinging elections just doesn’t hold up when you look at the facts.
The article also made a great point about how this myth hurts immigrant communities. It fuels suspicion, stereotypes, and even policy decisions that are based more on fear than reality. And for legal immigrants who are working hard toward citizenship, this kind of rhetoric just adds unnecessary stress and stigma.
What struck me most was the idea of an “incentive machine”—how officers are rewarded more for stops and seizures than for treating people with dignity or respecting constitutional boundaries. It reflects a troubling shift in priorities, where numbers and optics are valued over human rights. The article makes it clear that many of these encounters aren’t about genuine threats or public safety, but about exerting control and instilling fear, especially among communities of color and immigrant populations.
Equally disturbing is the lack of consequences for misconduct. In any system that grants significant power to individuals, there must be strong mechanisms to prevent and penalize abuse. The fact that travelers can be subjected to invasive searches, prolonged questioning, or intimidation without meaningful recourse is a red flag for anyone who values civil liberties.