2. Redefining America: Key Findings from the 2006 Latino National Survey Luis Fraga Associate Professor of Political Science, Stanford University John Garcia Professor of Political Science, University of Arizona Rodney Hero Professor of Political Science, Notre Dame University Michael Jones-Correa Associate Professor of Government, Cornell University Valerie Martinez-Ebers Associate Professor, Texas Christian University Gary M. Segura Associate Professor, University of Washington

4. Sources of Funding Annie E. Casey Foundation Annie E. Casey Foundation Carnegie Corporation Carnegie Corporation Ford Foundation Ford Foundation Hewlett Foundation Hewlett Foundation Irvine Foundation Irvine Foundation Joyce Foundation Joyce Foundation Kellogg Foundation Kellogg Foundation National Science Foundation National Science Foundation Russell Sage Foundation Russell Sage Foundation Texas A&M University: MALRC, PERG Texas A&M University: MALRC, PERG

5. Percent Hispanic of U.S. Population, 1960-2030

6. Hispanic Births and Net Immigration by Decade: 1960-2030

7. Latino Diversity 44 million Latinos in the US Census Bureau (American Community Survey, Released August 2006) Mexican 63.9% Puerto Rican 9% Cuban 3.5% Salvadoran 2.9% Dominican 2.7% Guatemalan 1.7% Colombian 1.8% ALL OTHERS 14.3% Native-born (not Island-born): 35.4% Foreign-born 61% Island-born PR 3.6% No high school diploma 43% College graduate 11.1% Latino National Survey (unweighted N) Summer 2006 *Mexican 66.1% (5704) *Puerto Rican 9.5% (822) *Cuban 4.9% (420) *Salvadoran 4.7% (407) *Dominican 3.9% (335) *Guatemalan 1.7% (149) *Colombian 1.6% (139) *All Others 7.6% *Native-born 28.4% (2450) Foreign-born (adults) 66.2% (5717) *Island-born PR 5.4% (467) *No high school diploma 37% *College graduate 16.2%

8. Separate but Related: The Realities of Pan Ethnicity within the Latino National Survey

9. A Multiplicity of Identities Simultaneous strong sense of pan-ethnic identity, national origin identity, and American- ness Simultaneous strong sense of pan-ethnic identity, national origin identity, and American- ness  Puerto Ricans illustrate best that identities are not mutually exclusive  Cuban pan-ethnicity surprisingly high  Mexican sense of American-ness high considering the share foreign born American National Origin Pan- Ethnic Mexican61.784.087.4 Cuban77.882.181.6 Puerto Rican 83.790.789.3 All65.084.087.2 Cells are percent expressing “somewhat” or “very strongly”

10. Extent of Pan Ethnic Identification by National Origin  Variation among national origin groups modest  Lowest groups are Cubans and Spaniards  Highest groups are Central Americans, Puerto Ricans, and Dominicans  Order of bars- So. Amer; Cen. Amer.; Mex.; Puerto Rican; Cuban; Dominican; Salvadoran; Guatemalan; Spaniards

11. Background Characteristics Positive Association Direction Gender+ Latinas more pan ethnic Educational Attainment + Slight increase with more education Language Use + Slightly more Spanish speakers Place of Birth + Highest among Island born Puerto Ricans Latinos as distinct race + Support idea of Latinos as distinct race Preferred Pan – ethnic Label + Slightly more to Hispanic, but large segment prefer either Religious Affiliation + Stronger pan-ethnic identifiers more likely to be Catholic Correlates of Pan Ethnic Identity and Background Characteristics

12. Pan Ethnic Identity and Preferred Label  Two in five Latinos consider either pan- ethnic label as acceptable  Hispanic is preferred term by 43% of the respondents  Pan ethnic identifiers more prevalent than 1989 LNPS Latino

13. Correlates of Pan Ethnic Identity and Political Interest and Media Use Political Interest and Media Use Positive Association Direction Extent of Watching Television News + Stronger Pan-ethnic identifiers watch TV news almost daily Regularity of Reading Newspaper + Stronger Pan-ethnic identifiers read newspapers almost daily Level of Political Interest + Higher levels of political interests among stronger pan- ethnic identifiers Political Ideology + Weaker pan-ethnic Identifiers are more conservative and not think in these terms Partisan Identification + Stronger pan-ethnic identifiers more likely to identify as Democrats

14. Levels of Pan Ethnicity and Party Identification  One fourth of LNS respondents identified as Democrats  Second largest category was do not know-12.5%  Self-identified independents exceed Latino Republicans

15. Correlates of Pan Ethnic Identity and Political Participation Political Interest and Media Use Positive Association Direction Participate in community activities + Stronger pan-ethnic identifiers more likely to participate in community activities Composition of fellow group members + Stronger pan-ethnic identifiers are more likely to work w/ other Latinos. If problem, vehicle to act collectively + Stronger pan-ethic identifiers more likely to work w/ existing orgs. And act. Whether public official contacted was Latino + Stronger pan-ethnic identifiers more likely to contact official who is Latino

16. Correlates of Pan Ethnic Identity and Political Participation Electoral Politics and Vote Choices Positive Association Direction Vote for President, 2004 + Pan-ethnic voters more likely to vote for John Kerry Non-Voters’ Preference for President, 2004 + Pan-ethnic identifiers more likely to prefer John Kerry A Basis for Candidate Choice- Being Latino + Stronger pan-ethnic identifiers prefer Latino candidates A Basis for Candidate Choice- Speaking Spanish + Stronger pan-ethnic identifiers prefer candidates who have Spanish facility A Basis for Candidate Choice- Issues + Stronger pan-ethnic identifiers place high emphasis on issues

17. Correlates of Pan Ethnic Identity and Sense of a Pan Ethnic Community Elements of a Pan- ethnic Community Positive Association Direction Linked fate with other Latinos + Stronger pan-ethnic identifiers have higher level of linked fate Ethnic group’s socioeconomic status as similar w/ other Latinos + Stronger pan-ethnic identifiers perceived socioeconomic status as similar w/ other Latinos Ethnic group’s political status as similar w/ other Latinos + Stronger pan-ethnic identifiers perceived their political status as similar w/ other Latinos Ethnic group’s sense of linked fate common to that of other Latinos + R’s sense of own sub- group’s status as linked w/ other Latinos

18. Levels of Pan Ethnicity and Connectiveness Of One’s Subgroup to Other Latinos  One-half of LNS Latinos perceive a lot of commonalities with one’s group and other Latinos  Stronger pan-ethnic identifiers are more inclined to see this connection.  Over three- fourths of the combined stronger pan- ethic identifiers see their own national origin group as having a similar fate with other Latinos

19. Forced Choice: Boxing in Latinos However, forced choice reveals more traditional patterns: However, forced choice reveals more traditional patterns:  American-ness suffers among foreign-born but improves greatly across generations  Puerto Ricans least “Latino” and most stand alone as a group  Share of Mexicans choosing pan-ethnicity equals share choosing national origin We caution that this is an artificial choice, one not required of people in the real world We caution that this is an artificial choice, one not required of people in the real world Preference for pan-ethnicity still more than double what was found in LNPS 1989 Preference for pan-ethnicity still more than double what was found in LNPS 1989 Distribution of Single-Identity Preference by National Origin Group American National Origin Pan- Ethnic Mexican16.138.939.0 Cuban27.736.826.7 Puerto Rican 21.243.927.9 All17.038.538.0 Cells are percent of group choosing that identity

20. Less Separate and More Related: A Broader and Integrated Latino Community  Clearer evidence of active presence of pan-ethnicity among Latinos  Transcends nativity and immigrant background.  Reflects multiplicity of group related identities for Latinos living in America  There is a political connection among those with stronger levels of pan-ethnicity and political involvements  Stronger pan-ethnic identifiers more inclined to be politically aware and tied to their fellow Latinos.  Partisan and ideological implications with stronger pan- ethnic identifiers  Real indicators of ongoing and inter-related pan-ethnic community and inter-group commonalities

21. Latinos and Racial Identification

22.  More complex than previously understood with confounding notions of phenotype and skin-tone.  Self-identification distribution among LNS respondents: 67.2% some other race 67.2% some other race 22.8% white.8% black.8% black  Fully 51% of respondents say Latino/Hispanic is a different race!  But… is Race the same as Skin-tone? Racial Identification

23. Determinants of Racial Self- identification  Racial identification doesn’t obviously vary by citizenship or generation in US.  With one exception, no obvious differences by national origin or state of residence. Cubans (and Floridians) are outliers (25% difference with six other major Latino ethnic groups). Cubans (and Floridians) are outliers (25% difference with six other major Latino ethnic groups). As previously documented, Cuban Americans are more likely than other Latinos to self-identify as white. As previously documented, Cuban Americans are more likely than other Latinos to self-identify as white.  But…. Even Cuban response is a big shift from LNPS in 1989. Cuban Distributionwhiteother 198992.5 3.8 200649.943.0 ButButButBut

24. Skin-tone Question: “Latinos can be described based on skin tone or complexion shades. Using a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 represents very dark and 5 represents being very light, where would you place yourself on that scale?”  A plurality selects the exact middle category of skin-tone. Percent Percent Very dark = 1 3.31 Very dark = 1 3.31 2 7.67 2 7.67 3 40.68 3 40.68 4 19.62 4 19.62 Very light = 5 22.61 Very light = 5 22.61 REFUSED 9 6.11 REFUSED 9 6.11---------------------------------- Total 100.00 Total 100.00

25.  Cuban responses for skin-tone is not significantly different from other groups: 9 % answering ‘dark’ or ‘very dark,’ compared to 10-11% of other national origin groups. 9 % answering ‘dark’ or ‘very dark,’ compared to 10-11% of other national origin groups.  Darker skin-tone is associated with lower outcomes in income and home ownership but NOT with employment or education.  Darker skin-tone also associated with more negative incidents with police, obtaining housing, and service in restaurants. A Closer Look at Skin-tone

26. Skin-tone and “American” Identification In general, how strongly or not do you think of yourself as American? - Very strongly, somewhat strongly, not very strongly, strongly, not very strongly, or not al all. or not al all.  The plurality answer for all respondents was “very strongly” but the ones most likely to feel this way were the lightest skin- tone. Not at Very Not at Very All Strongly All Strongly Darkest 20% 14% Neutral 16% 35% Lightest 14% 44% -------------------------------- All Respondents 15% 39%

27. Racial Identity By Skin-tone (in percentages) Skin-tone Skin-tone Race IDDarkerNeutralLighter White1132 58 Other race1247 41 Black1950 32 Total1243 45

28. Latinos and Partisanship

29. Patterns of Partisanship Overall U.S. Born Puerto Rico Born Outside U.S. Democrat 42.1 55.9 56.3 33.9 Republican 21.5 26.0 22.9 18.8 Independent 8.1 5.6 3.1 10.0 Don’t Care 12.7 4.8 5.5 17.4 Don’t Know 15.6 8.6 12.7 20.0

30. Partisanship Among Citizens U.S. Born Naturalized Registered Not Registered Democrat 55.9 43.9 55.9 33.6 Republican 26.0 24.9 26.1 22.3 Independent 5.6 8.6 6.1 8.2 Don’t Care 4.8 9.2 3.9 15.4 Don’t Know 8.6 13.4 8.1 20.6

31. Partisanship and Gender MaleFemale Democrat 41.2 40.7 Republican 23.7 18.7 Independent 9.3 7.6 Don’t Care 11.7 14.6 Don’t Know 14.1 18.4

32. Partisanship and the Bush Effect: Presidential Approval Registered Not Registered Registered Not Registered Democrat 23.6 30.0 Republican 52.7 37.9 Independent 29.6 31.8 Don’t Know 28.5 30.7 Don’t Care 26.6 31.3 “How strongly do you approve or disapprove of how President Bush is doing as President?”

33. Partisanship and the Bush Effect: Presidential Favorability Registered Not Registered Registered Not Registered Democrat 24.1 29.3 Republican 53.8 38.7 Independent 31.4 31.3 Don’t Know 28.3 19.0 Don’t Care 27.1 22.2 “Now I would like to ask you about your feelings toward President Bush. Thinking about the kind of person he Is, would you say you view him very favorably, somewhat favorably, …?”

34. Foundations of Bush Favorability His policy positions25.2 Likeability 9.5 Leadership25.4 Ability to speak Spanish 5.3 Relates well to Latinos19.1 Commitment to his Christian Faith15.6

35. Citizenship and Issue Positions: Problem Facing the Country CitizenNon-citizen CitizenNon-citizen Iraq War 30.0 33.2 Economy 14.7 12.4 Illegal Immigration 8.4 14.8 Immigration 8.4 14.8Education/ Schools 4.2 4.7 Schools 4.2 4.7 Other 12.4 6.6 “What do you think is THE one most important problem facing the country today?”

36. Partisanship and Issue Positions: Problem Facing the Country Democrat Republican Independent Democrat Republican Independent Iraq War 33.8 25.1 25.8 Economy 15.0 14.6 14.5 Illegal Immigration 6.9 9.0 10.6 Immigration 6.9 9.0 10.6Education/ Schools 5.4 4.5 5.0 Schools 5.4 4.5 5.0 Other 11.7 17.3 16.1 “What do you think is THE one most important problem facing the country today?”

37. Partisanship and Issue Positions: Party Approach Country Democrats Republicans Neither Don’t Know Democrats Republicans Neither Don’t Know Democrat 39.4 7.4 43.1 10.1 Republican 14.6 26.2 46.3 13.0 Independent 12.1 6.8 63.8 17.2 Don’t Care 6.2 3.9 54.2 35.7 Don’t Know 6.1 4.8 48.5 40.6 “Which political party do you think has a better approach to address this problem?”

38. Citizenship and Issue Positions: Problem Facing Latinos CitizenNon-citizen CitizenNon-citizenIllegal Immigration 25.0 35.1 Immigration 25.0 35.1Education/ Schools 13.9 3.6 Schools 13.9 3.6 Unemp/Jobs 11.7 12.6 Iraq War 1.5 1.6 Other 13.6 9.2 “What do you think is THE one most important problem facing the country today?”

39. Partisanship and Issue Positions: Problem Facing Latinos Democrat Republican Independent Democrat Republican IndependentIllegal Immigration 24.7 23.7 27.5 Immigration 24.7 23.7 27.5Education/ Schools 18.2 15.3 11.3 Schools 18.2 15.3 11.3 Unemp/Jobs 12.4 11.0 9.7 Iraq War 1.8 0.9 1.9 Other 13.8 16.4 14.4 “What do you think is THE one most important problem facing the Latino community today?”

40. Partisanship and Issue Positions: Party Approach Latinos Democrats Republicans Neither Don’t Know Democrats Republicans Neither Don’t Know Democrat 44.8 6.7 37.1 11.4 Republican 19.3 21.0 42.1 17.6 Independent 14.4 7.8 55.7 22.0 Don’t Care 12.1 6.2 48.2 33.5 Don’t Know 7.7 6.2 40.5 45.6 “Which political party do you think has a better approach to address this problem?”

41. Latinos in New and Traditional Areas  The Latino population, especially immigrants, has moved well beyond traditional states such as California, Texas, and New York to include considerable and increasing presence in such states as Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa and North Carolina.  These latter states -- Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa and North Carolina – are also states that had previously had little experience with immigrants and/or have substantially large African-American populations.

42. Latinos Seeing Commonalities with Other Groups  Response Choices: nothing, little, some, a lot, DK/no answer  Question:  Thinking about issues like job opportunities, educational attainment or income, how much do [selected ethnic term] have in common with other racial groups in the United States today? Would you say [selected ethnic term] have ….. in common with African Americans ….. in common with African AmericansResults:  In all 7 states more respondents say “some” or “a lot” -- ranging from 46% to 57% -- than say “nothing” or “little.”  However, in the 4 “emerging states” 50 percent or less of respondents say “some” or “a lot,” while more in the other states say “some” or “a lot”: CA (51%), TX (52 %), NY (57%)

43. Question: Thinking about issues like job opportunities, educational attainment or income, how much do [selected ethnic term] have in common with other racial groups in the United States today? Would you say [selected ethnic term] have ….. in common with whites: Results: Varied pattern, hard to summarize, except that in all states fewer respondents answer “some” or “a lot” than they did for the similar question regarding Blacks. Also, CA only state where more say nothing /little than some/ a lot (47%/44%). Socioeconomic Commonalities

44. Inter –Group Competition: Latinos and Others Question: Some have suggested that [selected ethnic term] are in competition with African Americans. …Would you tell me if you believe there is strong competition, weak competition or no competition at all with African Americans? How about… competition in getting jobs Results: In all seven states (only) about a quarter (25-28 percent) perceived “strong competition” and about 15-20 percent or so sees “weak competition;” the plurality choice in every state is “no competition at all.” New York stands out in having clearly the highest proportion, 36 percent, saying “strong competition.”

45. In 4 emerging states, 47-52 percent say “no competition at all;” consistently 25-27 percent in these states say “strong competition.” Percent saying “strong competition” is highest in NY (35%) and TX (32%) Competition in ….having access to education and quality schools …getting jobs with the city or state government 42 to 48% in emerging states say “no competition,” and roughly 28 % say “strong competition.” GA stands out in this group, with 33% percent saying “strong competition” The other three states tend to have higher percentage (than “emerging”) saying “strong competition: CA 35%; TX 33% and, most strikingly, NY 43%.

46. Question: Competition in … “Having [selected ethnic term] representatives in elected office” Results: In all 4 emerging states “no competition” is the most common answer (41, 39, 42, and 28 percent for AR, GA, IA, and NC, respectively). GA is highest with “strong competition,” 36%. IN CONTRAST In the three others states, “strong competition” is the most common answer: CA 38%, TX 38%, and NY 42% Competition in … Political Representation

47. Concept of “Linked Fate” with Others Question: How much does [Latinos] doing well depend on African Americans doing well? Results: Percent saying “some” or “a lot” in 4 emerging states ranges from 58% (NC) to 65% (AR). Interestingly, percent saying “some” or “a lot” is highest in NY (67%). In TX is 64% and in CA 53% say this.

48. IMMIGRATION POLICY

51. THE DECLINE OF TRANSNATIONALISM

52. Plans to Return Permanently to Country of Origin, among First Generation Latinos, by Years in US

53. Remittances to Country of Origin Once a Month or More, among First-Generation Latinos, by Years in US

54. Frequent Contact (more than once a month) with Family in Country of Origin, among First-Generation Latinos, by Years in US

55. Spanish as Primary Language of Media Use, among First-Generation Latinos, by Years in US

56. Contact with Friends and Family in Country of Origin Once a Month or More, among Latinos in the US, by Generation

57. Remittances to Country of Origin Once a Month or More, among Latinos in the US, by Generation

58. Spanish as Primary Language of Media Use, among Latinos in the US, by Generation

59. Follow Politics in Country of Origin a Lot, among Latinos in the US, by Generation

60. BEING AMERICAN

66. The Latino National Survey Presentation at the Woodrow Wilson Center, including: Executive Summary Demographic Tables Background Tables Toplines Will be available at: http://www.usstudies@wilsoncenter.org and http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/LNS.shtml