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
About the Authors 3 About this Report 4 A Note on Terminology 5 Executive Summary 6 Introduction 7 Part 1. Immigrants and Immigration in the State of Rhode Island 9 Part 2. Public Opinion toward Immigration and Immigrants in the State 22 of Rhode Island Part 3. Immigrant Perceptions of Their Status in the State of Rhode 42 Island Part 4: Government Responses to Immigration Issues 49 References 53
2 Page
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
About the Authors
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.
3 Page
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.
“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.
5 Page
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
Introduction
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 7 education. Page
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
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.
8 Page
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
Part 1. Immigrants and Immigration in the State of Rhode Island
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 9 that "civil and political institutions and public schools would come under the control of the Page
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
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
Page
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
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).
1 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 11 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.. Page
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
Figure 1.1. Percent Foreign Born and Ethnicity in Rhode Island
35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
United States Foreign Born (%) 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.
12 Page
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
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/
Section 1.5. Language Acquisition and Languages Spoken at Home
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 Page
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
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
14 Page
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 French Chinese
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
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).
15 Page
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
Table 1.4. Naturalization of the Foreign Born Population, 2012 Number of Percent of Percent of Foreign Born Foreign Born Foreign Born (Rhode Island) (Rhode Island) (United States) Naturalized 71,278 60 46 Noncitizens 68,847 49 54 Naturalized Number of Percent of Naturalized Percent of Citizens by Naturalized Citizens Citizens Naturalized Period of (Rhode Island) (Rhode Island) Citizens Naturalization (United States) Before 1980 12,778 17.9 13.5 1980-1989 9,071 12.7 13.1 1990-1999 15,383 21.6 24.5 2000-2009 24,144 33.9 37.8 Since 2010 9,902 13.9 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 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
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 16 Rhode Island were born outside the United States. However, children of immigrant parents Page
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
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 Source: Migration Policy Institute Available at: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/data/state-profiles/state/demographics/RI
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, 17
which prevents us from calculating foreign born residents by city for 2010. However, Page
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
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 Bristol County Kent County Providence Washington County County County
18
2 Source: U.S. Census Bureau. American Community Survey Page
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
Figure 1.4. Number of Foreign Born Residents by County, 2010
136833.71
112519.4
9637.164 5056.168 4039.875 5176.619
Rhode Island Newport Bristol County Kent County Providence Washington County County 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 1980 1990 2000
Providence North Providence East Providence Pawtucket Central Falls
19 Page
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 2010
Providence North Providence East Providence Pawtucket Central Falls
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.
3 Source: U.S. Census Bureau estimates based on the American Population Survey. Data for 2010 is not available for 20 North Providence. 4 Source: U.S. Census Bureau Page
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
Figure 1.7. Percent Asian In Rhode Island's Urban Centers
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1980 1990 2000 2010
Providence East Providence Pawtucket 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).
21 Page
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
Part 2. Public Opinion toward Immigration and Immigrants in the State of Rhode Island
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 Page
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
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 23
(if any) formal education in their home country and speak little or no-English. These Page
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
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, 24
propensity to vote, or support for specific parties (Huckfeldt 1979). Within the Page
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
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 25
immigrants who are the fastest growing population group in the state. We explore Rhode Page
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
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.
26
5 http://www.pollingreport.com/immigration.htm Page
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
Table 2.1 Material Competition and Concern About Immigration Total U.S.-born Foreign-born (%) (%) (%) A B Most crimes in our state involve 18 19 13 immigrants Immigrants today are a burden on 17 15 29A our state because they take our jobs, housing, and health care Immigrant today strengthen our 10 9 22A state because of their hard work and talents N 507 372 124 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<.10)
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 Source: New England Immigration Study, 2010, conducted by Dr. A. Filindra. 27 Sponsors: Brown University and the Rhode Island Foundation Page
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
Superscript notations denote statistically significant differences between columns ( p<.10)
A similar pattern emerges when we look at the data by race. Latinos, the state’s largest immigrant group, are more likely than whites and African-Americans to voice concerns about competition from immigrants. One third of Latinos (36 percent) compared to 16 percent of whites and 7 percent of African-Americans believe that immigrants are a burden on the state because they take jobs and other resources. It is not only Rhode Island Latinos who express fears about competition with new immigrants; studies of proposition 187 in California show that a proportion of Latinos there voted for this anti-immigrant initiative because of similar concerns about resources (Newton 2000). However, these views do not extend to crime or to other qualities of immigrants. In fact, only 7 percent of Latinos compared to 19 percent of whites think that most crime in the state is caused by immigrants. Similarly 27 percent of Latinos compared to only 6 percent of whites say that immigrants strengthen the state. This suggests that Latinos perceive other immigrants as socially and culturally similar to other Rhode Islanders.
Table 2.3. Material Competition and Concern about Immigration by Age and Education Age Education HS or Greater 18-35 36-55 56+ less than HS % Agree (net) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) B C D D E Most crimes in our state involve immigrants 7 21B 25B 20 16 Immigrants today are a burden on our state because they take our jobs, housing, and health care 13 20 19 23E 13 Immigrant today strengthen our state because of their hard work and talents 13 9 9 18E 5 N 114 187 181 199 286 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<.10)
Attitudes related to material concerns differ somewhat across socio-economic groups. Older Rhode Islanders are significantly more likely than younger residents to attribute crime to immigrants, but there are no differences by age when it comes to perceptions of immigrants either as a burden or a strength. High school graduates seem to have more
conflicted views of the material impact of immigrants. On one hand, they are significantly more likely than those with higher education to perceive immigrants as a burden, at the same time, they are more likely to view immigrants as a strength. 28
Page
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
Table 2.4. Material Competition and Concern about Immigration by Ideology Ideology Liberal Conservative Moderate (%) (%) (%) % Agree (net) A B C Most crimes in our state involve immigrants 12 26AC 15 Immigrants today are a burden on our state because they take our jobs, housing, and health care 9 27 AC 13 Immigrant today strengthen our state because of their hard work and talents 11 10 8 N 127 145 182 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<.10)
Clearer attitudinal differences appear when we parse the sample by ideology. Rhode Islanders who identify as conservatives are significantly more likely than liberals or moderates to believe that crime in the state is attributable to immigrants (26 percent) and, that immigrants are a burden because they take jobs, housing and healthcare (27 percent). This is consistent with studies that attribute attitudinal differences about immigration to ideological factors (Simon and Alexander 1993; Neiman, Johnson, and Bowler 2006). b. Cultural Considerations
Social and cultural concerns appear to be strong motivators behind attitudes toward immigrants and especially Latino immigrants in Rhode Island. Although more than half (57 percent) say that immigrants have the same values as American-born citizens, only 35 percent believe that contemporary immigrants bring with them the same values as earlier generations of immigrants. This suggests that Rhode Islanders make a strong distinction between their ethnic and cultural heritage and the values of their forefathers and the culture and values of newcomers. This is roughly consistent with national public opinion. A Pew Research Center poll (2011) shows that 52 percent of Americans think newcomers strengthen society, while 39 percent believe that they threaten American values.
U.S.-born Rhode Islanders are more likely to see differences between immigrants and natives as well as between contemporary immigrants and previous generations of immigrants. A strong majority of foreign-born residents (87 percent) believe that today’s newcomers have the same values as citizens. However, only 55 percent of native-born
Rhode Islanders share that view. Similarly, 63 percent of foreign-born residents disagree
with the statement “immigrants today do not have the same values as previous generations 29 of immigrants;” the same is true only for 47 percent of U.S.-born residents. Page
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
As a result of these beliefs in value dissimilarity between contemporary immigrants and citizens or earlier generations of immigrants, anxiety about conformity and blending in is high. Two thirds of Rhode Islanders (70 percent) agree with the statement “Immigrants should change so they blend into American society.” It is important to note that the foreign- born (78 percent) are significantly more likely than native Rhode Islanders (68 percent) to emphasize assimilation. This is consistent with research showing that immigrants are keen on adopting an American identity and American values and habits (Citrin et al. 2007).
Table 2.5 Social and Cultural Concerns About Immigration: Values Total U.S.-born Foreign-born (%) (%) (%) A B Immigrants today have the same 59 55 87A values as American-born citizens Immigrants today do not have the 35 37B 23 same values as previous generations of immigrants Immigrants should change so they 70 68 78A blend into American society It is very important that everyone in 34 36B 20 the U.S. speaks English Immigrants make our state more 41 41 44 open to new ideas and cultures 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<.10)
Despite strong cultural anxieties about the assimilability of immigrants, Rhode Islanders adopt a more libertarian position on the issue of speaking English than does the rest of the country. Only one-third (34 percent) of state residents believe that everyone should speak English. This attitude is stronger among U.S.-born residents (36 percent) than foreign-born Rhode Islanders (20 percent). However, it is important to note that for both groups only a minority of respondents endorses this view. By contrast, a 2013 Gallup Poll shows that 72 percent of the national public believes that it is “essential” that immigrants learn English and an additional 24 percent say it is “important but not essential”. Furthermore, 37 percent believe that immigrants make the state more open to new ideas and cultures.
30
Page
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
Table 2.6 Social and Cultural Concerns About Immigration by Race Whites Latinos African-Americans (%) (%) (%) A B C Immigrants today have the same 56 79 AC 59 values as American-born citizens Immigrants today do not have the 37B 20 30 same values as previous generations of immigrants Immigrants should change so they 70 77AC 66 blend into American society It is very important that everyone 36B 22 27 in the U.S. speaks English Immigrants make our state more 42 33 29 open to new ideas and cultures N 281 101 89 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<.10)
The differences in cultural perceptions persist across racial groups (Table 2.6). A bare majority of whites believe that today’s immigrants share values with American citizens (56 percent) but a minority believe that today’s immigrants share values with previous generations of immigrants (47 percent). However, large proportions of Latinos endorse the view that immigrants and citizens are similar in values (79 percent) and that there are no differences across generations of immigrants (66 percent). However, when it comes to assimilation, Latinos are enthusiastic supporters. Three-fourths (77 percent) of Latinos but 70 percent of whites and 66 percent of African-Americans believe that immigrants should blend in. Interestingly, “blending in” may mean different things to different groups. For example, whites (36 percent) are far more likely than Latinos (22 percent) to expect immigrants to speak English. This suggests that for Latinos, cultural assimilation does not necessarily rest on linguistic assimilation.
The consensus that immigration represents a cultural threat holds across socio-economic groups. There are few differences by age or education on cultural perceptions of immigrants. It is very interesting to note that even though openness to multiculturalism is most often associated with education (Tumin, Barton, and Burrus 1958; Hyman, Wright, and Reed 1975), in Rhode Island it is those with more than a high school degree rather than high school graduates who are more likely to express the view that immigrants should blend in.
31 Page
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
Table 2.7. Cultural Concerns about Immigration by Age and Education Age Education 36- HS or Greater 18-35 55 56+ less than HS % Agree (net) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) B C D D E Immigrants today have the same values as American-born citizens 57 60 59 54 62 Immigrants today do not have the same values as previous generations of immigrants 33 33 40 43E 30 Immigrants should change so they blend into American society 75 71 64 64 73D It is very important that everyone in the U.S. speaks English 27 34 41A 36 33 Immigrants make our state more open to new ideas and cultures 37 39 47 42 41 N 114 187 181 199 286 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<.10)
Rhode Islanders who identify as conservative (40 percent) are almost twice as likely as self-identified liberals (24 percent) to believe that today’s immigrants do not have the same values as previous generations of immigrants and to think that it is important that everyone speak English. However, conservatives are more likely than liberals (46 percent to 30 percent) to believe that immigrants make the state more open to ideas and cultures.
32 Page
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
Table 2.8. Cultural Concerns about Immigration by Ideology Ideology Liberal Conservative Moderate (%) (%) (%) % Agree (net) A B C Immigrants today have the same values as American-born citizens 62 59 59 Immigrants today do not have the same values as previous generations of immigrants 24 40A 40A It is very important that everyone in the U.S. speaks English 18 48A 36A Immigrants make our state more open to new ideas and cultures 30 46A 48 A N 127 145 182 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<.10) c. Attitudes toward Latin-American Immigrants and the Undocumented
The strongest indicator about cultural anxieties is Rhode Islanders attitudes toward Latin- American immigration. Forty seven percent agree with the statement “It would be a good thing for our state if fewer people from Mexico and Latin America move here.” Furthermore, Rhode Islanders tend to exaggerate the number of undocumented immigrants in the state. On average, Rhode Island natives believe that 14 percent of the state’s population is made up of undocumented immigrants. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that the undocumented population of Rhode Island is closer to 3 percent of the state’s total population (Pew Hispanic Center 2011) (see Section 1). Yet only 20 percent of the native population is aware of this demographic fact.
33 Page
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
Figure 2.1. Estimates of the Undocumented Population in RI (Source: New England Immigration Survey, 2010)
19% 20%
5% or less 6-10% 11-15% 16-20% 18% 23% 21% or more Don't know/not sure
8% 12%
The survey data show that education but not age influences perceptions of the size of the undocumented population: those with a high school degree or less estimate the undocumented population on average to be 17 percent of the state population while among those with higher educational attainment the average is 13 percent. No statistically significant differences are noted by age group.
Given their unrealistic perceptions about the size of the undocumented population, it is not surprising that 40 percent of Rhode Islanders believe that undocumented immigrants do not become citizens because they have something to gain from their unauthorized status. Interestingly, 19 percent of state residents say that they do not know if undocumented immigrants benefit from being undocumented. It is interesting to note that these views are shared equally by natives and foreign-born Rhode Islanders.
34 Page
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
Table 2.9 Attitudes toward Latinos and Undocumented Total U.S. Born Foreign-Born (%) (%) A B It would be a good thing for our state if 47 44 63A fewer people from Mexico and Latin America move here Illegal immigrants do not become citizens 40 43 39 because they benefit from being illegal N 507 372 124 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<.10)
Surprisingly, these attitudes are concentrated among Latinos (54 percent).
Table 2.10 Attitudes toward Latinos and Undocumented by Race Whites Latinos African-Americans (%) (%) (%) A B C It would be a good thing for our state if 47 54AC 49 fewer people from Mexico and Latin America move here Illegal immigrants do not become 41 36 38 citizens because they benefit from being illegal N 281 101 89 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<.10)
Younger Rhode Islanders (56 percent) are significantly more likely than older cohorts to express negative attitudes toward Latino immigrants. Education also does not play a role in shaping the attitudes Rhode Islanders hold. High and low education individuals are equally likely to share such beliefs.
35 Page
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
Table 2.11. Attitudes toward Latinos and Undocumented by Age and Education Age Education HS or Greater 18-35 36-55 56+ less than HS % Agree (net) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) B C D D E It would be a good thing for our state if fewer people from Mexico and Latin America move here 56CD 43 43 47 46 Illegal immigrants do not become citizens because they benefit from being illegal 37 39 43 35 43 N 114 187 181 199 286 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<.10)
These findings suggest a lack of understanding of the American immigration system. Current immigration law makes it almost impossible for undocumented immigrants to regularize their status. Individuals who surreptitiously cross the border into the United States face 10 or 20 year bans on applying for citizenship. Individuals who overstay their visas also face penalties though less severe ones. As it currently stands, the immigration system does not provide a path to legalization for the country’s 10 million undocumented immigrants.
Attitudes about the desirability of Latin-American immigration are similar across ideology which suggests that in Rhode Island cultural threats related to immigration cut across ideological lines. Approximately half of the people in each ideological group believe that it would be a good thing for the state if fewer Latin-American immigrants moved here. However, there are significant differences between liberal and conservatives when it comes to undocumented immigration. Half of all conservatives (50 percent) but only 34 percent of liberals believe that undocumented immigrants choose to stay without documents because they have something to gain.
36 Page
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
Table 2.12. Attitudes toward Latinos and Undocumented by Ideology Ideology Liberal Conservative Moderate (%) (%) (%) % Agree (net) A B C It would be a good thing for our state if fewer people from Mexico and Latin America move here 52 43 57 Illegal immigrants do not become citizens because they benefit from being illegal 34 50A 39 N 127 145 182 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<.10)
2.4. Rhode Islanders’ Immigration Policy Preferences
As mentioned earlier, in recent decades, states have been considering a variety of policies targeting various categories of immigrants. Policy preferences are not uniform: Rhode Islanders tend to be substantially more inclusive when considering policies that relate to immigrant children whether legal or undocumented, but the same spirit does not carry through when undocumented adults are the focus of the policy.
Rhode Islanders regardless of nativity assign primacy to citizens. Only one in five Rhode Islanders believe that legal permanent residents should have the same rights as citizens. State residents are also supportive of local police enforcement of immigration laws (55 percent) and of the Arizona immigration law (54 percent). Support for such measures is especially strong among U.S.-born Rhode Islanders. Support for immigration enforcement in Rhode Island is similar to the nation overall. According to the Pew Hispanic Center (2012), 58 percent of the general public endorsed the Arizona approach to immigration.
Rhode Islanders tend to be more generous and inclusive when it comes to education. Two- thirds of all state residents (67 percent of U.S. born and 77 percent of foreign born) disagree with the statement “Illegal immigrant children attending college in our state should NOT be charged a higher tuition rate at state colleges and universities.” According to the Pew Research Center (2011), only 48 percent of the general public in the U.S. believes that undocumented immigrant children should be granted the lower in-state tuition rate. Furthermore, an overwhelming number of state residents (83 percent) believe that schools should offer programs that teach English to non-English dominant children.
Some such programs are beginning to take hold in the urban areas of Rhode Island. Two 37 schools offer bilingual education programs in and around Providence. The Alfred A. Lima Page
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
Elementary School (K-5) (Providence only) and the International Charter School (serving children from Providence, Pawtucket and Central Falls) both offer bilingual education programs. Bilingual education has been shown to be the most effective means for teaching English while keeping students on track in their other subjects.6 However, while there is support for these programs, the vast majority of students in Providence, Central Falls, and the other large immigrant communities are not enrolled in bilingual education programs. However, it appears there would probably be support for an expansion of bilingual education.
Table 2.13 Immigration Policy Preferences Total U.S. Born Foreign-Born (%) (%) A B Rights Legal immigrants should have the same rights as 19 19 22 American citizens Education Illegal immigrant children attending college in our 68 67 77A state should NOT be charged a higher tuition rate at state colleges and universities Schools in our state should offer specialized 83 83 85 programs for teaching English to children whose first language is not English Enforcement Police in our state should be able to check the 55 58B 40 citizenship and immigration status of all people including citizens Strongly/somewhat support Arizona immigration 54 59B 17 law N 507 372 124 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<.10)
There are substantial differences by racial group in Rhode Islanders’ preferences for immigrant rights, education and enforcement. Latinos (26 percent) and African-Americans (37 percent) are significantly more likely than whites (18 percent) to believe that legal permanent residents should have the same rights as U.S. citizens. Both groups (84 percent) are also more favorable that whites (67 percent) towards equalizing tuition rates for undocumented immigrant and citizen students. African-Americans (91 percent) are also especially enthusiastic about English language education programs for children.
When it comes to enforcement, it is not surprising that whites and African-Americans are significantly more supportive of local police immigration enforcement and of the Arizona 38
6 http://www.brown.edu/Research/Coachella/providence.html Page
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
immigration law. Only 12 percent of Latinos but 61 percent of whites and 29 percent of African Americans support Arizona’s approach to immigration enforcement. Latinos in the state are especially sensitized to the problem of racial profiling that is inimical to local enforcement of immigration laws.
Table 2.14. Immigration Policy Preferences by Race Whites Latinos African- (%) (%) Americans A B (%) C Rights Legal immigrants should have the same rights as 18 26A 37 A American citizens Education Illegal immigrant children attending college in our state 67 84A 84A should NOT be charged a higher tuition rate at state colleges and universities Schools in our state should offer specialized programs for 84 80 91AB teaching English to children whose first language is not English Enforcement Police in our state should be able to check the citizenship 59B 23 52 B and immigration status of all people including citizens Strongly/somewhat support Arizona immigration law 61BC 12 29B N 281 101 89 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<.10)
Although the literature suggests that both age and education drive immigration policy preferences, the data from Rhode Island suggest only small differences across these groups. A key exception is higher support for the Arizona law among older than younger Rhode Islanders. However, younger Rhode Island residents (91 percent) overwhelmingly support specialized education programs for English learners though these programs enjoy strong support across all subgroups.
39 Page
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
Table 2.15. Immigration Policy Preferences by Age and Education Age Education HS or Greater 18-35 36-55 56+ less than HS % Agree (net) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) B C D D E Rights
Legal immigrants should have the same rights as American citizens 20 15 22 23 17 Education
Illegal immigrant children attending college in our state should NOT be charged a higher tuition rate at state colleges and universities 72 67 66 66 69 Schools in our state should offer specialized programs for teaching English to children whose first language is not English 91CD 79 80 85 82 Enforcement
Police in our state should be able to check the citizenship and immigration status of all people including citizens 51 55 61 60 53 Strongly/somewhat support Arizona immigration law 45 58B 60 B 56 54 N 114 187 181 199 286 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<.10)
There is strong evidence in the literature that ideology drives immigration policy preferences (Ramakrishnan and Wong 2010; Filindra 2012; Filindra and Orr 2013; Filindra and Pearson-Merkowitz 2013). Given these findings, it is not surprising that liberal and conservative Rhode Islanders differ sharply in terms of policy preferences. More specifically, overwhelming majorities of liberals support equal tuition for undocumented immigrant students (81 percent) and English language programs in schools (88 percent). Support for equal tuition among conservatives (52 percent) and moderates (67 percent), is strong but not as enthusiastic, though both groups show very strong support for English language programs in schools. On enforcement policy, the patterns are reversed. Three- fifths of conservatives (61 percent) support local police enforcement and 76 percent support the Arizona immigration law. By comparison, 46 percent of liberals support enforcement and 38 percent support the Arizona law. 40 Page
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
Table 2.16. Immigration Policy Preferences by Ideology
Ideology
Liberal Conservative Moderate % Agree (net) (%) (%) (%) A B C Rights Legal immigrants should have the same rights 12 21 23 as American citizens Education Illegal immigrant children attending college in our state should NOT be charged a higher 81BC 57 66 tuition rate at state colleges and universities Schools in our state should offer specialized programs for teaching English to children 88C 82 79 whose first language is not English Enforcement Police in our state should be able to check the citizenship and immigration status of all 46 61A 59A people including citizens Strongly/somewhat support Arizona 38 76AC 52A immigration law N 127 145 182 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<.10)
41 Page
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
Part 3. Immigrant Perceptions of Their Status in the State of Rhode Island
Immigrants move to the United States largely for the economic opportunities that are available in the United States that do not exist in home countries. Massey, Denton and Malone (1993) find that the strongest predictor of immigration from Mexico to the United States is the economy of Mexico. When the Mexican economy is doing well, less people attempt to cross the border, but when the economic inequality between the two countries grows, more and more immigrants come to the United States. The same phenomenon is true for all immigrant groups—migrants come to the United States through both legal and illegal mechanisms in search of a better life for themselves and their families. As a result, as Florida Governor Jeb Bush recently said, sometimes illegal immigration can be thought of as “an act of love”:
“they come to our country because their families -- the dad who loved their children -- was worried that their children didn’t have food on the table. And they wanted to make sure their family was intact, and they crossed the border because they had no other means to work to be able to provide for their family. Yes, they broke the law, but it’s not a felony. It’s an act of love. It’s an act of commitment to your family.”(O’Keefe 2014)7
High income immigrants also come to the United States in search of better educations and better incomes for themselves and their children. Simply put, immigrants come in search of the “American Dream.” Unfortunately, that dream is becoming harder to achieve. The path to the middle class is not as smooth as it once was. The U.S. economy has shifted from a labor and manufacturing based economy in which the middle class was achievable with a limited education to one in which inequality has grown substantially and being born poor means you are significantly more likely to stay poor (Pew Charitable Trusts 2013).
Immigrants in the United States today, especially low income immigrants are more likely to live in areas with stressed school systems. Across the United States, Latino students are slightly more likely than black students to attend schools that are 90 to 100 percent minority and overwhelmingly poor. In fact, Latino students attend schools with almost double the share of low-income students than the typical white or Asian student (Orfield, Kucsera, and Siegel-Hawley 2012).
Consequently, many Latino students lack exposure to anyone who has gone to college or who intends to go and as a result the aspirations and knowledge about getting to college may never develop. Latino students are also more likely to attend schools in impoverished urban and rural neighborhoods that are under-resourced schools and have poorer facilities and less-qualified teachers (Gandara et al. 2003; Gandara 2010). The experience in the Providence and Central Falls schools is a case in point. While the state redistributes funds so that each city has approximately the same amount of money per student, Providence and
42 7 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/04/06/jeb-bush-many-illegal-immigrants-come-out- of-an-act-of-love/ Page
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014
Central Falls, with that money, are teaching students who come to school hungry, without educational home resources, and who often lack complete mastery of English, while cities like Barrington have the same amount of money to teach students who are much more likely to show up to school without these educational barriers. During the 2010-2011 school year there were over 8,000 English Limited students in the Rhode Island public schools; however, 75 percent of those students live in the four cities of Central Falls, Pawtucket, Providence, and Woonsocket. These cities are also those with the highest percentage of children living in poverty (Rhode Island Kids Count 2012 ).
In this section, we investigate Latino immigrant experiences in Rhode Island. Due to data availability and because Latinos represent the largest immigrant group, this section reports on the attitudes of Latinos residents of Rhode Island. We also include comparisons to the neighboring states of Connecticut and Massachusetts and to the nation as a whole. For the Southern New England data we draw from the Latino National Study (Hu-Dehart et al. 2006), New England Edition, and for the U.S. data we draw from the Latino National Study (Fraga et al. 2006). Both datasets were collected in 2006.
Section 3.1. Latino perceptions and experience with education in Rhode Island
Latino respondents in Rhode Island largely mirror the responses of respondents both in neighboring states and nationally with a few exceptions. In general, Latino respondents in Rhode Island have high expectations of their children: 86 percent say they expect their children to complete either college or graduate school. This percentage is slightly higher than the national average (82 percent).
The experience of Latinos with the school system, however, is not as positive and raises flags of concern. Only 61 percent of Latinos in Rhode Island who have children in the schools said that their experience interacting with school officials was very good. However, this number is much higher than the other two states in southern New England (54 percent and 53 percent), and higher than the national average (54 percent).
Moreover, Latino respondents with children do not rate their schools overwhelmingly high. Only 27 percent of Rhode Island respondents gave their children’s school an “A” grade. While only 9 percent of respondents gave their school a failing grade, Latino respondents certainly think their schools are not as good as they could be.
Despite recent changes in the economy, Latinos do overwhelmingly believe in the “American Dream”. When asked if both the poor and Latinos could get ahead if they work hard, respondents overwhelmingly agreed and the vast majority of the respondents said they “strongly agreed” that hard work would pay off (73 percent for the poor can get ahead and 78 percent for Latinos can get ahead) and both of these were slightly higher than the national average.
43 Page
Filindra & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2014