Hispanic Immigrant Identity
Hispanic Immigrant Identity
4
(Reasons for not becoming a Citizen) +
5
(Memberships in Community Organizations) +
6
(Language Preference)
The reduced model was significant with a
2
22df
= 180.095 significant
at p = .0000. The model correctly predicted national self-identification in
66.39% of the cases, as compared to 68.07% of the cases for the full
model.
As with the full model, this reduced model (see table 8 below) was
somewhat more successful in predicting when the respondents identified
with their country of origin (71.53%) than when the respondents identified
with the U.S. (60.82%). Using this model, the Lambda-p and G/K Tau-c
values are not only similar to each other, but very similar to the Lambda-p
and G/K Tau-c values from the original model: the Lambda-p value being
.3002 and the G/K Tau-c value being .3267. Although the reduced model
was modestly less effective at predicting a respondents national self-
identification overall, it nevertheless compares favorably to the full model
and is clearly more parsimonious.
Logistic Examination of the Allegiance Variable 97
Table 8. Logistic Regression Results - Reduced Model
Full Model Reduced Model
Variable Coefficient (S.E.) Coefficient (S.E.)
Gender -.0688 (.1444)
Age -.0151 (.0062) -.0149 (.0056)***
Years in the U.S. .0297 (.0093) .0343 (.0089)***
Citizenship .1406 (.3009)
Income
Income (1) -.4999 (.3430)
Income (2) -.3472 (.3050)
Income (3) -.5054 (.3049)
Income (4) -.4886 (.3388)
Income (5) -.5298 (.2874)
Income (6) -.3604 (.3115)
Income (7) -.1808 (.3481)
Education -.0273 (.0203)
Importance of Citizenship .2698 (.0480)
Tried to get Citizenship App .2668 (.1576)
Reasons for not Becoming
a Citizen -.0510 (.0358) -.0770 (.0209)***
Studied English,
History or Government -.0738 (.1016)
Knew Government Officials -.0923 (.1027)
Memberships in Comm. Orgs.-.1084 (.0576) -.1157 (.0521)**
Voting .0446 (.0673)
Political Participation -.0618 (.0743)
English Language Ability .0096 (.0224)
Language Preference .2353 (.0403) .2314 (.0315)***
Constant -1.9475 (.7409) -2.5638 (.5533)
Number of Cases 1068 1068
Percent Predicted Correctly 68.07% 66.39%
Proportional Reduction of Error
Lambda-p .3353 .3002
G-K Tau-c .3604 .3267
2
22 df
= 192.929
2
6 df
= 180.095
significant at .0000 significant at .0000
** p .05, ***p .01
98 Hispanic Immigrant Identity
An examination of the regression results shows that variables
measuring the Importance of Becoming a Citizen ( = .2750, p = .0000),
and Language Preference ( = .2314, p = .000) continue to be highly
significant. Similarly, the variables of Age ( = -.0149, p = .0073), Years
in the U.S. ( = .0343, p = .001), and Memberships in Community
Organizations ( = -.1157, p = .0263) continue to be significant.
The variable indicating whether or not the respondent had Tried to
Get a Citizenship Application, which was marginally significant in the
original regression, was eliminated from the equation in the 11
th
and last
step. The significance level for this variable rose above the p = .10 limit
in the 10
th
step when the Education variable was dropped. Although
initially puzzling, the connection between these two variables might be
understood in the following manner. If the variable, Getting an
Application for Citizenship, was measuring not only the desire to become
a citizen, but also the capacity to challenge the immigration bureaucracy,
then there would be a possibility of a modest co-linear relationship with
education. Individuals with a higher level of education might be more
capable of challenging the bureaucratic hurdles of obtaining citizenship,
and hence more likely to obtain an application. It should also be
remembered, however, that Education, although only significant at the p =
.1781 level, did have a negative coefficient (-.0273).
The variable Reasons for Not Becoming a Citizen was not
significant in the full model, however, interestingly it was retained in the
model selected through the backward elimination process. It dropped
below the p .10 level ( = -.0770, p = .0002) in the 3
rd
step when the
Citizenship variable was eliminated. That the Citizenship variable was
eliminated this early in the backward selection process is reflective of its
lack of predictive ability. Nevertheless, it was apparently acting as a
suppressor variable. The relationship between the two variables is clear,
in that those who had become citizens obviously had no reasons for not
becoming citizens.
Discussion
As described in the previous chapter, the academic literature, political
figures and commentators, and Supreme Court decisions have established
concepts of what it means to be an American. The objective of this
Logistic Examination of the Allegiance Variable 99
chapter was to operationalize those concepts using variables from the
NLIS and then use those variables in a logistic regression to examine if
they could predict whether respondents in the NLIS viewed themselves as
American or as members of their countries of origin.
What we have seen is that of the ten variables used to operationalize
the concepts developed in the previous chapter, (not including the control
variables) only two, the summary variable used to measure importance of
being a U.S. citizen, and the language preference variable, were
significant at the p .05 level in the full model. Additionally, the
variables measuring respondents feelings about reasons for not becoming
a citizen and the variable measuring memberships in community
organizations became significant in the model developed through the
backward elimination procedure. In either model, the ability of these
variables to predict identification with the U.S. is somewhat lower than
their ability to predict identification with the respondents country of
origin.
In addition to the variables listed above, two control variables, Age of
the respondent and Years in the U.S. were significant in both models.
Upon initial examination, perhaps the bigger surprises come not from
what items are good predictors of national self-identification, but rather
from which items were not good predictors. It would be expected that the
longer respondents had been in the U.S. the more likely they would be to
identify themselves as Americans. Similarly, it is not surprising that those
who prefer to use English in different settings are more likely to identify
themselves as Americans. What is initially surprising is that variables
such as Citizenship or Education are not good predictors. In the case of
Citizenship, it must be remembered that obtaining citizenship is a function
not only of desire and purposeful intent, but also of opportunity,
confidence to challenge the immigration bureaucracy, ability to pass the
exam, etc. Nevertheless the relationship between Citizenship and national
self-identification will be something to watch closely in the focus group
interviews. As for Education, an assumption that greater education would
automatically associate an individual to American culture is not
necessarily correct. As was noted in the previous chapter, Stanley
Lieberson (1985) and Tom Smith (1980) both found that it was
individuals with lower levels of education who were less likely to identify
100 Hispanic Immigrant Identity
themselves with a hyphenated ancestry. Thus, although greater education
might facilitate an individuals functioning in the United States, greater
education may also make them aware of their own heritage. It is,
therefore, understandable that education would not be a good predictor of
national self-identification.
More puzzling, however, was the negative relationship between
Number of Memberships in Community Organizations and national
self-identification as American. Putnam (2000) as well as others cited
above, argue strongly that participation in community organizations is an
American characteristic. The possible answer to this apparent
inconsistency is not to be found in the data available through the NLIS,
but rather through the comments given by some of the participants in the
focus groups which will be discussed in the next chapter.
Summary
Given the results of the logistic regression, how predictive were the
original four concepts developed in the previous chapter to the actual
national self-identification of the NLIS respondents? The results are
certainly mixed. On the one hand, variables such as the summary variables
on the Importance of Citizenship, or Reasons for Not Becoming a
Citizen give support to the connection between the concept of belief in
the American system of government and national self-identification as an
American. Conversely, Voting or Participation in Politics were not
predictive at all.
English language ability was among the poorest predictors.
Conversely, English language preference was one of the strongest
predictors. The original concept developed in the previous chapter was
that a requirement of being American was that immigrants should develop
English language ability sufficient to be able to participate in the political
process. From the logistic regression results it is apparent there is a
conceptual disconnect between English language ability and preference
for using the English language. The results indicate that those who prefer
to speak Spanish are more likely to identify with their countries of origin,
and that increased English language ability does not increase the
probability of their identifying as Americans.
Logistic Examination of the Allegiance Variable 101
Table 9. Logistic Regression Summary
Concepts NLIS Variable(s) Significant
Belief in the
American System of
Government
Importance of Being a
Citizen
Reasons for not being a
Citizen
Tried to get Application
Studied English/History
Knew Government Leaders
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
Memberships in
Community
Organizations
Memberships in Community
Organizations
YES
(negatively)
Political
Participation
Voting
Political Participation
NO
NO
Learn English
sufficient to
participate in the
political process
English Ability
Language Preference
NO
YES
If we were to redefine Language Preference as an expression of
cultural preference rather than as a marker of American identity, the
difference between the two variables is easier to understand. Further, this
would support the proposal that national self-identification is more of a
cultural expression, rather than a political one.
In theory, those respondents who displayed more of the
characteristics of being American, as outlined in the previous chapter,
should have been more likely to identify with the U.S.; whereas those
respondents who displayed fewer of those characteristics should have
been more likely to identify with their countries of origin. However, what
we have found is that most of the criteria developed in the previous
chapter do not predict national self-identification in the NLIS data set.
This leads us back to the initial question of this study. If respondents
self-identification as Americans or with their countries of origin is not
adequately predicted by the criteria for being American found in
102 Hispanic Immigrant Identity
academic literature, political commentary, and popular writings, what then
are Hispanic immigrants expressing when they identify themselves as
American, or with their countries of origin? This question clearly cannot
be fully answered through an inquiry into the NLIS data, but rather calls
for in-depth interviews specifically designed to address this issue. This,
then, is the next step.
103
CHAPTER 4
Talking to the People:
The Focus Groups
Background
The statistical analysis of the data from the NLIS provided some insight
into what variables were or were not related to whether immigrants
identify themselves as Americans or with their countries of origin.
Unfortunately, the analysis of the NLIS necessarily suffers from two
limitations. First, as was noted in the previous chapter, the NLIS
questionnaire was not developed specifically to address the question of
national self-identification. Therefore even a thorough secondary analysis
of the NLIS data can be expected to leave some aspects of the national
self-identification issue unexplored. Second, being a telephone survey,
the NLIS researchers had the opportunity to receive input from a large
number of respondents. However, the telephone survey format makes it
very difficult to explore issues in depth. Consequently, feelings and
explanation as to why respondents answered questions in a certain manner
and often not collected. Perhaps the most important piece of information
which could not be addressed in the NLIS was what respondents actually
meant when they expressed identification as Americans or with their
countries of origin.
In this study, this limitation was addressed by gathering information
via focus group interviews conducted with participants selected from a
population similar to that of the NLIS.
44
Focus groups, as a research
104 Hispanic Immigrant Identity
method, have the strength of 1) allowing for exploration and discovery, 2)
providing context and depth, and 3) providing a context for the why
behind respondents answers. (Morgan 1998, 1:12). In contrast to the
telephone survey methodology used in the NLIS, which asked a wide
range of brief questions from a large sample of respondents, a focus group
interview approach asks a few probing open-ended questions of a
necessarily small number of participants. As noted by Morgan, focus
groups produce large amounts of concentrated data in a short period of
time (ibid., 1:32). In a focus group interview, a moderator can explore in
greater depth the feelings of the focus group participants with regard to an
issue. Focus group interviews allow participants the opportunity to more
completely express their opinions.
For this study, the information gathered through focus groups will:
provide confirmation and clarification for the results of the
logistic regression,
allow respondents to answer for themselves what they mean
when they identify themselves as Americans or with their
countries of origin, and lastly
explore additional issues which could not be addressed via the
logistic regression.
Focus Group Organization
Unlike sampling for survey research or experimental designs, which
attempts to obtain a representation of a large population by selecting a
statistically valid sample of respondents, selecting participants for focus
groups has a different goal in mind. Focus groups are designed to provide
greater depth of information on specific topics of interest, therefore,
sampling for focus groups is purposive in nature (Morgan 1998, 2:56), and
participants are selected according to the goals or needs of the project.
Thus, Morgan notes, participants can or should be selected according to
the categories of participants which need to be heard and what kinds of
similarities and differences need to be examined (ibid., 64).
Talking to the People 105
Focus Group Participant Selection Criteria
Because the purpose of the focus group interviews was to provide greater
depth to the quantitative analysis done on the NLIS data, the population
selected for the focus groups mirrored as much as possible the population
of the NLIS study. The population invited to the focus group interviews
were adult Hispanic immigrants who had been legal residents in the U.S.
for five or more years, living in areas of high, moderate, and low Hispanic
concentration. The areas initially targeted were: Huntington Park,
California; Riverside, California; Salt Lake City, Utah; and Provo, Utah.
The Huntington Park locale was selected to provide Hispanics from an
area of high Hispanic concentration. The Riverside site was selected to
provide Hispanics from an area with somewhat lower Hispanic
concentration, but still within a state with a very high Hispanic presence.
The Salt Lake City and Provo sites were selected to provide participants
from areas of lower local Hispanic concentration as well as from a state
where the Hispanic presence overall is significantly lower.
Because the logistic regression indicated that the age of the
respondent and time in the U.S. were significant variables in predicting
national self-identification, these factors were also taken into
consideration in recruiting participants for the focus group interviews.
Participant Selection
Initially a three stage process was planned for recruiting participants. Key
individuals were going to be contacted in each area where the focus
groups were to be held. These key contacts were asked to provide a list of
four to five additional names of individuals in each of these areas. This
second set of individuals were then to be asked to provide the names of
three to four individuals each. It was to be this third set of individuals
which would then be screened for participation in the focus groups.
The intent of this three stage process was two-fold. First this method
would assure that individuals selected for the focus group were not known
to the researcher. Second, this method was expected to aid in diversifying
the pool of participants.
106 Hispanic Immigrant Identity
Almost immediately, a minor revision was required. The selected key
individuals in the different areas largely felt it improper to pass along the
responsibility of recruiting persons, but rather preferred to do the
recruiting themselves, further, insisting that the gatherings take place in
their homes. As I discussed the organization of the focus groups with
several of the key individuals, it became apparent that their requests were
based upon and in keeping with notions of propriety and familiarity within
the Latino culture. After ensuring that the two goals of the selection
process would be met (selecting individuals not known to the researcher,
and selecting a diverse pool of individuals), the selected key individuals
were permitted to organize the groups in the manner they suggested, and
conduct the groups in their homes.
In Salt Lake City a different kind of recruitment opportunity
presented itself. A residential neighborhood near the down town area
hosts a Hispanic community and education center known as The
Guadalupe Center. Among its many activities, this center sponsors
evening classes for members of the local community. Discussions with
the Center director and his designated staff members revealed both an
enthusiasm to assist in the project, as well as a ready list of individuals
who could be screened for eligibility and interest to participate in the
focus groups. After again ensuring that the two goals of the selection
process would be met, Guadalupe Center personal were invited assist in
organizing the focus group in the Salt Lake area.
Because the opportunity presented itself, and as an extra measure to
assure the desired diversity among the recruited population, the number of
groups was increased resulting in interviews being conducted in the
following locations:
Salt Lake City, Utah
Bell Gardens, Los Angeles County, California,
45
Riverside, Riverside County, California
Rialto, San Bernardino County, California
Talking to the People 107
Chino, San Bernardino County, California
Provo, Utah
Language of the Focus Groups
Approximately 71% of the respondents to the NLIS indicated they spoke
principally Spanish in their homes. An additional 19% indicated they
spoke both English and Spanish equally in their homes. Given that this
study was tapping into a population similar to the NLIS, it was expected
that the majority, if not all, of the participants in the focus groups would
be comfortable discussing these issues in Spanish. Nevertheless in each
focus group it was made clear that participants should feel comfortable in
using the language in which they felt most comfortable. Also, all the
written materials used during the focus groups were provided in both
English and Spanish.
Only two of the participants (Frank - Bell Gardens, Mike - Chino
46
)
spoke exclusively in English, although both understood Spanish. Several
of the participants switched between Spanish and English occasionally
during the course of the discussion. This was usually done to clarify a
point or because a term could not be recalled in Spanish. As a focus
group moderator with over ten years of experience conducting focus
groups in English, Spanish, and bilingually, these groups presented no
particular or peculiar difficulties.
Short Questionnaire
In order to obtain some minimal demographic information, and some
information which could be useful in comparing the focus group
participants to the NLIS respondents, a short questionnaire was distributed
to the focus group participants. This questionnaire replicated a subset of
questions from the NLIS.
The questionnaires were translated using the following method:
An initial translator made a translation of the questionnaire
from English into Spanish.
108 Hispanic Immigrant Identity
A second translator verified the translation. Where changes
were suggested, I acted as arbiter determining which of the
two suggested translation would be used.
Last, a third translator reviewed the Spanish translation
comparing it back to the English original.
Tape Recording the Focus Groups
The focus group interviews were audio tape recorded for the purpose of
supplementing the notes taken by the facilitator. The focus group
participants were made aware that they were going to be recorded and
were asked to give their consent in writing. Participants were advised that
if at any point during the focus group they would like to make a comment
with the tape recorder turned off, they could request the recorder to be
turned off. No one expressed discomfort at being recorded, and it did not
appear to affect the openness of the interviews in any way.
Identification of Participants
The nature of focus group interviews is such that being able to call
participants by name during the course of the interview may significantly
add to a positive, friendly, open atmosphere. Therefore, it is appropriate
to know and use the first name of the participants during the course of the
focus group. It is not necessary, however, to know or record the last name
of a participant.
Even though only first names were used, all notes, survey
instruments, and tapes were secured as confidential materials. Since the
project plan required the taping of the focus group only for the purpose of
supplementing the facilitators notes, a full transcription of the tapes was
not required, and therefore no transcriptionist was employed. This further
added to the confidentiality of the taped materials.
Informed Consent
All potential participants were informed that participation in the study was
completely voluntary, that audio recordings of the session would be made,
and that their names would never be used in reporting the results of the
Talking to the People 109
study. Participants were informed that they could refuse to answer any
question, that they could request to have the tape recording stopped while
they gave a particular answer, and that they could cease participation in
the focus group at any time. Written consent forms, in the language of
their choice, were distributed to each of the study participant. Each
consent form reiterated the voluntary and confidential nature of the study.
Direct Benefit/Risk to Participants
Although participants in this study did not receive any direct benefit as a
result of their participation, they were informed that their participation
would aid in broadening the understanding of immigrant attitudes about
becoming American.
Despite the offering of any incentive for participation, all of the
participants seemed very happy at the opportunity participate in an
academic endeavor, and became very engaged in the process. Several
participants indicated that they had never had the opportunity to have this
type of in depth, thoughtful discussion on these types of issues.
Because all of the participants were legal immigrants, by identifying
the participants only by their first names, and by securing all the materials
as described above, the participants were not placed at risk by
participating in this study.
Participant Demographics
A total of 52 individuals participated in 6 focus groups. As expected, the
majority of the participants identified Mexico as their country of origin,
however, there were also participants from El Salvador, Guatemala,
Nicaragua, Argentina, Bolivia, and Peru. Below are brief comparisons
between the focus group participants and the NLIS respondents on the
variables used as control variables in the logistic regression reported in the
previous chapter.
110 Hispanic Immigrant Identity
Gender
Forty-six percent of the focus group participants were male and 54%
female. This compares to the 39% male and 61% female composition of
the NLIS respondents Although there is clearly some difference here
between the two populations, the results of the logistic regression
indicated that gender was not significant in predicting the national self-
identification variable. This finding was verified through the focus group
interviews in that there was no discernable difference in the responses
given by males and females on any of the questions.
Age
The focus group interview participants ranged in age between 21 and 65
with a median age of 38. By comparison, the NLIS population ranged
from 18 to 88 with a median age of 40.
Years in the United States
As with the NLIS study, participants in the focus groups represented a
broad range of years of residency in the United States. Focus group
participants had been in the U.S. between 5 and 46 years with a median of
16 years in the U.S. By comparison, the NLIS population ranged between
1 and 58 years in the U.S. with a median of 18 years in the U.S.
47
Citizenship
Fifty-five percent of the participants in the focus groups were citizens.
Among NLIS respondents, only 36% were citizens. As with gender,
citizenship as a variable was not significant in the logistic regression.
This finding was confirmed in the focus groups in that, with a few
exceptions which will be noted later in this chapter, there were no
discernable differences in the responses of citizens and non-citizens to the
questions asked during the focus group interviews.
Income
Income level for the participants in the focus group interviews ranged
from the lowest category - less than $750 a month, to the highest category
- more than $5,200 a month. The median category was $2,501 to $3,000 a
Talking to the People 111
month. In the NLIS study, the income ranged between its lowest category
of less than $500 a month ($736 in adjusted 2000 dollars), to its highest
category of over $3,000 a month ($4,415 adjusted). Its median income
category was $1,201 to $1,499 a month ($1,767 to$2,206 adjusted). A
higher median income level of the participants in the focus group
interviews than in the NLIS population is largely due to composition of
the group in Chino. This group had 6 respondents with incomes over
$5,200 a month, and no respondents with incomes less than $3,401 a
month. Although participants in this group were clearly more
economically advantaged than those in the other groups, it should be
remembered that, as with gender, the results of the logistic regression
indicated that income was not significant in predicting the national self-
identification variable. This finding was verified through the focus group
interviews in that there was no discernable difference in the responses
given by the Chino group and any of the other groups.
Education
The education levels of the focus group participants and NLIS
respondents were very similar. The focus group participants had a median
education level of 12 years of completed schooling whereas the NLIS
respondents had a median education level of 11 years. The focus group
participants had a mean education level of 11.31 years of completed
schooling and the NLIS respondents having a mean education level of
10.07 years.
Interview Questions
Given that the purpose of conducting focus group interviews was to better
understand the responses given in the NLIS survey, there was an obvious
need to allow respondents time to fully express their answers. Perhaps
one of the biggest errors made in conducting focus group interviews is to
ask too many questions and not allow sufficient time for participants to
elaborate upon their responses. For example, if a focus group consisted of
8 persons, and was scheduled to last 90 minutes, asking a series of 10
questions would allow each respondent just over 1 minute to answer each
question. This would likely not be sufficient time for a participant to fully
explain their answers, nor would it allow time for discussion among
112 Hispanic Immigrant Identity
participants, or probes by the focus group moderator. With this in mind,
these focus groups were planned to run 12 to 2 hours with 5 principal
questions being asked. This would allow each respondent in an 8-person
group 2.5 minutes to respond to any question, plus still provide time for
some amount of follow-up probing, as well as time for a brief welcome
and a few close-ended introductory questions at the beginning of the
session.
During the welcome, the purpose of the focus group was explained
48
,
and the informed consent forms were distributed to and signed by the
participants.
Introductory Questions
The introductory questions included:
What is your country of origin?
At what age did you immigrate to the U.S.?
How long have you been in the U.S.?
Understanding that age might be a sensitive topic for some of the
participants, the questions were usually asked with the word
approximately added to the age or years in the U.S. question. This
allowed the possibility for participants to not give their exact age if they
felt uncomfortable doing so. The actual impact on the groups, however,
was that rather than discomfort, this became a joking point as they made
comments such as, Oh, now we are going to know how old you really
are! The overall effect was that this allowed the participants to come
together as a group, and to shed some inhibitions about talking and
sharing as a group. It effectively became a great ice breaker.
Principal Questions
Five principal questions were asked of the focus group participants.
These questions were:
Talking to the People 113
Which of the following best describes how you see yourself:
More as an American, more as a member of your country of
origin, or as something else?
This question automatically elicited discussion by the participants as
to why they viewed themselves the way they did.
To you, what is an American or what does it mean to be
American?
This question provided the participants an opportunity to express their
feelings about what it means to be American, but also why they did or did
not identify themselves as American in the previous question.
The next principal question was:
Have you sought to obtain U.S. citizenship? If yes why, if
no, why not?
This question brought into the discussion an apparently political
question, that of citizenship. As will be reported below, however, often
citizenship turned out not to be a political issue.
The final questions were as follow:
If the border were to close tomorrow and you would have to
either stay here or stay in your country of origin; where
would you choose to stay?
Imagine a situation where the U.S. has become involved in a
war with a European country. If asked, would you fight for
the U.S. or encourage your children to fight for the U.S.?
What if it were a Latin American country other than your
country of origin? What if it were your country of origin?
114 Hispanic Immigrant Identity
Focus Group Results
The following sections will summarize the comments from the focus
group participants on the principal questions. Although names will be
used in reporting out the results of the focus group, it must be understood
that these are pseudonyms and not the true names of the participants. The
pseudonyms have been very purposefully selected so as to convey much
of the same contextual information that the participants real name would
have conveyed. For example, comments from an individual named Juan
who identifies himself as an American might take on a different tone to
the reader if he were a John and who identified himself as an American.
Therefore, if a participant had a Spanish name such as Pedro, the
pseudonym replacement similarly became a Spanish name such as Carlos.
In turn, a participant with an English name such as John would receive
pseudonym such as Charles. Multiple derivations of the same name, such
as Pedro, Peter and Pete among the pseudonyms reflect similar derivations
in the true names of the participants. If multiple participants share the
same pseudonym it is because they shared the same true name. Where
multiple participants had the same name, they are differentiated by
location of interview.
Which of the Following Best Describes how You See
Yourself: More as an American
49
, More as a Member of
Your Country of Origin, or as Something Else?
As anticipated, this was not an easy question for most of the participants
to answer. Those who identified with the United States usually made
comments such as those of Peter (Rialto) who said that at work, he felt
American. Daniel (Bell Gardens) stated he felt totally American because
it (America) had given him so much. Gilbert (Provo) said he felt
American, and added that when he woke up in the morning, he didnt
expect that anyone was going to treat him as a Bolivian. He didnt feel
segregated by his heritage. Manuel (Riverside) although interestingly not
using the term American said he was from here, after all, his house, his
family, and his dog were all from here. There were a few respondents
who had grown up on the border, or in towns in Mexico where there was a
strong American corporate presence. The comment from Hortencia
(Riverside) typifies their feelings. She said she had grown up on the
border, but had always felt as though she were from the U.S.
Talking to the People 115
But those expressing identification with the U.S. often had mixed
feelings about their identity. Peter (Rialto), for example, after saying he
felt American, went on to say that it was when he was with his people
(Mexicans) that he felt a conflict. Sometimes, he mused, he wished he
could feel more Mexican. Alberto (Chino) indicated he felt American, but
it depended on how he was seen by others. Alberto related that when he
had encountered racism on the part of the government it made him feel
more Mexican.
This confusion was certainly also felt by many who identified with
their countries of origin. Isaac (Bell Gardens) indicated that if someone
asked him, what are you he would reply Salvadorian. But, he went on
to say, he had grown up American. On the street he eats American food;
at home, of course, he eats Salvadorian food. Frank (Francisco - Bell
Gardens) wryly stated that when he looks in the mirror in the morning, he
sees a Mexican. Interestingly, Augie had been in the U.S. over 30 years,
preferred to speak English, and spoke English without an accent. Cristina
(Riverside) expressed the feeling of many when she said that she was a
Mexican, but her life was here now. She indicated that shed like to visit
but not return to Mexico. Simply, from her point of view, there are more
opportunities here. But, she concluded, I like this country.
There were a few individuals, who like Pablo (Salt Lake) indicated he
felt Mexican, but went on to say they felt at home here, because this land,
the American West, was really part of Mexico illegally acquired by the
U.S. As far as Jos was concerned, he was very comfortable living here in
the midst of his language (Spanish), his culture (Mexican), his family and
friends. Given this strong association to his Mexican heritage, I was
somewhat surprised to find out a little bit later in the interview, that Pablo
was a naturalized U.S. citizen.
Bertha (Provo), also a naturalized citizen identified herself as
Mexican. She said you never lose your roots. Being a naturalized citizen
no me quita el nopal! Bertha stated emphatically.
50
Apart from those who identified themselves as Americans or with
their countries of origin, there were many who could not classify
116 Hispanic Immigrant Identity
themselves with either group. Antonio (Salt Lake) expressed the feeling
of several participants when he said that his roots were in Mexico, but he
was here now so he guessed that made him Mexican American, but really
he was from neither here nor there anymore.
Overall, the most common threads through all of the comments, both
from those who identified as Americans and those who identified with
their countries of origin, was that the United States offered great
opportunities to progress financially and educationally. The U.S. offered
a home, a place where their families could grow, and a new culture. As
Rosa-2 (Riverside) stated, she considers herself Mexican, but all she has
or ever will have is from here in the U.S. Pedro (Riverside) expressed his
feelings by saying that undoubtedly they were all from Mexico, but as
they absorb U.S. culture, they become American. He went on to say that
as he travels home (to Mexico) he doesnt feel comfortable any more.
Hes Mexican, but he feels American. He said, Ive absorbed the
culture.
Consistently, the participants spoke about the love they held for the
cultures of their countries of origin, and many commented on the families
still living there.
51
Although references were often made to, mi pas,
which could be translated my country, I believe that in the context of
their other comments the more appropriate translation would be, my
homeland.
There were no political references made at all when expressing any
identification with the United States. The most common political
references were the negative references made toward their nations of
origin. Sonia-1 (Chino), Juan-1 (Chino), and Pete (Chino) all agreed that
the only reason they were in the U.S. rather than in Mexico was because
of government corruption there.
To You, What is an American or What Does it Mean to be
American?
The responses to this question fell along four basic lines of thought.
Participants defined being American:
Talking to the People 117
using ethnic/racial concepts,
using cultural concepts,
as a mind set, and
as a set of political values.
The first line of thought was that an American was an Anglo-Saxon
or Gavacho (white American). Among those defining American this way
was Rosa-3 (Riverside) who noted that her kids were born here, but they
were not really Americans, because to be an American you had to be
white. Alberto (Chino) said Americans are the Anglo-Saxons, the white
Europeans, and also the minorities (Blacks) here in the U.S. Rosa-1
(Riverside) put it bluntly by answering that Americans were the Gringos.
When Alicia (Bell Gardens), a naturalized citizen, returned to the U.S.
from a trip to Canada, she was stopped at the border and asked to declare
citizenship. But stating she was American was not sufficient, they
questioned her further as to where she was born. Alicia said it was
because she didnt look American. She wasnt white.
The second line of thought was that American referred to a
particular culture. Its eating hamburgers instead of beans, was how
Magdalena (Rialto) described it. Isaac (Bell Gardens) also defined being
American in terms of culture. He referred to the ideas and customs that
make Americans Americans. Isaac and others also spoke about the
clothing and mannerisms they identified as being American. After all,
Jorge said, America is a melting pot, so being American had to be more
than just race. It was this sense of culture that caused Hilda (Bell
Gardens, a naturalized citizen, to declare she could never call herself
American because her roots were in Mexico. Manuel (Riverside) felt that
when immigrant children lose their native language and adopt English,
they become American. Jorge (Riverside) immediately added that it was
not just language, but culture as well.
Salvador (Rialto), however felt that being American went beyond
culture. To be American, Salvador said is to feel what Americans feel; to
118 Hispanic Immigrant Identity
understand what gives them joy, what they consider fun. Salvador, a
naturalized U.S. citizen, didnt feel that this was something he had
achieved. Frank (Francisco - Bell Gardens) described being American as
a mind set. Elvia (Provo) also described being American as a mind set,
specifically mentioning attributes such as being logical and organized.
Although a naturalized citizen, Elvia frankly admitted that she didnt have
what she described as Anglo-Saxon attitudes. Juan-2 (Chino) felt that
being American was a way of looking at things, a set of values. Gilbert
(Provo) also felt being American was a mind set, but he described it in
more detail. He felt being American as being able to live within the
American system; being able to dealing with the culture and the laws.
There were some participants who specifically mentioned political
values as the values that make someone American. Jorge (Chino) spoke
of being American as having freedom of speech and liberty. To him an
American is someone who feels that liberty. Daniel (Bell Gardens) spoke
of the freedom to vote, the freedom to move about, the freedom to act, and
the freedom to exercise your rights. Eljia (Chino) talked about adapting to
the American System. When youve adapted, then you are an American
she said. Edgar (Bell Gardens) expressed the feelings of some when he
bluntly stated that when you become a citizen, then you are an American.
Clearly, there was then no consensus on what it meant to be an
American. The four themes that developed, beyond being different in
focus, also describe a range of attitudes about the very possibility of an
Hispanic immigrant ever becoming American. Those who viewed being
American in ethnic/racial terms were also saying that it was impossible for
them ever to become Americans. As Alberto (Chino) put it, Im not
going to look whiter because Im in the U.S. longer.
For some who viewed being American in cultural terms, the
possibility existed of becoming American. For example Peter (Rialto)
who said he felt American at work, even though he wished he could be
more Mexican. However, there were those who viewed their roots as a
permanent attachment to their country of origin which meant they would
never become American, even if they became citizens. This was the case
with Hilda (Bell Gardens) cited above, who was a naturalized citizen. But
those who viewed being American in cultural terms at least felt their
Talking to the People 119
children could become or were American, which was not a possibility for
those who viewed being American in ethnic/racial terms.
Those who viewed being American as a mind set were also divided as
to the possibility of becoming American. It was, after all as Elvia (Provo)
said, just a matter of being more logical, more organized. However, even
she felt that some of those traits were not all positive. Yes, Americans
were more logical, but they were also socially cold, not necessarily an
attribute to strive for in her estimation. Salvador (Rialto) talked about a
shared set of experiences making one American. But, even though he was
a naturalized citizen, he didnt yet feel he had obtained this level of shared
understanding.
Interestingly, those who defined being American in political terms
were potentially the most inclusive. Belief in the American government,
being accepting and supportive of the freedoms enjoyed in the United
States, accepting civic responsibility, are things that anyone, regardless of
race, cultural attachments, or lack of shared experience can nevertheless
support and be a part of.
There were, however, some curious aspects to some of these
American political behaviors that actually may have strengthened the
participants identification with their countries of origin rather than as
Americans. As noted in the previous chapters discussion of the logistic
regression results, participation in community organizations was
negatively correlated to respondents identifying themselves as Americans.
Although this was initially somewhat of a puzzle, it was clarified by the
comments made in the focus groups. Generally, when the focus group
participants spoke of involvement in community organizations or even
voting, they spoke of them as opportunities to give voice to the needs of
their families, the Hispanic community or as opportunities to benefit their
people. One of the principle reasons Alicia (Bell Gardens) became a
citizen was so that she could be in a better position to help Salvadorian
refugees. She related her experience of going to the Mission in Los
Angeles and sleeping alongside the refugees in efforts to thwart INS mass
deportations. The literature and the focus group participants agree that
community activism are very American things to do, but the reality is that
120 Hispanic Immigrant Identity
at least to some extent they are being done to give voice to the needs of
their families and the broader Hispanic community. Thus, this type of
participation may strengthen ties to the ethnic community while at the
same time exercising a classic American virtue of civic participation.
Have You Sought to Obtain U.S. Citizenship? If Yes Why, if
No Why Not?
As noted above, approximately half of the participants in the focus group
interviews were naturalized citizens. The majority of those who were not
yet citizens indicated they were in process of seeking to obtain citizenship.
Reasons for Being a Citizen
The reasons for becoming citizens fell principally along five lines of
thought, which were:
they were now resident here so they might as well obtain
citizenship,
citizenship would allow for greater opportunities,
citizenship would provide a level of security within society no
longer available through mere legal residency,
citizenship would allow for fuller participation in the United
States community, and
citizenship was an obligation of living in the Unites States.
The first line of thought was clearly expressed by Pedro (Riverside)
who said that one day he decided he was going to stay in the U.S., so why
not become a citizen. Once her husband died, Avelina (Bell Gardens) felt
she had no reason to ever return to Mexico. Her family was now here, so
she became a citizen.
The second line of thinking was that obtaining citizenship would
allow for greater opportunities. Among the benefits mentioned by focus
group participants were economic benefits, and the benefits of mobility.
Talking to the People 121
Rosa-3 (Riverside) and Magdalena (Rialto) also felt citizenship was
important for the range and quality of jobs that could be obtained. Liliana
(Salt Lake) felt all Hispanic immigrants wanted to become citizens
particularly for the economic benefits that would come as a result. She
also observed that citizenship gave one the ability to move back and forth
across the border easily. Alfredo (Salt Lake) concurred that as an
American citizen you were free to travel anywhere relatively
unencumbered. Alicia (Bell Gardens) commented on how great it was to
go past the border stations and say, American citizen. Javier (Provo)
and Bertha (Provo) both commented that a principle reason they had
sought citizenship was for the benefit of being able to bring other family
members to the United States. This was a very rarely mentioned benefit
of citizenship among the focus group participants.
A third line of thinking was that citizenship provided for a sense of
security residing in the United States. For these individuals there
appeared to be a heightened state of concern because of what they
perceived as anti-immigrant feelings and anti-immigrant legislation in the
very recent past. Being merely a legal resident was no longer a safe or
secure status in the U.S. Comments from Jesus (Bell Gardens) were
typical of this group when he said that he felt Mexican, but became a
citizen to make a life here, and so as not to have legal problems later.
Rosa-1 (Riverside) and Nicolasas (Riverside) echoed these feelings, that
obtaining citizenship would provide a greater sense of security. Nicolasa
(Rialto) commented that she couldnt go back to El Salvador, so she
needed some assurance that she belonged here.
A few individuals viewed obtaining citizenship as an important step
in being able to more fully participate in the United States. Salvador
(Rialto) stated that citizenship was important to participate in political
things. He said he kept hearing of the importance of Latino political
participation. He wanted to participate for the benefit of his children.
Gilbert (Provo) felt similarly. He observed that becoming a citizen had
not been a priority to him until he married and began having children here.
Rosa-3 (Riverside) also felt citizenship was important to be able to more
fully participate politically and socially in the U.S. Alicia (Bell Gardens)
122 Hispanic Immigrant Identity
also noted the importance of voting, but she also noted that with dual
citizenship, she also voted in Mexico.
Lastly, a few individuals viewed obtaining citizenship as an
obligation of living in the U.S. Peter (Rialto) said he felt he was part of
this nation. He lived here, and felt an obligation to the nation, and hence
wanted to be a citizen.
Reasons for Not Being a Citizen
Not very many individuals gave reasons for not becoming a citizen. Most
of the focus group participants who were not citizens were in the process
of becoming citizens. Of those who had not yet obtained citizenship the
reasons fell along two themes, 1) challenges of obtaining citizenship, and
2) no real desire or benefit to obtaining citizenship.
Angela (Salt Lake), Rosa (Salt Lake) and Antonio (Salt Lake) all
mentioned fear of the exam as one reason why they had put off applying
for citizenship. Maria (Salt Lake) observed wryly that the individuals
born in the United States didnt have to take an exam to be citizens, and
she wondered if many of them could pass such a test if it were given.
Pablo (Salt Lake), now a citizen, mentioned that for many people, time
and money were real roadblocks to obtaining citizenship.
Isaac (Bell Gardens), although he said he felt he had grown up
American, felt no hurry to become a citizen. He said rather frankly that he
didnt have a need to be a citizen. Frank (Bell Gardens) concurred saying
that until he decided that he wanted to vote he really hadnt had a need to
become a citizen. Julio (Provo) said he was in no rush to obtain
citizenship. After all, he noted, whether you are a citizen, a legal resident,
or an illegal alien, you have the rights in the United States. Perhaps the
strongest opinion along this line came from Betty (Rialto) who said that to
her citizenship was just a piece of paper, a legal technicality. This
comment was in sharp contrast to the feelings of Daniel (Bell Gardens)
who said that to be an American was a great privilege, or the comments of
Rosa-3 (Riverside) who said that on the day she became a citizen she felt
different, or Alicia (Bell Gardens) who said that after she became a citizen
she felt more American.
Talking to the People 123
Summary
Reasons for being a citizen ranged from almost a default action because
they intended to be permanent residents of the United States, to an action
taken for the benefits that would be derived, whether those benefits were
economic, a sense of security, or a possibility for political involvement, to
a sense of obligation. Reasons for not becoming a citizen were either
procedural (time, money, etc), fear of passing the test, or simply a lack of
interest.
Except for those few like Peter (Rialto) who felt it a sense of
obligation to become a citizen, or Rosa-3 (Riverside) or Alicia (Bell
Gardens) who felt more American after becoming citizens, becoming a
citizen was not necessarily an expression of feeling American. It should
be remembered that even Alicia, who said she felt more American after
becoming a citizen, still primarily identifies herself as Mexican. This
confirms the results of the logistic regression where citizenship was not a
good predictor of national self-identification.
If the Border Were to Close Tomorrow, and You Would
Have to Either Stay Here or Stay in Your Country of Origin,
Where Would You Choose to Stay?
With only two exceptions, all the participants of the focus groups
eventually concluded that they would stay in the United States, but the
decision was often not an easy one. The opinion of many was well
expressed by Bertha (Provo) who said, Que la sieren, yo me quedo aqu!
(Let them close it, Im staying here). For others it was a more difficult
decision. Avelina (Bell Gardens), Jesus (Bell Gardens), and Hilda (Bell
Gardens) all agreed that if it werent for family here in the U.S., they
would return to Mexico if the borders were to close. Angela (Salt Lake)
and Antonio (Salt Lake) were the only participants who didnt feel they
could answer the question. Pablos (Salt Lake) quandary was specifically
that his family was now all here in the U.S., while much of his wifes
family remained in Mexico.
Family was the central theme around which most of the respondents
formed their answers to this question. Nicolasas (Riverside) said she
124 Hispanic Immigrant Identity
would stay here, but with great pain because of the family she would leave
in Mexico. But the most common answers are typified by the response of
Elvia (Provo) who stated that her children were here, as well as her
mother and her brother. Why would she leave? It is worth noting that the
fact she is now a U.S. citizen did not appear to enter into her reasons for
staying.
Imagine a Situation Where the U.S. Has Become Involved in
a War with a European Country. If asked, Would You Fight
for the U.S. or Encourage Your Children to Fight for the
U.S.? What if it Were a Latin American Country Other than
Your Country of Origin? What if it Were Your Country of
Origin?
Most participants of the focus groups had little difficulty declaring they
would support the United States in a conflict or a war against a European
country. Peter (Rialto) expressed the feelings of many when he said that it
was an part of citizenship, an obligation.
52
Supporting the nation in such a
cause is part of the price of living here. Javier (Provo) felt it was part of
his obligation as a naturalized citizen. I would have to go, was his reply.
Jorge (Riverside) declared he felt we have to defend what we have here in
the U.S. He also felt this was a way of thanking the nation for what it had
given him. Jorge (Chino) felt similarly and spoke about what this country
had given him. Julio (Provo), although earlier expressing he felt no rush
to obtain citizenship, noted with some pride the heritage of Latinos
serving in the U.S. military.
When the question was posed about supporting the United States in a
war against a Latin American country, the large majority still voiced the
opinion that they would fight for the U.S. However, a few individuals
now began to express some concerns. Elvia (Provo) for example was
honestly surprised that the U.S. had supported England against Argentina
in the war for the Maldivas (Falkland Islands). Why, she wondered,
would the U.S. support a powerful European country instead of a less
powerful county in its own hemisphere? Rosa (Salt Lake) said she would
have to take the cause of the war into consideration. Alfredo (Salt Lake)
and Antonio (Salt Lake) both wondered if there might not be racial
overtones involved. Although these few concerns were raised, overall, the
Talking to the People 125
large majority expressed support for the U.S. in a war against a Latin
American country.
Not surprisingly, coming to a decision on this issue became much
more difficult when the question was asked whether they would support
the United States in a war against their own countries of origin. There
were many sighs and comments about the difficult nature of the question.
Still, most indicated they would support the United States. Isaac (Bell
Gardens) said that any country that threatened this country threatened his
family, his lifestyle, and his life. Pedro (Riverside) felt it would be very
hard, but he had sworn allegiance to the U.S. by becoming a citizen.
Jorge (Riverside) at first expressed the feeling that he would fight for
whichever country had the just cause. He shortly thereafter recanted and
said he would have to fight for the U.S.
The principal problem in fighting against their countries of origin was
well expressed by Alberto (Chino) who said he would not oppose the U.S.
in a war against Mexico, but he could not fight, not against his family.
Pete (Chino) expressed this same concern about fighting against his
families in Mexico. He went on to say that he would have no problem
fighting against the Mexican government, it was the Mexican people he
would not want to fight against. Liz (Chino) voiced the opinion that
without reservation she would fight against her country of origin to end
the corruption there. Javier (Provo) expressed a similar sentiment saying
he would have no problem fighting against Peru, if it were with the intent
of annexation.
Alicia (Bell Gardens), a naturalized citizen, said it would be very
difficult to fight against Mexico. She expressed the feeling that this was
her blood, her history, her religion. Perhaps, she pondered, she might
even fight against the U.S. She was joined in this opinion by Hilda (Bell
Gardens) and Nicolasas (Riverside)
Perhaps the most poignant remark was made by Salvador (Rialto)
who related that he had registered to fight in the Gulf War, but against
Mexico, it would be very difficult. He went on to say that if he were
asked to fight against Mexico he would go, but, possibly he wouldnt be
126 Hispanic Immigrant Identity
capable of killing a Mexican, and would simply allow himself to be killed
instead.
Summary
The purpose of conducting the focus group interviews was threefold:
to provide confirmation and clarification for the results of the
logistic regression,
to allow respondents to answer for themselves what they
mean when they identify themselves as Americans, or with
their countries of origin, and lastly
to explore issues which could not be addressed via the logistic
regression.
The focus groups accomplished these tasks.
The participants in the groups discussed freely, and openly shared
their opinions. Although, as noted above, the different questions often
prompted differing lines of thoughts among the participants, these lines of
thought were consistent from group to group, and were raised by the
participants themselves typically in response to only the principle question
asked by the moderator.
The focus group interviews were particularly useful in addressing the
questions left unanswered by the logistic regression of the previous
chapter. The logistic regression raised the question of why there should
be a negative correlation between membership in community
organizations and identification as American. As reported in this chapter,
one reason appears to be that individuals joining groups do so to some
extent to represent the Hispanic community and Hispanic interests. As
noted above, this action may be an American trait, but may actually serve
to strengthen ties to the Hispanic community. That voting was also
viewed as a manner of expressing the needs of the Hispanic community,
and hence an action which might strengthen ties to the Hispanic
community, may also be partially a reason why voting and political
Talking to the People 127
participation were not significant variables in predicting national self-
identification.
Reasons for becoming a citizen was a variable that was
significantly predictive of national self-identification in the logistic
regression. The reasons used to construct the variable for the logistic
regression, a strong desire to be a citizen, a desire to vote, and a desire to
participate more fully in American life, were in fact among the reasons
mentioned by participants in the focus groups. But there were many other
reasons also given for being in the United States, and these reasons were
given by individuals who later answered that they would be willing to
fight for the United States in an armed conflict. Those reasons could be
categorized as the opportunities that the United States has to offer.
But what about the central question of what it means to be an
American? As reported above, there were many diverse opinions, but
largely, for most of the participants involved, the definitions were not
political in nature, and those who identified themselves with their
countries of origin were identifying with the cultural aspects of those
countries. The comments made by participants indicating their distrust of
the governmental systems in their home countries, and even their
willingness to fight against the governments of their home countries, made
it clear there was no political connection there. This was a consistent
theme in all of the focus groups. When they spoke of being in the United
States, the participants often spoke of the opportunities this nation
afforded them: the opportunities for education, for economic prosperity,
and for a better way of life. Only on a few occasions did any of the
participants speak of the political freedoms available here. When they
spoke of their countries of origin, they spoke of the corruption, the
bribery, the lack of government stability. It is most likely that the
participants all understood that the prosperity available to them in this
country was largely possible due to the political situation here, but the
political aspects were not what they focused upon; the political aspects of
life in the U.S. were, aside from a few exceptions, never verbalized.
Overall then, when the participants in these focus groups identified
themselves as American or from their countries of origin, they were
128 Hispanic Immigrant Identity
referring to ethnic/racial or cultural concepts, not political concepts.
Specifically, those who identified with their countries of origin were
identifying with the people and the cultures of those countries, but not
with the governments. Conversely, the overwhelming willingness to
support the United States in armed conflict speaks to the political loyalty
of the majority of the participants in spite of the majority of the
participants identifying themselves with their countries of origin.
129
CHAPTER 5
Conclusions
This research began with the observation of an apparent inconsistency
between the behavior of Hispanic immigrants in Miami and Houston and
their expressed national self-identification. The inconsistency existed in
that individuals who expressed American values and behaviors (a desire to
live in the U.S., praise for living conditions here over their countries of
origin, a desire to improve their local communities, a desire to participate
in politically) nevertheless continued to identify with their countries of
origin. This paradox was further observed among respondents to the
National Latino Immigrant Survey (NLIS) who, although all legal
immigrants to the United States, split almost evenly on a national self-
identification question: some identifying themselves as Americans and
others identifying with their countries of origin.
This research has provided at least a partial resolution to this paradox.
In the introductory chapter it was suggested that the paradox was only a
paradox if the statements of identification with their countries of origin
made by the individuals in Miami and Houston, and by the respondents to
the NLIS were political in nature. It was proposed that perhaps these
statements were not political statements at all, but rather cultural in nature.
It was further proposed that if a minimum criteria were developed,
defining what it meant to be an American, the relationship between that
criteria and a respondents self-identified national identity (American or
country of origin) could help determine whether the statements of national
self-identity were political or cultural in nature. If the criteria were
130 Hispanic Immigrant Identity
adequate predictors of national self-identification then the argument that
the statements were political would be supported. If, however, the criteria
were not adequate predictors of national self-identification, if individuals
who fit the minimum criteria of being American nevertheless identified
with their countries of origin, then the political nature of their statements
regarding national self-identity would be called into question, and it might
be suspected that those expressions were expressions of cultural
preference instead.
What Is An American
To be able to explore the apparent paradox, it was important first to
develop a definition of what is an American. The intent was to use this
definition to test the NLIS respondents.
As noted in Chapter 2, the definition of who qualifies as American
has varied considerably over the years. This is perhaps most clearly
demonstrated in the opinions rendered by the Supreme Court over the
history of this nation. These decisions clearly demonstrated that although
at one time race, ethnicity, or culture were appropriate characteristics for
disqualifying individuals from being Americans (Dred Scott, Ping, Plessy
etc.). Those criteria are no longer legally acceptable for defining who is
an American (Shelly, Brown, Loving etc.). As Wilkinson wrote:
We stand before the law as equals. Its commands speak
to the citizen, not to his race. The Anglo American and
the Hispanic American pay the same taxes and obey the
same speed limits as the Asian American and the African
American. (Wilkinson 1997, 83)
Having determined what were not appropriate definitions of being
American, the chapter went on to describe concepts that were appropriate
criteria. Using the writings of political scholars, political commentators,
historical political figures, and Supreme Court opinions, four concepts
were proposed: 1) Belief in the American System of Government, 2)
participating in voluntary organizations, 3) participation in the
political/electoral process, and 4) learning English sufficient to be able to
participate in the political process.
53
These criteria were not proposed as
an absolute definition of being American, but rather more as describing
the minimum threshold of what it means to be an American. The
Conclusions 131
reasoning was that if this definition were going to be used to examine the
attitudes and opinions of Hispanic immigrants, then a minimum threshold
would serve that purpose. If at this minimum threshold differences were
observed between those who identified themselves as Americans and
those who identified with their countries of origin, then we could
reasonably infer that those differences would exist under more stringent
criteria.
The Logistic Regression
Ten variables constructed from the NLIS data were used to operationalize
the four criteria developed in Chapter 2. The operationalized criteria were
then used in a logistic regression with national self-identity as the
dependent variable. As was discussed in Chapter 3, the logistic regression
results demonstrated that not all of the criteria developed in Chapter 2
were good predictors of whether respondents in the NLIS would identify
themselves as Americans, or with their countries of origin. It was
particularly noteworthy that variables such as Citizenship (a control
variable), English Language Proficiency, Participation in Political
Activities or Voting, and most of the variables associated with belief in
the American system of government were not good predictors of national
self-identification.
Only four of the variables used to operationalize the criteria from
Chapter 2 were statistically sound predictors of national self-
identification. Two of the variables which were good predictors
(Importance of Citizenship, and Reasons for not Becoming a Citizen) do
appear to support the connection between political concepts and national
self-identification. However, the same cannot be said of the other
variables. Although Language Preference, for example, was a good
predictor of national self-identity, the fact that English Language Ability
was not a good predictor called into question the validity of using
language preference as an indicator of being American. Although these
concepts have been used together jointly in past research (Garza 1996) the
large disparity in their predictive abilities in this research calls the
approach into question, at least when addressing issues of national self-
identification. The predictive value of the Language Preference variable
may actually then strengthen the argument that the expressions of national
132 Hispanic Immigrant Identity
self-identification were cultural in nature, particularly when it is
remembered that language preference is a key indicator of maintaining
culture as noted by Keefe and Padilla (Keefe and Padilla 1987).
Memberships in community organizations, an archetypal American
characteristic observed by writers from Tocqueville to Putnam, turned out
to be significant, but negatively associated with national self-
identification. Thus, NLIS respondents exhibiting more of the
American characteristic of being involved in community organizations
were in fact more likely to identify with their countries of origin, all other
variables being held constant. Thus although predictive of national self-
identity, it certainly was not predictive in a manner that supports the
connection between the developed criteria and national self-identification.
Thus only two of the 10 variables used to operationalize the criteria
developed in Chapter 2 can be said to be supportive of a positive
connection between the developed definition of what it means to be an
American, and a respondents actual self-identification as either an
American or a member of their country of origin. Overall, these results
would support the hypothesis that the respondents statements of national
self-identification are not political in nature, but rather cultural.
The Focus Groups
The results from the focus groups gave additional support to the
hypothesis that the statements of national self-identification among
Hispanic immigrants are cultural rather than political in nature. From the
focus groups we learned that although some of the respondents thought of
being Americans in political terms (Daniel - Bell Gardens, Edgar - Bell
Gardens, Elijia - Chino), others thought of being American in terms of it
being a mind set (Frank - Bell Gardens, Juan 2 - Chino, Gilbert - Provo,
Elvia - Provo). But most described it in either cultural or ethnic/racial
terms (Peter - Rialto, Magdalena - Rialto, Hilda - Bell Gardens, Rosa 1 -
Riverside, Alberto - Chino, etc.)
Perhaps more important, however, was how respondents described
their relationships to their countries of origin. Although clearly referring
to their countries of origin with fondness and often longing, it was clear
that, other than for the very rare exception, the participants in the focus
groups were here in the United States to stay. Beyond merely being here
Conclusions 133
to stay, it was clear that for most they had made a commitment to make
this their home, to support their families in adapting to life here, to raise
their children here, and to defend this nation through the force of arms if
necessary. Comments such as those from Pete (Chino), Liz (Chino) or
Javier (Provo) who said they would fight against their home countries not
only because of an obligation to the United States, but to overthrow the
governments in their homelands are illustrative of the fact that the
attachment these respondents felt in identifying themselves with their
homelands was not an attachment to the political structure, but rather an
attachment to their culture, their people, and their extended families still
residing there. Although there were those who, like Alicia (Bell Gardens),
indicated they might return and fight with their homelands against the
United States, these individuals were again the very rare exception. And
even then, the reasoning was not political, as Alicia (Bell Gardens) stated
to fight against Mexico would be to fighting against her blood, her history,
her religion.
Consistently, it appears that these were the attachments which were
most critical to the participants in the focus groups: the attachments of
family, of blood, and of culture. So it was not surprising that when
participating in community organizations, or even in political
participation, it was often done for the benefit of the family and the
broader Hispanic community.
As observed at the end of the Chapter 4, when focus group
participants spoke about being in the United States, they most often spoke
of the opportunities this nation afforded them. Only on a few occasions
did the participants speak in political terms. When they spoke of their
countries of origin, they only spoke in political terms when mentioning
negative perceptions of the government such as the corruption, the
bribery, the lack of government stability that existed in their native
countries. When they spoke with fondness of their native lands, they
spoke of family, friends, culture, and heritage.
Summary
Both the results of the logistic regression and the results of the focus
groups support the conclusion that most often when Hispanic immigrants
respond to the question of how they identify themselves, they are using
134 Hispanic Immigrant Identity
cultural not political terms. There are some individuals in the focus
groups who viewed being American in political terms in that they value
the political freedoms available in the United States, and specifically
mentioned their commitment to the U.S. made either implicitly by
choosing to reside here, or explicitly by having taken an oath of
citizenship. However, in light of the overall findings from the focus group
discussion, it would appear that the strongest reasons for Hispanic
immigrants identifying with their countries of origin are familial and
cultural, not political. The implication here is that when the news shows a
demonstration of a Hispanic group here in the U.S. waving flags of their
home countries, they are not expressing loyalty to their home country over
the U.S., but rather they are expressing their identity as a cultural group
within the U.S. Just as marching in a St. Patricks Day parade does not
necessarily express allegiance to Ireland, marching in a Cinco de Mayo
parade does not necessarily express allegiance to Mexico.
Suggestion for Further Research
Although there are many areas which might call for additional research,
only two will be mentioned here.
First, it is important to remember that both the National Latino
Immigrant Survey and this research are cross-sectional in nature and not
longitudinal. They are snapshots in time of what is unquestionably a
dynamic process. Certainly attitudes in the United States about what it
means to be an American have undergone dramatic change in the course
of time in which some of the NLIS and focus group participants have
resided here. Five of the Supreme Court decisions broadening the
definition of who qualifies to be an American have happened in the last 50
years. The Unites States has gone through periods of intense, some might
argue virtually paranoid, patriotism with anti-communist feelings, and
through periods of self-questioning and questioning of government intent
as during Vietnam. Similarly, for ethnic minorities there was a time when
there were great efforts were made to appear to be white, as when Blacks
used hair straighteners and skin lighteners. Then there came a time when
it was not only acceptable to be ethnic, but to some extent it became a
symbol of pride or political power (Black is beautiful, Chicano Power,
etc.). It would be difficult to imagine that these changing patterns within
the broader American socio-politcal culture have not affected and will not
Conclusions 135
continue to affect immigrant attitudes toward their adopted nation. A
series of cross-sectional studies will not address this issue adequately.
What is truly needed is a longitudinal study with a panel of participants.
Second, Dahl expresses a concern over a situation which he describes
as hyper-egoism in which there is a fragmentation and concern for either
the individual or for a subgroup of society rather for the whole of society.
(Dahl 1996, 9-10). The negative association between memberships in
community organizations and identification with the U.S. revealed in the
logistic regression, as well as the results of the focus groups might lead to
speculation that Dahls fears are being realized. I do not believe this to be
the case, however. Although there are some who clearly view their
community as being at odds with the broader community, as the young
man who expressed in graphic terms his disapproval of the governments
actions in the Elian Ramirez case
54
, overall there appears to be a
willingness to work within the system and be part of the nation.
Nevertheless, this is an area that merits additional research.
Conclusion
In 1996, I received an email from Jerold Pearson, Director of Market
Research at Stanford University, in which he gave the following quotation
from Kurt Vonneguts Mother Night. People are insane. They will do
anything at any time, and God help anybody who looks for reasons.
In this case, however, we may have found a reason. In the
introductory chapter it was stated that the paradox, was only a paradox if
the statements Hispanic immigrants made in identifying with their
countries of origin were political in nature. The results of the logistic
regression and the focus groups would lead to the conclusion that when
Hispanic immigrants identify with their countries of origin they are most
likely expressing cultural preference, not political identity.
America is a nation built by immigrants. Americans have also
historically viewed the newest wave of immigrants with suspicion and
concern. Perhaps, this is the next paradox which should be examined.
!"#$ &'() #*+)*+#,*'--. left /-'*0
137
Footnotes
1
Both the definition of what it means to be an American, and what
the respondents meant in declaring that they had no intentions of becoming
American are key concepts which will be more fully discussed below.
2
U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Brief, Overview of Race and
Hispanic Origin, by Elizabeth M. Grieco, and Rachel C. Cassidy.
(Washington, D.C., 2001), 3.
3
Table ST-EST2002-ASRO-03 - State Characteristic Estimates
Source: Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau Release Date: September, 18,
2003
4
U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, Series P23-206,
Profile of the Foreign-Born Population in the United States: 2000, by Dianne
Schmidley. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2001), 24.
5
U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, P20-539, The
Foreign-Born Population in the United States: March 2002, by Dianne
Schmidley. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau, 2003), 2.
6
The most current compiled source of public opinion polling data on
this issue is Karlyn H Bowman, AEI Studies in Public Opinion, America After
9/11: Public Opinion on The War on Terrorism, The War with Iraq, and
America"s Place in the World, (American Enterprise Institute, 2004) [on-line];
154.
7
See Reginald Horsman Race and Manifest Destiny.
138 Footnotes
8
Of course, the growth of the immigrant Hispanic population does
not in and of itself mean that the paradox will continue. Certainly, each era of
immigration has its own peculiar characteristics, and the conditions
surrounding the immigrants" arrival in the U.S. also greatly affect the
assimilation of the immigrant (Portes and Zhou 1993, 75). However,
understanding the factors that have contributed to the existence of this paradox
among current Hispanic immigrants could aid us in understanding the paradox,
if it exists, among future Hispanic immigrants.
9
Although it is common to refer to a Hispanic culture, several
scholars have questioned the actual existence of a pan-"Hispanic" culture,
noting the many differences in the cultures covered under the Hispanic
umbrella (Nelson and Tienda, 1985).
10
The tone of Wilkinson"s statement conveys his feelings and
concern that this is not a positive change for the makeup of the American
population. This concern conveys an assumption that somehow, the post 1790
immigrants are different than, and apparently less desirable than the pre-1790
immigrants.
11
This question was asked of a national sample of persons 18 or
older. There were 1,255 valid responses distributed as follows: 60% good,
34% bad, 3% neither, and 3% not sure.
12
Survey conducted by Hart and Teeter Research Companies.
Telephone interviews were conducted with 1,213 adults. Respondents were
asked When it comes to immigration in the United States, to you think that our
country is too open to immigrants from other countries, too closed to
immigrants from other countries, or does our country strike the right balance in
accepting immigrants from other countries? Fifty-one percent responded too
open, 7% too closed, 37% about right, and 5% indicated not sure (available
from Public Agenda Online <http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/
angles_graph.cfm?issue_type= immigration&id=258&graph=pcc5.gif>, [15
March 2000]). It is curious to note that only six months later, Governor Tom
Vilsack of Iowa announced an effort to encourage immigrants to settle in Iowa
to help boost a declining population (Available at CNN.Com
<http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/09/04/iowa.meltingpot.ap/index.html>, [4
September 2000]).
Footnotes 139
13
General Social Survey 2000, variable name letin.
14
Survey Organization: Gallup Organization, sponsored by CNN and
USA Today. On-line available from Public Agenda 2004.
15
General Social Survey 2000, variable name immunite.
16
Undocumented residents pose a unique quandary in that they
benefit by residence in the community, and they provide benefits to the
community, yet they are clearly without the law in their residence status. What
could and should be required of them during their tenure in the United States is
indeed an interesting question, however, since the data we are using
specifically is limited to legal residents, our discussions will also be limited to
legal residents.
17
The Spanish and the French were also encountered during the
initial westward expansion, but they are not the focus of this research, and,
therefore, will not be included in this discussion.
18
Lest it be thought that these are attitudes of a past era, it should be
noted that in online response to a discussion on immigration on the Provo
Herald"s web site (Harktheherald.com) an individual posted the following
comment on May 24, 2004: Ever wonder why Mexico is a third world
country? Because it's full of Mexicans!
19
It is important not to overlook Huntington"s inclusion of language
and habits (culture) in his list of qualifiers for being American. The use of
language and culture as criteria for being American will be discussed later in
this chapter.
20
This was recently illustrated in a discussion I had with a colleague
from Texas. I mentioned to him that I had met many Anglo individuals who
had immigrated from other states to Texas, and who now considered
themselves and were considered by their neighbors to be Texans. I queried him
as to whether I, being of Mexican heritage, if upon moving to Texas could ever
become considered a Texan. He replied, with some embarrassment, that I
could never be a Texan; I would always be a Mexican.
140 Footnotes
21
Although not asking specifically about immigrants, results from the
2002 General Social Survey lend additional support to this line of thought.
Respondents were asked if members of ethnic minorities must better adapt to
the ways of mainstream American culture in order to have a smoothly
functioning society. Sixty percent agreed or strongly agreed.
22
This is interestingly the same basic argument made by authors such
as Cubberley and Roberts (cited above) regarding immigrants in the early
1900's.
23
Although these amendments were theoretically designed to create a
more inclusive definition of American, it is noteworthy that the wording of
the Fourteenth Amendment specifies penalties only when male inhabitants
are denied the franchise. It also continues to exclude Indians not taxed from
inclusion in the calculations of congressional seat apportionments. Women
were not guaranteed the right to vote until 1920, and Native Americans were
not granted citizenship until 1924.
24
Justice Harlan in his dissenting opinion commented on the
functional effect of the decision in its relation to quasi-state action.
25
Source: Patrick Air Force Base history page,
<http://www.pafb.af.mil/DEOMI/ hisp.htm>, [11 October 2000]. Medal of
Honor Statistics available from <http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/mohstats.htm>,
[11October 2000], and World Book Encyclopedia, 1988 ed., s.v. Vietnam
war. See also Department of Defense, Defense Link web site at
<http://www.defenselink.mil/, particularly http://www.defenselink.mil/
specials/hispanic/recipients1.html which lists all 37 Hispanic Medal of Honor
recipients.
26
Plessy, discussed earlier, was decided after Strauder, but, much to
the surprise of some Supreme Court observers, circumvented the Strauder
ruling by stating that laws segregating the races did not automatically imply a
superior/inferior relationship between the races. Harlan"s dissent in Plessy, as
previously cited, found this line of reasoning essentially ludicrous.
27
In Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U.S. 369 (1967), the court continued
and expanded this course of action ruling that a California statute giving
owners of real property the right to refuse to sell, lease or rent that property to
Footnotes 141
any person at their discretion violated the equal protection clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment.
28
The Court here is quoting from Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356
(1886) wherein Justice Mathews giving the majority opinion for the Court
writes, The case of the political franchise of voting is one. Though not
regarded strictly as a natural right, but as a privilege merely conceded by
society, according to its will, under certain conditions, nevertheless it is
regarded as a fundamental political right, because preservative of all rights
[118 U.S. 356, 370].
29
A modest example of this might be the reaction of the Cuban
community to the INS intervention in the Elian Gonzalez case. After Elian was
forcibly removed from his Great Uncle"s home in Miami, in compliance with
instructions from the U.S. Attorney General, demonstrators on the street
expressed their outrage at the federal government. One demonstrator in his
wrath shouted, F*** this country! He was placing the desires of his
community above his loyalty to the nation. It is also important to note,
however, that although there is in this community great Cuban solidarity, it is
loyalty to a Cuba that does not exist outside of the boundaries of the United
States.
30
The questioning of an individual"s loyalty to country is a serious
matter, and great caution should be taken that investigations deal with issues of
loyalty, not race or ethnicity. The activities of German-American clubs prior to
World War I in which they openly supported Germany against France and
Britain, was a clear cause for political concern. On the other hand, the
Korematsu case in World War II, cited above, did not consider political loyalty
at all, only race.
31
Conversely, Americans were much less likely to mention pride in
the physical characteristics of the American people, physical features of the
nation, or national contributions to the arts as compared to members of these
other countries. In the introduction to this book we raised the possibility that
NLIS respondents were expressing cultural preference rather than political
allegiance when they indicated identification with countries of origin. These
results support this possibility. If citizens of other countries identify first with
cultural or other aspects of their nations rather than with their political systems,
it suggests the possibility that immigrants to the U.S. when expressing
142 Footnotes
identification to their countries of origin are, in fact, expressing identification
with the cultural aspects of their native countries.
32
See also James W. Prothro and Charles M. Grigg Fundamental
Principles of Democracy: Bases of Agreement and Disagreement Journal of
Politics 22 (February 1960): 282-86, Herbert McClosky AConsensus and
Ideology in American Politics, American Political Science Review 58 (June
1964): 365-68. Devine, Political Culture, pp. 179-230, and Frank R. Westie,
The American Dilemma: An Empirical Test, American Sociological Review
30 (August 1965): 531-32.
33
Interestingly he uses B.H. Roberts, Representative from Utah as an
example. Specifically he notes that even though Roberts was a member of
Congress, he was still only allowed to have one wife, clearly a reference to
earlier polygamist Mormon practices. More than merely an interesting side
note, this indicates that Brewer"s definitions of good character were based on
traditional Christian concepts.
34
By nobility here Dahl means selflessness.
35
Janowitz does note a particular problem in recognizing voluntary
associations as a civic virtue, however. He contends that given an expectation
of political advocacy in democracies, some differentiation must be made
regarding the extent to which voluntary associations are seeking rights,
privileges, or benefits as opposed to seeking the public welfare (Janowitz
1980, 16-17). For this analysis, given that both political participation and
showing concern for community welfare are viewed as positive American
traits, then participation in a voluntary association with either political or
community interests in mind qualifies as an indicator of being American.
36
Although there are those who believe that Putnam"s measure of
civic engagement is incorrect, they are not in disagreement as to the importance
of civic engagement, which is the point being made here.
37
This question has not been repeated in the General Social Survey.
38
The 2000 General Social Survey also asked respondents regarding
making English the official language of the United States, but only offered two
response categories, Favor or Oppose, thus that variable is not directly
comparable on this table.
Footnotes 143
39
For ease of reference, these four points will hereafter be referred to
as four criteria and will subsequently be listed as: 1) belief in the American
system of government, 2) participating in voluntary organizations, 3)
participation in the political/electoral process, and 4) learning English sufficient
to be able to participate in the political process.
40
The rationale for this scaling is based on the concepts of the
importance of learning and using English as a marker of being American
developed in the previous chapter. Thus, if an individual prefers to use Spanish
for one of the listed activities, it could be interpreted as a negative indicator to
their being American. Conversely, if they prefer to use English, it could be
interpreted as a positive indicators to their being American. If the respondents
indicate they use both languages, they have been given a zero score because the
use of both languages does not clearly indicate a preference toward or away
from being American. Similarly, if the respondents indicate they did not
participate in a particular activity, it is scored as a zero because their non-
participation in that activity provides no measure of preference on that item
toward or away from being American by this definition.
41
The items here are phrased in such a manner that a score of 4
reflects greater identification with country of origin, whereas a score of 4 on
one of the previous questions reflected a greater identification with the U.S. It
would not be unusual in such situations to reverse the coding of the responses
so that positive numbers always reflected greater identification to the U.S.
However, allowing the items to retain their original coding actually makes them
more easily read and understood in the factor analysis and logistic regression
results. In these procedures the original coding produces negative values,
which is exactly what is expected when the name of the variable is read.
42
Two levels of income were also significant at the p .10 level.
These were income level 3 - $801 to $1200 a month, and income level 5
$1,500 to $2,000 a month. Overall, however, the income variable had a
significance level of p = .6927.
43
Because Income was entered as a categorical variable, SPSS
calculates no overall value. See table 7 for the values for each of the
income categories.
144 Footnotes
44
As previously noted, the respondents in the NLIS were legal
Hispanic immigrants who had been in the United States for five or more years.
45
Bell Gardens has a concentration of Hispanics very similar to
Huntington Park. This group included participants from Huntington Park, Bell
Gardens, Commerce, East Los Angeles, Central Los Angeles, and Montebello.
46
These are not the real names of the participants. The discussion of
how pseudonyms were selected for the respondents is given in the section
entitles Focus Group Results below.
47
A variable for years in the United States was not part of the
original NLIS data set, but rather was calculated by subtracting the
respondent"s year of immigration from 1988, the year of the survey. Using this
method of calculation, four individuals in the data set appear to have been in
the United States less than five years. This would appear to violate the
inclusion criteria for the NLIS that respondents have been in the U.S. for 5 or
more years. However, a provision in the screening questions allowed
individuals who had been married for three years or more to someone who has
been a U.S. citizen for three years or more, to participate in the study. In all
four cases in question, the individuals were or had been married, and given
their inclusion in the data set I assume the original study appropriately qualified
them, and hence they were not eliminate from this examination.
48
During the recruitment process, all of the participants had been
informed as to the nature and purpose of the focus group. In effect, this was a
re-explanation and clarification of the project and gave the participants an
opportunity to ask any questions they might have had about the purpose of the
focus group interviews.
49
An interesting and important issue was raised by members in five
of the six groups regarding the phrasing of this question. It was pointed out by
at least one person in each of the five groups, whereas from the point of view of
individuals in the United States, being American is synonymous with being
from the United States; outside the U.S. many individuals identify anyone from
the either the North or South American continents as being American. Three
individuals, one each in Salt Lake, Chino, and Provo, expressed what could be
fairly described as feelings of indignation that residents of the U.S. had
misappropriate the term Americans to refer to only themselves to the
Footnotes 145
exclusion of other nations on these continents. Having anticipated this
possibility, I was prepared to diffuse the issue by agreeing the usage was
technically incorrect, but stating that for the purposes of this study, we could
agree to use the common usage. Everyone quickly agreed.
50
No me quita el nopal literally means - it doesn"t remove the
cactus from me. This is a reference to the heritage symbol of the cactus
emblem on the Mexican flag. This is not an expression of political loyalty to
the Mexican flag, but rather to the Mexican culture. The English idiomatic
equivalent would be to say, you can take the boy out of the country, but you
can=t take the country out of the boy.
51
Often, when drawing some link to the U.S., participants made
comments about their children having been born or being raised here.
52
Although the word citizenship was specifically used, the feelings
seemed to imply residency in the U.S., and not exclusively citizenship.
53
It is an interesting observation that three of these four criteria were
manifest by the individuals interviewed in the pre-study focus group interviews
in Miami and Houston: 1) belief in the American system of government as
manifest by their decisions to immigrate and obtain legal residence in the
United States, 2) an expressed desire to participate in community affairs, and 3)
and expressed desire to participate politically to improve their communities.
54
Disapproval of government action is certainly not limited to the
Hispanic community. Others with very disparate points of view, such as
Vietnam era protestors or pro-life demonstrators, have forcefully and
sometimes violently disagreed with the government"s official position on
various issues.
!"#$ &'() #*+)*+#,*'--. left /-'*0
147
Bibliography
1992 American National Election Study. Available from National
Election Studies, Center for Political Studies, University of
Michigan. <http://www.umich.edu /~nes>. [9 March 1999]
1998 American National Election Study. Available from National
Election Studies, Center for Political Studies, University of
Michigan. <http://www.umich.edu /~nes>. [9 March 1999]
Almond, Gabriel A. and Sidney Verba. 1965. The Civic Culture.
Boston: Little, Brown.
American Heritage Foundation. 1948. Good citizen : the rights and
duties of an American. New York: American Heritage
Foundation.
Auster, Lawrence. 1995. Them vs. Unz; special letters section. Policy
Review. 71 (Winter) 88.
Bellah, Robert. 1975. The Broken Covenant: American Civil Religion
in Time of Trial. New York: Seabury Press.
Bergquist, James M. 1992. German-Americans. In Multiculturalism in
the United States, eds. John D. Buenker and Lorman A.
Ratner, 53-76 . New York: Greenwood Press.
148 Bibliography
Bowman, Karlyn H. 2004. America After 9/11: Public Opinion on The
War on Terrorism, The War with Iraq, and Americas Place in
the World, AEI Studies in Public Opinion, Papers and Studies,
AEI Online, American Enterprise Institute, Washington D.C.
Brewer, David J. 1902. American Citizenship. New Haven, Conn.:
Yale University Press.
Broome, Edwin C., Edwin W. Adams. 1926. Conduct and Citizenship.
New York: The MacMillan Company.
Bridges, Horace J. 1919. On Becoming an American. Boston:
Marshall Jones Company.
Briggs, Asa. 1966. Saxons, Normans and Victorians. London:
London Historical Association.
Brimelow, Peter. 1995. Alien Nation: Common Sense about Americas
Immigration Disaster. New York: Random House.
Brubaker, Rogers, 1993. Migrants into citizens? Traditions of
nationhood and politics of citizenship in france and Germany.
In Sociology and the Public Agenda, ed. William Julius
Wilson, 73-96. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.
Buenker, John D., and Lorman A. Ratner. 1992. Multiculturalism in
the United States. New York: Greenwood Press.
Bushnell, Horace. 1837. The true wealth or weal of nations. In
Representative Phi Beta Kappa Orations, eds. Northup, Clark
S., William C. Lane and John C. Schwab, 1-12. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company. 1915.
The California Poll. 1988. Study 8801, Question 67, February.
Available from the Institute for Research in the Social Science
<http://www.irss.unc.edu/tempdocs/ 23:46:38:1.htm>. [8
August 2000].
Bibliography 149
Carlson, Robert A. 1987. The Americanization Syndrome: A Quest for
Conformity. London: Croom Helm.
Chase, Harold W., Craig R. Ducat. 1979. Constitutional
Interpretation. 2d ed. St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Co.
Chavez, Leo. 1997. Official English as nativist backlash. In
Immigrants Out! ed. Juan F. Perea, 61-77. New York: New
York University Press.
Citrin, Jack, Ernst B. Haas, Christopher Muste, and Beth Reingold.
1994. Is American Nationalism Changing? Implications for
Foreign Policy. International Studies Quarterly. 38 (March)
1-31.
Clark, Dennis. 1992. Irish-Americans. In Multiculturalism in the
United States, eds. John D. Buenker and Lorman A. Ratner,
53-76 . New York: Greenwood Press.
Cubberley, Ellwood P. 1909. Changing Conceptions of Education.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.
Dahl, Robert A. 1996. Is civic virtue a relevant ideal in a pluralist
democracy? In Diversity and Citizenship, eds. Gary Jeffrey
Jacobsohn and Susan Dunn, 1-16. Lanham, Md.: Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
De Koven, Mrs. Reginald. 1923. A Primer of Citizenship. New York:
E.P. Dutton & Company.
Dewey, John. 1916. Nationalizing Education. Addresses and
Proceedings of the Fifty-fourth Annual Meeting. National
Education Association of the United States. Washington, D.C.
D'innocenzo, Michael and Josef P. Sirefman. 1992. Immigration and
Ethnicity. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.
150 Bibliography
Eastland, Terry and William J. Bennett. 1979. Counting by Race :
Equality from the Founding Fathers to Bakke and Weber.
New York: Basic Books.
Etzioni, Amitai. 1993. The Spirit of Community. New York: Crown
Publisher, Inc.
Espenshade, Thomas J. and Katherine Hempstead. 1996.
Contemporary American attitudes toward U.S. immigration.
International Migration Review. 30 (Summer) 535-70.
Fuchs, Lawrence H. 1990. The American Kaleidoscope. London:
Wesleyan University Press.
Fulford, James. 2004. Minding the Golden Door: Toward a
Restrictionism that can Succeed. [online] available through
VDARE.com.
Gans, Herbert. 1979. Symbolic ethnicity: the future of ethnic groups
and cultures in America. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 2/1: 1-20.
Garza, Rodolfo O. de la. 1996. Will the real American please stand
up: anglo and Mexican-American support of core American
political values. American Journal of Political Science. 40:2
(May): 335-51.
Gates, Henry Louis Jr. 1995. Back and James Brown: on honoring
Blackness. The American Enterprise. 6 (Sept./Oct): 49.
General Social Survey. 1994. Available at
<http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/GSS/>. [9 March 1999]
Glazer, Nathan. 1996. Reflections on citizenship and diversity. In
Diversity and Citizenship, eds. Gary Jeffrey Jacobsohn and
Susan Dunn, 85-100. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers, Inc.
Bibliography 151
Gleason, Philip. 1984. Pluralism and assimilation: a conceptual
history. In Linguistic Minorities: Policies and Pluralism, ed.
John Edwards, 221-257. New York: Academic Press.
Glendon, Mary Ann. 1991. Rights Talk. New York: The Free Press.
Gordon, Milton M. 1964. Assimilation in American Life: The Role of
Race, Religion, and National Origins. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Grund, Francis Joseph. 1837. The Americans in Their Moral, Social,
and Political Relations. Boston: March, Capen and Lyon.
Hardy-Fanta, Carol. 1993. Latina Politics, Latino Politics: Gender,
Culture, and Political Participation in Boston. Philadelphia:
Temple University Press.
Hartman, Edward George. 1967. The Movement to Americanize the
Immigrant. New York: AMS Press, Inc. Original Edition,
New York: Columbia University Press, 1948.
Louis Harris and Associates Polls. 1992. Study S921204. Available at
<http://www.irss.unc.edu/tempdocs/ 20:26:45:1.htm>. [9 May
1999]
Harrington, M. 1980. Loyalty: Dual and Divided. In The Harvard
Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups. Ed. Stephan
Thernstrom, 676-86. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press.
Hepner, Walter R., and Frances K. Hepner. 1924. The Good Citizen.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Herberg, Will. 1955. Protestant-Catholic-Jew. Garden City, New
York: Doubleday and Company, Inc.
Horsman, Reginald 1981. Race and Manifest Destiny. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press.
152 Bibliography
Huntington, Samuel P. 1981. American Politics: The Promise of
Disharmony. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press.
Jacobsohn, Gary Jeffrey and Susan Dunn. 1996. Diversity and
Citizenship. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,
Inc.
Janoski, Thomas. 2000. Citizenship and Civil Society. New York:
Cambridge University Press,
Janowitz, Morris. 1980. Observations on the sociology of citizenship:
obligations and rights. Social Forces, 59:1 (September): 1-
24.
Jefferson, Thomas. 1984. Writings. Compiled by Peterson, Merrill D.
New York: Viking Press.
Kallen, Horace. 1924. Culture and Democracy in the United States.
New York: Boni and Liveright.
Keefe, Susan E., and Amado M. Padilla. 1987. Chicano Ethnicity.
Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Kettner, James H. 1978. The Development of American Citizenship,
1608-1870. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Kolasky, Bob. 1997. Issue of the week: a Nation of Immigrants.
Available from Intellectual Capital.Com at
<http://www.IntellectualCapital.com>. [6 February 1997].
Kymlicka, Will, and Wayne Norman. 1994. Return of the Citizen: A
Survey of Recent Work on Citizenship Theory. Ethics. 104
(January): 352-381. Chicago.: University of Chicago Press.
Kymlicka, Will. 1995. Multicultural Citizenship. New York: Oxford
University Press Inc.
Lieberson, Stanley. 1985. Unhyphenated whites in the United States.
Ethnic and Racial Studies. 8 (January) 159-80.
Bibliography 153
Lincoln, Abraham. 1947. The Lincoln Reader. Edited by Paul M.
Angle. New Brunswick, Conn.: Rutgers University Press.
Marshall, T.H. 1973. Class, Citizenship and Social Development.
Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.
Morgan, David L., and Richard A. Krueger. 1998. The Focus Group
Kit. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, Inc.
Muller, Thomas. 1997. Nativism in the mid-1990's. In Immigrants
Out!, ed. Juan F. Perea, 105-18. New York: New York
University Press.
Nelson, Candace, and Marta Tienda. 1985. Structuring of Hispanic
ethnicity: Historical and contemporary perspectives. Ethnic
and Racial Studies, 8 (Jan): pp 49-74.
Novak, Michael. 1973. The Rise of the Unmeltable Ethnics. New
York: The Macmillan Company.
Pachon, Harry, and Louis DeSipio. 1994. New Americans by Choice.
Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.
Perea, Juan F. ed. 1997. Immigrants Out! New York: New York
University Press.
Petersen, William. 1997. Ethnicity Counts. New Brunswick, Conn.:
Transaction Publishers.
Pinkerton, John. 1787. A Dissertation on the Origin and Progress of
the Scythians or Goths. Being an introduction to the ancient
and modern history of Europe. London: G. Nicol.
Population Projections for States by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic
Origin: 1995 to 2025, Census Bureau PPL-47, October, 1996.
Portes, Alejandro, and Rubn G. Rumbaut. 1990. Immigrant America.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
154 Bibliography
Portes, Alejandro, and Min Zhou. 1993. The New Second Generation:
Segmented Assimilation and Its Variants. The Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 530
(November): 74-96.
Portes, Alejandro, and Min Zhou. 1994. Should Immigrants
Assimilate. The Public Interest, 116 (Summer): 18-33.
Putnam, Robert D. 1995. Bowling alone: Americas declining social
capital. Journal of Democracy, 6:1 (January): 65-78
Putnam, Robert D. 2000. Bowling Alone. New York: Simon &
Schuster.
Reynolds, John F. Reynolds. 1988. Testing Democracy: Electoral
Behavior and Progressive Reform in New Jersey, 1880-1920.
Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press.
Roberts, Kenneth L. 1922. Why Europe Leaves Home. London: T.
Fisher Unwin, Ltd.
Rossiter, Clinton. ed. 1961. The Federalist Papers. New York:
Penguin Inc.
Schlesinger, Arthur Meier. 1992. The Disuniting of America. New
York: W.W. Norton
Sellers, James. 1970. Public Ethics : American Morals and Manners.
New York: Harper & Row.
Shklar, Judith N. 1991. American Citizenship, The Quest for Inclusion.
Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Smith, Rogers M. 1988. The American Creed and American
identity: the limits of liberal citizenship in the United States.
The Western Political Quarterly. 41 (June): 225-51.
-------- 1997. Civic Ideals. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
Bibliography 155
Smith, Tom W. 1980. Ethnic measurement and identification.
Ethnicity. 7 (March) 78-95.
Sons of the American Revolution. 1911. Official Bulletin. 2 (Oct.
1911): 2.
Thompson, Michael, Richard Ellis, and Aaron Wildavsky. 1990.
Cultural Theory. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.
Tocqueville, Alexis de. 1984. Democracy in America. Edited by
Richard D. Heffner. New York: Mentor.
Tilly, Louise A. and Patricia Gurin, eds. 1990. Women, Politics, and
Change. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
UCLA Academic Technology Services. 2000. SPSS Frequently Asked
Questions B What does Cronbachs Alpha Mean? Available
[Online] <www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/spss/ faq/alpha.html>. [16
January 2001].
Ungar, Sanford. 1995. Fresh Blood: The New American Immigrants.
New York : Simon & Schuster.
U. S. Commission on Immigration Reform. 1995. Legal Immigration:
Setting Priorities. Washington, D.C.: GPO.
U.S. Congress. House. 1790. 1
st
Cong., 2d sess. Annals of Congress
1 (3-4 February).
U.S. Congress. House. 1794. 3
rd
Cong., 2d sess. Annals of Congress
4 (22 December).
U.S. Congress. Senate. 1845. 28
th
Cong., 2d sess. Congressional
Globe 85 Appendix (21-22 February).
U.S. Congress. Senate. 1848. 30
th
Cong., 1
st
sess. Congressional
Globe 89 (2 January).
156 Bibliography
U.S. Congress. Senate. 1896. 54
th
Cong., 1
st
sess. Congressional
Record. 28, pt. 3, (16 March).
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on
Immigration and Refugee Policy. 1981. The Final Report
and Recommendations of the Select Commission on
Immigration and Refugee Policy. Washington, D.C.: GPO.
U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Brief, Overview of Race and
Hispanic Origin, by Elizabeth M. Grieco, and Rachel C.
Cassidy. Washington, DC, 2001.
-------- Current Population Reports, Series P20-539. The Foreign-Born
Population in the United States: March 2002, by Dianne
Schmidley. Washington, D.C. 2003.
-------- Current Population Reports, Series P23-206. Profile of the
Foreign-Born Population in the United States: 2000, by
Dianne Schmidley. Washington, DC. 2001.
Walzer, Michael. 1990. What Does it Mean to be an American?
Social Research. 57 (Fall): 591-614.
Waters, Mary C. 1990. Ethnic Options. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Wilkinson, J. Harvie III. 1997. One Nation Indivisible. Reading, Mass.:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.
Wrinkle, Robert D., Joseph Stewart, Jr., J.L. Polinard, Kenneth J.
Meier, John R. Arvizu. 1996. Ethnicity and Nonelectoral
Political Participation. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral
Sciences, 18:2 (May): 142-153.
157
Index
Almond 39, 65, 147
American Heritage Foundation
72, 147
Americans are Not Truly a
People 40
Anglo 1, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28,
34, 35, 36, 38, 40, 43, 52,
56, 60, 117, 118, 130, 139
Anglo-Americans 19
Ascriptive Criteria 29, 50, 51
Auster 14, 147
backward elimination process
95, 96, 98
belief in the American system
of government viii, 62, 79,
81, 82, 87, 90, 92, 100, 131,
143, 145
Bergquist 26, 52, 147
Brewer 16, 23, 27, 31, 58, 66,
142, 148
Bridges 26, 60, 61, 62, 148
Briggs 19, 148
Brimelow 25, 28, 148
Broome 72, 148
Brown v. Board of Education
46, 51
Buckley 71
Bushnell 20, 148
California Poll 24, 74, 148
Carlson 18, 25, 28, 42, 63, 149
Chavez 4, 5, 149
Chinese Exclusion Case 31
Citrin 74, 149
Clark 36, 148, 149
Congress 21, 29, 30, 31, 46,
47, 48, 49, 50, 66, 142, 155
Cubberley 22, 140, 149
cultural factors 7, 25
culture 4, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21,
25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 34, 35,
37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 52,
53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59,
60, 62, 64, 65, 66, 79, 99,
106, 115, 116, 117, 130,
132, 133, 135, 138, 139,
140, 145
Dahl 27, 53, 67, 135, 142, 149
De Koven 72, 149
Dewey 59, 149
Dred Scott 29, 30, 50, 130
English only 76
Espenshade and Hempstead
13
ethnicity and race 17, 18, 21,
25, 33, 34, 37, 42, 52
Ethnocentric 38
158 Index
Etzioni 71, 150
Factor Analysis 91
Focus Group Organization 104
Focus Group Participant
Selection Criteria 105
Focus Group Results 114, 144
Fourteenth Amendment 31, 42,
43, 44, 45, 48, 79, 140, 141
Franklin 18, 36, 39, 54, 55
Fuchs 18, 39, 57, 58, 64, 65,
150
Gallup poll 14
Gates 59, 150
General Social Survey 14, 74,
76, 77, 78, 139, 140, 143,
150
Glazer 16, 25, 74, 150
Gleason 27, 151
Glendon 71, 151
Gordon 19, 26, 38, 56, 57, 58,
59, 74, 151
Grovey 32, 33, 42, 44, 50
Grund 63, 64, 151
GSS 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 150
Hardy-Fanta 69, 151
Harlan 32, 140
Harrington 40, 52, 53, 65, 151
Harris 14, 151
Hartman 21, 57, 73, 151
Hepners 72
Herberg 24, 151
Hirabayashi 33, 41, 51
Hirabayashi v. United States
33
Hispanics 4, 28, 41, 105, 144
Horsman 17, 18, 20, 138, 151,
161
Huntington 7, 8, 20, 25, 54,
56, 61, 62, 63, 65, 105, 139,
144, 152
Interview Questions 111
Jacobsohn 39, 55, 149, 150,
152
Jacobsohn, Jeffery, and Dunn
39
Janoski 68, 72, 152
Janowitz 16, 69, 142, 152
Jefferson 19, 152
Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co.
48, 51
Kallen 38, 39, 42, 58, 59, 152
Katzenbach v. Morgan 47, 51
Kennedy 36
Kluckhohn 56
Kolasky 13, 152
Korematsu 33, 41, 51, 141
Kymlicka 13, 28, 40, 60, 70,
152
language 9, 18, 21, 26, 30, 40,
54, 57, 59, 60, 62, 73, 74,
76, 77, 78, 85, 86, 87, 90,
99, 100, 107, 109, 115, 117,
131, 139, 143
Language of the Focus Groups
107
learning English viii, 62, 68,
73, 80, 81, 82, 130, 143
Learning English 73, 85
Lincoln 21, 64, 153
Lipset 56
Lodge 30
Los Angeles Times 24
Loving v. Virginia 47, 51
Loyalty 52, 53, 151
Mallary 73
Marshall 68, 69, 71, 148, 153
McLaurin v. Oklahoma State
Regents 45
Missouri ex rel Gaines v.
Canada 45
Index 159
model 7, 9, 83, 93, 95, 96, 98,
99
mongrelization 23
Morgan 104, 153
Muller 4, 153
National Election Study 74,
147
National Latino Immigrant
Survey 3
NBC News, Wall Street
Journal survey 14
NES 74, 76, 77, 78
Nixon v. Condon 44
NLIS viii, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14,
73, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85,
86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 92, 99,
100, 101, 102, 103, 104,
105, 107, 109, 110, 111,
129, 130, 131, 132, 134,
141, 144
Novak 56, 57, 153
Pachon and DeSipio vii, 3
Participant Demographics 109
Participation in the political
process 84
participation in the
political/electoral process
viii, 68, 79, 81, 82, 130,
143
participation in voluntary
associations 68, 70
Participation in Voluntary
Associations 69
participation in voluntary
organizations viii, 79, 82,
83
Petersen 28, 63, 153
Ping v. U.S 31
Pinkerton 18, 153
Plessy 31, 42, 45, 46, 50, 130,
140
political participation 9, 29, 56,
69, 84, 87, 121, 126, 133,
142
Portes and Rumbaut 13
Putnam 70, 100, 132, 142, 154
Roberts 23, 140, 142, 154
Schlesinger 27, 34, 35, 36, 39,
154
Sedgewick 66
Shelley v. Kraemer 44, 51
Shklar 70, 154
Simpson 28
Sipuel v. Oklahoma 45
Smith 16, 17, 29, 31, 32, 33,
34, 36, 38, 50, 59, 99, 154,
155
Smith v. Allwright 44
South Carolina v. Katzenbach
72
Speaking English 75, 77, 78
Strauder 42, 44, 50, 140
Strauder v. West Virginia 42,
50
Summary of Legal Cases 49
Supreme Court vii, 8, 15, 29,
30, 31, 34, 36, 37, 42, 43,
44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 60, 72,
79, 98, 130, 134, 140
Sweatt v. Painter 45
Taney 29
Tape Recording the Focus
Groups 108
The Civil Rights Cases 30, 42,
50
The Ku Klux Cases 72
Thompson 56, 155
Tilly and Gurin 69
160 Index
Tocqueville 64, 69, 70, 132,
155
U.S. Congress 20, 28, 30, 66,
155, 156
Ungar 57, 155
vote 33, 34, 47, 72, 74, 84, 85,
88, 118, 122, 127, 140
Walzer 35, 40, 63, 156
Warren 46, 48, 51
Waters 22, 59, 156
What Is An American 130
Wildavsky 56, 155
Wilkinson 13, 28, 52, 130,
138, 156
Wilson 25, 52, 65, 148
Wrinkle 73, 156
Yick Wo v. Hopkins 43, 50,
141