ࡱ>  @ Albjbj .d%@@@@@@@T222823TYb44"444555aaaaaaa$cRaea@I55IIa@@44blUlUlUIX@4@4alUIalUlU@@lU44 D~Y2IlU])b0YblUfQflUTT@@@@f@lU5O<lU@D555aaTTd02UXTT2 Variations in Latino Public Opinion towards Immigration Jamie M. Gonzales Abstract There are many factors, which have an effect on Latino public opinion towards immigration. Many studies have found that nativity, whether or not someone was born in the U.S., has the greatest impact on Latino reservations towards immigration. This study will strive to explain the strong association between higher levels of education and reservations towards immigration among Latinos. Latino educational achievement is steadily increasing. Educational achievement is directly linked to assimilation, which may produce negative attitudes towards increased immigration. I hypothesize that Latinos who have achieved a higher level of education are more likely to have negative attitudes towards increased immigration. This study will control for income, gender, nativity, and generations through an OLS multiple regression analysis. In this study, I will use data from the 2002 National Survey of Latinos by the Pew Hispanic Center and Kaiser Family Foundation. Results from this analysis contradict the theory that higher levels of educational achievement produce more reservations towards immigration. Additionally, this study finds that higher generation status and female gender produce more reservations towards immigration. Nativity was not found to be statistically significant, however, there was a strong correlation between nativity and generation status. Theoretical Explanation and Literature Review Immigration is the hottest political debate in the United States. Most recently, there have been protests all over the country against making it a felony to be in the United States illegally. Recently immigration has become a part of many political platforms at both the state and national level. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate are currently involved in passing legislation on immigration policy (A Look at Major Immigration Proposals 2006). The Latino perception of immigration is an interesting dynamic. There is a preconceived notion that Latinos in the U.S. have less reservations towards immigration, however this is not always true. In reference to polls and surveys, Latino public opinion on immigration is mixed at best (Garcia and Uhlaner 2002). When analyzing Latino public opinion on immigration there are many relationships to consider. The current research articles explore different combinations of these variables and their effect on Latino public opinion. The purpose of this study is to analyze the relationship between the higher levels of educational achievement and negative attitudes towards increased immigration. I expect to find that the higher levels of educational achievement leads to negative attitudes towards increased immigration. The following theoretical review includes two pertinent aspects of Latino public opinion, group consciousness and socioeconomic status (SES)/demographics. Immigration integration is framed by both group consciousness and SES/demographics. Group consciousness includes cultural affinity as described through generations and nativity. SES/demographics include income, education, and gender. Both group consciousness and SES/demographics are key pieces to the idea of assimilation. Group Consciousness Assimilation and differences in generation status adds to the complexity of Latino public opinion. Assimilation is a concept used to define the integration of immigrants into the mainstream or core culture (Alba and Nee 1997). According to the assimilation model immigrants become similar to the core cultural groupthose of English ancestrythe longer they stay in the United States. This model defines the United States as a melting pot of cultural identity, in which immigrants not only add to the nations culture, but assimilate towards the core culture (Farley and Neidert 1985). Studies argue that Latinos who fail to retain a strong sense of cultural affinity will be less supportive of lenient immigration policy (Alvarez and Butterfield 2000, Hood, Morris, and Shirkey 1997, and Newton 2000). Recently arrived Latino immigrants or other Spanish speaking Latinos sympathize with immigrants either trying to come to the United States or newly arrived (Newton 2000). Alvarez and Butterfield (2000) agree with this idea of cultural affinity. They find cultural affinity to be very important when analyzing Latino public opinion towards immigration (Alvarez and Butterfield 2000). Nonetheless, Alvarez and Butterfield (2000), argue that the economic threat of immigration supersedes the idea of cultural affinity. For example, a newly arrived immigrant from Latin America does manual labor for a local construction company. Although this immigrant has a strong sense of cultural affinity he is likely to have reservations towards immigration, because more immigrants mean more job competition. At the core of assimilation is the theory of differing generations; the difference in first, second, third and fourth generations. According to Trejo (2003: 468), dramatic intergenerational improvements in human capital and earning occur between Mexican immigrants and their U.S. born children. Additionally, another study reflects increasing reservations about immigration as the generations increase (Survey Brief 2004). These findings support the theory of lost cultural affinity. As generations of a familys existence in the U.S. increase that family becomes more assimilated to the United States and the American culture; thus, their ties with their ancestral culture weaken. Latinos in this situation begin to associate with the core culture, the Anglo culture, no longer associating themselves with their Latino culture. This disassociation may lead to more reservations towards immigration. Another piece of assimilation is nativity. Empirical research strongly suggests a link between nativitywhether or not someone is born in the U.S.and Latino public opinion towards immigration (Alvarez and Butterfield 2000 and Sanchez 2006). This idea lends support to the generation status theory because nativity becomes a factor as new generations are born here in the United States. Additionally a person born in the United States is more likely to feel as though they are a part of the American culture and essentially the core culture. In this sense, nativism leads to more reservations towards immigration (Alvarez and Butterfield 2000). Socioeconomic Status (SES)/Demographics Both income and education are also elements of assimilation to the United States; after all, this is the land of opportunity and the American dream. Two significant parts of this land of opportunity and the American dream are education and income, as both lead to prosperity and status. Prosperity and status are two aspects that lead to the integration of immigrants. Income and education lead to assimilation through different analyses; however, the two are related in that education leads to more sustainable job security, which can lead to higher income. Recent data from the 2005 survey by the Pew Hispanic Center shows that Latinos who earn middle to high income are more likely to have more reservations about immigration than those who earn lower income (Suro 2005). Latinos with lower income find themselves similarly situated with immigrants and are more supportive of more lenient policy (Newton 2000 and Sanchez 2006). Still, Hood, Morris, and Shirkey (1997) refute these facts and claim economic security leads to more positive perceptions of immigration. People with economic security do not have the economic threat of immigration discussed earlier (Garcia and Uhlaner 2000, Sanchez 2006). Presumably, a person receiving a higher income has a more secure position, as opposed to someone receiving a lower income in a less secure position, such as, a position in manual labor. Immigrants are threatening to Latinos and others in this situation because there is more job competition and, often, cheaper labor. Someone who has higher income and more economic security is less likely to feel that they must compete with incoming immigrants for jobs (Alvarez and Butterfield 2000). None of the studies reviewed focus on the level of education as the primary cause of attitudes towards immigration. In fact, there are some discrepancies pertaining to the effect of the education on Latino public opinion towards immigration. To lend reference to my theory, it is important to understand that Latinos in the United States have a very low rate of higher education; nonetheless, this fact is changing and the number of Latinos who achieve higher levels of education are steadily increasing (Survey Brief 2004 and Educational Attainment of the Population 25 Years and Over by Sex, Hispanic Origin, and Race 1994 and 2004). Both the Kaiser Family Foundation Survey Brief of 2004 and the U.S. Census Bureau of 2004 show a steady increase in Latino achievement of higher education. Some political scientists contend that people with higher education tend to have fewer reservations towards immigration (Barkan 2003, Hood, Morris, and Shirkey 1997). In addition, research has found that education has a strong positive association with tolerance. As the education level increases, the level of tolerance increases (Delli Carpini and Keeter 1996). This social learning hypothesis argues that through higher levels of education a person will gain knowledge of key societal values, which are necessary for the development of a tolerant public (Delli Carpini and Keeter 1996). This refers to the general idea of tolerance, which is relative to tolerance towards immigration. However, others argue that higher education actually leads to more reservations towards immigration (Newton 2000 and Suro 2005). Sanchez (2006) finds that more educated and wealthier Latinos favor more restrictive laws. This idea refers back to the idea of assimilation. Latinos with a higher level of education may associate more with the core culture, because throughout the educational process a person adapts and assimilates to the American culture. Additionally, there is a positive association between educational achievements and generations; as generations increase, the promise of educational achievements increase (Survey Brief 2004). This association is relevant when incorporating the idea of assimilation and its effect on Latino public opinion towards immigration. Methodology This study will utilize data from the 2002 National Survey of Latinos by the Pew Hispanic Center and the Kaiser Family Foundation. The sample was designed on a highly stratified disproportionate RDD sample of the 48 contiguous states. The sample represents the actual distribution of adults throughout the United States and, in particular, the sample reflects the actual distribution among Latino adults of country of origin, age, sex, and region. This survey was conducted by telephone through a nationally representative sample of 4,213 adults18 years and olderwho were randomly selected. Out of the sample, 2,929 people identified themselves as being of Hispanic or Latin origin or descent. A majority of the self-identified Hispanics or Latinos were foreign-born, first generation, Spanish dominant peoples whose country of origin was Mexico. The sample also included 1,008 non-Hispanic whites and 171 non-Hispanic African Americans, which were deleted in my analysis. This study measured the aspects of group consciousness through nativity and generations and SES/demographics through income, education, and gender and their effect on Latino public opinion towards immigration. The multiple variables of this study require an OLS multiple regression analysis. The analysis will be focused on the effect of higher levels educational achievement on the dependent variable, Latino negative attitudes towards increased immigration, while controlling for income, gender, nativity, and generations. The model for my analysis is y = a0 + b1 (education) + b2 (income) + b3 (gender) + b4 (nativity) + b5 (generation status) +e. The regression analysis included a re-coding of the explanatory variables. Each variable was ranked with the highest number supporting my hypotheses. The dependent variable question is, Do you think there are too many, too few, or about the right amount of immigrants living in the United States today and the response options are too few (1), right amount (2), or too many (3) (2002 National Survey of Latinos). Education is addressed through the question of, What is the last grade or class that you completed in school and the response options are as follows: none or grade 1-8 (1), high school 9-11 (2), high school graduate/GED (3), business/technical/vocational school/ some college (4), college graduate (5), and post graduate training (6). The income question is, Is your total annual household income from all sources and before taxes: and the responses are less than $30K (1), $30k to less than $50K (2), and $50K+ (3). The nativity question is, were you born in the United States, the island of Puerto Rico or in another country and the response are United States (1), Puerto Rico (0), and another country (0)in this study people born in Puerto Rico are combined with those born in another country. Puerto Ricans were found to associate themselves differently from those U.S. born and more similarly to those born in another country. Generations is addressed through the survey response of first (1), second (2), third (3), or fourth (4) (2002 National Survey of Latinos). The gender is addressed through the survey response of female (1) or male (2). Results Table 1 is a cross tabulation between negative attitudes towards increased immigration and level of educational achievement. A majority of 52.2% believe that there are too many immigrants living in the U.S. today. Contrary to my hypothesis, higher percentages of people who believe there are too many immigrants in the U.S. today are people who have achieved a lower level of education. Table 1.The Relationship between Negative Attitudes towards Increased Immigration and Levels of Educational AchievementImmigrationLevel of EducationNone- Grade 1-8Grade 9-11High school grad/GEDBusiness, technical, vocational school/Some CollegeCollege graduatePost-graduate training TotalToo Few  4.5% 2412.1% 78 8.3% 65 14.3% 32 8.4% 1613.1% 8 8.2% 223Right Amount32.6% 17231.4% 20249.5% 308 44.1% 26052.9% 10159.0% 3639.6% 1079Too Many 62.9% 33256.5% 36452.2% 407 44.0% 22938.7% 7427.9% 1752.2% 1423Source: National Survey of Latinos by the Pew Hispanic Center/Kaiser Family Foundation (2002) Table 2 is a cross tabulation between negative attitudes towards increased immigration and nativity/generations. In reference to nativity there is a majority of 52.3% that believe there are too many immigrants living in the U.S. Once again, in contrast to my theory of assimilation 53.8% of people born in another country believe there are too many immigrants living in the United States compared to the 49.9% of people born in the U.S. who believe there are too many immigrants. In reference to the generation status a majority of 52.3% believe that there are too many immigrants. As predicted, 61.7% of fourth generations believe there are too many immigrants, whereas, only 53.8% of first generation believe there are too many immigrants. The nativity and generation findings in Table 2 are particularly interesting, because they contradict each other. When looking at nativity more people who were born in another country feel that there are too many immigrants; however, when looking at generation status more people who are fourth generation feel that there are too many immigrants residing in the U.S. This correlation will be further explained through the multiple regression analysis. Table 2. Relationship between Negative Attitudes towards Increased Immigration and Nativity/Generation Status ImmigrationNativityGeneration StatusBorn in another countryBorn in United States Total 1st  2nd  3rd  4th  TotalToo Few  8.7% 151 7.1% 72 8.1% 223 8.7% 151 7.0% 36  7.8% 26 5.3% 7 8.1% 220Right Amount37.5% 65043.0% 43539.5% 108537.5% 65047.1% 24141.3% 13733.1% 4439.6% 1072Too Many 53.8% 93149.9% 50552.3% 143653.8% 93145.9% 23550.9% 16961.7% 8252.3% 1417Source: National Survey by the Pew Hispanic Center/Kaiser Family Foundation (2002) The multiple regression analysis seen in Table 3 includes all the explanatory variables and their effect on negative attitudes towards increased immigration. Table 3 also includes the regression analysis excluding generations and then excluding nativity. Only three of the explanatory variables were found to be statistically significant determined through a p-value of less than 0.05. With every 1 increase in level of educational achievement there is a decrease of 0.07 in negative attitudes towards increased immigration, provided that all other variables are held constant. Gender was found to have a negative association, which statistically demonstrates that more women than men believe that there are too many immigrants in the U.S. today. With every 1 increase in gender there is a decrease of 0.16 in negative attitudes towards increased immigration, provided that all other variables are held constant. Generation status was also found to be statistically significant with a positive association with attitudes towards immigration. With every 1 increase in generation status there is an increase of 0.07 in negative attitudes towards increased immigration, provided that all other variables are held constant. Although, nativity was not found to be statistically significant the strong correlation between generation status and nativity is an interesting finding. In Table 3 the multiple regression analysis excluding generation status, demonstrates that nativity has a positive association with negative attitudes towards increased immigration. Additionally, the exclusion of generation status increases the level of significance by 0.11. The multiple regression analysis excluding nativity, finds that generation status continues to have a positive association with negative attitudes towards increased immigration. The exclusion does, however, increase the level of significance by 0.006. Generation and nativity statistically affect one another due to their highly strong correlation. Table 3.OLS Regression of Education, Income, Gender, Nativity, and Generation Status on Negative Attitudes towards Increased ImmigrationVariableUnstandardized Coefficient (Standard Error)Unstandarized Coefficient (Standard Error)Unstandardized Coefficient (Standard Error)Constant 2.800 (.058)2.874 (.049)2.829 (.052)Education-.067* (.010)-.068* (.010)-.069* (.010)Income-.008 (.006)-.007 (.006)-.008 (.006)Gender .159* (.025) .162* (.025) .158* (.025)Nativity-.067 (.054) .044 (.027) N/AGeneration Status .066* (.029) N/A .036* (.015)R square  .034 .034 .034N 258625522552F 18.01322.72022.136Note: *p<0.05, Standard Error in parenthesis, Models accounting for correlation between nativity and generation status.  Source: National Survey by the Pew Hispanic Center/Kaiser Family Foundation (2002) Conclusion The three variables, which were found to be statistically significant, produce different theoretical analyses. Both gender and education were found to have a negative association with more reservations towards immigration. Contrary to the theoretical prediction, females were more likely to have more reservations towards immigration. This is interesting, considering that, generally, females support more lenient policy (Erikson and Tedin 1995). This may have resulted because women are more likely to fear the threat of a lenient border security which is in direct relation to immigration. Education was the focus of this study and contrary to the theoretical prediction; people who had achieved higher levels of education were less likely to have reservations towards immigration. These results do not support the idea that education is a part of assimilation. This may be the result of the social learning hypothesis discussed earlier (Delli Carpini and Keeter 1996). This position argues higher forms of educational achievement produce more tolerant attitudes. However, the results of the effect of generation status on reservations towards immigration do support the idea of assimilation. In support of the theoretical prediction, people with a higher generation status were more likely to have reservations towards immigration. As argued in assimilation theory, the more generations a person has lived in the United States, the more that person has assimilated towards the core culture and away from their ancestral culture. The disassociation from the ancestral culture was found to result in more reservations towards immigration. This study demonstrates findings that support and oppose the present theoretical arguments; consequently, there is a need for more research studies. Education may have had a different effect on reservations towards immigration among Latinos if a different measurement was used. For example, a measurement of education could be a question pertaining to knowledge on current issues in U.S. politics. In further studies, there is a necessity to account for the strong correlation between nativity and generation status. This correlation has a definite effect on the outcome of the analysis. Furthermore, my results indicate an important relationship between gender and Latino public opinion towards immigration. In my study, gender was not a focal point; however, I would argue that studies in the future should further analyze the effect of gender. The causal relationship found between generation status and negative attitudes towards increased immigration are very helpful to the idea of assimilation. Assimilation is a process, which has been proven to affect all immigrants. This study is lacking a critique of the current literature pertaining to Latino public opinion towards immigration. However, this study does provide support for the argument that assimilation affects public opinion and that more specifically generation status affects Latino assimilation and Latino public opinion towards immigration. As the Latino population continues to increase, the Latino public opinion becomes ever more important. Therefore, implying that Latino public opinion towards immigration will affect immigration policy. Work Cited A Look at Major Immigration Proposals. 2006. The Associated Press at the CNN web site:  HYPERLINK "http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/27/immigration.glance.ap/index.html" http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/27/immigration.glance.ap/index.html March 28, 2006. Alba, Richard and Victor Nee. 1997. Rethinking Assimilation Theory for a New Era of Immigration. Center for Migration Studies for New York 31(4): 826-874. Alvarez, Michael R. and Butterfield, Tara L. 2000. The Resurgence of Nativism in California? The Case of Proposition 187 and Illegal Immigration. Social Science Quarterly 81(1): 167-179. Barkan, Elliott R. 2003. Return of the Nativists? California Public Opinion and Immigration in the 1980s and 1990s. Social Science History 27(2): 229-283. Educational Attainment of the Population 25 Years and Over by Sex, Hispanic Origin, and Race. 1994. U.S. Census Bureau. 3.1. Educational Attainment of the Population 25 Years and Over by Sex, Hispanic Origin, and Race. 2004. U.S. Census Bureau. 6.1. Erikson, Robert S. and Kent L. Tedin. 1994. American Public Opinion. Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon. Farley, Reynolds and Lisa J. Neidert. 1985. Assimilation in the United States: An Analysis of Ethnic and Generation Differences in Status and Achievement. American Sociological Review 50(6): 840-850. Garcia, Chris and Carole Jean Uhlaner. 2002. Latino Public Opinion. In Understanding Public Opinion, Barbara Norrander and Clyde Wilcox, Ed. Washington, D.C.: A Division of Congressional Quarterly Inc. Hood III, M.V, Irwin L. Morris, and Kurt A. Shirkey. 1997. Quedate o Vente: Uncovering the Determinants of Hispanic Public Opinion toward Immigration. Political Research Quarterly 50(3): 627-647. National Survey of Latinos. 2002. Pew Hispanic Center and Kaiser Family Foundation. National Survey on Latinos in America. 2000. The Washington Post/Kaiser Family Foundation/Harvard University Survey Project. Newton, Lina Y. 2000. Why some Latinos Supported Proposition 187: Testing Economic Threat and Cultural Identity Hypotheses. Social Science Quarterly 81(1): 180-193. Norrander, Barbara and Clyde Wilcox, ed. Understanding Public Opinion. 2nd ed. Washington, D.C.: a Division of Congressional Quarterly Inc., 2002. Sanchez, Gabriel R. 2006a. The Role of Group Consciousness in Latino Public Opinion. Paper Prepared for Submission to Political Research Quarterly. Suro, Roberto. 2005. Attitudes toward Immigrants and Immigration Policy: Surveys among Latinos in the U.S. and in Mexico. Pew Hispanic Center. Survey Brief. 2004. Pew Hispanic Center and Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Trejo, Stephen J. 2003. Intergenerational Progress of Mexican-Origin Workers in the U.S. Labor Market. The Journal of Human Resources 38(3): 467-489.     PAGE  PAGE 1 JMRSfghq A W ] Q"#STU\2[]arʾ}yuquh|?h5vZhqohhU<hIhrhm hZhZh]]h9h hIh5h1ohu5 hBo5 hBo\h~hBo\hOhBoh65hBo5hS& hhS& \ h-5\hhS& 5\ hS& 5\ hS& 5+     JKLMNOPQR$a$gdS& $a$gdBol@lRSefgqr 0B!k!#(++dgd@ d`gds* z dgds*dgdg)dgd* $da$gdu hd^hgdBo$a$gdBo$a$gdS& :JSdn.9FKXghrt~")Rm:;<$,6hPRbhv]hrhIh`h|?hg)hwQ hg)6h-rhg)6hHQh1hBhhhDhoh%hhShCh@h hfhUdhkh5vZh14U8 /012_wVZ[\ix4La𴰴𬨬𴜴h1:h]h(h ghgdhgh[hhNh2h :hinhpRhevhsU}hA?hphCh!hJ hmha0h$hr[hg)hv]hvh; M8"MN|}~} A!B!\!i!j!k!q!!!!;"?"k"n"~""""!#*#2#3#;#O###%%"%?%%%켷Ѧ hXuhXuhhs;hChmhZh`[hs*hrhyR hs*6 h86 hU6hbhl(hwh%hsNhlhh, hlhhlhh8h3hDhg)hA?h1:h.4%"&&&)&3&&&'(((;(D(q(x((((() ++++s++++++,#,,,H-------.,.-.3.\.].f.j..////L0a0y00hah4Jh hM1[h(Ph(h)h}-h$*hIh)ehqh6(hch4mhZh%h14UhA?hh@h}yVhrUh`[hs*hChsNhXu8++-00004U7|==? ?? $Ifgd`[$d`a$gd d`gd,$d`a$gd`[ d`gd[ 000000000y192:22222X3Y3333404F4444444444445%5B5L5X5c5i5555555666h-5h?IhRWhb2hGxhChXh]hm h`[h'm hSq#h#qh*P`hm hDDh8h3!h)dhW:h:?h5HhUhU5 hfc5hHQhD hhh[hah14U26&6/6=6>6F6r6{666666666666666777777*7+7,7:7;7<7S7T7U77778888888889 9 99999999 :: :#:$:@:hI.h WhB*hV49h:Sh!khY_hS5hs(h,hgQhyhyH*hyhyh H*h,)h hPheeqh-5h?IhFO_@@:C:D:e:f:::::::;;;;;;;;;<<t<}<<<<<<<<<<<<<==*=+===J=U=b=k=l=x={=|==========? ??ĸ h`[h`[hb>hMhg"hh5h5h_ h1h,h=h!EhRyh&h h:h%hV49h7hihT(hY_hB*hI.<???,?5?=?>?F?P?Q?f?g?t???????L@Q@W@\@c@n@p@u@|@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ AAA"A#A$A%A/A3A9A?ADAJAOAUA\A]AeAʼʼʸh>2h wh=h@hb6Vhb>5OJQJ^Jhb>hfACJaJhb>CJaJh CJaJh1hb>CJaJh`[h`[h`[CJaJB???| $$Ifa$gd~wkd$$Ifl#H$  t 0H$644 lap ????s $$Ifa$gd~ $Ifgd~wkdv$$Ifl#H$  t 0H$644 lap ?????? @@2@3@4@5@;@{{{{{{{{{{{ $Ifgd~zkd$$Ifl0#6 t0H$644 la ;@<@kdY$$Iflִ R #6DD t0H$6    44 la<@D@E@L@Q@W@\@c@h@p@u@|@@@@@@ $Ifgd~@@kd $$Iflִ R #6DD t0H$6    44 la@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ $Ifgd~@@kd$$Iflִ R #6DD t0H$6    44 la@AA AAAA%A+A3A9A?ADAJAOAUA\A $Ifgd~\A]Akd$$Iflִ R #6DD t0H$6    44 laeAAAAAAAAAAAAAB B,B-BQBbBcBhBCC!D4D]DDDDD E[E_EF"FgFhFiFrFsFtFFFFFFFFļĸ谬h"-hw aCJaJhw ahw aCJaJh)hw aCJaJ h`[h`[h`[hPhhSh@h h27_h/hCh}#hhXhd]h+:hNghg"hHQhRhb>hF h</]AAAAhFiFsFtFFFnbb $$Ifa$gd~wkdu$$Ifl,""  t 0644 lap $Ifgd`[ d`gd`gd< FFFFGss $$Ifa$gd~ $Ifgd~wkd$$Ifl,""  t 0644 lap FFFFFG?GAGGGIGOGQGWGYGuG{GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGH HHHH#H)H/H4H:HAHRHXH^HdHjHqHwH}HHHHHHHHHHHHHHIIIIhh hnh(hh|7hhhPH*hPh)hP5OJQJ^JNGGGG2G3G4G5G;GGCGqhhhhhhhhhhh $Ifgd~kdo$$IflF,"8 N t06    44 la CGDGEGFGKGLGMGNGSGTGUGVG[G\G]G^GdGeGmGnGuG{GGGGGGGGFf $Ifgd~GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGH HHHH#H)H/H4H:HAHBHKHFf Ff $Ifgd~KHLHRHXH^HdHjHqHwH}HHHHHHHHHHIIIMPPPP d`gd[gd(Ff $Ifgd~II3IJIeIkIoIxIIIIIIIJhJjJrJuJJJJJJJJJJJJJ!K'K;KCKDKEK\KhKtKKKKKKL)L5L>L?LGLQL]LpLvLLLLLLLܼ𸴸̴Ĩh;7hmGh],h(hhXhh WhNh hKh7th h>h> h%h%h%h|1hNTKh hh 5hh hh 5 hHQ5 hq=5 h 5h h%h heh6 h'8h6 CJOJQJ^JaJ.SSS4T5T6T7T8T9T:T;Tl?l@lAlgdh]hgdq &`#$gdP , 001h:pP/ =!"#$%t$$If!vh5H$#vH$:Vl  t H$65H$/ p t$$If!vh5H$#vH$:Vl  t H$65H$/ p k$$If!vh565#v6#v:Vl tH$6565/ $$If!vh565D5D55555#v6#vD#v#v#v#v:Vl tH$6565D5555$$If!vh565D5D55555#v6#vD#v#v#v#v:Vl tH$6565D5555$$If!vh565D5D55555#v6#vD#v#v#v#v:Vl tH$6565D5555$$If!vh565D5D55555#v6#vD#v#v#v#v:Vl tH$6565D5555t$$If!vh5"#v":Vl  t 65"/ p $$If!vh5"#v":Vl  t 65"/  / p $$If!vh585 5N#v8#v #vN:Vl t6585 5N/ $$If!v h585555D555z5 #v8#v#v#v#vD#v#v#vz#v :Vl t6585555D555z5 kd$$Ifl  ".,"8Dz t06$$$$44 la$$If!v h585555D555z5 #v8#v#v#v#vD#v#v#vz#v :Vl t6585555D555z5 kd$$Ifl  ".,"8Dz t06$$$$44 la$$If!v h585555D555z5 #v8#v#v#v#vD#v#v#vz#v :Vl t6585555D555z5 kd $$Ifl  ".,"8Dz t06$$$$44 la$$If!v h585555D555z5 #v8#v#v#v#vD#v#v#vz#v :Vl t6585555D555z5 kd$$Ifl  ".,"8Dz t06$$$$44 lac$$If!vh5\#v\:VlL t\5\/ p u$$If!vh5\#v\:VlL  t \5\/ p $$If!vh555p5p#v#v#vp:VlL t\555p/  / / / x$$If!vh555p5p#v#v#vp:Vl t\555px$$If!vh555p5p#v#v#vp:Vl t\555px$$If!vh555p5p#v#v#vp:Vl t\555px$$If!vh555p5p#v#v#vp:Vl t\555p$$If!vh555p5p#v#v#vp:Vl t\555p/ $$If!vh555p5p#v#v#vp:Vl t\555p/ $$If!vh555p5p#v#v#vp:Vl t\555p/ $$If!vh555p5p#v#v#vp:Vl t\555p/ $$If!vh555p5p#v#v#vp:Vl t\555p/ `$$If!vh5|#v|:Vl t\5|/ / DyK Hhttp://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/27/immigration.glance.ap/index.htmlyK http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/27/immigration.glance.ap/index.html@@@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DA@D Default Paragraph FontVi@V  Table Normal :V 44 la (k(No List 4 @4 qFooter  !.)@. q Page Numberj@j b> Table Grid7:V06U@!6 LT@ Hyperlink >*B*phAd JKLMNOPQRSefgqr 0Bk +#%((((,U/|557 777777777777 8828384858;8<8D8E8L8Q8W8\8c8h8p8u8|8888888888888888888888899 9999%9+93999?9D9J9O9U9\9]9999h>i>s>t>>>>>>????2?3?4?5?;??C?D?E?F?K?L?M?N?S?T?U?V?[?\?]?^?d?e?m?n?u?{??????????????????????@ @@@@#@)@/@4@:@A@B@K@L@R@X@^@d@j@q@w@}@@@@@@@@@@AAAEHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHjIkItIIIIIIIIJJJJJJ"J)J*J4J;JBJIJPJWJ^J_JfJlJsJyJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJK KKKKK&K'K-K3K9K:KdBd000000000000000000000000000000x0x0x00000000x0x0x0x0x0x0x00x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0(0x0x0x0x0x0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 00x0x00@0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 00x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x00x0x00x0x0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 0 00 00 00 00 0 0 00 00 00 0 0 00 00 00 0 0 00 00 00 0 0 00 00 0 0 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 00x00x0x0x0x0x0x0x0@0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x000X0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x00x0x0x00x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x000`0x0x0x0x0x0x00x0xy@00pEy@00y@00@0@00eD $$$'%06@:?eAFILPGRSXaAhAl7;<=>@ABCNQVWX]fhjlR++???;@<@@@@@\A]AFGCGGKHPjQQ)R^RRRRS9SLSeSStX#e lAl8:?DEFGHIJKLMOPRSTUYZ[\^_`abcdegikm@l9tYYZAdX  '!!8@0(  B S  ?w` pa  #b  oc +#d Du{e ,3rf u{g l #h 2ri l3rj v{k v{l gsm hsn \hso hsp hsq tw{r w{s w{t 4x{u tx{v x{w jx ,ky lkz k{ k| ,l} ll~     ,  l      ,  Lp  p  p   q  Lq  q  q   r  Lr  r  r   s  Ls  s  s   t  Lt  t  t   u  Lu  u  %  %   &  L&  &  &   '  L'  '  '   (  (  (   )  L)  )  )   *  L*  *  *   +  L+  gy ,hy lhy hy hy ,iy liy iy iy ,jy ljy jy jy ,ky lky ky ky ,ly lly ly ly ,my lmy my my ,ny lny 6r 6r ,7r l7r 7r 7r ,8r l8r 8r 8r--99ccDHHHHJJ00aaC)C)G)P)(*(*?,?,q0q0a4a4N6N666::3;3;m;m; > >$?$?CCQQ5T5TZZZ[[[[\\ ] ]i]i]]]^^^^````b`b`v`v``````aaaaccccccc%cDcDcHcQcccBd      #!"$'%&()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTVUWZXY[\]^_a`bcdegfhijklomnpsqrtuv  ::==ppQLLLLNN==nnF)O)V)V)5*5*E,E,~0~0e4e4R6R666::@;@;q;q;>>1?1?CCQQ9T9T#ZZZ [ [[[\\ ] ]v]v]]]^^^^``#`#`i`i````````aaaaccccc$c+c+cGcPcWcWcccBd  "#!$&'%()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTVUWYZX[\]^_a`bcdegfhijklnomprsqtuvBv*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region82*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsdate90*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsState8!*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity=r*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType=t*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceName9w*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace 2006283DayMonthYearwvwttrwvwvwvwvwvwvwwvwvwvwvwvwvwvwttrwttrwvwvwvwvwvwvwvwvwvwvwvwvwvwv2w0w0w0wvwvw0wvww!0wttrwvw0wtrw!ww!0wvwvwttrwttrwvdddddd d!d#d$d&d'd?dBddf+-?A35?A:<!#[ ] z | F H ~ R T pr9; []qs=?y{')eg !!""##1$3$$$w%y%[&]&&&&&''_(a(w)y)))**E+G+++E,G,----..//00D2F2224444)5+556X6Z6,:.:::;;<<<<==>>p>r>AABBBBCCECCCDDEE`FbFGGtGvG&H(HpHrHKKLL$M&MMMNNNNUOWOOOPPPPQQFRHRISKSSSBTDTTTUUyU{UVVVV_WaW:Xt>>t?u??????????????????? @ @@@"@#@.@/@9@:@Q@R@]@^@i@j@v@w@@@@@@@@@@HHkIIIIIII%K'K;K=KNKPKfKQ&!]&E(T(s(),$),)g)B*U* E+F+*Y+,&,,}- .;.A0j02>2b2KT355-5d]5677;7P7g7cw7|7V49C:1:W:Nd;=T<U<O(=b>x>A? S?@@LT@RABNB:BDNFTsG5HAH"JKI#KNTKL>QL; MNNjfPrP{ QQHQtQRpR:SmSzyS (T6T14UrUV7VjAVOV}yVwFWX#YZOoZ5vZM1[&I[r[]]d] ^p^f^k^27_FO_*P`w a&bLbPRb/cfc@ dUd%dgdce:f gXgh[hlhjWidinlmnbn]q=Ur=&N(*r:?L??fYI>m 1Z %4mJ )9; I`PG]IMP Wk8pBLr :RyKv]1&cPVXIA~@-iq= w m{HN 777777777777 8828;8<8E8Q8\8h8u88888888888888999+999D9O9\9]9i>s>t>>>>>????2?;?C?K?S?[?d?e?n?{????????????@@@)@4@A@B@L@X@d@q@}@@@@@@HHHjIkItIIIIIJJJ)J*J4JBJPJ^J_JfJsJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ KKKK'K-K3K9K:K=KBKGKLKMKPKWK^KeKfKKKBd@QQpQQAd@@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial"1he&Ӳ&e&}+U3+U3$4dcc2QHX ?1-Theoretical Explanation and Literature ReviewHP Authorized CustomerE339AVOh+'00 @L h t  .Theoretical Explanation and Literature Review 1heoHP Authorized Customer P AP A Normal.doteE339AVd239Microsoft Word 10.0@.Yv@j*O@O@lrY+U՜.+,D՜.+,\ hp   homei3cO .Theoretical Explanation and Literature Review Title,H   _PID_HLINKS_AdHocReviewCycleID_EmailSubject _AuthorEmail_AuthorEmailDisplayName_ReviewingToolsShownOnceAgHhttp://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/27/immigration.glance.ap/index.htmlW Latino Politics Contestkmeier@politics.tamu.eduite Ken Meieriten   !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnpqrstuvwxyz{}~Root Entry FG~YData o1Table|fWordDocument.SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjj  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q