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

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

Redefining America: Findings from the 2006 Latino National Survey Luis R. Fraga Stanford University University of Washington John A. Garcia University of Arizona Rodney E. Hero University of Notre Dame Michael Jones-Correa Cornell University Valerie Martinez-Ebers Texas Christian University Gary M. Segura University of Washington Sources of Funding Annie E. Casey Foundation Carnegie Corporation Ford Foundation Hewlett Foundation Irvine Foundation Joyce Foundation Kellogg Foundation National Science Foundation Russell Sage Foundation Texas A&M University: MALRC, PERG Latino National Survey A national telephone survey of 8600 Latino residents of the United States, seeking a broad understanding of the qualitative nature of Latino political and social life in America State-stratified samples that reach approximately 90% coverage of the national Latino population Approximately 40 minutes (length and number of questions depends on split-samples, etc)

English and Spanish Universe is all Latino adults, not citizens or voters Themes within the Survey Survey includesmany of the questions or topics you have grown to love from existing surveys, whenever possible to ensure comparability; Questions submitted by various political scientists specifically targeted at states; Questions suggested by the advisory board Beyond the standard, we focused on transnationalism, identity, inter-group and intra-group relations, gender, education, policy preferences, discrimination, mobilization and overall political orientations Some questions specific to foreign born, non-citizens, registered voters, and residents of specific states Stratified Structure The survey is stratified, that is, creates stand-alone samples in 15 states and the DC Metro area allowing us to speak to specific political contexts Arizona Arkansas

California Colorado DC-SMSA Florida Georgia Illinois Iowa Nevada New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina Texas Washington TOTAL 400 400 1200 400 400 800 400 600 400 400 400 400 800 400 800 400 8600 California Sub-samples Bay Area: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, Sonoma Los Angeles Metro: Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura San Diego: San Diego Central Valley: Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Tulare Inland Empire: Riverside (western), San Bernardino (southwestern)

Other California: Sacramento, rest of state Percent Hispanic of U.S. Population, 1960-2030 25 22.5 19.3 20 Percent 16.4 15 13.2 9.7 10 6.9 5 0 3.6 1960 4.8 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Source: Chapter 2. Multiple Origins, Uncertain Destinies. Adapted from Figure 2-2. 2030 Hispanic Births and Net Immigration by Decade: 1960-2030 14 13.4 12 11.2 Millions

10 8 7 2 0 7.6 7.3 8.1 5.5 6 4 8.1 9.2 3.2 3 2.6 4.4 1.3 1960-70 1970-80 1980-90 Births 19902000 2000-10 2010-20 2020-30 Immigration Source: Chapter 2. Multiple Origins, Uncertain Destinies. Adapted from Figure 2-1. Population Growth in the U.S., 2000-2100 80 71.4 Percent of Total Population 70 67.3 63.8 60.1

60 56.3 52.8 45.6 50 40.3 40 29.5 30 20 10 0 11.8 12.2 3.9 2000 14.6 12.5 4.8 2010 19.4 17 12.8 13 21.9 13.1 5.7 6.7 7.8 2020 2030 2040 33.3 Asian 24.3 13.2 8.9

2050 Source: Population Projections Division, U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2002 13.2 11 2075 White Latino Af-Am 13 12.6 2100 Percent of Total Population 60 California Population Distribution, 1990-2050 57 56 54 50 53 54 51.5 47 40 47 39 30 26 27 28 29 30 33 50 43

34 White 29 Latino 26 20 10 0 23 Af Am Asian 9 10 10 11 11 7 7 7 7 7 11 7 12 13 13 13 12 7 7 7

7 1.9 2 2 2 2 6 2 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Source: Population Projections, Department of Finance, State of California, 2004 Multirace ! 60 California Population Distribution 1990-2050 57 56 54 50 53 51.5 54 50 47 46 40 39 30 26 27 28 29

43 34 Latino 29 26 20 10 California White 33 30 Af Am 23 Asian 9 7 10 11 11 11 12 13 10 13 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

2 2 2 0 13 12 7 7 2 2 6 2 Multirace 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 80 Population Growth in U.S., 2000-2100 71.4 70 67.3 63.8 60.1 60 United States Percent of Total Population Percent of T otal Population Population Growth Chart Comparisons 56.3 52.8 45.6 50

40.3 40 29.5 30 20 10 0 11.8 12.2 14.6 12.5 19.4 17 3.9 4.8 2000 2010 2020 13.2 6.7 7.8 8.9 2030 2040 2050 13.2 Latino Af-Am Asian 24.3 13.1 13 12.8

5.7 21.9 33.3 White 13 11 12.6 2075 2100 Latino Diversity 44 million Latinos in the US Census Bureau (American Community Survey, Released August 2006) Mexican Puerto Rican Cuban Salvadoran Dominican Guatemalan Colombian ALL OTHERS 63.9% 9% 3.5% 2.9% 2.7% 1.7% 1.8% 14.3% Native-born (not Island-born): 35.4% Foreign-born 61% Island-born PR 3.6% No high school diploma 43% College graduate 11.1% Latino National Survey (unweighted N) Summer 2006 *Mexican *Puerto Rican *Cuban *Salvadoran *Dominican *Guatemalan *Colombian *All Others

66.1% (5704) 9.5% (822) 4.9% (420) 4.7% (407) 3.9% (335) 1.7% (149) 1.6% (139) 7.6% *Native-born 28.4% (2450) *Foreign-born (adults) 66.2% (5717) *Island-born PR 5.4% (467) *No high school diploma 37% *College graduate 16.2% Country of Origin Nation California Bay LA Area Mexico San Diego Central Valley Inland Other Empire 68.6 84.4 78.7 76.1 95.3 97.4 93.2 95.8 El Salvador 4.3 8.2 9.6 14.5 0.0 0.7

0.9 0.7 Guatemala 2.0 2.2 2.2 3.2 1.2 0.7 1.7 0.7 24.2 5.2 9.5 6.2 3.5 1.2 4.2 2.8 Other Nativity Nation California Bay LA Area Born U.S. San Central Diego Valley Inland Other Empire 28.6 30.9

39.7 26.4 25.9 34.4 43.2 29.6 Born Outside U.S. 66.7 68.5 60.3 73.4 72.9 65.6 54.2 69.0 Naturalized 30.1 35.0 40.2 36.2 30.6 25.3 46.9 30.6 Generational Status California Bay Area LA San Diego Central Valley

Inland Other Empire Gen 1 69.2 60.7 73.6 74.1 65.6 57.3 70.4 Gen 2 12.8 14.8 12.1 11.8 11.9 18.8 10.6 Gen 3 9.3 15.5 8.0 4.7 11.9 10.3 7.8 Gen 4+ 8.7 8.9 6.3

9.4 10.6 13.7 11.3 Assimilation, Values, and Identity Language Preference Nation California Bay LA Area San Central Diego Valley Inland Other Empire English 38.1 39.8 52.9 32.0 32.9 37.8 59.3 43.0 Spanish 61.8 60.2 47.1 68.0 67.1 62.3 40.7 57.0

Language chosen to complete the survey Importance of Learning English Nation California Bay LA San Area Diego Valley Empire Central Inland Other 94.0 91.5 95.1 Very Important 91.9 94.7 91.2 94.6 92.9 Somewhat Important 6.7 5.1 7.4 4.2 4.7 6.0 6.8 4.2 Not Very Important 0.9 1.0 0.7

1.1 2.4 0.0 1.7 0.7 Not At All Important 0.4 0.2 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Question: How important do you think it is that everyone in the United States Learn English? Importance of Retaining Spanish Nation California Very Important Bay Area LA San Central Inland Other Diego Valley Empire 84.9 84.1 79.4 85.5 82.4 86.1 83.1

82.4 Somewhat Important 11.9 13.3 17.7 11.7 16.5 12.6 13.6 14.1 Not Very Important 1.9 1.7 0.7 1.1 1.2 1.3 3.4 0.7 Not At All Important 1.1 1.0 2.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 Question: How important do you think it is for you and your family to maintain the ability to speak Spanish?

Language Proficiency across Generations 1st Gen 2nd Gen 3rd Gen 4th Gen Answered in English 19.2 73.7 90.4 91.3 Answered in Spanish, Speak English 19.1 19.5 8.2 7.7 Total Share with English Proficiency 38.3 93.2 98.6 99.0 Retain Spanish Proficiency 99.2 91.6 68.7 60.5

Strong English dominance and nearly universal English proficiency among the first-generation of US born; Generally strong Spanish retention, aided by refreshed populations of Spanish-speakers. Importance of Learning English/ Retaining Spanish across Generations 1st Gen 2nd Gen 3rd Gen 4th Gen How important do you think it is that everyone in the United States learn English? Somewhat 5.2 8.6 11.8 11.6 Very 94.1 89.3 86.1 84.0 How important do you think it is for you or your family to maintain the ability to speak Spanish? Somewhat 9.7 13.7 17.9 22.2 Very 88.6 84.4 73.0

66.7 Sense of American and Home-Country Identity Across Generations 1st CA 2nd CA 3rd CA 4th CA How strongly do you think of yourself as American? Somewhat Strongly Very Strongly 28.7 27.0 25.1 21.4 15.2 24.3 16.3 8.8 24.5 25.9 56.9 62.0 78.5 48.7 76.4 87.8 How strongly do you think of yourself as (Mexican, Cuban, etc)? Somewhat Strongly 19.6 21.2 22.2 19.6 26.1 28.7 34.3 34.3 Very Strongly 67.6 67.7 64.3 60.5

45.1 53.9 40.5 49.2 A Multiplicity of Identities Simultaneous strong sense of pan-ethnic identity, national origin identity, and Americanness Puerto Ricans illustrate best that identities are not mutually exclusive Cuban pan-ethnicity surprisingly high Mexican sense of American-ness high considering the share foreign born National PanAmerican Origin Ethnic Mexican 61.7 84.0 87.4 Cuban 77.8 82.1 81.6 Puerto Rican 83.7 90.7 89.3 All 65.0 84.0 87.2

Cells are percent expressing somewhat or very strongly Levels of Pan Ethnicity and Connectedness Of Ones Subgroup to Other Latinos One-half of LNS Latinos perceive a lot of commonalities with ones group and other Latinos Stronger pan-ethnic identifiers are more inclined to see this connection. Over three- fourths of the combined stronger panethic identifiers see their own national origin group as having a similar fate with other Latinos Selected Markers of Societal Assimilation 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Roman Catholics 73.8 69.7 66.8 58.1 Social Capital (Group Participation) 14.1 25.0 29.4 33.4 Military Service, Self or Family 16.1 48.9

68.6 72.3 Education < High School 49.7 22.9 17.6 16.2 Household income <$35k 53.4 34.9 29.2 33.4 Percent Marrying nonLatinos 13.3 32.2 42.6 53.3 Attention to US and Home Country Politics and Public Affairs 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 79.2 81.3 Attention to/Interest in US politics Somewhat or Very Interested 60.0 73.9 Attention to/Interest in Home-Country politics

Little or No Attention Paid 57.5 61.0 72.8 72.8 Attention to US politics is strong, even among the foreign born, and approaches (and in some cases surpasses) levels for all other groups, among Latinos born in the US. While about 57% of foreign born respondents agree that they should be able to vote in home country elections, only about 4% have ever done so, and about 58% report paying little or no attention to politics back home. Preferences for Cultural Assimilation and Distinctness 1st CA 2nd CA 3rd CA 4th CA Importance of Changing to Blend into Larger Society Somewhat 26.2 24.3 Very 61.4 63.7 33.3 21.7 44.6 58.3 34.7 31.1 37.5 36.0 40.6 51.5 35.7 36.8 Importance of Maintaining Distinct Culture

Somewhat 16.2 15.0 18.3 14.9 20.3 21.8 26.1 29.3 Very 78.6 79.9 75.8 69.1 72.9 72.9 66.7 60.6 Support for blending into the larger culture and for maintaining a distinct culture are positively related (r=.1415): Not seen as an either/or proposition Civic and Political Participation Patterns of Civic Engagement California Bay Area Group Participation LA San Central Diego Valley Inland Other Empire 20.4 23.5 18.9 18.8 17.9 22.9 25.4

Organizational Problem Solving 28.7 28.7 28.9 25.9 27.8 33.1 27.5 Informal Problem Solving 29.4 33.4 32.9 34.4 28.8 35.9 32.9 Interest in Politics Nation California Bay LA San Central Area Diego Valley Empire Inland Other Very Interested 18.9 19.4 15.4 22.2 23.5 16.6 17.8

14.1 Somewhat Interested 46.1 47.9 50.7 45.1 44.7 48.3 51.7 54.9 Not Interested 30.4 27.6 28.7 28.3 29.4 28.5 22.9 25.4 4.1 4.4 5.2 5.3 6.8 5.6 Not Sure/ Dont Know 3.5 2.3 Question: How interested are you in politics and public affairs? Would you say you are very interested, somewhat interested, or not at all interested?

Voter Registration Nation California Bay Area LA San Central Inland Other Diego Valley Empire Registered 77.4 79.5 75.9 81.6 73.8 77.9 81.0 78.4 Not Registered 21.4 19.5 23.0 18.1 21.4 22.1 17.9 18.9 This question was only asked of citizens. Electoral Participation, 2004 California Bay Area LA San

Central Diego Valley Inland Other Empire Contacted 36.7 48.3 33.9 33.3 39.0 36.9 33.8 Voted 62.3 60.9 67.4 54.8 61.0 53.6 58.1 Latinos and Partisanship Patterns of Partisanship Overall U.S. Born CA Born Outside U.S. CA Democrat 42.1 55.9

50.6 33.9 37.0 Republican 21.5 26.0 22.8 18.8 10.5 Independent 8.1 5.6 7.1 10.0 9.0 Dont Care 12.7 4.8 6.8 17.4 20.1 Dont Know 15.6 8.6 12.1 20.0 23.2 Partisanship Among Citizens U.S. CA

55.9 50.6 43.9 47.3 Republican 26.0 22.8 24.9 17.1 Independent 5.6 7.1 8.6 9.3 6.1 Dont Care 14.5 4.8 6.7 9.2 7.8 3.9 Dont Know 21.4 8.6 12.1 13.4 18.3 Democrat Naturalized CA Reg CA Not Reg

CA 55.9 56.9 33.6 28.6 26.1 18.3 22.3 27.4 8.5 8.2 7.9 4.3 15.4 8.1 11.8 20.6 Patterns of Partisanship, California Nation California Bay LA San Area Diego Valley Empire Central Inland Other Strong Democrat 17.6 33.1 23.1 39.3 27.7 27.3 36.1 23.9 Democrat

16.3 25.7 34.1 25.8 21.3 20.5 24.1 26.1 Leans Democrat 10.4 8.5 8.8 8.6 6.4 8.0 2.4 15.2 Independent 38.5 12.4 13.2 11.0 14.9 17.1 10.8 13.0 Leans Republican 6.8 4.4 4.4 3.0

4.3 9.1 6.0 4.4 Republican 5.9 9.8 8.8 6.2 12.8 11.4 13.3 14.1 Strong Republican 4.5 6.6 7.7 6.2 12.8 6.8 7.2 3.3 Partisanship and Gender Male Female Democrat 41.2 40.7 Republican 23.7 18.7

Independent 9.3 7.6 Dont Care 11.7 14.6 Dont Know 14.1 18.4 Citizenship and Issue Positions: Problem Facing the Country Citizen CA Non-citizen CA Iraq War 30.0 30.3 33.2 28.3 Economy 14.7 15.2 12.4 17.6 Illegal Immigration 8.4 8.3 14.8 13.4

Education/ Schools 4.2 5.1 4.7 1.2 12.4 11.3 6.6 6.8 Other What do you think is THE one most important problem facing the country today? Partisanship and Issue Positions: Problem Facing the Country Democrat CA Republican CA Independent CA Iraq War 33.8 33.2 25.1 29.4 25.8 28.4 Economy 15.0 17.1 14.6 15.0 14.5 17.9

Illegal Immigration 6.9 7.5 9.0 8.8 10.6 14.1 Education/ Schools 5.4 4.3 4.5 2.4 5.0 3.7 11.7 10.4 17.3 12.6 16.1 4.6 Other What do you think is THE one most important problem facing the country today? Partisanship and Issue Positions: Preferred Party to Address Problem Facing Country Dems CA Reps CA Democrat 39.4 49.3

Republican 14.6 7.4 Independent 12.1 22.7 6.8 Dont Care 6.2 10.1 Dont Know 6.1 6.0 7.4 Neither CA Dont CA Know 6.8 43.1 32.4 10.1 11.2 26.2 33.1 46.3 50.6 13.0 8.7 8.2 63.8 51.2 17.2

17.8 3.9 5.0 54.2 37.5 35.7 47.2 4.8 6.6 48.5 43.0 40.6 44.2 Which political party do you think has a better approach to address this problem? Citizenship and Issue Positions: Problem Facing Latinos Citizen CA Non-citizen CA Illegal Immigration 25.0 25.4 35.1 30.7 Education/ Schools 13.9 16.7 3.6

4.6 Unemp/Jobs 11.7 10.9 12.6 11.2 1.5 2.0 1.6 2.8 13.6 13.5 9.2 8.4 Iraq War Other What do you think is THE one most important problem facing the Latino community today? Partisanship and Issue Positions: Problem Facing Latinos Democrat CA Republican CA Independent CA Illegal Immigration 24.7 24.8 23.7 26.0 27.5 32.2 Education/ Schools

18.2 16.1 15.3 15.8 11.3 10.0 Unemp/Jobs 12.4 12.3 11.0 6.8 9.7 11.7 1.8 1.7 0.9 3.0 1.9 4.2 13.8 10.5 16.4 23.3 14.4 8.7 Iraq War Other What do you think is THE one most important problem facing the Latino community today? Partisanship and Issue Positions: Preferred Party to Address Problem Facing Latinos

Dems CA Reps CA Neither CA Dont CA Know Democrat 44.8 51.2 6.7 6.6 37.1 32.0 11.4 10.0 Republican 19.3 13.1 21.0 24.8 42.1 49.3 17.6 12.6 Independent 14.4 18.6 7.8 7.0 55.7 56.2 22.0 18.0 Dont Care

12.1 10.2 6.2 4.2 48.2 41.0 33.5 44.4 6.2 8.8 40.5 34.3 45.6 49.6 Dont Know 7.7 7.1 Which political party do you think has a better approach to address this problem? IMMIGRATION POLICY Preferred Immigration Policy by Generation 60 Percent within Generation 50 Preferred Immigration Policy First 40 Preferred Immigration Policy Second Preferred Immigration Policy Third 30 Preferred Immigration Policy Fourth Preferred Immigration Policy All 20

10 0 Immediate Legalization Guest Worker Guest Worker Legaliz Seal Border Preferred Immigration Policy None of These Preferred Immigration Policy, by Generation 1st CA 2nd CA 3rd CA 4th CA Immediate Legalization 53.6 58.2 23.7 22.1 35.5 37.2 15.5 16.3 Guest Worker: Legalization 25.3 22.8 43.7 53.4 35.1

34.3 47.0 52.1 Guest Worker: Temporary 10.6 9.6 13.9 16.3 12.0 12.1 13.6 12.6 Seal Border 0.8 7.3 2.3 6.5 7.5 11.5 12.9 2.1 Latino National Survey Executive Summary Demographic Tables Background Tables Questionnaire and Toplines Available at the website of the Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race, and Sexuality (WISER), University of Washington, Seattle: http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/LNS.shtml

Recently Viewed Presentations

  • FINAL REPORT ELECTRONIC Total Station-GNSS Technology ACCIDENT RECONSTRUCTION

    FINAL REPORT ELECTRONIC Total Station-GNSS Technology ACCIDENT RECONSTRUCTION

    RL Mapping . Reflectorless (RL) arrives on scene. Capable of IR measurement. From the station measurements taken reflectorless. May eliminate need of tech 2 . Range model dependent 350 - 1000 meters ( 1148 -3280 ft) Surface, color affects range....
  • Explain the nature and scope of cannel management

    Explain the nature and scope of cannel management

    Channel management decisions. Selecting Channel Members. Identify characteristics that distinguish the best channel members. Managing and Motivating Channel Members. Partner relationship management (PRM) is key. Evaluating Channel Members. Performance should be checked against standards
  • Distribution System Planning Engagement Group

    Distribution System Planning Engagement Group

    Overall Engagement Group Purpose & Objectives. Purpose . The Distribution System Planning Stakeholder Engagement Group (EG) is an openforum for stakeholders who are activelyengaged in the REV process and the Distributed System Implementation Plan (DSIP) filings to provide input to,...
  • Discussion of Assignments Assignment # 1: 2 parts

    Discussion of Assignments Assignment # 1: 2 parts

    CONCLUSION Denmark can feel especially proud of the extensive institutional resources it has provided for the protection and promotion of children's welfare - in the taxes, workplace, community, schools and daycare, justice system, and family services. Your achievements, I think...
  • GOES-N Science Test Timothy J. Schmit NOAA/NESDIS/STAR Advanced

    GOES-N Science Test Timothy J. Schmit NOAA/NESDIS/STAR Advanced

    Both individual and band averages were given to Paul van Delst of CIMSS to include in the OPTRAN model for NCEP. Same general bands as the GOES-12 imager. These plots were made at CIMSS. Same general bands as the GOES-12...
  • www.jble.af.mil

    www.jble.af.mil

    VDEQ Regulation: 9 VAC 25-580, Underground Storage Tanks, Technical Standards and Corrective Action Requirements. EPA Regulation: 40 CFR Part 280. An underground storage tank system (UST) is a tank and any underground piping connected to the tank that has at...
  • PRINCIPLES OF Economics By N. Gregory Mankiw Principles

    PRINCIPLES OF Economics By N. Gregory Mankiw Principles

    PRINCIPLES OF Economics By N. Gregory Mankiw PowerPoint slides prepared by: Andreea Chiritescu Eastern Illinois University Principles of Economics 5e N. Gregory Mankiw
  • 2012 Plumbing Codes International Plumbing Code Uniform Plumbing

    2012 Plumbing Codes International Plumbing Code Uniform Plumbing

    The International Plumbing Code (IPC) and the Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC) cover the initial design of plumbing systems through the installation and construction phases, and into the maintenance of operating systems. Fuel-gas appliances and systems are addressed in the 2012...