Slide 1:

The existing demographic conditions of CA-19 make it an interesting place to study Asian immigration in particular. CA-19, or its corresponding geographical area, is almost evenly split between Asians (30%), Hispanics/Latinx (40%), and Whites (30%). Changes to this population from 2012 to 2017 have been small: since 2012, the Asian population has grown by 2.4 percentage points, while the Hispanic/Latinx population and White population has shrunk by 1.2 percentage points. Since 2012, meanwhile, the size of the foreign-born population has shrunk by one percentage point. In general, however, CA-19 is notable for its large foreign-born and Asian populations, shrinking White population, and overall consistency, with little demographic change. Meanwhile, there is much existing literature on Asian immigration and integration. Abrajano and Hajnal (2015) find that if an Asian population is significant, support for immigration from the native-born population increases. Rapid growth of an Asian population, however, may induce hostility against immigrants: Hopkins (2010) finds that when an Asian population expands quickly, attitudes towards the population also become more negative. Aptekar (2008) argues that though Asians are more readily integrated into society, even in places where they are prominent, they find difficulty being represented or integrating in politics. The literature suggests, therefore, that when an Asian population is large, Asian immigrants may integrate into society, but face difficulty achieving political integration. When an Asian population is rapidly expanding, however, neither cultural nor political integration is likely. Through qualitative interview collections, I plan to gauge Asian immigrant integration into politics and society in CA-19. I predict that, as the conditions and existing literature suggests, the large size of CA-19’s Asian population will allow Asian members of the community to be fully integrated into society. Though growth of an Asian population may play a role in increasing hostile attitudes regarding immigration, since CA-19 has seen very little change in its Asian populations in the last five years, hostility against immigrants may not manifest in CA-19. Despite their social and cultural integration, however, I predict that Asian immigrants of all nationalities in CA-19 will not be fully politically integrated or have their interests represented in politics. Aptekar (2008) does introduce the caveat that Asian Indians are more likely to be or have their interests represented in politics than Chinese immigrants; thus, I expect to find that Indians in San Jose may feel both culturally and politically integrated where other Asian immigrants only experience cultural integration.

Slide 2:

To test my prediction, I decided to interview first-generation Asian immigrants living in San Jose regarding their perceptions of their own political and cultural integration. I recruited interview subjects by asking friends and family in-person and through social media (a non-random process) and interviewed subjects over either phone or email, depending on the subject’s availability and comfort. Two interviewees opted for email so that they would have more time to answer the questions. In total, I interviewed three subjects, all of differing ages, backgrounds, and nationalities so as to provide more comprehensive data. Respondent 1 is a 20-year-old Korean male who is currently attending college in San Jose and has lived in the city for 15 years with his family. Respondent 2 is a 50-year-old Indian female who moved to San Jose 22 years ago to establish a high-tech startup with her husband. Respondent 3 is a 63-year-old Chinese female who has lived in San Jose for 26 years and currently works as a part-time accountant. Interview questions were split into three categories: Background, Political Integration, and Cultural Integration. Below is a full list of the questions asked.

Background:

• How old are you?
• What do you do for work/school?
• Are you a citizen?
• How long have you lived in your community?
• Why did you choose to live in your community?

Political Integration:

• Did you register to vote?
• Did you vote in your most recent state, presidential, and county-level elections?
• Are you affiliated with one of the two major political parties? If not, why?
• If you are party-affiliated, how well do you think the party you support represents your interests?
• Do you feel that your interests are represented in politics? How so?
• What are the most important political issues to you?
• Are you engaged in any political activities outside of voting (ie volunteering for campaigns, donating to candidates, fundraising or advertising, conversations with friends and family about politics)?
• How often do you talk about politics with friends and family? (Frequently, once in a while, not at all)

Cultural Integration:

• How would you define your community?
• How diverse is your community?
• How safe or comfortable do you feel in your community?
• Does your community provide support or organizations for you or people like you?
• Do you socialize with people from different races outside of work/school?
• Would you say you feel “American” (that you associate with your national identity) or do you think your ethnic identity is more salient for you?
• Do you feel that there is a specific Asian subculture in your community, or are Asians an equal part of a larger culture in your community?
• Do you feel that immigrants of other races can easily assimilate into your community?
• Have you ever been called racial slurs or by any derogatory names?
• Have you felt discriminated against on the basis of your race/ethnicity?

Slide 3:

All three respondents were politically integrated in that they either voted or participated in political activities outside of voting. Respondents 2 (Democrat) and 3 (Independent) voted in all recent elections, while Respondent 1, as a DACA recipient, could not vote but participated in political activities (i.e. campaigning and fundraising for the Democratic Party). As García and Casteñon (2018) and Andersen (2008) explain, the act of voting or participating in politics can mark political integration into a society. In this regard, therefore, all three respondents were fairly politically integrated. All three respondents felt, however, that their interests were not represented by their party or in politics generally. Respondent 1 reported that he felt the Democratic Party to be fairly split on issues important to him, such as immigration, LGBTQ+ rights, and workers’ rights. Respondent 2, meanwhile, felt that the Democratic Party had no well-executed, comprehensive position on immigration, women’s rights, or data privacy, the issues most important to her. Respondent 3 felt that no political party was able to adequately represent her positions on healthcare reform and gun control, the issues most important to her. Aptekar (2008) writes that one measure of integration is interest articulation and representation; in this regard, therefore, the Asian immigrants interviewed were not politically integrated. In regards to the second portion of the prediction, respondents were culturally integrated in that they all spoke English and were either in college or employed in skilled professions. Some possible measures of cultural integration, as explained by Andersen (2008) and Waters and Gerstein Pineau (2015), is English language acquisition, educational attainment, and skilled, gainful employment, all of which all three respondents possessed. Respondents also felt that there were many organizations in San Jose that assisted in cultural integration while pushing back against total assimilation. Respondents 1 and 3 mentioned Korean and Chinese schools in the area that helped to teach young children the language and culture of their respective countries; these schools operated only on the weekends so that they would not conflict with “regular” school, thereby impeding language acquisition or educational attainment. Respondent 2, meanwhile, mentioned Indian community centers that hosted networking events and job fairs to promote employment in the area while also hosting Bollywood stars, classical music classes, and Holi festivals to encourage cultural preservation. De Graauw (2013) explains that immigrant advocacy and cultural organizations are often highly important in integrating immigrants into their host community while helping to preserve their culture, and all three Asian immigrants interviewed felt that these organizations had been helpful in that regard. They felt very much a part of the San Jose community and consciously identified themselves as “American” through their education, employment, and values systems, but were also very aware of their ethnic identity and felt as if they were part of an Asian subculture within the larger body. A final indicator of cultural integration was that all respondents felt that San Jose was very diverse, with high levels of socialization between people of different races, and was non-discriminatory towards immigrants in general. Given that all respondents felt welcomed and not targeted for their Asian immigrant status or racial identity, there seems to have been minimal native-population backlash against Asian immigrant populations and a welcoming attitude towards cultural integration, as Abrajano and Hajnal (2015) predicted.

Slide 4:

The results found through the three interviews generally supported the initial predictions. Political integration of the interviewed Asian immigrants was limited, given that all three respondents voted or participated in politics on a regular basis but still felt as though their interests were not well-represented in politics. Culturally, however, all three respondents were well-integrated, given their educational attainment, language acquisition, employment status, acknowledgement of the various cultural organizations that had supported them in balancing their Asian and American identities, and personal feelings of diversity and inclusion within the city. In general, the predictions were all well-supported by the results. There was one caveat, which was that Indian immigrants, like the East Asian immigrants interviewed, also felt as if their political views and interests were not represented. This was directly contrary to Aptekar’s (2008) findings, which were that in Edison, New Jersey, Indians were more likely to be politically integrated than Chinese immigrants. Given that Aptekar (2008) occurred in one small geographical location far from San Jose, however, it is entirely possible that her results were simply not generalizable to other regions. This study, of course, had a fair number of limitations. Because the study utilized non-random sampling and a small sample size, in future studies, randomization of interview collection as well as a larger body of responses would be helpful. Further, though my results encompassed Asian immigrants of differing nationalities and age groups, I was not able to interview Southeast Asians or Pacific Islanders, nor was I able to interview Asian immigrants between the ages of 20 and 50. In future studies, targeting those groups for interviews would lead to more comprehensive, representative results. Finally, the nature of this study made it so that the focus of the study was on individual-level integration, rather than on institutional-level, group outcomes. Given the differences between individual-level integration and group integration, and that individuals can be more or less integrated where larger groups are not, there is ample opportunity for work to be done analyzing institutional-level integration, cultural and political, for Asian immigrants in San Jose.

Title Slide: The images in this title slide are meant to introduce the viewer to the district’s demographics. One image is of protestors holding signs written in Spanish, the next is of White and Asian “techies” at a conference, and the third is of Asian runners participating in a race.

Slide 1: From 2007 to 2017, CA-19, or its corresponding geographical area, has remained almost evenly split between Asians (30%), Hispanics/Latinx (40%), and Whites (30%). Changes to this population have been small: the Asian population shrunk by one percentage point post-redistricting and grew by two percentage points five years after that. The Hispanic/Latinx population, meanwhile, grew and then shrunk again by one percentage point in the span of a decade. The only notable trend is that Whites have shrunk by 1.5 percentage points over the course of the decade, which, though consistent, is still very small. Before redistricting occurred in 2012, CA-19, or what was then CA-16, was around 60% foreign-born and 40% native-born. Post redistricting, the foreign-born population grew by 4.6 percentage points, but shrunk again by one percentage point. In general, however, CA-19 is notable for its large foreign-born, Latinx, and Asian populations, shrinking White population, and overall consistency, with little demographic change in the last ten years.

Slide 2: In terms of existing literature, it is clear that the size and growth of various immigrant populations impact public opinion, local media coverage, and their own lived experience in different ways. In terms of public opinion, Abrajano and Hajnal (2015) find that once the Latinx population reaches a certain size, support for immigration decreases; if an Asian population is significant, however, support for immigration increases. Enos (2014) builds upon that literature by suggesting that short-term contact with Hispanic populations increases hostility towards immigrants in general. Other literature focuses not on size of the immigration population, but on growth, which Abrajano and Hajnal (2015) suggest is weakly related to attitudes towards immigration. Hopkins (2010), Newman (2018) and Adida et al. (2018) all find that the rapid growth of Latinx populations increases hostility towards immigrants. Hopkins’ “politicized places” theory, for instance, argues that when communities are undergoing large growth in Latinx populations at the same time that salient national rhetoric politicizes immigration, hostility towards immigrants will increase (Hopkins, 2010). Adida et al. (2018), meanwhile, argues that large growth in Latinx populations results in increased support for restrictionist immigration policies; Newman (2018) argues that when communities undergo the lived experience of Latinx population growth, their attitudes towards Latinx immigrants interact with Trump’s rhetoric and become more hostile and adversarial. Rapid growth of an Asian population, meanwhile, may also induce hostility against immigrants: Hopkins (2010) finds that when an Asian population expands quickly, attitudes towards the population also become more negative. When taken together, the literature seems to suggest that largeness of, close contact with, and fast growth of a Latinx population increases general hostility towards immigrants. A large Asian population decreases hostility towards immigrants, but if the Asian population grows very quickly, that effect quickly mimics the trajectory of the Latinx experience. In terms of media coverage, Abrajano and Singh (2009) suggest that national news coverage of immigration tends to focus on Latinx immigration, using a very negative tone. When compared to news published in English, however, Spanish news are seen to be more positive about immigration as a whole and use more positive language. Therefore, an area with large quantities of news published in Spanish may see more positive media coverage of immigration as compared to the national average. Finally, in terms of the overall immigrant experience, the literature varies. The literature previously discussed in terms of public opinion applies here: Latinx populations, large or growing in size, face hostile attitudes towards them and towards immigrants in general from the communities that they join. Professor Fernandez-Kelly (2018), however, argues that large immigrant communities can help facilitate integration, by providing immigrants with a support system for societal integration. This applies, in particular, to Hispanic/Latinx populations in various parts of New Jersey. In terms of the Asian population, Aptekar (2008) argues that though Asians are more readily integrated into society, even in places where they are prominent, they find difficulty being represented or integrating in politics. The literature suggests, therefore, that Latinx populations may or may not have a difficult time integrating into society and politics, depending on their reception by the native population and by their immigrant peers. Asian immigrants may integrate into society, but face difficulty achieving political integration.

Slide 3: This literature can allow us to make predictions about CA-19. First, in terms of public opinion, the  largeness of the Hispanic/Latinx population and the close contact that White residents will have with them indicates that there will be hostility towards immigrants as a whole. The largeness of the Asian population, however, as a non-threat to White populations, may mitigate that general ill-will. Meanwhile, as described before, CA-19 has seen very little change in either its Latinx or its Asian populations in the last decade; therefore, though growth of both Latinx and Asian populations may play a role in increasing hostile attitudes regarding immigration, the effects may not manifest in CA-19. The overall prediction, therefore, is that based on size of population alone, public opinion of immigration will be lukewarm: cold towards the size and proximity of Latinx populations, but warm towards the size of Asian populations. Second, in terms of media coverage, 40% of CA-19 is either Spanish-speaking or Latinx. CA-19 is likely to have numerous Spanish-speaking news outlets, and as Spanish new outlets tend to be more positive towards immigration than a national news outlet, CA-19 is likely to see more positive local media coverage of immigration, especially as compared to national media coverage. Third, in terms of the overall immigrant experience, CA-19 is, while very largely Latinx and Asian, also fairly White. Latinx immigrants thus may find it easy to integrate thanks to robust immigrant communities (40%), or may face backlash and hostility from the White native population. Asian immigrants, meanwhile, may find it easy to integrate into CA-19, given the robust size of the Asian population (30%), but still may not be adequately represented in or allowed to participate in politics, be it at the local, state, or federal level.

Slide 4: I plan to gauge Asian immigrant integration into politics and society through qualitative interview data collection. As already mentioned, I predict that the large size of CA-19’s Asian population will allow Asian members of the community to be fully integrated into society, be it through educational attainment, employment status, or income attainment, to name just a few measures of integration. Despite their social integration, however, I predict that Asians in CA-19 will not be fully politically integrated or represented on multiple levels of government. In order to look at both societal and political integration, I plan to interview a number of immigrant advocacy groups, which will give me insight into both. Immigrant advocacy groups, as argued by authors like DeGraauw (2013), work alongside both the immigrants that serve as their clients and government officials that want to use the knowledge that advocacy groups possess to better serve immigrants’ interests. These groups will therefore be one of the most reliable sources to draw upon in understanding the integration of immigrants into societal and political life in CA-19. Some groups that I would get in contact with for interviews include Asian Americans for Community Involvement (AACI), San Jose National Association of Asian American Professionals (NAAAP), or the Asian Law Alliance. Preliminary general questions for these organizations include “What facilitates integration into society for Asian immigrants? How does that differ for different Asian groups?” or “Are Asian immigrants integrated into politics? Why or why not?” I would also want to differentiate between different service providers by asking specific questions like “How has your organization served to integrate Asian immigrants into either society or politics, or both?” Upon completing my qualitative interviews with immigrant advocacy groups, I would compile the data and gauge the accuracy of my predictions in a written report.