Author: Samantha Liu

Bringing it Home: Expanding Lou Correa’s Active Stance on Immigration

Summary:

For almost 70 years, Orange County, where district CA 46 is found, has remained strictly Republican, an anomaly within the majority blue state of California. However, CA 46, represented by Democrat Lou Correa, has itself stood as a deviation from this predominantly red county; for the past seven years, this district has been claimed by Democrats. Within the district, demographic shifts have led to a staggering increase in the Latino population, as the foreign-born population also continues to grow while the white population has decreased significantly. Scholarly research reveals how this demographic change has led to increased support for pro-immigration policies. Correa has proved himself to be an outspoken leader of immigration reform at the national level. However, white backlash among Republicans in Orange County prompts me to recommend that Correa adopt a more active stance on immigration at the local level, while maintaining his current actions on immigration related issues at the national level.

Op-ed:

For almost 70 years, Orange County, where district CA 46 is found, has remained strictly Republican, an anomaly within the majority blue state of California. However, CA 46, represented by Democrat Lou Correa, has itself stood as a deviation from this predominantly red county; for the past seven years, this district has been claimed by Democrats. However, this was finally no longer the case when the November 2018 midterm elections “toppled what had long been a fortress of conservative Republicanism” as Democrats captured four Republican held congressional seats to turn Orange County blue. This shift also reflects the county’s history of presidential voting; the 2016 presidential race was the first in which Orange County backed the Democratic candidate over the Republican in 80 years. These results reflect the changing demographics that have transformed Orange County, including CA 46.

Between 2007 and 2017, the total population of the congressional district rose by 78,792. The percentage of whites significantly decreased by -41 percentage points (pp) during this time, while the Hispanic/Latino population dramatically grew by +48.3 pp. Among other racial demographics, Blacks increased slightly by +0.6 pp, while Asians decreased by -5.5 pp and Other races increased by +26.2 pp. Within the immigrant population size, specifically looking at Hispanic/Latino immigrants, the foreign-born population overall increased by a substantial +43.1 pp. Within this population, both foreign-born naturalized citizens and foreign-born non-citizens also increased, with +36.3 pp for the latter and +37.7 for the former. The significant changes among the White and Hispanic populations suggest that CA 46 is undergoing a rapid demographic shift as more Hispanic immigrants settle within the district and Whites leave, causing the congressional district to be majority Hispanic.

This drastic demographic change has a profound effect on the handlings of the issue of immigration. In research done by Casellas and Leal (2013), the two found that partisanship increasingly structures Congressional voting on the issue of immigration. The party affiliations of Congressional members as well as the measure of partisanship within districts and states had a significant effect in all House votes and most Senate votes (Casellas and Leal 2013). Republicans tended to favor more restrictive and enforcement approaches, while Democrats had an opposite approach. Within the House, Casellas and Leal (2013) found that a district’s Latino population is most associated with votes on immigration; the larger the population, the more likely a member will support comprehensive immigration reform and oppose restrictionist proposals.

These findings are consistent with CA 46 representative Lou Correa’s supportive stance on immigration. 18% of the bills he has sponsored are related to immigration, and more recently in January he sponsored H.R. 656: DREAMers, Immigrants, and Refugees (DIRe) Legal Aid Act which “require[s] the Attorney General to make grants to nonprofit organizations to offer legal assistance to certain aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, DACA recipients, and refugees, and for other purposes.” Furthermore, earlier this year following the January government shutdown, Correa was one of 19 Democrats who voted “no” on the fiscal 2019 appropriations package which was proposed in order to avert another shutdown. He and 13 other Hispanic Caucus members opposed any additional funding towards the border wall and were also against the bill’s immigration enforcement provisions. Clearly, Correa is staunchly in support of immigration on the national level. However, this is not to say that he is as active on the local level.

Given the significant increase in Latino population within CA 46, immigrant integration and representation both seem to be positive in the district. My media content analysis study comparing the tone and focus of articles in the Orange County Register, an English news source, and the Excelsior, a Spanish news source, found that the tone of the English news source was majority neutral, while that of the Excelsior was majority positive. These results are justified by the increase in bilingual and Spanish-speaking residents within CA 46, and support Abrajano and Singh’s study which found that Spanish language news covers immigration in a more positive and informative perspective than English language news (Abrajano and Singh 2009). Furthermore, Latinos who use both English and Spanish news sources are more likely to hold positive views towards immigration than Latinos who rely only on English news sources (Abrajano and Singh 2009).  This non-hostile rhetoric among local media coverage of immigration suggests that immigrant integration and representation are positive within the district.

Despite the pro-immigrant sentiment of CA 46, Orange County’s Republicans still wield substantial vocalization and political power. In March of 2018, the Orange County Board of Supervisors voted to join the Trump lawsuit against California’s state sanctuary laws, proposed in Senate Bill 54. With a Hispanic population now larger than ever, this political action seems to fully complicate Casellas and Leal’s findings. However, research from Abrajano and Hajnal (2015) offers an explanation to the situation. They found that the larger the number of Latinos in a state, the more likely white Americans are to identify as Republican (Abrajano and Hajnal 2015). Not only does California have more immigrants than any other state, but based on Abrajano and Hajnal, it can be argued that the rising Latino population of Orange County sparked a white backlash among the county’s Republicans.

Given this, it would be wise for Correa to be more vocal of his support of immigration at the local level, while maintaining his current level of involvement on immigration related issues at the national level. Doing so will allow him to counter the anti-immigrant sentiment advocated by Orange County’s Republicans. Taking a more active stance on promoting immigration at the local level can involve publicly supporting local immigrant advocacy groups and working with Hispanic City Council members, such as Santa Ana mayor Miguel Pulido, to preserve California’s state sanctuary laws. Given the shifting demographics and growing Latino population within Orange County in general, Correa’s active involvement on issues of immigration at the local level would most likely be met with support and encouragement.

College-goers and Early-exiters: Impact of DACA on Higher Education

This week’s readings focus on the issue of immigrant illegality and the liminal lives led by undocumented individuals living in the U.S. They also discuss the consequences of presidential discretion with regards to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). In his extensive 12-year study, Gonzales (2015) follows the lives of 150 undocumented youth in Los Angeles as they transition into adulthood. He groups individuals into two groups, college-goers and early exiters, and found the early exiter experience to be characterized by “full-time work in low-wage jobs,” while college-goers embodied strong sense of belonging and optimism, earning them the title of DREAMers (Gonzales, 2015).

This  article from The Atlantic describes the potential effects terminating DACA would have on higher education, an issue that targets the early-exiters and college-goers studied in Gonzales’s case. If DACA beneficiaries lose their work permits, they will no longer be able to legally work in the US. Without a legal income, many of those pursuing higher education will have no way to pay for college. This also makes those who plan on attending a university more reliant on financial aid, which is limited to publicly funded aid as DACA recipients do not have access to federal financial aid.

Discussion Question: What impact would DACA’s end have on the attitudes of early-exiters and college-goers towards pursuing higher education?

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/what-dacas-end-could-mean-for-colleges/540024/

CA 46 – Lou Correa

Link to slides:  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xanOebTJB8x-X5v_7CVzkKtVqAtdki0c/view?usp=sharing

Slide 1: This slide details the current and past representatives for the 46th congressional district of California. Current representative Lou Correa was elected on January 3, 2017. In his 2016 election, he ran against fellow Democrat Bao Nguyen and won by 70% of votes, with a margin of D+40. In 2018, Correa ran against Republican Russell Lambert, beating him by 69.1% with a margin of D+38. Prior to Correa, Democrat Loretta Sanchez served for two terms, first winning the 2012 election after beating Republican Jerry Hayden with 63.9% and a margin of D+27.8, and later beating Republican Adam Nick in 2014 with 59.7% of votes and a margin of D+19.4. In the 2008 election, Republican Dana Rohrabacher became the new representative after beating Democrat Debbie Cook and both Green Party Thomas Lash and Libertarian Ernst Gasteiger. In this election, Rohrabacher won by 52.2% of votes and had a margin of R+9.4 He went on to also win the 2010 election, beating Democrat Ken Arnold and Write-in Jay Shah with 62.2% and a margin of R+24.4.

Slide 2: In this slide, I focus on three main sources to summarize the effects of local electorate context and Congressional members’ characteristics immigration policymaking. In research done by Casellas and Leal (2013), they found that partisanship increasingly structures Congressional voting on the issue of immigration. The party affiliations of Congressional members as well as the measure of partisanship within districts and states had a significant effect in all House votes and most Senate votes (Casellas and Leal 2013). Republicans tended to favor more restrictive and enforcement approaches, while Democrats had an opposite approach. Within the House, Casellas and Leal (2013) found that a district’s Latino population is most associated with votes on immigration; the larger the population, the more likely a member will support comprehensive immigration reform and oppose restrictionist proposals. In addition, the House is also characterized by a “re-election dynamic,” meaning representatives facing electoral threat follow a risk-averse path by supporting enforcement efforts. In the Senate, however, state poverty had a large effect on immigration votes, as greater poverty led to more support for enforcement bills. On the topic of interior enforcement, Wong (2014) found that the percent of Latino and Asian populations in a state are negatively correlated to support for the issue, while none-white district representatives are less likely to be supportive. Wong (2012) found that Republican majority counties are 5.8 times more likely to support 287(g) federal enforcement partnerships than Democrat counties are.

Slide 3: Using the research summarized in the previous slide, I predict the effects of some of these characteristics on CA 46’s policymaking activity on immigration. Given that the district has had a Republican representative for seven years and a Democratic one for the same number of years from 1992-2019, it is difficult to gauge its partisanship. However, by analyzing current representative Correa’s election history, specifically how he won about 70% of votes in both of his elections, we can assume that CA 46 is majority Democratic. Furthermore, data from the 2017 census shows that 66.3% of the district’s total population is Hispanic or Latino, with 60.4% being Mexican. In addition, almost 40% of the population is foreign-born, with another 15% as naturalized U.S. citizens. This high percentage of Latino and foreign-born population, coupled with the district and Correa’s Democratic partisanship, lead me to predict that the representative is most likely to oppose restrictive, enforcement policies, including interior enforcement and 287(g) partnerships, and support comprehensive immigration reform policies.

Slide 4: This slide details some of Correa’s activity surrounding the issue of immigration. 18% of the bills he has sponsored are related to immigration, and more recently in January he sponsored H.R. 656: DREAMers, Immigrants, and Refugees (DIRe) Legal Aid Act which “require[s] the Attorney General to make grants to nonprofit organizations to offer legal assistance to certain aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, DACA recipients, and refugees, and for other purposes.”[1] On his website, immigration is listed under the “Issues” section and includes the description, “As a Member of Congress, Congressman Correa fights to protect individuals and families of all backgrounds. Congressman Correa supports DREAMers and understands the importance of protecting new Americans. Following the president’s Executive Orders on the travel ban, Congressman Correa introduced legislation to ensure that refugees, immigrants, and DREAMers have access to legal advice from immigration experts. Congressman Correa continues to advocate for comprehensive immigration reform.”[2] Correa does have nine other issues listed under this section and five of them have longer content than immigration. While Correa is not extremely active on Twitter, he does frequently tweet about immigration, with 35% of his tweets from January 1st to March 1st focusing on immigration. The content of these tweets included criticism towards Trump’s wall, commentary on the Family Separation Policy, and overall support for immigrants and DREAMers. Correa’s ongoing support for immigration was covered by the media when he invited Marco Villada, an LGBT former DACA recipient, to Trump’s State of the Union Address.[3]

 

[1] https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr656.

[2] https://correa.house.gov/about/issues.

[3] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/state-of-the-union-2019-lgbt-dreamer-attending-sotu-as-a-guest-sees-an-opportunity-to-share-my-story/.

 

 

 

The McGraw Center for Teaching and Learning
328 Frist Campus Center, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544
PH: 609-258-2575 | FX: 609-258-1433
mcgrawect@princeton.edu

A unit of the Office of the Dean of the College

© Copyright 2025 The Trustees of Princeton University

Accessiblity | Privacy notice