UIC Immigrant Mobilization Project:General Survey Findings

Thank you for sharing, Dr. Nilda Flores-Gonzalez (University of Illinois, Chicago). This survey of participants in the May 1 mobilization in Chicago yielded some very interesting results. This should help to dispel some stereoetypes. -Angela

UIC Immigrant Mobilization Project:General Survey Findings

Nilda Flores-Gonzalez
Amalia Pallares
Cedric Herring
Maria Krysan


On March 10, more than 100,000 people marched from Union Park to the Federal Plaza in Chicago to oppose pending federal immigration legislation. This unprecedented act surpassed the expectations of immigrant rights organizers and was the first large-scale demonstration of this order in the nation. As the U.S. senate met to consider a bill that would allow the legalization of many of the estimated 11 million undocumented people living in this country, the momentum continued. Massive marches took place in several cities of the nation such as Los Angeles, Dallas, Orlando, New York, Phoenix and Atlanta. On May 1, more than 400,000 people marched from Union Park to Grant Park in Chicago in support of undocumented immigrants. March leaders say that 700,000 people participated in the march, but more conservative accounts set participation from 400,000 to 600,000, making it the largest congregation in Chicago’s history. While most participants were Latinos, European, Asian and African immigrant groups were also visible. The march was also intergenerational as participation included large numbers of youth, elderly persons and families with young children.

The March 10 and May 1 mobilizations are the first national level movements in U.S. history to be spearheaded by Latinos. It is also the first national movement to focus on rights for undocumented immigrants. An important feature of this movement is that it connects immigrant rights, civil rights and workers’ rights.

While the Chicago media reported extensively on the marches, much of the information about the participants- who they were, why they were marching- was anecdotal and lacked a systematic study of the mobilization. During the May 1 march, researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago conducted a survey of participants at Union Park and Grant Park. We now have information about the characteristics and views of a large sample of people who participated in the march.

The Immigrant Mobilization Project is led by Professors Nilda Flores-Gonzalez and Amalia Pallares from the University of Illinois at Chicago and involves about a dozen faculty members and over 20 graduate and undergraduates students. The purpose of the project is to study the immigrant mobilizations, including participants, organizers, and the political conditions, resources and ideological frames that led to this mass movement. We are specifically interested in the role of different social, cultural and political institutions in shaping and framing the movement and in mobilizing participants. We also want to examine Chicago’s role as the first large-scale demonstration in the nation.

This project includes a survey of participants during the May 1 march and subsequent in-depth interviews with participants, organizers, and leaders of organizations and institutions that participated in the mobilizations. In this report, we are presenting the results of the first phase of this project: a survey of 410 participants in the May 1 march.[1] <#_ftn1>

Characteristics of the Participants:

1-Citizenship Status: (See Figure 1) It has been generally assumed that most of the March 10 and May 1 marchers are immigrants and that many are undocumented. The Pew Center estimates that there are 400,000 undocumented people in Chicago, the same number of people estimated by the police to have participated in the May 1 march, leading some to claim that the whole undocumented population of Chicago participated in that march. Our survey shows something different: 73% of our sample of marchers are US citizens (including U.S. born, naturalized, and dual citizens) and 42% were U.S. born.

While 57% of the marchers we surveyed are immigrants (born in another country), only 27% are not U.S. citizens. Among the latter are people with legal residency, work permits and student visas, as well as people without documents. Because we did not ask non-citizens about their legal status in the United States, we do not know for certain how many of the non-citizens are undocumented immigrants.

2- Race and Ethnicity: (See Figure 1) It has also been generally assumed that most of the marchers are Latinos, and in particular Mexicans. Indeed, we found that 76% of the sample are Latinos, 16% are white, 3% Black or African American, and 5% Asian or other. When asked to self-identify, 52% used a Mexican term (such as Mexicano, Mexican and Mexican American) and another 24% used some other Latino term (including Hispanic, Latino and other specific nationalities). Of the foreign born, 81% were Mexican, 10% from other Latin American countries (Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Argentina, Puerto Rico, Peru), 6% European, and 3% were born in other parts of the world.

3- Sex, Age and Marital Status: (See Figure 2) We found that participation was fairly evenly distributed between men (54%) and women (46%). We also found that the marchers we interviewed comprised a young population as the median age was 28 years old. Because we attempted to survey youths 16 years of age or older, we have no data on the thousands of children who participated. However, we found that 46% of the respondents had children: 87% had at least one child under the age of 21 and 50% had at least one child under the age of 7. We also know that 50% were married or cohabitating, 45% had never been married, and 5% were separated, divorced or widowed.

4- Language Spoken at Home: (See Figure 2) While many members of the press and the public have acknowledged the bilingualism and biculturalism of the Latino population in general, some have assumed that most of the marchers do not speak English and are unwilling to learn English. Contrary to this, in our sample of 410 marchers, we found that 86% spoke at least some English at home and 61% reported speaking English as much or more than another language at home. While 14% reported speaking only another language in the home, this does not mean that they do not speak English outside the home. Interestingly, 59% of the surveys were conducted in English.

5- Socioeconomic Status, Occupations and Education: (See Figure 3) There was an even distribution of education levels among the marchers we interviewed. The results show that 29% of the respondents had less than a high school education. Nearly a quarter of respondents (24%) were high school graduates. Another 21% have some college, and 26% are college graduates. Most of those surveyed (53%) reported a household income between $20,000 and $50,000. Only 21% had a household income below $20,000 while 26% had a household income over $50,000. The results also show that 73% of the respondents work either full-time or part-time. Sixty-nine percent hold traditional working class jobs: un-skilled workers (48%) and skilled workers (21%). About a third (31%) works in the white-collar sector.

6- Religious affiliation: (See Figure 3 and Figure 4) Since many religious leaders supported and participated in the march, we expected to find high rates of mobilization by churches. Our data shows that although church leaders encouraged congregation members to attend the march, many appear to have failed to take further steps to mobilize their congregations. Most of the participants (85%) in our survey reported a religious preference: Catholic (68%), Christian/Protestant (10%), Jewish (2%), Muslim (1%) and Other (5%). Seventy-one percent reported attending church at least once a month, and 71% said they were encouraged by religious leaders to attend the march. However, only 5% reported that someone from church had convinced them to attend the march and 4% reported convincing someone from church to attend the march. Furthermore, when asked if they attended the march with someone from church, only 2% responded that they had.

II. Mobilization Networks

1- Media: (See Figure 4) The findings show that the media played a role in mobilizing and/or making people aware of the march. About half of the marchers we surveyed reported hearing about the march in the media, particularly on television (56%), the radio (49%) and newspapers (28%). The Spanish-language media seemed to have had the largest impact, in particular Univision (television), Hoy (newspaper) and La Que Buena (radio), followed by Telemundo (television), La Raza (newspaper) and La Ley (radio).

2- Companions: (See Figure 4) In the sample of marchers we spoke to, the majority attended the march with someone else and more often than not they were family, friends or co-workers. Slightly over half (56%) attended the march with family members and 54% came with friends and/or co-workers. Many of the marchers in our sample reported attending the march with both family and friends. Nearly half (47%) had participated in the March 10 mobilization.

3- Reasons for Marching: (See Figure 5) Immigration was clearly the issue that mobilized people to march. Forty-four percent of the respondents declared that they were marching to support immigrants. More specific reasons included: to support legalization (27%), to defend or obtain rights - not only immigrant rights- (24%), to achieve or show unity (18%), for work/workers’ rights (12%), for justice (11%), and for families (10%).
4- Goal of March: (See Figure 6) Respondents were also clear about what they hope the march will accomplish. For 46% of those surveyed, legalization of undocumented people is the main objective of the march, and 28% say they hope for immigration policy changes. Other objectives included awareness of immigrants (14%), rights for immigrants (8%), and less abuse of immigrants (2%).

III. Civic Engagement

1-Civic Participation: (See Figure 7) Thirty-six million strong and growing, the Latino population has long been considered demographically important, but its political power has not yet matched its demographic growth. The immigrant mobilizations may have awakened the “sleeping giant” propelling people who were not politicized to march on the streets and risk losing their jobs for something that matters deeply to them. For many (regardless of citizenship status), this was the first time they had engaged in political activities. While more than half of the respondents have attended public meetings (55%), just over a third have signed petitions (37%), wrote letters or called officials (31%), placed campaign stickers in their car or home (32%), attended political rallies (39%) or contributed money to political candidates (23%). Of those eligible to vote, 62% reported participating in the past elections. Additionally, the survey shows that 47% of the respondents reported that they also marched on March 10. For the May 1 march, 72% of our sample said they had missed work to participate.

IV. Public Opinion and Policy Positions

1- Amnesty/Allowed to Stay: (See Figure 8) Not surprisingly, we found that 99% of those surveyed favor allowing undocumented people to stay in the U.S. Seventy-one percent of respondents believe in allowing undocumented immigrants to stay regardless of how long they have been in the U.S. while 18% favor amnesty for those who have been in the U.S. for more than five years. Only 36% support a guest worker program which would allow undocumented immigrants temporary work permits under the condition that they eventually return to their country of origin. It is clear that amnesty and not a guest worker program is what our sample of marchers is seeking. Furthermore, many may have been affected personally by current immigration policies since 37% of the respondents say they know someone who has been deported.

2- Common concerns: (See Figure 9 and Figure 10) The May 1 mobilization shows the potential for Latinos of different national backgrounds to work together towards a common goal. Most participants in our survey named immigration (82%) as a concern shared by Latinos, followed by work (73%), education (60%) and racial discrimination (52%). They also named concerns shared by Latinos and African Americans such as racial discrimination (65%), work (60%), and education (54%), which can perhaps be activated to create alliances.

3- Responsibilities and Rights of Non-citizens: (See Figure 11) One of the most controversial debates about immigrants revolves around the rights and responsibilities of non-citizens. According to 72% of the respondents, non-citizens should have the responsibility to pay taxes. There is less support for voting (53%), service on juries (29%) and military service (25%). Stronger support was found for non-citizens’ rights in this country. Over 80% of the respondents believe that non-citizens should have the right to work (83%), access to public education (81%), access to medical care (80%) and ability to obtain a driver’s license (80%). Sixty-seven percent also believe that non-citizens should have the right to obtain social security.

4- Strength of Love for the United States: (See Figure 12) Regardless of their citizenship status, 91% of the respondents expressed strong love for the United States. This is true of immigrants (90% of naturalized citizens, 96% of non-citizens, and 100% of dual citizens), as well as a slightly lower percentage of U.S. born citizens (86%). Ninety-four percent of respondents (immigrants and U.S. born) believe that dual citizens can be loyal to both countries. Furthermore, 93% of non-citizens said they want to become U.S. citizens.
--------------------------------

About the Authors:

Nilda Flores-Gonzalez is an associate professor of Sociology and Latin American and Latino Studies at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
Amalia Pallares is an associate professor of Political Science and Latin American and Latino Studies at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
Cedric Herring is a professor of Sociology at the University of Illinois at Chicago and in the Institute of Government and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois.
Maria Krysan is an associate professor of Sociology at the University of Illinois at Chicago and in the Institute of Government and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois.

Media Contact: Brian Flood, UIC News Bureau (bflood@uic.edu) (312)996-7681

--------------------------------
Acknowledgments: We want to acknowledge the support of the following departments at the University of Illinois at Chicago: College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Institute of Government and Public Affairs, The Jane Addams Hull House Museum, Office of Social Science Research, Department of Sociology, Latin American and Latino Studies Program, Office for the Protection of Research Subjects and UIC News Bureau. This project could not have been done without the 60 faculty and students who helped conduct the survey.

--------------------------------
Released July 17, 2006


[1] <#_ftnref1> The survey used a multi-stage block sampling technique to give respondents an equal chance of being selected for the study. Interviewers were assigned “block numbers” within Union Park and Grant Park. Within those blocks, they were instructed to approach every 10th person as a potential respondent for the survey. Because of Institutional Review Board (IRB) restrictions, interviewers were instructed only to approach people who were clearly over age 16. This process yielded 410 surveys.