Political Education Of Policies On College Students Research Paper I’m expecting 20+ pages for this project–length isn’t my concern but the quality of the

Political Education Of Policies On College Students Research Paper I’m expecting 20+ pages for this project–length isn’t my concern but the quality of the content. I will attach a sample and my annotated bib and my hypotheses and variable list. PLEASE DO NOT TAKE THIS UP IF IT WILL BE TOO MUCH FOR YOU. ONLY TAKE IT IF YOU HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THIS. Q: How would expansion of political education of political policies affect college students voting rates?

1.Abstract– typically this isn’t written until after you are done with the design. About a paragraph to half a page that lays out the parameter of your project , including notable findings/

2. Introduction – here you will lay out the entirety of your project. You will explain the political problem/phenomena which you are exploring and your research question, in addition to relevant background information. (Hint: tell me why your project is significant).This should be about 2-3 pages in length.

3.Literature Review – what do scholars say about your phenomena, how do they explain it? Is there any debate? Analyze and critique their work as this will lead into your Theory section This will build off of your annotated bibliography. This is expected to be around 10+ pages.

4.Theory -what’s your explanation of the phenomena? Are the existing scholars wrong? Do you approach the phenomena/problem differently? Is there a gap that you are trying to explain? This is expected to be around 3 pages.

5. Methods Section – This section explains to the reader how you will carry out your experiment. It should include your hypothesis and list of variables–for example, how do you expect each independent variable(s) to affect the dependent variable? (The variable list is due to me for review, see class schedule). This section should also explain what data/cases will you be using? Why those? Where are you getting the data or information from? (Quantitative data? Will you collect? From a data source? Surveys? Field Research?) What potential issues are there in this data? What potential issues are there with the way you are carrying out your experiment? I want extreme detail walking me through how you will be carrying out your research. This should be around 5+ pages.

6. This should go without saying but I expect a works cited page. As political scientists I would urge you to use the format most commonly found in the American Journal of Political Science (closest is Chicago). Appendices can be included if applicable.

7.Any charts / diagrams or relevant graphics should be included in an appendix at the END of the paper (not embedded in the paper). Why the ‘Nobodies’ Actually Matter:
Capabilities Development for United States’ Immigrants
Prospectus
Rita Boyajian
rjb@nevada.unr.edu
Department of Political Science
University of Nevada, Reno
April 2016
Table of Contents
Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2
Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 3
Literature ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 4
Pull and Push Factors Enabling Immigration …………………………………………………………………………… 4
Political, Social, and Economic Pull and Push Factors ……………………………………………………………… 5
Pull factors ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5
Push …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 9
Immigrant Labor Marketing Earnings ……………………………………………………………………………………. 11
The Problem and Research Question……………………………………………………………………………. 24
Hypothesis ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 25
Significance of the Research ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 28
Research Methods ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 29
Data……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 29
Description of Data…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 30
Methodology ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 35
Limitations of Study ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 37
References …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 38
Appendix …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 44
Appendix 1 – American Communities Survey, Sample Survey, Select Pages ……………………………….. 44
Appendix 2 – Chapter Outline…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 48
Appendix 3 – Timeline to Completion………………………………………………………………………………………. 49
V.4.24.16
1
Deleted
Abstract
The United States is home to 42.3 million immigrants that have been motivated by some
push or pull factor to leave their source country and take up residence in the new host country.
Some may have been motivated by push factors that describe certain unfavorable political,
social, economic or a combination of conditions in their home country. Comparatively,
immigrants may also be motivated by a pull factor attracting them to the new host country. These
include attractive, or simply better, political, social, or economic conditions. The last century has
seen immigration spurred on by political and civil unrest. Between 2011 and 2015, a global peak
time of immigration, economic motivations were cited as the main reason for movement. The
challenge for immigrants entering the United States with the intent to seek employment is that
they have historically earned less than their native born counterparts. First-generation
immigrants, those who were born in a foreign country, see the largest gap in labor market
earnings. For second-generation immigrants with at least one parent who is foreign born, the gap
is smaller, though it still exists.
V.4.24.16
2
Introduction
The United States has been long viewed as the melting pot of immigrant culture. Hosting
an estimated 42.3 million immigrants, the United States presumably offers better political, social,
and economic benefits than the immigrants’ source country. This, as an example of “pull”
factors, includes political participation, education attainment, and employment opportunities.
Similarly, the presence of these immigrants represent a parallel “push” factor in which the
political, social, and/or economic situations in their source country is unsatisfactory. The United
Nations cites that the largest global movement of immigrants between 2010 and 2015 was a
result of economic motivations. Likely, those groups of immigrants were seeking economic
opportunities not otherwise provided by their country of origin.
Political, social, and economic factors are not stagnant. Instead, immigrants are attracted
to the host country because of some favorable combination of social, political, and economic
conditions. These conditions could be a combination of a push or pull factor encouraging
immigration. Once in host country, immigrants are faced with obstacles because of their
immigrant status. Of course, this can in part be because of their legal status or assimilation
challenges based upon culture or language; however, immigrants have historically made lower
labor market earnings than their native born counterparts at any education attainment level. For
scholars, there are a number of variables that explain this difference and imply a solution on how
to overcome the gap. Scholars look at education attainment, both in source and host country.
This alone does not explain the gap. Instead, this combined with other variables like language
proficiency, time lived in host country, time on the job, geographic residency, and household
dynamics explain the labor market earnings gap.
V.4.24.16
3
Literature
Pull and Push Factors Enabling Immigration
This review examines the labor marketing earnings of immigrant populations living in the
United States. The United States has been the destination of a sum of 42.3 million immigrants.
Between 2011 and 2015 alone, the United States’ immigrant population grew by 4.1 million.
During the time period between the second quarter 2014 and the second quarter of 2015 alone,
that number increased by 1.7 million (Zeigler and Camarota 2014). This number represents
around 13 percent of the nation’s population, which equates to a fourfold increase in immigrants
since 1960 (Dinnerstein and Reimers 2014; Brown and Stepler 2015).
Before exploring immigrant motivations, it is necessary to first clarify the terminology.
An immigrant is a person who permanently leaves their home country to settle in another
(Bodvarsson and Van den Berg 2009). To elaborate, an immigrant leaves their source country to
take up residence in a new host country. Immigrants are motivated by a number of factors.
However, it can be surmised that the state of affairs in the new host country is vastly more
attractive than their source country. This concept is explained by the use of the terms “push” and
“pull” factors (Bansak et al. 2015). There are three types of “push” and “pull” factors: political
(Borjas 1995; Bansak et al. 2015), social (Brown and Stepler 2015; Bansak et al. 2015), or
economic (Chiswick (1979; Borjas 1989; Bansak et al. 2015).
A “push” factor encompasses undesirable socioeconomic and political conditions
enticing people to leave their source country whereas a “pull” factor encompasses desirable
socioeconomic and political conditions making a host country a desired destination. Of course,
the same immigrants can be products of varying push factors that encourage their exit from their
source country or pull factors drawing them the host country. The United States, European
V.4.24.16
4
Union, and Arab States of the Gulf Coast have seen the greatest immigration movement in the
recent decades (Bodvarsson and Van den Berg 2009; Dinnerstein and Reimers 2014). Migration
patterns to the United States and these other top destinations suggest the most paramount
socioeconomic pull factor, employment opportunity. After all, international immigration is very
costly. It can also pose dangerous and difficult travel conditions over terrain and possibly
through hostile areas (Bodvarsson and Van den Berg 2009). Despite this, the push and pull
factors encourage immigration.
Political, Social, and Economic Pull and Push Factors
Pull factors
The United States has one of the highest standards of living bolstered by economic
opportunity, civil liberties, political freedoms, and individual protections making it an attractive
destination. These conditions are considered pull factors. Categorized as ‘free’ by the Freedom
House measure, a political indicator measuring democracy, the United States has civil rights and
political rights lacking in other countries (Aghekyan et al., 2015). Freedom House rates the state
of freedom by assigning two numerical ratings from “one” to “seven” for political rights and
civil liberties. A score of “one” represents the freest circumstances while “seven” represents the
least free (Freedom House 2015). As depicted in Table 1, over the last 16 years, Freedom House
has consistently ranked the United States with the highest possible ranking score of “one” and a
categorization of “free.” These scores exemplify the best possible scenarios for political and civil
rights, acting as a strong pull factor.
V.4.24.16
5
Table 1: FREEDOM HOUSE: Political and Social Rights
Status
Political Rights
Civil Rights
F: Free; PF: Partially
Measured on a scale of
Measured on a scale of
Free; NF: Not Free
1 (best) to 7 (worst)
1 (best) to 7 (worst)
1999*
2005
2010
2015
1999*
2005
2010
2015
1999*
2005
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
NF
NF
F
F
F
NF
NF
F
F
F
NF
NF
F
F
F
NF
NF
F
F
F
7
7
2
1
2
7
7
2
1
2
7
7
2
1
2
7
7
2
1
2
F
PF
F
F
F
F
F
PF
2
3
1
2
1
2
Philippines
F
F
PF
PF
2
2
Vietnam
NF
NF
NF
NF
7
7
United
States
Canada
China,
People’s
Republic
Cuba
El Salvador
Germany
India
Korea,
Republic of
Mexico
2010
2015
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
7
3
2
3
6
7
3
1
3
6
6
3
1
3
6
6
3
1
3
2
3
2
4
2
2
2
3
2
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
7
7
7
6
5
5
Polity IV is another dataset measuring political factors that similarly scores the United
States as a full democracy. This dataset exemplifies a political pull factor because democratic
institutions guarantee the civil liberties, protections, and participation in the government.
(Marshall and Kaggers, 2014). Polity IV confirms the findings of Freedom House but also
represents additional political, social and economic factors not referenced in Freedom House. As
a state with democratic institutions, the United States is constitutionally bound to the population.
The constitution guarantees free and fair elections where all citizens have the opportunity to
participate in governing process without restrictions.
This political pull factor is also shown in the CIRI Dataset’s variable Electoral SelfDetermination. The CIRI Dataset, as a whole, rates countries on different human rights
characteristics through different variable measures. The Electoral Self-Determination variable
indicates to what extent citizens are able to enjoy the freedoms of political choice, which include
V.4.24.16
6
the ability to change laws and elect officials. It is measured on a scale of “zero” to “two.” A
score of “zero” is reserved for states where this does not exist. Conversely with a score of “two,”
states demonstrate that political participation is very free and available where self-determination
in both elections and law are routinely practiced. This variable shows that the citizens of the
United States benefit from the freedom of political affiliations, have influence over the laws that
govern them, and the freedom of choice to freely elect their representatives (Cingranelli and
Richards, 2014). As Table 2 depicts, the United States has consistently ranked as “very free”
with a score of “zero.”
Table 2: Political and Economic Rights
CIRI INDEX
WORLD BANK
Electoral SelfGross Domestic
Empowerment Rights
Determination
Product, Per Capita,
Scale of 0 (worst) to 14
Scale of 0 (worst) to 2
PPP (Constant 2011
(best)
(best)
international $)
1985
1995
2005
2011*
1985
1995
2005
2011*
1995
2005
2014*
2
2
2
2
12
12
12
11
39,476
49,762
52,118
2
2
2
2
13
13
12
12
32,101
40,284
42,778
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
2,551
5,675
12,599
0
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
11
13
12
2
13
11
9
0
11
10
8
0
12
11
7
9,217
5,748
33,850
2,058
14,239
7,052
37,924
3,213
19,950 **
7,967
43,602
5,439
1
2
2
2
4
11
10
10
16,798
25,541
33,629
Philippines
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
12
12
10
11
9
10
10
9
12,609
3,960
15,084
4,786
16,284
6,649
Vietnam
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
2,042
3,485
5,370
** 2013
United
States
Canada
China,
People’s
Republic
Cuba
El Salvador
Germany
India
Korea,
Republic of
Mexico
Within the CIRI Dataset, there are other human rights variables illustrating other pull
factors. The Empowerment Rights category is an additive index that includes other important
political, social, and economic factors. These include: Foreign Movement (freedom to travel in
V.4.24.16
7
and out of the country), Domestic Movement (freedom to travel within the country), Freedom of
Speech (freedoms of press, speech and expression), Freedom of Assembly and Association
(freedom to assemble and associate with other persons or groups), Workers’ Rights (workers
have the freedom to associate at work with the ability to collective bargain with their employers),
Electoral Self-Determination, and Freedom of Religion (freedom of citizens to exercise and
practice their religious beliefs without governmental restrictions). This index’s score ranges from
“zero,” representing a lack of government respect for these rights, to a “fourteen,” representing
full government respect for these seven rights. As indicated in Table 3, the United States has
consistently received a score of “twelve” indicating a governmental respect for these rights,
albeit not showing the fullest possible respect1 (Cingranelli and Richards, 2014). The
Empowerment Rights variable portrays the United States as having strong political and social
opportunities, an obvious pull factor. However, it only tangentially addresses the potential
economic pull factors.
Economically, the United States has one of the strongest, largest and most stable
economies, comprised of a stable currency and relatively low inflation. The gross national
income per capita (GDP per capita) is $52,118 as of 2014. The World Bank also categorized the
United States as a per capita high income producing economy, an indication of a strong
economy. As illustrated in Table 2, the United States has seen a steady growth in GDP per capita
over the last 20 years.
1
The United States rank is reflected in a lower score in Freedom of Movement and Workers’ Rights. The score of
“one” in Freedom of movement is a result of international travel restrictions in re-entry requirements. This is a result
of national security concerns, import/export and taxation policies, and health restrictions. For this reason, the United
States scored “one” on the “zero” to “two” scale range. Similarly, the United States scored “one” for Workers’
Rights. This is because the United States somewhat restricts workers’ rights. Even though the United States respects
minimum age for employment of children and sets acceptable, internationally recognized, conditions for
employment it does restrict on the ability to collective bargain
V.4.24.16
8
Collectively examining these different indices and measures exemplify an appealing
matrix of political, social and economic opportunities for immigrants, which are credited to a
strong pull factor for their host country. Historically, the United States Immigration Policy is
based on the foundation that immigrants have positive economic conditions from their host
country, arguing for a pull factor, without actually evaluating the individual conditions of source
countries (Chiswick 1979).
Push
Pull factors alone cannot explain immigrant motivations. Push factors are also an integral
part. Political, social, economic or a combination of condition in the source country are
unsatisfactory and motivate citizens to be “pushed” out. Between 1946 and 2004, over 3.5
million immigrants entered the United States as refugees (Reimers 2008). The motivations of
these groups of immigrants demonstrate push factors. Tables 1 and 2 juxtapose the United States
with 10 other countries: Canada, People’s Republic of China, Cuba, El Salvador, Germany,
India, Republic of Korea, Mexico, Philippines, and Vietnam. Glick and Bates (2010) cite these
countries as being the top source countries for immigrants.
With respect to political and social rights shown through the Empowerment Rights
variable, China, Cuba, and Vietnam, for example, have consistently scored l. The low score
indicates no government respect. During 1946 and 2004, the highest number of refugees
admitted came from South East Asia (Reimers 2008). The political and social conditions are
surely a significant motivating factor encouraging immigration, given the low scores. India has
also had an inconsistent record showing varying degrees of government respect for these rights.
On average, India shows little government respect.
V.4.24.16
9
Mexico and El Salvador, comparatively, have also had a volatile record. Central America,
as a whole, was plagued by civil wars, marking both civil and political unrest. David Reimers
(2008) explains “… supports of Central Americans insisted that these unfortunate [immigrants]
were refugees and should be granted asylum in the United States, but immigration officials
usually considered them to be economic migrants and thus not entitled to become refugees or
successful asylum seekers” (15). Conditions were so dire for Central Americans that in 1997
Congress enacted the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act to address the
growing number of refugee immigrants (Reimers 2008). The congressional act was not limited to
those of Nicaraguan descent. The act provided immigration benefits and protections from
deportations to Central Americans and also those escaping from any former Soviet bloc countries
(Reimers 2008). Nicaragua, Cuba, Guatemala, and El Salvador represented the main source
countries. Though Nicaragua and Guatemala are not considered a high immigrant source country
currently, the political instability is an example of push factor immigration.
Economic conditions in the source country exemplify a similar push factor (Bansak et al.
2015). Economic conditions are a broad concept like political or social conditions. High
unemployment and low labor market earnings are the most common economic push factors
(Bansak et al. 2015). Table 2 illustrates the economic conditions of the source country using the
Gross Domestic Product per capita as a proxy measure. Countries with scores indicating lower
social and political rights also have lower economic conditions. As noted by the United Nations,
economic push factors marked the highest immigration movement between 2010 and 2015.
In the two Tables, it is evident that not all of these countries score u…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment