Skip to main content
Menu

Main navigation

  • About
    • Annual Reports
    • Leadership
    • Jobs
    • Student Programs
    • Media Information
    • Store
    • Contact
    LOADING...
  • Experts
    • Policy Scholars
    • Adjunct Scholars
    • Fellows
  • Events
    • Upcoming
    • Past
    • Event FAQs
    • Sphere Summit
    LOADING...
  • Publications
    • Studies
    • Commentary
    • Books
    • Reviews and Journals
    • Public Filings
    LOADING...
  • Blog
  • Donate
    • Sponsorship Benefits
    • Ways to Give
    • Planned Giving

Issues

  • Constitution and Law
    • Constitutional Law
    • Criminal Justice
    • Free Speech and Civil Liberties
  • Economics
    • Banking and Finance
    • Monetary Policy
    • Regulation
    • Tax and Budget Policy
  • Politics and Society
    • Education
    • Government and Politics
    • Health Care
    • Poverty and Social Welfare
    • Technology and Privacy
  • International
    • Defense and Foreign Policy
    • Global Freedom
    • Immigration
    • Trade Policy
Live Now

Blog


  • Blog Home
  • RSS

Email Signup

Sign up to have blog posts delivered straight to your inbox!

Topics
  • Banking and Finance
  • Constitutional Law
  • Criminal Justice
  • Defense and Foreign Policy
  • Education
  • Free Speech and Civil Liberties
  • Global Freedom
  • Government and Politics
  • Health Care
  • Immigration
  • Monetary Policy
  • Poverty and Social Welfare
  • Regulation
  • Tax and Budget Policy
  • Technology and Privacy
  • Trade Policy
Archives
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • Show More
December 4, 2020 2:49PM

Immigrant Citizens Didn’t Shift Counties toward Supporting Trump in the 2020 Election

By Alex Nowrasteh

SHARE

In the wake of the 2020 election, some Republicans took heart in the apparent shift of some Hispanic voters toward Trump relative to 2016. As I wrote elsewhere, the size of this shift is probably not large (bad exit poll data obscures this) and it still resulted in less Hispanic support than was earned by George W. Bush in 2004. Ethnic attrition also makes it difficult to judge the ethnic and racial support for presidential candidates as the descendants of immigrants, especially if born to an inter-ethnic or inter-racial couple, are much less likely to self-identify as Hispanic, Asian, or with other racial or ethnic origins. Thus, Trump’s support among second, third, or higher generation Hispanics could be even higher than the ethnic responses to exit polls suggest.

Another way of looking at the shift in support for Trump is to examine county level voting outcomes. Trump did win some counties in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas that he would not have won without a significant shift in the Hispanic vote in his direction. But Hispanics are only part of the immigrant population in the United States and, surprising to many, the majority of Hispanics living here are not immigrants, but native-born Americans. We should therefore expect that, over time, nativist policies and talking points would negatively affect Hispanic voters less and less as they and their descendants more fully assimilate into American culture and think of themselves primarily as patriotic Americans. There are also many immigrants from Asian, Africa, and Europe who were also affected by Trump’s immigration policies who get lost in the discussion over Hispanic voting patterns.

This blog post looks at the change in the county level vote share for President Trump from 2016 to the 2020 election, with a particular focus on the share of the county population who are naturalized citizens in all counties in the United States. Naturalized citizens are immigrants who have become American citizens and who can therefore vote in American elections. To the extent that immigrants would or could directly affect American elections, naturalized citizens are the voters who would do so. The 2020 county level election results data come from Fox News, the 2016 election results come from the MIT Election Data Lab, and the demographic data are from the 2014-2018 ACS 5-year estimates.

Figure 1 shows the relationship between the 2016 and 2020 vote share for Trump on the county level. The 2016 and 2020 Trump vote share is correlated with a coefficient of +0.96 that is significant at the 1 percent level. In other words, a county’s vote share for Trump in 2016 is highly correlated to a statistically significant extent with the county’s vote share for Trump in 2020. Data points further to the right of the dashed line show more of a shift toward Trump, data points to the left show more of a shift toward the Democrats. It’s also important to realize that this shows a shift in the share of the vote, so although it looks like the shift for counties toward Trump was very large, those shifts were in some smaller population counties and obscure the overall shift toward Biden. For instance, the biggest county level vote share shift was in Graham County, Arizona where Trump’s vote share increased from 40 percent in 2016 to 72 percent in 2020. But Graham County is small, with a population slightly under 38,000 in our sample, so large shifts in small counties didn’t make the difference state-wide in Arizona. So far, Figure 1 is not surprising.

Figure 1

County Level Vote Shares for President Trump, 2016 and 2020

imm vote fig 1

Sources: Fox News, MIT, American Community Survey.

Figure 2 shows the relationship between the shift toward Trump from 2016 to 2020 and the naturalized immigrant share of a county’s population. The correlation coefficient is a statistically insignificant -0.038. In other words, there was no meaningful shift in the county-level immigrant citizen vote share. Trump did neither worse nor better than he did in 2016. Interestingly, this statistically insignificant results can be entirely explained by Miami-Dade County, Florida. Excluding Miami-Dade County from the regression shows that counties with more naturalized citizens were more likely to be less supporting of him in 2020 everywhere else in the country with a correlation coefficient of -0.067 that is significant at the 5 percent level. Without the naturalized American voters in Miami-Dade county, who account for 30 percent of that county’s population, counties with new Americans would have been more likely to vote against Trump in 2020 than they did in 2016.

Figure 2

Naturalized Share of the Population and Vote Share Shift Toward Trump

imm vote fig 2

Sources: Fox News, MIT, American Community Survey.

The naturalized immigrant population in the entire country is just over 7 percent. Looking entirely at the 121 counties where the naturalized immigrant share of the population is at or above the nationwide level shows that they shifted slightly toward Trump in 2020, to 39 percent up from 37 percent in 2016 (Figure 3).

Figure 3

County Level Vote Shares for President Trump in Counties with High Naturalized Immigrant Population Shares, 2016 and 2020

imm vote fig 3

Sources: Fox News, MIT, American Community Survey.

There are a few lessons here. First, counties that voted for a candidate in one year are likely to vote for that candidate the next year and to a similar extent. No surprise there. Second, counties with naturalized American citizens didn’t become more anti-Trump if Miami-Dade is included. Third, the big shift toward Trump in Miami masks the nationwide shift against Trump in counties with more naturalized Americans. Excluding Miami-Dade County shows a general shift against Trump in counties with more naturalized Americans that is significant at the 5 percent level.

Caution is always warranted in interpreting county-level electoral results like these, so please don’t confuse this analysis with one that uses microdata, but it sure looks like the anti-socialist naturalized American voters in Miami-Dade voted differently in 2020 than other naturalized Americans. They lived in a county that still voted for Biden but that swung hard toward Trump by over 12 points.

Related Tags
Immigration

Stay Connected to Cato

Sign up for the newsletter to receive periodic updates on Cato research, events, and publications.

View All Newsletters

1000 Massachusetts Ave, NW,
Washington, DC 20001-5403
(202) 842-0200
Contact Us
Privacy

Footer 1

  • About
    • Annual Reports
    • Leadership
    • Jobs
    • Student Programs
    • Media Information
    • Store
    • Contact

Footer 2

  • Experts
    • Policy Scholars
    • Adjunct Scholars
    • Fellows
  • Events
    • Upcoming
    • Past
    • Event FAQs
    • Sphere Summit

Footer 3

  • Publications
    • Books
    • Cato Journal
    • Regulation
    • Cato Policy Report
    • Cato Supreme Court Review
    • Cato’s Letter
    • Human Freedom Index
    • Economic Freedom of the World
    • Cato Handbook for Policymakers

Footer 4

  • Blog
  • Donate
    • Sponsorship Benefits
    • Ways to Give
    • Planned Giving
Also from Cato Institute:
Libertarianism.org
|
Humanprogress.org
|
Downsizinggovernment.org