Nativity and Voter Participation 2010 - 2024: Exploring the Electoral Participation Gap Between Foreign-Born and Native-Born Citizen in the United States of America

Ken Georges Irish-Bramble; Sasha Franchesca Richardson

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ss.20251405.18

Research Article |

| Peer-Reviewed

Nativity and Voter Participation 2010 - 2024: Exploring the Electoral Participation Gap Between Foreign-Born and Native-Born Citizen in the United States of America

Ken Georges Irish-Bramble^*

, Sasha Franchesca Richardson

Published in Social Sciences (Volume 14, Issue 5)

Received: 19 August 2025 Accepted: 9 September 2025 Published: 27 October 2025

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

Over the past two decades, the population of naturalized citizens in the United States has grown at a faster rate than that of native-born citizens, resulting in foreign-born voters composing a substantial share of the national electorate. By 2024, naturalized citizens constituted at least 13% of the electorate despite many long-term eligible residents not pursuing attainment of citizenship. This demographic transformation, coupled with the rising prominence of immigration-related issues, has heightened the importance of understanding the political behavior of naturalized citizens. Previous scholarship has identified a significant gap in voter registration and turnout between naturalized and native-born citizens. However, limited longitudinal studies have been conducted to address questions about the durability of this divide over time. This paper investigates the extent to which nativity and other socio-economic and demographic characteristics shape electoral participation in the United States from 2010 to 2024. Using microdata from the U.S. Census Bureau’s biannual Current Population Survey Voting and Registration Supplement, we employ logistic regression models to evaluate the predictive power of nativity, income, education, race/ethnicity, gender, and age on both registration and turnout. Our analysis directly compares findings from this period with earlier studies covering 1996-2010, allowing us to assess whether participation gaps have narrowed, widened, or persisted. Results show that, while the foreign-born electorate has expanded in both absolute and relative terms, naturalized citizens continue to register and vote at lower rates than their native-born counterparts, even after controlling for socio-economic variables. We further highlight important demographic differences between naturalized and native-born voters, particularly in age distribution, educational attainment, and racial/ethnic composition. These findings confirm the persistence of an electoral participation gap, suggesting structural and institutional factors may continue to limit the full incorporation of naturalized citizens into the U.S. political system. Furthermore, while the salience of immigration policy may influence naturalization rates, this has not translated into an increase likelihood of registering to vote and/or subsequently turning out to vote.

Published in	Social Sciences (Volume 14, Issue 5)
DOI	10.11648/j.ss.20251405.18
Page(s)	545-559
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Native-Born, Foreign-Born, Voting, Electoral Participation, Naturalized Citizens

1. Introduction

Immigration continues to reshape the United States, with naturalized citizens comprising a growing segment of the electorate

[1, 2]

. However, their integration into the political process, particularly in terms of voter participation, has been a subject of ongoing scholarly inquiry. The investigation into the voting behavior of naturalized citizens in comparison to their native-born counterparts within the United States reveals a multifaceted landscape influenced by socio-economic factors, psychological dispositions, and the intricacies of electoral procedures

[3, 4]

. Understanding the nuances of this comparative behavior is crucial for a comprehensive grasp of political engagement and representation in a diverse society

[5, 6]

. Additionally, as immigration continues to be a central issue in US national politics, the immigrant vote could be the decisive factor in closely contested elections

[1]

The number of naturalized citizens has steadily increased over the past three decades. As Lopez explains:

Growth in the foreign-born eligible voter population reflects two broad U.S. population trends. First, the number of immigrants living in the United States has been rising steadily since 1965, when the Immigration and Nationality Act became law. Then, the nation’s 9.6 million immigrants made up just 5% of the population. Today, 45 million immigrants live in the country, accounting for about 13.9% of the population. Most are either from Latin America or Asia. Second, a rising share of immigrants living in the U.S. have naturalized in recent years. Between 2009 and 2019, 7.2 million immigrants naturalized and became citizens according to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security

[2]

. In fiscal year 2018 alone, more than 756,000 immigrants naturalized

[7]

“The number of immigrant eligible voters has increased steadily over the past 20 years, up 93% since 2000. By comparison, the U.S.-born eligible voter population grew more slowly (by 18%) over the same period, from 181 million in 2000 to 215 million in 2020.”

[7]

The number of eligible lawful permanent residents becoming naturalized citizens increased from 12 million in the year 2000 to almost 24 million by 2022

[8]

. As a result, naturalized citizens represent an increasingly significant percentage of the electorate. In 2006, 93 percent of voting-age citizens were born in the United States, (

[9]

: p. 6). Since 2020, foreign-born voters have made up at least 10% of the electorate

[1, 7, 8]

. By 2024, the naturalized population constituted approximately thirteen percent of the electorate. Rates of naturalization have also increased over the past decades from 48% in 1995 to over 61% in 2011 with an average naturalization rate of approximately 700,000 per year. In 2024, The United States Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) reported that they welcomed 818,500 new citizens, a 7% decrease from 2023

[10]

Presently, seventy-six percent of naturalized citizens were born in Latin America or Asia. Approximately seventeen percent were born in Europe followed by Africa. According to the Bipartisan Policy Center Issue Brief (

[11]

: p. 7, 8), nearly nine million of the current population of naturalized citizens in the United States were naturalized between 2000 and 2010. In 2019, the United States had a record number of naturalizations at 843,593. The largest number since 2008 when the number surpassed one million people, according to the Department of Homeland Security

[2]

. The change in the composition of naturalized citizens, from mostly white in the 1960s to mostly non-white from the 1980s and beyond has had an impact on immigrant electoral participation and political affiliations over time

[12]

. As a whole, foreign-born citizens are becoming an increasingly important segment of the US electorate “who can dramatically change political landscapes”

[13]

. “Immigrants today account for 14.3% of the U.S. population, a roughly threefold increase from 4.7% in 1970”

[14]

2. Research Focus

In this paper we present a longitudinal study of the impact of nativity and other select socio-economic factors on electoral participation between 2010 and 2024. We define electoral participation as voter registration and voting in national elections. Our analysis is informed by Bass & Casper’s analysis of the 1996 election which serves as the baseline for comparison. Additionally, we draw comparisons to the findings of Crissey and File

[9]

as a point of reference. In doing so, this paper will represent the first longitudinal analysis of the impact of nativity status on voter participation over this time period. In addition to examining the impact of nativity status, we also compare the impact of select socio-economic and demographic factors on naturalized citizens relative to native-born citizens. The examined socio-economic and demographic factors were selected based on the findings of the two studies listed above. Each was previously found to be a statistically significant determinant of electoral participation by previous researchers.

3. Literature Review

This literature review examines recent research on voter participation among naturalized citizens in the U.S., focusing on factors influencing their engagement in elections. Because of the comparative nature of this paper, particular attention is given to the findings of Bass and Casper

[5, 12, 15]

and Crissey and File

[6]

. The works of other researchers and scholars are discussed to demonstrate the consistency of findings, the persistence of key relationships and, in some cases, to explore some nuanced observations and findings.

The USCIS Trends in Naturalization Rates: FY 2018 Update

[16]

highlights increases in the 6-, 10- and 20-year naturalization rates. These measures evaluate the percentage of eligible Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs) who become naturalized within a 6-, 10- and 20-year period of having attained their lawful permanent residence. The report shows increases across all three measures between 1973 and 2012. The 6-year rate has increased from 19.8% to 33.7%. Similarly, the 10-year naturalization rate has increased from 31.4% to 53.3% and the 20-year rate from 41.7% to 63.7%

[17]

Given the now 10 - 13% share of the electorate, the potential impact of foreign-born citizens on national elections in the United States of America is becoming an issue of greater discussion. Naturalized citizens have often been neglected. The existing literature suggests a persistent disparity in voter turnout between these two groups, warranting a deeper exploration into the underlying causes and potential remedies

[6]

. The existing body of research posits varied explanations for the observed gap in political participation between naturalized and native-born citizens, encompassing factors such as socio-economic status, degree of assimilation, and psychological motivations

[6, 18]

. Socioeconomic status plays a pivotal role, with higher levels of education, income, and occupational prestige generally correlating with increased voter turnout among both groups

[18]

. Studies have shown that individual-level sociodemographic influences affect participation in voting and are manifest over and above long-standing explanations

[19]

. Political scientists have extensively studied individual voting behavior, often emphasizing the psychological and sociological determinants that shape voter choices

[20]

. But examining the registration and voting patterns of both naturalized and native-born citizens is essential to determine the degree to which nativity status influences political participation

[5]

The effect of nativity on voting behavior is a complex interplay of societal investment, barriers to voting, and the dynamics of an increasingly diverse citizenry

[6]

. Several studies have explored the disparities in voter turnout between naturalized and native-born citizens. The existing body of research posits varied explanations for the observed gap in political participation between naturalized and native-born citizens, encompassing factors such as socio-economic status, degree of assimilation, and psychological motivations

[9]

. Barreto

[24]

notes that decades of scholarship “have consistently found that Latino foreign-born citizens turnout to vote at lower rates than native born Latinos as well as non-Latinos⁴” (

[21]

: p. 79). See also

[22]

3.1. Bass & Casper General Findings (1996)

Bass and Casper

[5]

analyzed data from the November 1996 Current Population Survey and found that naturalized citizens were less likely to register, and vote compared to their native-born counterparts, even when accounting for education, income, age and employment

[5, 12, 15]

. While those socioeconomic factors predict political participation well among native-born Americans, they are less influential for naturalized voters. Instead, the most significant predictors for naturalized citizens were how long they've lived in the U.S., length of stay at current residence, education and how rooted they are in their current communities. Among naturalized citizens, those with more education, a longer length of time at current residence, and a longer length of time in the U.S. are more likely to register and vote. Their reported regression results are shared in appendix 1.

3.2. Crissey & File General Finding (1996-2010)

Similarly, Crissey and File

[6]

, using more recent CPS data from 1996 to 2010, confirmed that nativity status remains a significant determinant of voting behavior. “This suggests that Bass and Casper’s

[5]

findings for nativity status and voting behaviors were not isolated to the 1996 election and that the effect of nativity status remains a relevant predictor of voting behavior across all elections since then.” (

[6]

: p. 9). These findings suggest persistent barriers or disincentives for naturalized citizens' electoral participation and raise questions about the social integration of migrant populations. Beyond this, the authors found that this gap has not only persisted but had grown over time. The results from the 2010 election show that naturalized citizens were about half as likely to register and 40% less likely to vote, mirroring the trends identified in 1996 data

[6]

. Additionally, Crissey and File

[6]

posit that the effect of nativity status on voter participation has increased, especially in presidential elections, though congressional elections show a similar trend in voting, if not in registration. Their regression results are shared in appendix 2.

3.3. Other Analyses

The U.S. Census bureau has published a series of reports on electoral participation in recent elections and has included comparisons of naturalized vs native-born citizens in their analysis. These reports are election specific but still provide important snap shots of electoral behavior during the time period under consideration in this paper. Day and Holder (

[23]

: p. 4) for example note that the majority of citizens of voting age (94%) were native born during the 2002 election. Of the 30 million immigrants of voting age, 12 million (41%) had naturalized and were eligible to register and vote in the November 2002 election. They observe that “voting and registration rates were higher among native citizens. In the Congressional election of 2002, 67 percent of native citizens were registered and 47 percent voted. In comparison, 54 percent of naturalized citizens were registered and 36 percent voted”

[23]

. Similarly, in 2006, 93% of voting-age citizens were born in the United States (

[9]

: p. 6). “In 2006, a larger percentage of native citizens (69 percent) registered to vote than naturalized citizens (54 percent). Native citizens also had a higher voting turnout rate (49 percent compared to 37 percent). Native citizens have also been more likely to vote than naturalized citizens in recent congressional elections” (

[9]

: p. 6).

“Registration and voting rates did not differ between native and naturalized citizens for each racial and ethnic group, with the exception of non-Hispanic Whites” in the 2002 23: p. 4. However, among people who were registered to vote, only the Hispanic population showed a difference in voting rates between native and naturalized citizens. Registered Hispanics who were naturalized citizens were more likely to vote than their native counterparts (64 percent compared with 56 percent) (

[23]

: p. 4). However, Nepal

[2]

highlighted nuanced patterns within the naturalized population, noting that Hispanic and Asian naturalized citizens demonstrated higher voter turnout rates than their U.S.-born counterparts in 2016

[2]

. This suggests that ethnicity and national origin may play a crucial role in shaping voter behavior among naturalized citizens. As a result of conflicting conclusions, we include race as a demographic factor in our analysis here.

It is also worth noting that:

In all 50 states, the share of non-Hispanic White eligible voters declined between 2000 and 2018, with 10 states experiencing double-digit drops in the share of White eligible voters. During that same period, Hispanic voters have come to make up increasingly larger shares of the electorate in every state. These gains are particularly large in the Southwestern U.S., where states like Nevada, California and Texas have seen rapid growth in the Hispanic share of the electorate over an 18-year period

[24]

Florida and Arizona saw the third- and fourth-largest declines in the shares of non-Hispanic White eligible voters. In Florida, the white share of the electorate has fallen by 13% since 2000 while the share of Hispanic voters has grown from 11% in 200 to 20% by 2018. Four other battleground states (Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Wisconsin and Michigan) also saw declines in the share of White eligible voters between 2000 and 2018

[24]

Jones-Correa

[25]

investigated institutional and contextual factors affecting naturalization and voting among Latin American immigrants in the 1996 election

[25]

. The study identified education and length of residence in the U.S. as significant predictors of naturalization

[6, 15, 18]

. Socioeconomic status plays a pivotal role, with higher levels of education, income, and occupational prestige generally correlating with increased voter turnout among both groups.

Approximately half of the 44 million immigrants, had naturalized by 2015

[2]

. According to the Bi Partisan Policy Center’s Immigration Task Force

[26]

, nearly 80% of naturalized citizens were born in Latin America or Asia. The largest increase in naturalization rates between 2005 and 2015 was among Indian and Ecuadorian with immigrants from Vietnam and Iran having the highest overall rates of naturalizations in 2015. Despite being the largest group of eligible immigrants, Mexican maintained low rates of naturalization prior to 2015 (42%)

[2, 27]

. However, USCIS reports that in the period 2015-2019 “compared to the previous five-year period (FY 2009-2014). Between 2015 and 2019, the proportion of people naturalizing that were born in North America and Asia increased, while the proportion born in Europe and South America decreased. Over the five-year period, the top six countries of birth were Mexico, India, the Philippines, China, Cuba, and the Dominican Republic” (

[28]

: p. 2). This shift also coincides with a particularly volatile political period for immigrants in the United States with the rise of nationalist, anti-immigrant rhetoric largely targeting Latin-American and Asian immigrants.

3.4. Voter-turnout

Source: Ballotpedia https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_turnout_in_United_States_elections

Download: Download full-size image

Figure 1. Voter turnout in United States elections.

It should be noted that this shift in naturalization patterns also coincides with general increases in voter-turnout in US national elections. As File

[33]

observes “Overall voting rates have fluctuated in recent presidential races, from a low of 58.4 percent of the citizen population in 1996 to a high of about 64.0 percent in both 2004 and 2008” (

[29]

: p. 1). The 2020 and 2024 elections recorded the highest voter-participation in recent US history at 66.4% in 2020 and 63.8 in 2024. As the Brookings Institute alsnotes “the national election rate (actual voters per 1000 eligible voters) in 2022 was 52.2%, the second highest that the Census Bureau has recorded for a midterm in four decades. The highest was in 2018 at 53.4%”

[30]

. Figure 1 above shows voter turnout rates between 2008 and 2024. The high turnout rate witnessed in 2020 and 2024 is part of a general trend of increased voter turnout rates over the period under review. 2018 and 2022 also showed higher than usual turnout for mid-term elections

[17]

. These observed trends “suggest that the nation has entered an era of a highly energized electorate”

[30]

but also reinforce the importance of understanding the dynamics which influence newer American citizens and their voting behavior as a growing segment of the voting population.

Table 1 below shows the reported figures from the same source which also shows a general upward trend for both presidential and midterm elections. Therefore, any analysis of FBC voting behavior must be positioned within the context of a general increase in electoral participation. Future analysis should also be conducted to determine the degree to which naturalized citizens political engagement is contributing to the overall increase in voter participation rates.

Table 1. U.S. Voter Turnout 2002-2024.

U.S. Election Year	Voter Turnout Rate (as percentage of eligible voters)
2024	63.9%
2022	46.2%
2020	66.6%
2018	50.0%
2016	60.1%
2014	36.7%
2012	58.6%
2010	41.8%
2008	62.2%
2006	41.3%
2004	60.7%
2002	40.5%

Source: Ballotpedia https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_turnout_in_United_States_elections

The increased rates of naturalization and increasing voter participation rates combined with the centrality of immigrant politics in recent US electoral competitions, supports speculation that this trifactor may increase political participation of FBCs and/or that the naturalized citizen vote may influence electoral outcomes

[24, 27, 36-38]

. Overall, the literature indicates that while naturalized citizens are a growing force in American elections, their participation rates lag behind those of native-born citizens, influenced by factors such as ethnicity, gender, socio-economic status, and length of residence

[31-35]

. But, as the FBC population increases as a share of the electorate, we must consider what their potential impact is on the electoral system

[5, 36-38]

Overall, the literature indicates that while naturalized citizens are a growing force in American elections, their participation rates influenced by factors such as ethnicity, gender, socio-economic status, and length of residence

[36-38]

. But, as the FBC population increases as a share of the electorate, we must consider what their potential impact is on the electoral system

[5]

4. Methodology

4.1. CPS Data Decoding

This study developed a semi-automated Python pipeline to convert the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey (CPS) Voting Supplement microdata from raw fixed-width files into structured CSVs suitable for analysis. The raw data files were converted by extracting variable definitions from accompanying codebooks and applying them to parse records. The pipeline accounted for inconsistencies across survey years (e.g., non-unique variable names, varying codebook formats) and included validation steps to ensure positional accuracy and completeness. The resulting datasets were standardized and versioned for reproducibility.

Download: Download full-size image

Figure 2. Data Decoding Process.

4.2. Data Analysis

Multiple CPS data extracts in .csv format were merged into a single analytical dataset. Each file was inspected for a consistent set of variables related to demographic, socioeconomic, and electoral behavior indicators. Due to inconsistencies in variable naming across years (e.g., prinusyr vs. prinuyer for immigrant year of entry), dynamic renaming and standardization procedures were applied. Also, variables were lowercased for consistency.

Records were restricted to respondents that identified as U.S. citizens, either native-born or naturalized (i.e., Citizen Status codes 1 and 4). Additionally, only those who provided valid responses to voting and registration questions (Registered to Vote and Voted coded as 1 or 2) were included. Cases with internal inconsistencies (e.g., reported voting but not registered) were autofilled by setting registration status to “yes” when voting was reported.

A subset of variables deemed theoretically relevant to civic participation was retained. These included citizenship status, education, income, age, gender, race, immigrant’s time in country (via year of entry), household structure, and employment status. Categorical variables were recoded using CPS-provided labels and transformed into binary indicators for regression, with one category omitted per feature to prevent multicollinearity.

Two outcome variables were modeled separately: (1) Voter participation (Voted), (2) Voter registration (Registered to Vote). Both were re-coded as binary outcomes (1 for “Yes”, 0 otherwise) to enable logistic regression analysis. Logistic regression was used to estimate the likelihood of voting and registration, separately, across two populations: (1) all U.S. citizens and (2) naturalized citizens only.

The cleaned and filtered data were then passed into a logistic regression model, and model fit was assessed using standard metrics such as coefficients, standard errors, p-values, and confidence intervals. Coefficients were interpreted as log-odds changes in the probability of electoral participation associated with each predictor, holding other variables constant.

5. Results

Table 2. Odds of registering to vote among all citizens and naturalized citizens: Nov. 2010 - 2024.

Variable	All Citizens Model		Naturalized Citizens Model
Variable	coef	std_err	coef	std_err
Persons age	0.03*	(0.000)	0.02*	(0.001)
Family Income	0.06*	(0.001)	0.05*	(0.003)
Education_Advanced degree	2.33*	(0.021)	1.58*	(0.048)
Education_Bachelor's degree	2.01*	(0.016)	1.14*	(0.039)
Education_High school grad. or GED	0.65*	(0.012)	0.32*	(0.034)
Education_Some college or Assoc. degree	1.39*	(0.013)	0.93*	(0.038)
Time in Country_Entered between 1950-1964			-1.12*	(0.100)
Time in Country_Entered before 1950			-1.04*	(0.169)
Time in Country_Entered between 1965-1985			-1.48*	(0.081)
Time in Country_Entered in 1986 or later			-1.74*	(0.074)
Length of Stay at Current Address_1-2 years	-0.47*	(0.013)	-0.36*	(0.042)
Length of Stay at Current Address_3-4 years	-0.23*	(0.014)	-0.13+	(0.041)
Length of Stay at Current Address_5 years or longer	0.03+	(0.010)	0.14*	(0.031)
Length of Stay at Current Address_Less than 1 year	-0.65*	(0.014)	-0.47*	(0.049)
Gender_Female	0.19*	(0.008)	0.10*	(0.024)
Employment Status_Employed	0.31*	(0.009)	0.27*	(0.029)
Employment Status_Unemployed	0.16*	(0.019)	0.34*	(0.068)
Citizen Status_Native born	-1.82*	(0.021)
Citizen Status_Naturalized	-2.66*	(0.025)

^*Significant at 0.001 level. + Significant at 0.05 level.

Download: Download full-size image

Figure 3. Logistic Regression Coefficients for voter registration among naturalized citizens.

Table 3. Odds of reported voting among all citizens and naturalized citizens: Nov. 2010 - 2024.

Features	All Citizens Model		Naturalized Citizens Model
Features	coef	std_err	coef	std_err
Persons age	0.03*	(0.000)	0.02*	(0.001)
Family Income	0.07*	(0.001)	0.05*	(0.003)
Education_Advanced degree	2.04*	(0.016)	1.26*	(0.041)
Education_Bachelor's degree	1.80*	(0.013)	0.95*	(0.035)
Education_High school grad. or GED	0.66*	(0.012)	0.29*	(0.033)
Education_Some college or Assoc. degree	1.25*	(0.012)	0.75*	(0.035)
Time in Country_Entered between 1950-1964			-1.72*	(0.090)
Time in Country_Entered before 1950			-1.90*	(0.136)
Time in Country_Entered between 1965-1985			-2.02*	(0.075)
Time in Country_Entered in 1986 or later			-2.15*	(0.069)
Length of Stay at Current Address_1-2 years	-0.42*	(0.011)	-0.32*	(0.039)
Length of Stay at Current Address_3-4 years	-0.20*	(0.011)	-0.11*	(0.037)
Length of Stay at Current Address_5 years or longer	0.00*	(0.008)	0.05*	(0.027)
Length of Stay at Current Address_Less than 1 year	-0.62*	(0.012)	-0.47*	(0.046)
Gender_Female	0.10*	(0.006)	0.07*	(0.021)
Employment Status_Employed	0.16*	(0.008)	0.15*	(0.026)
Employment Status_Unemployed	0.02*	(0.018)	0.24*	(0.062)
Citizen Status_Native born	-2.72*	(0.019)
Citizen Status_Naturalized	-3.36*	(0.022)

^*Significant at 0.001 level.

Download: Download full-size image

Figure 4. Logistic Regression Coefficients for voter registration among all citizens.

Download: Download full-size image

Figure 5. Logistic Regression Coefficients for voting among naturalized citizens.

Download: Download full-size image

Figure 6. Logistic Regression Coefficients for voting among all citizens.

6. Discussion

The results reveal distinct patterns in how socio-economic and demographic factors shape electoral participation among naturalized and native-born citizens. While some predictors exhibit similar effects across groups, others diverge sharply, underscoring the persistent participation gap between the two populations.

6.1. Education

Educational attainment consistently demonstrated the strongest association with both voter registration and participation in all models. Higher levels of education were linked to significantly greater likelihood of engagement, but the strength of this relationship was systematically larger for all citizens compared to naturalized citizens.

For voter registration, an advanced degree was associated with a 2.33 log-odds unit increase for all citizens, versus a 1.58 log-odds unit increase for naturalized citizens. Bachelor’s degrees showed a 2.01 log-odds unit increase for all citizens compared to 1.14 for naturalized citizens, while some college or an associate degree increased log-odds by 1.39 for all citizens and 0.93 for naturalized citizens. Even a high school diploma or GED, compared to less than high school, corresponded to a 0.65 log-odds increase for all citizens and 0.32 for naturalized citizens. For voter participation, the pattern was similar. Advanced degree holders had a 2.04 log-odds unit increase for all citizens and 1.26 for naturalized citizens. Bachelor’s degrees corresponded to increases of 1.80 and 0.95 log-odds units respectively, while some college or an associate degree yielded increases of 1.25 and 0.75.

These consistent differences suggest that while education strongly promotes political engagement for both groups, the magnitude of its influence is diminished among naturalized citizens. Advanced degree holders were substantially more likely to engage politically, with the effect size consistently larger among native-born citizens than naturalized citizens. So, while educational attainment facilitates civic knowledge, skills, and confidence, structural and cultural barriers blunt its influence for the foreign-born population. Even highly educated naturalized citizens lack equivalent mobilization by political parties or the same ease of navigating U.S. institutions compared to their native-born peers. This may reflect a combination of structural barriers, such as limited outreach from political parties and civic organizations, and differences in social integration, political efficacy, or familiarity with U.S. political institutions.

6.2. Income

Compared to education, income was far less predictive, highlighting the limits of material resources in overcoming systemic constraints. Income showed only modest effects on both voter registration and participation. Although higher family income was associated with slightly greater registration and turnout, the magnitudes were small and statistically similar across groups. In the registration model, each unit increase in family income was associated with a 0.06 log-odds increase for all citizens and 0.05 for naturalized citizens. In the voting model, the effect sizes were 0.07 and 0.05 log-odds units, respectively. While slightly smaller for naturalized citizens, the differences between the groups fell within the standard errors, indicating no meaningful divergence in the underlying relationship.

This suggests that economic resources alone are insufficient to drive political engagement, particularly when barriers such as institutional complexity or limited outreach persist. While higher income may afford resources such as time, transportation, and access to political information, these advantages alone do not substantially alter participation rates, especially among naturalized citizens. It is important to acknowledge the difference between access to resources, the absence of barriers and mobilization. It also underscores that economic well-being is less predictive of political engagement than education, possibly because financial resources cannot fully mitigate non-economic barriers to mobilization and participation. Education, which directly enhances political efficacy and cognitive engagement, is far more predictive than income of whether individuals register and vote. Some naturalized citizens also may not equate their economic interests to electoral outcomes in the same way that naturalized citizens do.

6.3. Age

Age demonstrated a weak but positive association with political participation. For all citizens, each additional year of age was linked to a 0.03 log-odds unit increase in both registration and voting. For naturalized citizens, the increase was 0.02 log-odds units. While the effect was slightly weaker for naturalized citizens, the difference was negligible given the overlapping standard errors. This suggests that aging exerts a similar influence across both groups. Older individuals, regardless of nativity, were somewhat more likely to register and vote, reflecting the accumulation of civic experience and stability over time, rather than differences in group-specific political trajectories. The influence of stability, systemic or institutional familiarity and community ties, often associated with age may also help explain the universal influence on political incorporation. The results for residential stability support this.

As individuals age, they acquire greater political knowledge, develop stronger partisan attachments, and become more embedded in social and community networks that facilitate participation. Older adults also tend to have more stable routines and stronger place-based identities, which can increase the likelihood of registering and voting. For naturalized citizens, however, the weaker effect may reflect generational differences across immigrant cohorts, particularly for those who migrated later in life. Unlike the native-born, who accumulate political experiences continuously from early adulthood, immigrants may experience a delayed or interrupted trajectory of political socialization. Even after decades in the United States, the absence of political learning during formative years may dampen the influence of age on engagement. Thus, while aging supports higher turnout across the board, it does not fully compensate for the cumulative disadvantages faced by naturalized citizens.

6.4. Length of Stay at Current Address

Residential stability proved to be a more consequential predictor of both registration and participation, particularly for naturalized citizens. Short stays at a current address sharply reduced the likelihood of registration and voting across both groups, but longer-term residence showed a stronger positive effect for the foreign-born population. This relationship reflects the importance of community embeddedness in fostering political engagement. Stable residence strengthens ties to local institutions, neighbors, and organizations, all of which provide information about elections and encouragement to participate. It also reduces logistical barriers such as re-registering after a move, updating identification, or navigating unfamiliar polling places. For naturalized citizens, the effect of residential stability was slightly stronger, suggesting that continuity of place plays a particularly critical role in supporting their integration into U.S. political life. Immigrants who move frequently may not only miss registration deadlines but may also struggle to build durable networks that encourage voting. Conversely, those who remain in the same community for longer periods are better positioned to establish trust, join civic organizations, and receive targeted mobilization from local actors. Thus, residential stability functions as both a practical facilitator and a proxy for deeper social integration, with disproportionate benefits for naturalized citizens.

Shorter stays at a current address were negatively associated with engagement. For registration, living at the same address for less than one year was associated with a -0.65 log-odds unit change for all citizens and -0.47 for naturalized citizens. Similarly, a 1-2-year stay was linked to decreases of -0.47 and -0.36 log-odds units, respectively. Longer stays had the opposite effect: living at the same address for five years or longer corresponded to a 0.03 log-odds increase for all citizens and a 0.14 increase for naturalized citizens in registration likelihood.

In the voting model, the pattern persisted. Less than one year at the same address was associated with a -0.62 log-odds unit change for all citizens and -0.47 for naturalized citizens. A stay of 1-2 years corresponded to -0.42 and -0.32 log-odds units respectively. Only among naturalized citizens did a five-year stay show a modest positive association (0.05 log-odds units) with voting. These results suggest that community embeddedness, familiarity with local election logistics, and established social networks may play a slightly more pronounced role in promoting participation among naturalized citizens.

6.5. Length of Stay in the Country (Naturalized Citizens Only)

For naturalized citizens, time spent in the U.S. had a strong and consistently negative relationship with more recent arrival cohorts’ likelihood to register and vote. In the voting model, those who entered in 1986 or later had a -2.15 log-odds unit change compared to the reference group, while arrivals between 1965-1985, 1950-1964, and before 1950 had -2.02, -1.72, and -1.90 log-odds unit changes, respectively. In the registration model, the corresponding values were -1.74, -1.48, -1.12, and -1.04 log-odds units.

The progressively larger negative coefficients for more recent arrivals indicate a persistent participation gap that is widest among the newest immigrants. Recent arrivals displayed the lowest levels of engagement, while those present for decades still lagged behind native-born citizens. This persistent gap underscores the enduring barriers to full political integration, even after long-term residence. This pattern likely reflects multiple factors: limited exposure to U.S. political norms and systems, lower rates of mobilization by political actors, and competing priorities such as economic stability, housing, and family settlement. Recent arrivals are also less likely to have residential stability, compounding their barriers to political engagement. Recent arrivals displayed the lowest levels of engagement, while those present for decades still trailed behind native-born citizens. This persistent gap underscores the enduring barriers to full political integration, even after long-term residence. Even for those in the country for decades, lingering differences in engagement may stem from generational patterns, language barriers, or reduced relevance of electoral politics to their daily life.

6.6. Citizenship Status

When modeled across all citizens, citizenship status itself had a significant negative relationship with both registration and voting for those who were naturalized compared to native-born citizens. In the voting model, being native-born was associated with a -2.72 log-odds unit coefficient relative to the omitted category, while naturalized citizens had a -3.36 log-odds unit coefficient. In the registration model, the coefficients were -1.82 for native-born and -2.66 for naturalized citizens.

These results indicate that, after controlling for socioeconomic and demographic variables, both native-born and naturalized citizens faced lower likelihoods of participation relative to the reference group, but naturalized citizens were more disadvantaged. This finding underscores that citizenship acquisition alone does not eliminate participation gaps, and structural or systemic factors beyond legal status likely continue to inhibit engagement for the naturalized population. Naturalized citizens face a variety of barriers to their political engagement relative to their native-born counterparts including unfamiliarity with the electoral process, the absence of deep generational affiliations to political parties, and poorly developed social networks which foster electoral participation. Furthermore, the established political parties have not made concerted efforts to conduct targeted outreach to and mobilize naturalized citizens despite their increasing numbers.

Additionally, the results imply that increased naturalization rates are more closely linked to securing the right to remain in the country than to embracing the full rights and responsibilities of citizenship. Naturalized citizens often maintain strong connections with their home countries and complex dual-citizen identities which temper their desire to participate fully in the political system of their new home country. Further research is warranted to better understand the reluctance of more recent FBCs to engage politically.

6.7. Employment Status

Employment status produced nuanced effects. Employment status was a positive predictor of both registration and voting across groups. In the registration model, being employed was associated with a 0.31 log-odds unit increase for all citizens and 0.27 for naturalized citizens. In the voting model, the corresponding increases were 0.16 and 0.15. Unemployment showed a smaller positive effect: 0.16 log-odds units for all citizens and 0.34 for naturalized citizens in registration, and 0.02 and 0.24, respectively, for voting.

Being employed was consistently associated with greater registration and participation across groups, reflecting access to information, networks, and stability. However, unemployment had a surprisingly stronger positive association among naturalized citizens compared to the native-born. The stronger association of unemployment with registration and voting among naturalized citizens may reflect mobilization through community programs, union activities, or targeted outreach to economically vulnerable populations. It may also reflect the supremacy of basic economic interests over other social issues as a motivating factor for driving naturalized citizens political mobilization. However, overall, being employed remained the more consistent positive factor, possibly because stable employment facilitates access to information, resources, and social networks that encourage political participation.

6.8. Gender

Gender also played a modest but consistent role. Being female was associated with a 0.19 log-odds unit increase in registration for all citizens and 0.10 for naturalized citizens; in voting, the coefficients were 0.10 and 0.07, respectively. These patterns indicate that women in both groups were more likely than men to register and participate, but the advantage was somewhat smaller among naturalized citizens.

This smaller gap could stem from differences in mobilization strategies, cultural norms affecting women’s political engagement in immigrant communities, or unequal access to information and resources. Still, the consistent positive relationship between female gender and electoral participation aligns with broader national trends showing higher turnout rates among women.

7. Conclusion

The findings confirm and extend previous research, highlighting several significant determinants of electoral participation. A critical finding is the persistent electoral participation gap between naturalized and native-born citizens Even after controlling for various socio-economic and demographic variables, citizenship status itself maintained a significant negative relationship with both registration and voting for naturalized citizens relative to their native-born counterparts. This suggests that legal citizenship alone does not fully bridge the participation divide, indicating that structural or systemic factors beyond legal status continue to impede full electoral integration for naturalized populations.

Educational attainment consistently emerged as the strongest predictor of both voter registration and participation. Higher levels of education correlated with a greater likelihood of engagement across all models, though the strength of this relationship was more pronounced for the general citizen population compared to naturalized citizens. Older individuals demonstrated a higher propensity to register and vote. Similarly, residential stability, indicated by longer periods at the same address, was positively associated with increased participation. These factors likely reflect the accumulation of civic experience and integration into community networks that encourage political engagement. Employment status was a positive predictor for both registration and voting across all groups. Additionally, gender played a consistent, albeit modest, role, with women generally exhibiting higher rates of registration and voting than men, a trend consistent with broader national patterns.

While socio-economic factors such as education and stable residency are crucial facilitators of political engagement for all citizens, the study underscores that naturalized citizens continue to face unique barriers that contribute to lower electoral participation rates. Addressing this disparity requires a multifaceted approach that considers not only individual characteristics but also broader societal and systemic factors that influence the political integration of naturalized populations. This research provides a foundational longitudinal analysis, paving the way for further targeted interventions and policies aimed at fostering more equitable and robust democratic participation across all segments of the U.S. electorate.

Abbreviations

CPS	Current Population Survey
CSV	Comma Separated Value
FBC	Foreign-Born Citizens
LPR	Lawful Permanent Residents
NBC	Native-Born Citizens
USCIS	United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

Author Contributions

Ken Georges Irish-Bramble: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing

Sasha Franchesca Richardson: Data curation, Methodology, Visualization.

Funding

This work is not supported by any external funding.

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study can be found at https://www.census.gov/topics/public-sector/voting/data.html (a publicly available repository url).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Sanchez, G. R., & Frimpong, K. America’s immigrant voters and the 2024 presidential election. Brookings . 2024 Nov 13. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/americas-immigrant-voters-and-the-2024-presidential-election/
[2]	Nepal, S. Participating in the American Dream: How Naturalized Immigrants are Voting and Running for Office \| Bipartisan Policy Center. 2020 Nov 20. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/participating-in-the-american-dream-how-naturalized-immigrants-are-voting-and-running-for-office/
[3]	Afzal, M., & Omosun, F. Who gets to come in: How political engagement shapes views on legal immigration. 2025. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/314938/1/Afzal-Omosun-MPSA-2025-Research-Draft.pdf
[4]	Harder, J., & Krosnick, J. A. (2008). Why Do People Vote? A Psychological Analysis of the Causes of Voter Turnout. Journal of Social Issues, 64(3), 525. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2008.00576.x
[5]	Bass, L. E., & Casper, L. M. Are There Differences in Registration and Voting Behavior Between Naturalized and Native-born Americans? Population Division: US Bureau of the Census. 1999 Feb. https://www.census.gov/library/working-papers/1999/demo/POP-twps0028.html
[6]	Crissey, S., & File, T. Voting Behavior of Naturalized Citizens: 1996-2010. U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/working-papers/2012/demo/crissey-01.pdf
[7]	Lopez, A. B., Noe-Bustamante, L., & Hugo, M. Naturalized Citizens Make Up Record One-in-Ten U.S. Eligible Voters in 2020. Pew Research Center. 2020 Feb 26. https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2020/02/26/naturalized-citizens-make-up-record-one-in-ten-u-s-eligible-voters-in-2020/
[8]	Kent, D. (2024, September 19). 1 in 10 eligible voters in the U.S. are naturalized citizens. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/09/19/1-in-10-eligible-voters-in-the-u-s-are-naturalized-citizens/
[9]	File T, Crissey S. Population Characteristics Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2008. 2012 Jul. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2012/demo/p20-562rv.html
[10]	U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Naturalization Statistics \| USCIS. www.uscis.gov . 2025 Jan 17.
[11]	Zamara, L. Naturalized Population: Characteristics and Trends. Bipartisan Policy Center. 2014 Jun 14. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/download/?file=/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Naturalized-Population-one-pager-5-29.pdf
[12]	Bass, L. E., & Casper, L. M. Impacting the Political Landscape: Who Registers and Votes among Naturalized Americans? Political Behavior. 2001; 23(2): 103-30. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1558363
[13]	Gotta, D. Rock the Naturalized Vote: How Data Can Improve the Political and Civic Inclusion of New Americans - USC Equity Research Institute (ERI). USC Equity Research Institute (ERI). 2024 Oct 8. https://dornsife.usc.edu/eri/2024/10/08/rtnv-how-data-can-improve-the-political-and-civic-inclusion-of-new-americans/
[14]	Moslimani, M., & Passel, J. S. What the Data Says about Immigrants in the U.S. Pew Research Center; Pew Research Center. 2024 Sep 27. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/09/27/key-findings-about-us-immigrants/
[15]	Bass, L. E., & Casper, L. M. Differences in Registering and Voting between Native-Born and Naturalized Americans. Population Research and Policy Review. 2001; 20(6): 483-511. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015635717294
[16]	US Citizenship and Immigration Services. Trends in Naturalization Rates: FY 2018 Update. 2021. https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/reports/Trends_In_Naturalization_Rates_FY18_Update_Report.pdf
[17]	US Citizenship and Immigration Services. Characteristics of People Who Naturalized Between FY 2015 and FY 2019. 2021. https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/reports/Characteristics_of_People_Who_Natzd_Between_FY15andFY19.pdf
[18]	Marschall, M. (2001). Does the Shoe Fit? Urban Affairs Review, 37(2), 227. https://doi.org/10.1177/10780870122185271
[19]	Cho, W. K. T., Gimpel, J. G., & Dyck, J. J. (2005). Residential Concentration, Political Socialization, and Voter Turnout. The Journal of Politics, 68(1), 156. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00377.x
[20]	Thomas, N. (1968). Voting Machines and Voter Participation in Four Michigan Constitutional Revision Referenda. The Western Political Quarterly, 21(3), 409. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591296802100305
[21]	Barreto, M., Ramirez, R., & Woods, N. Are Naturalized voters driving the California Latino Electorate? Measuring the effect of IRCA Citizens on Latino Voting. Social Science Quarterly. 2005; 86(4): 792-812. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0038-4941.2005.00356.x
[22]	DeSipio, L. Social science literature and the naturalization process. International Migration Review. 1987; 21(2): 390-405. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2546322
[23]	Day, J. C., & Holder, K. Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2002. U.S. Census Bureau. 2004 Jul. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2004/demo/p20-552.html
[24]	Igielnik, R., & Budiman, A. The Changing Racial and Ethnic Composition of the U.S. Electorate. Pew Research Center; Pew Research Center. 2020 Sep 23. https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2020/09/23/the-changing-racial-and-ethnic-composition-of-the-u-s-electorate/
[25]	Jones-Correa, M. A., & Leal, D. L. (2001). Political Participation: Does Religion Matter? Political Research Quarterly, 54(4), 751-770. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290105400404 (Original work published 2001).
[26]	Immigration Task Force. Immigration Task Force. Bipartisan Policy Center. 2019. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/download/?file=/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/BPC-Immigration-Task-Force-Naturalized-Population-Characteristics-and-Trends-Issue-Brief-May-2014_0.pdf
[27]	Gonzalez-Barrera, A., & Krogstad, J. M. Naturalization rate among U.S. immigrants up since 2005, with India among the biggest gainers. Pew Research Center. 2018 Jan 18. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/01/18/naturalization-rate-among-u-s-immigrants-up-since-2005-with-india-among-the-biggest-gainers/
[28]	Naturalization Statistics \| USCIS. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. 2021 Sep 17. https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship-resource-center/naturalization-statistics
[29]	File, T. The Diversifying Electorate-Voting Rates by Race and Hispanic Origin in 2012 (and Other Recent Elections). US Bureau of the Census. 2013. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2013/demo/p20-568.html
[30]	Frey, W. New voter turnout data from 2022 shows some surprises, including lower turnout for youth, women, and Black Americans in some states. Brookings; Brookings Institute. 2023 May 18. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/new-voter-turnout-data-from-2022-shows-some-surprises-including-lower-turnout-for-youth-women-and-black-americans-in-some-states/
[31]	Batalova, J., & Marrow, B. Naturalized Citizens in the United States. Migration Policy Institute. 2024 Jul 9. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/naturalization-trends-united-states-2024
[32]	Knight, D. J., & Zhang, B. Residential mobility and persistently depressed voting among disadvantaged adults in a large housing experiment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2024; 121(20).
[33]	Fields, G. Why millions of Americans don’t vote in U.S. elections. AP News. 2024 Jan 3. https://apnews.com/projects/election-2024-our-very-complicated-democracy/election-2024-why-americans-dont-vote-episode-6.html
[34]	Rosenberg, S. Why Mexican lawful immigrants have not naturalized. Pew Research Center; Pew Research Center. 2017 Jun 29. https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2017/06/29/why-mexican-lawful-immigrants-have-not-naturalized/
[35]	Singh, S., & Fallon, K. Housing Instability Is a Critical Barrier to Voting Access. Housing Matters. 2024 Oct 23. https://housingmatters.urban.org/articles/housing-instability-critical-barrier-voting-access
[36]	Sanchez, G. Immigration policy could determine the next president of the United States. Brookings. 2024 Mar 4. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/immigration-policy-could-determine-the-next-president-of-the-united-states/
[37]	Chen, G., & Rosales-Zeledon, S. Our “Candidate” is Immigration: 2022 Election Results Recap. Aila.org; American Immigration Lawyers Association. 2022 Nov 9. https://www.aila.org/blog/our-candidate-is-immigration-2022-election-results-recap
[38]	Bernal, R. Naturalized citizens fired up to vote this year: Poll. The Hill. 2024 Sep 9.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Irish-Bramble, K. G., Richardson, S. F. (2025). Nativity and Voter Participation 2010 - 2024: Exploring the Electoral Participation Gap Between Foreign-Born and Native-Born Citizen in the United States of America. Social Sciences, 14(5), 545-559. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20251405.18

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Irish-Bramble, K. G.; Richardson, S. F. Nativity and Voter Participation 2010 - 2024: Exploring the Electoral Participation Gap Between Foreign-Born and Native-Born Citizen in the United States of America. Soc. Sci. 2025, 14(5), 545-559. doi: 10.11648/j.ss.20251405.18

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Irish-Bramble KG, Richardson SF. Nativity and Voter Participation 2010 - 2024: Exploring the Electoral Participation Gap Between Foreign-Born and Native-Born Citizen in the United States of America. Soc Sci. 2025;14(5):545-559. doi: 10.11648/j.ss.20251405.18

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ss.20251405.18,
  author = {Ken Georges Irish-Bramble and Sasha Franchesca Richardson},
  title = {Nativity and Voter Participation 2010 - 2024: Exploring the Electoral Participation Gap Between Foreign-Born and Native-Born Citizen in the United States of America
},
  journal = {Social Sciences},
  volume = {14},
  number = {5},
  pages = {545-559},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ss.20251405.18},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20251405.18},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ss.20251405.18},
  abstract = {Over the past two decades, the population of naturalized citizens in the United States has grown at a faster rate than that of native-born citizens, resulting in foreign-born voters composing a substantial share of the national electorate. By 2024, naturalized citizens constituted at least 13% of the electorate despite many long-term eligible residents not pursuing attainment of citizenship. This demographic transformation, coupled with the rising prominence of immigration-related issues, has heightened the importance of understanding the political behavior of naturalized citizens. Previous scholarship has identified a significant gap in voter registration and turnout between naturalized and native-born citizens. However, limited longitudinal studies have been conducted to address questions about the durability of this divide over time. This paper investigates the extent to which nativity and other socio-economic and demographic characteristics shape electoral participation in the United States from 2010 to 2024. Using microdata from the U.S. Census Bureau’s biannual Current Population Survey Voting and Registration Supplement, we employ logistic regression models to evaluate the predictive power of nativity, income, education, race/ethnicity, gender, and age on both registration and turnout. Our analysis directly compares findings from this period with earlier studies covering 1996-2010, allowing us to assess whether participation gaps have narrowed, widened, or persisted. Results show that, while the foreign-born electorate has expanded in both absolute and relative terms, naturalized citizens continue to register and vote at lower rates than their native-born counterparts, even after controlling for socio-economic variables. We further highlight important demographic differences between naturalized and native-born voters, particularly in age distribution, educational attainment, and racial/ethnic composition. These findings confirm the persistence of an electoral participation gap, suggesting structural and institutional factors may continue to limit the full incorporation of naturalized citizens into the U.S. political system. Furthermore, while the salience of immigration policy may influence naturalization rates, this has not translated into an increase likelihood of registering to vote and/or subsequently turning out to vote.
},
 year = {2025}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Nativity and Voter Participation 2010 - 2024: Exploring the Electoral Participation Gap Between Foreign-Born and Native-Born Citizen in the United States of America

AU  - Ken Georges Irish-Bramble
AU  - Sasha Franchesca Richardson
Y1  - 2025/10/27
PY  - 2025
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20251405.18
DO  - 10.11648/j.ss.20251405.18
T2  - Social Sciences
JF  - Social Sciences
JO  - Social Sciences
SP  - 545
EP  - 559
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2326-988X
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20251405.18
AB  - Over the past two decades, the population of naturalized citizens in the United States has grown at a faster rate than that of native-born citizens, resulting in foreign-born voters composing a substantial share of the national electorate. By 2024, naturalized citizens constituted at least 13% of the electorate despite many long-term eligible residents not pursuing attainment of citizenship. This demographic transformation, coupled with the rising prominence of immigration-related issues, has heightened the importance of understanding the political behavior of naturalized citizens. Previous scholarship has identified a significant gap in voter registration and turnout between naturalized and native-born citizens. However, limited longitudinal studies have been conducted to address questions about the durability of this divide over time. This paper investigates the extent to which nativity and other socio-economic and demographic characteristics shape electoral participation in the United States from 2010 to 2024. Using microdata from the U.S. Census Bureau’s biannual Current Population Survey Voting and Registration Supplement, we employ logistic regression models to evaluate the predictive power of nativity, income, education, race/ethnicity, gender, and age on both registration and turnout. Our analysis directly compares findings from this period with earlier studies covering 1996-2010, allowing us to assess whether participation gaps have narrowed, widened, or persisted. Results show that, while the foreign-born electorate has expanded in both absolute and relative terms, naturalized citizens continue to register and vote at lower rates than their native-born counterparts, even after controlling for socio-economic variables. We further highlight important demographic differences between naturalized and native-born voters, particularly in age distribution, educational attainment, and racial/ethnic composition. These findings confirm the persistence of an electoral participation gap, suggesting structural and institutional factors may continue to limit the full incorporation of naturalized citizens into the U.S. political system. Furthermore, while the salience of immigration policy may influence naturalization rates, this has not translated into an increase likelihood of registering to vote and/or subsequently turning out to vote.

VL  - 14
IS  - 5
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Ken Georges Irish-Bramble

Medgar Evers College (CUNY), New York, United States

Biography: Ken Georges Irish-Bramble is an Associate Professor in the Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences at Medgar Evers College (CUNY), the Faculty Director of CUNY ICORP at Medgar Evers College (CUNY), a 2025 Fellow with the Rockefeller Institute of Government’s Institute on Immigrant Integration Research and Policy and the former Interim Director of the Caribbean Research Center at Medgar Evers College. He holds a BA in Political Science from the City University of New York (CUNY); a MA in Comparative Politics from New York University (NYU); a MA in Secondary Education from Pace University and a Ph.D. in Comparative Politics from NYU. Dr. Irish-Bramble is currently pursuing a Master’s degree in International Migration Studies at the CUNY Graduate Center. His publications include Bricks, Ballots, and Bullets: Political and Communal Violence in Jamaica; Retrieving the American Past: A Supplementary reader (2008) and Violence and Power: A Collection of Essays (2018).

Research Fields: Political and Communal Violence, Caribbean-American Diasporic Voting, Caribbean Regional Integration, Voting behavior of Naturalized Citizens, CARICOM Intra-regional migration.

Contact Email

http://orcid.org/0009-0009-5879-5276
Sasha Franchesca Richardson

Medgar Evers College (CUNY), New York, United States

Biography: Sasha Franchesca Richardson serves as the Assistant Program Coordinator for CUNY’s Innovative Career Opportunity and Research Program (ICORP) at Medgar Evers College. In her role, she leads undergraduates in the application of advanced data analysis and visualization techniques to Social Science research initiatives. Ms. Richardson possesses a B.S. in Computer Science from Fayetteville State University, an M.S. in Business Analytics from Baruch College, and is preparing to pursue an M.A. in Digital Humanities at The CUNY Graduate Center. Her work is centered on translating complex datasets into policy recommendations, combining academic knowledge with practical applications.

Research Fields: Cultural Analysis, Textual Studies, Social & Cultural Computing, Immigration Studies, Voting Behavior

Contact Email

http://orcid.org/0009-0004-7585-4470

Download PDF

Submit an Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Irish-Bramble, K. G., Richardson, S. F. (2025). Nativity and Voter Participation 2010 - 2024: Exploring the Electoral Participation Gap Between Foreign-Born and Native-Born Citizen in the United States of America. Social Sciences, 14(5), 545-559. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20251405.18

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Irish-Bramble, K. G.; Richardson, S. F. Nativity and Voter Participation 2010 - 2024: Exploring the Electoral Participation Gap Between Foreign-Born and Native-Born Citizen in the United States of America. Soc. Sci. 2025, 14(5), 545-559. doi: 10.11648/j.ss.20251405.18

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Irish-Bramble KG, Richardson SF. Nativity and Voter Participation 2010 - 2024: Exploring the Electoral Participation Gap Between Foreign-Born and Native-Born Citizen in the United States of America. Soc Sci. 2025;14(5):545-559. doi: 10.11648/j.ss.20251405.18

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ss.20251405.18,
  author = {Ken Georges Irish-Bramble and Sasha Franchesca Richardson},
  title = {Nativity and Voter Participation 2010 - 2024: Exploring the Electoral Participation Gap Between Foreign-Born and Native-Born Citizen in the United States of America
},
  journal = {Social Sciences},
  volume = {14},
  number = {5},
  pages = {545-559},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ss.20251405.18},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20251405.18},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ss.20251405.18},
  abstract = {Over the past two decades, the population of naturalized citizens in the United States has grown at a faster rate than that of native-born citizens, resulting in foreign-born voters composing a substantial share of the national electorate. By 2024, naturalized citizens constituted at least 13% of the electorate despite many long-term eligible residents not pursuing attainment of citizenship. This demographic transformation, coupled with the rising prominence of immigration-related issues, has heightened the importance of understanding the political behavior of naturalized citizens. Previous scholarship has identified a significant gap in voter registration and turnout between naturalized and native-born citizens. However, limited longitudinal studies have been conducted to address questions about the durability of this divide over time. This paper investigates the extent to which nativity and other socio-economic and demographic characteristics shape electoral participation in the United States from 2010 to 2024. Using microdata from the U.S. Census Bureau’s biannual Current Population Survey Voting and Registration Supplement, we employ logistic regression models to evaluate the predictive power of nativity, income, education, race/ethnicity, gender, and age on both registration and turnout. Our analysis directly compares findings from this period with earlier studies covering 1996-2010, allowing us to assess whether participation gaps have narrowed, widened, or persisted. Results show that, while the foreign-born electorate has expanded in both absolute and relative terms, naturalized citizens continue to register and vote at lower rates than their native-born counterparts, even after controlling for socio-economic variables. We further highlight important demographic differences between naturalized and native-born voters, particularly in age distribution, educational attainment, and racial/ethnic composition. These findings confirm the persistence of an electoral participation gap, suggesting structural and institutional factors may continue to limit the full incorporation of naturalized citizens into the U.S. political system. Furthermore, while the salience of immigration policy may influence naturalization rates, this has not translated into an increase likelihood of registering to vote and/or subsequently turning out to vote.
},
 year = {2025}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Nativity and Voter Participation 2010 - 2024: Exploring the Electoral Participation Gap Between Foreign-Born and Native-Born Citizen in the United States of America

AU  - Ken Georges Irish-Bramble
AU  - Sasha Franchesca Richardson
Y1  - 2025/10/27
PY  - 2025
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20251405.18
DO  - 10.11648/j.ss.20251405.18
T2  - Social Sciences
JF  - Social Sciences
JO  - Social Sciences
SP  - 545
EP  - 559
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2326-988X
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20251405.18
AB  - Over the past two decades, the population of naturalized citizens in the United States has grown at a faster rate than that of native-born citizens, resulting in foreign-born voters composing a substantial share of the national electorate. By 2024, naturalized citizens constituted at least 13% of the electorate despite many long-term eligible residents not pursuing attainment of citizenship. This demographic transformation, coupled with the rising prominence of immigration-related issues, has heightened the importance of understanding the political behavior of naturalized citizens. Previous scholarship has identified a significant gap in voter registration and turnout between naturalized and native-born citizens. However, limited longitudinal studies have been conducted to address questions about the durability of this divide over time. This paper investigates the extent to which nativity and other socio-economic and demographic characteristics shape electoral participation in the United States from 2010 to 2024. Using microdata from the U.S. Census Bureau’s biannual Current Population Survey Voting and Registration Supplement, we employ logistic regression models to evaluate the predictive power of nativity, income, education, race/ethnicity, gender, and age on both registration and turnout. Our analysis directly compares findings from this period with earlier studies covering 1996-2010, allowing us to assess whether participation gaps have narrowed, widened, or persisted. Results show that, while the foreign-born electorate has expanded in both absolute and relative terms, naturalized citizens continue to register and vote at lower rates than their native-born counterparts, even after controlling for socio-economic variables. We further highlight important demographic differences between naturalized and native-born voters, particularly in age distribution, educational attainment, and racial/ethnic composition. These findings confirm the persistence of an electoral participation gap, suggesting structural and institutional factors may continue to limit the full incorporation of naturalized citizens into the U.S. political system. Furthermore, while the salience of immigration policy may influence naturalization rates, this has not translated into an increase likelihood of registering to vote and/or subsequently turning out to vote.

VL  - 14
IS  - 5
ER  -

Copy | Download