Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

In the article “Urban Electoral Coalitions in an age of immigration”, Sonenshein and Drayse explore some interesting phenomena about the relationship between time, space, and political coalitions.  One of the things I found most surprising was how dynamic political coalitions in this country are. In other words, I was surprised to see how much political coalitions change depending on the political landscape as well as geography and immigration.  In modern politics, it’s easy to assume or predict which groups of people align themselves with others. This article proves, however, that political alliances are much more fickle than meets the eye. For example, sometimes, African-Americans and white conservatives align themselves based on mutual agreed threat that is brought in by Latino immigrants.  Due to ideological differences within white conservatives alongside the belief that immigrants pose a threat to the African-American position, sometimes these groups and their votes coincide. However, a fissure between white conservatives and African-Americans was exposed due to a policy regarding police support in LA. The point is that the coalitions that we come to assume can no longer be taken for granted.  Due to the heavy influx of immigrants from around the world, these political coalitions are more fickle than ever.

I also found the coalition data with regard to the maps to be very interesting.  In LA, historically white liberals and African-Americans have formed political coalitions.  The map suggests that white liberals have the furthest proximity from African-American and immigrant communities.  This draws my attention to a potentially interesting hypocrisy. It appears from this map that white liberals have adopted a progressive approach to immigration in parallel to a “not in my backyard” approach.  I find the effects of geography and spatial proximity on feelings toward immigration incredibly interesting and also ironic. To me it’s obvious that more exposure to undocumented citizens would demystify them and create support for them.  As the article shows, this is true in some cases, but not for others and is a truly fascinating phenomena.

I like how HR related this topic back to Lewiston, ME.  Lewiston faces many interesting immigration issues and is interesting to see the coalitions form between different communities, the racial implications they hold, and how they’ve changed.  Historically Lewiston is a city of immigrants. It’s interesting to see how the community and their relationship towards the latest wave of immigrants has changed and weather or not their are racial implications.