Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
A considerable academic literature in migration studies and political science seeks to identify the factors that determine whether persons with a migration background vote in national or local elections in the destination country, or stand as a candidate (see, for example, Martiniello, 2006 ; Morales and Pilati 2014 ; Finn, 2020 ; Soininen & Qvist, 2021 ). In that literature, immigrants’ interest in and turnout rates at destination country elections are typically treated as indicators of immigrant integration (see, for example, Wright & Bloemraad, 2012 ). High turnout levels, for example, are seen as evidence that ethnic minorities have acquired a considerable level of knowledge of, and access to, the domestic political system. Furthermore, the overrepresentation of highly educated persons with a migration background among voters and those standing as a candidate is generally seen as evidence for mature immigrant incorporation, which has been facilitated by integration policies, such as through the granting of local-level voting rights to non-citizens, or the offering of naturalization and dual citizenship opportunities. Indeed, it has always been argued in the Netherlands—the country on which the present study focuses—that immigrants’ interest in the domestic political system would increase once they had obtained voting rights (Van Heelsum et al., 2016 ). The interest to promote immigrants’ political participation in liberal democracies also stems from the institutional need to preserve the legitimacy of domestic political institutions, which requires democratic involvement of different social groups (Kymlicka, 1995 ).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Göksu et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: