It’s rarely the case that people agreeing with each other is newsworthy. But in the case of foreign policy attitudes expressed by US Latinos and non-Latinos in the most recent Chicago Council Survey, The Chicago Council on Global Affairs concluded that the similarities between the two groups deserve a headline to put to rest unjustified concerns.
At a recent panel discussion at Florida International University in Miami to discuss the implications of the survey results, FIU Professor Eduardo Gamarra, who has done polling work across Latin America, pointed out that throughout history, Americans have held misconceptions about the potential impact of immigrants and those descended from them, even going back generations. “The first Alien & Sedition Act was based on the idea that the impact of foreigners would be negative,” Gamarra said. It’s time to debunk that myth, he said, particularly with Latino populations: “No Latino group has ever supported an enemy of the United States –yet policies assume that they will.”
With Latinos now the largest and fastest growing US minority at over 16 percent of the population, understanding their views is increasingly crucial. “This poll is doing something very important: you are assuming that we as Latinos are important. Not everybody does,” Gamarra added.
A 2014 Chicago Council Survey analysis found that overall, both Latinos and non-Latinos have strikingly similar foreign policy preferences. Both groups support strong US leadership. They feel the United States is the most influential country. They both support alliances, treaties and dialogue. The survey also found common concerns about cybersecurity, nuclear threats, and terrorism; and the importance of US foreign policy supporting US jobs.
To be sure, the survey revealed some differences. A majority of Latinos –54 percent- were more likely to view climate change as a critical threat versus just 32 percent of non-Latinos. They also placed greater priority on combating world hunger. They were more likely to support the United Nations taking a role in addressing world problems. Not surprisingly, the other difference was in their views on immigration, which Latinos were much less likely than others to see as a threat or to view reducing illegal immigration as a key foreign policy priority.
Jose Miguel Cruz, research director at the Latin American and Caribbean Center at Florida International University, said it made sense that Hispanic and non-Hispanic Americans had similar views on US leadership because Latin Americans consistently show strong support for state institutions, which traditionally have been important actors in public life in Latin America. Latinos support multilateral foreign policy approaches and the United Nations because of their strong feelings in favor of democracy and freedom, said Cruz. Interestingly, he noted that polls in many countries show public opinion to be more strongly in favor of President Obama than of their own presidents –even Venezuela’s virulently anti-US President Hugo Chavez when he was still alive.
Latin Americans also have honored some US presidents for their leadership in the region: “There is always a plaza or street called Kennedy or Roosevelt,” Cruz noted. “Hispanics very much believe in the key role the US should play in the world. Yet he said that stronger support for the United Nations also made sense because Latin Americans also see themselves more as citizens of the world than US citizens do. “They have a legacy of looking out at the world without diminishing the role of the United States,” he said.
Chicago Council Senior Fellow Dina Smeltz theorized that part of the reason for Latinos’ and Latin Americans’ more expansive views was that Latino and Spanish language media tend to take a broader world view than US media.
Yet, Latinos are not represented at the highest levels of US administrations. There are still only a handful of Latino US ambassadors; they include Ambassador Lilian Ayalde in Brazil (formerly US Ambassador to Paraguay), Ambassador Mari Carmen Aponte in El Salvador, Ambassador Luis Moreno in Jamaica and Ambassador Carlos Moreno in Belize.
Moreover, Latinos do not share policy agendas across groups. The panelists agreed that a larger sample size of Latinos would help to reveal differences across nationalities.
Both first and second generation Hispanics have historically low levels of representation and voting. Some may impact policy in other ways –including through their influence in their countries of origin. “There is no getting around the influence of Americans on Mexican policy,” said David Duckenfield of the US State Department, noting that four out of ten Mexicans have family members living in the United States.
In the United States, changing demographic trends will make it harder to ignore those voices as white Americans cease to be the majority population as soon as 2040, as the number of eligible voters continues to rise, and as groups like Voto Latino mobilize a new generation of voters.
The Chicago Council on Global Affairs highlights critical shifts in American public thinking on US foreign policy through public opinion surveys and research conducted under the Lester Crown Center on US Foreign Policy.
The annual Chicago Council Survey, first conducted in 1974, is a valuable resource for policymakers, academics, media, and the general public. The Council also surveys American leaders in government, business, academia, think tanks, and religious organizations biennially to compare trends in their thinking with overall trends. And collaborating with partner organizations, the survey team periodically conducts parallel surveys of public opinion in other regions of the world to compare with US public opinion.
The Running Numbers blog features regular commentary and analysis from the Council’s public opinion and US foreign policy research team, including a series of flash polls of a select group of foreign policy experts to assess their opinions on critical foreign policy topics driving the news.
Ukrainian citizens are cynical about the effectiveness of aid from Western allies in the ongoing war in Donbass. Meanwhile, regional differences in attitude towards Russia remain prominent.
Democratic primary season is well under way, highlighted by recent debates and battleground fundraising by the large field of presidential hopefuls. As candidates deliver their pitch to voters, party supporters are not in lockstep on every issue.
America’s young and old are split on what to do about climate change, presenting a major hurdle for the country’s youth to attain serious and immediate action.
Opinion in Northern Ireland is polarized amid Brexit negotiations.
The United Kingdom remains split on Brexit as Parliament is suspended amid tumultuous backlash.
How are Americans reacting to the US-China trade war?
Mexicans have a far more negative views of Trump than of the United States or the US-Mexico relationship.
Amid the protests and violence in Hong Kong, a recent survey reveals differences in opinions between younger and older age groups as well as between more and less educated people living in Hong Kong.
Mexican attitudes towards Central American migrants are changing as the dispute between the US and Mexico over how to handle the migration issue continues.
Relations between Japan and South Korea are in freefall, with the two key US allies in Asia engaged in a steadily escalating economic conflict.
The United States has long been the tops arms supplier in the world. Yet public opinion data shows that Americans aren’t fans of U.S. arms sales.
Most Americans believe that respect and admiration for the United States are instrumental in achieving US foreign policy goals. But a new poll finds publics in the Middle East and North Africa continue to view the United States unfavorably.
At the June 25-26 Bahrain Peace to Prosperity Workshop, Jared Kushner presented the first component of a U.S. peace plan for the Middle East. But how does this plan sit with the Palestinian public?
Approval rates for Moon Jae-in are sliding, but his North Korea policy is not one of primary drivers.
In early February 2019, the United States withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty following President Trump’s October 2018 (and the Obama administration’s July 2014) accusations that Russia was failing to comply with the treaty. Russia withdrew from the treaty the next day.
Findings from a February 2019 Chicago Council on Global Affairs general public survey and a December 2018 Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) survey of International Relations (IR) scholars around the world illustrate how these different populations perceive the collapse of the INF Treaty.