Immigrant Influence in NYC Politics

Article Summary: Migrant Impact in NYC Politics
Candidate’s Name
Institution’s Name
Migrant Impact in NYC Politics
Mollenkopf (2013) in his article focuses on the political interplay both past and present between the minorities (immigrants) and the native-born whites within the New York City (NYC). In his introductory part, the author observes that the immigrants in the NYC are becoming the city’s majority voting-age citizens (at 48%) and the city’s majority population at 58%. Therefore, according to the author, NYC is a litmus test for the way immigrants are mobilized as well as represented in politics and how they interact with the white minorities in politics.
Mollenkopf (2013) explains that NYC portrays a unique display of potentially competing or cooperating native whites and ethnic immigrant clusters. Therefore, NYC should be regarded not as an outsider in harboring a unique set of migrants. It has a mixed set of migrants that are very representative of the foreign-born populace.
Mollenkopf (2013) states that the city’s past struggle on the way migrants should be incorporated into the city’s political system created mechanisms as well as dynamics that continue to impact the city’s politics in the present times. In response to the waves of immigration, the city created political establishments and cultures that aimed to offer chances to the immigrants, mobilize them and represent their interests.
The author explains that the city has experienced an increase in migrants participations in the political parties even though their succession in these parties has been varied, for instance, a few of the immigrants were being engrossed into the Democratic Party establishment (Mollenkopf, 2013).

The city offers two kinds of ways for the migrants to get into the political power; first by being elected to city council or legislature then rise through the ranks of the parties and secondly by being part of the larger revolutionary majority who succeed in the mayoralty (Mollenkopf, 2013). However, the author affirms that these ways need the candidates to bring together various ethnic clusters into coalitions. He explains that it is impossible for a contender to request votes from his or her ethnic cluster.
Mollenkopf (2013) also discusses the ethnic successions of politics within the city in two phase periods of 1950-1990 and 1990-2013. He states that in the 1950s, the immigrant populace was only at 23% and the political leadership mirrored the dominant white population. During this period, the major political division involved the liberal Jewish and the conservative Catholic Democrats. The city experienced racial discrimination of the migrants in politics. However, the city was on the verge of racial change. The immigrants later started to vie and got elected for political posts due to the fading of the discrimination and the increase in the population of the immigrants in the city. During 1990-2013, the migrants kept on winning elections, and the white’s populace continued to fall, but despite this drop in the white’s populace, they continued to serve as the city mayors as well as held other elective posts. As at 2009, the immigrants were 3/5th of the NYC’s residents and nearly ½ of the citizens who have attained the voting age.
The author explains that the city undertook several measures to ensure migrant representation in the city’s politics. For example, in 1989, the city formed a commission to revise many features of its government, for instance, redrawing the boundaries of the council guided by improving the minority representations. This redistricting has progressively improved the chances of the migrants in winning elective seats.
The author concludes by explaining that at present, the NYC politics is still racially influenced with the mayoral contestants endeavoring to create alliances of ethnicities to win the elections.
References
Mollenkopf, J. (2013). The rise of immigrant influence in New York City politics. New York and Amsterdam: Immigration and the new urban landscape, 203-229.