Political Preferences and Voting Behaviour of Naturalized Citizens in Germany

ECPR JOINT SESSIONS, TURIN, MARCH 22-27, 2002 Workshop No. 14: Political Participation of Immigrants and their Descendents in Post-War Western Europe Andreas M. Wüst Political Preferences and Voting Behaviour of Naturalized Citizens in Germany

Contents

Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................1

Analytical Frame and Hypotheses ...........................................................................................................2

Socio-demographic Characteristics of Naturalized Germans..................................................................3

Degrees of Integration .............................................................................................................................5

Naturalized Citizens’ Political Interest and Knowledge of German Parties and Politicians.....................6

Political Preferences ................................................................................................................................7

Voting Behaviour......................................................................................................................................8

Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................10

References.............................................................................................................................................11

Appendix: Tables and Graphs ...............................................................................................................12

Tables.................................................................................................................................................12

Graphs................................................................................................................................................21

About the author

Andreas M. Wüst, born in Karlsruhe in 1969, is working in the DFG-funded project “Euromanifestos”, directed by PD Dr. Hermann Schmitt at the MZES. The author studied political science, history, and geography at the University of Heidelberg and as exchange student at the University of Delaware/USA (1992/93). He received an M.A. from the University of Heidelberg in 1996 where he is lecturing since 1999 and has completed his dissertation on political preferences and voting behaviour of naturalized citizens in Germany in 2001. [Internet: www.awuest.de; e-mail: [email protected]]

http://www.awuest.de/frame.html

mailto:[email protected]

Andreas M. Wüst: Political Preferences and Voting Behaviour of Naturalized Citizens in Germany

- 1 -

Introduction As both direct and indirect consequences of immigration to post-war Germany, naturalization rates

have grown substantially in Germany in the last decade of the 20th century. Up to 1988, less than

50.000 people naturalized annually, since 1993 more than 200.000 people per year have done alike.

Further, there has been a shift in the composition of naturalized persons in the 1990s: as the bulk of

new citizens have been resettlers (Aussiedler) in the first half of the 1990s, the share of non-resettlers

has remarkably grown in the second half. While the latter growth can be characterized as a long-term

consequence of labour migration in the pre-recruitment stop period which is not only likely to continue

but to accelerate in the years to come, the resettler peak needs to be labelled a specific post-Cold War

phenomenon currently fading away.

The observations of an overall rise and of the change in composition of naturalized persons in

Germany are important pieces of the background picture the analysis presented here is based upon.

In the 1990s, naturalized citizens have added to the (native) German-born population in approximately

the same size as the German-born population declined. Naturalized citizens have therefore compen-

sated the population decline of German-born citizens demographically, sociologically, and politically.

In light of these developments, an electoral researcher’s analysis is likely to focus on political

preferences and the voting behaviour of the naturalized citizens in total, in the various sub-groups,

over time, and will ask about the short-term as well as the long-term impact the new citizens have and

will have on election results. To do so, data, and preferably survey data on both naturalized citizens,

and on their political preferences are necessary. This does especially require a sufficient number of

cases, but also a sufficient number of issue-related questions posed to naturalized citizens in a

survey. While the number of naturalized citizens in immigrant and foreigner surveys tends to be

satisfactorily high, the amount of useful information on political preferences tends to be low.1 The

opposite is the case for general surveys on political preferences in which naturalized citizens are

usually not separated from citizens by birth.

These deficiencies require an original database. Fortunately, data on the political preferences and on

the voting behaviour of naturalized citizens were collected in 1999 by a local face-to-face survey in

Heidelberg among 378 citizens which have been naturalized between 1988 and 1997, and by an

eleven-months screening within the monthly nation-wide Politbarometer, all-in-all interviewing 660

naturalized citizens by telephone. The findings presented in this paper are primarily based on

analyses of these two data sources.2

1 The main problem of these surveys (f.i. SOEP, Marplan surveys) is the focus on socio-demography. The information on long-, mid-, and short-term party preferences, candidates, issues, and problem-solving competencies is therefore limited.

2 An extended analysis is available in German (Wüst 2001).


- 2 -

Analytical Frame and Hypotheses The traditional analysis of electoral behaviour builds on socio-structural, socio-psychological, and

rational choice models of voting. While the current paradigm of voting behaviour is supposed to be the

rational-choice approach, many recent analyses of voting behaviour have demonstrated that social

characteristics (Columbia Model), partly resulting in long-term party identifications, candidate and

issue evaluations (Michigan Model), do still play important roles in explaining the vote (f.i. Schmitt

2001; Weßels 2000: 152; Pappi 2002). Therefore it seems valuable to start with a socio-structural

analysis of the group of naturalized citizens, to proceed with a sub-group voting analysis based on

social characteristics, moving on to party identification, issue preferences, problem solving

competencies, and candidate evaluations. Consecutively, at the end of this initial analysis, voting

patterns of naturalized citizens and their subgroups will become clearer, and a comparison of the

voting patterns of naturalized Germans with the ones of German-born citizens should be possible.

However, an analysis of the voting behaviour of naturalized Germans does also need to consider

migratory factors for the analysis. Some of these factors can be included into the traditional set of

socio-demographic variables comparatively easy. This assessment applies to religion, ethnicity,

former citizenship, country of birth, year of immigration and naturalization etc. Within the socio-

demographic analysis, the importance of these additional factors will be worked out. Yet, in addition to

a modified socio-demographic set of variables, at least one aspect deserves special attention: the

degree to which naturalized citizens are integrated into German society. Therefore, the degree of

integration will be measured for the four dimensions of assimilation proposed by Hartmut Esser

(1980), using a selection of indicators portrayed: language skills (for the cognitive dimension),

membership in German clubs or parties (socio-interactive dimension), ethnic de-segregation in the city

district of living (structural dimension), and sense of belonging to the Germans (identificative

dimension).

Due to the character of the surveys, some socio-structural and the integration variables are only

available for the local (Heidelberg) survey. Nevertheless, most indicators on the local and on the

national level are identical, so that the overwhelming majority of analyses are applicable both to the

Heidelberg and the Politbarometer dataset.

Aside from principally instructive descriptive analyses, the following three hypotheses on the voting

behaviour of naturalized citizens are tested:

• that the electoral behaviour of naturalized citizens can well be explained by the traditional models of voting;

• that the voting behaviour of naturalized citizens can be explained better and can be understood better by including key variables of the migratory background into the analysis;

• that the degree of integration into German society reduces but not neutralizes the explanatory value of migration variables.


- 3 -

Especially the last assessment refers to an old but important controversy between Robert A. Dahl and

Raymond E. Wolfinger. While Dahl (1961: 34-36) portrays immigrant voting patterns as transitory,

Wolfinger (1965) in line with the findings of Nathan Glazer and Daniel P. Moynihan (1963) assesses a

persistence of distinct immigrant voting patterns. And this is a key question the analysis presented

here attempts to answer at least partially. Based on the assumption that there are distinct immigrant

voting patterns which will be proven, their persistence and especially long-term effects are considered

to be crucial. Hence, if there is persistence, the immigrant vote will not only affect the outcome of

elections, but is also likely to affect the issue positions of parties, campaigns, and in the long run

possibly the party system as well.

Socio-demographic Characteristics of Naturalized Germans3

The results of the local and the nation-wide surveys show that most naturalized Germans have

formerly been citizens of the Soviet Union or of one of her successor states. Based on all naturalized

citizens interviewed, their share is 22 %; based on the core period (1988-97), they even make up one

third or more (Table 1). Former citizens of Poland are the second largest group nationally (19 % or

23 % for 1988-97), but only rank fourth in Heidelberg (9 %). The opposite holds true for naturalized

Germans of formerly Romanian citizenship: they rank second in Heidelberg (18 %), but only fifth

nationally (9 % or 8 % for 1988-97). A surge in naturalizations of formerly Turkish citizens in the 1990s

have made them the third largest sub-group of naturalized Germans for the core period (15 % in

Heidelberg and nationally), but they only rank fourth (12 %) in general, beaten by naturalized persons

from Central Europe (14 %) who have been the dominant group prior to the guestworker period (cf.

Graph 1).

So all in all, the big majority of naturalized Germans is made up of resettlers from Eastern Europe,

especially from the Soviet Union. Heidelberg proved to have a larger share of ethnic Germans from

Romania than from Poland, while the proportion of formerly Turkish citizens is almost the same nation-

wide as in Heidelberg. Considering naturalization by former citizenship over time, the history of

German immigration and of German naturalization policies is visible quite well. While there is a

negligible time-lag between immigration and naturalization peaks of the resettler total and the various

resettler groups (median: one year), the one for Turkish-born Germans (median: 21 years) is immense

(Heidelberg data only).

There are too many differences in socio-demographic characteristics between German-born citizens,

naturalized citizens, and the sub-groups to be dealt with in detail in this paper. Nevertheless, a

selective overview on the central characteristics is given. On average, naturalized citizens are five to

ten years younger than German-born citizens. Yet, for former Turkish citizens, the difference is fifteen


- 4 -

to twenty years. Hardly any naturalized Turkish-born German interviewed in one of the surveys was 65

years of age or above, while well over 15 % of the formerly Romanian citizens fall into that category.

Conversely although not surprisingly, hardly any resettler was born in Germany, but around one third

of the Turkish-born Germans. Noticeable differences have also been measured pertaining to

education, occupation, and religion. While the overall degree of education of naturalized Germans

compared to native-born Germans is not much but significantly higher, there are remarkable

differences between the various sub-groups. Formerly Romanian, Turkish and Polish citizens show a

higher degree of education than the German-born, but the educational degree of former citizens of the

Soviet Union is only equivalent to the average German-born one. These Politbarometer-based

comparisons do especially neglect the fact that most naturalized citizens went to school abroad, and

that they have earned an educational degree in their home country. Therefore, the Heidelberg survey

asked for the years of school attendance and whether the degree has been earned in Germany or

abroad. The question on years of schooling confirms that formerly Romanian citizens spent

significantly more years in school (mean: 11.1) than former citizens of the Soviet Union or one of her

successor states (mean: 9.1). The formerly Turkish citizens rank in-between (mean: 9.9), but they are

the only group whose majority has earned a degree in Germany. In all other groups, around 90 %

went to school in their home country.

The occupational structure is of course strongly influenced by the educational degree. Despite the

above-average educational level measured in the Politbarometer surveys, more naturalized citizens

(33 %) than German-born citizens (24 %) are blue-collar workers, among citizens from the former SU

and her successor states even a majority (54 %). Contrarily, white-collar workers, civil servants, and

self-employed are underrepresented among naturalized citizens. Only ex-Romanians have a white-

collar/civil servant share (51 %) and only former Turks have a self-employed share (8 %) comparable

to German-born citizens (49 % and 9 % respectively). So at least sub-group differences in

occupational status reflect the differences detected in degree of education. Also, the comparatively

high share of self-employed among naturalized citizens from Turkey comes not surprisingly, because

of the known high shares of self-employed Turkish citizens living in Germany.

Religion and religiosity are still of important influence in explaining political preferences based on

social characteristics. While among German-born citizens the non-religious group makes up one

quarter, its share is only 14 % among naturalized citizens. Therefore, the potential influence of religion

on the vote of naturalized citizens is bigger. There are considerably more Catholics among naturalized

citizens (43 %) than among the German-born (34 %), and also more non-Christians (18 % vs. 1 %

respectively), but significantly less Protestants (24 % vs. 40 % respectively). Further, a detailed break-

up of the non-Christian group in the Heidelberg survey shows that approximately two thirds of them

are Muslims, of which 70 % are Sunnites. Being a Muslim is the rule among formerly Turkish citizens,

and almost all formerly Polish citizens are of Catholic faith. An absolute majority of Protestants can be

3 Due to the fact that the socio-demography of naturalized citizens is hardly known, and that socio-demographic characteristics are considered crucial for the analyses of political preferences, the socio-demographic


- 5 -

found among naturalized citizens from the former SU, and among the naturalized citizens from

Romania, a relative majority is of Protestant faith as well. The non-religious portion is biggest among

naturalized Turks (19 %), followed by former citizens of the SU and one of her successor states

(11 %) or of Poland (10 %), and with the smallest portion among formerly Romanian citizens (5 %).

Not surprisingly, church attendance is more frequent among naturalized than among German-born

citizens and most frequent among the naturalized citizens who have come from Poland. While the

naturalized citizens of other resettler countries (SU and successor states, Romania) also attend

church more frequently than the German-born citizens, over 50 % of the naturalized formerly Turkish

citizens do neither attend church nor a mosque. One could argue this result cannot be used as a valid

indicator for lower religiosity among ex-Turkish citizens, because the availability of mosques is likely to

be an intervening factor. However, this interpretation is externally validated by results of surveys

among Turkish citizens living in Germany (Diehl/Urbahn 1999: 31 f.) and by another result of the

Heidelberg survey: on an eleven-point religiosity scale, the average for all naturalized citizens was 5.7,

but for naturalized Turks as well as for naturalized Muslims, the result was only 5.4 on average. Thus,

naturalized Germans of formerly Turkish citizenship are less religious than most other sub-groups.

Degrees of Integration Based on the results on the socio-structural composition of naturalized citizens and their main sub-

groups, the various degrees of integration come not as a surprise. A general evaluation by the

interviewers results in best grades for former citizens of Romania, followed by formerly Turkish

citizens, and placing former citizens of the SU or of one of her successor states last (Table 2). This

ranking based on the subjective evaluations by the interviewers is supported by the integration index

constructed additively (Table 3) including the four dimensions named earlier (Page 2). Naturalized ex-

Romanians are by far the best-integrated naturalized citizens, only beaten by the ex-Turks in the

structural dimension. The latter rank second in the social-interactive and the cognitive dimension,

while former citizens of the SU or one of her successor states finish by far last in the already

mentioned three dimensions, and only second in the identificative dimension. This is not too

surprising, because the identification with Germany and the German identity has been an important

precondition for resettlers from Eastern Europe to decide to “return” to Germany and to get access to

the country. On the other hand, naturalized citizens of formerly Turkish citizenship have often

experienced a mood of exclusion, based on the ethnicity-based German self-understanding (Brubaker

1992: 165 ff.; Joppke 1999: 62 ff., Castles/Miller 1998: 43).

Correlations of the integration index and its four dimensions with selected variables which are

suspected to have an influence on the degrees of integration (Table 4) display a higher degree of

integration if the foreigner naturalized earlier. Only in case of the identificative dimension this has to do

characteristics of naturalized citizens both nation-wide and in Heidelberg are documented in this section.


- 6 -

with age, and only in case of the cognitive dimension a correlation with the first migration of the

naturalized citizen to Germany can be ascertained. The social-interactive and the cognitive dimension

are very much affected by education, yet the structural dimension (de-segregation) is hardly effected

by any of these selected, long-term indicators. However, if we correlate the structural dimension with

the evaluation of the naturalized citizen’s residential status, the correlation is considerably stronger

than with all other dimensions. Conversely, there are quite some empirical hints to the validity of all

four integration indicators.

If we take a conclusive look at the integration indicators and the integration index in the migration

groups and the main sub-groups longitudinally (Table 5), we learn that the resettlers’ degrees of

integration have improved significantly over time. Further, especially resettlers from the SU or one of

her successor states have improved cognitively, while resettlers from Romania gained socio-

interactively. Former guestworkers and former citizens of Turkey do not show any significant changes

in degree of integration since naturalization. So these findings demonstrate that the degree of

integration of the various resettlers has even been lower at the time they naturalized then was

measured in the surveys. Also, the non-resettlers who naturalized have already been integrated well

at the time they naturalized – a fact that underlines the existence of very different preconditions for

naturalization depending on the belonging to one or the other migration group: the privileged resettlers

are, despite of improvements, integrated less well into German society than guestworkers and their

descendents who have naturalized.

Naturalized Citizens’ Political Interest and Knowledge of German Parties and Politicians Before entering the voting decision arena to analyse political preferences and the voting behaviour of

naturalized citizens, let us first look at the interest in and the knowledge of German politics, parties,

and politicians. Compared to German-born citizens, naturalized ones are less interested in politics.

42 % of the German-born say they are (very) much interested in politics, and only 13 % say not much

or not at all. The respective shares for naturalized Germans are 31 % and 26 %. While naturalized

citizens of formerly Turkish or Romanian citizenship display a political interest above average, once

again former citizens of the SU or of one of her successor states are much less interested: only 23 %

told the interviewers they are (very) much interested, but 42 % said they are not much or not at all

interested in politics.

The low interest in politics, especially among naturalized citizens of the former SU or of one of her

successor states, is also reflected in the knowledge of German Parties and Politicians (Table 6).4

Naturalized citizens know parties and politicians much less than German-born citizens do. While about

95 % of the German-born citizens know the SPD, CDU, and the Greens, and 90 % know the FDP,

4 For a more sophisticated though descriptive analysis based on Heidelberg data refer to Wüst (2000: 565 ff.).


- 7 -

CSU, and PDS, the share is 90 % and 80 % for all naturalized Germans, and approximately 80 % and

60 % for the naturalized citizens from the SU or her successor states respectively. Politicians are, not

unexpectedly, even known to a lower degree. At least 90 % of the German-born citizens, and at least

80 % of all naturalized citizens know Schröder, Kohl, Fischer, and Scharping, but only 65 % of the

resettlers from the former SU and her successor states know them. Once more, naturalized citizens

from Romania or Turkey are considerably better informed about German parties and politicians. And

this difference is not only the result of a variation in socio-demography (esp. sex, age, education)

between the sub-groups with birth in Germany being a negligible factor, but as regression analyses

(Table 7) show, to a considerable degree caused by the difference in former citizenship which means

by different migratory backgrounds. Migration variables included, the explained variance is double the

one using socio-demographic variables exclusively.

Political Preferences The political preferences of all naturalized citizens aggregated do not differ much from the political

preferences of German-born citizens. Both the question on preferred party and on the voting decision

show slightly more support for the CDU/CSU, and a little less support for SPD, FDP, and PDS among

naturalized citizens compared to the German-born. A detailed look on voting preferences in the

various socio-economic groups (Table 8) suggests a stronger relevance of the socio-structural factors

for the voting patterns of naturalized citizens than of German-born citizens. This holds especially true

for the voting intention by age group and by religious group. While some socio-demographic voting

patterns are well known and just more pronounced, other results diverge from what we know about

socio-demography, cleavages, and voting behaviour. At first sight surprisingly, naturalized citizens

with a low educational degree, blue-collar workers, and Protestants show above-average support for

the CDU/CSU, and below-average support for the SPD, which is preferred by the German-born in the

respective groups. These and a few additional results cannot be easily explained by the Columbia and

cleavage models of voting. At least one additional variable intervenes. To some degree birth in

Germany or abroad might have an intervening effect, but former citizenship is most promising in this

respect. No other social indicator displays such distinctive voting patterns than former citizenship.

57 % of the naturalized Turks say they would vote for the Social Democrats, and only 8 % for the

Christian Democrats. Vice versa, 69 % of former citizens of the SU or of one of her successor states

announce they would vote for the Christian Democrats, and a meagre 14 % prefer the Social

Democrats. Limiting the analysis on citizens that naturalized in the “core period” (1988-97),

preferences become even more distinct.

The most interesting questions regarding sub-group voting patterns are whether these are transitory or

not and whether degree of integration matters or not. Even though the data used has some limitations

in regard to answer both questions (panel data would be more valuable), a comparison of sub-group

voting patterns between those naturalized before 1988 and after (Graph 2) shows that the differences

in party preference within two groups decreased, but within one group increased. The most


- 8 -

remarkable and common trend is that the “don’t know” share increased substantially (10 % to 20 %),

so that one could conclude that sub-group voting patterns generally prevailed, but weakened. With

respect to the degree of integration, a first descriptive analysis (Table 9) shows that the voters of the

CDU are significantly less well integrated than the voters of the SPD, especially concerning the

cognitive dimension. So a higher degree of integration should be advantageous for the Social

Democrats.

The analysis of party identification (PI) supports this finding. Without documenting or discussing the

regression analyses of PI for each party in detail, former citizenship proves to be a very important

predictor of PI for all parties, but the integration index is only of relevance in the case of PI for the

Social Democrats. Along with all socio-demographic variables in table 8 plus years in school,

frequency of church attendance, and year of naturalization, a multivariate logistic regression terms

degree of integration the single most important predictor for a SPD PI. At least regarding the long run,

degree of integration can be singled out as an intervening factor to voting patterns detected among the

sub-groups of naturalized citizens.

Voting Behaviour Let us finally turn to analyses of naturalized citizens’ voting behaviour based on, first, socio-

demographic variables (Columbia Model) and on, second, variables except socio-structural ones

(especially Michigan Model). Within both analyses which are limited to a CDU/CSU-SPD-dichotomy

for the dependent variable, the relevance of the immigration and naturalization background (former

citizenship, birth in Germany, year of naturalization) are calculated. The socio-demographic analysis

(Table 10) highlights the relevance of socio-demographic factors and the importance of the country

variable (former citizenship) for the explanation of the voting intention. It is striking that the explained

variance of socio-demographic variables for the vote of naturalized citizens is at least double the one

for the vote of the German-born. Further, the set of migration variables is able to increase the

explained variance even more, making the country variable the single most important one in predicting

the naturalized citizens’ vote. The integration index and three out of the four indicators of it (except the

social-interactive one) are additionally able to slightly increase the explained variance, yet itself

remains insignificant (not shown). Of all other variables religion proves to be the most important one in

explaining the naturalized citizens’ vote socio-demographically.

Even though it might be considered daring to include party identification in a voting analysis, the

Michigan Model requires this long-term indicator. PI alone is – not surprisingly – the single most

important variable explaining 69 % (Pseudo-R2) of the variance in voting intention for German-born

citizens, but only 63 % for naturalized citizens, and even a little bit less, if only the core group

naturalized between 1988 and 1997 is analysed (Table 11). This decreasing ability in explaining the

vote of only recently naturalized citizens can interestingly be balanced out by including only PI and

country of former citizenship into the regression analysis (Table 12). The country variable lifts the


- 9 -

explained variance for the vote of naturalized citizens on the level of German-born citizens. Even more

interesting is the fact that the inclusion of the integration index into the analysis is not able to explain

the vote better. So up to this point the country of former citizenship variable proved to be

extraordinarily important for the analysis of the voting behaviour of naturalized citizens. While this

could have been expected for the socio-demographically-based analysis from earlier descriptive

findings, it is amazing for the analysis including PI, which is to a high degree identical with the voting

intention.

In a final analysis, issue competence, the evaluation of candidates and the government, and the

perception of the personal economic situation, are added to PI and the country variable (Table 13).

These additional variables are all very much linked to the voting intention, and do statistically explain

85 % of the variance in the voting intentions of the German-born with only the perception of the

economy variable being insignificant. Even within this set of variables, the country of former citizenship

variable is able to raise the explained variance by two percentage points nationally and five

percentage points locally. This means that the immigration background and especially the country of

former citizenship has a lasting impact on the voting behaviour of naturalized citizens that might be

transitory in the long run, but not in the foreseeable future.

At the end of the analyses presented here, the question of why we have observed quite stable sub-

group voting patterns among naturalized citizens remains to be answered. Based on the data

available, the following though incomplete answers can be given. First, a rejection of non-bourgeois

parties among resettlers, and especially among resettlers from Romania, can be observed. Consider-

ably more resettlers than German-born do neither list the SPD, the Greens, nor the PDS when asked

for the three most preferred parties. Yet, only in the case of formerly Romanian citizens this rejection

is likely to be a result of a distinct right self-positioning on the left-right scale which itself could not be

ascribed the predictive value as in an analysis among immigrants in the Netherlands (Tillie 1998).

Leaving aside the data, the rejection of leftist parties is likely to be caused by the experiences

resettlers, specifically in Romania, had with socialist political systems. In addition, religiosity and

Christianity seem to be of long-term effect for the preference of the Christian Democrats. In most data

analysis, religion proved to be influential on political preferences, although not a better predictor for the

preferences than former citizenship.

Religion is also likely to be very influential for the rejection of the CDU, and much more the CSU

among formerly Turkish citizens. The main alternative to the Christian parties is the SPD which is

primarily preferred. The self-positioning to the left on the left-right scale may therefore be already a

result, and not a cause of the predominant SPD preference. However, in addition to past experiences

and religion, it seems fair to assume that distinct immigration policies of the parties, especially in the

past, had and still have an effect on party preferences. The CDU/CSU has always been very

supportive of resettlers while the SPD was at least reluctant in support for resettlers; yet, the SPD has

been quite active in promoting guestworker integration since the 1970s while the CDU/CSU promoted

and subsidized their return (cf. Wüst 1995). These experiences have probably linked the resettlers to


- 10 -

the Christian Democrats and the guestworkers to the Social Democrats. While there are numerous

hints in the data to support this hypothesis, a clear evidence cannot be presented, not at least

because it would require additional data beyond the scope of this analysis.

Conclusion Immigrants and their descendents are, as Mark J. Miller (1981) posited long ago, “an emerging

political force”. On the one hand, the analyses of data on naturalized citizens in Germany and in the

city of Heidelberg have shown that the voting behaviour of naturalized Germans can well be explained

by the traditional models of voting electoral research offers. On the other hand, the voting behaviour of

naturalized citizens differs from the German-born one, especially socio-demographically. While for

instance German-born blue-collar workers and Protestants support the Social Democrats, naturalized

Germans in the same socio-structural groups prefer the CDU/CSU. These and quite a few more

results are caused by at least one important intervening variable. In the analyses presented here, the

country of former citizenship proved to be a very good supplementary variable for the analysis of

naturalized citizens’ political preferences.

While the importance of the migratory background for the analysis of the naturalized citizens’ voting

behaviour could repeatedly been proven, the answer to the question on the transitional character of

sub-group voting patterns was less clear-cut. There were indeed signs that the detected distinct voting

patterns of naturalized citizens are becoming weaker over time. Yet, this weakening meant not at all

disappearing. Even for those naturalized much earlier the sub-group voting patterns remained clear.

Also, the degree of integration proved to be only in part influential on political preferences. In the two

main models of voting, the socio-demographic and the socio-psychological, degree of integration

played a negligible role. However, the Social Democrats are likely to gain long-term supporters if

naturalized citizens improve pertaining to degree of integration.

Despite empirical evidence for distinct naturalized citizen voting patterns and enough hints for an at

least mid-term prevalence, the question on the relevance of this distinct group on election results in

Germany has not been touched yet. According to the nation-wide screening, 4.5 % of the total voting

population in Germany is not German by birth but through naturalization. The composition of this very

heterogeneous group is currently changing: the non-resettlers, and within this group the share of

formerly Turkish citizens is gaining importance. In the years to come and in light of the empirical

findings presented here, the voting intention of the whole group of naturalized citizens is likely to shift

from the Christian Democrats to the Social Democrats. This means that the impact naturalized citizens

will have on election results in Germany is likely to change, and, considering the socio-demographic

structure of the German-born, is likely to increase.

To highlight the relevance naturalized citizens had on election results in the past, the following

example tries to quantify the minimum impact naturalized citizens had on the outcome of the 1994

Bundestag election that the Kohl coalition government won with a meagre 0.3 % surplus:


- 11 -

Effect (CDU/CSU/FDP; 1994) = surplus in preference * share of naturalized citizens * participation adjustment

= 15 percentage points * 0,03 * 1,08

= .49 percentage points

Based on half the CDU/CSU and FDP surplus measured in the 1999 Politbarometer survey among

citizens that naturalized before 1995 (30 percentage points), the impact would still have been sufficient

to secure the re-election of the Kohl government. Maybe already in the 2002 Bundestag election, but

at least compared to former elections and by 2006 the latest, the Social Democrats will profit from the

changing group of naturalized citizens. Probably, naturalized citizens have contributed significantly to

election outcomes in the past, and probably they will do so in the future as well.

References BRUBAKER, [WILLIAM] ROGERS (1992): Nationhood and Citizenship in France and Germany,

Cambridge: Harvard UP.

CASTLES, STEPHEN/ MARK J. MILLER (1993, 21998): The Age of Migration, New York/ London: Guilford.

DAHL, ROBERT A. (1961): Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City, New Haven/ London: Yale UP.

DIEHL, CLAUDIA/ JULIA URBAHN (21999): Die soziale und politische Partizipation von Zuwanderern in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Bonn: FES.

ESSER, HARTMUT (1980): Aspekte der Wanderungssoziologie. Assimilation und Integration von Wanderern, ethnischen Gruppen und Minderheiten. Eine handlungstheoretische Analyse, Darmstadt/ Neuwied: Luchterhand.

JOPPKE, CHRISTIAN (1999): Immigration and the Nation-State, New York: Oxford UP.

MILLER, MARK J. (1981): Foreign Workers in Western Europe, New York: Praeger.

PAPPI, FRANZ U. (2002): Die politisierte Sozialstruktur heute: Historische Reminiszenz oder aktuelles Erklärungspotential?, in: BRETTSCHNEIDER, FRANK et al., ed.: Das Ende der politisierten Sozialstruktur?, Opladen: Leske + Budrich, pp. 26-46.

SCHMITT, HERMANN (2001): Politische Repräsentation in Europa, Frankfurt: Campus.

TILLIE, JEAN (1998): Explaining Migrant Voting Behaviour in the Netherlands. Combining the Electoral Research and Ethnic Studies Perspective, in: REMI 14 (2), pp. 71-95.

WOLFINGER, RAYMOND E. (1965): The Development and Persistence of Ethnic Voting, APSR 59, pp. 896-908.

WEßELS, BERNHARD (2000): Gruppenbindung und Wahlverhalten, in: KLEIN, MARKUS et al., ed.: 50 Jahre Empirische Wahlforschung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Wiesbaden: WDV, pp. 129-155.

WÜST, ANDREAS M. (2001): Wie wählen Neubürger? Politische Einstellungen und Wahlverhalten eingebürgerter Personen in Deutschland, Heidelberg: Institut für Politische Wissenschaft (Ph. D. thesis).

— (2000): Research Report: New Citizens – New Voters? Political Preferences and Voting Intentions of Naturalized Germans, IMR 34 (2), pp. 560-567.

— (1995): Vorbild USA? Deutsche Einwanderungspolitik auf dem Prüfstand, Heidelberg: Institut für Politische Wissenschaft (M.A. thesis).


- 12 -

Appendix: Tables and Graphs

Tables

Table 1: Former Citizenship of Naturalized Citizens in Heidelberg and in Germany (absolute number of cases, in percent)

Heidelberg Survey 1999 Politbarometer 1999 Former Citizenship Sample A+B 1988-97 naturalized total Former SU and Successor States (103) 102 37,3 98 33,1 136 21,9 Poland (25) 25 9,0 66 22,9 114 18,5 Romania (50) 50 18,1 24 8,1 53 8,6 Turkey (86) 42 15,2 45 15,0 72 11,7 Southern Europe (6) 3 1,1 10 3,3 28 4,5 Central Europe (except Poland) (13) 6 2,2 10 3,4 84 13,6 South-Eastern Europe (except Turkey) (12) 6 2,1 15 5,1 31 5,0 Northern and Western Europe and North America (8) 4 1,4 2 0,7 26 4,2

Latin America (7) 4 1,2 0 0,1 5 0,8 Africa (16) 8 3,0 4 1,3 11 1,8 Middle East (16) 8 2,9 4 1,5 9 1,4 Asia (28) 14 5,0 10 3,2 20 3,2 no answer (8) 4 1,6 9 3,1 29 4,7 Number of Cases (not weighted) (378) 274 100,0 298 100,0 618 100,0


- 13 -

Table 2: Degree of Integration (interviewer evaluation on a 4-point scale from 0 to 3)

Former Citizenship mean number of cases standard deviation

Romania 2,31 50 ,86

Turkey 2,11 86 ,79

SU and successor states 1,65 101 ,79

Naturalized total 2,00 368 ,88

Table 3: Index of Integration (z-transformed) and Indicators of Integration (mean values)

Index

Former Citizenship mean s.d. structural social-

interactive cognitive identificative

Romania 1,27 1,70 ,45 ,29 ,78 ,91

Turkey ,25 2,14 ,51 ,22 ,72 ,54

SU and successor states - 1,11 2,10 ,21 ,14 ,53 ,78

Table 4: Correlations of integration indices and a selection of variables (Pearsons r)

Index+ structural social-interactive cognitive identificative

First contact with Germany (year) ** - ,22 n.s. n.s. *** - ,29 n.s.

Years in school ** ,20 n.s. ** ,17 *** ,27 n.s.

Year of naturalization *** - ,29 n.s. * - ,14 * -,12 *** - ,25

Age n.s n.s. n.s. n.s. *** ,23

Evaluation by interviewers (generally) *** ,43 ** ,20 *** ,22 *** ,43 * ,13

Evaluation of residential status *** ,29 *** ,36 ** ,20 ** ,18 n.s.

+ Naturalized citizens of the main groups only, Index is z-transformed. n.s. = not significant; * p < 0,05; ** p < 0,01; *** p < 0,001


- 14 -

Table 5: Correlations of Integration Indices and Years of Naturalization by Migration System/ Main Sub-groups (Pearsons r)

Migration system/ Sub-group Index+ structural social-

interactive cognitive identificative

Resettlers *** - ,39 * - ,18 ** - ,20 *** - ,31 ** - ,21

SU and successor states * - ,21 n.s. n.s. ** - ,27 n.s.

Romania ** - ,47 n.s. ** - ,40 n.s. n.s.

Migrant workers n.a. n.a. n.s. n.s. n.s.

Turkey n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.

Asylum-seekers n.a. n.a. n.s. n.s. n.s.

+ Naturalized citizens of the main groups only, Index is z-transformed. n.a. = not available; n.s. = not significant; * p < 0,05; ** p < 0,01; *** p < 0,001

Table 6: Approximate Share of Parties and Politicians Unknown (rejected evaluations; grouped row percentages)

German- born Naturalized Turkey Romania Poland former SU

Parties CDU 5 9 0 3 11 20 SPD 4 10 0 3 13 21 Greens 5 11 0 3 13 26 FDP 8 18 4 11 18 40 CSU 11 21 12 14 23 40 PDS 8 21 17 9 26 39 Politicians Schröder 4 12 6 7 9 24 Kohl 6 13 8 9 8 23 Fischer 6 15 7 10 12 27 Scharping 7 19 17 10 14 35 Schäuble 7 21 19 15 21 39 Stoiber 13 29 36 17 33 45 Gysi 12 36 32 25 39 60 Trittin 15 37 48 19 39 55 Lafontaine 23 38 47 27 44 54 Eichel 29 46 47 21 55 63


- 15 -

Table 7: Predictors of Political Unawareness (socio-demography; linear regressions, nation-wide data)

Parties Politicians

German-born Naturalized German-born Naturalized

Socio-demographic characteristics B β B β B β B β (21 dummies and 2 continual variables) Sex (1=male) -5,814 ***-,138 -7,926 ***-,133 -6,833 ***-,164 -10,191 ***-,158 Age Groups (ref.=45-59 years)

18 to 29 years -1,616 **-,027 -8,149 **-,120 2,550 ***,044 30 to 44 years -1,396 **-,031 ,994 *,022 7,748 **,113 60 years and above 6,131 ***,125 9,237 **,124 ,333 **,097 13,094 ***,164

Education Years in school+; continual -,306 ***-,056 -,975 **-,127 -,428 ***-,078 -1,439 ***-,174

Occupation (ref.=apprent./student) Blue-collar 1,902 ***,039 2,108 ***,043 White-collar/civil servants -1,182 **-,028 -1,567 ***-,037 Self-employed 5,871 n.s. Not working

Religion (ref.=other) Catholic -7,039 ***-,158 -5,279 n.s. -8,221 ***-,186 -7,702 n.s. Protestant -6,122 ***-,142 -8,811 *-,127 -8,334 ***-,195 -10,604 *-,142 None -7,790 ***,161 -8,942 *-,105 -10,358 ***-,216 -7,864 n.s.

Church attendance (ref.=seldomly) frequent 1,265 *,020 never 2,136 **,048 2,908 ***,066

Union (1=member) -2,064 ***-,044 -1,753 ***-,038 Born in Germany? (1=yes) -4,198 n.s. Country groups (ref.=other)

Turkey -7,751 n.s. -7,229 n.s. SU and successor states 21,481 ***,296 21,082 ***,270 Romania Poland 9,696 **,127 6,677 n.s.

Year of naturalization ++ (continual) ,810 **,155 1,113 ***,198 Constant 18,841 *** 25,436 *** 22,519 *** 30,668 *** N 13207 601 13207 601 df 13 12 12 12 R2 adjusted ***5,7 % ***16,3 % ***5,5 % ***16,2 % Max. R2 without migration variables ***7,5 % ***7,6 %

Dependent variable: number of parties/politicians unknown Linear regression backwards; most simple model with the highest, adjusted R2. *** sig. < 0,001; ** sig. < 0,01; * sig. < 0,05; n.s.=not significant + 9=Hauptschule, 10=Realschule, 13=Abitur, 20=Universität ++ 3 categories for <70, 70-79, 80-84 (1, 2, 3 of 19 total).


- 16 -

Table 8: Voting Intentions of German-born and Naturalized Citizens (Politbarometer; row percentages)

German-born Naturalized

Socio-demographic characteristics

CDU/

CSU

SPD

Gree

ns

FDP

PDS

REP/

DVU

ande

re

d.k.

CDU/

CSU

SPD

Gree

ns

FDP

PDS

REP/

DVU

othe

r

d.k.

Total 43 32 5 3 3 1 1 11 48 29 5 2 2 0 2 12 Sex

male 45 32 5 3 4 2 1 9 54 27 4 2 1 1 3 8 female 42 31 6 2 3 1 1 14 42 31 5 3 2 0 2 15

Age Group 18 to 29 years 40 30 7 3 4 2 3 11 38 33 9 3 1 0 2 15 30 to 44 years 40 33 8 3 3 1 1 10 46 32 6 3 1 1 4 7 45 to 59 years 45 33 4 3 4 1 1 11 51 30 2 1 3 0 3 10 60 years and above 48 29 1 3 3 1 1 14 60 19 2 1 1 1 0 15

Education Hauptschule 43 36 2 2 2 2 1 13 51 27 1 1 1 1 4 14 Realschule 45 30 4 2 4 1 2 12 45 34 4 0 1 0 1 14 Gymnasium 41 28 11 5 5 0 1 8 46 28 8 5 2 0 2 8

Occupation blue-collar 40 37 2 1 4 2 2 12 57 25 2 0 1 1 2 10 white collar/civil servant 42 33 6 2 4 1 1 11 44 33 4 3 2 0 3 11 self-employed 61 16 5 6 3 1 1 8 46 26 7 8 1 0 0 12 apprent./student 35 29 13 6 4 2 2 10 26 31 15 6 1 0 3 18 not employed 46 31 4 3 1 0 2 13 57 26 2 0 0 0 2 12

Religion Catholic 53 26 4 2 1 1 1 10 59 22 3 2 0 0 1 13 Protestant 41 35 5 3 2 1 1 12 63 21 0 2 0 1 1 11 other 33 38 5 2 3 0 3 16 18 52 12 4 2 0 5 7 none 33 33 6 2 11 2 2 11 26 36 10 3 7 0 5 12

Union Member 33 42 5 2 4 1 1 11 39 39 7 1 1 1 2 10 Non-member 47 27 5 3 3 1 1 11 50 26 4 2 2 0 3 12

Born in Germany? yes 37 38 6 3 3 0 3 11 no 50 28 5 2 1 1 2 12

Sub-groups Turkey 8 57 15 4 2 0 4 10 SU and successor states 69 14 0 3 1 0 2 11 Romania 60 14 5 4 1 2 4 11 Poland 52 25 2 4 0 0 3 15

- Results for sub-groups with N < 30 per row are not displayed.


- 17 -

Table 9: Degree of Integration By Voting Intention: Integration Index (z-transformed) and Integration Indices (mean values; Heidelberg survey)

Index

Voting Intention mean value s.d.

structural social-interactive cognitive identificative

CDU - ,29 2,18 ,32 ,18 ,61 ,83

SPD ,23 2,18 ,41 ,21 ,72 ,62

Greens -* -* -* ,43 ,82 ,56

* N < 10.


- 18 -

Table 10: Predictors of the Vote for the SPD and against the CDU/CSU (socio-demography; binary logistic regressions)

German-born (PB)

Naturalized (PB)

Naturalized 88-97 (PB)

Naturalized 88-97 (Heidelberg)

Socio-demographic characteristics B Exp (B) B Exp (B) B Exp (B) B Exp (B)

Sex (ref.=male) * ** n.s. n.s. female *,121 *1,129 **,857 **2,357 1,073 2,924 ,129 1,138

Age Groups (ref.=45 to 59 years) n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. 18 to 29 years -,122 ,885 ,304 1,355 ,332 1,551 -,612 ,542 30 to 44 years ,087 1,091 ,385 1,469 ,688 1,293 -,691 ,501 60 years and above -,005 ,995 -,486 ,615 ,769 2,241 -1,101 ,333

Educational Degree (in Germany) n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s./ n.s. yes (ref.=no) -,048 ,953 years in school+ -,003 ,997 -,031 ,969 ,002 1,002 ,142 1,152

Occupation (ref.=white-c./civ. serv.) *** n.s. n.s. n.s. blue-Collar *,117 *1,124 -,325 ,723 ,052 1,053 ,092 1,096 self-employed ***-,966 ***,381 -1,205 ,230 ,396 1,486 -,642 ,526 apprentice/ student ,132 1,141 -,042 ,959 ,171 1,187 ,435 1,545 not employed -,053 ,949 *-1,256 *,285 *-2,736 *,065 -,196 ,822

Religion (ref.=Catholic) *** ** ** n.s. Protestant ***,422 ***1,525 *,854 *2,350 -,133 1,006 -,078 ,925 Muslim 1,511 4,529 other ***1,155 ***3,174 **1,717 **5,565 **2,602 **13,494 ,441 1,554 none ,155 1,168 *1,236 *3,442 **4,495 **89,588 -,428 ,652

Church Attendance (ref.=seldomly) *** n.s. ** n.s. frequent ***-,837 ***,433 -,793 ,453 *-1,471 *,230 -,303 ,738 never ***,384 ***1,469 -,012 ,988 **-2,907 **,055 ,616 1,851

Union (ref.=non-member) *** n.s. n.s. n.s. member ***,708 ***2,030 ,449 1,567 ,904 2,470 ,969 2,636

Born in Germany? (ref.=no) n.s. n.s. n.s. yes -,070 ,932 -,146 ,864 -,230 ,794

Fr. Citizenship (ref.=Romania) *** * ** Turkey *2,203 *9,056 3,395 29,824 1,856 6,397 SU and successor states -1,044 ,352 -1,318 ,268 *-1,695 *,184 Poland ,557 1,745 ,430 1,538 ,132 1,141 other *1,135 *3,112 ,613 1,847 1,325 3,761

Year of naturalization n.s. n.s. n.s. year of naturalization++ ,030 1,031 ,040 1,041 ,053 1,054

Month of survey (categorical) *** * * Constant ***-,437 -,957 -,239 -6,603 N 12908 411 173 236 -2 Log likelihood (Null) 12039,271 516,10935 244,26983 240,07039 Model-χ2 ***954,774 ***151,358 ***132,801 ***96,627 predicted correctly 84,1 % 78,5 % 84,1 % 82,1 % Nagelkerkes Pseudo-R2 13,8 % 43,9 % 61,8 % 56,7 % Pseudo-R2 w/ migration variables (N) - 36,4 %

(421) 54,6 % (173)

46,6 % (241)

dependent variable: Voting intention for CDU/CSU or SPD (0=CDU/CSU; 1=SPD) *** sig. < 0,001; ** sig. < 0,01; * sig. < 0,05; n.s.=not significant. + For Politbarometer Hauptschule=9; Realschule=10; Gymnasium=13; Universität=20 ++ For Politbarometer <70, 70-79, 80-84 recoded to 1, 2, 3 of 19 total.


- 19 -

Table 11: PI as Predictor of the SPD Vote (against the CDU/CSU) (binary logistic regressions)

German-born (PB)

Naturalized (PB)



B Exp (B) B Exp (B) B Exp (B) B Exp (B)

PI: CDU/CSU ***-4,005 ***,018 ***-2,704 ***,067 **-2,306 **0,100 ***-2,997 ***,050 PI: SPD ***2,742 ***15,518 ***3,630 ***37,723 ***3,734 ***41,886 **2,269 **9,667 PI: none -,157 ,855 *,847 *2,333 1,206 3,338 -,323 ,724 Constant -,072 *-,909 -,987 ,456 N 13093 437 184 277 -2 Log likelihood (Null) 12228,45 549,35772 255,54966 277,68395 Model-χ2 ***5733,855 ***258,390 ***114,022 ***160,717+

predicted correctly 83,4 % 81,1 % 81,3 % 80,7 % Nagelkerkes Pseudo-R2 69,2 % 63,2 % 60,8 % 58,6 %

dependent variable: Voting intention for CDU/CSU or SPD (0=CDU/CSU; 1=SPD) *** sig. < 0,001; ** sig. < 0,01; * sig. < 0,05; n.s.=not significant. + Integration Index (Exp(B)=,997) included, Pseudo-R2 decreases to 53,2 % (N=195).

Table 12: PI and Country of Former Citizenship as Predictors of the SPD Vote (against the CDU/CSU; binary logistic regressions)

German-born (PB)

Naturalized (PB)



B Exp (B) B Exp (B) B Exp (B) B Exp (B)

PI: CDU/CSU ***-4,005 ***,018 ***-2,780 ***,062 **-2,593 **,075 *-2,195 *,111 PI: SPD ***2,742 ***15,518 ***3,422 ***30,629 ***3,381 ***29,410 **2,808 **16,576 PI: none -,157 ,855 ,479 1,615 ,517 1,678 ,441 1,554 Country (ref.=Romania) *** ** ***

Türkei ***2,796 ***16,372 2,090 8,081 *2,040 *7,688 SU und NF -,007 ,994 -,685 ,504 *-1,563 *,210 Polen ,629 1,874 ,043 1,044 -,635 ,530 andere *1,372 *3,945 1,474 4,366 *1,854 *6,387

Constant -,072 *-1,651 -,941 -,278 N 13093 437 184 271 -2 Log likelihood (Null) 12228,45 549,35772 255,54966 272,9233 Model-χ2 ***5733,855 ***263,160 ***121,645 ***153,185+ predicted correctly 83,4 % 85,1 % 88,1 % 87,9 % Nagelkerkes Pseudo-R2 69,2 % 67,9 % 68,2 % 71,8 %

dependent variable: Voting intention for CDU/CSU or SPD (0=CDU/CSU; 1=SPD) *** sig. < 0,001; ** sig. < 0,01; * sig. < 0,05; n.s.=not significant. + Integration Index (Exp(B)=,870) included, Pseudo-R2 decreases to 66,4 % (N=195).


- 20 -

Table 13: PI, Main Issue, Candidates, Retrospective Factors and Country of Former Citizenship as Predictors of the SPD Voting Intention (against CDU/CSU) (binary logistic regressions)

Naturalized (PB)


B Exp (B) B Exp (B) PI: CDU/CSU -1,356 ,258 *-6,191 *,002 PI: SPD **3,551 **34,852 8,963 7810,331 PI: none ,607 1,834 -,794 ,452 Competence in Economy (ref.=none) n.s. n.s.

CDU/CSU -,596 ,551 ,291 1,337 SPD 1,859 6,419 *3,474 *32,280 equally ,094 1,099

Scale Eval.: Schäuble **-,467 **,627 -,023 ,978 Scale Eval.: Schröder ,218 1,243 *1,238 *3,449 Scale Eval.: Government **,401 **1,494 Personal Economy (ref.=not good/not bad) n.s. n.s.

good -,707 ,493 -2,814 ,060 bad ,866 2,378 2,345 10,432

Country (ref.=Romania) n.s. n.s. Türkei 2,328 10,258 3,783 43,966 SU und NF -1,023 ,360 -2,786 ,062 Polen -,038 ,963 -1,159 ,314 andere ,823 2,277 *4,029 *56,178

Constant -1,712 -2,468 N 256 184 -2 Log likelihood (Null) 310,18639 180,50636 Model-χ2 ***221,464+ ***150,506 predicted correctly 94,6 % 95,3 % Nagelkerkes Pseudo-R2 82,9 % 90,2 % Pseudo-R2 w/ migration variables (N) 80,8 % 85,3 %

dependent variable: Voting intention for CDU/CSU or SPD (0=CDU/CSU; 1=SPD) *** sig. < 0,001; ** sig. < 0,01; * sig. < 0,05; n.s.=not significant. + Including month of polling, Pseudo-R2 increases to 84,3 %; all interpretations remain valid.


- 21 -

Graphs

Graph 1: Naturalization by Country of former Citizenship (absolute numbers in PB)

before 1970 1970-79 1980-84 1985-89 1990-94 1995-98/990

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80Central Europe Romania Poland Southern Europe SU SE Europe Turkey

Graph 2: Voting Intention by Country of former Citizenship (sub-group percentages)

5257

47

74

64

56

89

16 15 1410

32

55

10 12 14

5

21

5

2629

15

24

7 5 711

former SU Romania Poland former SU Romania Poland Turkey0

20

40

60

80

100CDU/CSU SPD other d.k.

naturalized before 1988 naturalized since 1988

Political Preferences and Voting Behaviour of Naturalized Citizens in Germany

Documents

Transcript of Political Preferences and Voting Behaviour of Naturalized Citizens in Germany