The supposed lack of Latino Assimilation

[BWV 1080]

One of the nativist canards is that Latinos are unwilling to assimilate into American culture. Here is a rational look at the topic:

http://www.ailf.org/ipc/policy_reports_ ... nation.asp

Despite the formidable obstacles confronting Latin American immigrants, Latinos are in fact experiencing a process of socioeconomic advancement across generations. Those born in the United States achieve average levels of education, income and English proficiency far greater than their immigrant parents and grandparents. However, because a large percentage of contemporary Latinos are first-generation immigrants, these advances across generations are often lost in aggregate statistics that analyze the Latino population as if it were an undifferentiated whole. This calls into question the rhetorical excesses of immigration restrictionists who claim that Latinos are unable or unwilling to replicate the upward mobility of their European predecessors. Moreover, this rhetoric does little to constructively address the important social problems confronting native-born Latinos who already have overcome many of the obstacles faced by their parents and grandparents.

[Werner]

A good post, Steve. It confirms the fact that the Latinos are no different from earlier waves of immmigration from other lands who also overcame lack of education and English, and ultimately became a part of the functioning America.

[Corlyss_D]

A good post, Steve. It confirms the fact that the Latinos are no different from earlier waves of immmigration from other lands who also overcame lack of education and English, and ultimately became a part of the functioning America.

For the most part you are correct, Werner. However, prior immigration waves didn't:
1) claim the country they were moving to rightfully belongs to them by historical imperitive;
2) have ruthless advocacy groups that forced bi-lingual education on both the immigrant groups and the native population, not as a means of promoting eventual assimilation but as a means of keeping the immigrants dependent on the advocacy groups;
3) cause tremendous dislocation in state-provided social services by virtue of their illegal numbers.

Legally immigrated Latinos are a terrific boon because of their conservative habits, large families, and their entrepreneurial spirit that will make them second only to the Asian Americans in successful capitalist endeavors. Illegally immigrated Latinos are a dangerous political curse.

[DavidRoss]

Steve’s excerpt largely echoes my own perceptions, save that Mexicans who immigrate as children seem to assimilate just as well as the first generation born in the U.S., and that many Mexican-Americans—whether immigrants or U.S. born—have loyalties divided between two nations. And many of them place the interests of la Raza ahead of the interests of Americans. Corlyss’s concerns are valid, even though it makes everyone uncomfortable to acknowledge them. We should also note that the U.S. has never experienced any “immigration wave” remotely on the scale of the legal and illegal Hispanic immigration of the past 20 years.

This whole situation should have been dealt with decades ago. Today the number of Mexican-Americans who are Mexicans by choice and Americans by necessity is great enough to insure increasingly divisive politics and social strife. Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it. I suspect we will pay as heavy a karmic price for exploiting masses of cheap undocumented labor as we've paid for slavery, and that it may take as many generations to reconcile the issues involved and the people affected.

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man with no principles is king...and the two-eyed man weeps bitter tears for the fate of the children to come.

[Ralph]

A good post, Steve. It confirms the fact that the Latinos are no different from earlier waves of immmigration from other lands who also overcame lack of education and English, and ultimately became a part of the functioning America.

For the most part you are correct, Werner. However, prior immigration waves didn't:
1) claim the country they were moving to rightfully belongs to them by historical imperitive;
2) have ruthless advocacy groups that forced bi-lingual education on both the immigrant groups and the native population, not as a means of promoting eventual assimilation but as a means of keeping the immigrants dependent on the advocacy groups;
3) cause tremendous dislocation in state-provided social services by virtue of their illegal numbers.

Legally immigrated Latinos are a terrific boon because of their conservative habits, large families, and their entrepreneurial spirit that will make them second only to the Asian Americans in successful capitalist endeavors. Illegally immigrated Latinos are a dangerous political curse.

*****

I see those "curses" shaping up near a local Mc Donald's often and SUVs pick them up until, especially at this time of year, none are left.

[Corlyss_D]

I see those "curses" shaping up near a local Mc Donald's often and SUVs pick them up until, especially at this time of year, none are left.

Across 395 in Shirlington proper, they congregated in at vacant lots.

[BWV 1080]

I always find it interesting as every morning I first drive past a day labor pickup site and then to the freeway overpass where there is always a "veteran" panhandling for money. Funny how I have never seen a hispanic on a street corner looking for a handout.

[Corlyss_D]

I always find it interesting as every morning I first drive past a day labor pickup site and then to the freeway overpass where there is always a "veteran" panhandling for money. Funny how I have never seen a hispanic on a street corner looking for a handout.

Now that you mention it, neither have I. I think for the most part they work extra jobs because they want to succeed here. I heard that when the meat packing plant opened a mile down the road from me in Hyrum, there was a huge influx of illegals, who work in the plant. Coincidently there was a 700% spike in the crime rate in Cache Valley with their arrival.

[mourningstar]

Funny, you guys deal with the Hispanics, We deal with Turks/Marrocans,

They don't want to intergrate and they rather be dead then have chauvinistic feelings for their new home "The Netherlands"

A Furious Politican once said in a debat "We need to put them all in our Army, And send them to Iraq, Bush should be gratefull"

[RebLem]

I think I have told ppl here before that my real name is Robert Baker. In any case, my father's name is in my signature. The first Baker in the US arrived in what is now the state of Maine (then it was part of Massachussetts) in 1799. His actual surname was Cox, and he was from Battle, England, the first town outside of Hastings on the road to London, where William the Conqueror had built an abbey in 1066 to give thanks for his victory over King Harold.

Anyway, Mr. Cox was 16. He had been discovered as a stowaway several days out on the voyage and had been imprisoned. He managed to escape his chains in port, however, and made good his escape, changing his surname to Baker to make tracking him down harder.

He was not the only one. Illegal immigration has been a hallowed part of American history. Joseph Pulitzer was an Austrian draft dodger with much the same story as Mr. Baker; he stowed away on board a ship, was discovered somewhere a few days out, and managed to jump ship in New Jersey.

This is a long and old story. And every generation of anti-immigrant activists have found a new reason why the new immigrants posed a special danger that previous generations of immigrants had not.

I worked as a public aid caseworker in a POE community in Chicago for the last 18 years of my career. Truman College (a part of the City Colleges of Chicago, the community college system) offered ESL courses for Hispanic immigrants. So did the public schools. So did many churches. I can tell you from personal experience that it was difficult to walk a business block without seeing some announcement in a store window about some ESL program someplace or other. In all those 18 years, I never heard of even one such program being withdrawn or closed because of lack of interest. When that happens, maybe I'll start to worry. But it hasn't yet.

When I did intake interviews, I had to ask about assets. Do you have a checking, savings, or credit union account anyplace? Any life insurance or burial policies? (The part about burial policies was not part of the standard interview. But I found early in my career that when I asked about life insurance, lots of people would say, "No, I just have a little burial policy." Sometimes the "little burial policy" turned out to be a cashable whole life policy over the agency's asset limits, so I started adding that to my interviews just to be sure people weren't innocently concealing assets. Just one of the little things you learn OTJ.) Any stocks, bonds or mutual funds? On and on. Often native born Americans would laugh and say, "Of course not." But once I interviewed a middle aged Pakistani man who said, calmly and self-assuredly, "Not yet."

The US needs more people like him, not fewer.

[Corlyss_D]

I think I have told ppl here before that my real name is Robert Baker. In any case, my father's name is in my signature. The first Baker in the US arrived in what is now the state of Maine (then it was part of Massachussetts) in 1799. His actual surname was Cox, and he was from Battle, England, the first town outside of Hastings on the road to London, where William the Conqueror had built an abbey in 1066 to give thanks for his victory or King Harold.

Anyway, Mr. Cox was 16. He had been discovered as a stowaway several days out on the voyage and had been imprisoned. He managed to escape his chains in port, however, and made good his escape, changing his surname to Baker to make tracking him down harder.

Illegal immigration has been a hallowed part of American history. Joseph Pulitzer was an Austrian draft dodger with much the same story as Mr. Baker; he stowed away on board a ship, was discovered somewhere a few days out, and managed to jump ship in New Jersey.

No, it hasn't. There was no such thing as an "illegal" immigrant until the Congress passed laws limiting immigration in 1924. Young Mr. Cox was not hunted because he was illegal; he was hunted because he stole from the ship owners.

But once I interviewed a middle aged Pakistani man who said, calmly and self-assuredly, "Not yet."

The US needs more people like him, not fewer.

I agree. No matter how galling amnesty for illegals is to many of us, that's how it will be and we might as well get over it.

You sure have some interesting stories, Reb. Keep 'em coming.

[Werner]

Congratulations, Corlyss, for seeing things realistically. Perhaps it will make the process more palatable if we don't call it amnesty, which is a red flag for some.

It's not easy to confront this issue while recognizing the importance of border control and the need to obey the law. At the same time, we are talking about twelve million people who have become a part of America. The failure to keep them out, in line with border control and regulations, is not theirs but a failure on "our" part - make of that what you will. In he meanwhile, they have of necessity worked and paid their taxes.

Given the ambition of the majority of them to sink roots here and become a part of the society - we should find a way for them to get in line, perhaps after paying a fine for prior violations, to join the generations of immigrants of humble beginnings to citizenship after completing the regular naturalization process, and their children's growth as free and contributing American citizens.

[Corlyss_D]

Perhaps it will make the process more palatable if we don't call it amnesty, which is a red flag for some.

It'll still be amnesty. Like the story about the question Lincoln posed and answered:

Q: If we call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?
A: 4. Calling a dog's tail a leg don't make it one.

It's the fact that we have to accept, regardless of the name.

[RebLem]

Really, the central realities here are these:

1) Our regular immigration quotas for Mexico are unrealistically low. The US needs more Mexican workers than can be provided by the regular legal quotas.

2) Many employers like it that way. It means they have an extra cudgel with which to intimidate their workers.

3) Even more offensive than American employers, however, are the members of the Mexican Elite, who still insist on maintaining their class privilege, on making upward mobility for their poor nearly impossible because they are afraid of the competition, and on exporting the cream of the crop to the US, all the while maintaining that this is their right, not just an undeserved safey valve we provide partly for our own benefit and partly to humor their sorry asses.

4) Too many of the American Elite are beginning to adopt some of the same sort of class attitudes toward the poor and even the middle class, both of this and other countries, and on making it more difficult for people in the US to make something of themselves. Luckily, we have a long tradition of upward mobility, and opportunities are still nowhere near as closed off as they are in Mexico. But we in America have always thought of ourselves as "the shining city on the hill," as a beacon of freedom, an example of how things could be, for the rest of the world. But now, we can see more clearly that it is not a one-way street. Our employers have seen the short term advantgages to them of the oppression of working classes around the world, and this realization has made some of them determned to bring many of those oppressive features of economic life back to the United States. This is one of the great, too little understood negative effects of globalization.

When I think of the virtual shutting down of almost all environmental standards in the US, of the new bankruptcy law, and the refusal to exempt even the victims of Hurricane Katrina, of the new bill which, if passed, would allow health insurance companies to charge higher premia for new hires over 50, and of many other similarly oppressive measures aimed at making war on the poor and middle class in the US, I am reminded that the Declaration of Independence says revolution is justified when "a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism..."

Now, I would not quite maintain that Bushco is out to subject us to absolute despotism. That is, to put it mildly, a lttle too strong for the reality of the situation. But if you review the laundry list of complaints against the Crown in the Declaration, it is amazing how many, with a few word changes and a little bit of watering down, apply to the Bush Administration.

5) What we need to understand most of all is that the depredations of the Bush Administration are not just an historical anomaly brought about by the madness of one man, or a small coterie of neocon ideologues who have picked George Bush as their hail fellow well met front man. It is, rather, something that has been germinating for a long time, a new malignancy that has infected many of the rich and powerful in the US. I have heard some refer to it as "sliding toward Brazil," adopting more and more, third world standards for the role of ordinary citizens in economic life. This will not be over if Bushco is defeated in October, and in October, 2008, nor even if the Democrats continue to increase their representation in state legislatures as they have for the last couple cycles, enough to control repportionment after the 2010 census. Rather, this is a struggle that we will be engaged in for the forseeable future, for the next 30 -40 years, at least. It is likely to be the central issue for the rest of the lives of all Americans over the age of 40.
_________________
"Never drink and drive. You might spill it."--J. Eugene Baker, aka my late father.

[BWV 1080]

While I would generally agree with 1-3 above, I would also point out that Mexico (and Brazil for that matter) would do well to adopt some neocon ideas. Free markets have been essentially non-existent in much of Latin America over the past decades. Instead state-run monopolies and over-regulation have ensured that only an elite group of government insiders had access to opportunities. Thanks largely to neocons like Reagan, the US changed course from following this path in the early 1980's.

[Corlyss_D]

While I would generally agree with 1-3 above, I would also point out that Mexico (and Brazil for that matter) would do well to adopt some neocon ideas. Free markets have been essentially non-existent in much of Latin America over the past decades. Instead state-run monopolies and over-regulation have ensured that only an elite group of government insiders had access to opportunities. Thanks largely to neocons like Reagan, the US changed course from following this path in the early 1980's.

Yeah. Latin America just started to think correctly about their economies and their role in globalization and this twit Chavez comes along, pouring money into socialist opposition in other countries, undermining neighboring nacient democracies, extolling the virtues of populism, conveniently without sharing the benefits his statist policies are alleged to bring to "the people." It's like the poor bastards have to completely relearn the lessons of the 70s and 80s.

[Werner]

I hold no regard for Chavez, butb he's only a recent factor. If blame goes to the Latin countries - especially Mexico as the prime source of the illegal immigrant problem, the causes predate Chavez by ages.

[Corlyss_D]

Too many of the American Elite are beginning to adopt some of the same sort of class attitudes toward the poor and even the middle class, both of this and other countries, and on making it more difficult for people in the US to make something of themselves. ***

Our employers have seen the short term advantgages to them of the oppression of working classes around the world, and this realization has made some of them determned to bring many of those oppressive features of economic life back to the United States. This is one of the great, too little understood negative effects of globalization. ***


What we need to understand most of all is that the depredations of the Bush Administration are not just an historical anomaly brought about by the madness of one man, or a small coterie of neocon ideologues who have picked George Bush as their hail fellow well met front man. It is, rather, something that has been germinating for a long time, a new malignancy that has infected many of the rich and powerful in the US.

Background music: The Twilight Zone theme

[Werner]

I recognize the platform from which Reblem is speaking, and there are other factors to be considered besides the points he makes. But there is no denying that there are some truths in his statement - and it's sad that this seems to put you to sleep.

[Corlyss_D]

I recognize the platform from which Reblem is speaking, and there are other factors to be considered besides the points he makes. But there is no denying that there are some truths in his statement - and it's sad that this seems to put you to sleep.

Both of you believe what you want to believe. Some time with the Statistical Abstract of the US would cure you both.

From 2003:

The number of millionaires in the United States surged 14 percent in 2003, to 2.3 million, according to the World-Wide Wealth of High Net Worth Individuals survey released Tuesday by Merrill Lynch and Capgemini. 1 in 125 Americans is a millioaire (exclusive of home value).

The United States produced the most new millionaires but Hong Kong, at 30 percent, and India, at 22 percent showed the largest percentage gains. China, with a 12 percent jump in millionaires, was right behind the United States.

From 2004:

The HNWI market in 2004 continues to grow substantially for the 2nd year in a row in both number of individuals and assets. Looking regionally, North America grew by nearly 10% to reach 2.7 million HNWIs in 2004, surpassing the European HNWI population of 2.6 million for the first time since 2001. Asia-Pacific’s growth rate of over 8% was twice that of Europe’s growth rate, resulted in a HNWI population of 2.3 million in Asia Pacific.

From 2005:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The number of U.S. households boasting a net worth of at least $5 million swelled to an all-time high in 2005, according a report released Wednesday by consulting firm Spectrem Group.

The report, "Affluent Market Insights 2006," is based on data gathered through mail and surveys of 1,014 respondents from September 2005 to November 2005.

Spectrem, which specializes in the affluent and retirement markets, said a record 8.3 million U.S. households are worth at least $1 million, excluding the value of a primary residence.

This is the second-consecutive year of record growth in the category, topping the 2004 mark of 7.5 million households.

You and Reb like to think these people are few and far between while the suffering masses is enormous. The US has more millionaires spread across a wider base than any other single country and the number grows annually at a phenomenal rate. When people bemoan the fact that the middle class is shrinking, this growth into millionaire status is the reason.

[Werner]

just briefly - more later, maybe: a million ain't what it used to be.

And what's HNWI?

[Corlyss_D]

just briefly - more later, maybe: a million ain't what it used to be.

And what's HNWI?

High Net Worth Individuals. I should have highlited it in the first paragraph.

[DavidRoss]

Really, the central realities here are these:

1) Our regular immigration quotas for Mexico are unrealistically low. The US needs more Mexican workers than can be provided by the regular legal quotas.

2) Many employers like it that way. It means they have an extra cudgel with which to intimidate their workers.

3) Even more offensive than American employers, however, are the members of the Mexican Elite, who still insist on maintaining their class privilege, on making upward mobility for their poor nearly impossible because they are afraid of the competition, and on exporting the cream of the crop to the US, all the while maintaining that this is their right, not just an undeserved safey valve we provide partly for our own benefit and partly to humor their sorry asses.

4) Too many of the American Elite are beginning to adopt some of the same sort of class attitudes toward the poor and even the middle class, both of this and other countries, and on making it more difficult for people in the US to make something of themselves. Luckily, we have a long tradition of upward mobility, and opportunities are still nowhere near as closed off as they are in Mexico. But we in America have always thought of ourselves as "the shining city on the hill," as a beacon of freedom, an example of how things could be, for the rest of the world. But now, we can see more clearly that it is not a one-way street. Our employers have seen the short term advantgages to them of the oppression of working classes around the world, and this realization has made some of them determned to bring many of those oppressive features of economic life back to the United States. This is one of the great, too little understood negative effects of globalization.

When I think of the virtual shutting down of almost all environmental standards in the US, of the new bankruptcy law, and the refusal to exempt even the victims of Hurricane Katrina, of the new bill which, if passed, would allow health insurance companies to charge higher premia for new hires over 50, and of many other similarly oppressive measures aimed at making war on the poor and middle class in the US, I am reminded that the Declaration of Independence says revolution is justified when "a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism..."

Now, I would not quite maintain that Bushco is out to subject us to absolute despotism. That is, to put it mildly, a lttle too strong for the reality of the situation. But if you review the laundry list of complaints against the Crown in the Declaration, it is amazing how many, with a few word changes and a little bit of watering down, apply to the Bush Administration.

5) What we need to understand most of all is that the depredations of the Bush Administration are not just an historical anomaly brought about by the madness of one man, or a small coterie of neocon ideologues who have picked George Bush as their hail fellow well met front man. It is, rather, something that has been germinating for a long time, a new malignancy that has infected many of the rich and powerful in the US. I have heard some refer to it as "sliding toward Brazil," adopting more and more, third world standards for the role of ordinary citizens in economic life. This will not be over if Bushco is defeated in October, and in October, 2008, nor even if the Democrats continue to increase their representation in state legislatures as they have for the last couple cycles, enough to control repportionment after the 2010 census. Rather, this is a struggle that we will be engaged in for the forseeable future, for the next 30 -40 years, at least. It is likely to be the central issue for the rest of the lives of all Americans over the age of 40.

Robert (RebLem), you've said that you are a recent transplant to the Southwest after retiring from a career as a government worker in the industrial East (well, Chicago—close enough and equally alien to Westerners). Your post provides a marvelous example of why there’s such an enormous gap in the U.S. between “blue states” and “red states,” urban and rural, East and West, snow-belt and sun-belt, tax payer and tax spender, etc. etc. etc. If I were teaching a course in Political Science I would ask for permission to use it.

You just don’t get it. And you don’t get that you don’t get it. You think you have the answers for everyone else, and because your intentions are good, you think that whatever flows from them must be good. But you are so thoroughly conditioned that it’s impossible for you to see anything except through the prism of your ideology. It’s so deeply ingrained that you don’t even realize it is ideology, and you’re such a true believer that the failures of your ideology are never due to its shortcomings, but always the fault of those evil idiots who don’t agree with you. I’m reminded of the article on The unteachable ignorance of the red states published online in Slate after the last election. (That title is not tongue in cheek, by the way. Schmucks like its author, Jane Smiley, really believe that they know better than everyone else and that anyone who fails to worship them as founts of wisdom is just an ignorant, stupid, savage…an attitude woefully common among those regarding themselves as a liberal elite.)

It’s kind of you to want to enlighten the rest of us. Perhaps it would help if you enlightened yourself first.