No Mexican Stand Off
A new RAND Corp. study by economist James P. Smith finds that Hispanic immigrants, including Mexicans (the largest single Hispanic subgroup), move up the American economic ladder as quickly as other immigrant groups.
From RAND's summary:
The descendents of immigrants from Mexico and other Hispanic nations complete substantially more schooling and have higher incomes than the generation before, according an article by Smith published in the May edition of the American Economic Review, the most prestigious and widely read scientific journal in economics.
The advancement up the educational and economic ladder is similar to that seen among earlier generations of European immigrants and leaves third-generation Hispanic descendents only about 10 percent behind their white counterparts in relative incomes, Smith reported.
The generation-to-generation educational gains made by Hispanic men are greater than that seen among native-born white and African American men. However, by the third generation the educational gains appear to drop off as Hispanics begin to look much like the rest of the U.S. population, the RAND research found.
This is good news, of course, even if it confounds anti-immigration types on the one hand and those invested in seeing Hispanics as in continuing, dire need of special assistance on the other.
Smith says a good educational system has played a key role in upward mobility.
Read Glenn Garvin's great 1998 story on bilingual education for one way to improve Hispanic school performance.
And speaking of Garvin–currently the Miami Herald's TV critic–and immigrants, read these two other great pieces by him: "No Fruits, No Shirts, No Service: The real-world consequences of closed borders" and "Bringing the Border War Home: What will Americans pay to keep out immigrants?"
More Reason resources on immigration are here.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Statistically, I am a first-generation American of hispanic descent who has not progressed educationally as far as my parents. I got a B.S., while my (Colombian immigrant) mother came to the US to get her MA, and my (Greek immigrant) father came to the US to get his PhD. However, I am still slightly ahead of the US median in educational attainment. Not all immigrants are poor or under-educated.
Some of my posts on illegal immigration are here, including a long post with lots of links about the reason article “Note to conservatives: Most immigrants aren’t terrorists”.
If you don’t read anything else, check out the links at the end of the last link.
I haven’t read all of reason’s immigration pieces, but the ones I have read seem to a) confuse legal and illegal immigration, and b) concentrate on economic matters, when there are more important aspects to this issue.
For instance, neither Cathy Young’s article nor the ones linked to by this post contain the word “aztlan.” I would tend to think that the establishment of a “Chicano Quebec” in the U.S. Southwest would be of interest to some; apparently, reason writers are either unaware of the Aztlan movement, or think cheap vegetables are more important.
I would tend to think that the Mexican government continually meddling in U.S. affairs would be of interest: trying to take a survey of Mexican-American soldiers, lobbying state and local officials to accept their Matricula Consular cards, trying to get illegal immigrants a better tuition break than U.S. citizens, etc. etc. etc.
When Mexico’s foreign minister said that Mexico was to begin “propagating militant activities” in the U.S, where were reason and the rest of the U.S. press?
Does a Mexican official uttering the words “I want the third generation, the seventh generation, I want them all to think ‘Mexico first'” give open borders advocates a bit of pause?
For a recent example, consider the article Activists to challenge ‘terrorist militias’. Although the article fails to mention this, it turns out that those “human rights activists” are simply reconquistas in disguise.
According to http://www.americanpatrol.com/RECONQUISTA/NAVARO.html here’s a quote from Armando Navarro, the head of the “human rights” organization mentioned in the article:
“Ladies and gentlemen, what this means is a transfer of power, it means control, it means whose going to influence. And it is the young people, the people who are now moving to develop an agenda for the twenty first century. They are really going to be in a position to really make the promise of what the Chicano movement was all about in terms of self-determination, in terms of empowerment, and even in the terms of the idea of an Aztlan!”
For your reading pleasure, here’s El Plan de Aztlan:
http://clnet.ucr.edu/research/docs/struggle/aztlan.htm
For more background information on Aztlan and related topics, see this
Hopefully one of these days reason will cover all sides of this story, not just the cheap vegetables side.
Joe –
Unfortunately, most of the slant on zoning regulations that come from some so called libertarians such as Wendell Cox and Randall O’Toole deal more with trying to preserve the status quo (Road building and suburbs) than with real issues of free-market activity.
Most zoning regulations and setback rules/Fire department regualtions and etc etc. mean that there is only one type of development possible – the single family house on a large lot. Many examples where mixed use and/or small lot dense developments have been allowed to be built have been quite successfully.
This fight isn’t about cars vs walkability or new urbanism vs. traditonal neighborhoods, smart growth or sprawl. It is about opening back up the system to allow market demand for different types of housing to be built. Let people live where they want and in the type of housing they want, and it will work to solve many things- not the least of which the rapidly escalting cost of housing in this country.
You rule, Perry. But please, please, please don’t refer to large lot, single-family-only, no stores withing walking distance, can’t cross the six lane arterial, Howard Roark-style subdivisions as “traditional neighborhoods.” They are anything but. They are the outcome of a government- and industry- imposed, regulatory based effort at social engineering, obsessed with the destruction of the traditional neighborhood order – an order, if I may machete my way back to the topic of this thread, that is indisputably necessary for the first-step-on-the-ladder, improve your situation immigration system that has served this country so well.
Sadly, the libertarian right is far too fond of suburbia’s safety, artificial prosperity, and homogeneity to stick up for its principles on this one.
greetings earthlings,
in our north-side chicago neighborhood, we see a huge mix of different ethnicities all mixing and interacting.
one particularly exciting element of such diversity is being able to see, on some level or another, how it could have been for our grandparents as they came to the New World from europe. you see people starting out in america, you see changes as they master english all the better. you see how they figure out how to play the capitalism game, and you definitely see how regulations have a detrimental effect.
the operators of the laundrimat around the corner are from yugoslavia, and they are incredible go-getters. hard working, savvy, and of course, positive for the neighborhood. a great family!
their children will most likely go to college, and their grandkids won’t be any different from any other second- or third-generation american.
it’s fantastic to see. and sorry, pessimists, the american dream is alive and well here on the north side!
we definitely experience the most positive aspects of immigration here. and our neighborhood, aka “germantown” (lincoln square), is continuing in its tradition of being the first rung towards the american dream!
happy friday,
drf
Excellent articles but lacking a bit in proposing strategies to accept, tacitly or not, productive illegals – and legals – into the economy. Just leave it like it is or relax the barriers?
The opposition is mighty loud. Go over to fuckedcompany.com sometime and hear the laid off techies from silicon valley bash the H1-b’s who they believe took their jobs. Folks in the south and west, too, are just beside themselves. I don’t hear anybody reasonably addressing the issue.
Great tale, drf! I’m watching the same thing happen here in Lowell, MA, where the second largest population of Cambodians in America are revitalizing neighborhood business districts all over town.
It’s too bad the suburbs around us have zoning laws that make it impossible for these working people to live there, or start a business. I wait with baited breath for the anti-regulation, anti-social engineering, pro-property rights people at Reason Online to write a column decrying zoning laws that allow only large lot, single family homes.
Hey Joe,
Get rid of your baited breath by checking out our set of links on sprawl-related issues: http://reason.com/bisprawl.shtml
Not quite up to date, but close enough.
I’ve read the links. I can’t find a single paragraph where single family, large lot zoning is criticized. There does seem to be quite a bit about how that urban design is the “right” one, and denser designs are wrong and unpopular. But the fact that almost no one builts single family houses where the zoning allows multifamily is not mentioned. The fact that the older, denser cities were built in a more libertarian period is not mentioned. Arthur Levitt is lauded (Funny, the author doesn’t mention Levitt’s statement that single family homes are better for the working class, because they discourage them from talking about their common issues.) Nor do I find a reference to the fact that the New Urbanist project is, at heart, about cutting regulations that limit builders choices.
If I missed the part where you lament zoning laws that require large lot, cookie cutter, single family one subdivisions, please, let me know where it is.
“artificial prosperity” ??? Wazzat! How can I get some of it? Can I cook it up in my kitchen?
EMAIL: krokodilgena1@yahoo.com
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://www.PENIS-ENLARGEMENT-SAFE.NET
DATE: 12/10/2003 06:19:18
Unusual ideas can make enemies.
EMAIL: krokodilgena1@yahoo.com
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://penis-enlargement-pill.nonstopsex.org
DATE: 12/20/2003 10:16:08
Self-imposed ignorance should disgust everyone.