|
July 13, 2005
Looking (In Vain)
For Latino Assimilation
Second-generation immigrants—U.S.-born
individuals with at least one foreign-born
parent—are the most rapidly growing segment on the
nation’s immigrant stock. In California they
account 7 million, or 21 percent, of state
population, up from 3.1 million (16 percent) in
1970.
Latinos account for over half of second-generation
Californians. If the children of immigrants are
assimilating, it should
happen in California first.
But it
isn’t happening.
On the contrary, a May 2005 Public Policy of California
report,
"Second-Generation
Immigrants in California,"
reveals a widening gap in the
academic,
economic, and
linguistic achievement of second- and even third-
generation Latinos and the overall population. (This
probably isn’t what the Public Policy Institute wanted
to find, and may be why its figures cited below do not
include embarrassing direct comparison with native-born
whites).
Take educational attainment. [Table 1] There is
significant reduction in high school dropout rates
between first and second-generations Latinos—but
progress appears to stall after the second-generation.
Indeed, children of Latino immigrants have lost ground
relative to other immigrant children:
 | 67 percent of F-G Latinos are HS dropouts versus 39
percent of all F-G Californians |
| 35 percent of S-G Latinos are HS dropouts versus 14
percent of all S-G Californians |
| 22 percent of T-G Latinos are HS dropouts versus 8
percent of all T-G Californians |
College-educated Latinos of any generation are
shockingly rare:
| 7 percent of the first generation |
| 10 percent of the second-generation |
| 11 percent of the third-generation |
The largest variations are not by nativity but by
national origin. Case in point: Mexicans and Filipinos.
They are the two largest national groups in California,
accounting for 58 percent and 6 percent, respectively,
of second-generation children. Both are from poor
countries.
Yet immigrants from Mexico are among the least educated
in the state—while
immigrants from the Philippines are among the best
educated, with 55 percent having
college degrees.
Those differentials persist in second and third
generations.
If only the Philippines
bordered California!
English proficiency is at least as important a success
predictor as education. As with education, there is
general improvement among second generation immigrants
in California. But once again, the children of Latino
immigrants lag behind the children of other immigrant
groups: [Table 2]
| 5 percent of F-G Latinos speak only English versus 11
percent of all F-G Californians |
| 10 percent of S-G Latinos speak only English versus 29
percent of all S-G Californians |
| 75 percent of T-G Latinos speak only English versus 94
percent of all T-G Californians |
A
Spanish-only subculture makes it impossible for the
children of many Latino immigrants to reach
economic parity—and leaves them prey to ethnic
demagogues.
It’s often said that second generation Latinos have
shown a strong tendency to intermarry.
Immigration enthusiast Joel Kotkin has
claimed roughly 30 percent wed people from other
ethnic groups.
I will investigate this in a future National Data. But
if it’s true, it raises questions about these
generational comparisons.
Many third-generation Latinos could identify themselves
as
multi-racial whites or Blacks. Have they imported
Latino values
into those groups?
That could mean the
failure of Latino assimilation is worse than these
cross-racial comparisons apparently suggest.
Edwin S. Rubenstein (email
him) is President of
ESR Research Economic Consultants in Indianapolis. |
