New Study Undermines Nativist Canard that New Immigrants Refuse to Assimilate

A new study by the Manhattan Institute undermines the nativist canard that recent immigrants are resistant to assimilation. Nativists have long ranted that the current crop of immigrants, especially Latin Americans, are not assimilating as fast as previous generations of immigrants. The Report, by Jacob Vigdor, Associate Professor of Public Policy Studies and Economics at Duke University, demonstrates that the latest wave of immigrants is actually assimilating at a faster rate than previous generations of immigrants. When you factor in legal status, Latin Americans assimilate at rate equal to or higher than Asian immigrants. Nativists have long held that Latin Americans held on to their language and culture and resisted efforts to assimilate. The Manhattan Institute report decisively puts an end to this nativist canard.

As reported in the Washington Post on May 13, 2008:

Immigrants of the past quarter-century have been assimilating in the United States at a notably faster rate than did previous generations, according to a study released today. …

The study, sponsored by the Manhattan Institute, a New York think tank, used census and other data to devise an assimilation index to measure the degree of similarity between the United States' foreign-born and native-born populations. These included civic factors, such as rates of U.S. citizenship and service in the military; economic factors, such as earnings and rates of homeownership; and cultural factors, such as English ability and degree of intermarriage with U.S. citizens. The higher the number on a 100-point index, the more an immigrant resembled a U.S. citizen.

In general, the longer an immigrant lives in the United States, the more characteristics of native citizens he or she tends to take on, said Jacob L. Vigdor, a professor at Duke University and author of the study. During periods of intense immigration, such as from 1870 to 1920, or during the immigration wave that began in the 1970s, new arrivals tend to drag down the average assimilation index of the foreign-born population as a whole.

The report found, however, that the speed with which new arrivals take on native-born traits has increased since the 1990s. As a result, even though the foreign population doubled during that period, the newcomers did not drive down the overall assimilation index of the foreign-born population. Instead, it held relatively steady from 1990 to 2006.

"This is something unprecedented in U.S. history," Vigdor said. "It shows that the nation's capacity to assimilate new immigrants is strong."

The study points out that even factoring in previous waves of immigration from English-speaking countries, today’s assimilation index is much higher than previous periods of high immigration. Of note, is the finding that the more opportunities an immigrant is given – jobs, legal rights, legalization – the faster he or she will assimilate. Contrary, to nativist cant, the solution to the immigration problem is not to create barriers but to open up avenues for integration into the larger society.

Why is the Congressional Latino Leadership so Mediocre?

Quick! Name a single member of the Hispanic Congressional Caucus. Better still, name a single piece of legislation put forward by any member of this group. What more likely comes to mind is the recent piece on the Comedy Channel’s Colbert Report where Steven Colbert makes light of Hispanic Representative Joe Baca allegedly calling fellow California Representative, Loretta Sanchez a “whore.” Baca denied the charge but it did not stem the fury of Rep. Loretta Sanchez and her sister and fellow Representative, Linda Sanchez. The most damning thing about the incident is that such a charge would even be taken seriously by the public. But apparently it was. So much so that Baca felt that he needed to issue a denial.

Of more pressing concern is the charge that Joe Baca improperly funneled Hispanic Caucus money to the state legislature campaigns of his two sons. This incident caused a split in the Caucus in February of 2006. Rep. Loretta Sanchez, her sister, Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., and Democratic Reps. Dennis Cardoza of California, Jim Costa of California, Raul M. Grijalva of Arizona and Hilda L. Solis of California withdrew from the group's political action committee after Baca authorized political contributions to his family members.

Subsequently, following the election of Joe Baca to the chairmanship of the Hispanic Caucus, the Sanchez sisters protested that the vote had been improper and that balloting should have been done by secret ballot. Both sisters then broke off all ties to the Hispanic Caucus. Baca has characterized the dispute as “personal.”

As a Latino, it is hard for me not to get disheartened by such self-defeating antics. When Representative Loretta Sanchez, defeated the Republican nutwing, Bob Dornan, many had hopes that she would usher in a new generation of Latino leaders. She was young, smart and politically savvy. Although she has generally voted with the party, she has rarely been the leading voice in Congress that many Hispanics had hoped she would be.

More perplexing is the presence of five Hispanic congressional representatives in the conservative, 37-member, “Blue Dog Coalition.” The Blue Dog coalition describes itself as conservative democrats who wish to inject a conservative or “moderate” point of view in Congress. The Blue Dog coalition not only opposes most legislation of concern to the Latino community but includes nativists such as Heath Schuler, who has made common cause with former Republican presidential candidate Tom Tancredo in pushing anti-immigrant (and anti-Latino) legislation. Whatever leverage these Latino members may have gained from their membership in the Blue Dog Coalition, it has been lost by their legitimization of the most right-wing elements of the coalition. The Hispanic representatives’ membership in the Blue Dog Coalition indicates clearly that these representatives do not have the interests of the Latino community foremost in mind.

So why are the few Latino members of Congress such a mediocre representation of the community? There are clearly many bright, articulate, young Latinos out there: Latinos who would surely measure up to the Congressional Black Caucus’s shining member, Barack Obama. I believe the problem is a generational disconnect. The current leadership matured as the pioneer generation of Latino representatives to Congress. They thrive on the politics of personality and as such engage in petty politics. Whatever grand vision they may have for Hispanics, it is completely lost on Hispanics themselves.

Finally, Hispanic members of Congress have few established, ethnically-based institutions – such as blacks have in the NAACP – to ground them. Old line organizations such as the League of United Latin American Citizens are largely made up of veterans from World War II and are more animated by the struggle to achieve parity for Hispanic veterans than they are by issues like immigration. In any case, these are not people who rattle cages.

There are further reasons for the lack of visionary Latino leadership but this discussion will be continued. Unfortunately, this group of leaders will do little to uplift the Hispanic community. Please post a comment if you agree or disagree.