« The Italian shortage of small notes | Main | Economic deconstructions of rock songs »
The latest data on Hispanic assimilation
Find it here, the conclusion is that Hispanics are following traditional immigration patterns and do not represent an outlier, as suggested by Samuel Huntington.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on April 3, 2007 at 03:02 PM in Political Science | Permalink
Comments
Shocking.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim at Apr 3, 2007 3:08:38 PM
Great! A post about Hispanics and NO Steven Sailer comment (yet)!
Posted by: leo at Apr 3, 2007 3:12:30 PM
Give it a minute.
Posted by: josh at Apr 3, 2007 4:00:15 PM
If anything, assimilation measures based on language use understate the degree of assimilation, since this is taken as being "English-dominant". This ignores the fact that people can be fully bilingual, a fact almost inconceivable to most Americans. Yet, my family has managed this quite well for more than five generations (and counting), as do millions of others.
Posted by: Andres at Apr 3, 2007 4:26:18 PM
The paper mainly deals with Hispanics' knowledge of English. But is this assimilation?:"This disparity diminishes among Hispanics born in the United States who have foreign-born parents: 31 percent identify themselves as American while 43 percent describe themselves as their country of ancestry. By the third generation, the proportion of respondents choosing American as their primary identifier is a small majority (56 percent), and only 23 percent describe themselves primarily in terms of their ancestral country." I would describe the fact that 43% of the second generation do not consider themselves Americans as worrisome at best.
Posted by: Dennis Mangan at Apr 3, 2007 4:30:02 PM
You could find a dozen similar studies in decades past saying the same things about the immigrants in France, Holland, and Britain. Allowing massive immigration into Europe seemed like a good idea at the time. How's that working out for them now?
I'm sure there were studies in Detroit 50 years ago on how internal migration from the South was going well. Have you taken a look at Detroit lately? Sizable parts of are so abandoned that they are slowly being taken over by forest.
A group's attitudes change over time. One common dynamic is a trend toward greater prickliness and annoyance in later generations at still being toward the bottom of society.
It doesn't always happen that way, but why take the chance? The upside to vast unskilled migration is pretty small and the downside is pretty big. Economists call that reward vs. risk and thinking in those terms is a big part of economics ... except when the subject is immigration, at which point most of the apparatus of economic thought is thrown out the window in favor of happy-clappy wishful thinking.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Apr 3, 2007 4:52:54 PM
"Sizable parts of are so abandoned that they are slowly being taken over by forest."
Immigration from Southern blacks causes forestation?
Posted by: Keith at Apr 3, 2007 5:07:56 PM
And Sailer wants to stop internal migration, too? Well, that would at least make him consistent....
Posted by: Keith at Apr 3, 2007 5:09:53 PM
I do have to say, though, in the case of Southern blacks, it strikes as kinda harsh to forcibly migrate a group of people to your country, then forbid them to migrate internally. But hey, I'm funny that way.
Posted by: Keith at Apr 3, 2007 5:11:54 PM
1h50m for a Sailer comment. Not bad.
BTW, Señor Sailer, could you please send a few references on "the dozen similar studies in decades past saying the same things about the immigrants in France, Holland, and Britain."?
Posted by: leo at Apr 3, 2007 5:18:24 PM
Lots of impressive economic reasoning going on in response to my comment!
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Apr 3, 2007 5:27:16 PM
Okay, Steve, here's a little econ for ya' (although, I get a sneaking suspicion that you’re entrenched).
“You could find a dozen similar studies in decades past saying the same things about the immigrants in France, Holland, and Britain. Allowing massive immigration into Europe seemed like a good idea at the time. How's that working out for them now?”
I don’t know about the “dozens” of studies in Europe. However, a big reason that things aren’t working out so well is the advanced welfare state and resulting high unemployment. Immigrants don’t have good employment opportunities and don’t assimilate in these zero-sum societies.
Detroit has much the same problem – advanced welfare state and unions.
Your stance that low-skilled immigrants into the US will meet with a similar fate will be justified if we continue to march toward a more encompassing nanny state. If not, they will have exactly the effect that immigrants have had on America they have had historically – they will add to the expansion of the economy
Posted by: Methinks at Apr 3, 2007 5:43:12 PM
A currently third generation hispanic is probably roughly 30 something. That means their parents likely were born in the 1950's. That means their grandparents immigrated in the 1930's or 1940's. Does the immigration situation of the 1940's or 1950's compare to that of today?
Posted by: Matt at Apr 3, 2007 5:44:37 PM
Assimilaton is evidenced by the "Reggaeton Hip Hop Nation":
http://www.mystrands.com/track/8311884
Of course, the Irish still have their own parades...
Posted by: Mr. Econotarian at Apr 3, 2007 5:50:30 PM
Oh, I'd say your comment is getting exactly the response it merits.
Posted by: Keith at Apr 3, 2007 5:50:55 PM
There is aggregate economic expansion and per capita GDP. If millions of people move to America, of course GDP will rise. If per capita GDP doesn't increase, however, the income gap will widen. The best way to raise the native poor is to create a tight labor market at the bottom, but instead the U.S. is flooding the bottom of the labor market, while businesses complain that they can't hire enough skilled workers. And the policy has left Americans increasingly anti-immigration because of strains on the public welfare systems.
Posted by: Matt at Apr 3, 2007 5:51:49 PM
The upside to vast unskilled migration is pretty small and the downside is pretty big.
So the US did not benefit from the vast unskilled migration of the 1800's?
Posted by: Mr. Econotarian at Apr 3, 2007 5:53:41 PM
I keep wondering when El Paso Texas is going to become like Burlington, Vermont as the huge number of poor hispanic immigrations and their children become just like regular American just like the 96% White population of Vermont.
Also, if immigration was good for the economy El Paso and Laredo would be boom towns. I have not seen many white, Ivy League educated economist moving to El Paso because the economic opprotunities are great and the 85% Hispanic population will welcome them with open arms.
Posted by: superdestroyer at Apr 3, 2007 6:06:33 PM
Well, El Paso's murder rate is lower than many a whiter town, so does that mean we oughta be making some trades?
Posted by: Keith at Apr 3, 2007 7:43:46 PM
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004902.html
El Paso has a murder rate is lower than Seattle, Columbus (Ohio), Louisville, Colorado Springs, and Wichita.
So stick that one straight up your Cudahy.
Posted by: Keith at Apr 3, 2007 7:48:43 PM
Keith,
You may want to look at some other number such as the 7% unemployment rate. Or that all of the public high schools except one are below average for Texas. Or just look at money magazine of livability. El Paso is definitely not at the top. Once again, maybe you can point out some entrepreneurs who have moved there for the tremendous economic opprotunity afford by unlimited immigration.
Posted by: superdestroyer at Apr 3, 2007 8:07:06 PM
Or just look at money magazine of livability. El Paso is definitely not at the top.
Well, I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks policy should be determined by magazine lists.
Posted by: Stu at Apr 3, 2007 8:23:47 PM
Huntington smack down alert!
In my classes at Berkeley, it's almost a sickening pleasure to Bash Sam Huntington.
Posted by: Nathan at Apr 3, 2007 8:41:40 PM
Is the label Hispanic referring to race or ethnicity? Why is it that Huntington, Citrin, Lerman, Murakami, and Pearson among other distinguished scholars use the " Hispanic vs White". It seems to me that it reduces an very varied and diversified ethnic group to a single race. I know is a little of the topic but out amongst the academic community, you would think that social scientist would be able to distinguish the difference between Sammy Sosa and Andy Garcia.
Posted by: John V. White at Apr 3, 2007 8:52:08 PM
On page 46 the authors include the caveat that "much" of the data presented excludes consideration of illegal immigrants. I think that's a pretty serious flaw in the paper. A lot of the arguments are based on survey data of how people feel about various topics, I am not sure how much weight I would give this. I would care a lot more about high school and college graduation rates and rate of use of public services as measures of assimilation.
Posted by: ben at Apr 3, 2007 9:03:38 PM
