I have always found this article insightful, even more so now, more than when Huntington was alive. With the recent elections in the US and Trump spreading fear, the so called “Hispanic Challenge” has made it to the White House.
This article, unlike many, give a short, but I would say well thought out introduction into Latin American migrations to the US. This is not the main goal of the article, but we get some context into the nature of immigrants, and now second and third generations (citizens).
I think the article made some interesting comments on ethnicity, education, the rise of transnational communities, and also on downward assimilation.
The line from a bureaucratic box to conceptualizing Hispanic as a ‘race’ is very disturbing, although not new since all “races” are social products. Yet, it is very interesting how things such as these evolve through time, and just as interesting, how they are adopted by the target population, which had nothing to do with coining the term (other names such as ‘Indian’ and ‘African-American’ come to mind).
As far as divisions into how second generations grow-up, much has to do with legal status as much as it does with a parent’s education. As the author notes, second and third generation Cuban-Americans have the highest success rate of the Latino populations in the US. This has to do with how much their parents excelled both in education and the workforce, but just as much, I would say it is the fact that Cubans can become permanent residents, and later citizens much easier than other migrant groups. Mexican migrants on the other hand, have the most difficulty in accessing a legal status that would make opportunities such as access to different educational avenues and/or employment opportunities available.
The most important thing that I took from this article however, was a fact-based analysis that demonstrates that pigeonholing populations based on prejudice does not hold-up to reality. Whether it is Huntington, or now Trump, Latino/a populations for the most part positively contribute to a society, which at many times acts as if it did not need them.
What do you guys think?
Die
Am 9. February 2017 um 15:31 Uhr
Alejandro Portes offers an interesting overview of the main characteristics and challenges faced by Latin American immigrants in the US. All in all, the author presents an encompassing perspective on the diversity of these Latin American clusters (in terms of their national variety, settlement preferences and particular circumstances in terms of financial possibilities and literacy), whereas militantly and vehemently discussing Samuel Huntington’s insights in regard to the same issue.
Personally, I found the account that the author offers about the category “Hispanic” –its origins, characteristics and implications for the immigrant population- quite interesting, given that such a label not only contributes to homogenize a broad and diverse human group, but also determines in an important degree the social role and status of those who fall within the aforementioned descriptor. Also, I couldn’t avoid associating the process of construction and implementation of the term “Hispanic” with the name “Latin America” and its demonym “Latino”, constructed by Michel Chevalier in his book “Cartas sobre América del Norte” (published in 1836). According to the French author, his country had a common cultural bond with the Spanish ex-colonies in America and, therefore, it was France’s duty and prerogative to exert some sort of “natural” leadership over those territories. It seems quite interesting how those terms –Hispanic and Latino- have been inspired in hegemonic attempts to homogenize and categorize several groups of people with the purpose to control and regulate them.
Am 10. February 2017 um 00:29 Uhr
I can’t help getting the impression Portes and Huntington ain’t on each other’s Christmas card lists. Anyway, very much in agreement with you Felipe. I found the article very thorough and informative. I thought it was well structured, comprehensive and displaying some very well-founded insights. The first of which comes on page 275 where Portes describes a phenomenon of astonishing social amnesia, whereby the constant flow of new immigrants obscures the reality of those who arrived some time ago and the diverse paths they’ve taken (or which have taken them).
Government fabrication of ethic, even racial identities is nothing new but it is certainly startling that it continues with such success today. This is evidenced for example by the statistic described on page 285 “among Cubans, 93% of the parents self-identified as white, but only 41% of their children agreed.”
The hourglass analogy which Portes evokes on 288 is also very compelling. Indeed, for the Latin Americans in question, it may no longer be an american dream but an american mirage. Further along on this page, he describes the interesting intersection between belief in educational/professional achievement and its actual realisation. Evidently the belief alone is not enough, what Portes conveys is that the belief is most prevalent among kids for whom it is indeed feasible. It isnot as simple as a self-fulfilling prophesy but it is depressing to think that certain kids see themselves as condemned to occupy a certain socio-economic position.
Portes affirms in his conclusion that “Mexican labourers coming in such large numbers are in the United States not only because they want to be, but also because they are wanted”. His description of the reality of the American labour market, which stands in total contradiction to traditional and contemporary right wing
Am 18. February 2017 um 13:53 Uhr
I agree with you that the article gives a very comprehensive insight into the situation of first and second generation Latin American migrants to the US.
Nevertheless, I have come to wonder about a few things Portes mentiones.
For example when he talks about the consequences of the continuation of the unauthorized inflow for a second generation growing up “as part of a second generation subject to the challenges of poverty, feeble communities, and generalized prejudice” (p. 275). I couldn’t help but wonder if he implies that growing up in Central America or Mexico would automatically mean for them not to have to face similar problems. Apart from the generalized prejudice I’m not so sure.
Portes states that “by the second generation, active transnationalism effectively disappears” (p. 278), which I find surprising if it is true that the migrants become “VIPs” for the sending countries, as this could be a way for the second generation to also get the appreciation they are denied in the US.
I found the text immensely interesting, the author’s conclusion for necessary outcomes very plausible and his mention of barriers to integration being structural not cultural (p. 293) very important. Sadly, I don’t feel like Trump is the one to accept this and take the steps that need to be taken by the US government, which will make it even harder for the other institutions Portes mentions as possible sources to improve Hispanic immigrants’ situation in the US and might even render their efforts void.