There was a mistake in the syllabus.
The article by Portes on the New Latin nation is the last article of the semester.
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 think?
I’ve always wondered about the inflow of Latin Americans to the US. Especially recently when it’s brought up so often by the Trump administration, which seems to legitimize racial expressions across the country. Everyone is aware of the Latin American presence in almost every state, yet I have not read, until now, a research that touches upon the various aspects this inflow is causing. I’ve found the American “acceptance” (of Latin-American migration) especially interesting, as it not only involves farmers, restaurant owners and contractors (as is the mainstream thought of who are the Americans that wish for low-wage Latin-American labor), but also international banks and the “financial houses of New York”, who have come to rely on these specific remittances to be “used as predictors and estimates of balance of payment accounts, national foreign-currency reserves, and aggregate growth rates.” This factor stands out in my mind, because the so-called “financial houses of New York” are often the ones pulling the strings in DC, after providing much of the needed funding for the candidates’ campaigns, and they cannot claim to be un-political. So why are there always anti-immigration (especially from the southern border) forces in DC, when their funding comes from institutions that support and even rely on the same migration? Maybe that’s why the laws and their reinforcement don’t hold up so well in practice, maybe there’s a need to show only as if they are acting towards restricting immigration.
I found the way the republicans seem to be associated with the Cuban community and the Democrats with the Mexican one pretty hypocrite. Why is it then, that there is so much focus and negativity towards the Mexican immigration while the Cuban one is being somewhat overlooked? Especially regarding Trump, one could assume he needs to rely on all the Republican support he can get, even if it’s foreign.
His ideas about the institutions’ position in assimilating, especially second generations, would probably help them climb the socio-economical ladder, but the question is, when will they start setting into motion? Or can the Latin-american community improve its image without it?
This article gives a good overview of the Latino population and its second generation living in the US. I especially liked the aspect about how migration transforms village life, cities and regions in the country of origin. Even though this is an almost obvious process – relatives bringing back presents/ remittances helping to rebuild housing – it never crossed my mind before having read this article. I also learned that the term hispanic is such a controversial terminology.
I would like to post the link to this ARTE docu (in German), which I came across last year. It’s about the demographic change in the US due to the rise of Latino immigration, also looking at the second generation, therefore, I think it goes quite well this week’s reading.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KHy9qnSOXo
I found Robert et al.’s application of the Hirschmannian “exit, voice, loyalty”-typology very interesting and how “by exiting their country [Mexico], […] former peasants and workers, who previously lacked any voice in national or local political affairs, have acquired a powerful one, as federal and state governments seek to maintain and increase their loyalty” (p. 276). The development of the perception of state authorities vis-à-vis Mexican émigrés from “pochos” to “VIPs” is again a phenomenon we also know in other contexts and it was great to see an established theoretical concept behind it.
I hear a lot about the “Cubanized” Miami from Latino friends but didn’t know that thanks to their privileged position among Latin-American immigrants, esp. in terms of education, Cuban refugees and their descendants “have become a very influential force in local and state politics” (p. 280). We hear a lot about the Bush v. Al Gore election and the decisive electoral votes of Florida, but little did I personally know about the strong political ties between the Republican Party and Cuban-Americans in Florida as well as their huge mobilization force influencing the 2000 presidential election (p. 280).
The point made by Massey on the term “Hispanic” and the lack of a heterogenous “Hispanic” population behind it is extremely crucial when we talk about Latin American migration in the U.S. American context. Probably the most important (and as Mr. Isla said, disturbing) revelation of the whole course for me was the study showing that second-generation Latinos often tend to see “Hispanic/Latino” as a racial category and do not identify themselves as “white” as opposed to their parents (cf. Table 3, p. 86). This shows how the external perception of a community (labelling) can alter one’s self-identity. An important negative momentum, that leads to the so-called segmented assimilation and a “segmented” American dream.
Portes states that “despite their socioeconomic disadvantage, or perhaps because of it, Mexican Americans are far more inclined to communicate solely in English than are other Latin American–origin groups” (p. 290). This is something I’ve personally observed in my own group of friends, although I’d thought it was a coincidence. What are your experiences/thoughts on that? It’s certainly very interesting.
Finally, I was really surprised by the arguments made by Samuel P. Huntington, as I’d only known him from a comparative political background (“The third wave”-theory etc.)… Although I haven’t read his article yet, Pierpont’s critique on a redundant ethnic chauvinistic approach sounds legitimate and even more worrying with Trump being president.
I have read this week’s paper with a lot of interest. Although it has already been written ten years ago, I believe the article could not have a greater relevance than today. With Trump being president of the United States, the question of how Latin American immigrants are encountered in the USA has arrived at the top of the political agenda. In this context, I believe the arguments put forward by Alejandro Portes are of uttermost importance. I found particularly striking the aspect of the cataloguing of “races” (p. 13). Although the idea that “races” are socially constructed was not new to me, I found this text more insightful than the ones I have read so far because it actually shows the manufacturing of races by providing data on the self-perception of first and second generation immigrants. I was impressed by the numbers of second generation immigrants who define themselves as Hispanics although their parents do not. As has been mentioned in the text, this confusion of “race” with “ethnicity” clearly proofs the impacts of stereotypes. Another aspect which I found very interesting is the heterogeneity of the “Hispanic” immigrants. Although it is obvious that immigrants from a variety of different origins cannot be treated as one homogenous group, I think that this argument was well-developed in the article. I found that it was outlined well how diverse the group of “Hispanics” actually is. At the same time the four mechanisms of convergence – cultural analogies, racial manufacturing by the state, numerical dominance by Mexican immigrants, self-interest in unity – were convincingly depicted. All in all, the issue of racial construction was the point which I found most interesting. But the article raised several other interesting issues – realities of second generation immigrants, poverty and crime, divergence between economic demands and border policy, etc. For this reason, I found it one of the most insightful texts we have read this semester and I definitely think a discussion of this paper can be beneficial for a variety of purposes.
I liked the charts and how the author graphically portrayed the sequence of events. This made his argumentation very clear.
I also liked the part about diversity and unity. I’ve also been thinking that the term Hispanic is somewhat problematic because Hispanics “do not share a common historical memory and do not comprise a single, coherent community”. They come from different regions, have different customs and traditions, and do not necessarily share the same experiences of immigration. The term is mostly used to address people from states once colonized by Spain , but there is a debate whether the term should apply to all Spanish-speaking countries or cultures.
What also struck me as convincing was the reference to Huntington’s publications and the discussion of the problem that Huntington sees in Hispanics and the implied causes for these problems. However, the author compares Huntington’s assumptions with field research findings that show similar problems but different causes and furthermore point at the socio-economic struggles that Hispanic migrants face. They are used as “Human capital” and disregarded as soon as they stop being the cheap workers who fill an important, bottom-feeding role, and who are wanted by U.S.-American corporations because of their “cheapness” and their work ethic.
What an insightful article for such an important topic!
After reading the article it´s even harder for me to understand how anyone would think that building a wall would make any sense.
Whereever people live together there are problems, excluding one ethnic group doesn´t help. As the article greatly depicted, Latin Americans have become an essential part of the American society. Their labor force is needed to keep the economy growing, their expertise is needed……
The Latin American movement to the US isn´t new, so by now most of them are probably more American than Latino. Same goes for the Turkish in Germany. You can´t suddenly exclude a minority that has lived in a country for decades.
Fortunately, the author made clear that Latin Americans aren´t just the badly educated manual laborers but are often well educated entrepreneurs. This aspect often seems to be forgotten. Not just in the US but in Germany as well. We not only need cheap laborers for the “dirty work” but skilled workers as well because we simply don´t have enough ourselves.
This aspect is paired with another one: birth rates are decreasing if we excluded immigrants and minorites, it would have severe consequences for our society. Especially now that more and more people are getting older and older. We need a growing population to take care of them and pay for our social system.
Last but not last, another important aspect that was mentioned in the text is that you can´t stop migration flows. People will find their ways, especially when the transnational networks are as established as the ones between Latin America and the US.
As you can see with the migration movement from Africa and the Middle East, people are willing to risk their lives if they have the chance to improve their living conditions by migrating.
I think that´s very human. We all want the best for us and our family even if that means we have to leave our home country. Surely there´s a difference from fleeing from war or prosecution or having economic purposes for migrating but the essence is the same: having a better live at the end.
People have migrated since humans exist, so why make it so complicated today?
This week’s text “The New Latin Nation” by Alejandro Portes on the diverse Hispanic population in the United States, the formation of a Hispanic identity, and upward or downward assimilation provided us with an introduction to the topic of Latin Americans in the U.S. Even though the text was published in 2007, I feel like many of the aspects the author mentions are still relevant today in the ongoing debate on how to deal with continued Latin American migration to the U.S.
I found it refreshing to learn more about the diversity among the Latin American migrants coming to the U.S. Due to Mexicans constituting the vast majority of Latin Americans in the U.S., much of the immigration discourse focuses on this group, which is why I found it especially interesting to learn more about other immigrant groups, such as Colombians, Argentinians, Brazilians, or Dominicans, and their specific reasons for migrating to the U.S., but also differences in qualification and education between those different immigrant groups.
In my opinion what the author mentioned about the labor demands of the U.S., especially its enormous demand for foreign labor, being one of the main factors that contribute to the great dimensions of Latin American migration to the U.S. is important to be able to understand the dynamics of these migratory flows. People often seem to forget that, without e.g. the Mexican immigrants working in the low-skilled labor sector, many of these low-paid jobs would not be filled at all. Efforts to stop Latin American immigration will continue to prove limited in their success, given that the U.S. economy profits from these low-skilled workers and also relies on them.
I find its really interesting how all the reading of this course guided us from really begging of massive migration to and from Latin America and brought us in the end to the relevant problems of modern Latin America.
Reading of this week gives us a possibility to have a look on Hispanic population in US and also have a look on post-migration population, like second and third generation.
I think question of “Hispanic race” in US during the Trump campaign became too relevant. I agree with professor Rubio that author brought up important comments on ethnicity, education and the rise of transnational communities, as well as that gives us opportunity to analyze that “demonstrates that pigeonholing populations based on prejudice does not hold-up to reality” that describes the main idea of author really good.
This text was written by Alejandro Portes, working at Princeton University. It focuses on the sond generation of Hispanic migrants in the United States, and more particularly on their process of assimilation in the American culture.
12.5% of the American population are Hispanics, and their presence in the US is not regional anymore (the diasporas are distributed in all the American states). Their integration in the American culture though is a subject of intense reflection in research. Portes therefore wrote this essay as an answer to Samuel Huntington’s publication, which states that Hispanic presence in the US has negative effects for national integration (he speaks of “cultural disintegration”). Portes shows that on the contrary, it is more likely that the places of origin will come to resemble to the US thanks to emigration rather than vice versa. In fact, as home governments take notice of the good effects of emigration (remittances etc.), they seek to maintain and promote the loyalty of their diasporas and give them a new voice. This way, the transnational communities carry increasing weight in the political and cultural spheres both in their homelands and in the US.
I especially liked the author’s focus on the second generation, the migrant’s children. In fact, he noticed the emergence of a “thick” Hispanic identity among the migrant’s offspring. Especially, he differentiates three distinct paths this second generation live their ethnicity. First, in the case of a smooth transition into the US middle and upper classes, the second generation can display their ethnicity on occasion and when convenient: their ethnicity becomes optional. In the second case, when they need to claw the way upward in society despite their poverty, the second generation find the support needed in their coethnic community: ethnicity becomes a strong basis for self-identity. In the third and last case, ethnicity is neither seen as an option or badge of pride, but as a sign of permanent subordination: the second generation live in the underworld of gangs, drugs or prison. These three distinct paths are called “segmented assimilation” by Portes and show the variety of scenarios ethnicity can be lived by migrant’s children. More than anything, they show that the barriers to a successful integration are not cultural but structural.
The Hispanic population has grown from 2000 census to 2010 by 43% from 35 million to 50 million so that the in the text described issue has become even more important and the data of the text seems to be a little outdated.
For me exspecially interesting was the part about the diversity and unity of the Hispanics and the social power sturcture behind the consturction of the term and seeming ethicity Hispanic. It is very plausible that first generation Migrants are more connected to their home country than the their children of the second generation but I didn’t expect that the self defintion as Hispanic rises for the second generation, although around 90% percents of the total migrants came from Mexico.
I really liked the text, it’s a really detailed outlook in how Latin Americans’ reality and imagery is shaped in US American society under the label of “Hispanic”. It’s indeed problematic, the fact that groups with heterogeneous ethnic backgrounds and diverse national histories are all at once classified as Hispanic just because they share a language. Moreover, if we take into account that this doesn’t apply to English-speaking people: they are not being separated by language as a hallmark of a “race”. Nor do Italians, Germans, Danish or Swedish people, unless they’re black. They’re allowed to have their languages and cultures and be different as long as they’re white. Therefore, I think the author’s quote choice is unfortunate when quoting Massey, who states that “there’s no Hispanic population in the sense that there is a Black population. Hispanics share no common historical memory…” (Portes quoting Massey, 2007: p. 280) as if Black people had always been accultural people coming from a big homogenous country, namely Africa, and as if their history had just began with slavery.
Another problematic aspect in the text, in my point of view, was the second consideration mentioned by Portes, when contradicting Huntington’s arguments. He characterizes the standards learned in the United States as moral standards aimed to make local politics “less corrupt and more participatory”. Are we supposed to deduce from this, that “more corrupt and less participatory” are “Hispanic moral standards”?
A last point I would like to address relates to one of the three types of institutional actors whom Portes assigns a role in the process of institution building and educational guidance, namely the Catholic Church. I understand how the Catholic Church at some point in history exerted influence in favour of less advantaged sectors of society, but I also acknowledge that the integrative element of a religion is contingent to its confession and dogma. In this light, the Catholic Church can be conceived as inherently segregationist. In my opinion, the fact that an openly dogmatic institution as the Catholic Church, is funded partly by the government to provide a basic fundamental right such as education, seems quite troublesome. Opportunities in life shouldn’t be conditioned to a creed while waiting for the state to do its job.
In my opinion Portes` “The new Latin Nation“ was an excelent text. It explained aspects profoundly, it was critical, written in an understandable language, presented good examples to illustrate the content like the statistics and grafics and in the end it also gave probable solutions.
First I think the fact that immigrants keep coming, but are also wanted is a very important aspect when talking about the non-stopping migrant-flow from Latinamerica tot he USA and was mentioned in the context of a very often expressed criticism (in the text Huntington, but also in Germany for example there is a very similar argument: people just migrate to Germany because they want to make profit of, for example, social services). The author also mentioned that there has to be thought of the gap between the USA and the rest of the Latin Americas which represents also a gap between a leading economy, a so called “first-world“ country and countries that are refered to as so called “third- world“ countries.
Of special interest seemed the issue of the secound generation to me, children of immigrants born in the USA that in most cases have to start from a “lower point“ in the society and fight much harder to achieve their aspirations confronting often a very hostile and racist envirnoment. It is especially hard and unfair for them because they are “born in “stereotypes and fixed positions society gave and gives them just for their cultural background. But, as hard as it is for this secound generation, I also think that it is especially the secound generation that can make a change, integrate mabey easilier and build a bridge between the culture of their parents and the culture oft he recieving country.
I agree with most of the already posted comments regarding the last paper of this course. I think the text by Portes sheds light on the issue of a Latin American migration and the changes in the United States of America brought by it in a comprehensive, understandable and very serious manner. The graphs in the article and the usage of large scale statistical studies like the CILS-I, II and III gave the author a very solid theoretical frame to make his valid claims regarding the circular causes of migration, the construction of the “Hispanic race” and the possibilities of assimilation of second generation Latinos in the U.S..
The text was published in 2007. I believe that because of this, the author left out one factor that has fed migration from Mexico to the U.S. for the last decade and that probably didn’t play such an important role back then before the large scale consequences of the war against drugs started in 2006 were noted: insecurity. In past reading responses to the texts at the beginning of the semester I already mentioned the unfortunately massive influence that the issue of security and organized crime have had on migration to the U.S..
Like the two causes depicted in fig. 1 of the text, the combat against drug trade and organized crime in Mexico also has its reciprocal and contributive manifestations in the U.S.. The insecurity and non existing state of law in some parts of Mexico due to the war against drug cartels and organized crime has forced many people to migrate in the last decade. Meanwhile, a crushing majority of the drugs produced in Mexico are sent to the United States and exchanged there for weapons that are then used by the cartels in the fight against the Mexican state or sold in exorbitant amounts of money that is used to further corrupt institutions and politicians in Mexico.
In short, insecurity as a consequence of the war against organized crime should also be seen as a cause of the migration towards the U.S. in the last decade, and the continuity of this insecurity is also to be seen as caused by external as much of internal factors that come from the U.S. themselves.
This excellent text gave us a broad overview on the integration and self-identification of Latin Americans in the US. I was glad to know more about this subject, especially after the US presidential campaign of 2016. Portes explains why the migration flows can’t be stopped, which is currently a hot topic in the US. Indeed, we rarely hear that 1) migrants are needed by employers to make the US economy work 2) these employers use the social networks developed between immigrants and people of their country to hire more efficiently.
I liked that the author also focused on the impact of migration on sending countries, explaining how village life is changing because of migration (houses paid in dollars, American standards being developed), how migrants’ voice has been progressively more integrated in their hometowns and nation and how they acquired a political power through their migration (possibility to vote, to become US citizens while keeping their first nationality…).
It is also very interesting to observe that the term “Hispanic” gathers people from very diverse countries and therefore with very different historical backgrounds and cultures, by opposition to a common African American history for instance. Statistically, they also have different occupations and human capital.
I was quite surprised to learn that one in four American teens is immigrant or child of an immigrant, given that it is not very visible in the modern American culture that we know abroad (TV shows, songs, movies…) Besides, with the help of surveys the author shows how the acculturation to US “race” standards makes second generation migrants labelling themselves more as “Hispanic” than their parents. I liked that we read a few texts about racism, prejudice and identity, which is a side of migration that is rarely underlined.
about where they originated from and how they are stuck in a vicious cycle of poverty that prevents them from progressing along the social ladder.
One of the main arguments that he makes in his article is that immigration control policies instigated by the US are always failing because (1) they are misaligned with the demand for cheap labour by corporations and (2) the extensive consolidation of social networks between the places of origin and destination. While I generally agree with his arguments, I would like to find out more about how the US government is managing the illegal migrant workers issue by approaching the corporations that are hiring such workers.
I found the discussion about the creation of the “Hispanic” community very interesting. He talks about how the Hispanic identity is largely dominated by the large majority of Mexican migrants in the US. He also discusses about how this has helped other smaller Latin American migrant communities (e.g. Cubans) gain more recognition in discussions about migrant communities. I think this is potentially problematic as it writes off the unique history and practices of other minor migrant communities that are part of the Hispanic “race”. This could potentially create tension between these various migrant groups under the Hispanic “race”. Such lack of recognition of the variety of nationalities that make up the Hispanic race is in itself a second level of discrimination. The Hispanic community is discriminated against by the US in general and the dismissal of the variations within the Hispanic community is essentially discrimination of certain types of Hispanic migrants, rendering them as insignificant just because they do not dominate the Hispanic race in terms of numbers.
Lastly, the author discusses about the second generation of Hispanic migrants and how they need to be a target audience of migration assimilation projects in the US. I think that the lack of help given to these second generation migrants is potentially due to the fact that US wants to maintain the social status distinctions between the Hispanics and the “true” white Americans. As such, I agree with the author’s suggestions that the Hispanic community (governments of home countries, churches and Hispanic organizations) must rally together to help their own youth to succeed, as it is unlikely that the US government will be willing to offer a helping hand.
In this article, Portes discusses about the Hispanic population in the US, specifically about where they originated from and how they are stuck in a vicious cycle of poverty that prevents them from progressing along the social ladder.
One of the main arguments that he makes in his article is that immigration control policies instigated by the US are always failing because (1) they are misaligned with the demand for cheap labour by corporations and (2) the extensive consolidation of social networks between the places of origin and destination. While I generally agree with his arguments, I would like to find out more about how the US government is managing the illegal migrant workers issue by approaching the corporations that are hiring such workers.
I found the discussion about the creation of the “Hispanic” community very interesting. He talks about how the Hispanic identity is largely dominated by the large majority of Mexican migrants in the US. He also discusses about how this has helped other smaller Latin American migrant communities (e.g. Cubans) gain more recognition in discussions about migrant communities. I think this is potentially problematic as it writes off the unique history and practices of other minor migrant communities that are part of the Hispanic “race”. This could potentially create tension between these various migrant groups under the Hispanic “race”. Such lack of recognition of the variety of nationalities that make up the Hispanic race is in itself a second level of discrimination. The Hispanic community is discriminated against by the US in general and the dismissal of the variations within the Hispanic community is essentially discrimination of certain types of Hispanic migrants, rendering them as insignificant just because they do not dominate the Hispanic race in terms of numbers.
Lastly, the author discusses about the second generation of Hispanic migrants and how they need to be a target audience of migration assimilation projects in the US. I think that the lack of help given to these second generation migrants is potentially due to the fact that US wants to maintain the social status distinctions between the Hispanics and the “true” white Americans. As such, I agree with the author’s suggestions that the Hispanic community (governments of home countries, churches and Hispanic organizations) must rally together to help their own youth to succeed, as it is unlikely that the US government will be willing to offer a helping hand.
There was an error at the beginning of the post so i reposted my comment below!