Editorial Board:

Editor:
George H. Conklin,
 North Carolina
 Central University

Board:
Bob Davis,
 North Carolina
 Agricultural and
 Technical State
 University

Richard Dixon,
 UNC-Wilmington

Ken Land,
 Duke University

Miles Simpson,
 North Carolina
 Central University

Ron Wimberley,
 N.C. State University

Robert Wortham,
 North Carolina
 Central University
    

® 
Volume 3, Number 2
Fall 2005

    Immigration from Latin America to the United States has increased substantially in the last decades (Bean and Fix 1992, Massey 1995, Passel and Edmonston 1994, Ramirez 2004).  In December 2004, the U.S. Census Bureau published a special report of the 2000 census “We the People: Hispanics in the United States.”  It discusses various demographic, social, and economic characteristics of some of the Hispanic groups (Ramirez 2004).   According to this report, people of Mexican origin have become the largest Hispanic group, accounting for 59 % of the country’s Hispanic population.  Additionally, Mexican-Americans comprise 20.9 million persons, which now represents 7.4 % of the United States population.   Moreover, from 1990 to 2000, people of Mexican ancestry accounted for 49 % of the total influx of Hispanic immigrants to the country (Ramirez 2004).  In addition to documenting the increase in the Mexican-American population, the 2000 special report shows that median age for Mexican-Americans was only 24.4 years, which represents the youngest population among Hispanic groups (Ramirez 2004).  Furthermore, the ‘Census 2000 Special Report’ shows that educational attainment among Hispanics varies, but Mexican-Americans consistently present the lowest level of education attainment, with approximately 46% having received a high school diploma and only around 7% having obtained a bachelor’s degree (Ramirez 2004). 

    According to Portes and Zhou (1999), today’s immigrants face different challenges that past European immigrants did not encounter because this new wave of immigrants are comprised mostly of non-white immigrants and they operate in an economy with fewer opportunities for unskilled laborers.  Since the newcomers are likely to have less marketable skills than earlier waves of immigrants, some scholars claim that this may hinder their assimilation into the American culture (Bean et al. 1994).  But, other scholars do not perceive significant differences between the assimilation patterns of recent immigrants to those of earlier arrivals (Chavez 1989, McCarthy and Valdez 1985). Assimilation is a gradual process since recently arrived immigrants require time to become incorporated into mainstream U.S. society (Chavez 1989, Massey 1995, Park and Burgess 1969).  However, Massey (1995) points out that the constant influx of Mexican immigrants could delay their assimilation.  Additionally, as Kao and Tienda (1995) point out, there are conflicting views about how the educational achievement varies as young immigrants and children of immigrants assimilate into American culture.  Despite the debate on the rate of assimilation of Mexican-Americans, most scholars agree that this new wave of Spanish-speaking immigrants will have tremendous impacts on American society (Massey 1995). 

    In order to better understand the trends of assimilation among Mexican-Americans, this study covers information about Mexican-American population patterns as well as analyzing Mexican-American educational attainment relative to Non-Hispanic whites and Non-Hispanic blacks.  Special attention is placed of first generation Mexican-Americans.  By analyzing data from the years 1994 and 2004 of the Current Population Survey’s (CPS) March Supplement, this study compares results with those collected in the Census 2000 Special Report of December of 2004. 

    The complexity of analyzing the relationships between diverse populations gave origin to three major assimilation ideologies: Anglo-Conformity, The Melting Pot and Cultural Pluralism (Park and Burgess 1969). 

    Anglo-Conformity refers to a variety of positions regarding assimilation and immigration that share the basic idea that immigrants must conform to the mainstream Anglo-American society by learning English along with adopting the various norms, institutions and values of the larger Anglo-Saxon majority (Gordon 1971).  Gordon concludes that the Anglo-Conformity position has been more effective in achieving acculturation but it has not been successful with regard to structural assimilation that requires close and personal relationships between both minority and majority groups which eventually would lead to an increase in intermarriage (1964). 

    While Anglo-Conformity stresses Anglo-Saxon patterns, the Melting Pot model states that each ethnic group will mix together resulting in an entirely new ‘American Culture’   (Gordon 1964).  The Melting Pot model proposes the elimination of ethnic differences by creating a new society distinct from the groups that formed it (Yetman 1999).

    While both the ‘Anglo-Conformity’ and ‘The Melting Pot’ models accentuate the homogenization of American Culture, the Cultural Pluralism ideology strives to preserve the cultural diversity of the different emigrant groups and therefore, it denies the certainty of cultural assimilation (Yetman 1999).  It seeks to promote structural assimilation while limiting cultural assimilation (McLemore et al. 2001). Furthermore, according to the Cultural Pluralism ideology, minorities should accept key elements of the dominant culture and look for participation in mainstream economic and political institutions (McLemore et al. 2001).

    With the elimination of the U.S. quota system in 1965, a change in the pattern of immigration and the entrance of great numbers of Spanish speaking along with Asian immigrants took place (McLemore et al. 2001:98).  As ethnic groups struggled to assert their place in America, a more pluralistic view of society gained acceptance (Kasal 1999).

    By the early 1980’s, studies focused on the specific relationships of ethnic enclaves with the larger American society (Kasal 1999).   In fact, most of the studies were related to class identification and how members of ethnic groups align themselves along class lines (Kasal 1999).

    In addition to the traditional three ideological models of assimilation, in recent years the idea of segmented assimilation has been introduced.  Segmented assimilation theory focuses on understanding the incorporation process of the children of contemporary immigrants, the “new second generation,” into the stratification system of the host society (Zhou 1997).  According to Portes and Zhou (1999) depending on the immigrants’ human capital, they and their children have three distinct possibilities or patterns of acculturation:

1. Integration into the white middle class. 

2. Integration into the opposite direction to permanent poverty and assimilation into the underclass.

3. Rapid economic advancement with deliberate preservation of the immigrant community's values and tight solidarity. 

    Additionally, there are other variables to consider for adaptation such as race, location (or special segregation), and absence of good educational opportunities (Portes and Zhou 1999). 

    This longitudinal study compares data from the years 1994 and 2004 obtained from the March Supplement CPS, which include 2,500 additional Hispanic households.  The data were downloaded from the DataFerrett’s (Federal Electronic Research, Review, Extraction and Tabulation Tool) web site.  They provide information about the country of birth of both the respondents and their parents as well as information on persons’ age and educational attainment.  The 1994 sample is comprised of 151,000 individuals, while the year 2004 includes 213,000 individuals.  The sample is weighted to obtain national estimates. 

Variables

    Mexican-Americans: This variable includes individuals living in the United States who identify themselves as being Mexican-American, Chicano or Mexican(o). 

    First generation:  This variable includes individuals living in the United States who were born in Mexico.

    Second generation: This variable includes individuals born in the United States of Mexican parents.

    Third or Higher generation: This variable includes individuals born in the United States of parents who were also born in the United States.

    Residual Category: This variable includes individuals who are not germane to the above-specified main cohorts.

    Non-Hispanic Whites: This variable includes individuals who self identify as whites from an ethnic group other than Hispanic, and as having been born in the United States from parents who were also born in the United States.  This distinction serves to exclude recently arrived Eastern-European white immigrants.

    Non-Hispanic Blacks: This variable includes individuals who self identify as blacks from an ethnic group other than Hispanic, and as having been born in the United States from parents who were also born in the United States.  This distinction serves to exclude recently arrived black immigrants from Africa or the Caribbean.

    Educational Attainment: This category is limited to individuals 25 years and older and it refers to the highest level of education reached (from high school diploma and beyond). 

    The study, which includes data from the years 1994 and 2004, involves comparisons of the Mexican-American population with Non-Hispanic whites and with Non-Hispanic blacks in terms of demographic characteristics such as (1) population growth trends and (2) median age and (3) educational attainment. 

Mexican American Population Patterns

   The noticeable difference in growth rates can be seen in Table 1 which shows that while the growth rate for Non-Hispanic whites was 4.6% and for Non-Hispanic blacks it was 4.5%, the Mexican-American growth rate was an astounding 55.8%.   These findings clearly explain why Hispanics have become the largest minority group in the nation (Ramirez 2004).

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. DataFerrett website. March Current Population Surveys, 1994 and 2004.

    Among Mexican Americans, the first generation presented the most remarkable increase (68.3 %) between 1994 and 2004. This reflects the constant immigration of Mexicans into U.S. territory, which as Massey (1995) asserts, would hinder assimilation for the Mexican-American population.  Interestingly, the first generation represents the largest group among the different Mexican-American cohorts.  In contrast, second generation Mexican-Americans has the smallest population of the three categories.  Third and higher generation Mexican-Americans comprise the second largest group among Mexican-American cohorts.  This could be explained by the inclusion of the descendants of Mexicans who were living in the Southwest when it was annexed (Chicanos), along with the descendants of Mexican immigrants.  Additionally, a residual group of Mexican-Americans, who fall outside the parameters of this study, accounts for the smallest group of the Mexican-American population.  Curiously among this group, some individuals and their parents report being born in other countries rather than Mexico such as El Salvador or Honduras.  This unusual situation may be the result of changes in U.S. immigration policies directed toward refugees in response to the end of the various civil wars in Central America.

Median Age Differences 

    As shown in Table 2, there are noticeable differences in median age among the various cohorts.  In 2004, the median age for Mexican-Americans was 25 years of age, while it was 38 years for Non-Hispanic whites and 30 years for Non-Hispanic blacks.  There is a 13 year difference between the median age of Mexican-Americans and that of Non-Hispanic whites.

    The fact that the Mexican-American population is relatively young may affect their level of educational attainment and socioeconomic status.  The situation may not change if the continued pattern of Mexican immigration persists.  Since socioeconomic status increases with age, the constant arrival of young immigrants with little education and poor English skills could suppress Mexican-American levels of educational attainment and socioeconomic status.   Therefore, the rate of educational attainment as well as socio-economic status among Mexican-American population will likely remain low relative to Non-Hispanic whites and Non-Hispanic blacks. 

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. DataFerrett website. March Current Population Surveys, 1994 and 2004.

    The median age of the Mexican-American second generation was very low in comparison with the other cohorts.  In 1994, the median age of the Mexican American second generation was only 10 years old and by 2004, it was only 11 years old.  This fact seems to confirm the ongoing influx of Mexican immigrants into the country.  Newcomers often seek their status as permanent residents in the United States by having children in the U.S. who are American citizens.  The constant entry of new immigrants will maintain the median age of Mexican-Americans at relatively low levels.  This may delay their assimilation into mainstream American society as is predicted by Massey (1995).  It is important to point out that new immigrants to the U.S. often reside with relatives, thus stretching the host family's available economic resources.  For example, money that the host family had earmarked for educational purposes, instead, may get spent on providing financial assistance to their newly arrived relatives from Mexico.  The burden that these kinsmen place on their relatives may contribute to the lowering of the rate of Mexican-American educational achievement and socioeconomic status.

Educational Attainment Differences

    The large differences in educational attainment can be seen in Table 3.  The results show that 90.4% of Non-Hispanic whites have attained a high school diploma or better and 80.9% of Non-Hispanic blacks acquired a high school diploma or better in 2004.  On the other hand, only 51.9% of Mexican-Americans had attained a high school diploma or better.

    Even more differences become apparent when you compare first generation Mexican-Americans with only 36.6% having attained a high school diploma or better to Non-Hispanic whites and Non-Hispanic blacks who respectively have received a high school diploma or better at the rates of 90.4% and 80.9%.  These findings confirm previous studies claiming that Mexican immigrants were significantly less likely to obtain a high school diploma than Non-Hispanic whites (Farley and Alba 2002, Hirschman 2001, Wojtkiewicz and Donato 1995).

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census.  DataFerrett website.  March Current Population Surveys, 1994 and 2004. 

    Further analysis of Table 3 illustrates an increase in the level of education attainment among Mexican-Americans through time.  The results show that 36.6% of first generation Mexican-Americans has obtained a high school diploma or better while second generation Mexican-Americans has a 71.3% rate of high school or better attainment and third or higher generations achieved a 75.3% high school diploma or better rate.  This observed shift in educational attainment for Mexican-Americans appears to support the predictions made by some scholars about the slow yet steady rate of assimilation in American society by Mexican-Americans (Chavez 1989, McCarthy and Valdez 1985). 

     The results of this study document the fact that Mexican-Americans are experiencing greater population growth when compared to Non-Hispanic whites and Non-Hispanic blacks.  This illustrates why Hispanics are the fastest growing and largest minority group in the U.S. (Ramirez 2004).

    Another result of the study indicates that the median age for Mexican-Americans was much lower than that of Non-Hispanic whites and Non-Hispanic blacks.  This finding may be related to the constant influx of Mexican immigrants into the country.
 As analysis of educational attainment among Mexican-Americans, Non-Hispanic whites and Non-Hispanic blacks documents the relatively lower level of educational achievement for Mexican-Americans when compared to Non-Hispanic whites and Non-Hispanic blacks levels of educational accomplishment. 

    However, the data also show a dramatic shift when one compares the educational attainment levels of second and third or higher generations of Mexican-Americans to those of Non-Hispanic whites and Non-Hispanic blacks’ levels of educational achievement.  Although the level of educational accomplishment of both generations of Mexican-Americans still lags behind that of Non-Hispanic whites and Non-Hispanic blacks, the data clearly indicate a trend in a positive direction.  This illustrates the remarkable resiliency of the Mexican-American population as it shows that many of them are advancing academically despite having to face many obstacles such as a language barriers and discrimination.

    Most importantly, this study has documented the fact that the gap in educational attainment between U.S. born Mexican-Americans and that of Non-Hispanic whites and Non-Hispanic blacks is decreasing and these findings appear to corroborate predictions made by Chavez (1989) along with McCarthy and Valdez (1985).

    Although this study has analyzed the academic advancement of Mexican-Americans in relation to Non-Hispanic whites and Non-Hispanic blacks, further research that focuses specifically on the college level of educational achievement among the above mentioned cohorts should be conducted.

    As Massey (1995) points out, the unfounded fears of the immigrants’ negative impact on the economy, social welfare as well as the country’s linguistic unity have resulted in increasingly restrictive immigration laws (Massey 1995).   After September 11, 2001, the concern over more terrorist attacks has resulted in a call for the tightening of the borders thus curtailing the influx of immigrants (Barlett and Steele 2004).  This may result in the demographic stabilization of the Mexican American population thereby facilitating the assimilation process as occurred with the Japanese and Cuban populations in the last century (McLemore et al. 2001). 

Barlett, D. and James Steele.  2004.  “America’s Borders: Even After 9/11, It’s Outrageously Easy to Sneak In.”  Time.  164 (September): 51-66.

Bean, Frank D., Jorge Chapa, Ruth R. Berg, and Kathryn A. Sowards.  1994.  “Educational And Sociodemographic Incorporation Among Hispanic Immigrants to the United States.”  In Immigration and Ethnicity: The Integration of America’s Newest Arrivals, edited by Barry Edmonston and Jeffrey S. Passel (73-100).  Washington D.C.: The Urban Institute Press.

Bean, Frank D. and M. Fix. 1992. “The Significant of Recent Immigration Policy Reforms in the United States.” In Nations of Immigrants: Australia, the United States and International Migration, edited by G. Freeman and J. Jupp (41-55). Melbourne: Oxford University Press. 

Chavez, Linda. 1989.  “Tequila Sunrise: The Slow but Steady Progress of Hispanic Immigrants.”  Policy Review (Spring): 64-67.

Farley, Reynolds and Richard Alba.  2002.  “The New Second Generation in the United States.” International Migration Review 36 (Fall): 669-702.

Gordon, Milton M.  1964.  Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race, Religion,  And National Origins.  New York: Oxford University Press.

______.  1971.  “Assimilation in American Life: Theory and Reality.”  In Majority and 
Minority: The Dynamics of Race and Ethnicity in American Life edited by Norman R. Yetman and C. Hoy Steele (261-283).  Boston: Allyn & Bacon. 

Hirschman, Charles.  2001.  “The Educational Enrollment of Immigrant Youth: A Test of the Segmented-Assimilation Hypothesis.”  Demography 38 (August): 317-336.

Kao, Grace and Marta Tienda. 1995.  “Optimism and Achievement: The Educational Performance of Immigrant Youth.” Social Science Quarterly 76 (March): 1-19.

Kasal, Russell. 1999.   “Revisiting Assimilation: The Rise, Fall, and Reappraisal of a Concept in American Ethnic History.”  In  Majority and Minority: The Dynamics of Race and Ethnicity in American Life,  6th ed., edited by Norman R. Yetman  (285-311). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Massey, Douglas. 1995. “The New Immigration and Ethnicity in the United States.”  Population and Development Review 21 (September): 631-652.

McCarthy, Kevin and R. B. Valdez.  1985.  Current and Future Effects of Mexican Immigration in California.  R-3365-CR.  Santa Monica, California: The RAND Corporation.

McLemore, Dale S., Harriett D. Romo, and Susan Gonzalez Baker.  2001.  Racial and Ethnic Relations in America. 6 ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Passel, Jeffrey S. and Barry Edmonston.  1994.  “Immigration and Race: Recent Trends in Immigration to the United States.” In Immigration and Ethnicity: The Integration of America’s Newest Arrivals, edited by Barry Edmonston and Jeffrey S. Passel (31-71).  Washington D.C.: The Urban Institute Press.

Park, Robert E., and Ernest W. Burgess.  1969.   Introduction to the Science of Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Portes, Alejandro and Min Zhou.  1999.  “The New Second Generation: Segmented Assimilation and Its Variants.” In Majority and Minority: The Dynamics of Race and Ethnicity in American Life, 6th ed., edited by Norman R. Yetman (348-363). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Ramirez, Roberto R.  2004. We the People: Hispanic in the United States.  Census 2000 Special Report December Issued.  U.S.  Census Bureau: Washington D.C. 

Wojtkiewicz, Roger A. and Katherine M. Donato.  1995. “Hispanic Education Attainment: The Effects of Family Background and Nativity.” Social Forces 74 (December): 559-575. 

Yetman, Norman. 1999.  Majority and Minority: The Dynamics of Race and Ethnicity in American Life.  6 ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Zhou, Min.  1997.  “Segmented Assimilation: Issues, Controversies, and Recent Research on the New Second Generation.”  International Migration Review 31 (Winter): 975-1009.