RSS Feed MenuThat’s what current immigration policies are doing – see Jason DeParle’s amazing report in the New York Times.
About 18 million youths 17 or younger are immigrants or the children of immigrants. In an interview, Mr. Portes estimated that as many as 20 percent face elevated chances of long-term poverty — suggesting a risk pool of more than 3.5 million. While he predicts that only a minority of that group will experience the depth of disadvantage implied by the word “underclass,” he says their numbers are large enough to warrant policymakers’ concern.
“Most children of immigrants are doing well,” Mr. Portes said. “But a sizable minority is certainly left behind and in danger of downward assimilation.”
Mr. Portes and Mr. Rumbaut contend that today’s generation faces a bigger challenge than in the past. Good jobs require more education, often a college degree. Unlike their European predecessors, the majority of today’s immigrants come from Asia, Africa and Latin America, which some analysts say could make them more vulnerable to persistent discrimination. And while previous immigration was mostly legal, today millions of children have parents who live marginalized lives as illegal residents.
In addition, the scholars say, a seductive youth culture encourages poor teenagers to denigrate work and school and find valor in violence. Unwilling to take bad jobs, unable to get good ones, teenagers like Jesselyn often seek satisfaction in the streets.
“I’m not going to scrub someone’s toilet,” she said.
ottovbvs // Apr 20, 2009 at 8:32 am
Of course the Irish, Italian and Jews were never an underclass. The Italians were never involved in organized crime. At times David, for a bright guy you are incredibly obtuse. Of course there are social problems with any new and poorer immigrant society but even this report accepts the majority of these kids are doing well. I’m mystified how you think this war on illegal immigrants is going to contribute to a revival of the GOP. It’s one of it’s major albatrosses.
Republitarian // Apr 20, 2009 at 9:02 am
Yes, but when the Italians, Jews and Irish came to this country they weren’t warmly welcomed by a welfare state. They either worked, usually in extremely demeaning or laborious jobs, or they starved. Sure, some did turn to crime, by it was a very small percentage compared to the whole. Unfortunately, the crime rates among Latinos are very high, and are only going higher.Lastly, there wasn’t an Italian Broadcast Network nor Yiddish Broadcast Network. Italians, Pols, Hungarians were by in large given Americanized forenames and many modified their surnames to help them better assimilate. This great, and I would argue misplaced, effort to form a more culturally diverse America is actually leading to a Balkanization of America instead.
sinz54 // Apr 20, 2009 at 9:31 am
David Frum claims: “Unlike their European predecessors, the majority of todays immigrants come from Asia, Africa and Latin America, which some analysts say could make them more vulnerable to persistent discrimination.”I haven’t heard conservative nativists railing against immigrants from Korea or China, or even from Africa. In the wake of Obama’s election, Tancredo isn’t calling for an end to immigration from Kenya.I hear them railing *specifically* against Mexicans, and the large families they tend to have. These nativists have a specific electoral concern: That immigrants from Mexico will have a lot of offspring in America; and that over time, this bloc of voters will gain electoral clout at the expense of white Americans. Since just about every immigrant group in the last 100 years has tended to vote Democratic in its first one or two generations, this sizable bloc of Hispanic voters could guarantee Democratic dominance over the GOP for decades to come.Today’s Asians and even Africans don’t match the Hispanics in birth rate, so they aren’t going to have that same electoral clout.Jews have leveraged their own minority status to exert considerable influence over national policy. Mexican-Americans might do the same thing someday, perhaps agitating for reparations to Mexico (or even givebacks of U.S. land) for the alleged injustices of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo of 1848.
ottovbvs // Apr 20, 2009 at 9:43 am
Republitarian wrote 30 minutes agoIt’s all relative…..if I was living in the Jewish pale in Tsarist Russia Brooklyn was heaven…..It doesn’t alter the fact these were underclasses in their time and therefore prone to do the sort of things underclasses do. And you’ve no idea what the % of Irish involved in crime in NYC was in 1855, for all you know it might have been much higher than the Hispanic participation and from what I’ve read probably was. And as for the notion that there was no welfare or sectarianism for the Irish in Boston, you’ve clearly never heard of Honey Fitz and Himself James Michael Curley. The bottom line is as I was pointing out attacking the Hispanic community over this is ultimately counter productive to David’s goal.
barker13 // Apr 20, 2009 at 10:23 am
Re: Sinz54; wrote 45 minutes ago –”Nativists,” huh?We’ve had this discussion before so no need to go round and round to no additional purpose. Let me simply pose this question:25 years from now do would folks rather the U.S. more closely resemble today’s Mexico or the U.S.A. of 25 years past?God… I miss 1984…! (*GRIN*)BILL
Cforchange // Apr 20, 2009 at 11:56 am
I reside very close to a very large community of immigrants that are here from just to name of few: Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, and Africa. It has good elements but bad too. Mental illness and criminal background checking isn’t perfect. Extra costs to the community for ESL programs and extra public safety especially fire department occur. I have neighbors who start fires w/ flame inside a stove occur just because electic power is a very foreign concept.The biggest problem by far is that we are importing people that we can not employ – we do not have any jobs for low skill especially the inability to communicate. Some of my neighbors are medical doctors but they can’t work in our system – they have no money or energy to get themselves accredited. So there they are lumped idle in this massive housing complex along side our displaced US Citizens waiting for work and finding alternatives that are not good for anyone.Recently there was an African arrested – in his possession was a African drug similar but different than cocaine. Double Hmmm. Immigration is a good and necessary part of our culture. However, we need to get our own house in order before adding to our pools of grief. Oh and the toilet scrubbing – a local paper did an article on these folks. One African who worked very long days by starting his out early and returning home very late on public transporation. He spends his days cleaning hotel rooms remarked that he would like to return to Africa – too much stress here.
sinz54 // Apr 20, 2009 at 1:55 pm
barker13: 25 years from now, I would like Mexico to resemble today’s U.S.
barker13 // Apr 20, 2009 at 2:43 pm
(*GRIN*)Keep ducking, Sinz. As I’ve written in the past and still believe, you’re obviously a well-educated, knowledgeable, bright, and most often reasonable poster (even when we disagree), but it doesn’t reflect well upon you that you’re prone to evade or deflect points and questions that (I’m assuming) you either don’t want to deal with or know you can’t creditably discount.Anyway… for what it’s worth, I’d like Mexico to be a successful “first world” state in 25 years. My fear is that Mexico may not be even as… er… “stable” as it is today in two months… two years… five years… let alone 25 years.BILL
danbmil99 // Apr 20, 2009 at 11:59 pm
DF, you recently posted an article against Obama’s “comprehensive immigration reform”, which of course is a euphemism for some sort of amnesty-like program.Here’s the problem: if you are serious about immigration, you have to either contemplate some sort of forgiveness and documentation procedure for those here (and those still crossing over), OR you have to get REALLY, REALLY SERIOUS about closing the border. I mean like hundreds of billions of dollars serious, tens of thousands of troops serious — no one gets in, no one gets out without being checked. Like the Berlin Wall, or the Korea border.Now we all know that is pretty much a political and logistical non-starter. So, we are left with a conundrum: either accept a permanent, undocumented underclass — bad for them, bad for us — or find a way to document them and keep track of them. You have to choose one or the other. To try to finesse the issue is to avoid reality.So which will it be? 1) close the border FOR REAL 2) document the illegals 3) status quo, accept 10M + non-persons in our midst
barker13 // Apr 21, 2009 at 9:51 am
Dan,1) You’ve got to have reasonably secure borders.2) While I’d contemplate “legalizing” otherwise law-abiding illegals under certain circumstances, one non-negotiable part of any deal would have to be that those “legalized” would NEVER be eligible for actual citizenship.3) Either via legislative action (which from my analysis of the constitutional arguments would suffice), or assuming the Supreme Court nixing this, by constitutional amendment, we must redefine the requirements of citizenship so as to do away with automatic “anchor babies.”(And, yes… if my third “requirement” came to pass the children of illegal aliens would indeed be eligible for citizenship – unlike their parents.)Broadly, I believe this is the sort of true “compromise” that Americans could and would accept.BILL
danbmil99 // Apr 22, 2009 at 12:55 am
barker:re born-in-USA makes you a citizen: changing that is not going to happen, and I for one am OK with it. Having kids who are second-class due to decisions made by their parents is not American.”reasonably secure borders”? What does that mean? What is the real cost? What are the chances that will happen politically?
barker13 // Apr 22, 2009 at 8:55 am
Dan,You’re probably right that the change I see as vital won’t happen. More’s the pity. You’re also free to be ok with that. (*SMILE*) We’re having a civil policy disagreement. (*WINK*)As to your contention that “having kids who are second class [citizens] due to decisions made by their parents is not American,” well, again – we differ.”Reasonably free borders” means exactly what it says. I mean… certainly you don’t believe that there’s nothing in between “porous borders” and “totally secure borders.”(*SNORT*) (*SMILE*) (*ROLLING MY EYES*)As to that, though, I’d say the odds are higher that this will happen (if and when conservatives take back the GOP and increase their power within Congress) than that we’ll change the “automatic citizenship” misinterpretation of the Constitution.(*SHRUG*)BILL