Mexifornia

Honest Discussion of Immigration in California:
Critique of Mexifornia by Victor Davis Hanson

Update: Samuel P. Huntington, Chairman of the Harvard University Academy for International and Area Studies published a chapter from his book Who Are We? (Simon & Schuster, Inc. New York). The chapter titled "The Hispanic Challenge" appeared in the March/April 2004 of Foreign Policy magazine. Professor Huntington makes many of the same arguments as those made by Professor Hanson in his book, Mexifornia. These works can be considered examples of the "Chicken Little" genre of immigration policy studies. They argue that "the sky is falling" and unless we halt Mexican immigration immediately, "...our country's cultural and political integrity" are threatened. I invite you to read my analysis to discover if scholarly research supports the Chicken Little argument.

Hanson, V.D. (2003). Mexifornia: A state of becoming. San Francisco: CA: Encounter Books.

This web page is dedicated to a critical analysis of Victor Davis Hanson’s book, Mexifornia: A State of Becoming. Dr. Hanson is professor of classics and history in the Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures at California State University Fresno. In Mexifornia, Professor Hanson explains clearly that his book “…is not an academic study with the usual extensive documentation.” (p. xii). The book is, rather, an analysis of the current state of Mexican immigration and assimilation written for the popular market. However, Professor Hanson calls for “…honest discussion, without fear of recrimination and intimidation…” of the issues. I take Dr. Hanson at his word in writing this review of his work. It must be stated from the onset that Professor Hanson is sharply critical of what he terms “an academic elite whose capital remains largely separatist identities and self-interest.” (p. xv). He further suggests that academics are in part responsible for the current “predicament” and that we have, so far, “…escaped accountability for the harm they have done.” Apparently, by using the pronoun “they,” Dr. Hanson does not include himself.

Consequently, one of my purposes in writing this critique is to challenge Dr. Hanson’s perceptions of the motives and objectives of the academic community in both our research and practice in bilingual and multicultural education. I also wish to outline the research and knowledge base on which we rely in our discussions of the complex social, cultural, educational and political issues surrounding immigration and our changing demographics. In other words, I as an academic seek to present an academic response to a non-academic book written by a fellow academic about a very controversial political subject. I beg my readers, and Professor Hanson, to bear with me as I navigate some rather turbulent waters in this discussion. I believe that it is worthwhile because, as Professor Hanson points out, we are at a critical point in our examination of immigration policy. Since I clearly recognize that Dr. Hanson’s purpose was not academic in writing his book, I do not make or imply any criticism for his lack of citations of research in making his arguments. If nothing else, in the name of “accountability,” it is important to clarify what academics actually say on the topic of immigration and acculturation, rather than shadow boxing with “straw man” arguments and misperceptions among the general public.

Many of the issues that Dr. Hanson raises in Mexifornia strike at the core of the larger society’s concerns about the social integration of new immigrant populations and the plight of many second and third generation Mexican immigrants. At the time of this writing, California has a new Governor-elect and his transition team is at work on the formulation of policies and initiatives, among which Mexican immigration is a salient topic. It is my goal to elucidate scholarly thinking and research on these topics. Frankly, I find Mexifornia to be long on rhetoric but short on solutions. It is my intention to further the “honest discussion” and explain the “accountability” of the academic community in a climate where we are under constant criticism for our views. I also intend for this critique to serve as an analysis of conservative thought and of the ideological basis of immigration policy initiatives that are misguided and unwise. There is much that can be done to improve the social, economic and cultural circumstances of immigrant populations. However, policies and legal initiatives must be based on a solid and realistic understanding of their effects and consequences. The multidisciplinary research on acculturation and immigration can further our movement toward formulating sound policy and programs for immigrants.

It is important to keep in mind the nature and purpose of scholarly research. We are all on a quest for the truth. Academic research in the social sciences is a “way of knowing” about human behavior. Research is a process of devising a theory or hypothesis about a phenomenon based on previous research. A research question is formulated, dependent and independent variables are identified and a research methodology is selected to address the question. Then data is collected to observe the phenomenon according to the research design. The data is then analyzed to determine if patterns emerge that either confirm or disconfirm the hypothesis. Based on the analysis of the findings, theories may be revised or rejected, or new theories and models to explain the observed phenomenon may be constructed. The limitations of the study are also stated so that the findings are not “overextended” to groups or situations that are not comparable and/or where the results are not “generalizable” beyond the limited context of the study.

There are strict ethical and qualitative protocols associated with academic research, including procedures for ensuring the ethical treatment of human subjects. The peer review process is the most common form of quality control, ensuring that studies meet the standards of the profession. Another mode of quality control is replication, where the same research question to examine the same variables are studied by different researchers to see if similar results are found. Many times the results of this type of research can only be narrowly applied to understanding populations with almost exactly the same characteristics, which often do not tell us very much.

The nature and applicability of research in the social sciences are controversial subjects. Suffice it to say that researchers in the behavioral sciences have a certain way of knowing that is based on structured and methodical inquiry that we share among us to produce a “knowledge base” for our particular disciplines. Such ways of knowing may clash with other ways of knowing, such as personal experience, anecdote, and political analysis. If we are diligent in our search for the truth, nothing is served by de-legitimizing legitimate ways of knowing. Even more counterproductive, if not destructive, is the attempt to attribute sinister and selfish motives to those whose ways of knowing include scholarly research.

As a professor of classic literature, I am sure that Professor Hanson could explain the practice in ancient Greece and Rome of shooting the messenger who was the bearer of bad news. This was a cathartic exercise among rulers, who relieved their pain and anxiety by eliminating the symbolic source of unwelcome announcements.

In Mexifornia, Victor Hanson calls for “a stronger mandate for assimilation.” He decries our abandonment of the Melting Pot, which he claims offers the best hope for immigrants to become fully assimilated, and therefore enjoy upward social mobility to the extent that they eventually become “indistinguishable” from native-born Americans. This is indeed a transformation into a political, legal or policy position of what to academics is an explanatory model of the process and factors involved in the social, economic and cultural integration of immigrants into the mainstream of American society and culture. This is based on dichotomous thinking regarding assimilation and pluralism. Dr. Hanson appears to believe that academics with expertise in multiculturalism have uniformly taken the stance that immigrants don’t need to or shouldn’t assimilate. Instead, he accuses us of being part of a “race industry” that promotes “separatism.”

Professor Hanson is especially critical of our alleged stance regarding Mexican immigration. This places academics on the horns of a dilemma. When we, based on our research and studies of the paths of acculturation of successive waves of immigration from different countries, say that the old Melting Pot model is not “working” for different groups of immigrants, or is “working” differently for immigrants who are people of color versus white, we are not necessarily taking a position on how it should work. Our personal, professional and political positions on issues of immigration are certainly interwoven. However, as an academic community, broad brush statements and generalizations about our beliefs about these issues are rarely accurate, nor do they represent our individual philosophies and diverse viewpoints.

Perhaps Dr. Hanson is not referring in his book so much to the Melting Pot model, but rather what is called "The Brutal Bargain." The Brutal Bargain is the sociocultural model that tells immigrants that they must abandon the language and culture of their countries of origin as a condition for their acceptance into mainstream American culture. We academics who recognize our multicultural reality observe that the Brutal Bargain no longer applies in a globalized society. It is needlessly brutal and no bargain at all.

There is no need for immigrants to give up their language and culture to participate meaningfully and productively in American life. In fact, the research suggests that immigrants families and youth who maintain their ethnic identities and bilingualism are generally more successful in integrating into mainstream American life. Rumbaut and Portes (2001) found in their research with 5,200 second-generation immigrant youth that the most successful and most acculturated youth were those who maintained their bilingualism and whose families maintained a strong cultural identity and sense of community with the ancestral culture of origin. This was true of all immigrant youth and their families, not just Mexican-Americans. See for example these researchers excellent analysis of the lessons for theory and policy. These authors state that neither the assimilation model nor the pluralism model provides a good theoretical framework for comprehending the complex factors that are associated with immigrants’ successful or unsuccessful integration. Rumbaut and Portes (2001) indicate that assimilation to American society does take place, but the key question is this: To what sectors of society cultural and economic shifts occur? They propose that a theory of “segmented assimilation” is more descriptive of the process seen in their research. In segmented assimilation, the solidarity of the ethnic community and co-ethnic ties are important factors in leading to the educational and occupational advancement of second generation immigrants.

On this point Dr. Hanson can agree with many academics: The major concerns regarding Mexican immigration among the public in general are ethnocultural. Dr. Hanson’s call for an “assimilation mandate” reflects the growing alarm at the social and economic consequences of immigration, especially in California. Among the scholars who illuminates the nature of public opinion in this regard is Dr. Wayne Cornelius, Professor of Political Science and Theodore E. Gildred Chair in U.S.-Mexican Relations at the University of California at San Diego. Cornelius (2002) analyzes the statistical findings that indicate that roughly 50-70% of the public in polls about immigration remain “negative” about immigration, despite recognition of many economic benefits and necessity of the immigrant labor pool. Cornelius points out that the demand for immigrant labor in the USA has become “structural in character” and is now “so deeply embedded in the U.S. economy and society that it is now largely decoupled from the business cycle…” Cornelius argues convincingly that immigration policy initiatives have very little impact on the levels of immigration, both legal and illegal, and that policy changes are unlikely to result in changes of attitude among the public about immigration and immigrants.

Petronicolos & New (2000) also describe the ambivalence of the California electorate toward the "domestic foreigners" among the population, which has resulted in policy initiatives such as Proposition 187 to deny social benefits to undocumented immigrants. This ambivalence stems from the growing recognition that of the economic interdependence between Mexico and the United States, but with a public that is unwilling to deal with the socio-cultural consequences of this new reality.

In Mexifornia, Dr. Hanson postulates that if illegal immigration were to be halted, the immigrant population would quickly and easily be assimilated. In drawing this conclusion, he appears to assume that “non-assimilation” of current immigrants is caused by “the constant stream of new arrivals” from Mexico, coupled with an idealistic “nostalgia” for Mexico. These together create what Hanson calls “a stubborn resistance to assimilation” and “a lack of confidence in the melting pot.” His proposal is that by cutting off illegal immigration, the current legal residents and naturalized citizens would naturally and quickly cut their cultural and linguistic ties to Mexico and quickly assimilate into American culture.

What Dr. Hanson observes, but appears to not fully comprehend, is the phenomenon of “transnationalism.” The term transnationalism (Guerra, 1998) describes the constant back and forth between Mexico and the USA of many immigrants. The current reality is that many legal, as well as illegal immigrants live comfortably and productively in both countries. In the Mexico BCLAD program, which I administered as Resident Director of the CSU International Program in Querétaro, Mexico, CSU teacher candidates study and experience first hand the phenomenon of transnationalism. They are involved student teaching in rural schools in Jalpan, Querétaro and Atlacomulco, Estado de Mexico. In many of the communities around Jalpan, 90% of the men are living and working in the United States. In the isolated rural community of Pitzquintla, for example, the men return to Mexico for holidays and vacations on a seasonal basis, which is often reflected in a high number of births in August and September each year. The communities of mostly women and children that remain behind are almost totally dependent upon remittances from the men, most of who are employed by a few packing and manufacturing industries in the southern states. It is difficult to say how many of these Mexican laborers are undocumented, but whatever their immigration status or for other reasons, they are not able to be accompanied by their families. This family disintegration has a great impact on the socialization of Mexican children and the hardships these families endure, as well as on the lifestyles and social stability of the Mexican workers in the United States.

Another example of transnationalism can be seen in the labor force of San Diego, CA. There are thousands of Mexican nationals with legal permits to cross into the United States who live in Tijuana and work in San Diego. They stream across the border daily, or sometimes weekly, to work in labor-intensive industries in the greater San Diego area and further north. Many of them choose to live in Tijuana, despite their legal resident status in the USA, for economic reasons: The cost of living is lower in Tijuana, but there are also large numbers of Mexican workers who simply prefer life in Mexico.

Transnationalism is an important factor to understand in the greater scheme of immigration and acculturation. Transnational immigrants are bilingual and bicultural, and very likely to remain so for a variety of practical and sentimental reasons. They have very little incentive for assimilating into Anglo-American culture, and even less motivation to give up their Spanish. Nor are they likely to abandon their sense of nationhood and cultural and political ties to Mexico. Perhaps these are the immigrants that Professor Hanson accuses of being “resistant to assimilation." It is important to examine the reality of these immigrants’ lives in two cultures and two nations, rather than criticizing them for some sort of willful act of ethnic insubordination.

Instead of recognizing the realities of transnationalism in the economic and cultural life of immigrants, Dr. Hanson creates a new paradigm to support his call for a stronger “assimilation mandate.” He proclaims that Mexican immigrants are “voting with their feet to reject Mexican culture…” (p. 79). He hypothesizes that “brave Mexicanos” have seen America as “antithetical to their homeland” and have come here based on the belief that “the United States is a place far superior to Mexico.” Hanson contends that this is a proper assumption among the American “hosts,” who have an entire set of accompanying expectations for the cultural and social comportment of their Mexican “guests.” He claims that the Mexican immigrant “…should retain a pride in his ethnic heritage—to be expressed in music, dance, art, literature, religion and cuisine only (Hanson’s emphasis)—while being mature enough to see that the core political, economic and social values of his abandoned country were to be properly and rapidly forgotten.” (p. 82).

As I read this part of Professor Hanson’s argument, I have in mind the American and Canadian expatriate community in which I lived for five years in San Miguel de Allende, Mexico. Fair is fair, after all, in matters of acculturation and immigration, is it not? Cannot Mexicans conclude that the American expatriates who go to live, frequently to retire, in San Miguel have “voted with their feet” that Mexico is a superior place? Consequently, Mexicans should expect these American immigrants to their country to only enjoy American fine arts and music and eat American food, but in every other way to abandon their American way of life and assimilate. In reality, this rarely happens, because the Americans who go to live in San Miguel do not have assimilation into Mexican society and culture as a goal. Therefore, neither their feet nor their intellects have cast a “vote” about the relative value of Mexican culture as compared to American culture.

I give my own experience with expatriate living as an example to point out several flaws in Professor’s thinking about the Mexican expatriate community in the United States. Most Mexican immigrants come to the United States looking for work. Many of them leave Mexico because they cannot find work for adequate wages in their own country. Mexico has a high rate of poverty, as high as 53% according to Bohórguez Molina & García Espejel, Prieto Hernández, & Rodríguez Espinosa (2003). Certainly, we can all agree that non-poverty is “superior” to poverty, but to infer that Mexicans who flee poverty by immigrating to the United States are thereby making a value judgment about their native culture is a preposterous exaggeration. Undoubtedly, better economic conditions produce a better life style and more opportunities for personal fulfillment, but to associate cultural superiority with economic superiority, and the absence of poverty, is more than simply unsupportable, it is dangerous.

Mexicans are proud of their culture. Many Mexicans describe their country as rich in culture while poor in economic resources. Mexicans are proud of their history and their diverse cultural mosaic, deeply rooted in their “mestizaje” past and socially and economically progressive present. Dr. Hanson, a professor of classic literature, claims that one of the aspects of “superiority” of American culture is America’s Greco-Roman traditions. Mexico’s pride in their culture includes an appreciation of the Greco-Roman origins of Spanish culture, which was blended and shaped into” mestizo” culture along with ancient indigenous cultures during the colonization of New Spain. Mexican culture is not devoid of influence from “the classics.” Even the name "Latinos" reflects the common roots of the Spanish language with other romance languages.

However, pride in one's own culture does not equate to a rejection of other cultures or hostility toward other people's cultural values, traditions and customs. On the contrary, individuals who have a strong cultural identity seek to know and understand other cultures. It is therefore a pseudo-argument to claim that if Mexican immigrants love their language, culture and traditions, they will reject an American identity. Immigrants are quick to recognize the inherent hypocrisy in American's claim to hold dear the principles of democracy and freedom when they are applied to native-born citizens, while simultaneously denying the human and civil rights of immigrants. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy in any culture.

In his chapter "The Hispanic Challenge," Samuel P. Huntington claims that "...profound cultural differences clearly separate Mexicans and Americans, and the high level of immigration from Mexico sustains and reinforces the prevalence of Mexican values among Mexican Americans." Huntington refers to American values as "Anglo Protestant" (AP, for the sake of argument). Other than throwing out a few stereotypes about Mexican culture, Dr. Huntington does not describe these "profound differences" between American and Mexican culture. According to Professor Huntington, AP cultural values include "...the English language, Christianity, religious commitment, English concepts of the rule of law, including the responsibility of rulers and the rights of individuals; and the dissenting Protestant values of individualism, the work ethic, ...etc. All cultures adhere to fundamental values along these same lines, although their perspectives on how each plays out in practical terms may differ. These values, especially between and among Western, European-derived cultures are a matter of degree and relativity rather than divisive, irreconcilable differences.

As a bilingual, bicultural Anglo who has lived for 10 years in Latin American, first in Costa Rica and most recently, in Mexico, I find these arguments about our cultural differences puzzling and unconvincing. Certainly, there are differences in values, lifestyle, and customs between the culture I grew up with in Cody, Wyoming and Mexico. However, I have found none of the cultural aspects of Mexico to be so foreign or strange as to be beyond my ability to analyze and accept or reject as part of my own integrated value system and personality. In fact, this process of cross-cultural development has been greatly enriching and exciting, adding a dimension of growth and learning that I would not have had living a monocultural existence. The process of sorting out and integrating cultural values and perspectives is just as enriching for a society as it is for individuals. The impediments to cross-cultural development are rigidity, narrow-mindedness, racism and prejudice. These are a mindset--not an inevitable consequence of cross-cultural interaction. Conflicts arise between cultures when oppressive and coercive measures are used to force a less-powerful group's conformity and compliance with the cultural values of the socially dominant group.

The set of assumptions held by the American “hosts” of Mexican immigrants that Professor Hanson describes can be categorized as “legitimizing myths” based on theories of social dominance (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999).These authors define legitimizing myths as “…attitudes, values, beliefs, stereotypes, and ideologies that provide moral and intellectual justification for the social practices that distribute social value within the social system.” (p. 45) Many legitimizing myths are firmly embedded in the social structure, so as to become “components of a culture.” Sidanius and Pratto have found in their research that there is a set of ideas and assumptions collectively referred to as “political conservatism” that position groups and individuals along a social status continuum. The legitimizing myths surrounding this set of assumptions and values lead to the belief that “…particular configurations of the hierarchical social system are fair, legitimate, natural, and perhaps even inevitable.” (p. 46)

In Mexifornia, Professor Hanson’s call for an “assimilation mandate” is accompanied with very few suggestions as to how it is to be carried out. Professor Hanson does not address the hypocrisy inherent in our message to Mexican immigrants: “We don’t want you to stay, but we expect you to assimilate.” Nor does Dr. Hanson make it clear to the reader who the “mandate” to assimilate should come from in the first place. We cannot “mandate” assimilation. Our cultural identities are something we forge for ourselves within our particular local, national, and global communities. Our cultural values, much like our religious values and beliefs, are highly personal and individual. We need to respect people’s freedom of cultural practice, just as a matter of higher principle as embodied in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, we must respect people’s freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and freedom of association. It is not a proper role of government to coerce people’s cultural practices and beliefs, or to punish minorities for adopting and practicing forms of cultural and linguistic expression that the “mainstream” population may not like, for whatever reason. A society based on higher principles of individual liberty and justice does in fact have a “common culture”—one of respect for our differences, our diversity and our individual and collective freedoms.

Portes and Rumbaut (2000) conclude that there are two predominant mainstream ideologies regarding immigration policy, but three perspectives on the issue of cultural integration. (Click here for a slide show presentation of ideological stances toward immigration). Mainstream ideologies fall into two categories: intransigent nativism and forceful assimilation. Both of these ideologies delegitimize the culture and language of immigrant communities, thus resulting in "dissonant acculturation" of immigrant groups. When translated into policies, nativism results in heightened discrimination and greater barriers to successful economic, cultural and societal adaptation. Rather than resulting in higher levels of integration, both nativism and forceful assimilation result in greater ethnic polarization, increased societal conflicts, and impoverished and embittered groups at the bottom of society.

A third perspective, which does not currently have a large political constituency is termed "selective acculturation and bilingualism." This perspective recognized the benefits to the larger society, and to immigrants themselves, of integrating into American society without abandoning the values, customs and traditions that strengthen and support individual adaptation and achievement.

The reality is that we are a multicultural nation. The factors impacting cultural and economic integration are multidimensional and complex. Portes & Rumbaut (2000) argue convincingly that few of these factors respond to political initiatives or governmental policies. In fact, they argue that many governmental policies only serve to make matters worse. This is what these authors have to say:

“Tragically, the ideologies that hold sway among broad segments of the white middle-class electorate yield exactly the opposite results, imperiling the future of today’s second generation and perpetuating the condition of the existing minority underclass. Results of this study point to the urgent need to enlighten the dominant majority as to where its real self-interests lie in the long run and thus build a constituency for an alternative set of policies. The future of the metropolitan areas where immigrants concentrate and of American society as a whole may well hang in the balance.” (p. 286)

Sidanius and Pratto (1999) point out that rather than resorting to “naked force,” which is highly risky and often ineffective, group-based social hegemony is maintained by the exercise of power over ideology and discourse. This perhaps explains the attacks on academics, as well as popular political initiatives such as Proposition 187, Proposition 227, and more recently, the failed Proposition 54, which attempted to ban race-based statistical research and reports by governmental agencies.

A component of the discourse regarding the problems of immigration in Professor Hanson’s book Mexifornia is what may be fairly characterized as scapegoating. Dr. Hanson’s theories about the causes of the current immigration “mess” are woven into what borders on a giant conspiracy theory, involving a multitude of culprits. One among them is American business and industry and their hunger for low waged workers. Dr. Hanson characterizes globalization both as a cause of, and a cure for, the immigration problem. In addition, he chastises “Mexico City” and the Mexican government for the “deliberate export of their own citizenry in staggering numbers.” (p. 29) Many researchers, foreign relations analysts, and political leaders inform us about the social and economic “push-pull” involved in Mexican immigration. See Cornelius (2002) for excellent analysis and research on the topic of Mexican labor.

Dr. Hanson’s portrayal of modern Mexico and its government can only be described as a caricature. I critique this aspect of his book from where I was serving as Resident Director of the CSU International Program in Querétaro, México. The picture Dr. Hanson paints of a corrupt, oppressive, racist, undemocratic Mexican government is far from reality, and most certainly counterproductive for “honest discussions” of the challenges posed by immigration for both Mexico and the United States. Certainly, we cannot formulate immigration policy in the United States in a vacuum, without input, negotiation, and consent from the Mexican government. It is my belief that our federal government recognizes this fact, as do the Mexican people. Mexico is rightly concerned with the human and civil and labor rights of its citizens abroad. The Mexican government is justified in protesting against exploitation and abuse of its citizens in the workplace in the United States. However, many anti-immigration militants in the United States would have the American electorate believe that demonizing Mexico carries no consequence in solving the ethnocultural challenges of immigration.

One argument that Dr. Hanson uses in his portrayal of Mexico is to describe the Mexicans as having an attitude of what he terms “reverse chauvinism.” This, he believes, is based on the hidden goal of the Mexican government to return the southwest to Mexico, if not territorially or nationally, at least in a cultural sense. Hence Professor Hanson derives the title of his book, “Mexifornia.” To support his argument, Dr. Hanson criticizes the Mexican government’s outreach to its expatriate community in the United States, including political campaigning for elected offices in Mexican communities in Los Angeles and elsewhere. There are two concepts that Professor Hanson fails to consider in these arguments: The Mexican sense of nationhood and the shared concerns of all national governments for their expatriate communities.

Again, let us look at the situation when the shoe is on the other foot. I refer to my own experiences living as an American citizen in San Miguel de Allende. During my life there, I voted absentee in the United States, filed and paid my federal and California state taxes, and regularly used the services of the American Consulate in San Miguel de Allende. I always slept peacefully knowing that in the highly unlikely event that my property or human rights were unduly threatened by any act of insurrection or lawlessness among the Mexicans, I could count on the American government to at least, look into the matter, if not evacuate me and my compatriots to save us. In light of this rather common level of protectiveness and concern for the welfare of Americans living and traveling abroad, I find Professor Hanson’s characterization of Mexico’s concern for the millions of Mexicans living in the United States to be rather disingenuous.

In fact, Mexico considers its emigrated citizens to still be very much a part of Mexico’s nationhood. See for example, Torres, 1998. Consequently, Mexico espouses such policies as dual citizenship. Mexico says to its citizens, “Just because you are outside of our territorial borders, you are not outside of us.” This attitude is part and parcel of Mexican history, as well as cultural patterns of bonding and belongingness. This sense of nationhood and identity may be an enigma to Mexican immigrants’ American “hosts” but must be taken into account in any negotiations with Mexico over immigration matters. It is simply unfair to characterize this sense of national and cultural identity as “chauvinism” since it has very little to do with how Mexican immigrants feel about the United States and their own integration into American culture. Rather, we might be wise to examine how the Mexicans’ strong sense of a “common culture” in the face of its own racial, ethnic and cultural diversity has been achieved and sustained, as we struggle with many of the same challenges of integrating marginalized minority populations within and across our respective borders. One key factor is valuing cultural and linguistic diversity as a source of cultural richness, rather than being considered a problem to be solved through political and governmental initiatives. We have a lot to learn from Mexico in this regard.

An example of Mexico's more enlightened approach to its diversity is its governmental stance on bilingual education for indigenous populations. There are over 80 different indigenous languages spoken among school children in Mexico. Since the 1970's, Mexico's federal and state governments and school administrations have a policy that allows, and even encourages, indigenous populations to educate their children in their native languages in the public schools, while learning Spanish as a second language. Currently, 52 indigenous language communities implement some level of bilingual instruction (Bohórquez Molina et al, 2003; Petrovic, 1999). Although these bilingual programs face great challenges, there is no organized government policy to suppress or restrict bilingual instruction in Mexico. Instead, indigenous communities' rights of self-determination and preservation of their linguistic heritage are respected. This is sharp contrast with laws in states such as California, Arizona and Massachusetts where laws restricting bilingual education are in place as a result of ballot initiatives. Imagine the surprise and confusion of immigrants from indigenous communities in Mexico who supposedly have crossed the border into the "land of the free," only to discover that they are not free to educate their children through bilingual instruction in the United States.

In Mexifornia, Professor Hanson concludes “…the challenge is not to identify racism, but to assess the degree it or its legacy can affect a people today "(Dr. Hanson’s emphasis) (p. 24). He points out that racism is only “a partial explanation” for the current state of affairs among Mexican immigrants and their descendants, but postulates that “…in any case, it belongs largely to the past.” Instead, Dr. Hanson implies that perceptions of racism have been created artificially to impel immigrants to “…define [themselves] in opposition to whatever “white” culture is…” (p. 24). Here, Professor Hanson appears to be observing and discussing, with wide brush strokes, the factors of racism and oppositional identity that several researchers have investigated. See López and Stanton-Salazar in Rumbaut & Portes (Eds.) (2001) for research on racism as a factor in the lives of Mexican-American second-generation youth. In their study, 88% of Spanish-dominant Mexican-American youth agreed that there is racial discrimination in America, and 67% reported having personally experienced it. Two-thirds of Mexican-American students agreed that Latino students suffer prejudice and discrimination in school from teachers and staff. Apparently racism is not a thing of the past for these students.

Portes and Rumbaut (2001) studied the phenomenon of “reactive ethnicity” as a theoretical model for understanding reactions to hostile conditions in the receiving society. Reactive formation processes were seen to provide “…a viable basis for collective solidarity and political mobilization in defense of ethnic group interests” in response to California’s Proposition 187 (p. 284). These researchers define reactive ethnicity as “...a double edged sword, with positive effects when group cohesion and mobilization to confront a threat are needed, but less positive at the individual level." Reactive ethnicity can result in “downward-leveling norms” and self-destructive consequences for minority youth. In any case, reactive ethnicity is a response to societal racism, either against the individual or against the ethnic group as a group. Certainly, Dr. Hanson cannot deny the role of racism in the assimilation of immigrants in today’s context. It behooves us all to acknowledge and understand its impact, rather than deny its existence or minimize its damaging effects on ethnic groups and individuals alike.

Despite the vitriolic nature of much of the popular and political discourse, academics in multicultural and bilingual education have a valuable contribution to make in addressing the complex issues involved in immigration. Heretofore, the role of experts in the many disciplines and areas of research concerning immigration policy and the challenges facing immigrant communities has been, at best, ignored, and at worst, demonized. A case in point is the controversy surrounding bilingual education. The campaign for passage of Proposition 227 was characterized by constant ad hominem attacks in the media against bilingual educators. The message bilingual educators sent during the campaign was that the research on effective schooling practices for language minority did not support the theoretical premises on which Proposition 227’s mandated programs for English language learners were based. In addition, Proposition 227 threatened to seriously undermine the quality of the teaching force by dissuading talented bilingual and bicultural individuals from entering the teaching profession. See Patricia Gándara, Luis Moll and Richard Ruiz, and Gary Orfield in Suárez-Orozco & Páez (2002) for analysis of the impact of the anti-bilingual education initiatives.

Contrary to Professor Hanson’s portrayal, academics are not responsible for causing “harm” to immigrants. Academic research is often consulted in the formulation of public policy by lawmakers, but more often than not, it is disregarded. This often results in misguided and ill-conceived policy that could have been more wisely formulated in accordance with what the research data tell us about factors that support social and economic integration of immigrants.

Professor Hanson, for example, condemns what he terms “the race industry” for promoting the immigrant youths’ development of a strong ethnic identity. This indictment appears to be directed at academics who have concluded from personal and professional experience, supported by credible research evidence, that a strong ethnic identity promotes higher levels of social adjustment, academic achievement, and familial and community engagement. However, the concept of ethnic identity is anathema to many proponents of the “assimilation mandate.” This is based on the false belief that identity with an ethnic culture creates what Dr. Hanson calls “a destructive in-betweenness” and makes immigrants “… the pawns of those who play the parlor game of identity politics.” (p. 127) One of the more troubling manifestations of this “separatism” for Professor Hanson is “race-based” graduation ceremonies, such as those of the Chicano Studies Department at his campus. Dr. Hanson fails to see the value of Chicano college graduates' celebration of their ethnic heritage and the role it has played in their academic achievement with their families and university communities. He also fails to make the case as to why such activities are harmful, or even why they should be the subject of public scrutiny, given our respect for the freedom of association in this country. Is this not also one of the values of American culture that we wish to teach our college graduates? See Bartolome & Macedo, 1997, for a discussion of the consequences of racism on academic achievement of Latino students.

As I mention above in the update to this analysis, there appears to be a rash of "scholarly" analyses of immigration issues and policies that make the Chicken Little argument, "The sky is falling..." because of the current levels of (especially) Mexican immigration, and if we don't do something immediately to halt it, dire consequences for American society will befall us. The most ominous of the "doom and gloom" scenarios is the image of an American nation hopelessly divided by linguistic and cultural differences. This is the scenario Samuel P. Huntington presents in his published chapter, The Hispanic Challenge (March, 2004). With refreshing honesty, or perhaps naiveté, Dr. Huntington articulates the threat perceived by what he terms "Anglo Protestants." If the "spread of Spanish as the United States' second language..." continues, public officials, employees, and private citizens alike may be at a disadvantage if they are not bilingual. Furthermore, because Mexican Americans have "sufficient coherence and critical mass in a defined region..." they may "...challenge the existing cultural, political, legal, commercial, and educational systems to change fundamentally not only the language but also the very institutions in which they do business."

It is amazing that scholars such as Professor Huntington seem to have such little faith in the American creed, which he claims is so threatened by current levels of Hispanic immigration. He calls on Americans to "...not let change happen unless they are convinced that this new nation would be a better one." I call on these authors to apply the principles of democracy and the values of freedom and justice to the challenges we face with our changing demographics. The foundation of a democracy is the shared value that our governmental structures and institutions must change to fit the needs and values of the society. Societies are not static. Therefore, enduring principles must be upheld and applied to our changing circumstances. This is the beauty of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I truly believe that if we live out our American creed and extend the rights and freedoms guaranteed by our constitutional form of government, we will not become a divided nation. Our responses to change must not be reactionary, oppressive, or xenophobic. We must uphold the freedom of different groups to live peacefully and lawfully within our society using any language they see fit and believing in, and practicing, any cultural values and traditions they think are best for them. For a vast majority of immigrants, this will be a melding and blending of their cultural roots and circumstances into comfortable and productive bilingualism and biculturalism. Welcome to the real world of globalization and international relations, where 60% of the world's population is multilingual, and where bilingual second-language speakers of English outnumber native English-speaking monolinguals by two to one. We must face the future with confidence in our ability to change and adapt to our circumstances based on the enduring values of freedom and justice for all.

Both Professor Hanson and Professor Huntington argue that a halt to Mexican immigration would solve the problem, or at least ameliorate the threat, to the supposed "cultural and political integrity" of the United States. Dr. Huntington claims that if there is not an immediate slowing of Mexican immigration, the rise of "white nationalism" in an attempt to "...reverse their losses..." is the inevitable consequence. This is indeed an unfortunate posture for us as nations and cultures to take. It assumes a priori that binational efforts at problem-solving are doomed to failure and that racism and xenophobia will rule the day.

Is choking off immigration the answer? Is such an action either feasible or beneficial? Calls for such drastic action as a matter of foreign policy to preserve some imagined hegemony of "Anglo Protestant culture" is foolish. It ignores the true nature of our mutually beneficial interrelationship with Mexico. Instead, we must collaborate to inform policy-makers and the public on several important aspects of the larger issues of cross-national migration. Here is a suggested agenda for productive research and dialogue:

The nature and benefits of acculturation and multilingualism as opposed to nativism and discrimination

The costs and benefits of globalization to the American and Mexican economies and the resulting realities in the labor markets of both nations

The impact of changing demographics among the Anglo population of the U.S. on binational relations

The short-term and long-range economic impact of exclusionary and discriminatory immigration policies on both Mexico and the United States

The psychological, educational, and social consequences for the societies of both Mexico and the United States of the disintegration of Mexican families

Structures and systems within both "sending" and immigrant communities that promote and sustain acculturation and positive socio-economic integration

In summary, we need informed, rational and humane discussions, based on principles of human and civil rights and models of social justice, to address the challenges of migration. Here in Mexico there is a saying that is an obvious truism, but which is frequently overlooked: Siempre seremos vecinos. We will forever be neighbors. We must accept this reality and find ways to make our neighborhood a better place for all of us.

I invite readers to explore the excellent research studies that I have cited on this web page, and to visit my web pages regarding many of the linguistic and educational issues of immigrant and language minority students. I also invite Professor Hanson, author of Mexifornia, to write in response or rebuttal to my review of his book. At the time of this posting, he has not done so. I extend the same invitation to Dr. Huntington, author of "The Hispanic Challenge." I truly believe in honest discussion of these important issues and am willing to do my part to contribute to that end.

Bartolomé, L.I., & Macedo, D.P. (1997). Dancing with bigotry: The poisoning of racial and ethnic identities. Harvard Educational Review, 67 (2), 222-246.

Bohórquez Molina, J.G., García Espejel, A., Prieto Hernández, D., & Rodríguez Espinosa, M.C. (2003). Los pobres del campo queretano. México, D.F.: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

Cornelius, W. A. (2002). Ambivalent reception: Mass public response to the new Latino immigration to the United States. In M.M. Suárez-Orozco & M.M. Páez, Latinos: Remaking America, p. 165-189. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Guerra, J.C. (1998). Close to Home: Oral and literate practices in a transnational Mexicano community. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Hanson, V.D. (2003). Mexifornia: A state of becoming. San Francisco: CA: Encounter Books.

Huntington, S.P. (2004). The Hispanic Challenge. Foreign Policy (March/April). Available on-line: http://foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2495

López, D.E., & Stanton-Salazar, R.D. (2001), Mexican-Americans: A second generation at risk. In R.G. Rumbaut & A. Portes (Eds.), Ethnicities: Children of immigrants in America , p. 57-90. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Petronicolos, L., & New, W.S. (2000). Anti-immigrant legislation, social justice, and the right to equal educational opportunity. American Educational Research Journal, 36 (3), 373-408.

Petrovic, J.E., Orozco, G., González, E, & Díaz de Cossio, R. (1999). Mexican Normalista teachers as a resource for bilingual education in the United States: Connecting two models of teacher preparation. San Antonio, TX: Intercultural Development Research Association & Arizona State University.

Portes, A. (1995). Segmented assimilation among new immigrant youth: A conceptual framework. In R. G. Rumbaut & W.A. Cornelius (Eds.), California's Immigrant Children: Theory, Research, and Implications for Educational Policy, (71-76). San Diego, CA: University of California Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies.

Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R.G. (2001). Legacies: The story of the immigrant second generation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Rumbaut, R.G., & Portes, A. (Eds.) (2001). Ethnicities: Children of immigrants in America. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Rumberger, R.W., & Larson, K.A. (1998). Toward explaining differences in educational achievement among Mexican American language-minority students. Sociology of Education, 71, 69-93.

Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (2001). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Suárez-Orozco, M.M., & Páez, M. M. (Eds.) (2002). Latinos: Remaking America. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Torres, C.A. (1998). Democracy, education, and multiculturalism: Dilemmas of citizenship in a global world. Oxford, England: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Dr. Mora's HomePage	Top of this page	MoraModules Menu
ED 516 Syllabus	Debunking English-only Ideology	PLC 915 Syllabus
Philosophical Assumptions of Bilingual Education vs. English-only	Advocacy for Language Minorities	Bilingual Education Debate: Intergroup Conflict Analysis
Proposition 227's Second Anniversary	How Long Does It Take?	California's Demographic Realities
Road Map to the Bilingual Education Debate	Identifying Fallacious Arguments in the BE Debate	Proposition 227: A Public Policy Failure
Accountability FOR and TO Language Minorities	New Role of Advocacy for Language Minorities	Latino Summit II: Address to Parents