March 09, 2004
The Importance of Language
Russell Arben Fox gets Samuel Huntington all wrong:
Huntington presents a wealth of data (here, here, and here) to support his claim that this particular wave of immigrants--both legal and illegal--is larger and different from all previous waves, and certainly no one can dispute that many of our present-day struggles over education, inner cities, entry-level wages and so forth are to a significant degree functions of our complicated relationship with Mexican immigrant labor. Still, Huntington will no doubt receive a great deal of criticism for the article, primarily for exactly the reason David [Adesnik], Matt [Yglesias] and [David] Brooks don't care for it: they're troubled by anyone who actually claims that English-speaking Americans possess a particular cultural accomplishment, that said accomplishment is irreconcilable with the Hispanic culture which the new immigrants are bringing with them, and that ultimately "Mexican Americans will share in [the American] dream and in that society only if they dream in English."Simply put, "no." Huntington does not present a wealth of data "to support his claim that this particular wave of immigrants--both legal and illegal--is larger and different from all previous waves." Follow Russell's links and you'll see that one compares the foreign-born population of today to the foreign-born population in 1960 to show that today a much larger proportion of the foreign-born come from a single country. This would be an interesting and relevant fact, except that 1960 was actually part of an immigration trough so 1960 data has nothing to do with anything. What's needed as a comparison of the present-day situation to the situation during other periods of high immigration. As Huntington actually concedes in the text, during the high-water mark of German immigration, Germans were a bigger proportion of the immigrant pool than are Mexicans of today's immigrant pool. Huntington also concedes in the text that one could say the same thing about the Irish during there day.
A second of Russell's links goes to a sidebar where Huntington points out that wrongheaded anti-Mexican arguments have been present in the United States for some time now. The relevance of this to the issue escapes me.
The third link compares Mexican immigrants and the descendents of Mexican immigrants to the US population as a whole. It demonstrates that even after several generations they lag behind the general population in terms of educational attainment and asset-accumulation. You are supposed to infer from this that Mexican immigration is different from earlier waves, but the data certainly does not say this. Russell has been taken in by a con. The reason Huntington doesn't compare third generation Mexicans to, say, third generation Italians from the relevant time period is that a fair comparison would show that he is wrong.
Lastly, neither Brooks nor I denied that it is important for immigrants and their descendents to learn English. Rather, Brooks contended that contrary to Huntington, Mexican immigrants and their descendents acquire English-language competency at the same rate as earlier waves of immigrants (except the Irish who already spoke English). Indeed, Huntington never actually says that Mexicans and their descendents don't learn English. He implies this, because if it were true it would be disturbing and he wishes to sucker people into believing that it's true. But he never says it because, again, it's false.
Posted by Matt Yglesias at March 9, 2004 04:52 PM | TrackBackI'm no partisan of Huntingdon, and I have no doubt you know what you are talking about. But for our edification, could you direct the rest of us to the source for this statement?
The reason Huntington doesn't compare third generation Mexicans to, say, third generation Italians from the relevant time period is that a fair comparison would show that he is wrong.Posted by: Ikram at March 9, 2004 05:02 PM
The Huntington piece does not offer, but only implies, policy recommendations in response to what he describes as the non-assimilation of Mexicans.
Regardless of the technical merits of the "Jose, Can You See" piece, progressives need a coherent immigration position that stresses BOTH openness and a shared American national identity.
On the later, see "Identity Politics and the Threat from the Left", an excerpt from "The Opt Out Society: The GOP Threat to National Unity and the American Social Contract":
http://www.perrspectives.com/articles/art_optout04.htm
Posted by: Jon at March 9, 2004 05:16 PMHow come everytime you reformat your site, you make the font smaller? We're not all twenty-something, Matt!
Posted by: TreeTop at March 9, 2004 05:19 PMI think you're being a bit unfair to Huntington's actual argument (with which, by the way, I also have large problems).
He's not merely claiming that this wave is larger than any in the past. He's claiming that it's (1) very large, (2) heavily concentrated geographically, (3) likely to last far longer than previous waves, and (4) occuring in an economic and technological context that diminishes the imperative to assimilate. It's the combination of these factors that genuinely -- I think -- makes this immigrant wave unlike others in the past.
Where Huntington seems to go off the rails is in his assessment of the consequences of this phenomenon. Do I personally believe that Mexican immigrants will never assimilate? No. Do I believe that Hispanic culture is fundamentally antithetical to progress (or shall we simply call it "lazy")? Certainly not. But it seems to me that this is where you should be focusing your energies. (And it's where I'd like to see more data, to echo the previous post.) By refusing to concede that Huntington has ANY valid points at all, you weaken your arguments.
Posted by: Don at March 9, 2004 06:19 PMIt's not hard to be "unfair" to Huntington's argument given that his history of linguistic tolerance in America is completely incorrect... I haven't even made it past page two and so far, from a linguistic standpoint, everything he says seems to be the product of paranoia and xenophobia peppered with the occasional fact or statistic. He's going off the rails in terms of the basic causes as well as consequences.
For a more detailed and realistic account of America's changing attitude toward immigrants, go here. Linguistically and historically, Huntington's arguments don't add up.
Posted by: Noreen at March 9, 2004 07:07 PMMatt: Fair enough. Like David (whom you originally picked up the article from), I'm no expert on the immigration and assimilation data, and didn't bother to crunch it. (Dan Drezner and you did a fine job at that in subsequent posts; Scott Martens is working on one as well that will surely rip Huntington to shreds.) I happily concede that Huntington may be way off base in his actual reading of the pattern of Hispanic immigration, legal and illegal, into the U.S., and to that extent perhaps anyone who takes him seriously is being conned. Except that I wasn't: my post ended agreeing with you and the holes you originally punched in his claims. My whole reason for thinking that Huntington is worth thinking about is that he himself is quite seriously thinking about something--language and identity--which Brooks, at least, wasn't. I'm surprised to see you defending him; his claim that all assimilation requires is a "common conception of the future"--i.e., "the American dream"--might sound like a handy reproach to those conservatives or communitarians actually trying to figure out the necessary cultural associations and underpinings of language acquisition, but it's a facile one nonetheless.
Jon: "[P]rogressives need a coherent immigration position that stresses BOTH openness and a shared American national identity." I couldn't agree more. That's why, while I don't like Huntington's conclusions, I think it's important to consider his kind of questions.
Posted by: Russell Arben Fox at March 9, 2004 07:10 PMAagh! The earlier redesign was fine, but this one has the ads and archive links completely covering the text in the right column. I'm using Mozilla 1.6, which isn't exactly uncommon.
Posted by: KCinDC at March 9, 2004 07:35 PMHEY, WORD HAS BEEN SPREADING AROUND THE INTERNET THAT RUSSELL ARBEN FOX IS A SMART CONSERVATIVE. ON MY COUNT THAT MAKES TWO, HIM AND VOLOKH. OF COURSE IF IT WEREN'T FOR THE INTERNET NOBODY WOULD HAVE EVER HEARD OF THESE CLOWNS. ONE CAN SAFELY SAY THAT YOU CAN MOVE ALL THE WAY TO THE FRONTIER OF LEGAL AND POLITICAL THEORY WITHOUT EVER HAVING READ A WORD OF VOLOKH OR FOX.
Posted by: at March 10, 2004 04:03 AM