Edwin S. Rubenstein, VDARE, July 13, 2005
Second-generation immigrants — U.S.-born individuals with at least one foreign-born parent — are the most rapidly growing segment on the nation’s immigrant stock. In California they account 7 million, or 21 percent, of state population, up from 3.1 million (16 percent) in 1970.
Latinos account for over half of second-generation Californians. If the children of immigrants are assimilating, it should happen in California first.
But it isn’t happening.
On the contrary, a May 2005 Public Policy of California report, “Second-Generation Immigrants in California,” reveals a widening gap in the academic, economic, and linguistic achievement of second- and even third- generation Latinos and the overall population. (This probably isn’t what the Public Policy Institute wanted to find, and may be why its figures cited below do not include embarrassing direct comparison with native-born whites).
Take educational attainment. [Table 1] There is significant reduction in high school dropout rates between first and second-generations Latinos — but progress appears to stall after the second-generation. Indeed, children of Latino immigrants have lost ground relative to other immigrant children:
|67 percent of F-G Latinos are HS dropouts versus 39 percent of all F-G Californians|
|35 percent of S-G Latinos are HS dropouts versus 14 percent of all S-G Californians|
|22 percent of T-G Latinos are HS dropouts versus 8 percent of all T-G Californians|
College-educated Latinos of any generation are shockingly rare:
|7 percent of the first generation|
|10 percent of the second-generation|
|11 percent of the third-generation|
The largest variations are not by nativity but by national origin. Case in point: Mexicans and Filipinos.
They are the two largest national groups in California, accounting for 58 percent and 6 percent, respectively, of second-generation children. Both are from poor countries.
Those differentials persist in second and third generations.