Leaving Mexico -- and strong family values

Rod,

There is a paper the Journal of Marriage and the Family (W.A. Vega, "Hispanic Families in the 1980s: A Decade of Research", 1990, vol. 52) that reviews a body of literature and comes to a conclusion very much like your friend's. It's a bit outdated, I guess, but it's interesting nonetheless (and it probably wouldn't be too hard to find similar conclusions drawn in more recent research):

Some important conclusions are reached by Bean and Tienda (1987) in their monumental review of 1980 census data. Among the most pertinent is their challenge to the long-held supposition that Hispanic families are more stable than non-Hispanic white families. They report negligible variations in rates of marital disruption between non-Hispanic whites, Mexican Americans, and Cuban Americans, but Puerto Rican rates that are much higher than those of the other groups. Although other investigators (Frisbee, Opitz, and Kelly, 1985) had reported lower divorce rates for Mexican Americans, Bean and Tienda point out that when separation is included in marital disruption, such differences disappear. Further, Angel and Tienda (1982) report that non-nuclear family members are more likely to contribute to household income in Hispanic households precisely because there is a higher percentage of female-headed households in Mexican (19.9%) and Puerto Rican (38.6%) than in non-Hispanic white households (14.1%). Therefore, having other adults living in the household or contributing to its maintenance may be indicating an erosion of Hispanic family strengths, even though traditional cultural expectations may be motivating this supportive behavior.

The census data suggest two important trends for Hispanics between the 1960 and 1980 census: (a) the average size of Hispanic households is decreasing, and (b) marital disruption is increasing.

(There's more.) I'd be happy to send you a copy of the paper if you'd like.

>>>>
Conservatives have never shrunk from pointing out that dysfunctional behavior creates long-term poverty among inner-city blacks. But when Hispanics engage in the same behavior, they fall silent.
>>>>

Would it be cynical to suggest that this behavior could be because the GOP knows it doesn't attract Black voters, but hopes to attract Hispanic voters?

>>>>
What your friend is seeing is the same that happened to every large immigrant group.
Posted by: Charles Cosimano | April 9, 2008 10:47 PM
>>>>

Yep...

Charles Cosimano: "What your friend is seeing is the same that happened to every large immigrant group. It is just that is has been so long since there was a significant immigration wave (almost 100 years now) that people have forgotten."

If by "same that happened to every large immigrant group" you mean the painful unmooring from traditional mores, that is probably true. If you mean to imply that it's therefore no cause for concern, that they are - as immigrants in the past did - just moving toward the majority norm, and that recent (and not so recent) Mexican immigrants are following the same path up the ladder in terms of poverty, educational attainment, etc., that is untrue. You make a good point about our distance from the last great immigration wave - it does predispose people toward making blithe assessments of the consequences of the current wave.

He said they're seeing so many become unmoored from the kinds of traditions and restraints that probably kept them sound in Mexico, but which many of them cast aside once they get to America.

Of course, the reason they come here is because they can't support their families. Yes, their families are intact in Oaxaca or Mexico City or the villages of Chiapas. They just don't have food on the table and are living in abject poverty, with no work.

Mexicans don't come here because they love cleaning white people's houses or strapping leaf blowers on their backs, they do it because they want to provide for their families. They don't come here just to make conservatives angry. Poverty is destructive to the family, whether you live in Appalachia, the slums of Dallas, or Chiapas.

On one hand, they "assimilate down." OTOH, they provide a quality of life and opportunity for their families--as broken as they are--that is far better than they would ever have staying in Chiapas or Mexico City.

Hmmm, if we paid Mexican women to get implanted with white yuppie embryos and carry the babies to term, it could work out for the best. A good science fiction solution.

it's on foot and illegal.

Actually, not a lot of it is on foot. This is a misconception. Most drive or fly across the border, or come legally and overstay. Thus the folly of the wall to nowhere.

Mexican gals are cute and feisty!

They're feisty? Well, that cancels out the cuteness.

I can't exactly speak to the stats quoted here, but I do have some interesting data to add. I have worked in the Cook County, Illinois child welfare and juvenile court system on and off for 30 years. When I started, the juvenile court child neglect/abuse caseload was roughly 60% African-American and 40% Hispanic. At the time, Chicago's population was roughly 40% African-American, 30% Hispanic, and 30% white. Then, over the ensuing years, the following things happened:

1. the federal court decreed that the Department of Children and Family Services had to provide Spanish-speaking caseworkers and investigators to Hispanic families
2. the Hispanic population grew massively
3. the African-American population shrank somewhat, both relatively and absolutely; the population is now 40% African-American, 40% Hispanic, and 20% white.
4. and, as of 4 years ago, when I was last involved in the juvenile court system, the caseload was 90% African-American and 10% Hispanic!!

What's wrong with this picture? There are, if anything, more Hispanic children than African-American children in Cook County, since the birth rate is higher. Have Hispanics mastered the delicate and difficult art of child-rearing better than African-Americans? Probably not, certainly not by as wide a margin as the current stats suggest. What happened, obviously, was that, in order to avoid having to find or train Spanish-speaking caseworkers, DCFS just stopped investigating reports of child abuse or neglect in the Hispanic community. So the stats went down.

I mention this merely to suggest that this kind of statistical reporting is especially vulnerable to error and misstatement, and should be taken with an entire mine full of salt.

Most drive or fly across the border, or come legally and overstay. Thus the folly of the wall to nowhere.

AFAIK, visa overstays comprise 40-50% of the "illegal" population (*); I'd be interested to see stats re. mode of transportation. Perhaps for some "restrictionists", a Southern Wall is a silver bullet, but the more thoughtful types (**) number it merely one tool among many.

(*) pewhispanic.org/factsheets/factsheet.php?FactsheetID=19

(**) E.g., www.cis.org/articles/2006/msktestimony051106.html

Rod, if your friend recognizes that coming here is bad for Mexican
families, then why doesn't he want to cut back on immigration and work
to make their lives better in Mexico? That's what's so dumb
about the immigration discussion; it's assumed that "compassion" has
to mean bringing more people here, even if it's bad for us, them, and
the country they left behind. We never get past the argument that
it's mean to stop people from going where they want to.

It's like: closing the door in someone's face is rude, so you open it
and let him in, even though you've got an angry dog that's going to bite
him and then have to be put down. Makes no sense.

Given that your friend also supports a more open migration policy, I for one would like to hear his opinions out completely. Seems like you're only presenting half of the story.

I've read the same articles you have. And I was just thinking of this today, sitting outside on little wooden bench in the rather spartan surroundings typical to a FOB. So many countries we would consider poor actually have fairly high levels of happiness. We may well have things all wrong in our mad rush to develop them. It is we who need to develop a maturity and a balance to things.

It's not all about capitalism. There are many things that NEED improvement in developing countries: they need clean water, decent schools, and ways to support themselves in dignity. We must fight as always against religious intolerance and for the rights of women and children. The one American export that the masses are yearning for is the sense of opportunity, the opportunity to achieve all of these things for oneself and for one's children. That yearning is universal, we've merely become a symbol for it.

But I think aside from that a few other minor items, the development needs to go the other way. We need to help people in beautiful places like Mexico help themselves achieve the chance at opportunity without destroying, quickly or slowly, the balance and maturity inherent in their long traditions and ways of life. Without all of them having to come to the U.S. merely to achieve any sense of dignity.

People in developing countries aren't stupid. I think they understand the risks in "development." That's a large part of the Islamicist platform: retaining their culture, tradition, and way of life. It's just that they've taken a very natural and noble desire and wrapped in religion and politics and death...

I wonder if the trend your friend has observed is due to the location from which many of the immigrants come. For example, 30 years ago the immigrants from Mexico might have been from a different area within Mexico than more recent immigrants. I suspect we are getting folks from more rural and primitive southern areas than the folks who came here 20+ years ago and these newer immigrants would have difficulties adapting to a modern city no matter where they went. Perhaps there are statistics on regions, not just countries, from which immigrants come?

This is, in fact, a worldwide problem. Back when I was in college, I read a fascinating article in the Digest of the Soviet Press, by a female sociologist in the USSR, about the exceptionally high divorce rate there. Clearly, she said, it was because Russian men were such lousy husbands. The stats have, obviously, only gotten worse since the early 1960s. And it all connects to the increasing participation of women in the paid workforce, worldwide. Men are being held to higher standards. Back before women had any earning options other than the oldest profession, a man just had to be better than starvation. Now he has to be better than a minimum wage paycheck. Apparently, for some men, this is asking too much.

I’m probably dealing a crude stereotype, but I take exception to the assertion that Mexican family values are very much like our own. In contrast to traditional modern family values based on mutual love, respect, and affection, Mexicans have traditional pre-modern family values based on power i.e. male authority and rigid church prescribed gender roles. Discussing Mexican families in his seminal text Distant Neighbors: Portrait of the Mexicans, Alan Riding says about Mexican men “The father is the undisputed figure of authority who has little respect for - or communication with - his wife. He expects to be served royally at home, but he spends much of his time and money drinking with friends or visiting his mistress. He pays minimal attention to his children, although he carries great importance to having a male firstborn who carries his name....”

Steve Sailer's observations on Mexican culture after picnicing with a Latino crowd last July:
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/070722_picnic.htm
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2007/07/mexican-machismo.html

quote roger:
"’m probably dealing a crude stereotype, but I take exception to the assertion that Mexican family values are very much like our own. In contrast to traditional modern family values based on mutual love, respect, and affection, Mexicans have traditional pre-modern family values based on power i.e. male authority and rigid church prescribed gender roles. Discussing Mexican families in his seminal text Distant Neighbors: Portrait of the Mexicans, Alan Riding says about Mexican men “The father is the undisputed figure of authority who has little respect for - or communication with - his wife. He expects to be served royally at home, but he spends much of his time and money drinking with friends or visiting his mistress. He pays minimal attention to his children, although he carries great importance to having a male firstborn who carries his name....”

Posted by: roger | April 10, 2008 10:54 PM"

Roger well said. I love the Mexican men and culture, but also hate them/it because of the culture-wide acceptance of the cheating male.

My career field is dominated by Mexican males. Everyday I see, hear, and witness much of what you've pointed out. One of my co-workers told me, laughingly, that "...lot of Mexican men have 3 or 4 families..." . Virtually all of my colleagues believe that extra-marital families/affairs etc, are perfectly acceptable and justifiable, even EXPECTED. They don't pursue married women as readily as single women because of an unspoken "honor code" , plus they don't want to tangle with a husband.

The wives and sanchas are jealously lorded over and the wives will never/rarely leave.