Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Hispanic Family: The Case for National Action - Looking at and for honest numbers.
National Review Online ^ | April 14, 2008 | Heather Mac Donald

Posted on 04/15/2008 6:19:24 PM PDT by neverdem









The Hispanic Family: The Case for National Action
Looking at and for honest numbers.

By Heather Mac Donald

Those of us who have documented the growing underclass culture among second- and third-generation Hispanic Americans have grown accustomed to being called bigoted “xenophobes” by open-borders conservatives. For some reason, these same conservatives don’t object to anyone decrying the consequences of black illegitimacy rates, or the toll of black gang culture on community life. But point out the high Hispanic illegitimacy and school drop-out rates, or the march of ever-younger Hispanics into gangs, and you can be sure of being accused of “anti-Hispanic cant” by people who work overtime to maintain the myth of the redemptive Hispanic.

The list of bigots just got longer. Add the Economist magazine to the group of entities and individuals who need scourging for their anti-Hispanic bias. In the March 19 issue, the magazine reports the “bad news from California: The vaunted Latino family is coming to resemble the black family.” The magazine has the temerity to offer facts that are fighting words in some precincts of the right: “Half of all Hispanic children were born out of wedlock last year.” “The birth rate among unmarried Latinas is now much higher than the rate among black or white women.” “In 1995 the unmarried teenage birth rate for Latinas was 20% lower than the rate for blacks. It is now 12% higher.” “More than half of all young Hispanic children in families headed by a single mother are living below the federal poverty line, compared with 21% being raised by a married couple.”

To be sure, The Economist notes, stating the obvious: the “Latino family is not in such a dire state as the black family, where 71% of children are born to single mothers.” But the trends are not favorable: “the gap appears to be closing.” And even if both Latino parents are living together, that arrangement is no guarantee of familial stability: “unmarried Mexican-American couples who have children while living together are slightly more likely to break up than are blacks or whites in similar circumstances.”

Conservatives of all stripes routinely praise Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s prescience for warning in 1965 that the breakdown of the black family threatened the achievement of racial equality. They rightly blast those liberals who denounced Moynihan’s report, “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action,” as an expression of bigotry. Conservatives are equally fond of Moynihan’s 1993 article “Defining Deviancy Down.” That essay, published in the American Scholar, observed that American culture had responded self-defeatingly to the breakdown of traditional social controls by redefining what was once deviant behavior, such as illegitimacy, as normal.

It turns out that open-borders conservatives are themselves flawless at defining deviancy down — when it suits their purposes. The black illegitimacy rate was 23.6 percent in 1965, when Moynihan declared a crisis in the black family. Today’s Hispanic illegitimacy rate is over twice that, yet purveyors of the redemptive Hispanic myth tell us that all is well. So was Moynihan’s analysis right then but wrong now?

I have invited my critics to leave their think tanks and actually do some field research in heavily Hispanic schools. Were they to do so, they would discover that the stigma around teen pregnancy and single parenting has all but disappeared. The apologists for the Hispanic family would have to add to their growing list of anti-Hispanic bigots teens like Liliana, an American-born senior at Manual Arts High School near downtown Los Angeles. “This year was the worst for pregnancies,” she told me in 2004. “A lot of girls got abortions; some dropped out.” There’s no stigma attached to getting pregnant, Liliana reported. The myth-makers might also talk to teachers, who say that for many Hispanic male students, being a “player” now includes fathering children out-of-wedlock.

I am unaware that any open-borders conservatives have taken up my suggestion, but the Economist somehow managed to get some sense of the culture. “Machismo” among young Latinos in Fresno, Ca., makes them less likely to use condoms in their teen trysts, the Economist learned. Cohabitation is seen as normal among the poor, and single parenthood merely regrettable, the magazine reports.

Here’s someone else who will have to be added to “the list:” the head of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, Samuel Rodriguez. He warns that the state of the Latino family is a greater problem for Latinos than immigration reform, according to The Economist.

No one would ever label the Economist as restrictionist on immigration matters. But it has shown that a commitment to the facts is compatible with a range of policy positions on immigration. And it is those facts that will ultimately determine the fate of Hispanic immigrants and their progeny in the U.S. — whether they climb America’s economic and social ladder or form an increasingly entrenched second underclass. 

— Heather Mac Donald is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and co-author of The Immigration Solution.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: aliens; familybreakdown; illegitimate; singlemothers; underclass

1 posted on 04/15/2008 6:19:25 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The author of this article is right. The black family in America, prior to Lyndon Johnson’s destructive “Great Society” wet dream, was very stable. The “Great Society” disaster destroyed the black family in America, because it told blacks that the government (Uncle Sugar) would take care of them, which in effect told black men that their families did not need them, and they took that as a license to take off and become “a player” and a non-productive (in the economic sense, not in the procreation sense) member of society. Hispanics have bought into the same mindset.


2 posted on 04/15/2008 6:31:18 PM PDT by ought-six ( Multiculturalism is national suicide, and political correctness is the cyanide capsule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

“Americans have grown accustomed to being called bigoted “xenophobes” by open-borders conservatives.”

Seen that word tossed around here as well.


3 posted on 04/15/2008 6:43:17 PM PDT by Kimberly GG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; dennisw; HiJinx; gubamyster

Wait, wait.....I thought the Hispanic immivaders were all wonderful family folks, who were going to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and vote Republican?


4 posted on 04/15/2008 6:46:49 PM PDT by Travis McGee (---www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Bokkmarked for later retrieval


5 posted on 04/15/2008 6:53:28 PM PDT by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

I wonder what Hamlet’s Lesser thinks of this?


6 posted on 04/15/2008 7:00:49 PM PDT by Hawk1976 (Free Tibet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Hawk1976; Dane

You mean Dane? She’s in denial.


7 posted on 04/15/2008 7:06:00 PM PDT by Travis McGee (---www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The part that scares the PC police the most is that these kinds of articles lead people to ask some very uncomfortable questions. Such as:

If large numbers of Hispanics who are already here are disproportionately contributing to America’s social problems, is it unreasonable to expect that adding more of them will make the problem even worse?

Does this mean that some groups are better immigrants than other groups?

Does this mean that the 1965 quota system is fundamentally broken, and needs to be changed to reflect the fact that immigrants from some countries make better Americans than immigrants from other countries?

Does this mean that diversity isn’t necessarily a good thing?

Does this mean that not all cultures, ethnicities, and/or races are equal?


8 posted on 04/15/2008 7:14:05 PM PDT by ROP_RIP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ought-six

the Great Society and the cultural devolution knowns as the 1960s and 70s has done the same to whites.


9 posted on 04/15/2008 7:20:22 PM PDT by rmlew (There is no god but G_d and Moses is his Prophet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kimberly GG
“Americans have grown accustomed to being called bigoted “xenophobes” by open-borders conservatives.”

Seen that word tossed around here as well.


By open-borders 'conservatives', I'd bet.
10 posted on 04/15/2008 7:41:33 PM PDT by CottonBall (A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority. "Civil Disobedience", Henry D.Thoreau)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ROP_RIP
Does this mean that diversity isn’t necessarily a good thing?

Not when the so-called diversity comes from only one area of the world, from countries that are similar in their third world mob mentality and lack of education. Real diversity would be having a proportionate number of LEGAL immigrants from nations all over the world. Even most of our legal immigrants all come from one area.
11 posted on 04/15/2008 7:43:58 PM PDT by CottonBall (A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority. "Civil Disobedience", Henry D.Thoreau)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ought-six; 1_Inch_Group; 2sheep; 2Trievers; 3AngelaD; 3pools; 3rdcanyon; 4Freedom; 4ourprogeny; ...

Ping!


12 posted on 04/15/2008 9:49:56 PM PDT by HiJinx (~ Support our Troops ~ www.americasupportsyou.mil ~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ROP_RIP; HiJinx; wardaddy; Joe Brower; Cannoneer No. 4; Criminal Number 18F; Dan from Michigan; ...
Does this mean that diversity isn’t necessarily a good thing?

Robert Putnam: Diversity Is Our Destruction

Putnam is a liberal from Harvard. Here's his study: E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century

Wal-Mart to log guns sold, then used in crimes (Bloomberg strikes again!)

Firearms Industry Responds to Mayoral Gun Summit

NRA Statement on Bloomberg - Wal-Mart Initiative to Retain Store Records of Gun Sales and Force Employee Background Checks

From time to time, I’ll ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

13 posted on 04/15/2008 10:44:51 PM PDT by neverdem (I'm praying for a Divine Intervention.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Don't forget, from 1990...

The Path to National Suicide by Lawrence Auster (1990)

An essay on multi-culturalism and immigration.

Click the Pic!!!!

Excerpt....

How can we account for this remarkable silence? The answer, as I will try to show, is that when the Immigration Reform Act of 1965 was being considered in Congress, the demographic impact of the bill was misunderstood and downplayed by its sponsors. As a result, the subject of population change was never seriously examined. The lawmakers’ stated intention was that the Act should not radically transform America’s ethnic character; indeed, it was taken for granted by liberals such as Robert Kennedy that it was in the nation’s interest to avoid such a change. But the dramatic ethnic transformation that has actually occurred as a result of the 1965 Act has insensibly led to acceptance of that transformation in the form of a new, multicultural vision of American society. Dominating the media and the schools, ritualistically echoed by every politician, enforced in every public institution, this orthodoxy now forbids public criticism of the new path the country has taken. “We are a nation of immigrants,” we tell ourselves— and the subject is closed. The consequences of this code of silence are bizarre. One can listen to statesmen and philosophers agonize over the multitudinous causes of our decline, and not hear a single word about the massive immigration from the Third World and the resulting social divisions. Opponents of population growth, whose crusade began in the 1960s out of a concern about the growth rate among resident Americans and its effects on the environment and the quality of life, now studiously ignore the question of immigration, which accounts for fully half of our population growth.

This curious inhibition stems, of course, from a paralyzing fear of the charge of “racism.” The very manner in which the issue is framed—as a matter of equal rights and the blessings of diversity on one side, versus “racism” on the other—tends to cut off all rational discourse on the subject. One can only wonder what would happen if the proponents of open immigration allowed the issue to be discussed, not as a moralistic dichotomy, but in terms of its real consequences. Instead of saying: “We believe in the equal and unlimited right of all people to immigrate to the U.S. and enrich our land with their diversity,” what if they said: “We believe in an immigration policy which must result in a staggering increase in our population, a revolution in our culture and way of life, and the gradual submergence of our current population by Hispanic and Caribbean and Asian peoples.” Such frankness would open up an honest debate between those who favor a radical change in America’s ethnic and cultural identity and those who think this nation should preserve its way of life and its predominant, European-American character. That is the actual choice—as distinct from the theoretical choice between “equality” and “racism”—that our nation faces. But the tyranny of silence has prevented the American people from freely making that choice.

14 posted on 04/16/2008 4:38:12 AM PDT by raybbr (You think it's bad now - wait till the anchor babies start to vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

Auster bttt


15 posted on 04/16/2008 5:10:48 AM PDT by Travis McGee (---www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Conservatives ought to face the fact that the left is populated by mental defectives obsessed with phobias. If our liberals were in charge in Galileo’s time he would have been crucified and his telescope confiscated and destroyed.


16 posted on 04/16/2008 6:07:22 AM PDT by junta (It's Poltical Correctness stupid! Hold liberals accountable for their actions, a new idea.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
In the March 19 issue, the magazine reports the “bad news from California: The vaunted Latino family is coming to resemble the black family.”

We have introduced another component to the permanent underclass. Hispanics will be 29% of the country by 2050. Half of the children ages 0 to 5 are minorities. Demography is destiny.

17 posted on 04/16/2008 6:22:40 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I am convinced that many of the open borders folk could not give a rats patootie about the Hispanic people. They want either cheap labor or votes, and it matters not a wit to them how these people live. In fat, if they actually pull themselves into the middle class it works against then being either cheap labor or voters for more government programs.
susie


18 posted on 04/16/2008 6:25:49 AM PDT by brytlea (amnesty--an act of clemency by an authority by which pardon is granted esp. to a group of individual)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kabar
We have introduced another component to the permanent underclass. Hispanics will be 29% of the country by 2050. Half of the children ages 0 to 5 are minorities. Demography is destiny.

IMO the recent & unprecedented hispanic influx is fueling the GOP's march to the left. Republican leadership doesn't want to be 'left behind'.

19 posted on 04/16/2008 8:43:09 AM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ought-six
The author of this article is right. The black family in America, prior to Lyndon Johnson’s destructive “Great Society” wet dream, was very stable.

Well, it was certainly better than it is now, but I would not call a situation in which 1 in 4 children are born out of wedlock "very stable."

Even in the pre-Great Society days MLK himself expressed alarm at what has happening to the black family.

I have no doubt the Great Society made things a lot worse, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking it was all hunky-dory beforehand.

20 posted on 04/16/2008 11:14:56 AM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

“but let’s not kid ourselves into thinking it was all hunky-dory beforehand.”

I never said it was hunky-dory. I said it was one hell of a lot better, and one hell of a lot more stable before the abomination known as the Great Society.


21 posted on 04/16/2008 4:41:26 PM PDT by ought-six ( Multiculturalism is national suicide, and political correctness is the cyanide capsule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson