Taking all of the latter factors in mind, to what extent are Latino ethnic enclaves in Los Angeles influence assimilation rates and are beneficial or harmful to Latinos? Let 's first review the negative factors that ethnic enclaves can generate in terms of assimilation, then the pros. The first is the prospect for potential limited educational, economic and social prospect. The second is the relative or perceived social independentness and separateness from the rest of American hegemony has had and continues to create a nativist, anti-immigrant sentiment in many parts of the countries. However, the nativist sentiment has only served to mobilize Latinos to increase political participation. As a result, Latino ethnic enclaves have been essential
…show more content…
Huntington, says that Mexicans have values that “hold [them] back” from performing at the same as native populations, notably, “mistrust of people outside the family; lack of initiative, self-reliance, and ambition; little use for education; and acceptance of poverty as a virtue necessary for entrance into heaven” (9). In effect, he believes there are cultural differences that affect the way that Latinos deal with their economic and educational prospects. He says that statistics back his conclusions, with 86.6% of native-born Americans receiving a high school diploma, compared to just 33.8% for Mexicans, though he fails to mention the statistics apply to first arrivals (Huntington, 11). He also indicates that even at the fourth generation homeownership is only 40.3% for Mexican-Americans and only 10% of household have an income of $50,000 or more compared to 64% of homeownership and 24.8% of households for all Americans (Huntington, 11). In Assimilation across the Latino Generations by James P. Smith acknowledges that Latinos have an education and an income deficit with native white men, while asserting that 2nd and 3rd generation Latino men have “made great strides in closing their economic gaps with white natives” (Smith, 319). Therefore, assimilation rates can be decreased for 1st generation immigrants, while the effects are not as powerful in subsequent generations and may historically be explained by discrimination and exclusion, not necessarily by natural
Huntington, says that Mexicans have values that “hold [them] back” from performing at the same as native populations, notably, “mistrust of people outside the family; lack of initiative, self-reliance, and ambition; little use for education; and acceptance of poverty as a virtue necessary for entrance into heaven” (9). In effect, he believes there are cultural differences that affect the way that Latinos deal with their economic and educational prospects. He says that statistics back his conclusions, with 86.6% of native-born Americans receiving a high school diploma, compared to just 33.8% for Mexicans, though he fails to mention the statistics apply to first arrivals (Huntington, 11). He also indicates that even at the fourth generation homeownership is only 40.3% for Mexican-Americans and only 10% of household have an income of $50,000 or more compared to 64% of homeownership and 24.8% of households for all Americans (Huntington, 11). In Assimilation across the Latino Generations by James P. Smith acknowledges that Latinos have an education and an income deficit with native white men, while asserting that 2nd and 3rd generation Latino men have “made great strides in closing their economic gaps with white natives” (Smith, 319). Therefore, assimilation rates can be decreased for 1st generation immigrants, while the effects are not as powerful in subsequent generations and may historically be explained by discrimination and exclusion, not necessarily by natural