rudy acuna <acunarudy427@gmail.

com>

U.S. Latino Issues concerns a group of people who the U.S. Census calls Latinos or Hispanics.
Although Latinos can be of different nationalities, as with Asian Americans, the census lumps
them together for the census count. When and why the Latino identity came about is a more
involved story. Essentially, politicians, the media, and marketers find it convenient to deal with
the different U.S. Spanish-speaking people under one umbrella.
Many people with Spanish surnames contest the term Latino. They say it is misleading
because no Latino or Hispanic nationality exists since no Latino state exists, so generalizing the
term Latino slights the various national identities included under the umbrella. Some critics
argue that the Latino identity was artificially constructed by the U.S. government. According to
the critics, the purpose was to erase the collective historical memory of the various Spanish-
speaking groups. Critics accuse the supporters of the term Latino of being cheerleaders for the
system that celebrates a false impression that Latinos are making it in society, resulting in flag-
waving ceremonies celebrating, “We are number one.” Finally, the Latino identity erases the
reality that most people under this umbrella are of mixed-race background.
The supporters of the term argue times have changed and national identities as we once knew
them are outdated. They believe clinging onto national identities promotes nationalism,
factionalism, and thus division. They argue that the term Latino is more inclusive. This school of
belief is divided into two factions, one preferring the term Hispanic and the other preferring
Latino. The popularity of the terms is greater within professional and business groups who live
closest to Anglo Americans and who want to forge a national presence. In turn, government
agencies, which for statistical reasons find it more convenient to lump the disparate groups into
one, support the trend.
With this controversy in mind, U.S. Latino Issues turns to introducing the different
nationalities within the contested Latino identity, taking into account their individual realities
without debating the political correctness of the term, the definition ot which depends on the
person’s view of the world.
WHO ARE THEY AND HOW MANY SO-CALLED U.S. LATINOS
ARE THERE?
The 2000 census listed 35.3 million Latinos in the United States. Latinos make up 12.5
percent of the nation’s population[R1] , and by the year 2005 Latinos were the largest minority in
the United States, outnumbering African Americans, that totaled 45,562 in 2014. The population
of U.S. Latinos grew 60 percent between the 1990 census and 2000 when the Census Bureau
counted 22.4 million of them. Mexican Americans composed the largest group, making up 58.5
percent of total Latinos, probably more if the census acknowledged that 17.3 percent of the
respondents marked Latino or Hispanic without designating a nationality. This growth continued
over the next decade and by 2015 Latinos had become a national minority with considerable
growth in the South. Because of the economic depression, however, the Mexican population
declined from 2009 to 2014 when there was a net Loss of 140,000 from 2009 to 2014. The
reason given for this shift was Family Reunification.1[R2]
 The Lewis Mumford Center for Comparative Urban and Regional Research at University at
Albany, State University of New York, has questioned these figures and believes that there has
been a serious undercount of new Latino immigrants that is new immigrants from the Dominican
Republic, Central America, and South America. The growth of the new Latino population is
creating tension as the numbers of old Latino groups, such as Cuban Americans, who register 1.3
million, are challenged for leadership by the newcomers. The Mumford Center estimates that 1.1
million Dominicans (63 percent foreign-born) and 1.1 million Salvadorans (more than 70 percent
foreign-born) lived in the United States in 2000, and that the new Latinos are growing more
rapidly than Puerto Ricans, who are by definition U.S.- born, or Cubans, who are 68 percent
foreign-born.2
U.S. Latinos, especially those of Mexican ancestry, are young compared to the rest of the
U.S. population. The median age of Latinos nationally in 2000 was 25.9, almost 10 years below
the national median of 35.3. However, the median age of Mexicans nation-wide is even lower at
24.2 years. (Some 36 percent of Mexican Americans were born in Mexico, about half of them
immigrating to the United States since 1992.) Almost three-fourths of U.S.

Table 1

2000 U.S. Census Bureau Latino Results

Subject Number Percent

Hispanic or Latino origin

Total population 281,421,906 100.0

Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 35,305,818 12.5

Not Hispanic or Latino 246,116,088 87.5

Hispanic or Latino by type

Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 35,305,818 100.0

Mexican 20,640,711 58.5

Puerto Rican 3,406,178 9.6

Cuban 1,241,685 3.5

28.
Other Hispanic or Latino 10,017,244 4

Dominican (Dominican Republic) 764,945 2.2

Central American (excludes Mexican) 1,686,937 4.8

Costa Rican 68,588 0.2

 Guatemalan 372,487 1.1

Honduran 217,569 0.6

Nicaraguan 177.684 0.5

Panamanian 91,723 0.3

Salvadoran 655,165 1.9

Other Central American 103,721 0.3

South American 1,353,562 3.8

Argentinean 100,864 0.3

Bolivian 42,068 0.1

Chilean 68,849 0.2

Colombian 470,684 1.3

Ecuadorian 260,559 0.7

Paraguayan 8,769 0.0

Peruvian 233,926 0.7

Uruguayan 18,804 0.1

Venezuelan 91,507 0.3

Other South American 57,532 0.2

Table 1 Continued

Subject Number Percent

Spaniard 100,135 0.3

All other Hispanic or Latino 6,111,665 17.3

Checked only other Hispanic 1,733,274 4.9

Write-in Spanish 686,004 1.9

Write-in Hispanic 2,454,529 7.0

Write-in Latino 450,769 1.3

Not Elsewhere classified 787,089 2.2

Source: Bureau of the Census, Census 2000 Summary File 1, in The Hispanic Population:
Census 2000 Brief.
Mexicans are younger than age 35—the youngest of the U.S. Latinos. The second largest Latino
group was the Puerto Ricans, who numbered 3.4 million, or 9.6 percent of the Latino total.
Puerto Ricans had a median age of 27.3 years. Central Americans number 1.68 million, or 4.8
percent of the total, and had a median age of 29.2. (Caution: the Mumford Center has revised
these figures upward.) Dominicans total 765,000, or 2.2 percent of Latinos, with a median age of
29.5. (Note that the Mumford Center estimates the total U.S. Dominican population at 1.1
million.) About 1.2 million Cubans, whose median age is 40.7, live in the United States.
Because U.S. Latinos are young, they have a higher birthrate than white Americans. These
figures are even more dramatic considering that by the year 2030, Latinos will compose half of
all Texans,3 and that in 1998,47.5 percent of infants born in California were Latinos. Meanwhile,
Euro-American mothers accounted for 33.9 percent of infants born, followed by Asians and Pacific
Islanders with 10.7 percent, African Americans with 6.8 percent and Native Americans at 0.5 percent (see
Table l).4

Apart from differences in nationality among U.S. Latinos, class and gender differences also exist. U.S.
Latinos are represented in all classes. Recent studies show that Latino middle-class households earning more
than $40,000 have increased by 80 percent in the past 20 years.5 Nearly 42 percent of native-born or U.S.-born
Latino households were middle class in 1998 (up from 39 percent in 1979). The percentage of native-born
Latinos with a college education rose from 10.7 percent in 1979 to 15.4 percent in 1998, a gain of 43.9 percent
(see Table 3). Yet this gain was smaller with Mexican

Table 2

Mumford Estimates of U.S. Latino Population for 2000

Mexican 23,060,224

Puerto Rican 3,640,460

Cuban 1,315,346

Dominican 1,121,257

Central American 2,863,063

Costa Rican 111,672

Guatemalan 657,329

Honduran 362,171

Nicaraguan 294,334

Panamanian 164,371

Salvadoran 1,117,959

Other Central American 181,228

Argentinean 168,991

Bolivian 70,545

Chilean 117,698
Colombian 742,406

Ecuadorian 396,400

Paraguayan 14,492

Peruvian 381,850

Uruguayan 30,010

Venezuelan 149,309

Other South American 97,969

Other Hispanic 1,135,799

Source: John R. Logan, The New Latinos: Who They Are, Where They Are. Lewis Mumford Center, 10
September 2001.

Americans and U.S. Central Americans because these populations had more immigrants and were younger.
From 1979 to 1998, about 60 percent of Anglo families had become middle class while only 35 percent of all
Latino households, which included native born, were middle class. Significantly, poverty increased during this
period as families making less than $20,000 a year rose from 1.2 million to 2.6 million. In sum, the middle-
class Latino popu-

Table 3

2000 U.S. Census Comparison of Education and Poverty

Central

American

and Puerto South Other Non-

Mexican Rican Cuban American Hispanic Hispanic

Educational attainment Latino origin

Bachelor’s degree 5.1 8.6 13.9 11.8 8.9 18.1

Advanced degree 1.8 4.4 9.2 5.6 5.6 9.1

Less than high school

diploma 49.0 35.7 27.0 35.7 28.4 13.0

Family type and poverty status

Below poverty level 21.2 23.0 15.0 16.3 18.1 8.0

Married-couple families
below
 16.7 8.1 10.3 9.9 8.9 3.9
poverty level Male
householder,

no spouse present below

poverty level 15.8 19.0 19.8 19.0 17.5 10.7

Female householder,

no spouse present below

poverty level 38.4 47.4 33.8 32.0 40.0 26.1

Earnings

$50,000 to $74,999 7.4 13.1 10.1 8.6 12.0 19.8

$75,000 and over 2.1 4.3 11.7 4.1 7.0 14.3

Source: Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey, March 2000, Ethnic and Hispanic Statistics Branch, Population
Division. Internet Release Date: 6 March

2001.

lation was growing, making assimilation into U.S. society easier for many U.S. Latinos. Nevertheless, the
poverty rate for Latino children was also three times that of non-Latino white children. In other words, while
the U.S. Latino middle class was expanding, the poor were becoming poorer. Poverty among Latinos became
more acute as the government reduced benefits such as food stamps.6 The cause of this poverty among Latinos
was not that Latinos were not working. In 2000,80.4 percent of Latino males were working compared with
74.3 percent of non-Latino white males, suggesting that Latinos were poor not because they did not work, but
because employers did not pay Latinos sufficiently.7

As with class status, gender played a varying role within each nationality. In 2000, Latino males—
18,161,795 of them—outnumbered the 17,144,023 Larinas. (With whites, Asians, and blacks, the female
population outnumbered the male population.)8 However, this statistic adjusted itself as the population entered
their 20s, and by age 40 Larinas outnumbered Latino males. Latinas also differed from their male counterparts
in education, faring better in comparison to Latino males than to white women. For example, Latinas were less
likely to take the SAT exam than their white or Asian female counterparts, and when they did, Latinas scored
lower. Simultaneously, Latinas outnumbered Latinos in taking the SAT exam.9 Contributing to this education
gap is the fact that Latinos and Latinas are more likely to attend schools with lower percentages of certified
teachers than are white or Asian students. In addition, Latino students overall are underrepresented in Head
Start, early childhood developmental programs, after-school programs, and academic courses such as advanced
placement courses.10

Apart from this inequality, Latino families are four rimes more likely to be living in poverty' than white
families (14.2 percent compared with 3.3 percent) while Latino families headed by females were twice as
likely as their white counterparts to be living in poverty (38.8 percent compared with 18.6 percent). In
addition, 31.7 percent of Puerto Rican children lived in poverty.11 According to Census 2000, the median full-
time earnings for Latinas were $20,527, compared to white men who had earnings of $37,339.12 Taken as a
whole, Latina women in 1999 had a median income of $11,314 compared to $14,771 for black women and
$30,594 for white women.13 Among women, 56.5 percent of Latinas work outside the house compared to 60.8
percent of white women.14
WHERE DO LATINOS LIVE?

Where Latinos live greatly depends on when they came to the United States and on their economic class.
Of the Latino nations, Mexico is the closest in proximity to the United States. Thus, at first Mexicans resided
primarily in the border states and on the West Coast, but during the 1990s this changed and Mexicans spread
throughout the nation. Most of the new Latinos (close to 1.4 million) live in New York State and on the U.S.
mainland. At least 1.1 million Puerto Ricans of the 3.4 million on the mainland live in New York State (Puerto
Ricans are U.S. citizens and the island of Puerto Rico belongs to the United States, so Puerto Ricans are not
considered to be typical immigrants). Dominican immigration represents the second largest number of
Caribbean-Latino immigration, and they are concentrated in the Northeast. More than halt of all Cuban
Americans live in Miami; in fact, more than 85 percent live in four states: Florida, New Jersey, New York, and
California. In recent years, the arrival of other Latino groups has challenged Cuban Americans. About 850,000
new Latinos arrived in Florida in the 1990s, and more than 500,000 Puerto Ricans live in Florida, along with
about 400,000 Mexicans.15 There are also 350,000 Puerto Ricans and 500,000 new Latinos in New Jersey. Of
the new immigrants, Central Americans are the most mobile, emigrating primarily from El Salvador,
Nicaragua, and Guatemala, and residing in California, Florida, New York, Texas, and Illinois. In contrast to
other Latinos, most South Americans came to the United States for professional and, to a lesser extent,
political reasons, and most hold white-collar, scientific, or executive positions; in recent years, however, a core
of lower middle- and working-class South Americans have emigrated to the United States. About

500.0 South Americans live in New York State, many of whom are new arrivals.16 Ecuador and Peru also
have large concentrations of immigrants on the East Coast.

According to Census 2000, half the nation’s Latinos live in two states: California and Texas. More than
one in five Latinos live in the Los Angeles region. California had almost as many new Latinos arriving during
the 1990s as did New York, close to 1.4 million, though the Mexican population eclipses them. Southern
California houses four of the top 10 communities of at least

100.0 Latinos nationwide. Unincorporated East Los Angeles ranks first and is 96.8 percent Latino,
mostly of Mexican origin. The city of Santa Ana ranks seventh, El Monte, eighth and Oxnard ninth. California
houses one- third of U.S. Latinos; about one-quarter of its overall population is of Mexican ancestry. People of
Mexican background also represent about one- quarter of all Texans.17

Mexican Americans compose a large portion of the Latino population of Harris County, Texas, which
includes Houston (1.1 million); and Cook County, Illinois, which includes Chicago (1.1 million). New Mexico
has the largest percentage of U.S. Latinos of any state with 42 percent. But New Mexico is sparsely populated,
so each of the above counties actually has more

U.S. Latinos than New Mexico. Cubans dominate Miami-Dade (1.3 million) in Florida. According to the
census, 43.5 percent of the U.S. Latino population lives in the West, 32.8 percent in the South, 14.9 percent in
the Northeast, and 8.9 percent in the Midwest. Texas is much more diverse than in the 1980s, with 400,000
new Latinos arriving in the 1990s.

Thus, the growth and dispersal of the U.S. Latino population will have a dramatic impact on the nation.
Social scientists can no longer generalize that all Mexicans live in the Southwest or that all Latinos are
Mexican or Puerto Rican. In the future, Latinos will challenge American society, both culturally and
politically.
THE HISTORY
 Some Americans of Mexican descent were in the Southwest long before the Anglo Americans arrived in
what is now the United States. The Southwest became part of the United States because of two wars, the Texas
War of 1836 and the Mexican American War that ended in 1848 in which the United States took half of
Mexico’s land, and the Gadsden Purchase of 1853. The large- scale Mexican immigration throughout the
twentieth century augmented their numbers. Various factors drove Mexican immigration to the United States,
including the uprooting of Mexicans in the last quarter of the nineteenth century as the railroads, financed by
foreign capital, advanced the commercialization of agriculture, displacing many small farmers. In addition,
industrialization created a demand for Mexican workers in the United States. Labor contractors recruited them
to work on the railroads, mines, farms, stockyards, and in other industries. As the need for labor pulled
Mexicans into the United States, each wave of Mexican immigration met with intense discrimination as
Mexicans established colonies (colonias) and enclaves (barrios) and their own community, religious, and labor
organizations. During the first quarter of the twentieth century, the bulk of the Mexican migration to the United
States was to Texas and Arizona. However, by the second quarter of that century, California became a favorite
destination for Mexicans.

During the 1980s, Mexican immigrants continued overwhelmingly to settle in California. Changes took
place, and during the 1990s the trends shifted. Work opportunities in poultry plants, slaughterhouses, and
restaurants pulled Mexican immigrants to the South and Midwest. Mexicans also harvested tobacco and other
crops there. Besides a large population in California, Mexicans, along with other Latinos, now make up almost
one-quarter of the population in some counties of North Carolina, Georgia, Iowa, Arkansas, Minnesota, and
Nebraska. This movement has transformed the Mexican American population from a regional minority to a
national presence. This migration also paved the way for other Latinos, who in previous decades had primarily
moved to large cities.

Puerto Rico became a possession of the United States in 1898 after the Spanish-American War and the
signing of the Treaty of Paris. In reality, Puerto Ricans did not have a choice in this annexation. Ever since the
annexation, Puerto Ricans have struggled to define themselves, with some wishing to become a state within the
American republic and others fighting for the independence of Puerto Rico. Technically, Puerto Ricans
became American citizens in 1917 under the Jones Act, but conditions on the island resembled those of some
third-world countries. Puerto Ricans began trickling into the United States soon after annexation, and the 1920
census registered 41,094 Latinos in New York City alone. Of these, 21.2 percent were Cuban and West Indian,
17.9 percent Puerto Rican, and 18.9 percent were Central and South American. The rest of the Latino
population, almost 36 percent, was from Spain. This number grew to 110,223 ten years later, and the Puerto
Rican population grew to 40.7 percent (44,930).18 The Puerto Rican migration quickened and spread to other
parts around World War II. In the state of New York, the Puerto Rican population rose from 61,463 in 1940 to
811,843 in 1970.19

After 1959, with the success of the Cuban Revolution, Cuban political refugees came in larger numbers to
the United States. From 1959 to 1963,

215,0 Cubans arrived in the United States. The 1966 Cuban Adjustment Act gave Cubans political
asylum and made Cubans eligible for government- sponsored and subsidized programs.20 Cubans dominated
Miami, the closest city to Cuba, and formed a sizeable number in New York and New Jersey. The Miami
Cuban community grew from 50,000 to 580,000 between 1960 and 1980. The white upper- and middle-class
composition of Cubans gave them more power and visibility than other Latinos. Despite economic and social
advantages, however, Cubans suffered discrimination. Cubans also have remained culturally cohesive,
acculturating rather than assimilating into American society. Cuban Americans are far from homogeneous,
however. Although the first wave was mostly whites of Spanish origin (criollo), other waves in the 1980s
included working-class Africans as well as white and mixed blood Cubans.21 Cuban leader Fidel Castro
allowed 125,000 Cubans to leave the island in four months during the Mariel boat lift (named after the Port of
Mariel) in 1980. Meanwhile, economic conditions on the island worsened as subsidies from the Soviet Union
ended and a U.S. embargo isolated the Cuban government economically.

The Dominican Republic shares the large island of Hispaniola with Haiti, once a French possession. By
1960, 13,293 Dominicans lived in New York City; 10 years later, 66,914 resided there. The Dominican
migration accelerated in 1960 with the assassination of dictator Rafael Trujillo, a favorite of the United States.
This first wave of migration consisted of many wealthy Dominicans who had benefited from the Trujillo
regime. The United States invaded the Dominican Republic in the mid-1960s, and between 1966 and 1978 the
dictatorship drove many progressives out of the country. According to one observer, the Dominicans “[I]n
steadily rising numbers but almost unnoticed .. . have been arriving for almost four decades now. Outside New
York City and a few other places in the northeast, not many Americans seemed to have noticed their growing
presence.”22 Perhaps the Dominican Republic is best known for is its baseball superstars such as Sammy Sosa,
Alex Rodriguez, and Manny Ramirez. Between 1961 and 1986 some 400,000 Dominicans migrated to the
United States, primarily to New' York City, with another

44,0 migrating to Puerto Rico. (Today there are more than 300,000 Dominicans in Puerto Rico.) While
Census 2000 counted 764,945 Dominicans, other sources estimated that there were 1.5 million Dominicans by
2000. (The Dominicans have a sizeable undocumented population.) While many Dominicans are poor, the
population has a sizeable middle class that fled the island after the overthrow' of Trujillo, and who now operate
businesses in the United States.23

Central Americans are the newest arrivals, representing 4.8 percent of the U.S. Latino presence. (This
probably is a dramatic undercount.) In 20 years, Central Americans have developed many eateries and
community organizations. In addition, 1979 w'as a watershed year for Central America, and larger numbers
began arriving in the United States because of the instability back home. The overthrow' of dictator Anastacio
Somoza in Nicaragua destabilized the region, and rebels launched wars of liberation in Guatemala and El
Salvador, w here the military killed 200,000 and 50,000, respectively. To a lesser extent, Panamanians,
Hondurans, and Costa Ricans also migrated north. Generally, Central Americans as a group are less educated,
work at menial employment, and are darker than South Americans and Cubans. Most live in Latino
neighborhoods, keeping their first culture intact.

In Nicaragua after the overthrow of Somoza, the Sandinista Party assumed control of the government. The
Sandinistas sought economic aid, which the Soviet Union volunteered. The United States funded the
counterrevolutionaries, w'hom Americans called Contras, and because of the U.S. economic embargo, the
Sandinista government w'as unable to stabilize. In the 1980s, one-tenth of Nicaraguans left their country, a
third of them college-educated, white-collar w'orkers, or businesspeople. Many Nicaraguans entered the
United States as political refugees and many settled in the Miami area. In 1980, an estimated 25,000
Nicaraguans lived in the United States; in 2000 the census reported the number rose to 177,684.24

The largest group of Central Americans is Salvadoran, who have large populations in Southern California,
Houston, Washington, D.C., and New York. Most came to the United States because a bloody civil war ripped
through the country from 1980 to 1992. After Puerto Rico, El Salvador is the most densely populated country
in Latin America. The Civil War there had many causes, not the least of which was the monopoly of the
country’s land by slightly more than a dozen elite families. During the 1980s, the military imposed a
dictatorship as the guerrilla forces under the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN) fought to
break this control. The 1980 census counted about 30,000 Salvadorans in the United States; the 2000 Census
counted 655,165 Salvadorans. The number is likely to be closer to one million. Salvadorans have been very
active in the United States, building an impressive organizational infrastructure, integrating into trade unions,
and bringing lawsuits over their immigration status.

Guatemala has been in political turmoil for much of its existence. The latest civil war came about when the
CIA sponsored the overthrow of President Jacob Arbenz in 1954 when he threatened the plantations of the
United Fruit Co. The civil war escalated in the 1980s as the United States supported the military government,
and the military killed more than 200,000 Guatemalans. The 1980 census showed about 71,000 Guatemalans
living in the United States This number grew from 230,000 in 1990 to 372,487 in 2000. According to some
sources, most of the Guatemalans in the United States are of Mayan origin for whom Spanish is a second
language. Many Guatemalans are former villagers whom the military drove off their land. Guatemalans are
more dispersed within areas than Salvadorans and live primarily in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago,
Houston, and Washington, D.C., where they share space with other Latinos. Many also are farm workers.

Although Honduras did not experience the civil turmoil of El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Guatemala,
Honduras was used as a base of operations by both the CIA and the Nicaraguan Contras. The 2000 census
recorded 217,569 Hondurans in the United States; Hondurans have settled in California, southern Florida, and
New York. The Honduran population is diverse, with a large community of Honduran Garifuna, black
English-speaking Hondurans from the Caribbean coast, settling in the Bronx and parts of Brooklyn in New
York. Although wealthier Hondurans also have migrated to the United States, a sizeable number work as
migrant farm workers.

The other Central American nations have sent fewer immigrants to the United States. Costa Rica has
enjoyed relative peace and prosperity, and therefore has not sent large numbers of immigrants. The largest
concentration of Costa Ricans is in the Miami area, because Miami is a major financial and business center for
Latin America. However, Costa Ricans are also found in Los Angeles and New York City.

A construct of the United States, Panama came about in the early 1900s when the United States wanted to
build a canal. The United States fomented a revolution there, which caused Panama to get its independence
from Colombia in 1903. Like most people of the region, many Panamanians are of mixed blood—Indian and
Spanish; however, the African admixture (West Indians brought to the canal to work and never taken back) has
been significant, along with some of Chinese and Hindu ancestry.25

Before the 1980s, most South Americans were either political exiles or they were wealthier than the other
U.S. Latino groups and lived apart from them. Today, South Americans account for 3.8 percent of the Latino
total. The South American bloc is smaller than the rest largely because of distance and the cost of
transportation, which until recently was prohibitive for most people. A good number of South American
immigrants are political refugees, and as a group, most are better off than the rest of U.S. Latinos. For
example, many Argentines came to the United States between 1976 and 1983 during the Dirty War. In
addition, many Argentine Jews fled the country because of anti-Semitism. One in five Argentines who fled
settled in the New York City area and another part settled in Miami. The current economic crisis is also driving
them out of Argentina. Their numbers, however, remain relatively low. Fewer immigrants have entered from
Bolivia because the cost and difficulty of travel keep them from migrating in larger numbers.

The Colombian migration took place during the 1950s and early 1960s during the civil war called La
Violencia (The Violence), in which hundreds of thousands of Colombians were killed. Many middle-class
Colombians and merchants migrated to the United States during this period. The growth of the drug cartels
created instability during the late 1970s, which encouraged more Colombians to migrate out of the country.
The Colombian American population stood at 77,000 in the 1970s and escalated to around 470,000 by the year
2000. Colombians live primarily in New York City, New Jersey, and Miami.26

Bad governments have afflicted Ecuador and have caused hundreds of thousands of Ecuadorians of all
classes to migrate to the United States. Cheaper transportation has made emigration easier for Ecuadorians.
Miami became a sort of Ellis Island for Ecuadorians and other immigrants from South America. Some 60
percent live in New York City, and another 10 percent live in Los Angeles.

The pattern of Peruvians entering the United States was similar to other South Americans, with the wave
in the 1950s and 1960s being primarily middle class, followed by a larger wave of 100,000 Peruvians in the
second half of the 1980s as political and economic instability gripped the country. An estimated 200,000
Peruvians live in the New York tri-state area, and another 230,000 are spread out nationally. Educator Felipe
Reinoso became the first Peruvian American elected as a Connecticut state senator in 2000.27

Venezuelans arrived during the 1980s because of an economic crash. Before this, Venezuela had enjoyed
relatively good times and did not have much emigration because of the boom in oil. Today fewer than 100,000
live mostly in Florida, New York City, and other major East Coast cities.

Many Chileans arrived after the CIA’s overthrow of Chilean president Salvador Allende in 1973. More
than a million Chileans left the country between 1973 and 1990; however, few migrated to the United States.
Many Chileans returned to Chile after military dictator Augusto Pinochet left office, leaving about 69,000
Chileans currently living in the United States. The other Latin American countries—Bolivia, Paraguay and
Uruguay—have a relatively small presence.

Some U.S. Latino organizations consider immigrants from non-Spanish- speaking Latin American
countries such as Brazil and West Indies as U.S. Latinos. This argument also makes sense for French-speaking
Haitians who share the island with the Dominican Republic. The boat people from Haiti should be considered
Latinos as much as those of other nations. Haitians are from Latin America, and many U.S. Latinos can trace
back their ancestry to Africa. About 514,000 Haitians and West Indians, natives of the Bahamas, Barbados,
Jamaica, Trinidad, and Tobago, live in Florida. That makes Florida the West Indians’ second most popular
destination, slightly behind the state of New York, which has received Jamaicans and Haitians for decades.
Haitians and West Indians also have migrated to Boston.28 Many of these immigrants speak English or French
as do smaller number of Belizeans. Brazilians are considered Latinos; however, Brazilians speak Portuguese
and do not have a strong national presence in the United States.

THE CONTESTED IDENTITY

Identity among Latinos is contested because they are composed of disparate races and nationalities.
Roughly 60 percent of Latinos were U.S.-born, with great variations from group to group. (Puerto Ricans, for
instance, are U.S. citizens.) The rate of immigration plays a decisive role in Latino population growth: many
native-born Latinos are in fact the children of new immigrants, who themselves tend to be young and have
comparatively high fertility rates. Racially, Latinos are diverse. For example, Mexicans are mostly mestizos, a
mixture of Indian and Spanish (and to a lesser extent African and Asian); Puerto Ricans are a mixture of
African and Spanish and some Indian; whereas Nicaraguans are a mixture of Indian, Spanish, and African.
Latinos are similar to one another in that Latinos were all colonized; Spain conquered and controlled most of
them for more than 300 years. Consequently, most U.S. Latinos speak Spanish, although with different
intonations, something that is often not reflected in contemporary Hollywood movies. Latinos all have a strong
sense of connection with their mother countries, bringing with them historical memories and cultural
variations. At home, many continue eating foods favored in their mother countries, and these cuisines often
differ from Mexican cuisine, which the Mexican Indian has heavily influenced. Enchiladas, tacos, and mole are
all Mexican foods, and other U.S. Latinos do not necessarily eat spicy foods.

So why, if Latinos are different, do people use Hispanic or Latino as terms to describe their origin? The
best and most logical reason is that various federal programs require data on the ethnic makeup of the
community for federal affirmative action plans, community reinvestment reports, and public health service
requirements.29 Not everyone has the same needs, however. As mentioned, there is no one Hispanic or Latino
nationality. The terms themselves are misleading, since Hispanic technically means Spanish, and Latin
American countries fought wars of independence against Spain and formed separate nation-states. In addition,
the designation Latino refers to an Italian language. Both words have political baggage, especially for Mexican
Americans who, to avoid discrimination and to differentiate themselves from darker Mexicans, often call
themselves Spanish Americans or Latin Americans. Moreover, many Mexican Americans prefer the term
Chicano, which was adopted during the 1960s as a political term embracing collective responsibility to bring
about social change for their community and within the country.

In short, considerable controversy exists within the disparate Spanishspeaking populations about whether
Latino and/or Hispanic are valid terms. Because the same words are used to refer to different notions of their
identities, confusion is apt to result when speakers do not realize they are using these words with different
senses. When people use notions of race and gender, they understand and use them in different ways. When
they use terms such as Hispanic and Latino, are they referring to ethnicity, caste, or nationality? Being precise
is important, because these terms carry with them different meanings and interests. Realistically, are U.S.
Latinos ready to surrender their individual histories? This has not been the case with Jewish Americans, Irish
Americans, and others.

Using the term Latino also raises a concern of African Americans. In the view of some African Americans,
the broadness of the term, Latino has cut ever-shrinking civil rights entitlements too many ways. Critics charge
that all too often Latinos stretch the notion of the entitlements of the civil rights acts. African Americans argue
that entitlements should be limited to identifiable racial and ethnic minorities who have suffered historical
discrimination that has resulted in economic, social, and political disadvantages. African Americans point out
that Spaniards and Italians do not meet this criterion.30
ABOUT THIS BOOK

The book is divided into 10 chapters, each addressing an important and controversial issue pertinent to
Latinos. A background section introduces each chapter about U.S. Latino communities and their history, then
frames each issue, after which arguments for and against the issue are presented, followed by a section with
questions for the students to discuss and debate. At the end of the chapter there are selected readings for the
student who wants further information as well as relevant Web sites. Additional Internet sites can be found
through Google, America Online, or other search engines.

The first chapter is on race classifications. In the 2000 census, close to half the Latino population classified
itself as white. This has led to a debate about the reasons for this. Opinions range. Some say that classifying
Latinos as white dilutes the identity of white Americans. Others respond that it does not matter. The question
here is presented so it introduces students to the notion of race, which has been one of the most overriding and
divisive issues in U.S. history. It is an issue that potentially divides U.S. Latinos, hence the term contested
identity.

Chapter 2 is about assimilation. Historically assimilation meant almost complete absorption into American
society, leaving only symbolic veneers to the immigrant identity. For example, cynics may ask what remains
of Italian culture among Italian Americans other than pizza and the Godfather movies. In reality, the question
of assimilation has wider implications. American conservatives are waging a culture war in America
concerning whether minorities should forget the past and melt in. Arguments are presented from both sides.

Chapter 3 deals with bilingual education. The debate over bilingual education has raged in most parts of
the country, with opponents trumpeting that the official language of America is English and that bilingual
education dilutes that mission and divides people. Most U.S. Latinos have interpreted this attitude as an attack
on them and have responded negatively to ballot initiatives such as California’s Proposition 227. The issue has
divided many Americans and promises to continue raising questions in the future as U.S. Latino, as well as
Asian, populations grow and seek to retain their original languages.

Chapter 4 is about borders. The United States shares about 2,000 miles of borders with Canada and
Mexico. Because of the higher standard of living in the United States—Americans consume about 50 percent
of the world’s resources—it is a desirable place for those wanting to emigrate. Consequently, large waves of
both authorized and unauthorized immigrants have entered the United States since the 1970s, touching off
nativist reactions from some white Americans worried that people who differ racially and culturally may not
assimilate (or will assimilate) into American society.

Chapter 5 addresses the issue of affirmative action, which is again part of an ongoing national debate on
how best to achieve equality in our society. Affirmative action is a wedge issue that divides society between
liberals and conservatives and between whites and people of color. The debate is part of the culture war in the
United States, which raged during the second half of the 1990s and still demands attention.

Chapter 6 involves interracial dating and marriage. With Latinos, the acceptance of interracial dating and
marriage depends on housing patterns and regional differences, as well as the country of origin and the
darkness of the individual U.S. Latino’s skin. The acceptance of interracial dating also depends on whether the
minority partner conforms to the majority culture. For example, interracial dating and marriage is much more
problematic in Georgia and Mississippi than it is in Florida. The issue is also a question of different
generational responses.

Chapter 7 explores public funding for education and health services to undocumented immigrants and their
families. The issue of immigration is complex. Some estimates say there are as many as 7 million to 8 million
undocumented immigrants in the United States. American-first groups say the U.S. taxpayer should not pay for
the education and medical care of people who have broken the law and are in the United States illegally.
Others respond that 80 percent plus of the U.S. Latino population work and pay taxes (in comparison to
slightly less than 75 percent of white males) and contribute to society and that everyone has a constitutional
right to an education. They argue that the reason that undocumented and other poor Latinos have to seek
subsidized medical care is because employers are not paying for the cost of social production. These arguments
often are heated, with one side accusing the other of being un-American or racist.

Chapter 8 addresses immigration and amnesty for unauthorized immigrants. Again, the pro and con
arguments verge on the personal, with many Americans asking w hy those without papers should be rewarded
and given preference over applicants who followed the law and are waiting their turn in line. This mind-set
generates an equally vehement response from supporters of amnesty, who say that the debate is not about
something as trivial as buying tickets to a movie theater, but about gaining entrance to a country. Either
directly or indirectly, pro-immigrant forces say the United States has created the conditions that have led to the
unauthorized migration and that amnesty just periodically adjusts for a phenomenon that gets out of hand.
 The last two chapters concern the question of sovereignty and other issues specifically regarding Cuba and
Puerto Rico. Chapter 9 discusses the military and political presence of the United States in Cuba. While the
various nationalities under the U.S. Latino label are alike, often looking and sounding alike to the majority
culture, showing that there are differences is important. Whether the United States is violating the sovereignty
of Cuba is discussed with regards to the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay and how the Cuban government wants
the United States out. Also discussed is the U.S. economic embargo of Cuba, which does not allow American
farmers or many other countries to trade with Cuba and does not allow Americans to travel there. Having
troops on Cuban soil and the embargo are hot issues on which not all of the U.S. Latino groups agree.

Finally, chapter 10 centers on Puerto Rico, which is part of the United States and has commonwealth
status. The chapter presents the question: what rights do the Puerto Rican people have to limit military
exercises on the adjoining island of Vieques? The answers are complex, controversial, and involve different
points of view, even among Puerto Ricans.

In sum, the format of the book is designed to encourage discussion, and the topics are more often
controversial than not, which will hopefully open the door to further debate. Scholars keep talking about the
search for truth, but we package much of our knowledge in sound bytes, and what we know as we reduce truth
to acceptable paradigms is that we are free to deduce the answer without going outside the official model to
explore other possibilities.

NOTES

1. George Benge, “NAHJ Focuses on Impact of Hispanic Culture, Growth in Communities,” Gannett
Co. Inc.y http://www.gannett.com/go/newswatch/2001/July/ nw0706-l .htm, accessed 23 July 2003. Also
see Rev. Lawrence Dowling, “US Bishops Reflect on Pastoral Impact of Fewer Priests,” National
Federation of Priests’ Councils (excerpt from Fall 2000-Touchstone), http://www.nfpc.org/RESEARCH-
RPTS/ pastoral-impact.html, accessed 1 August 2003.

2. John R. Logan, “The New Latinos: Who They Are, Where They Are,” Lewis Mumford Center, 10
September 2001, http://mumfordl.dyndns.org/cen2000/
HispanicPop/HspReport/HspReportPagel.html,accessed 23 July 2003.

3. Mark Babineck, “Demographer: Texas Likely to Become Majority Hispanic in 2030s,” Associated
Press Newswires, 19 December 2001, http://www.amarilionet.com/ stories/12201/tex_facesof.html, accessed
23 July 2003. The Texas Stare Data Center released three sets of projections.

Reuters News Service, “Majority of Babies Born in California Are Hispanic,” Deseret News, 20
4.
December 2001.

5. Valeria Godines, “Hispanic Incomes Gaining: ICI Professor Measures a Commonly Overlooked
Group, the Latino Middle Class/' The Orange County Register, 11 April 2001; “National Study Finds 80
Percent Growth in Latino Middle Class Over Past 20 Years/’ NoticiasWire.com,
www.noticiaswire.com/experts_research/midlat/ print.html, accessed 23 July 2003.

6. Jim Jaffe and Michelle Bazie, “Poverty Rates Fell in 2000 as Unemployment Reached 31-Year
Low: Upturn in Unemployment Combines with Weakness in Safety Net Raise Red Flags for 2001,” Center
on Budget and Policy Priorities, 26 September 2001, www.centeronbudget.org/9-25-01pov.htm, accessed 23
July 2003.

7. Raul Yzaguirre, “Census Shows Disparity in Education of Latino Children,” Hispanic Online Hispanic
Magazine.com, April 2001, www.hispanicmagazine.com/ 2001/apr/Forum, accessed 23 July 2003.
 8. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000 Briefs, http://www.census.gov/populations/
www/cen2000/briefs.html, accessed 23 July 2003. Also see Denise I. Smith and Renee E. Spraggins,
Gender 2000: Census Brief September 2001, http://www.census.gov/ prod/2001pubs/c2kbr0l-9.pdf, accessed
23 July 2003.

9. “Are American’s Schools Leaving Latinas Behind? New Report Identifies Steps to Advance
Educational Outcomes,” Noticiaswire Press Release, http://www. noticiasw
ire.com/experts_research/lat_behind,accessed 23 July 2003.

10. Raul Yzaguirre, “Census Shows Disparity in Education of Latino Children,” Hispanic Online Hispanic
Magazine.com, April 2001, www.hispanicmagazine.com/ 2001/apr/Forum, accessed 23 July 2003.

11. Ibid.

12. “Raceand Pay Equity,” POLICY BRIEF: National Committee for Pay Equity,
http://www.feminist.com/fairpay/brief.htm, accessed 23 July 2003.

13. Census Information Center, “Hispanic Income Fact Sheet,” National Council of La Raza, November
2000, http://www.nclr.org/policy/census.html, accessed 23 July 2003. This Web site provides links to
various studies.

14. Georgia Pabst, “Census Data Show Impact for Latinos but Future Work Force Continues to
Struggle, Group’s Report Says,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 16 July 2001,
http://www.jsonline.com/news/census2000/jul0l/censusl6071501 .asp, accessed 23 July 2003. “More than
one-third of Latinos are under the age of 18, and half are under the age of 26.”

15. John R. Logan, “The New Latinos: Who They Are, Where They Are,” Lewis Mumford Center, 10
September 2001, http*//mumfordLdyndns.org/cen2000/
HispanicPop/HspReport/HspReportPagel.html,accessed 23 July 2003.

16. Ibid.

17. According to Jeffrey Passel, a demographer at the Urban Institute, a Washington, D.C., think-tank,
“The Mexican-origin population is what’s driving the growth in the Hispanic population,” quoted in
Patrick J. McDonnell, “Mexicans Change Face of U.S. Demographics Census: Study shows Latinos on
rise, settling in many parts of country,” Los Angeles Times, 10 May 2001. See also Bureau of the Census,
The Hispanic Population: Census 2000 Brief May 2001, http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2001/ cb01-
81.html, accessed 23 July 2003.

18. Agustin
Lao-Montes, introduction to Mambo Montage: The Latinization of New York City, ed. Agustin
Lao-Montes and Arlene Davila (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001), 19-20.

19. See http://www.boricua.com, accessed 31 July 2003. It is a valuable tool in accessing

contemporary Puerto Rican Web sites.

20. Latinos
in the United States,” The National Association of Hispanic Journalists,
http://www.nahj.org/resourceguide/chapter_3c.html, accessed 23 July 2003. A good overview of disparate
groups.

21. Susan A. Vega Garda, “Recommended U.S. Latino Web Sites Diversity and Ethnic Studies,”
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~savega/usjatin.htm, accessed 24 July 2003. Gives a good overview and
links of available Latino Web sites.
 22. See the Dominican Studies Institute at the City University of New York,
http://www.ccny.cuny.edu/dsi/about.htm, accessed 24 July 2003.

23. Max J. Castro, “Making Pan Latino: Latino Pan-Ethnicity and the Controversial Case of the
Cubans,” http://personal.law.miami.edu/~lvaldes/latcrit/archives/harvard/ castro.htm, accessed 24 July
2003; see also “Latinos in the United States,” The National Association ofHispanic Journalists,
http://www.nahj.org/resourceguide/chapter_3c.html, accessed 23 July 2003.

24. “Latinos in
the United States,” The National Association of Hispanic Journalists,
http://www.nahj.org/resourceguide/chapter_3c.html,accessed 23 July 2003.

25. Ibid.

26. “Latinos in the United States,” The National Association of Hispanic Journalists,
http://www.nahj.org/resourceguide/chapter_3c.html, accessed 23 July 2003; Juan Gonzalez, Harvest of
Empire: A History of Latinos in America (New York: Penguin, 2000); Earl Shorris, Latinos Biography of a People
(New York: Norton, 1992); Roberto Suro, Strangers among Us: Latinos’Lives in a Changing of America (New York:
Vintage Books, 1999).

27. “Latinos in the United States,” The National Association of Hispanic Journalists,
http://www.nahj.org/resourceguide/chapter_3c.html,accessed 23 July 2003.

28. Miranda Leitsinger, “West Indian Numbers Boom; Florida ‘Capitol of the Caribbean’,” Associated
Press Newswires, 15 December 2001; Sosyete Koukouy (Haitian group),
http://www.librerimapou.com/cultural.html, accessed 24 July 2003; Jamaica Awareness, Inc.,
http://www.jamaicaawareness.com, accessed 24 July 2003; Leslie Cas- imir, “Census: 36 Percent of City
Foreign-Born,” New Tork Daily News, 21 November 2001,
http://www.npg.org/states/statenews/ny_listserv.html, accessed 24 July 2003. More than a third of New
Yorkers were born in another country. New York’s West Indian population is estimated at 589,000 and
consists largely of Jamaicans (220,085) and Haitians (147,911).

29. Bureau of the Census, “Why a Question on Hispanic or Latino Origin? Various Federal Programs
Require Data on the Ethnic Make-Up of the Community,” http://
www.census.gov/mso/www/rsf7racedata/tsld010.htm, accessed 24 July 2003.

30. Jose Cisneros et al. v. Corpus Christi Independent School District et al. Civ. A. No. 68-C-95. United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division 324 F. Supp. 599; 1970 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 11469. 4 June 1970. This decision held that Mexican Americans were “an identifiable ethnic class
who have suffered de jure and de facto segregation, who are protected as a class under the Fourteenth
Amendment and the laws of the United States, who are now being subjected to a dual school system in
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and the laws of the United States, and who the court has found
should be, and are, protected, and who should be in a unitary school system.”
SELECTED WORKS

Acuna, Rodolfo. Occupied America: A History of Chicanos. 5th ed. New York: Longman, 2003.

Cruz, Jose E. Identity and Power: Puerto Rican Politics and the Challenge of Ethnicity. Philadelphia, Pa.: Temple
University Press, 1998.

Davila, Arlene. Latinos Inc.: Tlje Marketing and Making of a People. Berkeley, Calif.: University of
California Press, 2001.
 Garza, Hedda, and James Cockcroft. Latinas: Hispanic Women in the United States. Albuquerque, New
Mexico: University of New Mexico Press, 2001.

Gonzalez, Juan. Harvest of Empire: A History of Latinos in America. New York: Penguin Books, 2000.

Grenier, Guillermo J., Lisandro Perez, and Nancy Foner. Legacy of Exile: The Cubans in the United States.
Allyn & Bacon New Immigrants Series. New York: Allyn & Bacon, 2003.

Grieco, Elizabeth M., and Rachel C. Cassidy. Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin. U.S. Census Brief,
March 2001. http://\vww.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/ c2kbr01-l.pdf. Accessed 24 July 2003.

Guzman, Betsy. Tlje Hispanic Population. Census 2000 Brief U.S. Census Bureau. May 2001.
http;//\\’ww.census.gov/prod/200lpubsZc2kbr3sp.pdf Accessed 24 July 2003.

Hamilton, Nora, and Norma Stoltz Chinchilla. Seeking Community in a Global City: Guatemalans and
Salvadorans in Los Angeles. Philadelphia, Pa.: Temple University Press, 2001.

Lao-Montes, Agusrin and Arlene Davila, eds. Mambo Montage: The Latinization of New York City. New
York: Columbia University Press, 2001.

“Latinos in the United States.” The National Association of Hispanic Journalists,

http://www.nahj.org/resourceguide/chapter_3c.html. Accessed 23 July 2003.

Logan, John R. The New Latinos: Who They Are, Where They Are. Lewis Mumford Center, 10 September
2001. http://mumfordl.dyndns.org/cen2000/Hispanic Pop/HspReport/HspReportPagel.html. Accessed
24 July 2003.

Mahler, Sarah J. and Nancy Foner, eds. Salvadorans in Suburbia: Symbiosis and Conflict. New York: Allyn &
Bacon, 1996.

Marquez, Benjamin and James Jennings, “Representation by Other Means: Mexican American and
Puerto Rican Social Movement Organizations,” PS: Political Science and Politics 33 (3): 541ft (September
2000).

Menjivar, Cecilia. Fragmented Ties: Salvadoran Immigrant Netivorks in America. Berkeley, Calif.: University
of California Press, 2000.

Oboler, Suzanne. Ethnic Labels, Latino Lives: Identity and the Politics of (Re)presentation in the United States.
Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minneapolis Press, 1995.

Paley, Grace. A Dream Compels Us: Voices of Salvadoran Women. Cambridge, Mass.: South End Press,
1990.

Pardo, Mary. Mexican American Women Activists: Identity and Resistance in Two Los Angeles Communities. Philadelphia, Pa.:
Temple University Press, 1998.

Rodriguez, Clara E. Changing Race: Latinos, the Census, and the History of Ethnicity in the United States. New York: New
York University Press, 2000.

---- . Puerto Ricans: Born in the U.S.A.. Boulder, Colo.: YVestview Press, 1991.

Santa Ana, Otto. Brown Tide Rising: Metaphors of Latinos in Contemporary American Public Discourse. Austin, Tex.:
University of Texas Press, 2002.

Shorris, Earl. Latinos Biography of a People. New York: Norton, 1992.

Smith, Denise, and Renee E. Spraggins. Gender: 2000. U.S. Census. September 20 .

http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-9.pdf. Accessed 23 July 2003. Suro, Roberto.

Strangers among Us: Latinos’ Lives in a Changing of America. New York: Vintage Books, 1999.

[R1]Jens Manuel Krogstad and Mark Hugo Lopez, Hispanic population reaches record 55 million, but growth has
cooled,” Pew Research Center, June 25, 2015, http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/25/u-s-hispanic-
population-growth-surge-cools/

[R2]Ana Gonzalez-Barrera, More Mexicans Leaving Than Coming to the U.S.,” Pew Research Center, November
19, 2015.

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-than-coming-to-the-u-s/