Deep Down, Douthat Is Pretty Shallow

Ross Douthat must be a David Brooks protege. He's certainly adopted Brooks's penchant for making broad, provocative, icky ideological assertions unsupported by evidence beyond references to research that he doesn't seem to have read.

This technique is on display in his latest piece for the NYTimes, in which he argues, more or less, that Mexican immigrants are incapable of assimilating, so we shouldn't let any more of them in, and while we're at it, let's put the kibosh on Hispanic immigration in general.

It's Them Mexercans

He says the main immigration-reform proposal in Congress misapprehends two key points: "the assimilation patterns for descendants of Hispanic (particularly Mexican) immigrants and the socioeconomic disarray among the native-born poor and working class."

"Conservatives," he continues, "have long worried that recent immigrants from Latin America would assimilate more slowly than previous new arrivals — because of their sheer numbers and shared language, and because the American economy has changed in ways that make it harder for less-educated workers to assimilate and rise."

He Don't Need No Stinkin' Data

Douthat refers to, but doesn't actually cite, an 11-year-old study by the Public Policy Institute of California, Falling Behind or Moving Up? The Intergenerational Progress of Mexican Americans, and a more recent book by two UCLA sociologists, Generations of Exclusion (2009), to make the case that Mexicans just aren't getting with the American program, so let's just slooooow this immigration-reform train down.

He breezily pins the blame on the old standards: In addition to all that "socioeconomic disarray among the native-born poor and working class," there's "family breakdown [and] weakening communal ties" in the U.S. generally, and Mexican-Americans' "shared language" in particular, the ironically unspoken implication of this latter point being that because they're speaking Spanish and not English at home, the Mexican-American children are at a disadvantaged in an English-speaking economy and society.

If Only

That would be a good point, but it's not supported at all in the research Douthat cites. The 2002 study is focused almost exclusively on the links between educational attainment and economic progress and virtually nothing about "socioeconomic disarray," "family breakdown" or "weakening communal ties."

Instead, "Consistent with prior findings on minority-white attainment differentials, we find that family income plays an important role, explaining as much as 75 percent of the white-Mexican graduation gap."

It says the language spoken at home is an "insignificant" factor in high school graduation rates for Mexican American students; for "U.S.-born and near-native students ... speaking Spanish at home appears to confer no particular disadvantage on Mexican Americans."

Yeah, But ...

As for the 2009 book by the UCLA sociologists, Douthat says almost nothing other than that they discovered "stagnation and slippage for descendants of Mexican immigrants during the second half of the 20th century."

True. But they also found, according to the publisher's description, that "institutional barriers [are] a major source of Mexican American disadvantage. Chronic under-funding in school systems predominately serving Mexican Americans severely restrains progress. Persistent discrimination, punitive immigration policies, and reliance on cheap Mexican labor in the southwestern states all make integration more difficult."

Their prescription? Tighter immigration requirements? Stronger communal ties? Less Spanish and more English at the dinner table?

Nyet, Nyet, Nyet and Nyet

Instead, they authors call for "providing Mexican American children with the educational opportunities that European immigrants in previous generations enjoyed. The Mexican American trajectory is distinct -- but so is the extent to which this group has been excluded from the American mainstream."

If Now Them, Then Whom?

We know a few things:

• Native-born birthrates are insufficient to keep our workforce competitive, so we either bring in more people from elsewhere or accept that we're screwed.
• Education is the key to long-term economic and social success for individuals, communities, economies and societies, particularly pluralistic, democratic societies.
• Higher rates of educational attainment are associated with lower rates of infant mortality, better personal health, cleaner environments, happier people, and more peaceful and prosperous societies.
• The earlier kids start school, the better they do in school and life, and that the best way to achieve this is universal pre-K for 3- and 4-year-olds.

A smart guy like Ross Douthat might want to read some of those studies. Or just read the studies he cites a little more closely.

Postscript: Brooks has a rebuttal today that conflicts with Douthat on just about all the key assertions, including language and generational progress. Oooh! Whack Fight!

Ron Who?

Ah, the depth and brilliance of our Republican senators is on such wonderful display in this story.

There's Kelly Ayotte, with this penetrating, clear-eyed Yankee insight: “This is obviously an important issue."

And the ever puzzling Climate Hoax Inhofe, seen here fulminating against the parents of Newtown's slaughtered children for having the temerity to participate in the process when, after all, this gun debate thing "has nothing to do with them and they know that."

Kudos to Ron Johnson -- I know: Who? -- for defiantly asserting that he "took an oath to uphold the Constitution." Perhaps one day he'll take an oath to read the thing, too.

And of course, we are elevated by the meditations of that profile in courage Rob Portman, he who changed his position on gay marriage only after his son came out. Senator Portman remains wracked and undecided on this issue that has been debated for, oh, 50 years. Presumably, his vote will depend on whether a family member is shot by a nut with a gun before the roll is called.