|
Volume 1 Issue 1 (2003)
Working Text: Latinos and Political Interventions
Roberto Aponte
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology
Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis
Abstract
This essay was one of three “Working Texts” that
served as catalysts for discussion and debate during the Latinos 2000 conference
held at Dartmouth College in February 2000. The author offers a broad overview
of the problems that face Latinos/as in the political sphere and argues that
in order for the vast majority of Latinos/as to achieve the “American
Dream,” serious reforms in public policy will be required.
Introduction
It is by now a matter of common knowledge that Latinos will surpass
African Americans in numeric strength by halfway into this new decade, thereby
attaining the distinction of comprising the country's largest minority. It is
just as clear, however, that all is not well among the nation's Latinos and that
their future prospects are far from reassuring. It is suggested here that in
order for the vast majority of Latinos to achieve the "American Dream", serious
reforms in public policy will be required.
However, a major share of the rapid Latino growth of recent decades has
been due to migration. For some, this undermines the legitimacy of calls for
reforms on behalf of the group. This sort of reasoning is patently wrongheaded
on several grounds. First off, only a portion of the Latino population is
immigrant --the vast majority were born citizens, while most others have been
duly naturalized. Second, research clearly shows that immigrants generally, but
especially Latinos, contribute more to governmental revenues in taxes than they
receive in public provisions, particularly since they are often denied many
public benefits.
Finally, it is worth emphasizing that Latino migration to the United
States has hardly been a self-initiated process. Rather, the roots of these
transplantations have been economic and political interventions by U.S.
interests into Latin America. For example, the complete takeover of Puerto Rico
and partial incorporation of Mexico, followed by decades of sporadic labor
recruitment of the groups, mainly account for the fact that Mexicans and Puerto
Ricans are today the largest Latino nationality groups in the US
mainland.
Despite the legitimacy of our presence and our well-known contributions
to the nation--in the labor force, in revitalizing areas, in the arts and
sciences, in the armed forces during wartime, etc.-- far too many among us are
ill, destitute, educationally deprived, institutionalized, or die young, while
many more toil for long hours at arduous tasks, but remain teetering on the
brink. Yet, it is likely that much of this human suffering need not occur at
all, or can be easily addressed through governmental action.
One caveat is in order here. Just as Latinos hail from many different
nations, so too have they experienced different patterns in their respective
processes of integration. Such differences, whether minor or major, cannot be
fully accounted for here. Suffice to say that the problems and polices to be
discussed here are of at least some relevance to all Latino groups.
Issues
The scope of the problem is easily shown. Throughout the 1990s, the
poverty rate for Whites [referring to non-Hispanic Whites as data permit]
remained under 10 percent, while those for Blacks [African Americans] and
Latinos each hovered in the 25-30 percent range. Indeed, in 1994, the rate for
Latinos surpassed that for Blacks for the first time; thereafter, the groups'
rates have remained close. What's more, a substantial portion of these groups
command incomes just barely over the poverty line. That the latter portions
also experience substantial deprivation is validated by the government's own
agencies, since numerous means-tested subsidy programs allow for incomes well
above the poverty line.
Median household income figures tell a similar story. Those for 1998
show Whites commanding $42.4 thousand yearly, Blacks $25.4 thousand, and Latinos
$28.3 thousand. While this would suggest that Latinos are better off than
African Americans, the figures mislead in this instance. The problem can be
seen by looking at the corresponding figures on per capita income. Whereas
Whites led the groups with $23.0 thousand in such income, Blacks came in second
at $13.0 thousand, and Latinos were last at only $11.4 thousand. The reason for
this is that Latinos have significantly larger households. That translates into
both more workers per household --hence more earnings-- but also more
dependents. Thus, the additional dollars have to support more people as well.
On balance, then, the two minorities fare about the same --far below
Whites!
The larger number of workers per household among Latinos also reflects
their higher labor force participation, which leads directly to another
important point. Latinos are far more likely to be "working poor" than the
others, despite having more workers per household. For example, some 29 percent
of poor Latino families were headed by a full time/full year worker in 1998, as
compared with only 24 percent of poor White ones and 19 percent of poor Black
ones. Among Mexican origin families, the largest Hispanic grouping and the one
with the most immigrants, the percentage is higher still (while it is generally
lower for Puerto Ricans).
A key reason for this is the fact that Latinos, especially Mexican
immigrants, are more likely to be mired in low wage service jobs and,
especially, harvesting and other backbreaking agricultural work. Not only does
such work entail rock-bottom wages, but it is often unregulated, corrupted by
exploitative practices, and not covered by such staples of working life as the
social security system!
One clear example of the consequences of this patterning concerns health
insurance. While the nation's health insurance crisis has grown steadily among
all groups, as of 1998, "only" 12 percent of Whites lacked coverage, whereas 22
percent of Blacks and a whopping 35 percent of Latinos did so!
Still another major way Latinos are handicapped concerns education.
Whereas 63 percent of Black adults [age 25 and over] and 78 percent of White
ones had at least a high school education in 1990, only half of such Latinos did
so. And while the latter figure is downwardly biased by the presence of recent
immigrants, few of whom are educated, immigration accounts for only part of the
gap. This is evident in that only 53 percent of Puerto Ricans, none of whom are
immigrants, had 12 years of schooling.
Another issue is discrimination. A widely publicized series of ploys
conducted by the research-oriented Urban Institute sought to determine if Blacks
and Hispanics faced job discrimination. They concocted resumes tailored to
present paired job seekers as equally qualified, then sent pairs of research
workers bearing these equalized credentials to job sites with advertised
openings. One in each pair of applicants was White, while the other was Black
or Latino. They found that within the Black-White pairs, Whites received
favorable treatment 21 percent of the time, while Blacks received favorable
treatment 7 percent of the time. By contrast, within the Latino-White pairs,
the corresponding favorable treatment figures were 31 percent for Whites and 11
percent for Latinos --an even wider gap!
Obviously, most of these factors are highly interrelated and linked to
material disadvantage. Among additionally related serious problems are Latinos'
disproportionate representation among street gangs, drug abusers, homicide
victims, the homeless, the prison population, and so forth. Clearly, poverty
can breed these problems, but it can also be caused by them. Adding to the
dilemma is the fact that the prospects for change in material conditions are
nil. Real wages among the less skilled and educated workers have been falling
for years, with no relief in sight. Is it possible that the problems have both
their roots and potential solutions in government policy?
Political
Interventions
There is an abundance of areas where better policies will both address
the existing dilemmas and prevent their recurrence and, of great significance,
such reforms would benefit a far greater aggregation of Americans than just
those of Hispanic origin. While only a few can be briefly reviewed here, they
speak directly to the issues noted above.
Health policy is a natural starting point. The US spends more money on
health care than any other nation, whether taken from the perspective of per
capita spending or as a percentage of GDP [gross domestic product], yet delivers
far less satisfactory service. Not only were over 44 million without coverage
in 1998 [including over 1/3 of all Latinos], but millions more were very unhappy
with their coverage [including the present author and everyone he
knows].
A comparison with Canada is instructive here. Canada, like virtually
every other industrialized nation on earth excluding the US, has a nationalized
health system. Whereas the US expended about 14.2 percent of its GDP on health
in the mid-1990s, Canada spent only about 9.8 of its GDP. Despite this, 1992
figures on health performance favor Canada hands down. Whereas US infant
mortality that year registered at 8.5 per thousand, Canada's rate was 6.1.
Likewise, life-expectancies for men and women, respectively, were 74.9 and 81.4
years in Canada, but only 72.3 and 79.1 years in the US. Indeed, in a recent
survey of 10 industrialized countries, US respondents were the least satisfied
with their systems, while Canadians were the most satisfied. What's more, even
Canadian physicians preferred their system over the "fee for service" variety of
the US. Clearly, US health policy is in critical condition and Latinos are
among its key casualties.
The criminal justice system is another case-in-point. The systematic
problems there, which detrimentally affect Latinos and other minorities, extend
far beyond the discriminatory treatment they frequently encounter --though that
is an obvious area of great concern. For example, in the early 1990s, the US
had far and away the highest rate of incarceration in the entire world! Whereas
some 519 people were imprisoned here for every 100,000 in the population, the
nation with the second highest number, Poland, experienced a corresponding rate
of only 160 persons. The vast majority of countries exhibit rates below 100
persons, many well below.
Despite this, the US remains the most violent society among the
industrialized countries, if not the entire world. For example, in the US, 9.4
persons of every 100,000 in the population were murdered in 1990. This compares
with the corresponding figures of 1.1 for England, Wales and France, 1.2 for
Germany and Norway, 1.3 Sweden, 1.4 for Switzerland, 1.7 for Scotland, and only
2.6 for Italy, despite the latter's distinction as the home nation of the US's
Mafia. Clearly, there are serious flaws in our system and at least two factors
stand out here --most other industrialized countries ban guns and regulate
drugs, rather than the other way around. This undermines access to guns and the
profitability of drug sales. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of our
prisoners, especially minority men, are in for drug and violence offenses, with
most of the latter cases involving firearms. In the meantime, crimes against
humanity [war crimes], crimes against the environment by corporations, crimes
against the constitution, such as conducting secret wars and lying to Congress,
etc., routinely go unpunished. A major overhaul would appear
necessary!
Our nation's social welfare policy also needs overhauling. Every single
industrialized nation on earth experiences lower rates of poverty than the US,
usually much lower. For example, a comparison of child poverty rates across the
US and fifteen Western industrialized nations found the US rate was greater than
three times higher [21.5 to 6.7] than the others' average rate! In addition to
nationalized health care systems, these nations all feature more liberalized
welfare policies [e.g., unemployment insurance, child allowances] than we do.
Contrary to US style conservative dogma, their systems have not wreaked havoc on
their economies or societies.
This country's educational institutions are yet another source of acute
inequalities that fall heavily on minority shoulders. Among the deepest
problems is per capita spending differences across districts. Virtually every
major city's central school districts are minority saturated and woefully under
funded, at the same time that surrounding suburban schools, particularly in the
wealthier districts, enjoy boundless amenities and near lily white
constituencies. Most other industrialized nations permit far fewer inequities
among public schools than the US [why should we?]. Other problems here include
the lack of commitment to such critical, minority-focused programs as bilingual
education and Affirmative Action.
Labor policies also need shoring up. The number and percentage of
"working poor" families has increased steadily during the past two decades; this
must be addressed. For example, the Earned Income Tax Credit [EITC] could be
expanded and its low level of participation could be addressed [perhaps through
increased outreach efforts]. Also, the range of coverage by the social security
system and minimum wage laws should be examined for potential expansion as
appropriate. It is also clear that anti-discrimination efforts need to be
stepped up. Likewise, laws need to be passed [or rescinded] that will put an
end to the second class treatment of immigrants. After all, beyond Native
Americans, we are essentially a nation of immigrants.
In short, there is a strong basis for the assertion that many current
policies have hindered, rather than served, the interests of most Americans,
including Latinos. Their reversal should provide substantial alleviation. But
it would be foolish to believe their particular features came about by chance or
benign misinformation. Rather, policies have generally taken their particular
forms because in that way they best serve the interests of particular
individuals or constituencies with influence. Overcoming such interests will
require more than mere intellectual strength. It will surely require a
substantial dose of political strength as well --for THAT is the stuff of
political interventions!
|
