Ellen Ochoa – astronaut

Ellen Ochoa has a life story that highlights just how well second generation immigrants from Mexico are doing in America today! Her story should inspire us all, especially the children and grandchildren of immigrants from third world nations. Ellen Ochoa’s origins are humble, but she reached for and realized the American dream, becoming a PhD, an engineer, the world’s first female Hispanic astronaut, and now the director of one of NASA’s premier facilities, the Johnson Space Center, also known as mission control.

Early Life and Family of Ellen Ochoa

Ellen Ochoa – child

Ellen Ochoa was born in 1958 in Los Angeles, one of five children of Joseph and Roseanne Ochoa. Joseph Ochoa was a retail store manager, and Roseanne Ochoa a homemaker. Ellen grew up mostly in La Mesa, California.

Joseph was born and raised in Arizona to immigrant parents from Sonora, Mexico, one of 12 children. His parents were born in the 1870s, and his father was a newspaper editor in Mexico, then owned a store in Arizona. Ellen didn’t know her grandparents, as they were already in their 80s when she was born, but certainly their hard working immigrant values and ambition passed down to Ellen. Had they still been alive for Ellen’s first space flight, we can be sure they would have felt immense pride.

While growing up in Arizona, Joseph felt the sting of rampant discrimination against Hispanics, for example Hispanics were only allowed to use the public pool the day before cleaning because it was felt they dirtied the pool. Though Joseph was bilingual, he spoke English only at home, not wanting to teach his children Spanish, fearing the lash of discrimination he had experienced if they spoke Spanish or spoke English with an accent.

Roseanne Ochoa, mother of five, began part-time college studies when Ellen Ochoa was just one, and though she could only take one class at a time and didn’t graduate from college until 22 years later, her example of perseverance clearly inspired Ellen Ochoa to excel in school.

Joseph and Roseanne Ochoa divorced when Ellen was in junior high school, and Ellen and her four siblings lived with their mother.

Education of Ellen Ochoa

Ellen Ochoa was an excellent student, and despite the trauma of her parents’ divorce, Ellen graduated as valedictorian of Grossmont High School in San Diego. Ellen then attended San Diego State University, majoring in physics, and graduated once again as valedictorian!

Ellen Ochoa graduation photo

Ellen Ochoa then received a master of science degree and doctorate in electrical engineering from Stanford University in 1981 and 1985. At the time there were few women studying engineering and the sciences, and Ellen Ochoa was discouraged from pursuing these fields because she was a woman, but she persevered and excelled.

Side note: as an electrical engineer myself, I can tell you that electrical engineering is a grueling curriculum, requiring a strong foundation in math and the sciences. Stanford is a top notch university for engineering and the sciences,  and just being admitted to a prestigious university like Stanford is an accomplishment in itself. I studied Electrical engineering about the same time as Ellen at UNO, and just six of 150 students were women, who were all especially hard working and motivated to succeed.

Ellen Ochoa’s Career

From her NASA bio:

As a doctoral student at Stanford, and later as a researcher at Sandia National Laboratories and NASA Ames Research Center, Dr. Ochoa investigated optical systems for performing information processing.  She is a co-inventor on three patents for an optical inspection system, an optical object recognition method, and a method for noise removal in images.  As Chief of the Intelligent Systems Technology Branch at Ames, she supervised 35 engineers and scientists in the research and development of computational systems for aerospace missions.  Dr. Ochoa has presented numerous papers at technical conferences and in scientific journals.

Selected by NASA in January 1990, Dr. Ochoa became an astronaut in July 1991.  Her technical assignments in the Astronaut Office include serving as the Crew Representative for flight software, computer hardware and robotics, Assistant for Space Station to the Chief of the Astronaut Office, lead spacecraft communicator (CAPCOM) in Mission Control, Acting Deputy Chief of the Astronaut Office, Deputy Director of Flight Crew Operations, and Director, Flight Crew Operations, where she managed and directed the Astronaut Office and Aircraft Operations.  A veteran of four space flights, Dr. Ochoa has logged over 978 hours in space.  She was a mission specialist on STS-56 (1993), was the Payload Commander on STS-66 (1994), and was a mission specialist and flight engineer on STS-96 (1999) and STS-110 (2002).  Dr. Ochoa currently serves as Director of the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas.

Here’s a video clip of the launch of mission ST-56, first space flight of Ellen Ochoa, also the first Hispanic woman astronaut!

And here’s the landing:

And post flight press conference, in which Ellen Ochoa explains their mission.

Director of the Johnson Space Center

Ellen Ochoa – Director of Johnson Space Center

Ellen Ochoa’s latest accomplishments were at the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas, where she became the 11th director effective January 1, 2013. The Johnson Space Center, often called mission control, is NASA’s premier center for human spaceflight training, research, and flight control. There are approximately 3,200 civil servants, including 110 astronauts, employed at Johnson Space Center. The bulk of the workforce are the over 15,000 contractors.

Conclusion

Ellen Ochoa is an inspiration to us all, and yet another example of how well the children and grandchildren of even the most humble immigrants from some of the poorest nations on Earth can realize the American dream. Ellen’s family is typical in many ways. Her father came from a very large family, and Ellen herself has four siblings. Ellen has just two. Mexican-American demographics are for large families in the first generation, less in the second generation, and still less in the third (Ellen Ochoa and her husband have two children which is the norm for Americans in general these days). In terms of education, immigrants from Latin America tend to have low educational levels, reflecting the lack of opportunities in their home nations, then each successive generation greatly surpassed the previous, reflecting access to better educational opportunities.

If Nativists had had their way, Ellen’s grandparents might well have been barred from ever immigrating to the U.S. In fact, from 1924 until the 1950s, immigration was restricted to those who could naturalize, and from 1790 to 1965 only whites could naturalize. There was a legislative attempt in Congress in 1930 to ban Mexicans altogether, and during the great depression approximately one million “Mexicans” were deported or forced out, of which 60% were U.S. Citizens. Fortunately for America, Ellen Ochoa’s parents and grandparents were spared the “Mexican repatriation.”

Nativists like Ann Coulter insist that allowing immigration from third world nations is importing poverty and creating a permanent underclass, but when I look at Ellen Ochoa and countless other successful Hispanic Americans whose families immigrated 1-2 generations ago, I see the American dream, not poverty and dependency.

Recent immigrants are no different that those of previous eras, often arriving poor and undereducated, and then within 1-2 generations fully assimilating and realizing the American dream. Sadly, many of today’s Nativists still don’t ‘get it’ and the myths about immigrants often still drive bad immigration policy. Immigrants are an asset, not a liability! The more immigration we have, the more America benefits!

####

Bob Quasius is the founder and president of Cafe Con Leche Republicans. Reposted from Cafe Con Leche Republicans web site – original link

The American population is 300-million and counting. The American population used to be composed of mostly English Protestants, a few English Roman Catholics, a few French Catholics and Protestants, Dutch Protestants and starting in the 1700s, Germans, mostly Catholic Germans.

Lest we forget, at the nation’s founding there were also a large number of Africans and their families, almost all slaves. They, of course, were not citizens, nor were they able to be citizens even if free.

Jordi Farragut

In the mix, a Spaniard named Jordi Farragut (George Farragut) came to America, fought as an American Navy lieutenant in the Revolutionary War and fathered a boy named James, later to become David Farragut, the greatest naval hero of the American Civil War.

Admiral David Farragut

Between Lieutenant George Farragut’s naval service and Admiral David Farragut’s service almost a century later, the United States made war on Mexico. When it won, it absorbed territory larger than most countries, the territory we now call the states of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, Nevada, and parts of Kansas and Oklahoma.

With that annexation, Mexicans north of the Rio Grande River automatically became Americans. A dozen years later, these former Mexicans organized themselves into battalions of the Union Army to fight for America in the Civil War. Combined with Union militia from New Mexico Territory and what is now Colorado they trounced the Confederate invasion of New Mexico and sent the Confederates back to Texas on foot, without food, weapons or even shoes.

From 1848 on, then, Mexicans have been an integral part of the American community before, in fact, the Italians, many of the Irish, Germans, the Poles and Russians. Some didn’t come here as they were already here because the border literally crossed them. In fact, until the 1920s there was no border and Mexicans could come and go as they pleased and they did.

Then, in 1923-24, the raging predominate political climate in the country was anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic, anti-Jewish and, of course, Jim Crow “separate but equal” Black. Two distinct and powerful groups, the Ku Klux Klan with millions of members and an influential cabal of racial purity types known for their theories of eugenics (racial breeding), led the political climate.

Eugenicists hate Mexicans because Mexicans are a combination of white European and Amerindian blood. They hate anyone not of pure European white blood.

The Congress of the United States, including one woman and one Black, was heavily influenced by these two groups and the immigration door was slammed shut on Italian Catholics, Jewish Poles and Russians and myriad other Mediterranean types. Swarthy Europeans, Jews and Catholics, were the primary target of the Ku Klux Klan and its numerous allies.

Mexicans, however, were the number one targets of the eugenicists. Never in American history had Mexicans been denied free access to the United States until Congress made them instant illegal aliens in 1924. It even chartered the Border Patrol that year to “guard” the Mexican border.

Ex-Texas Rangers were hired, who, in the grand corrupt tradition of the Rangers rounded up Mexicans as they emerged from the Rio Grande and sold them to ranchers for .50 cents apiece. They also received federal paychecks to supplement their rancher finder’s fees.

For the next thirty years, Mexicans were treated like lice in Texas, Colorado, Arizona and California. In sunny California Mexicans were forced to attend segregated schools until 1947.

Segregated Mexican La Jolla School

In Texas, an all-white jury convicted a Mexican man named Hernandez of murder. He appealed his conviction because no Mexicans served on his jury despite their numerous numbers in his county s population.

Texas argued that it didn’t discriminate against Mexican defendants, that Mexicans could serve on juries. Mr. Hernandez showed the United States Supreme Court that, in fact, though there were plenty of Mexicans in the county, none had ever served as jurors in a criminal trial, ever.

Pedro Hernandez – Hernandez v. Texas

Mr. Hernandez made history when the Supreme Court threw out his conviction and ruled that Mexicans in Texas were to be defined forevermore as a “discrete class.” (Hernandez v. Texas, 1954) That means that Mexicans in the United States were a “group,” an ethnic group that had been officially discriminated against.

This was not the first time Texas had picked on Mexicans. After the American civil war, Texas refused to enforce civil rights laws backed up by the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution. It refused to treat Mexicans as U.S. citizens, even if born in the United States (14the Amendment).

In Texas v. White (1870), the Court threw out the Texas contention that Mexicans couldn’t be citizens. Texas believed that when they were so declared in 1848 by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that ended the war with Mexico the immigration laws in 1848 prohibited anyone not “free and White” from becoming a citizen.

Thus, Texas reasoned Mexican could not be or become United States citizens.

The Court ruled that the Treaty had the force of the Constitution and that any treaty and the Constitution took precedence and supremacy over any congressional act. Thus, it ruled, Texas was wrong.

We find ourselves today in a situation that draws from the Texas experiences with the Supreme Court and with the flaming rage of the 1920s fired by the then powerful Ku Klux Klan and the cabal of people with a purely racial basis for ethnic hatred of Mexicans.

And, they are everywhere. Former President Jimmy Carter, a proud Georgia Democrat White Anglo Saxon Protestant (WASP), is quoted in an August, 1996 New York Daily News article saying:

I see nothing wrong with ethnic purity being maintained. – Jimmy Carter

He was elected President three months later and managed not to find a single Mexican American to serve in his government above the rank of Navy secretary.

The man who defeated him four years later, President Ronald Reagan then his successor President George H.W. Bush, Republicans both, managed to find two Mexican Americans to serve in their cabinets.

Look carefully at those screaming in opposition to the Senate s comprehensive immigration reform bill, to those opposing the President who supports it and to anyone who supports it outside the government. Look and listen to what they say, their words, and, the mass hysteria they manifest.

Ann Coulter – Nativist

Example, look at cute commentator Ann Coulter who offers the possibility that illegals from Mexico will get affirmative action entry into American colleges ahead of deserving American citizens. This while she and her kind complain that illegals from Mexico aren’t high school graduates. She and they want it both ways. So, she screams!

Opponents scream treason, they scream open-borders, they scream sovereignty they scream about Mexico They scream!

They scream when reasonable people look at them and see them for and call them what they are, racist.

David Duke KKK

A cosmic race, or as some are prone to say, LA RAZA, but certainly not Irish, English, German, French, other Northern European or like the descendents of African slaves. Mexicans are not like the screamers.

These people call themselves Minutemen, Immigration reformers/activists and patriots but they are properly called racist like their 1920s antecedents.

Unfortunately, members of the Congress of the United States are among their ranks.

Editor’s Note: Originally published June 6, 2006 and still relevant today! All opinion’s expressed are the author’s, and not necessarily those of Cafe Con Leche Republicans. Reposted with author’s permission – original link.

####

Raoul Contreras Lowery

Raoul Lowery Contreras (1941) was born in Mexico, raised in the USA. Former U.S. Marine, athlete, Dean’s List at San Diego State. Professional political consultant and California Republican Party official(1963-65)…Television news commentator, radio talk show host…published Op-Ed writer (1988 to present)…author of 12 books (as of 1-05-12). His books are available on Amazon.com.

By Thomas Martin Salazar (originally published at Cafe Con Leche Republicans Blog)

Growing up my father (a Mexican national) taught me the importance of having three basic priorities that should govern my life. These priorities were to always place God first, family second, and work/school third above everything else. After the spanking the Republicans  received this last election day, it seems as if we as a party could benefit from considering these priorities, especially when it comes to the family.  I understand that not every Hispanic person is the same, nor is every Mexican American for that matter. But I do believe that these priorities are important and relatable to the Hispanic and Latino community. While the GOP tends to do a great job at defending religious liberty and is the most active in the defense of the unborn, it seems to neglect one of the most important priorities – family and fails miserably at communicating the third – work/education.

If Republicans wish to gain back the support of the Latino vote, especially that of the Mexican Americans in many southwestern states, then we need to end the rhetorical attacks on their families. Hispanics are not going to vote for any candidate whom they  think is going to deport their abuelita or go after their parents, husbands or wives.  They also will not support candidates of a party who want to end birthright citizenship. If we are to be the party of family values which I believe we are, then we must let go of our rhetoric and reach out in good faith to work towards some form of immigration reform just as George W. Bush tried to do. Conservatives seem to think and fear that Hispanics are inherently liberal. I disagree. The Democratic party does not hold our values; but neither do they pander to the immigration enforcement only crowd as republicans tend to do. I am not calling for open borders or lax enforcement. I am suggesting that we use our enforcement resources on the border and go after the criminals and the cartels, meanwhile, finding a humane way to keep families united and help build a better future for America and the Republican Party. When the Republicans finally embrace pro-family policies and cease the rhetoric that has been perceived as anti-Hispanic, then the door will be opened for further dialogue.

After we reach out in good faith, then we, as a party, must communicate better toward Hispanics and Latinos in general. We need candidates and organized groups to reach out and educate them on economic issues. Both employment and education are top priorities for many Hispanics, but if they do not see the connection from the policy played out in their daily lives, then we are failing to communicate.  Republicans must do a better job at explaining how raising tax rates and continued deficit spending will negatively impact them. While at the same time, Republicans need to articulately respond with fiscally sound economic policies that will lead to economic growth and rising incomes. Moreover, we need to defend the free market and explain how it is their inherent right as human beings, created by God, to choose how to spend and use their money. Republicans should also educate Hispanic voters on  the myriads of federal regulations and taxes that are inhibiting his or her ability to freely choose, by decreasing growth and upward mobility.

Furthermore,  we need to work harder at  defending educational choice for parents. We have an over regulated education system that sends billions of dollars to bureaucrats in the Department of Education, while spending on students and their classrooms  are both neglected. Moreover, Republicans can definitely win on the issue of school choice. School choice is not a federal program; it is the right for parents to have the choice whether to send their children to public, private or charter schools or even homeschool if they wish. Parents should be afforded all options because each child learns differently and no one size fits all federal education program will meet those needs. We must oppose federal one size fits all cookie cutter educational standards and move  towards state rights  and parental rights. Education is a pivotal issue for each and every Hispanic mother and father. This goal will be hindered if  we do not reach out and clearly articulate to Hispanic voters our educational polices.

Thus, we must do better at articulating our values to the Hispanic and in particular  the Mexican American community. I do believe this goal is attainable and I am optimistic.  Just recently, conservative talk show host, Sean Hannity, came out in favor for immigration reform and the Speaker of the House,  John Boehner, said he is “confident”  that the Republican congress can reach a deal on an immigration reform bill. Again, we are the ones who need to reach out in good faith and restart the dialogue. Therefore, I pray that the GOP will heed these words and consider the three top priorities of this frustrated Republican: God, family, and work/education. If we do anything less, failure is inevitable.

Editors note: as with all blog postings that appear with a by-line, the opinions presented are the author’s and not necessarily the positions of Cafe Con Leche Republicans.

Thomas Martin Salazar is an Arizona leader of the Café con Leche Republicans. Thomas was born and raised in Arizona. He holds a Bachelor’s degree in History from Grand Canyon University and is currently working on obtaining a MDiv in Biblical Communication from Phoenix Seminary. Thomas has also served as the Grand Canyon University College Republicans Vice President and interim President (February 2007-April 2008) and as a Maricopa County Republican Precinct committeeman (August 2009 – August 2012).

by Linda Vega (re-posted with permission of author and Latinos Ready to Vote)

The great communicator Ronald Reagan once said, “Hispanics are Republican they just don’t know it.” Recently, Harry Reid countered that statement by saying, “I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be Republican.” As candidates seek nominations and placement in the up coming elections, strategists have begun to ask, “How could knowing this nugget of truth help win the Latino Vote of 2012?”

I was a Reagan Republican many years ago, and still am to my core. However, there is a great difference in the GOP of today and the past as it relates to Hispanics. The forces and conditions of high unemployment, near financial collapse, aging baby boomers who fear lack of affordable medical care, record home foreclosures, and unresponsive legislators with no hope of substantive change have brought out some strong emotional backlash. Issues that affect the U.S. economy, also touch on the lives of many Latinos living in the U.S.

This societal dissonance has created groups who are raising their voices with angry rhetoric stating that they are not going to take it anymore. President Reagan never had to contend with these angry voices, real time news cycle of cable news, bloggers, and social media. I want to make it clear that I am not in any way criticizing people for what they feel or their actions; but it is this overflux of harsh rhetoric that has put us in this conflicted situation in the first place.

The turbulence in our country makes some issues, that affect ethnic groups, the scapegoats to be criticized deflecting the real issue of our hardship, the economy. There is a creation of “us and them” because of a lack of coherent dialogue. In short, anyone who does not agree with the angry rhetoric is not a Republican, in the eyes of many Latinos who are conservative Republicans. There is fear that this divisiveness is creating the Latinos as the probable cause of “them,” as in non-American should they disagree with current GOP dialogue, especially that concerning immigration. The Latino solution is to stay out of the voting polls.

As a result, Hispanics and other minority groups feel a strong divide in their psyche from this push back. Hispanics are hard working people, who love family, and God with a self sufficiency conservative philosophy. If President Reagan was alive and asked what it would take to win the Latino vote? I’m certain he would say, “Speak respectfully, but be firm in your policy.”

The older Hispanics who obtained their U.S. Citizenship from President Reagan’s executive order, are voting citizens. These U.S. Citizens, have children who in turn have grandchildren of voting age who think Republican conservative values but feel Democrat loyalty due to the polemic hatred being voiced from these angry mobs.

Some researchers estimate that a Latino swing vote of twenty million in the next election will be crucial in choosing the next president and some congressional battle ground states. The Democratic Party is concentrating on social outreach to buy this vote. What can we as Republicans do to speak to the heart of Hispanics? I suggest we start with what President Reagan did, speak respectfully even to his amigos on the other side of the isle.

By Alex Gonzalez (re-posted with the permission of the author and Latinos Ready to Vote – original link)
The politics of poverty and education tarnish the advancements of Hispanics/Latinos in the country. The politics of poverty too often box-in Latinos as a needy group while not taking into consideration that Latino are similar to “whites” in poverty rates.  It is true what Mitt Romney says about Latinos: Latinos are the same as any other American group whose aspirations are driven by the pursuit of The America dream.   Additionally, it is also 65% of Latinos  who do not want to be singled out as minority and thus choose to self-identify as “white” while maintaining their  country of origin roots.  So when explaining why 25% of Latinos live in poverty,  Hispanic Republican officials failed to acknowledge that what caused poverty among Latinos was generated by the mere fact that Latinos are a generation  behind  average Republican voters. Thus, poverty among Latinos is a condition of youthfulness, as opposed to cultural or racial factor.

Moreover, the unintended consequences of  not making  this economic connection between youth and education  forces Latino Republicans and elected officials to falsely portray Latinos as a group prone to poverty, and thereby, potential democrat voters.  However, this “poverty” image for Latinos by Latinos has unintended consequences in the political arena where Republican voters–rather than seeing young Latinos as the next generations of Republican voters– often buy into the idea that Latinos are a group of poor voters who only vote democrat because they want “handouts” (notwithstanding the fact that Latinos will pay for the benefits paid to baby boomers).

As a result,  often Hispanic Republicans–who otherwise could make a clear argument that Latinos will become the ideal college-educated voting bloc high-tax contributors — miss the opportunity to make a substantive conservative, appeal to Latino.  Therefore, Republican Hispanic officials fail to note that the poverty is not based on sole Latino issues, but rather a condition that prevails  among  the “White” southern  and in other rural states.  While the number of  “poor”   Latinos in the nation dropped to 13.2 million,  there about 22 million of non-Hispanic  “poor” whites. The failure of no addressing this poverty among “whites”, gives the impression that the  poverty  is a  non-“white”  issue, and thereby, creates false argument that  poverty affects only Latinos.

Below is the report by Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas stressing that the only reason why the Latino poverty levels is at 25% while “whites” levels is only at 10%, is the difference on age.

Limited English Skills, Relative Youth Contribute to Hispanic Poverty Rates

Hispanic poverty rates are high compared with other major demographic groups and have improved little in the past four decades.  In 2010, 26.4 percent of Texas Hispanics fell below the poverty line versus 9.2 percent of non-Hispanic whites (Chart 1A); nationally, 24.6 percent of Hispanics and 10.5 percent of non-Hispanic whites were poor (Chart 1B) Hispanic performance has also been disappointing when compared with other minorities nationally. Hispanic poverty rates have fallen 12 percentage points in Texas but less than 1 percentage point in the U.S. over the past 40 years. Black poverty declined 12 percentage points in Texas and 9 percentage points in the U.S. during the same period. Although Hispanics have logged much greater improvement in Texas than in the U.S. since 1970, their poverty rates remain higher here.

In the U.S. Census and the American Community Survey, Hispanic is an ethnicity that can fall into any race category and is based on self-identification. A total of 50.5 million people—16.3 percent of the U.S. population—consider themselves Hispanic, according to the 2010 census. Of those, 9.5 million reside in Texas, representing 37.6 percent of the state population. In Texas, the Hispanic population grew 42 percent between 2000 and 2010; nationally, it increased 43 percent. As a result, the Hispanic population’s well-being plays an increasingly important role in regional and national economic prosperity. Hispanic workers’ skills and education will help determine the future productivity of the labor force and competitiveness of U.S. industry.

Immigrant–Native Differences

Rapid immigration could explain why Hispanic poverty rates have not kept pace with improvements realized by other relatively poor minorities that experienced much less influx from abroad—such as non-Hispanic blacks. Hispanic immigrants tend to have low levels of English fluency and education, which are correlated with poverty. Indeed, overall poverty statistics (depicted in Charts 1A and 1B) mask considerable progress among Hispanics born in the U.S., the native born. The poverty rate of native-born Hispanics has declined over the past four decades and was 7 percentage points less than that of foreign-born Hispanics in 2010 (Chart 2). The native born benefit from more education, better English proficiency and U.S. citizenship.  Growth in the number of native-born Hispanics—accounting for more than 46 percent of the nation’s Hispanics age 16 and older—has outpaced immigrant inflows since 2000.

The poverty rate of native-born Hispanics was still 10 percentage points higher than that of non-Hispanic whites in 2010, even with Hispanics’ improved economic state. One contributor is Hispanic household heads’ relative youth—poverty tends to be more pervasive among younger families and declines over time. Because earnings rise with age at a decreasing rate, poverty will fall faster for Hispanics than for non-Hispanic whites, narrowing the gap in coming years.

Poverty Rates Fall with Time in U.S.

Although Hispanic immigrants have the highest poverty rates, these rates fall as immigrants spend more time in the U.S. (Chart 3). The Hispanic immigrant cohort that arrived in 1965–70 experienced a poverty rate of 24.7 percent in 1970, 17.5 percent in 1980 and 16 percent by 2010. Hispanic immigrants arriving in 1975–80 initially had a 31.6 percent poverty rate, which fell to 25 percent a decade later and to 17.2 percent by 2010. Every immigrant cohort pictured experienced sharp poverty rate declines during the first two decades following arrival. However, the chart reveals that the initial poverty rate has increased across cohorts. For immigrants who arrived in 1965–70, 24.7 percent lived in poverty in 1970; for arrivals in 1975– 80, 31.6 percent lived in poverty in 1980. Rising immigration from Mexico and Central America accounts for much of the trend. Those groups have less education on average than earlier waves of Hispanics from places such as Cuba and Puerto Rico.

What Contributes to Poverty?

Among household heads, the poverty gap between Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites was 13 percentage points in 2010. The gap can be decomposed into two sets of contributing factors—the differences in characteristics between the two groups, and the differences in labor market rewards (or penalties) for those characteristics.5 The focus here is on the former, the contribution of the two groups’ differing attributes to the poverty gap. Age is one factor—Hispanics are younger than non-Hispanics, on average, and younger people tend to be poorer. The poverty rate among Hispanics would drop if their average age were the same as that of non-Hispanic whites. We also examined the importance of the household head’s immigrant status, education, English ability and year-round employment. We note whether the household head is a single female, in addition to household characteristics such as the number of children, family size and residential location. Poor English-speaking ability makes the largest contribution to the poverty gap, explaining 6.1 percentage points of the 13 percentage-point poverty gap between Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites (Chart 4).

In other words, absent the language barrier, the poverty gap would be 6.9 percentage points. Differences in educational attainment explain 1.3 percentage points of the gap. This number probably understates the importance of schooling since it assumes both groups received the same quality of instruction. In reality, studying in the U.S. provides higher returns than learning abroad. Whether the head was employed year-round accounts for 1.7 percentage points of the poverty gap; the household head’s age accounts for another 1.8 percentage points of the gap.  The number of children in the household— which is larger (by 0.6 children) for Hispanics than for the non-Hispanic white group—is responsible for 1.1 percentage points of the gap. After controlling for the number of children, other differences in family size actually reduce the poverty gap by 0.7 percentage points, probably because Hispanic households include more adults than do non-Hispanic white families. The number of female-headed households does not significantly affect the poverty gap, even though half of all Hispanic children are now born to unmarried women, most of whom are themselves U.S. born.

The choice of urban-area location and state of residence decreases the gap by 0.7 percentage points. This may be surprising since many Hispanics live in areas with low-income housing and underperforming schools.8 However, these circumstances are offset by Hispanics living in or moving to parts of the country with strong economic growth, such as the Southwest (including Texas), the South and the Mountain West. Meanwhile, the household head’s immigrant status contributes 0.5 percentage points to the poverty gap, a comparatively small number. This effect is so small because English ability and education capture much  of the difference between Hispanic natives and immigrants.

Differences in characteristics cannot explain 1.8 percentage points of the poverty gap. This portion of the gap is due to differences in how the labor market values characteristics among Hispanics and non- Hispanic whites. For example, non-Hispanics may earn a higher return on education than Hispanics, on average, because they are more likely to be U.S. educated. However, discrimination can also play a role. This decomposition of the poverty gap doesn’t consider such factors as comparatively less work experience, living in states with low minimum wages and lower rates of unionization. More importantly, the lack of legal status and the Great Recession are key contributors to Hispanic poverty. About half of foreign-born Hispanics are undocumented immigrants. They earn less, change jobs more frequently and receive less government aid. As a group, Hispanics’ relatively lower educational attainment and their employment concentration in economically sensitive sectors such as construction increase their vulnerability to the economic downturn.9

 The Outlook for Hispanics

The future of the U.S. Hispanic population depends on its rapidly growing native-born segment. Improving education is crucial to closing the poverty gap, a goal helped by new generations that assimilate and attain higher education levels.10 Although 49 percent of Hispanic immigrants don’t have a high school degree, only 20 percent of the second generation and 18 percent of the third generation and beyond lack one. While that is impressive improvement, it compares with just 8 percent of non-Hispanic whites who lack high school completion.

Ironically, while Hispanic natives acquire far more education than their immigrant parents, they lose some positive attributes of the first generation as they assimilate. Hispanic immigrants have high labor force participation rates, high geographic mobility, high marriage rates and low nonmarital birth rates. Their children are less geographically mobile and are experiencing rising out-of-wedlock births, a troubling trend given that households headed by women tend to have elevated poverty rates. Other concerns include the growing elderly Hispanic population, which is less likely to receive pension or Social Security benefits, contributing to a high poverty incidence.

Bi is a research analyst and Orrenius is an assistant vice president and senior economist in the Research Department at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. Zavodny is a professor of economics at Agnes Scott College. You can also read the report in pdf file here>> 

by Bob Quasius

Yes, Mr. President, words do matter. We will remember in November!

By Raoul Lowery Contreras (re-posted from Cafe Con Leche Republicans with permission)

Records of every sort fall in the United States like autumn leaves. We now have a record 53 million Hispanics in the USA; the 1950 Census recorded two and a half million people with Spanish surnames.

Every time a Hispanic American baby is born, the Hispanic/Latino population makes another new record. The percentage of American born vis-a-vis foreign born grows with each birth.

Among teenage and adult Hispanics, one in five (19%) are now unemployed or underemployed with over half totally, completely unemployed (11% plus which is 30% higher than the general population). Hispanics suffered a near-mortal economic wound when they lost two-thirds of their personal net worth in the housing crash.

“Latinos’ average net worth fell from $18,000 in 2009 to $6,000 today, while Caucasians(non-Hispanic whites) saw their net worth fall from $134,000 to $113,000,” according to the National Council of La Raza.

One in six Americans is in poverty. The Hispanic population has been buried by poverty. The Pew Research Center concludes that the current Hispanic poverty rate is 28.2%, almost one in three.

Poverty is worse among Hispanic/Latino children. It is in fact a disaster among our young.

For the first time in history, Hispanic poor children outnumber White children, Black children. According to the Pew Research Center Hispanic poor children number 6.1 million, White poor children 5.5 million and Black poor children number 4.4 million.

The percentages look even worse: Hispanic poor children, 37.3%, White poor children 30.5% and Black poor children, 26.6%. Poverty and unemployment/underemployment is a daily catastrophe for the American Hispanic population.

There is another new Hispanic/Latino record to report: According to the Pew Research Center, “A record 24 million Latinos are eligible to vote in the 2012 presidential election, according to analysis of Census Bureau data by the Pew Hispanic Center…this is up by more than 4 million, or 22%, since 2008, when 19.5 million Latinos were eligible to vote.”

Concurrently, Republican Mitt Romney’s popularity among Swing State (Florida, Virginia, Ohio, North Carolina, and Iowa) Hispanics has inched higher to the current 33%, just two points lower than he needs to carry those states with 5 weeks to go before the election.

October 1, “The ImpreMedia – Latino Decisions (national) tracking poll puts Obama ahead with 73% overall to vote for him and 21% for Romney.  In the battleground states (However) Obama gets 61% of the voters versus 33% for Romney, with Florida respondents comprising a significant share of Latinos in battleground states.”

Experienced Hispanic vote analysts conclude that if this 61% Obama margin doesn’t improve, Obama will lose the election. He needs, they say, more Hispanics to vote for him than did in 2008 (67%) because so many non-Hispanic White and Independent voters have abandoned the President for myriad reasons.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2011 there were 51.9 million Latinos in the U.S., making up 16.7% of the nation’s population.

Pew: “Latinos today comprise a greater share of the nation’s 215 million eligible voters than they did just a few years ago—-11.0% this year, up from 9.5% in 2008 and 8.2% in 2004.”

A record Hispanic vote helped Obama win in 2008. That continued a long-term Democrat vote trend by Hispanics that started in earnest in California in the 1994 election that featured a Republican Governor (Pete Wilson) sponsored highly discriminatory anti-Mexican “Proposition 187” that passed but was quashed by the federal courts as unconstitutional.

California has elected only three statewide Republicans since 1994, one of them Arnold Schwarzenneger. Republicans were blanked in the 2010 California elections; this, in a state that had elected only two Democrat governors in the first 74 years of the 20^th Century. It was no accident that California sent powerful Republicans like Senator Hiram Johnson, Chief Justice Earl Warren, Senator Bill Knowland, Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan to Washington.

A skeptical view of Hispanic voting comes from Steve Malanga, Senior Editor of the City Journal who writes, “In the only four states that report such records by ethnicity—-Alabama, Florida, Georgia and North Carolina—-the 2012 registration levels of Hispanics have already surpassed the 2008 levels.”

Malanga doesn’t understand that the national figures don’t matter much, as indicated by Latino Decisions polls in Swing States, states that do matter.

How Puerto Ricans vote in New York is immaterial, for if none voted at all, Democrats would win New York. Democrat Puerto Ricans do count somewhat in Florida; however the larger Republican Cuban American vote largely offsets it, so Florida matters; so does North Carolina and Colorado with their substantial Mexican American votes.

Suffice it to say, that if Romney receives 35% or more of the Hispanic votes in those three states that Obama carried in 2008, he probably wins the Presidency.  If that happens, Malanga’s 2007 prediction will be remembered for being totally wrong.

“Given what the voting numbers show us, it’s unlikely that Hispanics will become an important voting bloc as soon as many predict.”

With record Hispanic poverty, unemployment and loss of wealth in the past four years and a record number of Hispanic voters, predicting an Obama victory based on Hispanic votes looks like a 50-1long shot more than an even-money sure thing.

Editors note: as with all blog postings that appear with a by-line, the opinions presented are the author’s and not necessarily the positions of Cafe Con Leche Republicans.

####

Raoul Lowery Contreras (1941) was born in Mexico, raised in the USA. Former U.S. Marine, athlete, Dean’s List at San Diego State. Professional political consultant and California Republican Party official(1963-65)…Television news commentator, radio talk show host…published Op-Ed writer (1988 to present)…author of 12 books (as of 1-05-12). His books are available on Amazon.com.

by Bob Quasius

Ann Coulter has made a fortune writing and selling books excoriating liberals, also called progressives, for a range of offenses, often mocking liberals in the process.

Unfortunately, despite extensive research and writing on the subject of liberalism, Coulter is not always able to spot a liberal. In the blog Only One Candidate Is Right on The Two Most Important Issues posted December 28 on Townhall.com, Ann Coulter proved she can be hoodwinked by liberals. Coulter claims:

In the upcoming presidential election, two issues are more important than any others: repealing Obamacare and halting illegal immigration. If we fail at either one, the country will be changed permanently.

She’s right about ObamaCare, which would unquestionably lead to a complete government takeover of health care. However, Coulter then goes on a diatribe about illegal immigration:

But capitulate on illegal immigration, and the entire country will have the electorate of California. There will be no turning back.

and

Just as Americans ought to be able to learn the perils of a welfare state by looking at Greece, we ought to be able to learn the perils of illegal immigration by looking at California.

Massive legal and illegal immigration has already so changed the California electorate that no Republican can be elected statewide anymore. Not so long ago, this was a state that produced great Republican governors and senators like Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, S.I. Hayakawa and Pete Wilson.

A short history lesson of California for Ann Coulter is in order. The GOP used to be competitive in California. Then, incumbent Republican governor Pete Wilson, trailing far behind in the polls, jumped on the Proposition 187 anti-immigrant bandwagon to revive his lagging campaign and win reelection. Once elected, proposition 187 was quickly overturned by the courts, to no one’s surprise since immigration is a federal power. Wilson won reelection playing the race card, but once prop. 187 enthusiasm passed the GOP lost legions of conservative Hispanic voters who were appalled at proposition 187 and became Independents or Democrats. The Field Institute analysis of the 1994 California elections found:

An analysis of Republican Governor Pete Wilson’s 55% to 41% reelection victory over Democrat Kathleen Brown shows that Wilson ran strongest among these voter subgroups: those living in San Diego/Orange, the Inland Empire, and the North Coast/Sierra regions, Republicans, conservatives, white non-Hispanics (especially white men), older voters, those with incomes of $60,000 or more, Protestants, and supporters of Prop. 187, the illegal alien initiative.

and

Proposition 187, the illegal alien initiative, which passed statewide by a 59% to 41% margin, carried in all major regions of the state except the San Francisco Bay Area. Support for Prop. 187 was extremely high in the Inland Empire (+40 points), the North Coast/Sierras (+36 points), San Diego/Orange (+34 points) and the Central Valley (+32 points).

Proposition 187 was spearheaded by John Tanton and the Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform, and bankrolled with millions in financing from the Pioneer Fund, whose purpose is “to advance the scientific study of heredity and human differences“, in other words scientific racism. John Tanton’s own writings show he’s an ardent eugenics supporter, an environut, and population control enthusiast with deep ties to planned parenthood. Tanton’s resume shows he’s not conservative at all but an ardent liberal, the kind that Coulter regularly bashes in her books and columns!

Amazingly, Coulter relies on NumbersUSA, founded by uberliberals John Tanton and Roy Beck, for her source of information on immigration, grading of candidates, etc. Roy Beck is the current leader of NumbersUSA, who was previously publisher of The Social Contract, infamous for publishing racist books and publications such as The Camp of the Saints, among others. For decades Beck has warned of us of the dire consequences of overpopulation of the U.S. If we took his rantings seriously, the world would have starved to death several times over by now!

Tanton, Beck, and their allies have been manipulating both liberals and conservatives for decades. A great example is this “smoking gun” letter from John Tanton’s own papers, donated to the University of Michigan library, in which Tanton brags:

Roy Beck and I think we have come up with an idea that can actually move the battle lines on the immigration question in our favor. While we are working on other ideas to move Democrats, this one involves using the recently released census data to show Republican members of Congress, the Administration, and the party’s leadership how massive immigration imperils their political future. The goal is to change Republicans’ perception of immigration so that when they encounter the word “immigrant,” their reaction is “Democrat.”

and

Our plan is to hire a lobbyist who will carry the following message to Republicans on Capitol Hill and to business leaders: Continued massive immigration will soon cost you political control of the White House and Congress, given the current, even division of the electorate, and the massive infusion of voters about to be made to the Democratic side. We are about to replay the Democratic hegemony of 1933-53, fueled back then by the massive immigration of 1890-1924.

Contrary to Coulter’s assertions, there’s no reason why the GOP cannot be competitive among Hispanics. According to PEW Research:

Among Latino registered voters, 35% describe their political views as conservative, 32% describe them as moderate and 28% describe their political views as liberal.

67% of Hispanics are center-right ideologically, which is a complete disconnect from recent voting trends, which show Hispanics voting Democrat by nearly a two to one margin, yet President Bush was able to gain over 40% of the Hispanic vote! Note the trend:
Year Democrats Republicans Gap
1999 58 25 33
2002 56 25 31
2004 55 28 27
2006 49 28 21
2007 57 23 34
2008 67 31 36
2010 65 22 43

Each year, as Bush engaged Hispanics and made a serious effort to reform immigration, self-identified Hispanic voters increased. With the failure of immigration reform and harsh anti-immigrant rhetoric from some conservative Republicans, no doubt influenced by John Tanton and Roy Beck, starting in 2007 the trend quickly reversed. A recent poll by Latino Decisions shows GOP support among Latinos at 18%, with 31% of Latinos perceiving the GOP as hostile. 14% of Latinos support deportation of all unauthorized immigrants, so a support level of 18% for the GOP shows just how polarizing the immigration issue is to Latinos. If you’re Latino and don’t support a “deport them all” strategy, you’re unlikely to vote Republican!

Assuming Latinos invariably vote Democrat is a self-fulfilling prophecy, with many Republicans failing to make a serious outreach effort, and don’t pause to think how their rhetoric alienates Hispanic voters. However, Bush proved Hispanics can be wooed, a process started by Ronald Reagan, who quipped “Latinos are Republican. They just don’t know it yet.” No wonder John Tanton and Roy Beck have gone to such lengths to convince many Republicans that Latinos invariably vote Democrat!

Original