Like most ethnic groups....have their good and have their bad.

One Mexican in five now lives in the USA and with the immigration laws being what they are, this group shall become increasingly important. When Aztlan takes over the Southwest, we shall now just how important!

I don't understand why so many of them are angry protesters when so many of them are in this country illegally.

Because they are annexing us. Too many people buy into BS like "They are just coming here to feed their families" and "they do jobs Americans won't do". Of course, if you have a problem with any of this, you are a "racist".

It is probably too early to measure the impact of this group. However, their cultural 'reconquista' of the southwestern quadrant of the United States is well under way. Do not be surprised if one or more new nations emerges from this area over the next couple of decades. Outside of this region the Mexicans are having as much of an impact on the cuisine of this country as the Italians. In addition, the increasing number of Mexicans and others from Latin America will force Americans to rethink their racial divisions of black and white. High rates of intermarriage between these new immigrants and others mean that Americans will need to start using words like mestizo, mulato, and zambo to describe their ancestry. Influence grade is currently 3 stars, but rising rapidly.

Continuous mass immigration into the US from a neighboring country is unusual, and the common analogies made to Irish, Italian or Canadian immigration are misleading. The sheer size of Mexican immigration to the US, and the proximity of Mexico, creates problems of assimilation that are entirely new in American history. The problems pointed out in the comments below are mostly true, but these could be solved over time...if immigration were reduced to reasonable levels. It is the *continuous high-level immigration of lower-class Mexicans over the last 25 years* (openly encouraged by the Mexican government) that is primarily responsible for the low levels of education, poor English-language proficiency, higher rates of crimes, etc... Mass immigration, not white racism or any inherent deficiency among Mexicans themselves, is the core problem. Most pro-immigration advocates understand this, yet support immigration anyway because they want cheap labor, or because Mexicans tend to vote for the Democratic party, or (most absurdly) they believe Mexican immigration is a solution to the problems of post-industrial society (low birth-rates, anomie, family breakdown). The idea that Mexicans are somehow inherently good or bad is naive; over time they will mostly assimilate into the middle class...or assimilate into the underclass. Which path they follow will mostly depends on whether immigration from Mexico continues to rise-or falls to sustainable levels.

I went to a local grocery store with my nephew. When he asked for a application the clerk gave him a Mexican application. The clerk said that it was a honest mistake. I beg to differ. The store had only Mexicans working in it, coincidence by any chance that he didn't get the job? This may sound a little strong, but It seems like Mexicans help only their race for the most part. When I go to a store or a regular restaurant, Poyeye's for example, there are nothing but Mexicans working there, no white, black, or whatever, only Mexican. With the influx of illegal aliens in this country, going to a store is even a hassle sometimes and it's not just me. I was standing in line waiting to pay for my groceries, and a hispanic woman behind me(who was born here in America) was complaining about illegal aliens from Mexico who can't even speak English yet they have jobs. That's discrimination, can you imagine what would happen if a white employer only highered white employees? He'd be shredded into pieces by the media. Our idiot president wants to give these illegals a work card to work here! There's also a shortage of Spanish speaking teachers so there's talk of hiring people who aren't even certified teachers to teach kids, can't even speak English, they only have to speak Spanish. That's not fair to people going to college trying to become teachers and it's a unfair shortcut. What kind of message is that? Shouldn't kids be improving their English skills? Don't give me that well Mexicans are more willing to do dirty work crap. If someone is unemployed, I'm sure he'll take a job. It's annoying when someone has a job and they can't even speak English. However, I know this particular story doesn't represent the hispanic race as a whole. I can't rate any race higher than another. This is America after all, I just wish things were my fair sometimes.

Being half Mexican, chicano, latino, hipanic which ever is your cup of tea I feel I might be able to say this without being hung up by my thumbs. I have no problem admitting that they are not for the most part the great powers or leaders of this country, and are not making leaps and bounds in their efforts to do so. In my world, The term chicanos lends to those who's families are from Mexico but have had generations of thier families her in the states. Mexicans are first or maybe 2nd generation types...more than likely those who's first language is still spanish. I can tell you that there is a "friction" of sorts that exists between the "Mexicans"and the "Chicanos". Mexicans feel that Chicanos are lazy and do not represent the Culture truly. I know what they mean, in the way that Mexicans are typically a hard working people who just want the opportunity to work at all while Chicanos who have perhaps been spoiled on American soil have already become complacent and want a better opportunity than perhaps they are qualified for. In the end I feel that both groups are still locked into what they want to call "latino Pride" which from my point of view is just a desire to separate themselves from American Ideals. This is where they are still coming up short where succeeding at high levels is concerned. (see my comments on Chicanos). I believe it is possible to hold on to cultural tradition while still assimilating completely and in doing so being more likely to be a success story in this country. My Father did so, and I am doing the same and have benefitted from it. I am proud of my heratige but live a completley American life speaking English, and raising my children with American ideals first, and Latino ones second.

1. I don't know what "rebutal" you are referring to. My point is you have an obligation to rate honestly. You know Chicanos are not as successful as you rated and you gave them a 5 anyway. Period. 2. Yes, you did say Italians are overrepresented in prison. Specifically, "...Italians who are clearly overrepresented in organized crime (beyond dispute) and by extension at least back east, surely take up much of the prison space." 3. I don't see any "gaping holes". Please point them out to me. 4. I don't have a fan club. Don't worry, Randy, because I'd never win a popularity contest. You still get to be the most popular boy in school. ___________________________________________________ ______________________ Here is the second version, Randy, of the refutation of your recent post (below as of this writing) that I told you I would provide: Firstly, the one question you posed thoughout your post was "What is your argument?" The answer, as I have stated repreatedly, is that Chicanos are not as successful as a group as you have made them out to be. Your original post, that you have been wildly attempting to defend, boasted of many positives and failed to acknowledge or weigh the numerous negatives. And for that reason, the picture you painted was inaccurate. As to your five enumerated assertions ... 1 & 2. To begin with, your statement regarding Italian-Americans is wrong. They are not overrepresented in the prison population and you will be unable to supply any evidence that they are. As of the 2000 census, Italian-Americans comprise 5.6% of the national population. And yet only less than 1/2 of one percent of whites (0.05%), including people of Italian ancestry, in the United States are inmates in federal or state prisons (as of 2003, according to the DOJ). In fact, whites who make up around 70% of the national population, only comprise about 35% of the total prison population in this country. Further, Italian organized crime has been waning in influence for decades as new immigration waves have entered the U.S.. The mafia has had much of its "business" encroached upon by the Jamaican Posse, Neustra Cosa, Jews from the former Soviet Georgia, the Tongs, the Triad, the Yakuza, and the Russian and Armenian mafias. Italian organized crime is something that presently dominates only in Hollywood entertainment. Therefore, Italian-American ancestry success has not been diminished in the U.S. by an overrepresentative prison population whereas Mexican-American success has. Now, does Mexican-American A's pitfall subtract from the achievement of Mexican-American B? No, of course not. But, and this is key Randy, we are assessing/rating Chicanos in their totality. As Wiseguy has recently pointed out, it is simple to "cherry-pick" out the stories of prosperity and leave the darker ones untold (which is precisely what you did). But that hardly results in a "balanced" (Wisguy's choice of terms) accurate portriat. 3. Yes, Mexican-Americans are underrepresented on four-year college campuses, and yes, they are enrolling at said schools in ever-increasing numbers. And all this means, Randy, is that 1) the Mexican-American population as a whole is growing rapidly (i.e. more potential students) and that the situation is not as bad as it used to be. But there can be no question that Chicanos are horrendously disproportionately absent at America's best institutions of higher learning. And I'll add that nowhere is that more pronounced than in our home state. And America has numerous anecdotal stories about successful individuals who didn't go to or finish college. But there is an undeniable correlation between higher education and professional advancement and income. Over a lifetime, the statistical average difference between having a bachelors diploma and not having one is hundreds of thousands of dollars. And it grows that much more for persons who hold advanced degrees. In short, for every one person who did it without a diplomas, there are dozens who did it with the degrees. It's simply not close Randy; education is the key to success in the U.S. 4. I'm not even sure what your point is here. If you tell me your father was successful and your mother exceptionally beautiful, I have no reason to doubt you and wouldn't challenge such an assertion. I'm confident they both possessed the attributes you described. 5. I agree with you that money is not the sole definition of success, and contrary to your suggestion, I never said or have even thought that it was. However, I am confident that you and I and "the RIA community," the opinion of which you seem to value and have eagerly spoken of, would agree that part of what constitutes lack of success is involvement in the criminal justice system, disproportionately consuming tax funds, and failing to graduate from high school.

No better and no worse than anyone else in my view. I'm gonna ask genghis if he can put up 'mutts' as a category on here, it's most appropriate in my case. Really, meaning no disrespect for the reviewers involved, but this is getting kind of tiresome.

I thought flame wars were supposed to be entertaining. I guess this is the exception that proves the rule. UPDATE TO CLARIFY This item and list have been hijacked on the one hand by folks who appear, more and more with every post, and particularly their reluctance to let it drip, as crypto-racists, and on the other by a man justifiably proud of his heritage, defending it. There comes a point when debate is no longer debate, but denigration. Some of you have reached and surpassed that point.

Let me get this straight. When you write a completely one sided review. That is acceptable? When I offer a rebutal, I'm obligated to show both sides without bias? Sorry counsouler, It just doesn't work that way. Don't attempt to hold me to a standard that you do not follow. Also, if you read back at my statement, I never said Italians were over represented in prison, I said they were over represented in organized crime. Read it! But yes I did mention that there were some in prison. And I also praised Italians as one of the most successful groups in the country. Don't try to put words in my mouth. As to my mother and father, it was an "Illustration" to use your words to show that success can be achieved without a diploma. Similar to the way you used your grandfather. Still with the gaping holes! I see you're getting a fan club. *************************************************** ********************** I said prove me wrong, not babble on. (Yawn) You've yet to do that. *************************************************** ********************** The Cavalry? Brother I have landed too many punches havent I? Szinhonshu, Look closer, thats not the cavalry, that was the clean up crew. Youre like a fighter that has woke up from a knock out, looks around, and finds that everybody has left the arena, the lights have been turned out, and he has indeed been knocked out. He just never believes it. But your persistence and determination in defending lost causes are to be commended. Not everyone is so willing to continually come back for another ass kicking. Regarding your newest list, lets look at it. 1. Mexican Americans have a disproportionately high teen rate. And 2. Mexicans Americans are disproportionately over represented in prison and in the criminal system. Both are 100% true and indisputable and I have already agreed. Therefore, what? The question is not whether they are disproportionate. The question is how does that take away from those Mexican Americans that have succeeded in this country? Using your logic and criteria , Italians who are clearly over represented in organized crime (beyond dispute) and by extension at least back east, surely take up much of the prison space. Therefore, what? Italians have not been successful ? Quite the contrary, they are one of the most successful ethnic groups in the country. You have yet to prove any thing with these two facts. Since you assert them. Back it up. But remember, I agree with you. So what is your argument? You have none. Number 3. Mexican Americans are dramatically under represented on 4 year campuses. I agree, Again, therefore what? It doesnt change the fact that their numbers have risen. Many successful business owners have never gone to college, much less graduated high school. Therefore, what? What is your argument? That a degree is the only means of success. Not true and the facts speak otherwise. Number 4. Mexican Americans graduate from Los Angeles public high school at a rate hovering around 50% and at a lower rate nationwide than the national average. It hurts me, but yes, its true. Again, Szinhonshu, therefore what? True a high school diploma is needed, and yet, my father, who left high school in the ninth grade, served his country during WWII, learned a trade, married a women with movie star good looks, owned several homes, and became the President of his union, and retired independently wealthy at 56, and when he died, he left my mother in pretty good shape. A success story, one of many. Number 5. Mexican Americans, on the Average, enjoy lower incomes than those received on the average nationwide. Therefore, what? Money in and of itself is not a measure of a mans success, in any race or ethnic group. I have mentioned elsewhere that I do not place high value on money as a criteria for success. But just for the record, I am far above the national average in any group. And also for the record, I only have a high school diploma. There are many definitions of success, Szinhonshu, you do not set the criteria. You do not have that say so. Your last statement. Mexican Americans, yadda, yadda, yadda are not as successful as other groups. So therefore by comparison the are unsuccessful? By whose standards? Yours? Success is relative my friend. You do not set the standard. I have met your challenge Szinhonshu, and now meet mine. You have ranted and rave about my post, and yet you have avoided it. Go to it and show me where I have erred or lied. It cant be done. You are a very intelligent man Szinhonshu, much smarter than me, of this Im sure, but I am right, and thats good enough for me. Prove me wrong, Szinhonshu, .I'm waiting.

** SZIN, why not let it go. Randyman has conceded your point about your statistics. If you're not going to concede his that there are success stories above and beyond the stats, then there's nothing more to say. I would add that if you haven't met successful Mexican Americans, you may need to get out of the house a little more... I would introduce you to my wife, but why would I want to put her in front of someone who looks down onher because of where she's from? ** These sorts of lists suck. As is pretty clear from the exchange below, they bring out the worst in folks like Szinh, and things tend to rapidly detoriorate into name calling. Oh yeah, Mexicans? I like some (like my wife), and dislike others. Sort of how I feel about Jews, Blacks, Whites, etc. Funny how it works like that, huh?

This is precisely why I've avoided this list. The idea of "rating" ethnic groups as if there is some sort of numerical value to their measure is borderline offensive per se, and prone to discussions like these. Blaming the poor for their poverty is unfortunately a bad habit in American politics, and measuring the value of a culture based on its "socioeconomic success" begs the question of whether perhaps it's the socioeconomic system itself that's lacking in values. But the fact is, there are discrepancies in "socioeconomic success" between the various ethnic groups. This leaves us with only two possibilities. Either the system itself treats ethnic groups differently, or certain groups are inherently inferior to other groups. I happen to lean towards the former conclusion. Katrina revealed an underlying racial divide that's always just below the veneer of civility in American culture. A list like this one is playing with fire. Updating to emphasize Randyman's point. As the saying goes, "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics." The stats tell a story, but perhaps not the story many white Americans want to hear. The fact is, whites have an advantage in the US economy. Not because they are better workers, or even because they are better educated. They are hired more often because they are white. I know this because of my experiences as an attorney. There are employers I've spoken to who will not hire a black or hispanic person. Period. No taking each applicant as an individual. They will not hire. And because they will not admit it, and the law requires that a plaintiff prove what is in the brain of the employers even with a showing of de facto discrimination, most lawsuits are not successful. Employers are not afraid of those lawsuits. I know of a legal firm which will not hire women. Period. I learned about subtle discrimination about 20 years ago when I applied for a truck loading job with UPS. There were exactly 15 jobs. 6 whites including myself applied, and about 40 blacks, Hispanics, and Philipinos. All six whites were hired. Am I a better truck loader than the other guys who applied? Nobody who applied had a criminal record. My interview was less than 5 minutes. Most of theirs were nearly a half hour. It was presumed, probably due to these very statistics being discussed, that I was more likely to be trustworthy - because I am white. I was hired because I was white. Bottom line. Updated further: Well, again, to put it bluntly, they have not been as "successful" because whites have not allowed them to be. The other groups you've mention Szhin brought assets and resources from the old country. The Mexican immigrants came from an economy that was shot after campesinos were driven from substitance crop growing by the big land grabs of the early 20th century that has been a source of more than a few civil wars in Latin America. The Mexicans come here with nothing. And they face more resentment for their very presence than these other groups, though these groups face racism as well. So the bare stats mean nothing. The relative stats mean everything. The question is how many Hispanics have attained middle class status when they began with nothing. This is, of course, accepting the proposition that the value of a culture or an individual is found in the thickness of the wallet. As to the stats about prison, you'll find the same stats with poor whites as a group. The less money you have the more likely you are to be convicted of a crime - for a number of reasons. And when you are convicted, you're likely to have longer sentences. So what have Hispanic Americans accomplished as a group? They have, along with other groups, introduced culture in the form of art, music, food, theatre, celebration, literature, clothing, and cinema to what had been up until the 1960s a bland puritanical cultural milieu. They are more likely to know two or more languages than whites. They benefit the economy by taking jobs most whites refuse - particularly with regard to food production. They bring a level of sanity to American politics, and with their colonization of the midwest they may moderate the politics there significantly over the next few years. They serve disproportionately in the military. They donate in charity more money disproportionately to their wealth, often unable to use it as a tax deduction. They bring a religious moral influence to the Democratic Party. When they do go to secondary school they are more likely to choose a career beneficial to their communities, such as schoolteacher or health care provider, which probably partly accounts for their relative lack of "success" financially. There are those who lament the fact that salsa has replaced Kethtup as the country's number 1 condiment. Salsa tastes better, and ketchup has more sugar than ice cream.

Alright, I am standing up to be counted here. Drummond's eloquent post pretty much encapsulated what I thought and I am also very leery of rating ethnic groups, so I had not added my comments, but Szin's insinuation that nobody was willing to publicly pitch in on Randyman's behalf was what prompted me to speak anyhow. I will disregard the statistic about Chicanos comsuming more services than their tax dollars generate, as I think that it is bad enough to have to live on rotten wages in a state like California, but to then be chastized because the tax revenue on these meagre wages do not cover services is a total slap in the face. However, aside from this, working on the assumption that Szin's statistics are correct, they do not help me draw conclusions. Rather they make me wonder why the situation is as it is. I do not believe that being born Mexican or Chicano automatically makes you more criminal. I can believe that growing up in California as a Chicano or Mexican, you will be more likely to end up in jail, but here there is the interplay of the microcosm of the ethnic group with the macrocosm of the society in which it exists. Framing these statistics as conclusions about the nature of Mexicans/Chicanos, without trying to contextualize the results is apt to breed prejudice, and prejudice and mutual distrust exacerbate the problem. In the USA, I have, on numerous occasions, been the beneficiary of the subtle discrimination that Drummond references, most notably when I escaped a speeding ticket in Wickenburg, AZ solely by virtue of my Irish accent. On the other hand, I have experienced the flipside in Munich, looking for accomodation as an Irish student. My reception in society was completely different between the USA and Germany based on the public perception of the aggregate behaviour of my countrymen and women in each country. Somehow, you feel more ready to participate in a society where you feel more welcomed. I cannot speak for the experience of Chicanos/Mexicans in the US, but having lived in Arizona for years, I feel there may be parallels. The US offers great opportunities, more than many other countries, and popular mythology would have you believe that everyone of equal abilities here has equal likelihood of success, if they put in the same amount of hard work. But this axiom is only valid if the starting line is equal for all people. And it is not, it is not. Good connections, wealth push your starting line forward (as one can see with the Kennedys and Bushes). Poverty and prejudice push you back.