The next mayor of Los Angeles will preside over an
unprecedented demographic change: Latinos will become the majority population
in the city. The larger question is: What
does the future hold for a city that is half Latino?
Will Los Angeles, with its Latino majority, remain a
vibrant, productive and magical force that lights the country’s
imagination? Or will the Latino
majority become a dead weight, dragging the region down into mediocrity,
dysfunction, poverty and racial antagonism?
There are two U.S. cities that offer radically contrasting
models for what L.A.’s demographics shift can mean to the region: Miami and San
Antonio. The population of each is more
than 50% Latino. But the role of
Latinos in each’s civic life is quite different, and for different reasons.
In Miami, Latinos are part and parcel of the city’s larger
civic life. Latino entrepreneurship has
turned Miami into a bustling center of international trade, self-declared
gateway to the economies of Latin America and self-appointed music center of
Latino USA. Latino politicians run the
city and county; Latinos are involved in the fine arts, academia, journalism
and broadcasting. In short, wherever one
turns, there are Latinos involved in propelling the city forward.
San Antonio, by contrast, is a city with a majority Latino
population that is barely visible in civic life. Only once in the past century has it elected a Latino mayor. Latinos are not movers and shakers in the
fine arts, academia or business. While
Texas has profited more than California from North American Free Trade
Agreement, very little of that wealth flows through the Latino businesses. Yes, there are successful Latino professionals,
but they are the exception.
What did Miami do that San Antonio didn’t?
Miami welcomed Latino contributions and invested in
them. San Antonio shunned them.
In its history, Los Angeles bears a remarkable resemblance
to San Antonio. Both cities were
founded by Latinos centuries ago, as part of Mexico’s northern fringe. Both were acquired by military conquest,
and, in both, the newly arrived Anglo society took pains to ensure that Latinos
“knew their place.” The transition was
more virulent in San Antonio, where the Texas Rangers were specifically charged
to ride herd on “the Meskins.”
The Latino populations in San Antonio and Los Angeles were,
at best, tolerated; at worst, they were shunted aside through legal and social
segregation. The longer Latinos were
subjected to these restrictions, the more the internalized them, becoming
psychologically accommodated to second-class citizenship. In San Antonio, the Latino community did not
develop to its full potential. Yes,
Latinos give the city its tourist-attracting exotic flavor, but at night, they
are expected to return to their barrios.
Latinos, after nearly 300 years of history, are on the margins of civic
life of the city they founded.
For nearly two centuries, Latino Los Angeles marched in step
with Latino San Antonio. But in the
1970s, the cities’ histories suddenly diverged. Unlike San Antonio, Los Angeles received large numbers of
immigrants from Mexico and Central America, until, by the early 1990s, nearly
one of every two Latinos was an immigrant.
Meanwhile in San Antonio, fewer than one of seven Latinos was an
immigrant. In just 20 years, the Latino
populations of the two cities become quite distinct: L.A.’s Latinos were mostly
immigrants, while San Antonio’s were Mexican Americans.
During this time, Miami also received an influx of Latino
immigrants. Its story is instructive
for Los Angeles.
Cuban immigrants were warmly welcomed into Miami. They were desired friends and stalwart
opponents of communism during the height of the Cold War. More important, a huge investment was made
in their potential. The Cuban refugee
Program provided more than $1.2 billion of direct financial assistance to
recently arrived immigrants, the equivalent in 2000 dollars, of 63,000 for each
household. Public programs provided
more assistance. At one point, 74% of
all Cuban immigrants received governmental assistance.
Health services were tailored to their needs. Small-business loans were made
available. Florida modified its
licensing laws to make it easier for immigrant physicians and professionals to
continue their practices in the United States.
The University of Miami provided training and recertification for
thousands of Cuban lawyers, accountants, engineers, teachers, architects, and
other professionals. When Dade County
built its rapid transit system, 53% of the minority contracts went to Latino
firms.
These programs were seen as investments, not welfare. By investing in new immigrants, went the
argument, the city’s business base – its tax base, too – would grow. And this is what has happened. With Latin America movie stars and recording
artists flocking to the golden miles of South Shore, Miami has declared itself
the Latin American Hollywood.
In Los Angeles, as in Miami, the energies of Latino
immigrants are evident. Reminiscent of
Miami, wherever Latino immigrants have settled in Los Angeles, they have
revitalized decaying, vacant sections of the city. Unlike Miami, these investments are financed by the immigrants
themselves. Latino-owned businesses,
now establishing at a tremendous pace, have their origins in these immigrant
areas. San Antonio, with virtually no
recent immigrant population, has one of the lowest rates of Latino-owned
business formation in the country.
Unlike Miami in the 1960s, Los Angeles does not need to
create separate investments targeted at Latinos. The city needs only make investments in basic infrastructure:
schools that educate, police who command respect, transportation that works,
housing that is affordable, health care that is accessible and power that is
reliable.
Granted, the initial waves of Cuban immigrants were highly
educated professionals whose path to practice in the U.S. was smoothed, while
California closed the door on physicians trained in Mexico and Latin
America. A wholesale immigration of
Latino professionals to Los Angeles is not in the cards. We will have to create them the
old-fashioned way: educate and train Latinos here. This is not an issue of affirmative action or preferences. Rather, it is the future civic life of the
region and, by implication, of this state.
Los Angeles is poised, in a policy sense, at the fork of two
roads, one leading to economically stagnant San Antonio, the other to booming
Miami. The next mayor of Los Angeles
will set the tone for this choice. As
voters enter the booth April 10, before they choose their candidate, they
should simply ask themselves: Miami or San Antonio?
David E. Hayes-Bautista is a professor of medicine and director of the Center for the Study of Latino Health & Culture at UCLA. Robert M. Stein is associate director of the center.