What really distinguishes Mexican immigrants from other immigrants both past and present is that they don’t make a lot of progress over time.
That would be Jake Vigdor, an associate professor of public policy and economics at Duke University, who put together something called an "Assimilation Index". (As of press time, we could not get any information on whether watching The Hills was one of the variables on the study).
In defense of the article itself, it does go on to offer the counter-argument that arguments over assimilation should be discounted as irrelevant since the day that Ben Franklin was all riled up about those damn German immigrants that would never assimilate. Here's one of such arguments:
First, so what if it takes longer than the immigrants of yesteryear? They’ll still make it, and there’s no reason to believe that the romanticized immigrants of Ellis Island have to be the measure of all things.
And second, don’t blame today’s low-skilled immigrants; they’re trying to get ahead in an economy where wage growth is much more sluggish than it was 100 years ago and labor unions don’t have nearly the strength to help immigrants as they did in the past.
That would be Joel Perlmann calming the frenzied scholarly masses, but it's still disappointing that a major newspaper in a state like Texas, where humane treatment of immigrants is a dire need, chooses to highlight an obviously debatable issue with a title as biased as: HISPANIC IMMIGRANTS SEEN AS SLOW TO ASSIMILATE INTO AMERICAN SOCIETY. I'll be first to admit my own bias, but even I could see, reading all the way to the end of the article, that such assertion is only made by some people, and not necessarily a hard truth to warrant the editorializing title.
Ok, so they drink Negra Modelos while watching a Chivas game on Saturday instead of Milwaukee's Best Light to accompany the Packers game on Sunday. Big deal, if anything they are still respecting the day of the Lord. And they are writing this blog in English!