Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan
Well of course not, but geography alone is not the sole determinant of these things, as the now giant share of latinos (predominately Mexicans) in nearby Chicagoland demonstrates.
|
Geography is not the sole determinant but it is a major factor. It is not a mere coincidence that the majority of the Hispanic population in this country live within a day's drive of the Mexican border.
source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_Hispanic_and_Latino_population
Also, Chicago was the second largest city and metro in the nation in 1950. In the second half of the 20th century Los Angeles blew past Chicago in population and that was fueled by and large part the growth of the Hispanic immigrant population in Southern California.
The Census Bureau didn't start tracking Hispanic as a category until 1970, but by then Los Angeles County and Cook County were the two most populous counties in the country (and they still are today). LA County was just 28% larger than Cook in 1970, but between 1970 and 2020 LA County added three times the Hispanic population that Cook added (3,757,469 in LA vs 1,190,486 in Cook). However, both counties lost non-Hispanic whites over that same period and Cook performed FAR better at retaining non-Hispanic whites than Los Angeles (loss of 2,429,178 or 52% in LA County vs 1,380,105 or 39% in Cook). Without major growth from non-white categories Los Angeles County's growth would have looked like Cook County's over the past half century, if not worse.
I guess we can say that Los Angeles benefited "at the expense" of Chicago. But I personally don't like that terminology because it suggests that Los Angeles doesn't have innate logistical advantages for attracting Hispanic immigrants over Chicago.
Threaded Mode