Needed: A New Model; Mexican immigration is different from past mass migrations.

Byline: Jorge Castaneda, Castaneda was the foreign minister of Mexico from 2000 to 2003 and teaches at New York University.

In his recently published book excerpt on Hispanic, and particularly Mexican, immigration to the United States, Samuel Huntington reveals a serious concern for his country along with a deep affection for it. I understand this affection and have the same love for my country. He also foresees a divided America, with two cultures and two languages. This apprehension can't be dismissed or underestimated.

One can argue with many of the details in Huntington's article, and some of his statistics lack precision or are questionable. But the fundamental trend he describes is partly true, and therefore partly valid: Mexican immigrants are not being assimilated into the American melting pot the way other ethnic groups have been in the past. Whether that is good or bad for the United States is for Americans to decide; it is certainly not desirable or inevitable for Mexico. The future that Huntington fears could condemn Mexicans in the United States to the status of a permanent, separate minority, in perpetual confrontation with the majority. I do not wish that for my compatriots. The most serious defect in Huntington's theory is that he characterizes this situation as undesirable but offers no solution, thereby allowing his argument to be manipulated by racist or nativist advocates, which Huntington is not.

Ideally, Mexican immigrants would follow the example of the Irish, who started coming to America as early as 1848, and who like other immigrants were slowly integrated. They adopted and respected the mores of their new country--and yet retained the traditions of their home country. The Mexican experience is different: integration is neither automatic nor spontaneous. The language barrier is partly responsible, as is discrimination. Although past waves of immigrants to the United ...