Taxation and Latinos

by

Leo P. Martinez

• LAST MODIFIED: 26 July 2017
• DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199913701-0124

Introduction

While this bibliography deals with the intersection of Latinos and taxation, there is a dearth of scholarly work that deals with this intersection. This shortage is all the more surprising given that Latinos will likely constitute the largest plurality in the United States within the next fifty years. Indeed, as of 2014, the Latino population in the United States was estimated to be on the order of 55 million. While a lack of attention may explain this phenomenon, the absence of a definition for who comprises the Latino population poses a significant problem. Beginning with the establishment of the relevant ethnography, this bibliography addresses the many aspects of the Internal Revenue Code that operate to the disadvantage of Latinos. These areas range from code provisions that are seemingly neutral, such as the tax benefits associated with home ownership and education, to those code provisions that are aimed at dealing with income inequality such as the Earned Income Tax Credit.

Who is Latino?

This bibliography begins with reference to works that address the threshold question of who is Latino. The scholarship includes that of the former dean of Stanford University Law School, a former justice of the California Supreme Court, the dean of the University of California-Davis School of Law, and several other prominent scholars. Though this area requires further research, the use of the term “Latino” appears to be an attempt to avoid the homogenization implicit in the term “Hispanic.” Many well-known scholars, including the authors of Brest and Oshige 1995, Lopez 1998, Mendez and Martinez 2002, and Reynoso 2005, have suggested the population included within the term Latino is comprised of political community, citizenship, self-identification, race, assimilation, history, and language. This perspective appears to be the decided trend.

• Brest, Paul, and Miranda Oshige. “Affirmative Action for Whom?” Stanford Law Review 47 (1995): 855.

  DOI: 10.2307/1229177

  Provides insight into the term Latinos. Latinos, though a diverse group in the aggregate, are seriously disadvantaged compared to whites. They are far more likely than whites to live in poverty because a large proportion of them are recent immigrants.

• Krogstad, Jens Manuel, and Mark Hugo Lopez. “Hispanic population reaches record 55 million, but growth has cooled.” Pew Research Center (25 June 2015).

  Chronicles Latino population trends. Latino population reached a new high of 55.4 million in 2014 (or 17.4 percent of the total US population). This number reflects a growth rate of 2.1 percent, which continues a trend of slower growth that began in 2010. Part of this growth rate reduction is due to the slowdown in immigration from Latin America and Mexico.

• Lopez, Gerald P. “Learning about Latinos.” Chicano-Latino Law Review 19 (1998): 363.

  Comprehensive discussion as to the origin and meaning of the term “Latino.” Offers perspective based on political community, citizenship, self-identification, race, assimilation, history, and language. Decries the dearth of scholarship regarding Latinos. Latinos should appreciate that the very structure of the American mainstream, including taxation, is up for grabs. Advocates for tax-supported bilingual education and public services in Spanish.

• Mendez, Miguel A., and Leo P. Martinez. “Toward a Statistical Profile of Latina/os in the Legal Profession.” Berkeley La Raza Law Journal 13 (2002): 59.

  Uses the term Latino instead of Hispanic to refer to those who trace their ancestry principally to Spanish-speaking Latin American countries.

• Mendoza, Gustavo Chacon. “Gateway to Whiteness: Using the Census to Redefine and Reconfigure Hispanic/Latino Identity, in Efforts to Preserve a White National Identity.” University of La Verne Law Review 30 (2008): 160.

  Develops a rough taxonomy of Latino. This includes ancestry in the form of a Spanish surname and language use. Physical appearance can also be a distinguishing characteristic although it may well be imprecise and under inclusive.

• Oquendo, Angel R. “Re-Imagining the Latino/a Race.” Harvard BlackLetter Journal 12 (1995): 93.

  Condemns racial subcategories that prevent Latinos from identifying as their own race, independent of black, white, or another color. Identifies the term “Latino” as being more inclusive and more appropriate to use than the term “Hispanic.”

• Passel, Jeffrey S. “Estimates of the Size and Characteristics of the Undocumented Population.” Pew Hispanic Center (21 March 2005).

  Catalogues undocumented residents of the United States. The overwhelming majority (about 81 percent) of the almost fourteen million undocumented US residents are Latino. Of these, most are from Mexico (57 percent) with others representing various Latin American countries (24 percent).

• Reynoso, Cruz. “A Survey of Latino Lawyers in Los Angeles County—Their Professional Lives and Opinions.” University of California Davis Law Review 38 (2005): 1563.

  Contains insight into the term “Latino.” Although Latino is commonly used to refer to an ethnic group, Latinos do not comprise a monolithic community. Latinos are a very diverse group and identify themselves by various ethnic backgrounds, usually based on their own regional roots or those of their ancestors.

• Sandrino-Glasser, Gloria. “Los Confundidos: De-conflating Latinos/as’ Race and Ethnicity.” Chicano-Latino Law Review 19 (1998): 69.

  Observes that Latinos are the fastest growing segment of the American population. Provides a rationale for making “Latino” the preferred descriptive term to dispel the homogenization implicit in the term “Hispanic.”

• Schiller, Reuel. Forging Rivals: Race, Class, Law, and the Collapse of Postwar Liberalism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2015.

  DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511998034

  Discusses the notion that racial egalitarianism assumes that the goals of African Americans are the same as those of Latinos and other racial and ethnic groups. Outlines various areas of difference including employment discrimination, housing discrimination, and bilingual education.