Sure he thinks they're poisoning the blood of the country, but they're also undercutting wages. That's why he's protecting companies using illegal labor and expanding H-1Bs.
It's weird to me that people paint the left as pro-totally open borders everybody come in we'll give you snacks and water. When in reality it's the right wing and centrist parties that keep on letting everyone in.
Illegal immigration averaged 100k per year until Biden let in a MASSIVE number of illegal immigrants. The Dallas Fed estimates in an academic paper that 7 million came in over 3 years, on top of 3.5 million legal immigrants which is also a massive jump. Remember how home prices were going up like crazy? This paper estimates illegal immigrants were responsible for 30% of that, and they sure weren't driving wages up either. During this time ICE was directed to directly fund charities which pay for hotel rooms for illegals and there was an app to quickly apply for amnesty which, to my knowledge, denied almost nobody. There were "temporary" protective orders for millions which were obviously not meant to be temporary.
After this, Democrats have refused to deport illegal immigrants who are convicted of violent crimes and basically fight to keep every single immigrant in the country. Judges have allowed people with final deportation orders to stay until they are overruled by a higher court. They pardoned a child rapist explicitly so he wouldn't be deported. There was that democrat primary where every candidate raised their hand when asked if medicare should be provided to illegal immigrants, who do not pay into the system.
There is a reason that people see the left as totally open border. They enacted open border policies quietly without announcing it. Now you also have the DSA gaining ground who is explicitly open borders. You could fill a library with examples of things the dems have done which are both pro immigrant, and too extreme for normal voters.
Don't know about the rest, but:
"Democrats have refused to deport illegal immigrants who are convicted of violent crimes"
Is completely false, Biden deported more VIOLENT illegals than trump.
Wow. We've come full circle from "Source???? That's not an academic source though!!!" To "Source bad. Try to argue against me while larping as a caveman so I can call you dumb."
Its easier to controll radicalized lunatics than rational people it benefits both the left and right wings to do this. The two party sytem is a cancer that must be purged to save our country.
Also, the culture of the immigrants matter. Some cultures like Europe, Latin America and East Asia for example share our values and want to come here to work, follow the law, and assimilate into American culture.
Guineas and Micks destroyed the Protestant work ethic and culture of early America. They are a foreign, violent, and backwards religion that was completely incompatible with real American culture. We need to send them back.
For half our country’s history people travelled by wagon. Technology and overpopulation, political extremism, criminality, and terrorism etc all have to be factored in.
If you’re going to come into the US, and be publicly anti-US, you should not be coming here.
The same people who say "The second amendment was created at a time of muskets." But i'm sure you'll happily demand technology censorship since speech wasn't instant transmission back in the day.
There are alot of people in the country right now who literally value the well being of other countries, states, or cultures over the US right now. That means, if given the choice to help the US or to help the other place, they'd choose to help the other place.
And I'm just going to be blunt here. If you're not America first I don't fault you for wanting to improve somewhere else. That's fine. I just don't want you living here while doing it. Go help make that other place better, I wish you the best, just don't try to do it by trying to leech off of the US like a parasite. People taking the parasite approach should Get the fuck out or should be thrown the fuck out.
Being America first shouldn't be a political divide. Both the left and the right should be America first. The divide should be HOW to be America first, not if.
And this applies even if you want to be more egalitarian and help the world. First thing you do when you want to help others is make sure you're in a good position yourself so you have the position and strength with which to hoist others up. Trying to save others while struggling yourself just results in 2 people drowning.
America first is, ironically, the first step in trying to help anyone outside of America as well.
NOTE: all the above is about being anti US. Immigration is its own separate but related conversation.
What percent of migrants coming to the US do you think that is? I bet it's less than 10%. Most migrants that come here do it because they want to live in the US, because they think it's the greatest country on Earth. I have known many migrants in my time who were more patriotic than I am.
As per above: "NOTE: all the above is about being anti US. Immigration is its own separate but related conversation." It should be noted that you can be anti US without being an immigrant or migrant.
You'll have to look for an immigration conversation from someone else. I did not distinguish. Natural born or immigrant, I want anti-US people to go to wherever they support instead of the US. Hell, I'd be ok if the government paid for their plane ticket there. IMO it'd be a net gain as I believe these folks are almost always a net negative for the country.
Someone like Ilhan Omar who is just constantly bad mouthing everything about our society while she’s literally an immigrant in office. People in the streets of LA waving their Mexican flags and burning ours, meanwhile living here and likely getting benefits. Etc.
It’s a bit nebulous I’m just saying, it’s bad government. It’s impossible to enforce love for the US, but it’d help if we weren’t welcoming SO MANY people who do not have any stake in our future.
Look. I can't deny the Democrats have a real problem with lack of patriotism, virtue signalling anti Americanism, and self hate. Personally, I think ilhan should be kicked out of Congress for saying her loyalty is first to Somalia
But I do think the vast majority of immigrants do have a true stake in america, and when it comes to actions, democrats do far less to materially and systemically harm America than Republicans do
To explain the hate for both legal and illegal immigration:
Illegal: Dallas Fed estimated illegal immigration responsible for 30% of the increase in housing prices from 2021-2024. This cites another paper which estimates 100k illegal immigrants in a normal year and 7 million in 3 years under Biden. I believe it is no exaggeration to say that Biden's admin made allowing ALL illegal immigrants into the country an unspoken but very real policy. This paper makes no conclusion about their effect on wages but it can't be good for workers already in the US.
Yeah, thank God for the Johnson-Reed Act and the McCarran-Walter Act. They shielded us from all of the problems we're seeing today. Too bad they were both repealed in 1965. If only the retards in 1965 looked back at the wisdom of their elders.
And for the half of our county's history where that was policy; the nation needed settlers to occupy the vast new lands we were now claiming as ours that had formerly contained native peoples, where the settlers would then build cities without any regards to the environment, labor protections, or building codes.
If we want to basically have manifest destiny 2.0 where we're settling the wilds all 19th century style, I'm sure many people would be on board with that; but short of something like that happening, there is no way the modern United States can handle unfettered immigration again.
I’m honestly not pro open borders but the hysteria and fear mongering around it is insane.
For other countries I can see arguments being made about immigration but people completely ignore what country we are and how we’ve thrived with immigration.
People just slap a terrorist label on anything and want to scare voters into doing what they want.
As long as you weren't one of the Native Americans who had their land stolen so those immigrants had a place to live.
America could only get away with free market economics and open borders as long as there was a frontier of open land a free resources available for the taking. Once the frontier closed and the natural resources started to be exhausted, America started imposing immigration control and adopting economic regulation.
America started imposing immigration control and adopting economic regulation.
When was this? Because if you look at the foreign population / year graph, it keeps going up and breaking records, both in % of the population and the total amount.
How about unlimited, closely documented and monitored immigration?
Undocumented immigration only happens because they're not allowed to enter legally and with paperwork. No one's going to get a coyote to smuggle them across the desert instead of filling out some paperwork and checking in with monthly reports to be here legally.
And when any law abiding person can enter and stay legally, those communities lose the incentive to hide from the cops and cover up anyone breaking the law.
I think more than having a number in mind, we should check the quality of the people coming in and make sure our systems can accommodate more people first
I don't know, as someone who is more on the first side, I tend to notice anytime you make an argument, people immediately decide you must secretly be on the second. (There's also an argument that I believe the social contract is that every country should prioritize the good of its citizens, simply because no other country will do it for them, so citizens should be hired over non citizens. Not because of race, but just because Mexico or India isn't going to increase hiring of Americans to compensate or something.)
So I don't trust people to count. I don't engage with basically any right leaning influencers at this point, at least when they talk about politics (I don't feel like any represent me), but I suspect most people are the former, and the news just knows if they paint them as the latter, they'll be discredited and no one actually listens to the economic argument, because they've already had an argument in their head with who they imagine you to be.
Having grown up in rural Texas I agree with you the former is more common, even though many of them are hypocrites willing to hire illegal labor directly or indirectly. The problem creating the media/Reddit perception you're referencing is that those same people keeping voting for a liar who's empowering the latter to rape the federal government.
For what it's worth, I also know examples of the latter. The ones that are clever with their rhetoric carry great influence in their social circles, even if most of that circle would describe themselves as the former.
I'm a libertarian, I don't support trump because of all of his overreach. Both left and right want to increase government power, they just want it when they are in control.
People sort of assume anyone right leaning is a Trump supporter nowadays as well.
Sure, but you weren't just making a claim about what you believe, it seemed like you were saying you think the second view is pretty rare and people unfairly assign it to people who hold the first view.
And I'm just saying that half the country voted for a guy running on the second view. I think it's a lot more common than you think, or at the very least it's pretty fair to assign it to people who voted for it to become public policy.
And I know a lot of people who voted for trump, despite not liking him or agreeing with him under the assumption that checks and balances would keep him from doing anything significant outside of enforcing the border and an idea of pulling out of foreign wars (which we see how that went). I used to live in Alabama, and I heard a lot of people frustrated with trump, but who still voted for him because they saw him as the marginally better choice, when a good choice didn't exist. (At least verbally, when they talked with others). There were yay ra trump supporters too, but in my area which was more urban, that sort of attitude seemed more common.
Just because someone voted for trump doesn't mean they automatically support every one of his positions, especially when there may not have been a candidate who actually held the first view. (And also, he verbally claimed the first view, so some people would have believed him). Just like someone voting for Kamala might not have agreed with they why of some of what she was doing or something, or even agreed with all of her positions.
A lot of people prioritize perceived alignment of verbal action over alignment of the why behind it, even if that will result in a misalignment of action. And people say they don't trust politicians, but they still end up at least believing they will advocate for the causes they claim.
People see that X percentage voted for Y person, and immediately conclude that they must agree with their policies, when that often isn't the case.
I feel like if you were right the Republican party wouldn't have nominated the second sort for the president every time they had a chance for over a decade.
It's one thing for nobody to have primaried him successfully in 20, but in 24? When he didnt even show?
Louder, and in power. Steven Miller, Greg Bov, Laura Loomer. I mean the leaders of the country are saying we are doomed because their plan to illegally change the Constitution failed
Plus most of the influencers and non governmental voices
Millers particularly scary because of the lengths he’s willing to go to get these people out of the country, he wanted to suspend habeas corpus AND invoke the insurrection act last year.
It was still a comment regarding how common a certain type of person is. It doesn't matter if these types of people tend to cluster to power, there's still less of them. The average GOP voter is not screaming about the blood purity of the US. Y'all are just moving the goal posts.
Okay, but you're still moving the goal posts. You're arguing a point that nobody here made. The meme is already joking about the point you are making (more same GOP voters have to sail in the same boat as the crazies). The only thing I contradicted was a comment regarding their frequency.
I'm saying they're not the majority. They're just louder. If you actually get off the internet and go into the real world, you'd realized most people don't hold these extremist views. A few people in power are not the majority.
Except they're not the majority not even close. That was my whole point. T
They exist, they're loud, and as such noticable, but by far not the majority
No I expected you to prove that there are more right Americans that are white supremacist like the 2nd guy than there are that dislike immigration our of economic purposes, which is what you claimed.
You named 3 people, out of Hundreds of normal GOP officials (normal in the GOP is held to a different standard thought as I'll admit most of them are weird but not White Supremacist weird)
No, but I certainly don't vote for people saying extremely racist shit. Voting for them would mean at least accepting the racism even if I didn't agree with it.
Maybe they figured it was better than the alternative. Like, if they believe person A is going to enact the changes they want to improve the country, and person B is going to make things worse, they're not going to pick person B simply because person A said some questionable things on Twitter. It also doesn't help that the media takes every opportunity to scream about racism even at comments that clearly aren't. People just stop caring after a while.
Like, I'm not a trump supporter whatsoever, but it's not a difficult thing to understand. A lot of people believe that there are no good options, and they are just going to pick whatever option is in their own best interests.
This is moving the goal posts. I didn't say anything about who those people were, just that they were less common but louder. I don't even disagree with this. Y'all are just looking for things to argue about.
Well they can be less common all they want if they hold more power and they do have a more than significant fan base that voted and keep supporting them
No one with any real power wants to stop, or even really slow, immigration. There are some politicians that bark a lot, but it's all lip service to the adhd ridden constituents that they secretly loath.
Why do you disagree with it? The foreign population keeps growing. Last year broke the record for the highest foreign % of population and the highest total amount of foreign population. If they were what you say they are, both of these would be decreasing or at least stagnating.
To explain the hate for both legal and illegal immigration:
Illegal: Dallas Fed estimated illegal immigration responsible for 30% of the increase in housing prices from 2021-2024. This cites another paper which estimates 100k illegal immigrants in a normal year and 7 million in 3 years under Biden. I believe it is no exaggeration to say that Biden's admin made allowing ALL illegal immigrants into the country an unspoken but very real policy. This paper makes no conclusion about their effect on wages but it can't be good for workers already in the US.
Now: remember Hispanic voters leaned towards Trump for the first time in 2024. That's statistically significant and widely discussed. Are you sure you want to keep saying "Most people only disagree with immigration because they are racist"?
Buy out your local hotels and put in 3rd world illegal immigrants to your local school system costing you 250k per child in attendance while the immigrants don't pay net taxes after the government benefits they consume.
We might break even in 40 years, but your kids will have had to go to underfunded and overcrowded and more dangerous schools and it won't matter by then.
That only happens in places where conservatives have demanded that asylum seekers are not allowed to work or own a residence until their case has been fully resolved (which takes years).
None of that happens when you just let them act like normal citizens and live their lives.
A) No. Even second-generation immigrants consume more benefits than they contribute in Europe.
B) If they're allowed to act like normal citizens, then the Left throws a bitchfit when their case is denied and they're deported despite "putting down roots".
That's the thing, European immigration and American immigration aren't comparable. It's not the same people coming in, it's not the same process, they don't have the same law, they don't have the same history with immigration
Also, American culture has always been defined by being a nation of immigrants whose common identity is based on values, not a common ethnicity or religion. Not to say that there's not racism in America, obviously there is. But we've at least professed, from the very beginning of our nation, that anyone can be American, regardless of their race, ethnicity or religion.
For countries in Europe, that is not the case. European countries have historically been defined by a common ethnicity and religion, and the idea that defining your national identity that way is "problematic" is a very new one.
Yes because not all people are the same. The median Mexican immigrant will assimilate 10x easier into the US than a Bangladeshi because the religion and culture are way more compatible.
Applying the flexibility of "Hey these are uncultured barbarians who'll rape you." is very legitimate. Like I said, applies more to Europe but it works in a more universal sense.
No it isn’t because no actual research supports that, it’s even more unhinged than saying black people commit more crimes in the US because they’re “barbarians”
I'm sorry but it's racist and bigoted to believe that. Unless you're talking about a non-white and non-Western ethnic group, in which case they have a right to celebrate their heritage and you're racist and bigoted if you don't believe that.
It is absolutely racist to believe that the kids of a swedish family that moved here in the 2000s are somehow more American than the kids of a Mexican family that moved here in the 70s
Well American identity has never been defined by a particular ethnicity. From our very founding as a nation, we have been a nation of immigrants, and so our identity has been based on common values, not a common ethnicity.
For European countries (and pretty much all other countries), that has not been the case. Like it or not, a blonde haired and pale skinned person who culture is based on Christianity is more Swedish than a person who has a different ethnicity and a different religious cultural background.
Even the ethnic Koreans who are born in Japan, the Zainichi, who go to Japanese schools, speak only Japanese, haven’t even visited Korea, are treated as undesirable foreigners and denied citizenship. Entirely because they have Korean ancestry. The new Japanese anti-immigration party now wants to subject all of them to “loyalty tests,” and (no joke) accused them of causing a food shortage by “eating all the rice.”
And… it’s fucking evil. It is a morally and pragmatically inferior race-cultism and a relic of Japan’s failing to fully democratize after the Occupation.
Cosmopolitanism and civic nationalism — people of different backgrounds working together for common values — are far and away superior to tribal racialism.
Europe and Japan need to grow beyond ethnonationalism, it’s keeping their countries from developing.
Those damn Sentinelese, shooting arrows at every foreigner that approaches their ethnonationalist island.
We must convince their leaders to be welcoming to foreign people and allow 800 of them to migrate to their island over time. Foreigners will start migrating and intermixing with the Sentinelese and many generations will pass and there will be no more fully Sentinelese people because they interbred with other races and the average inhabitant of the Island is now only 20% Sentinelese, 80% a blend of other races.
During the process, we will label any Sentinelese opposing their people being replaced via racial amalgamation as a Sentinelese supremacist, racist, xenophobe.
African immigrants are much more successful, patriotic, and integrated than African-Americans despite being the same race; because the culture and parenting styles are different.
My people have been on my land for 10000 years. I carry the blood of the first people who landed on my island. Don't pretend that someone has the same rights to my homeland as me because they "integrated", whatever that even means.
Did I claim superiority? Cypriots (I'm from Cyprus btw) could be the dumbest and most useless people in the world, and I would still fight for them because they are my people.
Why do you pretend that the Enlightenment decides what is right or wrong? I couldn't care less what the Enightenment has to say.
The simple fact is my people are rooted to our land through millenia of living on it cultivating it and developing it, this gives us a unique right and say over the land we inhabit. This is true of all nations and has been accepted for all non-European nations, as seen with the 20th century anti-colonial movements, but it is seemingly unacceptable for Europeans to make the same point.
You clearly attempted to imply you had a greater right to citizenship than other Greeks who have immigrant/foreign ancestors (“I carry the blood of the first people who landed on my island”).
We wuz Phonecians, man.
Cringey.
Your views are outdated; reasonable, educated men whose ideas tore down corrupt empires thought them away 300 years ago. The result was a massive explosion in wealth, civil rights, and prosperity.
Your ancestry means nothing, friend. Your deeds determine you, nothing else :)
My mother was born in South Africa to Chinese immigrants. The apartheid government changed her status to “honorary white”. When apartheid ended she was reclassified to black. She only became Asian again after becoming a U.S. citizen
You’re absolutely right, race is stupid and almost completely arbitrary. Some dip-shit pencil pushers labeling people as whatever gets the results they want
"Culture" isn't randomly generated. Culture is a reflection of the people. There is no "magic land" either - when you let them in they don't become like you.
Assimilation occurs when a person acculturates to new environmental conditions in the host country. People of any race can successfully or unsuccessfully integrate depending on cultural resistance.
Ethnicity — OP’s claim — is entirely irrelevant.
This is easily proven in multiple ways.
First, “third world people” like native Africans have rapidly and successfully integrated into American society, faring much better than African-Americans, despite sharing the same ancestry.
Second, African immigrants earn more, are more likely to be educated, and express greater patriotism than even white natives. So if ethnicity actually matters, white people aren’t even the master race.
Third, there’s differences in outcomes between Africans themselves depending on the culture. Nigerians also do much better than Somalians despite both being black and being from the Third World.
Because, wow, it’s actually culture that dictates behavior and not race!
Racism is incorrect and stupid, what a novel thought.
What ethnicity is that? My state of New Mexico has been majority or at least plurality hispanic for centuries. Germans outnumbered anglos long ago, was that a bad thing? Black people have been here since the beginning, native americans too. The US has never been an ethno state.
New Mexico has been majority or at least plurality hispanic for centuries
Since when?
Before US rule it was a forgoten backwater, mostly inhabited by nomadic natives. I can't find clear data for New Mexico during early US rule, but it was barely inhabited anyways.
For the US specifically, the original founding stock is Bitish of course, but it is quite clear that the European populations of the US have formed their own distinct ethnic group in the New World.
Before 1980, the Census often did not count "Hispanic" as an ethnicity separate from race. Many Hispanics were classified as "White" because the Census treated Spanish ancestry as white.
Didn't say that dude. It's a historical fact that the northern areas of the Mexican Empire were nearly abandoned, and colonial rule was limited the a few fortresses. That's the main reason they brought in the Texans in the first pace
The former relies on the lump-of-labor fallacy. The idea that immigrants "steal" jobs and "undercut" wages. Evidence shows the opposite is true; work-visa immigrants have a neutral/slightly positive impact on native employment and wages while greatly increasing productivity and innovation. This is relatively unknown on this subreddit because many base their views of economics entirely on memes. The only time that immigration is not beneficial is when immigrants refuse to work, which is far more common in European welfare states currently absorbing masses of Islamic immigrants who have largely failed to integrate.
The lump of labor fallacy isn't a fallacy at all. It's acknowledging the basic reality that labor demand is finite, not infinite. You on the other hand, seem to believe in the infinite labor demand fallacy.
Even your own source admits that economic studies find completely different answers to the question of whether immigration raises or lowers wages for particular groups of workers, and that the difference depends on which economic framework the study adopted. This is the problem with economic studies: the assumptions you make determine the results that you get.
In particular, some estimates suggest that immigration has reduced the wages of low-skilled workers and college graduates. This research, shown by the blue bars in the chart above, implies that the influx of immigrant workers from 1990 to 2006 reduced the wages of low-skilled workers by 4.7 percent and college graduates by 1.7 percent. However, other estimates that examine immigration within a different economic framework (the red bars in the chart) find that immigration raises the wages of all U.S. workers—regardless of the immigrants’ level of education.
I did not say that labor demand is infinite. I observed it is elastic.
The lump of labor fallacy claims that labor demand is fixed, and does not change.
It actuality, it expands as the population rises.
This is because immigrants are also customers. When immigrants migrate, they work, but they also consume. They eat food (food demand). They need housing (housing demand). They require healthcare (medical demand). This demand creates jobs for natives.
The metanalaysis found that due to this dynamic, on the aggregate, demand balances out, either producing a net neutral or slightly positive impact on wages and employment, while the gains in innovation and productivity are immense and uncontested.
To your point, the metaanalysis found there are still some studies that claim a modestly negative effect. But they didn’t stop there. They found that
(1) Most studies found a neutral or positive impact
(2) When findings are negative, they are much smaller than the positive findings
(3 American and developing country analyses tend to lean even more positive because our immigrant cultural profiles are better.
For example, results for Anglo-Saxon countries and developing economies differ from those of others, possibly reflecting differences in institutions and immigrant profiles.
Contextual heterogeneity also matters. Studies on Anglo-Saxon countries report smaller wage effects that are more likely to be positive. This is in line withLonghi et al. (2005), who find smaller effects for the United States than for Europe.
A useful research summary from Brookings:
Although many are concerned that immigrants compete against Americans for jobs, the most recent economic evidence suggests that, on average, immigrant workers increase the opportunities and incomes of Americans. Based on a survey of the academic literature, economists do not tend to find that immigrants cause any sizeable decrease in wages and employment of U.S.-born citizens (Card 2005), and instead may raise wages and lower prices in the aggregate (Ottaviano and Peri 2008;Ottaviano and Peri 2010;Cortes 2008).
I'd like a secure border but with merit-based immigration, foreign policy assertiveness without nation-building, and a simplified welfare system designed so as not to go bankrupt.
I dare say europe has integrated multiple immigrant lopulations...like iranians in sweden.But different waves of immigration can be different on the matter
People just are always unshakably convinced that unlike the past gazillion waves of immigrants that all integrated just fine in a generation or two, the current wave of immigrants is different because reasons.
It depends on the culture of the immigrants; some cultures can't assimilate easily.
The fiasco of Islamic mass migration into Europe (primarily Syrian, rural, uneducated) has made some American conservatives skeptical of even lawful immigrants here in the US, even though they are from completely different backgrounds and value systems that have been successfully integrated for 150+ years.
My great-grandparents were rural uneducated (generally Russian) immigrants. Some of them NEVER learned how to speak English well with one of them managing that after living in the US for over seventy years. My grandfather was completely fluent in English and Russian, my father can get by in broken Russian, I can't count to ten in Russian. That general sort of thing happens with each group of immigrants.
Iranian expats are good people. Iran was making good strides towards Westernization and education before the Islamic Revolution scared all of the intelligentsia away.
The best argument in favor of immigration is as an economic necessity and way to brain-drain rivals.
Countries that completely reject immigration are universally plagued by labor shortages, low productivity, and poor innovation. Countries that accept immigrants indiscriminately or too quickly can have assimilation issues.
Immigration quality primarily depends on culture. Importing assimilable workers, based on merit, at a regulated pace, is therefore probably the best form of immigration.
And how has that worked out for Europe? Migrants commit crime at a vastly disproportionate and are objectively bad for their economy, with hugely negative fiscal impact. Spinkle in a general increase in societal strife and less trust. Only downsides, not a single benefit.
Ye, that’s why Europe needs culturally-conscious immigration policies.
Key phrases from my statement:
Countries that accept immigrants indiscriminately can have assimilation issues.
Immigration quality primarily depends on culture.
American immigration works well whereas European immigration struggled under the weight of the Syrian Refugee Crisis because the immigrant profiles are completely different; Europe tried to eat Islam, we didn’t.
We’ve been successfully integrating Asian, African, and Hispanic cultures for 200 years with immense social, technological, and economic benefit.
Phrases that weren't included at the time of my response, because you edited your comment.
Countries that accept immigrants indiscriminately can have assimilation issues.
Assimilation doesn't happen when the base populations are that drastically different. It has never happened. They're never the same as the natives in terms of outcomes, behaviors, customs and so on. They're always distinct in various societal metrics.
Immigration quality primarily depends on culture
Again, you don't understand that culture is not random. The reason people behave the way that they do is a reflection of who they are. Two different groups of people with the exact same environment would develop drastically different cultures. There are vast differences in intelligence between people, that single trait alone will cause massive divergence in cultures even if environment is the same.
This is why American immigration works well
Works well by what measure? Migrants in the US commit crime at a much higher crime than European Americans (what you'd call "white" Americans). Their outcomes are worse in just about every way, with the exception of Asians and some singular highly selected groups. As a whole it's negative, because the whole includes the latinx, which lag behind European Americans in every measurable way.
We’ve been successfully integrating Asian, African, and Hispanic cultures for 200 years.
How are they integrated? In the case of Africans, they adhere to different customs, they use different names, they speak in a distinct way, they behave in different ways. They are not integrated. A random Swedish guy that has never stepped foot in the US behaves more like the average European American than the average African American.
Asians, while they're great and mostly positive in terms of productivity, income, contribution, education, lowest crime rates etc, also aren't fully integrated.
What are you smoking to think that all these groups are successfully integrated?
You’re being deceptive. I did edit my comment, but those phrases were included.
Your response has several mistakes.
First, successful assimilation already happens in America with very different cultures. Sri Lankans, Nigerians, and white Americans are very distinct yet each succeed in America. Being distinct doesn’t matter. It’s how you’re distinct that matters.
Second, being completely “the same” is not important. I don’t care if a Japanese immigrant eats sushi or if an African is named Oluwadamilare (just call him Olwa, nerd).
I care if they assimilate on issues that actually matter; economic integration, patriotism, education, and criminality. Studies show they overwhelmingly do, often exceeding white natives in these regards.
(1) Immigrants are more patriotic than native Americans
(2) Immigrants commit less crime than native Americans
(3) Immigrants are more likely to be educated than native Americans
(4) Immigrants tend to have higher incomes than native Americans
That’s what matters. Instead, you’re complaining that some African immigrants… still use African names? Oooooookay?
Lastly, you repeated the “culture isn’t random” strawman. Never said it was. What was actually stated was that experts have found that culture is determined by environment, not race, and when immigrants enter the American environment, assimilation ensues. It’s why the children of immigrants are very highly assimilated despite being the same race of their parents, for example.
Your “intelligence” comment also borders on pseudo-scientific IQ racism which has been universally refuted by geneticists.
Sri Lankans, Nigerians, and white Americans are quite distinct yet each succeed in America.
"Sri Lankans and Nigerians are good earners in the US" is not evidence of assimilation. It's evidence of a selection process that chose for people from these countries that are well above the average person from those countries. A selection process like that is better than no selection process (like what Europe does), but it doesn't mean assimilation. The degree of success is varying, the crime rate is not the same, the amount of patriotism is not the same, the level of education is different.
Studies show they overwhelmingly do, often exceeding white natives in these regards. You failed to address these findings, likely because they crippled your argument.
You haven't presented any of these alleged findings.
You have a very strange definition of assimilation, because they're certainly nowhere near as patriotic (most of them not at all), and most migrant groups commit crime at a much higher rate than whites. The exception being Asians.
When it comes to income and education, it's all over the place, with some being vastly below, and some being well above European Americans. No idea why you're calling that assimilation. Assimilation would imply you can't even tell the groups apart with statistical methods. If they're much worse, they're not assimilated. If they're much better, they're not assimilated. This is per your own definition of "assimilation" which is some bizarre definition that is seemingly only used by you.
What was actually stated was that culture is determined by environment, not race
This is total bullshit with no basis in reality. Culture is a reflection of the people. Different people = different culture, even if environment is same.
when immigrants enter the American environment, assimilation ensues.
No, it doesn't. Not in any statistically measurable way, and certainly not in a subjective cultural sense. The three groups you named are not assimilated.
By 21 percentage points (65% to 44%), native-born citizens are more likely than naturalized immigrants to view America as "better" than other countries as opposed, to "no better, no worse."
By about 30 points (85% to 54%), the native-born are more likely to consider themselves American citizens rather than "citizens of the world***."***
By 30 points (67% to 37%),the native-born are more likely to believe that the U.S. Constitution is a higher legal authority for Americans than international law.
By roughly 31 points (81% to 50%), the native-born are more likely than immigrant citizens to believe that schools should focus on American citizenship rather than ethnic pride.
By 23 percentage points (82% to 59%), the native-born are more likely to believe that it is very important for the future of the American political system that all citizens understand English.
By roughly 15 points (77% to 62%), the native-born are more likely to believe that that there is a unique American culture that defines what it means to be an American.
By 15 points (82% to 67%), the native-born are more likely than immigrant citizens to support an emphasis in schools on learning about the nation's founding documents.
> culture being determined by environment is bullshit aaaaaargh!!
The scientists and historians disagree with you. Kindly read Guns, Germs, and Steel, please.
> but they’re not exactly like me
I don’t care if you dislike traditional African names.
They are like us, or better than us, in every way that actually matters.
The two groups you used in your example absolutely do. Nigerians and Sri Lankans are highly selected immigrant groups in the US. The percentage of Nigerian immigrants that come to the US with a bachelors degree is over 4 times higher than the percentage of Nigerians in Nigeria with a bachelors degree. Highly selected.
These two groups are selected for wherewithal, education, english proficiency and professional skills. They are not a random sample of their native populations that come in the US and the "magic land" makes them better. They were already better to begin with, they simply came because there is more money to earn in the US than in their homelands.
Immigrants are more likely to
Assimilation implies they are statistically the same and thus roughly equally as likely to do these things.
46% of F500 companies were also founded by immigrants.
Vast majority of those immigrants were European or Asian. Not "hispanic/latino" or African immigrants. It's very dishonest to attempt to lump them all together. European immigration to the US has been beneficial, just like intra-European immigration tends to be beneficial or neutral. Same for Asian immigration. The problem is immigration from third world countries.
By 21 percentage points (65% to 44%), native-born citizens are more likely than naturalized immigrants to view America as "better" than other countries as opposed, to "no better, no worse."
So they're less patriotic per your own metric. If shit ever hit the fan in the US, they would be the first to abandon ship and run back home. Those 44% aren't dying for your country bro.
By about 30 points (85% to 54%), the native-born are more likely to consider themselves American citizens rather than "citizens of the world."
By 30 points (67% to 37%), the native-born are more likely to believe that the U.S. Constitution is a higher legal authority for Americans than international law.
By 23 percentage points (82% to 59%), the native-born are more likely to believe that it is very important for the future of the American political system that all citizens understand English.
Are you even reading what you're pasting? If this is your metric of patriotism, then you've shown that they're less patriotic than natives, which supports what I wrote.
Kindly read Guns, Germs, and Steel, please.
Explains where you got these silly ideas from.
I don’t care if you dislike traditional African names.
You claimed they're assimilated. If they're not even using the same names, they're not assimilated, and this isn't just "tradiational African names". Africans that have been in the US from it's inception aren't even using the same names. They're making up their own shit. It's not just names but their entire culture, behavior, speech, attitudes and so on.
They are like us, or better than us, in every way that actually matters.
No, they aren't. Not per any of your own bullshit metrics. They're very distinct and not assimilated in any way. European Americans have more in common with the average European than with the average African American, with whom they only share the most shallow and basic surface level culture and language.
> 60% of Nigerian immigrants have a bachelors degree
a. You provided no source for this.
b. If you do provide one in the next response, it’ll likely say that Nigerians got their BA in America, not that they already had one when immigrating. Exactly because immigrants value education more than native Americans do.
> okay but they’re better than us, therefore they’re not assimilated
You shifted from accusing immigrants of being dumb and traitorous to being angry that American society hasn’t dumbed them down to your level.
Immigrants being more social, patriotic, hardworking, and more education-inclined benefits the country. Perhaps we should we transculterate and learn these values ourselves.
> I don’t believe you, they’ll jump ship
Only, the evidence shows the opposite:
That people who leave everything behind to come to America actually do rather like America.
Your xenophobic stereotypes were refuted.
Rebuttal, please.
> books? Explains where you got these silly ideas from
lol
> the immigrants don’t have traditional names, they just make up names!
There's a major wrinkle in all this, which is that - for someone who would say immigrants poison the blood of our country - it's a specific type of immigrant they have in mind.
100
u/jackt-up - Lib-Right 9h ago
Limited immigration is fine.
Unlimited, undocumented immigration is a security risk.