I don't understand why you would say this. Doesn't it make more sense to reserve "racism" for discrimination based on the perception of inferiority of a particular genetic race? And instead use "culturist" or "nationalist" to talk about discrimination by culture or national origin? I realize you aren't the only person to use the term this way, but calling it the "definition of racism" to discriminate on something other than race seems likely to water down the term.
My landlord and the owner of the company I work for both came to the US from Iran in exactly this way and now they both own successful businesses built up from busting their asses driving cabs.
That has been The American Dream™ for generations and not the virtual indentured servitude I always hear about in these discussions.
For one example of success there are 100s if not 1000s of examples where they failed and relied on government handouts.
Also, how did "diversity visa" help in this case? Those guys succeeded because they were smart and hardworking. Clearly their country of origin did not make them successful.
Why? So you are okay with a guy who does not speak English, doesn't have moderate-high skills, will probably drive Uber or work in some restaurant over a moderately-skilled Indian/Chinese who understands and speaks relatively decent English, just because that guys is an Indian or Chinese? This is the definition of racism.
> Having multiple, smaller groups of people inside the USA also assists integration
No. Knowing the local language, understanding the local culture, knowing some people from a similar culture living in the country (a.k.a having a fallback - so as to not depend on government aid) helps in integration.
> Plus, just like the Olympics, diversity makes things interesting.
Absolutely. But that should depend on the skills and not on the nationality. Skilled people from Belgium-Mongolia would still get in regardless of "diversity lottery visa". What US needs is a point based system which rewards quality over just diversity.