The US went from 87.9% white in 1900, to 72.4% in 2010 [2]. Unfortunately, I couldn't find such demographic histories for other countries. But search for "US/Europe becoming more diverse", and you'll find countless articles, from mainstream publications, asserting this. So to claim otherwise is extremely fringe.
And there is mathematically no way for a place to be becoming more diverse, while keeping historically constant migration. If the migration hadn't changed in some way, then it would already be diverse. It also means that, if it's becoming more diverse, that it was less diverse, i.e. more homogeneous, in the past.
Looking at the present, China is 91.6% ethnically Han [3], and Hungary is 93.5% ethnically Hungarian [4]. So unless you think China or Hungary or US in 1900-1970 are "the most remote parts of the world", then no, homogeneity is provably not a fallacy.
So yes, "People have been migrating from place to place for all of recorded history", but both the rate and nature of this migration changed, and just a quick glance at the headlines of virtually any news source is enough to tell you this.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Sweden#History
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_State...
Do you have sources to back this up? And how did those countries become homogeneous, then?
And, modern nation states are very new. For example, France drove to extinction or near extinction all languages besides French spoken in what is now present day France through government policy. Like the language of Bretagne.
Your profound misunderstanding of history is not something I can rectify with citations. Read a book? Like, a scholarly book.
Well that would be a giant step back from all the gains that have been made post WWII with the development of the United Nations, UN Security Council, UN Charter, and the entire body of international laws which is founded on sovereign nations voluntarily subjecting themselves to these international law, treaties, customs and norms.
Why will future generations be interested in things that never existed?
EDIT: Why the downvotes? I'm asking a genuine question. How did I manage to offend?
People also want temporary residence to be given to asylum seekers, as specified in the UN Convention on Refugees. Allowing someone to remain in the country is not the same as granting them citizenship. It is also not the same as entitlement to benefits, entitlement to vote, etc.
To be fair here, those who support the detention regime are also generally in favour of deportation. However, current US laws require amounts of due process (to evaluate the claim on its merits) that -- combined with current administrative resources -- result in a slow timeline for hearings and deportation.
Therefore, immigration advocates argue for continuing the past practice of release on bail-like conditions, whereas restrictionists argue that such release is itself a threat (e.g., claimants can 'disappear' as illegal immigrants) and detention is necessary notwithstanding the human cost.
In the meantime, there is also evidently an informal argument that detention itself should act as a deterrent, as weaponized cruelty. This argument is legally and morally reprehensible, but as far as I know policymakers have not officially made it.
Literally none of those are "giving citizenship to everyone who wants it". To take your eventually example to the next step, if their children's children have kids on US soil, they will automatically be US citizens. By your logic, the existing US Constitution is "little different" from the same policy.
8 U.S. Code § 1158. Asylum Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.
False dichotomy.
"A situation in which two alternative points of view are presented as the only options, when others are available."
There was never really a crisis until we created one.
Recently, Trump's DOJ reverted policy back to the way had been for decades. This has reduced the incentive to send women and children first because domestic violence/crime are no longer grounds for asylum claims.
Yes, they crossed the border illegally, in order to apply for asylum, because they would have been automatically rejected otherwise.
Think though, for a moment, how desperate someone must be, to give up their home, travel thousands of miles (not in an airplane) and put their lives in danger, just for the chance for asylum in the USA.
> They possibly even did it with the idea of appealing to emotion of US citizens to get away with it.
Yes, because parents of children often sacrifice their children's health and livelihood just to make a point. Or as a media stunt.
If you don't care about these people, if you feel no sympathy at all, that's fine (well... it's not fine, but it is besides the point). But such cynicism as to their own motives is not accurate.
The founding fathers weren't shy about writing their ideas down. If you're going to speak of the founding, maybe you can quote the actual words of the actual founding fathers, instead of a poet 100 years later. Where did they say the country was founded as a refuge for asylum-seekers?
Also ironic you would bring them up since they were very much an "asylum for me, but not for thee" group, which explains all of the religious refugees leaving Massachusetts during the pilgrim's rule.
vs.
No it isn't.
“Conquerors” and “immigrants” are meaningfully distinct, and the reason the indigenous people of the continent aren't dominant is at least as much the former as the latter.
Also, "aslyum-seeker" and "immigrant" are two distinct concepts.
A) "I had no way to provide food for my family, and didn't want to be killed by drug cartels."
If you choose to enforce your presence on a country that doesn't want you, you're in the wrong.
What the USA is doing is inhumane (news at 11) but I have very little sympathy for people who put their children at risk like that.
I'd turn into a criminal before putting my children at risk like that. Maybe this makes me a worse person. It certainly makes me a person whose children are not in involuntary semi-permanent detention.
At least, that’s the fear of those who are fleeing. I wouldn’t know how accurate their beliefs are.
I don't think you grasp the severity of the situation in Mexico. Perhaps you should go strut your tough stuff over the border. The state dept advise against it due to the high levels of violence and kidnapping.
That wouldn't matter to a would-be criminal though.
? Who's talking about ethnic cleansing? We're talking about violence cause as a consequence of the USA's drug policy + CIA interference.
The levels of misconception in this thread are remarkable
Yes, I agree, the levels of misconception really are remarkable.
on edit - should have said Central America instead of South America.
Mexico is a civilized democracy with public safety problems, you people talking as if it was North Korea...
It literally includes all other countries in the American continent except for Guyana.
Immigrate to these countries instead. Thank me later.
Why would someone illegally immigrate to the USA in this day and age is beyond my comprehension.
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
Specifically to respond to this misconception: ALL of the people from "the caravan", ALL of the parents of the 70,000 children that were locked up and taken away FOLLOWED THE LAW and DID EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE TOLD THEM TO DO. They were seeking asylum and political refuge. They followed our law to receive protection/shelter.
Any other dialog is pure rhetoric and Trump based fear mongering.
So most of these recent claims can and should be immediately rejected. There was brief window where Obama's DOJ changed policy and allowed granting asylum for local criminal problems (non-state oppression). Trump's DOJ changed the asylum policy, returning to international norms.
So unless an alien is fleeing state oppression and they have tried to get asylum at the nearest/adjacent non-conflict country, they have no grounds for receiving asylum in the USA.
Asylum and political refuge? Cause you're poor and from a violent place? Might as well bring in the whole of south America then...
> Any other dialog is pure rhetoric and Trump based fear mongering.
I don't have a horse in this race. I'm a south-American immigrant myself. I didn't vote nor care for y'alls Orange Leader. I just feel personal responsibility shouldn't be downplayed.
The US jailed 70,000 migrant children this year. I doubt history will smile on that.