What at the end matters if if the immigrants are law abiding and contribute to the local economy. Indians hardly show up in any crime statistics and make up generally as part of high earning group of immigrants.
Suddenly every immigrant has to be this pristine model minority which has never been the case. That's why I gave those examples. People will find ways to target immigrants no matter what. This kind of narrative I see popping up everywhere where people don't like immigrants. This isn't even US specific.
The goalpost keeps shifting from legal, law-abiding immigrants to they better assimilate, say nothing bad or we are going to create policies which actively target some group based on how a particular government feels about them.
I do separately think there is a risk that what worked reasonably well when combining all Europeans may not work when combining all humans. There is no historical example to look at to go “oh yeah that does work fine in the long run”. At a completely abstract level, what we have been doing since the ‘60s is an experiment (combine all humans) that is different from the one we started with on this continent (combine all Europeans). Just because the first one worked doesn’t mean the second one will, right? Even if we ran the first one again from scratch, maybe we got lucky the first time, for all we know maybe that scenario only succeeds 10% of the time. Should we be at all cautious here, or is this just terrible evil heresy talk?
I'm white as heck and have worked with plenty of first-generation Indians, and if you can't manage to make friends with at least one of them, it's a skill issue. The problem is you.
And by the way, what reality do we live in that your local megacorp can decide to radically alter your population demographic and people support the megacorps ability to do that? There was no vote for the existing inhabitants about whether they wanted to take the trade off, the decision was made for them by businessmen. It’s pretty weird when you think about it.