I support your idea. Would you agree that all immigrants that arrived in America after, let's say, 1493, have to leave America and apply for citizenship?
If you don't agree, can you propose another immigration year after which you'd have to leave America again? Would you agree on 1783?
I'm not amused. Are you amused?
> They created a new society on the land.
I see my message didn't quite get through.
You're almost there however. Think one step further: What stops the next "immigrants" from renaming your cute "society" that you currently have there, and declare a proper, civilized society, with a proper culture for once?
Seriously did not expect a MiniTel reference here. Vive Le France‽
And it is also interesting how easily European countries went back to authoritarian or even totalitarian states given the opportunity. Yet US is more resilient and one explanation is subtle influence of Indian culture that still affects US.
As for technological advantage of Europe then 3000 years ago Ancient Egypt was way more advanced than Europe. 1000 years ago Arabic countries were more advance and 500 years ago China was more advanced. And Europe was lucky that China was focused on internal problems and not territorial expansion.
>1000 years ago Arabic countries were more advance [sic] and 500 years ago China was more advanced.
Yeah real life isn’t your science fiction fantasy. None of this is true. I am aghast at how ostensibly smart people have, just in the last couple years, adopted a view of history that is completely at odds with the written record.
Nothing, but it is our right, as Trump does, to call that an invasion and forcibly reject it.
There's nothing I would rather be
Than to be an Aborigine
And watch you take my precious land away
For nothing gives me greater joy
Than to watch you fill each girl and boy
With superficial, existential shit
Now you may think I'm cheeky
But I'd be satisfied
To rebuild your convict ships
And sail them on the tide
- i started watching football with my american friends
- i studied the american political system enough to have educated discussions about it
- i caught healthcare fraud at federal level which was mainly hurting very old americans.
- i started doing barbeque
- i started going out on the weekend
- i tip heavily
what i don't do: eat at drive throughs, buy stuff that i don't need, guns etc.
I still carry a chip on my shoulder and worry about ICE just detaining me for no reason.
"They don't assimilate" is just a cover for "They don't look and talk like us".
Assimilation is about how you think and what you value. It’s not just knowing about the American political system, but understanding and embracing the values and worldview that created it.
My father in law is another example. His ancestors came to the U.S. before the revolutionary war and went to Oregon on the wagon trials. He’s soft-spoken, skeptical by default of government and academic knowledge, involved of community civic institutions, extremely tolerant, etc. He grew up dirt poor but would never say he was disadvantaged.
I’d say Tim Walz and Bill Clinton are other stereotypical examples of real Americans. The Obamas, as well, though representing two different groups of Americans.
But I appreciate and enjoy Americans the same way I appreciate and enjoy the Japanese.
Why don't you live by your principles and return to Bangladesh? To use your own argument (not mine), your culture is both inferior to the American culture and Americans have voted to not have "your kind" here.
One way or another, you are being disingenuous, either through your words or your actions.
The founder’s America ceased to exist at the national level with the election of FDR.
Now you are just bullshitting bc you think you have ran out of substantive things to say, which you never had, to begin with.
And yet I'm sure you didn't lose respect for your family and background, because one can do both things simultaneously. But those other brown people are different and bad and have bad culture that ruins things, right?
They don't have the same religion, customs, values, history, etc.
Assimilation takes generations, and the point of integration is that some of their culture is retained. That is how you get pizza snd maffia to New York (to name two random examples), or how languages evolve.
For example, I am from Amsterdam area. The culture there was heavily influenced by Jewish diaspora, and the dialect by Yiddish and Bargoens. The street language nowadays is a mish-mash of English, Jewish, and Arabian culture, as well as that which influenced Dutch language before (mainly English, German, French, Latin, Greek, and I am probably forgetting to mention some). Some parts of our culture are still artifacts from past, we just take them for granted. Last name for example, was introduced by Napoleon. The Austria-Hungarians had influence on the south, and religiously the Catholics are mainly from south (as well as entire Belgium) with the North (above the rivers) being rather Protestants. Language-wise, Belgium's history of three languages is of interest, you could say the same about Switzerland. I wouldn't call USA solely English-speaking either. Heck, just look at the names of places around SV.
Also, would you tip if the food was terrible? I wouldn't. They should be happy I paid (my wife before I knew her once had soup so salty, she send back to kitchen. Chef said was normal. They didn't resolve, yet the soup was on the bill. She and her friends just left).
My recommendation to you? Well, I am not from USA but been in Cali a couple of times. Pivot to people who accept you for who you are. Don't hide where you're coming from, use it to empower you instead.
> They don't have the same religion, customs, values, history, etc.
Correct. But why is it “hatred” for people to not want immigrants to bring foreign customs and values with them? Customs and values are substantive! The customs and values of people around you affect your life, especially in a democracy where those people get to vote on the laws that govern you.
> Assimilation takes generations
Correct! You and Stephen Miller are on the same page about that.
> That is how you get pizza snd maffia to New York (to name two random examples)
Correct again! Why is it “hatred” and “stupidity” if you think the pizza wasn’t worth the mafia?
> For example, I am from Amsterdam area
My hypothesis is that New York City would be cleaner, more polite, better governed, and more orderly if it was still New Amsterdam. But the food would be crap. Do you disagree?
And I'd assume and hope parts of your native culture rubbed off on your American friends.
As someone whose ancestors have been American for quite a while (1850s) I can't make sense of the idea espoused by some on this thread* that "American culture" is something that needs to be strongly protected from changing and that's why we need to virtually lock-down immigration.
The feature that makes "American culture" powerful is exactly that it assimilates to the people who come here, not that they assimilate to it.
* (not you, this is just a convenient jumping off point for me to chime in on)
If you think that culture is substantive rather than superficial, then it follows logically. America is extremely successful. So it should be skeptical of cultural influence from places that are very unsuccessful.
> The feature that makes "American culture" powerful is exactly that it assimilates to the people who come here, not that they assimilate to it
But is that true? Massachusetts is one of the most functional states in the country. It is both affluent and prosperous, but also orderly and well governed. What’s a good part of Massachusetts culture that doesn’t come from the original British settlers and their descendants?
Wouldn’t New York City be a better city—cleaner, less corrupt, more orderly—if it was in Massachusetts?
I spent the first 22 years of my life living in Massachusetts around the Boston area and a lot of my fondest childhood memories center around celebrating multiculturism: St Patrick's day parades in Southie, Saint Anthony's feasts in the North End, August Moon Festival in Chinatown, etc.
> Wouldn’t New York City be a better city—cleaner, less corrupt, more orderly—if it was in Massachusetts?
I don't think so, I also lived in NYC for a year in 1999 and have visited it many times before and since and found NYC a much more interesting and vibrant place than Massachusetts, though both have their charms.
Those are all superficial. Without those cultural influences, Massachusetts would still be basically the same state, just with worse food.
> I don't think so, I also lived in NYC for a year in 1999 and have visited it many times before and since and found NYC a much more interesting and vibrant place than Massachusetts, though both have their charms.
“Vibrant” is a euphemism for “chaotic and dirty.” Nobody ever says Copenhagen is “vibrant.” Massachusetts is objectively better than New York in almost every way. It has great schools while New York has shit schools, but Massachusetts spends 25% less per student. Massachusetts has much lower corruption, greater state capacity to perform public works, etc. Those are the measures of a place—not whether it is “vibrant” or “interesting.”
not that i know of, actually all the american friends i have made are super respectful of my native culture, especially the food and festivals.
> Saying “you wouldn’t want America to become more like the place you left” is a compelling message to many immigrants.
There is a very very large Indian community that echoes this sentiment (which you can see in very large expat FB groups) and wants to close the doors. They are extremely vocal and supportive of closing immigration, because their children now have to compete with the continuous influx.
Its just humans being human. Everyone wants to look after their own interests and there are lots of special interest groups, each with their own interests.
Nobody above said people who disagree with them are irrational.
Nobody said immigration should happen faster than anyone can assimilate.
They said preventing people from applying for green cards while on an existing visa will make it much much harder to immigrate legally.
If you think immigrants need more time to assimilate so they don't change your culture but you still think immigration is good then it seems like you'd be against this change. On the other hand if you want to limit immigration to just the wealthy this sounds like exactly the matching policy.
Also, Trump winning the naturalized citizen vote doesn't mean naturalized citizens all think the same way. Even if they all did think the US was perfect and their country of origin was garbage that STILL doesn't mean they think other people from their country are bad, obviously. Being at risk from your government or thinking your government needs to change doesn't imply you think other citizens from your culture are bad.
It reduces the number of immigrants, which facilitates assimilation and reduces the capacity of immigrants to change american culture.
> Also, Trump winning the naturalized citizen vote doesn't mean naturalized citizens all think the same way.
The point is that it’s not just “immigrant” versus “anti-immigrant,” because immigrants themselves are split in views.
> Being at risk from your government or thinking your government needs to change doesn't imply you think other citizens from your culture are bad.
There’s an assumption baked into your statement: that the government they left is unrelated to the “culture.” That’s hotly debated.
My parents grew up in Bangladesh, and both of them believe that Bangladesh is the way it is because of our culture. Their views on immigration thus are nuanced. They think we should treat immigrants well, obviously. But they are pretty alarmed by Little Bangladesh and the ethnic enclaves that exist now, which didn’t really exist in the 1980s when we came here.
That said, you are impressively wrong. If someone doesn't agree with me because they choose to believe obviously false or made-up data, that is being irrational.
Is it rational to suppress large-scale studies of vaccination? If someone says "I am against vaccination because there are no large-scale studies", is that rational?
You should also consider the other side of the equation, which is that immigration is the only thing that's keeping the US workforce and total population growing.
The size of the workforce and overall population has real economic, fiscal and quality of life impacts that every American feels on a daily basis and there's a very strong argument to be made that if your interest is in maintaining US wealth and "strength" globally, you don't want to become Japan, South Korea, Italy or Germany.
This is not to say that immigration policy should be made thoughtlessly or recklessly, but I rarely see the staunchest immigration opponents mentioning the stark demographic reality that faces the country.
The first is that even if every graduate was hired tomorrow, it still wouldn't be enough to outpace the number of older workers leaving the workforce. The Social Security worker-to-retiree ratio was about 5:1 in 1960 and is about 2.7:1 now, and still dropping.
The second is that most new college grads aren't filling the jobs that need filling. The most acute shortages are in fields like agriculture, construction, home health/elder care, meat processing, and hospitality. Unless new grads are going to start doing farm work or taking care of the elderly, there still aren't enough American-born workers to meet the needs of the labor market.
So basically, immigration solves a different problem than the one you're referring to. Yours is a big one too but it's a separate issue.
Many of the people doing this are themselves children of immigrants. They recognize that individual immigrants can be fine but the large-scale flow of immigrants can create undesirable changes.[1] Don’t assume people are irrational just because they don’t agree with you.
[1] Trump narrowly won the naturalized citizen vote. Saying “you wouldn’t want America to become more like the place you left” is a compelling message to many immigrants.