[flagged]
Sure, you might think of it as "people with citizenship of another nation."
But I suspect it's more along the lines of "people who don't look like me."
White Afrikaaners are welcome (we'll even invent persecution and call them refugees), but folk from elsewhere (ie actual refugees), um, less welcome.
The trope about "culture assimilation" also comes up. It's OK for Irish and Italian immigrants to keep their culture, adding to the melting pot, but Mexicans and Africans less so
And sure, lots of people are friendly to "the immigrant they know" while at the same time being very against "immigration". One need look no further than the last few elections to see this in action.
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.
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?
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.
Seriously did not expect a MiniTel reference here. Vive Le France‽
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.
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?
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)
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.
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?
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.
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.
> 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.
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?
What I do notice is a clearly liberal HN bubble that does not represent the country I see and the people I talk to and I'm not selective. You're of course entitled to your views, just don't take others' views as unfounded just because you don't agree. (Collective you). I love the US and the values it stands for but dialogue and the "I'm right, you're wrong" has to improve on both sides.
I find your comment completely off base.
It looks like the policy intends to prevent immigration in every way possible, and (along with other policies that have come about recently), kick out as many people as possible; even those that are immigrating here legally (or have already done so).
So, other than a hate for immigrants/immigration, I don't see another possible explanation.
- People that didn't go through the proper channels, but have been here contributing peacefully to our society - hunted down, incarcerated, and/or kicked out, even though they're valuable members of our society
- People that are trying to go through the proper channels -hunted down, incarcerated, and/or kicked out
- People that are currently going through the proper channels - hunted down, incarcerated, and/or kicked out (sometimes literally _at_ the court houses while trying to go through proper channels)
- People that have already gone through the proper channels and have their greencards, hunted down, incarcerated, and/or kicked out
- People that are natural born citizens, hunted down, incarcerated, and/or kicked out
So our willingness to give the benefit of the doubt to the crowd that is claiming "we're just trying to get them to do it the right way to prevent abuse" is... just gone. It's not believable. Are there _some_ people that are honestly trying to do things right? Sure.. but the ones with the actual power, the ones out there taking action? They're not. They're out there causing harm just for the sake of causing harm.
But conservative voters that don’t want much immigration at all (especially from some places/backgrounds) absolutely exist, and more to the point so does leadership that’s determining policy with that goal in mind.
Perhaps you and your circle reflect the more egalitarian policy-driven view. Commendable if so. But it’s not commendable to deny that conservatism has a xenophobic streak a mile wide right now.
If you look at the rhetoric from the Trump people over the years, they absolutely and clearly do hate immigrants, or are doing their best to seem that way. As an example, consider the following quote^[1] from Trump just a few years ago:
> They let — I think the real number is 15, 16 million people into our country. When they do that, we got a lot of work to do. They’re poisoning the blood of our country [...] That’s what they’ve done. They poison mental institutions and prisons all over the world, not just in South America, not just to three or four countries that we think about, but all over the world. They’re coming into our country from Africa, from Asia, all over the world.
It's trivial to find more like that. Weird white supremacist-adjacent rhetoric. Equating immigrants with animals. Etc.
American conservatives may not hate immigrants, but they sure love a guy who fervently expresses his hatred and disdain for immigrants every chance he gets. They've voted him into our highest office twice, and immigration was a central pillar of his campaign both times. I fully understand that many people who voted for him did so for reasons besides immigration, but at this point if they aren't willing to disavow him after the catastrophic first year-and-change of his second term then I am done giving them the benefit of the doubt, because there must be some reason they still support him, and at this point it sure isn't his performance on inflation, general affordability, etc.
In fact, looking at the Silver Bulletin charts^[2] as of right now, immigration is the only macro issue they track where his approval isn't in free-fall.
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-says-im... [2] https://www.natesilver.net/p/trump-approval-ratings-nate-sil... (paywalled i think, unfortunately)
There are no doubt people against immigration entirely but the majority opinion I hear from conservative leaning people is that legal immigration is great and people that skip the system are the problem and the drag on social safety nets.
It is not a false equivalence. Both legal and undocumented immigrants are net positive for our economy, less likely to commit crimes, and part and parcel to the American experiment. This “we only disapprove of the illegal ones” continues to be a disingenuous and ignorant point of view.
But taxes aren’t the point, we have a process for legal immigration that works for millions of people a year. This is just like every other country (with even less stringent requirements than many other countries). Why should undocumented immigrants be granted the privilege of ignoring the law? Do you argue that Japan, China, Singapore, Australia, and/or Norway should do the same?
It’s frankly despicable, and I don’t respect conservatives who continue voting for politicians who are obvious liars and at a minimum are not campaigning on bringing level-headed reasonable ideas to immigration policy — only on how much they hate immigrants. Which reflects very, very poorly on conservative voters.
Trump can get far worse before the calculus changes for someone who thinks abortion is murder to start voting for Elizabeth Warren.
> I don’t want them in our country. I’ll be honest with you, OK. Somebody will say, ‘Oh, that’s not politically correct.’ I don’t care. I don’t want them in our country. Their country is no good for a reason,
> Their country stinks, and we don’t want them in our country,
> I am recommending a full travel ban on every damn country that’s been flooding our nation with killers, leeches, and entitlement junkies.
> We always take people from Somalia, places that are a disaster, right? [...] Filthy, dirty, disgusting, ridden with crime. The only thing they’re good at is going after ships.
> [Minnesota is] a hellhole right now. The Somalians should be out of here. They’ve destroyed our country. And all they do is complain, complain, complain,
Some other selections I found with zero effort:
> I’ve also announced a permanent pause on Third World migration, including from hellholes like Afghanistan, Haiti, Somalia and many other countries,
> Our country was going to hell. And we had a meeting, and I say, 'Why is it we only take people from shithole countries, right?' Why can’t we have some people from Norway, Sweden, just a few? Let us have a few from Denmark. Do you mind sending us a few people? Do you mind?'
> I think allowing millions and millions of people to come into Europe is very, very sad. I think you are losing your culture. Look around. You go through certain areas that didn't exist ten or 15 years ago.
> And I think [Europe] better watch themselves because you are changing culture. You are changing a lot of things. You’re changing security. You’re changing — look at what’s happening. I mean, you take a look. I mean, look at what’s happening to different countries that never had difficulty, never had problems…. I do not think it’s good for Europe and I don’t think it’s good for our country.
What do you call this rhetoric if not anti-immigrant? None of this is specific to illegal immigration; he commonly targets legal immigrants with his denigratory, hateful rhetoric (see above), and his second term immigration policy has in several high-profile instances targeted legal immigrants for deportation, as well as making it more difficult to obtain residency/citizenship (see: the subject of this post).
I guess he's specifically calling out immigration from "shithole countries" (brown/black people) while he is explicitly (though apparently hypothetically) fine with white people ("people from Norway, Sweden, just a few") coming in. Maybe he's just openly racist? Is that better, easier for "conservative leaning people" to swallow? When they say "legal immigration is great", is "legal" just a wink-wink shorthand for "white"?
---
Edit: I alluded to this in a reply below, but thanks to everybody replying to this comment for demonstrating that the theoretical "conservative I know" and "conservative leaning people" are, apparently, not universally representative of conservatives.
I hope you will not be offended if I don't reply to you individually, but I'm just not interested in having a conversation about whether these attitudes are valid. It's off topic, for one thing—the fact that they exist, that they surface in this context, is the only relevant takeaway here.
> American conservatives may not hate immigrants, but they sure love a guy who fervently expresses his hatred and disdain for immigrants every chance he gets. They've voted him into our highest office twice, and immigration was a central pillar of his campaign both times. I fully understand that many people who voted for him did so for reasons besides immigration, but at this point if they aren't willing to disavow him after the catastrophic first year-and-change of his second term then I am done giving them the benefit of the doubt, because there must be some reason they still support him, and at this point it sure isn't his performance on inflation, general affordability, etc.
Thank you for demonstrating what this looks like, I guess?
In Australia it's not uncommon for Somali immigrants to get econ and business doctorates and spawn commercial enterprises: https://thewarsan.com/the-somali-australian-success-stories-...
It's the perfect crutch, great way to never take responsibility for nothing
Though I do wish you well on your holiday plans
In 2011 the usian professor of political science Corey Robin published a book on conservative thought, which is a pretty succinct and easy read. Here's the second edition:
https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/left-vs-ri...
However, the US has been a prosperous country because it welcomes ambitious, hard-working, and skilled people from around the world. They immigrate, build inside the US and for the US, and the US economy grows. This is how the past several decades have worked, and restricting legal immigration would basically destroy this country, its economy, and everything that makes it a great place to live.
I'm a citizen of the US, and I 100% want more smart and hard-working people from around the world to come here and set up shop.
To use your vocabulary, it is a pernicious lie to pretend that America's success from WWI through the WWII recoveries was due to immigration policies, rather than other major countries having their infrastructure destroyed and being forced to use the US as a key supplier due to rather large wars.
(and that's ignoring that US population had booms in there that meant that even though immigration was persisting, there was just a big increase in domestic births).
Though if we're going to adopt those immigration policies, perhaps we should also adopt the tax strategies, corporate regulation, and worker unions that accompanied that growth.
I'm quite fine with that. I drove through an Armenian neighborhood of LA and stopped for a meal at a restaurant whose name I could not comprehend and it was really, fucking tasty. Zhengyalov Hatz in Glendale, if anyone is wondering.
But yeah, this is the kind of stuff that makes the US awesome. "Would-be Einsteins" are far from the only flavor hard-working people who I absolutely welcome.
https://www.cato.org/blog/founding-fathers-favored-liberal-i...
>These foreigners, if not properly disposed of, will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its directions, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass.[1]
-Thomas Jefferson
The Founders had a conception of immigration that is completely at odds with the free for all that exists today, and Cato is partially responsible for people incorrectly thinking that the US was “literally built on the idea of immigration”.
[1] https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/gdc/lhbcb/0490...
"From around the world" more like the "world tour" definition
They were welcoming mostly Europeans. First from WASP countries, then for more southern/eastern ones. And then from East Asia (I'll save the rant about the word "Asian" for another time)
Every piece of data shows some groups excel while some groups lag behind
(of course I haven't forgotten about other groups of people that came to the US but most of those didn't come willingly)
On top of this, do you think legal migrants are equal to your fellow country men?
Why else the need for this non sequitur?
So treating instability in these countries as mainly the result of U.S. involvement seems overly simplistic. Many U.S. interventions have contributed to instability, but many forms of U.S. involvement have also contributed to stability. Not to mention the enormous amounts of economic resources that come from the U.S. and enrich other countries through trade, investment, and remittances.
You can make a humanitarian case for immigration without reducing the causal history to "the U.S. destabilized these countries, so the U.S. owes them entry". The history is much messier than that.
Countries do prevent other countries from using their airspace, by the way.
As for U.S. territory, yes, you can make a case that it's the collective property of American citizens who then decide how the property will be governed through their elected representatives. How is that anti-liberty?
Im going to infer what they support from what their actions clearly say.