G-Man wrote: ↑Wed Jan 16, 2019 2:40 am
Antiboyscout wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 4:10 pmMost Mexican immigrants don't like illegal immigration ether. It's only when you scare them by assigning racist motivations to it that they fall in line.
I think that is true; Democrats want more immigration from the third world (especially of poor people) because they want more people whom they can make dependent on government. Constant denunciation of immigration restriction as racist is Democrats' weapon to limit the discussion of this issue. GOP donors love poor immigrants because it is a source of cheap labor to undercut American wages, so the GOP likes using this as a weapon to limit the discussion as well.
Draco Dracul wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 4:29 pmGeorge Bush for all his many, many faults didn't hold the country hostage over the boarder fence, actively worked to reach out to the Latino community, and had an actually attempt at genuine immigration reform.
No, he had an attempt at a massive amnesty with an immigration surge. "Immigration reform" is liberal-speak for "open borders" or "closer to open borders."
And Bush's outreach to the Latino community consisted of what? (a) Pushing for amnesty, and (b) pushing for lenders to stop requiring down payments on homes in order to make it easier for Latinos to get mortgages. Of course, this caused housing prices to soar and in 2008 it became obvious why down payments are a good idea....
Draco Dracul wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 4:29 pmYou don't have to assign racist motivations because the utterly broken immigration system that leads to people by passing it is the direct result of over 130 years of racist policy.
So unless we let everyone in who wants to come in, we are racist, and if someone bypasses our system, it's our fault for having a system that keeps them out. For those who believe that we have a right to determine who comes into our country, this is sort of like saying that sexual assault victims were assaulted because they would not consent quickly enough.
Draco Dracul wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:04 pm
One, if illegal immigrants can't find work they also return home, or at least south of the border. Notably migration across the US-Mexico border has been net negative for years at this point.
Except they can also have anchor babies and then use the social welfare system. And several states will let them use the social welfare system anyway. And given that a recent study has suggested that we have twice as many illegal aliens in the U.S. as the official estimates suggest
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/artic ... ne.0201193
I do not trust those numbers (and has migration over the Mexican border been net negative, or just immigration from Mexico - most people crossing over the Mexican border actually start from countries other than Mexico).
Draco Dracul wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:04 pmThree, due to the use of juis soli ensuring that second generation immigrants always become citizens, and the fact that the US is a relatively young nation that's been in flux for much of that time the US has been far more successful at integrating immigrants that Europe has.
I think it is more that our immigrants tend much more to be Asian or Latino rather than African or Middle Eastern and they tend to have more cultural similarities so they integrate better - I don't think that indiscriminate jus soli itself integrates people, it just gives them a political say. If we do not actively pursue assimilation, what we are really creating are little subcultures who are in conflict with one another. That is what is happening now and why I fear balkanization. Look at how California ended its English-only education system (which had helped integrate people very successfully) in the last five years.
Draco Dracul wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:23 pmThe lack of a unique culture is one of the main reasons why integration has been been successful time and time again. Rather than trying to bash them into a mold, whatever parts of the assimilated culture are worth keeping will permeate the loose soup that is American Culture.
Except Slash did not say that America has no unique culture, he said that under Progressive dominance America will have no unique culture.
America actually has had a fairly distinct culture until, say, the 1990s or so (although the move away probably started in the 50s and 60s). We had room for parts of other cultures, but you had to assimilate partway. We have been increasingly fracturing since then, and America has become more and more nothing but a marketplace for consumerism.
And the result has been that politics has increasingly become dominated by identity. Former Congressman Luis Gutierrez of Illinois said that his loyalty was to the immigrant community, suggesting that he sees himself not as working for the good of the U.S., but for his own community to get as much out of the U.S. as it can.
And unlike white people who try to come up with moralistic reasons to oppose it, Asian-Americans who oppose Affirmative Action in, e.g. California, generally frame the issue as one of Asian-American interests rather than of America as a whole.
Draco Dracul wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:23 pmThe emphasis of a strong, unique culture that you must fit a specific ideal lest you be deemed forever an outsider is a big reason why European countries have such a problem with large, insular cultural enclaves.
But there is a difference between being a strong, unique culture that has room for diversity, and being a non-culture that anyone can join because it has no content outside of an economy. No one is going to be willing to sacrifice for their mall. No emphasis on a strong culture means no real unity, and politics devolves into an ethnic/interest-group spoils system (what's in it for my group?)
Draco Dracul wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:23 pmIf you can be Turkish or German and are shunned by the one you don't pick, it's not surprising that you have large Turkish enclaves in German. If you can be Irish and American, then it's not surprising that you have a significant portion of Irish-Americans that are indistinguishable from other Americans beyond using it as an excuse for why they got so Drunk on March 17th.
Except that people are not being both. They are being [ethnic group] with the rights of an American. In California, English-only education was wildly successful at helping Spanish-speakers integrate, but as soon as the Democrats got into complete power they overturned it, because they do not want integration.
The idea of "I don't see [ethnicity], we're all just Americans." is really something that mostly only whites believe (and those minorities who do feel this way tend to vote Republican). I don't think that the idea that ethnic identity is subsumed into the greater American identity is really something that the majority of minorities subscribe to.
