Your argument is simply is not true and is grossly misinformed. I'd suggest you review American history as this idea of processing and limits on immigration didn't happen until the nation was much older. “The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respected Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations and Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges…” George Washington Until the late 1800's there were no broad restrictions on immigration. Any white person could come over and become a citizen so long as they lived here for 2 years and had "good character". The concept of "deportation" didn't exist. There was no such thing as an "illegal alien". https://www.history.com/topics/immigration/immigration-united-states-timeline
I am not sure Dachuda is looking to mainstream American history, but to the strains that arise from time to time whenever folks start feeling economically insecure. They like to "punch down". From Lincoln on immigration. During the years before he ran for president, Abraham Lincoln made it clear that he found the anti-immigrant sympathies of the nativist “Know-Nothing Party” to be hypocritical. In an 1855 letter, he wrote that “As a nation, we begin by declaring that ‘all men are created equal.’ We now practically read it ‘all men are created equal, except negroes.’ When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read ‘all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and catholics.’ When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty — to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy.” https://www.boundless.com/blog/lincoln/
The Statue of Liberty only reinforced the idea. It was a gift because of what we had done. It wasn't a case of someone saying let's start this new idea for America. Was Thomas Paine who has already been referenced here one of the founding fathers of this nation? Yes or no. The rest of what you posted is a strawman. We aren't arguing in favor of open borders. So your diatribe against that is not relevant to the discussion here.
So efficient, is what I would say. And very typical of you to dismiss Bernie's fundamental hypocrisy.
RE: Statue of Liberty and the inscription by Emma Lazarus 1) There was no welfare state in those days 2) 80% of those immigrants went back to their home country, because they really could not succeed here 3) It's not part of the constitution 4) Emma Lazarus was a socialist
This is a truly ignorant post that somebody who has no actual knowledge of the history of this country. The really ignorant part is you trying to conflate the settling of North America with the founding of the United States. Yes it was a free for all there were no immigration laws until 1882.
What? Are we having a contest for the most ignorant statements in this thread? What the hell is circulating in the right wing echo chamber these days?
The early colonies were a magnet for religious and other refugees fleeing oppression in England and Europe. The revolutionary period was marked with high enlightenment ideals about the rights of man and the social contract of government - maybe not always in practice, but in philosophy an attitude that scoffed at the Old World divisions. It's a lot more than just the Statue of Liberty. And, let's say this ideal of a nation of immigrants that we've been telling ourselves forever is just a bit of 20th century propaganda -- why do you want to not be a nation of immigrants? Why do you want to reshape the historiography of what we say about ourselves? It was very hard to be an illegal immigrant before the late 19th century because we didn't have any rules keeping people out. The European immigrants pulled up the ladder behind them.
Probably pulled up the ladder because certain groups don't assimilate well generally.... they just build enclaves, don't contribute, and become a public charge.... good reasons to not be a nation of immigrants. I would rather us be a nation of Americans. Also we don't need the illegal aliens. We will automate jobs so yeah no thanks to more low skilled labor. The romantic notions about the land of opportunity is just that. It is not a free for all. You can't just open up shop for everyone. The current problem is akin to a ton of people just coming into your house without being invited and then conplaining that there isn't enough food, and that you should take care of them, and give them a bed, and then change the sheet cause they're dirty.
People are people. Given the right conditions, they will do the same sorts of things. Anyway, I don't buy your comparison. Most immigrants, and especially the illegal ones, work hard when they get here. Their work and their consumption enlarges the economy. They aren't a net drag. I could share some scholarship on that, but it sounds like your mind is already made up anyway. The American ideal of a land of opportunity is wrapped up in so many other ideals we have about ourselves, especially the conservative ones ironically. What about rugged individualism, the idea that people are best served by being self-reliant and without government interference. Ascribe to that? If so, how to square the idea of self-reliance with the idea that the government should keep competitors out for you? You seem to have a starkly different idea of what America should be than what I have, and different again from what conservatives have traditionally had.
Unfortunately, I think this would have been/will be the base even if Trump was never elected president. There is a growing divide in our country, and I think it will have to be either solved by violence; or, perhaps, political separation. I don't wish this to be the case, but when we can't even agree on what reality is ……
This is a key issue. Are people the same everywhere? I think the answer is no. People may share some basic desires -- family, to get ahead in life, a decent place to live -- but there are wide cultural differences beyond that.
This is a bit of a red herring, Cultural differences are everywhere. What do the Federalist Papers say about that? The notion that newcomers shouldn’t be brought to the table because they don’t share our norms and customs is inherently American. We all feel entitled to our status and don’t want others to “jump the line”. Many citizens claim that status through birthright, rather than by choice, which means it’s rested in the laurels from others before us.
Agreed that there are cultural differences. Culture is mutable, but as dachuda references, groups will defend and preserve their culture. He says certain groups "don't assimilate well generally." as if non-assimilation is a characteristic of the people and not of the circumstance. There are neighborhoods in Houston where people can live and not learn English -- they can do all their business in Spanish or Chinese. Likewise, you can go to Saudi Arabia and live on a compound where you never speak Arabic and your wife can wear shorts. Westerners aren't any better at assimilating than anyone else. The Old Testament has a notable emphasis on the Jews setting themselves apart with rules that make it difficult for them to do basic things like share a meal with gentiles. And Jews have done a remarkable job of preserving their culture over millennia living as a minority in many different places, but they've also assimilated enough to be a part of the ethnic tapestry of many countries. They are part of a nation while also making themselves distinct. We mostly accept that in the US. Assimilation is not an inherent ability of "certain groups", anyone and everyone will do it in the right circumstances, and avoid it if the circumstances are wrong. But assimilation isn't a one-sided thing where one culture surrenders its people completely to the other. When the Germans came to Texas, they brought their tall genes, their unpronounceable names, and their cuisine, all of which is now woven into Texan culture. The implication from the ladder-pullers is that they don't want to bear the costs on their side to make this assimilation happen -- they don't want to have Spanish or mosques or injera be part of what it means to be American. They want to push the change entirely on the immigrating culture, or else shut the door.
I don't think I spoke to this one way or the other. But certainly I think it's a problem to let in people who don't want to assimilate or contribute. Look at recent news from Denmark. They cut back their welfare programs, and the Pakistanis in Denmark were like "we're outta here." There's a lesson in that.
