Immigrants? Are we ignoring US-born Hispanics? Did you even check the sources I posted?
United States The United States and Immigration Policy
- Thread starter Big Steve
- Start date
Hence the "watered down", but at this point I think we've lost the plot. At any rate, my point here is to say that all previous immigrant waves to the US were demonstrably more left-wing than average, as their support for the New Deal Coalition among other things shows. As I said before, genuine cultural commitment to the free market is more or less unique specifically to Anglo-American culture, and that culture was displaced a long time before the present wave of immigration happened. There's no sense faffing about whether the current immigrant wave not culturally dedicated to the free market because there's no reason to believe that it will behave any differently than all the previous immigrant waves who were not culturally dedicated to the free market, which was all of them. Over time, market policies will demonstrate their success to this present wave just as they did to all the past ones. The fear that immigration will transform the cultural fabric of America is delusional--genuine American culture was destroyed by German and Irish and Italian and Slavic and so forth immigrants long before any of us were even born, and adding more immigrants to the mix will do nothing more to harm something that is already gone.
What relevance to US-born Hispanics have to discussing what our immigration policies should be? Immigrants are, rather notably, not US-born
So you would support an expansion of legal immigration then? Because nothing in this posts gives any reason to suggest why you shouldn't, and that's broadly what was being discussed in this conversation.
master arminas
New member
Yes. Absolutely yes. Provided that the immigrants can show that they are (1) willing to assimilate into american culture, (2) possess skills and/or knowledge that the country (as a whole) can utilize, and (3) are willing to become American citizens with all of rights and responsibilities thereof. Along with some (limited) refugee applicants. Not everyone wishing to flee the tyranny of their homeland wants to become an American, after all. We have to to take their own viewpoints on issues like democracy and freedom of religion to heart before allowing them entry.
At worst, nobody. At best, some new organization they think will be put together a couple years after CBP is disbanded.
Welcome to a small part of the problem with people claiming we should get rid of CBP. Other parts of which include CBP providing a necessary service in matching up unaccompanied minors with relatives in the states. And placing those unaccompanied minors without relatives in the states into background checked foster homes.
Arch Dornan
Oh, lovely. They've sent me a mo-ron.
Then they shouldn't be removed.
If there's trouble you investigate and reform things.
Course I doubt that's what the complainers think of since I keep hearing of things like disbanding ICE.
What. How do you think immigration works?
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
63% of Non-Citizen Households Access Welfare Programs
In 2014, 63% of households headed by a non-citizen reported that they used at least one welfare program, compared to 35 percent of native-headed households.cis.org
You are also talking immigration as a whole. It is highly likely to me that both can of these can be true. Immigrants as a whole can be more likely to be on welfare, and immigrants as a whole can be a net benefit to the economy. This is because you can have for example, one immigrant create a hundred jobs, 49 create zero, and the net would be two jobs created for every immigrant. That doesnt mean all immigrants are creating jobs, it means just that one immigrant who started a successful company did. What that means is that currently there are immigrants providing heavily, and currently immigrants detracting from the economy. That would mean that just by virtue of being an immigrant you do not provide a net benefit to the economy, and would also mean that simply taking in more and more immigrants would not necessarily benefit the US either.
This is exactly true, and it’s why successful legal immigrants can be filled with such utter rage at lawbreaking illegal aliens.
Last edited by a moderator:
ShadowsOfParadox
Well-known member
I'm just quitely giggling over here at this odd idea of "the US used to have unrestricted immigration". The US has literally NEVER had unrestricted immigration, there have ALWAYS been maximum quotas, mostly by country. Even back when the immigration was mostly from Western Europe there were maximums per country. And yes, that includes during the Great Potato Famine when most of the Irish made their way over.
Hell there were quotas in the days leading up to WWII, that's why(according to the clerks) a ship full of Jews fleeing Nazi Germany got turned away.
Moreover, those quotas have changed in waves. They'd be very high for a bit then Congress would go "OK, that's enough new people for now" and crater them. Then later on Congress would look around and say "Alright, last wave got properly integrated, open the gates again" and raise them.
Frankly, that's probably one reason Congress has had such a bloody hard time reforming current Immigration rules. They are in HARD "SLAM THE GATES" mode because of Illegal Immigration but have enough special interest groups paying lobbyists to go "nah nah leave the borders open" and now the crazy ass "A WALL IS IMMORAL" screeching from the same people who were totally fine with walls LITERALLY the year before Trump started running.
Hell there were quotas in the days leading up to WWII, that's why(according to the clerks) a ship full of Jews fleeing Nazi Germany got turned away.
Moreover, those quotas have changed in waves. They'd be very high for a bit then Congress would go "OK, that's enough new people for now" and crater them. Then later on Congress would look around and say "Alright, last wave got properly integrated, open the gates again" and raise them.
Frankly, that's probably one reason Congress has had such a bloody hard time reforming current Immigration rules. They are in HARD "SLAM THE GATES" mode because of Illegal Immigration but have enough special interest groups paying lobbyists to go "nah nah leave the borders open" and now the crazy ass "A WALL IS IMMORAL" screeching from the same people who were totally fine with walls LITERALLY the year before Trump started running.
Arch Dornan
Oh, lovely. They've sent me a mo-ron.
Got me thinking of that chinese immigrant professor who expressed criticism of illegal immigration but got students angry at that and wanting him sacked.
Wait, I missed this post. Who was the clown who said that?
ShadowsOfParadox
Well-known member
here.
I would hope people are able to read what I'm actually saying in my posts better than that lol. I've never said that the US ever had unrestricted immigration, nor have I ever claimed that the US ever should have unrestricted immigration. What I said was that the particular claim that the US needs more, stricter restrictions on the current number of immigrants coming into the country for fear of a large number of immigrants transforming the cultural fabric of this country is spurious, because the culture of the present-day US has vanishingly little to do with the original American culture of the Puritan settlers and so forth that was actually sacred and worth protecting. More immigrants--any amount of more immigrants, in fact--will not "destroy American culture" or something spurious like that, because American culture was already destroyed a long long time ago by the hordes of Scots-Irish and Palatine Germans and Irish and South Italians and Poles and Russians who we already allowed into the country, all of whom were themselves wholly foreign to genuine American culture and who have already displaced the rightful inhabitants of this country--and I suspect that the ancestors of a good number of people posting in this thread number among those perpetrators.
Did you know that such a large number of Scots-Irish were imported into early America that within a few decades of their immigration they numbered something to the tune of one third of the population of Pennsylvania? A barbarian culture identified by most of the original colonists as the "scum of two nations" or something along that sort--characterized by violence, clannishness, lack of learning, drunkenness, idleness and faithlessness--were imported to such a degree that all the colonies felt compelled to consign them to the west just to prevent them from disrupting the peace and prosperity of the colonies en masse. At least at the beginning the country had the sense to direct them to the frontier where they would not interfere overmuch with the life of genuine Americans, but of course that necessary exile was forgotten long ago, and by a few decades after the Revolution the danger that would be caused by allowing this violent, uncivilized population to overwhelm the rest of the population of the country and displace its native inhabitants was disregarded. In some sense, I would argue that "America" was already lost by the time we allowed the Jackson, damnable as he was, to take the Oval Office.
It didn't end there either, of course! America was so inundated by the immigration of Germans, largely the "Palatine boors" Franklin identified, that today more of so-called "American" culture, even unhyphenated, is more a mix of German and Scots-Irish than anything genuinely recognizable to the early colonists who built this sacred nation. Why do we speak of Hamburgers and Frankfurters as characteristically American national foods? I've never heard of a Hamburg or a Frankfurt in England. Why do state fairs and the like, thought so characteristically American, bear so much more resemblance to the festivals they have in Germany than any celebration in England? Where these at least the the civilized Saxon north Germans like we saw in old Pennsylvania it could perhaps be tolerable, but of course by and large they weren't--and all the Rhineish who came naturally brought with them their culture of drunkenness and so forth, and also formed parallel societies of German speakers that weren't disbanded until the 20th century, by force by Wilson. People here talk about "integration" as though the lack of immediate cultural integration among the latest batch of immigrants is unique, but it has nothing on the audacity of America's Germans, who not only maintained a parallel language but by and large were the driving force behind the import of foreign, continental ideologies like Marxism and later Fascism into the United States.
You have the Irish and the Italians next, and they of course require no introduction--we took in huge numbers of people from some of the poorest, least civilized parts of Europe, which were only dragged into modernity today by virtue of being attached to far wealthier, more industrious peoples in the form of the English and North Italians who spent vast sums on uplifting these regions to a decent standard of living. The massive transformative effect that both of these groups had on the US hardly even needs to be stated, and what remained of genuine US culture, which to some degree was at least still dominant in the North (I hardly even need to speak of the savage realm of scots-irish barbarians lorded over by malign cavalier aristocrats that was the South, do I? It was degenerate from the start) before, say, the Civil War, was swept away under their deluge. By god, more Americans identify with Irish heritage than English heritage today, and those masses gave guns to the IRA. If America was so greatly transformed by immigrants that a significant chunk of Americans decided to send guns to the Taliban, and no one in this country was willing to stop them, I would hope that everyone here would be appalled. And yet we did so--we supported a murderous terrorist group seeking to overthrow rightful English rule in Northern Ireland with arms and money--and nobody batted an eye. And then of course there were the Poles, the Russians, and so forth, but by that point there was hardly any original culture left to mourn over.
My point here is purely to say that if you are against immigration because it will destroy American culture, don't be--you cannot ignite the ashes what was already burned away long ago. To see so many people appropriate the cause of defending so-called "American" culture today when the sacred nation of my ancestors was destroyed centuries ago, and their own ancestors were the very arsonists who destroyed it, disgusts me. Seeing as though my country is already long no more, I would at least rather enjoy the economic benefits of further immigration than faff about why these latest waves of people are not OK when all of the sorry lot who came before them somehow were. If you really want to preserve or restore "America", take a good, long look at your last name and determine whether or not you yourself need to get out.
Did you know that such a large number of Scots-Irish were imported into early America that within a few decades of their immigration they numbered something to the tune of one third of the population of Pennsylvania? A barbarian culture identified by most of the original colonists as the "scum of two nations" or something along that sort--characterized by violence, clannishness, lack of learning, drunkenness, idleness and faithlessness--were imported to such a degree that all the colonies felt compelled to consign them to the west just to prevent them from disrupting the peace and prosperity of the colonies en masse. At least at the beginning the country had the sense to direct them to the frontier where they would not interfere overmuch with the life of genuine Americans, but of course that necessary exile was forgotten long ago, and by a few decades after the Revolution the danger that would be caused by allowing this violent, uncivilized population to overwhelm the rest of the population of the country and displace its native inhabitants was disregarded. In some sense, I would argue that "America" was already lost by the time we allowed the Jackson, damnable as he was, to take the Oval Office.
It didn't end there either, of course! America was so inundated by the immigration of Germans, largely the "Palatine boors" Franklin identified, that today more of so-called "American" culture, even unhyphenated, is more a mix of German and Scots-Irish than anything genuinely recognizable to the early colonists who built this sacred nation. Why do we speak of Hamburgers and Frankfurters as characteristically American national foods? I've never heard of a Hamburg or a Frankfurt in England. Why do state fairs and the like, thought so characteristically American, bear so much more resemblance to the festivals they have in Germany than any celebration in England? Where these at least the the civilized Saxon north Germans like we saw in old Pennsylvania it could perhaps be tolerable, but of course by and large they weren't--and all the Rhineish who came naturally brought with them their culture of drunkenness and so forth, and also formed parallel societies of German speakers that weren't disbanded until the 20th century, by force by Wilson. People here talk about "integration" as though the lack of immediate cultural integration among the latest batch of immigrants is unique, but it has nothing on the audacity of America's Germans, who not only maintained a parallel language but by and large were the driving force behind the import of foreign, continental ideologies like Marxism and later Fascism into the United States.
You have the Irish and the Italians next, and they of course require no introduction--we took in huge numbers of people from some of the poorest, least civilized parts of Europe, which were only dragged into modernity today by virtue of being attached to far wealthier, more industrious peoples in the form of the English and North Italians who spent vast sums on uplifting these regions to a decent standard of living. The massive transformative effect that both of these groups had on the US hardly even needs to be stated, and what remained of genuine US culture, which to some degree was at least still dominant in the North (I hardly even need to speak of the savage realm of scots-irish barbarians lorded over by malign cavalier aristocrats that was the South, do I? It was degenerate from the start) before, say, the Civil War, was swept away under their deluge. By god, more Americans identify with Irish heritage than English heritage today, and those masses gave guns to the IRA. If America was so greatly transformed by immigrants that a significant chunk of Americans decided to send guns to the Taliban, and no one in this country was willing to stop them, I would hope that everyone here would be appalled. And yet we did so--we supported a murderous terrorist group seeking to overthrow rightful English rule in Northern Ireland with arms and money--and nobody batted an eye. And then of course there were the Poles, the Russians, and so forth, but by that point there was hardly any original culture left to mourn over.
My point here is purely to say that if you are against immigration because it will destroy American culture, don't be--you cannot ignite the ashes what was already burned away long ago. To see so many people appropriate the cause of defending so-called "American" culture today when the sacred nation of my ancestors was destroyed centuries ago, and their own ancestors were the very arsonists who destroyed it, disgusts me. Seeing as though my country is already long no more, I would at least rather enjoy the economic benefits of further immigration than faff about why these latest waves of people are not OK when all of the sorry lot who came before them somehow were. If you really want to preserve or restore "America", take a good, long look at your last name and determine whether or not you yourself need to get out.
Last edited:
Arch Dornan
Oh, lovely. They've sent me a mo-ron.
That's a lot of words to talk about the past.
I'm pretty sure though people affected by the current issues would focus more on the present than dwell on the past.
Well naturally most of the descendants of those who destroyed genuine American culture would rather focus more on the present than the past, seeing as though to dwell on the past is to dwell on the atrocity that so many of the people here themselves' ancestors committed.
Arch Dornan
Oh, lovely. They've sent me a mo-ron.
Yes. All that is just so far in the past. Many have to worry about money, their jobs and their family or other distractions.
Same applies to other places too.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
But the objective of the left is to deracinate the newcomers into a materialistic invert-culture run by mass media. To be honest, I supported maintaining the culture of all the working class ethnics; I see the loss of their culture as being as much of a loss as the loss of the culture of the Yankeedom I now live in (though there are plenty of very stubborn examples!). I mean, I am a cosmopolitan aristocrat by birth and breeding, I wouldn't ever fit in either one. But I can speak on what is healthy and what is not.
Which is also precisely my point. Like I said, there’s no sense faffing about the preservation of culture anymore because that culture is already lost—instead, let’s look towards what will economically enrich people in the country right now, which all economics consistently say further immigration will do.
Why is it that the culture of the present ethnics in America deserves to be preserved and to remain in this country while the culture of future ethnics is to be shunned and kept away? Neither are, in any sense, “American”, so we ought to either allow both in or expel both out. I see no reason to expelled vast swaths of people to restore something that cannot be restored, so failing that why should we fear further immigration? If the culture of these ethnics is replaced by the culture of those ethnics, well, what does it matter?
Arch Dornan
Oh, lovely. They've sent me a mo-ron.
Oh no if someone feels immigration needs to be controlled they'll go for that if they have a say and that includes the legal immigrants.
They have to weigh whether that affects their taxes and knowing what taxes you get is a great motivator to decide whether you're for it or not.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
But Sir, I have no objection to Latin American culture being perpetuated in the United States. I'm quite fine with a permanent and substantial Spanish-speaking minority; we actually have had one for almost two hundred years now in fact. That isn't the problem, at least to me; I laid out my objections to unrestricted immigration earlier in the thread. Establishing an America based on a federation of cultural traditions would really be ideal from my point of view.
ShadowsOfParadox
Well-known member
eh, my problem is when you have CNN talking to a lady who's been here for 70ish years and needs a translator because she doesn't speak English.
I don't mind people being bilingual. I do mind people not speaking English in America.