Why is wanting people to immigrate legally considered being Xenophobic?

[Endus]

Two points:
When the Irish came to the US, they initially insisted on keeping their Irish culture. And were discriminated against harshly for it. But, after a time, they basically abandoned most of it and did what many of the immigrants before had - they instead took on the dominant American culture, mostly unchanged by the introduction of their Irish culture. The dominant culture adopted a few Irish cultural tidbits, but for the most part, didn't really take a lot from the Irish culture. The 3rd, 4th, and 5th generation Irish couldn't be marked as really different than any of their fellow citizens whose ancestors had hailed from Germany or England.

But that took several generations.

For the first few generations, while they WERE American citizens, they staunchly refused to adopt American culture. And this is a difference you seem unable to grasp, even though I've stated it clearly:

citizenship =/= culture

Do you know what St. Patrick's Day is? Ever seen it mentioned in the USA? Is it a "thing" anywhere in the USA?

That's Irish culture, that's become US culture. Because culture isn't a static "thing", and it isn't overarching; it's made up of the collective impetus of everyone's personal observations. And it's always changing.

Same happens with everything. It'll happen even if you locked down the borders completely. Culture is never static.

Hispanics holding Mexican culture, Iranians holding Persian culture, or Germans holding German culture are not holding AMERICAN culture, even when they hold AMERICAN citizenship.

If they're American, then their culture is American culture. That's what you keep denying, and you're straight-up wrong. You're attempting to argue that they aren't "real" Americans, culturally, despite them objectively being "real Americans".

I haven't argued once that they're "not really Americans".

I've stated - CLEARLY - several times that they're ENTIRELY "really Americans".

What I've said is that they often hold a different CULTURE, and do so for the first few generations after the initial familial immigration event, before eventually assimilating into the American culture, with each subsequent generation adopting more of it to a point (the individual family line varies in this due to being individuals as well as coming from backgrounds that make them more or less quick in doing so.)

I'm not arguing, nor have I once, that they're not really American.

If you're going to admit that they're Americans, you have no business claiming that their culture isn't American, because you've just admitted that it is.

And your definition of what makes a culture isn't just arbitrary (as you accuse mine of being), it's just WRONG. A culture isn't just a collection of the points of view of what people are citizens of it at any given time. Were that true, cultures would change much more than they do and no culture would have static views, yet both of these have been seen to be the case.

Cultures DO change, significantly, in very short periods of time. Look at North American culture in the 1980s. Wildly different from today, even though that's just 30 years ago. No Internet. Computers are just becoming a widespread "thing". Music is completely different. Clothing trends are wildly different. Cell phones are an oddity.

The only way a culture remains static is if it avoids even exposure to other cultures, while at the same time aggressively enforcing a traditionalist worldview internally. It's a narrow slice of the human pie that would even fit that bill. North Korea, for instance, but not, say, Iran.

- - - Updated - - -

There is no one American Culture ... why do people hold onto this Myth? Go to Boston, spend a week with Bostonians ... now go to Miami and spend a week there. Go to LA and spend a week there. All those Cultures the same? No. There are differences, in some places you'll find more Irish influence on the culture than elsewhere.

And this'll be true even in different parts of the same city, particularly in cities like New York.

There is no such thing as cultural homogeneity, outside of radically authoritarian and isolationist states, and pretty much the only one that pops into mind is the DPRK, currently. It's just a wildly incorrect view of human sociology.

[Logwyn]

Do you know what St. Patrick's Day is? Ever seen it mentioned in the USA? Is it a "thing" anywhere in the USA?

That's Irish culture, that's become US culture. Because culture isn't a static "thing", and it isn't overarching; it's made up of the collective impetus of everyone's personal observations. And it's always changing.

Same happens with everything. It'll happen even if you locked down the borders completely. Culture is never static.



If they're American, then their culture is American culture. That's what you keep denying, and you're straight-up wrong. You're attempting to argue that they aren't "real" Americans, culturally, despite them objectively being "real Americans".



If you're going to admit that they're Americans, you have no business claiming that their culture isn't American, because you've just admitted that it is.



Cultures DO change, significantly, in very short periods of time. Look at North American culture in the 1980s. Wildly different from today, even though that's just 30 years ago. No Internet. Computers are just becoming a widespread "thing". Music is completely different. Clothing trends are wildly different. Cell phones are an oddity.

The only way a culture remains static is if it avoids even exposure to other cultures, while at the same time aggressively enforcing a traditionalist worldview internally. It's a narrow slice of the human pie that would even fit that bill. North Korea, for instance, but not, say, Iran.

- - - Updated - - -



And this'll be true even in different parts of the same city, particularly in cities like New York.

There is no such thing as cultural homogeneity, outside of radically authoritarian and isolationist states, and pretty much the only one that pops into mind is the DPRK, currently. It's just a wildly incorrect view of human sociology.

Why did this thread turn into a bash the USA thread again?

[Endus]

Why did this thread turn into a bash the USA thread again?

In what Earthly way am I "bashing the USA"?

[mvaliz]

Because people forget that you can immigrate and live here while getting your citizenship. You dont get it BEFORE you come here.

People point at refugees and "illegals" from Mecico and dont realize they dont need to complete citizenship before entering. People who hate mexican illegals are hsting them for other reasons than simply not paying taxes.

[Macaquerie]

The idea that immigrants are somehow refusing to assimilate into mainstream American culture is absurd. If anything, immigrants are probably too eager to adopt the American lifestyle because, after all, there's a reason they left in the first place. Now this isn't something that's going to happen overnight and it usually takes a couple of generations before people become fully absorbed but it does happen. The reason that it seems to happening much more slowly now is because non-white immigration is actually a relatively recent phenomenon because for quite a long time our policies were designed explicitly to keep them out and only accept Europeans.

And while some may try to justify that policy due to supposed irreconcilable cultural differences between white Westerners and everyone else, that is just a silly notion because if you think about it, Americans and Europeans don't really have that much in common at all aside from patently idiotic ideas of white solidarity. What cultural commonalities we do have with Europe are mostly a product of American pop culture being exported across the globe, not anything drawn from a shared Western heritage, especially since many of the milestones in the development of Western civilization came well after we became independent and our path diverged from that of the European countries.

[Pangean]

Why did this thread turn into a bash the USA thread again?

That's Bashing the USA to you? Someones hyper-sensitive.

[Kraenen]

The idea that immigrants are somehow refusing to assimilate into mainstream American culture is absurd. If anything, immigrants are probably too eager to adopt the American lifestyle because, after all, there's a reason they left in the first place. Now this isn't something that's going to happen overnight and it usually takes a couple of generations before people become fully absorbed but it does happen. The reason that it seems to happening much more slowly now is because non-white immigration is actually a relatively recent phenomenon because for quite a long time our policies were designed explicitly to keep them out and only accept Europeans.

This is flawed reasoning. They largely come for money and material conditions, not for american culture.

I think you hit the essence of a good immigration policy - wait, take time for people to assimilate. Then you can think about taking more people in.

[Macaquerie]

This is flawed reasoning. They largely come for money and material conditions, not for american culture.

I think you hit the essence of a good immigration policy - wait, take time for people to assimilate. Then you can think about taking more people in.

American culture is at its heart a consumer culture, our identity is rooted in economics in a way that you don't find anywhere else. The idea of coming to a new land to achieve prosperity is at the core of the American Dream, so economic migrants to America are by definition accepting the basic principles of American culture.

[zenkai]

Why is wanting people to treat women equally to men considered "feminazi"?

Same reasons..
A couple of people think it's an easy response instead of discussing it.
And a lot of people always seem to fall back to "I just want immigration to happen legally" when they ARE being xenophobic.

That's bullshit and you know it, is that your fall back, to call someone racist/sexist/xenophobic when ever you disagree with them? Wanting people to do something legally, you must be xenophobic! LOL Man you could at least try to hide your bias

[Endus]

That's bullshit and you know it, is that your fall back, to call someone racist/sexist/xenophobic when ever you disagree with them? Wanting people to do something legally, you must be xenophobic! LOL Man you could at least try to hide your bias

So would you be okay with throwing the doors wide open and making legal immigration easy and available to pretty much anyone who wants it? We've taken legality off the table, then.

That's the trick; when we do that, folks tend to bring up their real reasons, which are what boil down to xenophobia in many cases.

[Deleted]

So would you be okay with throwing the doors wide open and making legal immigration easy and available to pretty much anyone who wants it? We've taken legality off the table, then.

That's the trick; when we do that, folks tend to bring up their real reasons, which are what boil down to xenophobia in many cases.

Lolwat, you can't have everyone move to a country just because they want to. That's not going to work out in any country.

[Endus]

Lolwat, you can't have everyone move to a country just because they want to. That's not going to work out in any country.

That wasn't the point, and you know it. Nor was it meant to be a workable suggestion, in and of itself. The point is, almost everyone I've met who pulls the "I just want them to do it legally" canard, they change their tune once you suggest changing that legal procedure to make it easy, because their root issue with immigration is not that they follow legal channels.

[RickJamesLich]

So would you be okay with throwing the doors wide open and making legal immigration easy and available to pretty much anyone who wants it? We've taken legality off the table, then.

That's the trick; when we do that, folks tend to bring up their real reasons, which are what boil down to xenophobia in many cases.

Endus so you pretty much think *any* reason for wanting a legal process for migrating to a new countries is xenophobic, is this correct? Like someone should have to learn the language of the company, demonstrate that they will follow the rules and obey the law, or demonstrate that they will contribute? All things that are xenophobic?

- - - Updated - - -

One more question for Endus, are countries that are harsher on illegal immigrants than the US essentially more "xenophobic" than the US?

[Kraenen]

That wasn't the point, and you know it. Nor was it meant to be a workable suggestion, in and of itself. The point is, almost everyone I've met who pulls the "I just want them to do it legally" canard, they change their tune once you suggest changing that legal procedure to make it easy, because their root issue with immigration is not that they follow legal channels.

Immigration isn't only about it being legal or not. Whoddathunkit?

[Endus]

Endus so you pretty much think *any* reason for wanting a legal process for migrating to a new countries is xenophobic, is this correct?

Nope.

For instance, I don't have an issue with Canada's basic stance, which is that economic migrants should be expected to demonstrate that they will be self-reliant as residents, with a job on tap and so forth, while making separate allowances for family members and those escaping hardship in their homelands. Basically, either you have a job here, you have family here, or you need our protection. An American who doesn't have a job here but hates the results of the election? Sorry, no thanks.

Like someone should have to learn the language of the company, demonstrate that they will follow the rules and obey the law, or demonstrate that they will contribute? All things that are xenophobic?

The former isn't really a requirement in most countries, to begin with. The second is already a requirement, so there's really no point to bring it up. And the third is fine, if we're talking about economic migrants in particular; there's no reason to expect someone's husband to contribute, if the wife's got a job here and can support their family.

But the moment you start talking about "culture" or "ethnic identity" or whatnot, you're into xenophobia. The language thing touches on this too. It's opposing them because they're different, not for any actual flaw.

- - - Updated - - -

One more question for Endus, are countries that are harsher on illegal immigrants than the US essentially more "xenophobic" than the US?

How do you mean "harsher"? The USA tacitly allows and encourages illegal immigration. The only punishment is deportation, because unlawful presence isn't any kind of crime. And nobody was arguing that the USA is the "most xenophobic", or something. Japan's generally pretty unfriendly from what I've heard, to non-Japanese. North Korea's completely anal.

[RickJamesLich]

How do you mean "harsher"? The USA tacitly allows and encourages illegal immigration. The only punishment is deportation, because unlawful presence isn't any kind of crime. And nobody was arguing that the USA is the "most xenophobic", or something. Japan's generally pretty unfriendly from what I've heard, to non-Japanese. North Korea's completely anal.

So if by far and large the US has no problem with illegal immigrants and does not treat them harshly, but they are now trying to erect a wall to cut down on it, it's not for xenophobic reasons then, is that correct? Unlawful presence isn't any kind of crime? That sounds like a contradictory statement. But so we agree there is no xenophobia coming from the US here then?

[Deleted]

But the moment you start talking about "culture" or "ethnic identity" or whatnot, you're into xenophobia. The language thing touches on this too. It's opposing them because they're different, not for any actual flaw.

This doesn't make any sense at all. Not all cultures are equally benevolent.

[Endus]

So if by far and large the US has no problem with illegal immigrants and does not treat them harshly, but they are now trying to erect a wall to cut down on it, it's not for xenophobic reasons then, is that correct?

The US doesn't have a "problem"; they're a net benefit to the US economy. That's a large part of why the hostility is framed as "xenophobia", in the first place. Particularly since a wall will be spectacularly ineffective at accomplishing anything, and just cost US taxpayers money for no useful end result.

Unlawful presence isn't any kind of crime? That sounds like a contradictory statement.

No, it's a simple fact. If you overstay a visa, you've committed no crime of any sort whatsoever, and are not eligible for any legal punishment whatsoever. You simply don't have any right to remain, and can be deported, but you can't even be made to pay for that deportation, because again, unlawful presence is not a crime.

- - - Updated - - -

This doesn't make any sense at all. Not all cultures are equally benevolent.

And that's xenophobia, right there. Particularly as you're literally engaging in prejudice by evaluating individuals against some "cultural measure" you've created, which you have no reason to believe necessarily applies to any particular individual. It's an attempt to justify discriminating against individuals based on superficial similarities.

Saying "I don't want this guy coming into the country because he's from Saudi Arabia, and I don't like Saudi Arabian's views on women" is just as prejudicial and intolerant as saying "I don't want this guy coming into the country because he's black, and I don't want more criminals here". In both cases, you're relying on prejudice, rather than anything you've identified about the individual in question.

[Deleted]

And that's xenophobia, right there. Particularly as you're literally engaging in prejudice by evaluating individuals against some "cultural measure" you've created, which you have no reason to believe necessarily applies to any particular individual. It's an attempt to justify discriminating against individuals based on superficial similarities.

You don't base immigration policies around individuals, you base it around aggregates.

[Endus]

You don't base immigration policies around individuals, you base it around aggregates.

Doing so is merely establishing prejudice and intolerance as official state policy. That isn't a defense of doing so. You shouldn't be basing policies on aggregates; that's fundamentally irrational and prejudicial.

Asking an individual applicant if they have a job waiting for them is fine, and makes sense; you're ensuring that individual can support themselves, if allowed residency. Denying all Greeks because unemployment is high in Greece so you expect they can't get a job is the kind of "aggregate" you're talking about, and ignores that particular candidates might HAVE jobs waiting for them, despite being Greek.