1. you cannot compare immigration into a largely unsettled country that needed lots of manpower and had zero social security whatsoever with migration into a much more densely populated, post-industrial country with a knowledge-based economy and a generous welfare state.
2. since the 1880s, no wave of subsequent immigrants from one region of the world lasted much longer than 2 decades until the current, 40year+ wave from latin america.
3. the cultural difference between english, irish, scottish, german and dutch settlers is relatively small in the grand scheme of things. even the immigrants coming directly from italy during the early 20th century were probably culturally closer to the native population than today's asian and central american immigrants are. and the cultural difference to african and arab immigrants obviously is even larger.



simply put, the change induced on the american society that one could objectviely expect to come with large-scale immigration from places like ireland or germany is smaller than the change one can expect to come out of large-scale immigration from nicaragua, somalia, nigeria or afghanistan.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Nov 28 2019 09:18pm

@ Bold - Maybe use countries that are actually sending us immigrants. The entire nicaragua descended population in the United States is about 0.1% with the others on the list contributing similar amounts.

1. I can compare whatever I want. You're just like the people from the late 1800's saying "BUT IT'S DIFFERENT THIS TIME! THERE'S NOT A GIANT WESTERN HALF OF THE CONTINENT TO SETTLE!"
2. We have ALWAYS had huge immigration numbers from Latin America. The reason "no wave lasted longer than 40 years" is because we largely ignored crossings in the southern border until the early 1900's.
3. The "cultural differences" examples you give are total bullshit. Worldwide cultural differences are at an all-time low because of the prevalence of information technology even in places like Nigeria. You seriously sound like somebody who has never interacted with immigrants beyond passing them on the street.

Excuse me - I'm doing this bit. Do you mind?

ok fine

White is a skin color. Non-racists would group most Jews/white-Hispanics in the white category.

I'm also not worried about it being a minority.



The biggest reason I'm against high legal immigration isn't about culture. Every immigrant I have met has assimilated well and respects american values more than many of us. They run small businesses and contribute to the economy. There is a strong argument that american companies abuse the system to displace skilled citizens. I believe we should punish companies that do this. That won't change bringing in less skilled labor but it would force companies to employ citizens. I'm not sure about the chain migration argument and I'm fine with bringing family in if they are also assimilating and their sponsors can take care of them if they fail to enter the job market.

I'm against illegal immigration because it displaces low skill citizens in a shrinking job market due to automation. It also creates enclaves of immigrants that respect our values less. Its also unlawful.

The economy has largely change from low-skilled human power to automation. Large scale immigration is not a boon unless we go through another shift that brings us back to that state.

All of them except me are varying degrees of right wing.

This post was edited by inkanddagger on Nov 28 2019 11:38pm

Even Scaly?

But you're a plutocrat in an environmentalist's clothing.

Just so everyone arguing about what Euro Countries settled in the US has accurate info...














/e

Black = German
Red = English
Green = Irish





/ee

Here's another version...








This post was edited by Ghot on Nov 29 2019 01:35am

nice intro for lesb. po.



This post was edited by Saucisson6000 on Nov 29 2019 03:35am