"But OTOOH, would any of these ideas be of help in dealing with people fleeing conflict situations and political repression as in Syria, Sudan, and the Sahel or Venezuela and Haiti when the issue is not how many and which immigrants to admit for the benefit of existing residents, but compassion for the suffering of the prospective immigrants?"
Venezuelans could integrate relatively well in the US other than their descendants likely being a long-term welfare burden, I would think, at least similarly to the Mexicans. The other groups, I'm more worried about, other than their cognitive elites and liberals. Western Europe hasn't exactly had a great experience integrating Muslims and Africans. Thus maybe facilitating their mass resettlement in more culturally compatible countries would be much better? With the occasional exception, Syrians would probably integrate better in Turkey than in the West, for instance. Or in Jordan. Or in the oil-rich Gulf Arab states if they could actually be persuaded to accept them en masse. Arab hospitality is unfortunately sometimes notoriously lacking.
Yes, rich and successful people have always found it easier to migrate. I'm skeptical of the social benefits of effectively keeping the lower classes enserfed to their countries of origin while the elites can leave.
"In addition to greater selection on “merit” (roughly their expected income)"
I'm not a utilitarian, per se, but from a strictly economic sense wouldn't you want to encourage people to immigrate to where the *differential* in their expected productivity (or income) is the greatest?
"2) How are immigrants assimilated once in the country?"
I don't know. The inability of immigrants to what would become Texas or Hawaii to assimilate into their new country certainly benefited the US.
"would any of these ideas be of help in dealing with people fleeing conflict situations"
This is a completely separate class of immigration (refuge and asylum), and is dealt with separately. It *might* help to include cultural similarity when countries figure out who goes where, as not even immigrants want too much culture shock.
OTOH, my spouse wouldn't be here if her parent wasn't granted asylum, and her parent wouldn't have been here if the grandparent wasn't denied immigration.
From the POV of the US, what is important is the immigrant's earning here. What he would have earned elsewhere is irrelevant.
Yes, the final paragraph signaled that immigration for the benefit of residents is different from immigration for the benefit of the immigrant.
I was probably too provocative with "assimilate" and "socially invisible" I'd be happy to admit the Amish all over again even though they are very much not "assimilated or socially invisible. But I think that the US at least can go a LONG way with "merit based" immigration without worrying about whether the newcomers will not "assimilate."
"What he would have earned elsewhere is irrelevant."
Not if we have international trade as a significant chunk of GDP.
"Merit based" universally means a certain kind of merit and ignores other kinds of merit. This is easily seen when a rich person with no connections has an easier time naturalizing than a poorer person married to a citizen with citizen children. Or where certain minor crimes are considered deportation worthy while other actions which cause much greater material harm to people aren't considered crimes at all (poor people don't write laws, even here in the US). So I'm really opposed to "merit" as a primary basis for immigration, as opposed to being used as a tie-breaker.
No one knows the future. We resident citizens don't necessarily know what's good for us, just like everyone else. I, for one, don't particularly like the idea of importing a ruling class. It wasn't a great idea for stability in countries in prior years, and I don't think it's a great idea now. No matter how much a more privileged foreigner assimilates to the more privileged class they immigrate into, they are not assimilating into the lower classes.
Amish women sex-abuse victims being sent to facilities to be medicated with Olanzapine. Because apparently they are the problem, not the men who abused them.
Granted what you say about "merit," What better criteria could we use? Ultimately I'm just saying that we are primarily selecting immigrants for the benefits we, the already immigrated, receive. That is not inconsistent with accepting some asylum seekers or spouses of citizens (like my wife).
First come first served, or if quotas are too low for that to really work (as it's gameable), then a non-gameable lottery. Very close relatives or spouses of citizens should be exempted from all quotas, and any behavior requirements other than crimes against persons, and maybe some crimes against property. Regardless, once you're in on an immigrant visa, the naturalization should be pretty automatic after a period of good behavior. Any kind of work visa, except for very temporary purposes (e.g. touring musicians) should be immigrant visas, or convert to such after a period of good behavior. Permatemping sucks, and our immigration system shouldn't recapitulate the worse qualities of our temp agencies.
I understand the 'purpose' of our current immigration system, I just think it's short sighted for the reasons detailed elsewhere in these comments. I'm also personally opposed to it, both for the US and other countries, as I don't think I'd qualify for immigration to a number of other countries, despite being a smart fellow who does add to the common good.
When you speak of merit in the context of immigration you're speaking of attributes of an individual (some racists speak of group merit, but I know you aren't one of them). When you speak of assimilation or, as above, the Amish, you're speaking of community. What's relatively unproblematic in an individual (keeping to one's self*), is almost always problematic in a large enough group. Insular groups *need* to be assimilated, to at least some extent, or they will deviate from the legal social norms of the country. For insular individuals this is on a case-by-case basis.
I'm arguing for an unknown future. Akin to the philosophical argument that if early primates could control their evolution they would have selected for strength and size. And yet here we are today. Pretty tall, but also pretty weak, and of intermediate size.
Hundreds of thousands of years of basically open borders. A few centuries of controlled borders. Whether we like to think of it as so, or not, we've entered a eugenics-like stage of controlled social evolution. Do we have more foresight than those hypothetical earlier primates to know that it is good?
"When you speak of merit in the context of immigration you're speaking of attributes of an individual (some racists speak of group merit, but I know you aren't one of them). When you speak of assimilation or, as above, the Amish, you're speaking of community."
"Have we?"
If you don't think we have, raise an argument against it.
> When you speak of merit in the context of immigration you're speaking of attributes of an individual (some racists speak of group merit, but I know you aren't one of them). When you speak of assimilation or, as above, the Amish, you're speaking of community."
Not seeing the relevance.
You claim there were open borders - this is factually incorrect in many historical societies, people were factually and legally tied to the land in serfdoms, Rome defended its borders, city states demanded tribute to enter. I just walked a Roman bridge last week that ended at a crossing into the city where there was once a customs building, later a Muslim fort, both designed to keep people out.
In more primitive societies in no way were large groups of competing tribes allowed entry into each other’s lands.
None of this - which is just a response to your aside about Texas and Hawaii and your ahistorical comment on passports - is relevant to present day immigration, which can be easily controlled and even at its fairly high level is right now nowhere near the levels of relative population that caused civilisation collapse or changes in ownership.
Therefore the question should be whether immigration - which will always be controlled should select on culture and merit.
My "few centuries" comment was meant to encompass the existence of states which controlled borders. I probably should have said "few millennia", but didn't because that would have also included many societies a thousand years ago which effectively didn't have borders closed to individual and small family migration. Regardless, a few thousands years pales to insignificance in the context of a few hundred thousands years of pre-state humanity. So I don't understand what you think you're arguing about here.
"In more primitive societies in no way were large groups of competing tribes allowed entry into each other’s lands. "
"Therefore the question should be whether immigration - which will always be controlled should select on culture and merit. "
Again, I'm not arguing for groups. I'm arguing against *individual 'merit'* as a selection criteria.
Both of my children were born abroad, are bilingual, and have very Spanish first names and it's totally unimportant to their daily lives. That's "socially invisible." I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.
I don't socialize. So to a certain extent I am not socially assimilated into my country of origin (that I also presently inhabit). I have the accent and language down pat though, and my hyposociality is shared by a number of citizens (all countries have a variety of loner and non-affiliative types), but if I had a speech impediment and a different skin tone would I be considered "non-assimilated", would people say "go back to where you came from"?
You seem to define "assimilation" as a one way street wherein the native born defines the terms of interpersonal relationships between immigrant and native born.
This will never happen.
Immigrants aren't idiots.
They see through posturing assholes like you .
Basically, you implicitly think(your own words) you should have power of agency over immigrants with regards to the way they conduct their personal lives.
You obviously have issues.
And you hide behind some fake cloak of "middle of the road" motherfucker.
Immigrants' attitudes towards "assimilation" depends upon the prevailing attitudes of the native born popn towards the immigrants themselves, and that's isomoprhic at an individual level.
Your definition of assimilation puts the preponderance of assimilative costs upon the immigrant(s).
That's the definition of bigotry packaged as "assimilation"
Very odd take. Clearly people who intend to make their life in, say, France or Spain should preferably integrate into the culture in the public space, but not necessarily the private one. Otherwise why emigrate to these countries.
Fuck off. That the author of the blog is too polite to tell you what's what when you're being as rude as you are doesn't mean nobody should. There are real differences in culture that have resulted in some places in the world being nicer to live in than others. Those differences are worth preserving. Cultural assimilation absolutely should be a one way street. If you've gone somewhere to benefit from their superior institutions, fucking take the time to copy how they live and pray that you don't reduce it to the same dysfunction that you come from, instead of prancing around like the morally righteous prick that you're being right now.
I mean, if it's not a one way street, why don't you stay back in Tamil Nadu and try and make it a place that's attractive enough that Boston Brahmins will want to come to it, instead of going to the US and complaining that they're not treating Tamil Brahmins well enough?
So according to you, if you "see" that Tamil is important to me,as well as me catering to the proclivities of my Tamil and English speaking mother , that means I'm not assimilated enough...
Has to be ..by your rationale.
By the way ..whether you realize it or not ..
You just outed yourself as the purest epitome of a bigot ..your own words. Literally.
1) Your relationship with your kids,and their relationship with the Spanish language and the place of their birth may be shallow and phony,and not equivalent to the diverse set of relationships across different latitudes and longitudes that immigrants possess.
2) Immigrants migrate for reasons that are personal as far their expectations, and the optimal paths that facilitate maximization of their life potential.
3) They don't come here to satisfy your idea of who they should be.
4) To lump them all in the "assimilate" or " not assimilated" binomial binomial distribution assumes intimate foreknowledge about them and their lives you don't have .
5) Living inside of your own asshole causes everything about you to be stinky.
I'll try to keep in mind how not to cause the sorts of misunderstanding of my ideas that you exhibit. I take that misunderstanding is always the sender's responsibility.
I'll not try to "correct" you as that would probably just lead to additional misunderstanding.
Quit posturing. Words like "assimilation" may sound all substantive, although mean absolutely fuck all but patronizing assholery.
Using your convoluted logic, I could state this....Divorce rate is blah fuckin blah. Therefore native born Americans need to learn to assimilate amongst themselves better.....
Here's another one ....
Ask the women in your family to assimilate better by sleeping with Trumpian white trash.
Will do wonders for national unity....all this assimilation.
Fair enough. Canadians and Americans have always differed in their approaches. Melting pot is complete assimilation to me. Retention of cultural integrity is more acceptable in Canada in my opinion. You get 3,4-5th generation chinese, Indians, middle easterners that retain a lot of their identity. Tomato/tomata
It means you can keep your traditions, religion is very pluralistic, you respect other people's traditions and customs while maintaining a level of decency and respect. WTF is the problem with that? :-D
Manners of paramount importance in many cultures, especially in diverse regions.
In spite of being born to a upper middle class Indian family in Bombay and migrating here in my 20s...im as full throttle a " go fuck yourself " kinda guy to what you would pbly call "Indian culture".
Meaning, I never a have given a smidgen of a fuck about "keeping what the fuck ever cultural trinkets you imply ppl keep for whatever reason"
And there's many more like me ..
For me, a collective of brown skinned motherfuckers rectum sniffing each other and calling it "tradition" doesn't constitute tradition or "culture".
So,your notion of cultural integrity outside of some imaginary aggregation makes no strong axiomatic sense,as you imply it does.
Even those that fall under that rubric of "cultural integrity" do it for perfectly explainable reasons that mostly are about responding to scarcity of whatever in life.
So,when asshats like this guy talk about assimilation etc for large cohorts of ppl..,it's obviously coming from a totally self absorbed and bigoted view..regardless of his nonbigoted social standing in his personal life.
There nothing edgy as you implied .
Just revealing of a standard issue rectum sniffing,follow the herd style guy.
I find Thomas quite lovely to exchange ideas with. I'm so sorry you feel this way. My parents are Punjabi and have experienced a ton of racism. I've experienced my fair share. Including from the larger "edgy brown sniffers". Recently actually in Oregon. I'm just gonna block you on principle. Best of luck friend.
"But OTOOH, would any of these ideas be of help in dealing with people fleeing conflict situations and political repression as in Syria, Sudan, and the Sahel or Venezuela and Haiti when the issue is not how many and which immigrants to admit for the benefit of existing residents, but compassion for the suffering of the prospective immigrants?"
Venezuelans could integrate relatively well in the US other than their descendants likely being a long-term welfare burden, I would think, at least similarly to the Mexicans. The other groups, I'm more worried about, other than their cognitive elites and liberals. Western Europe hasn't exactly had a great experience integrating Muslims and Africans. Thus maybe facilitating their mass resettlement in more culturally compatible countries would be much better? With the occasional exception, Syrians would probably integrate better in Turkey than in the West, for instance. Or in Jordan. Or in the oil-rich Gulf Arab states if they could actually be persuaded to accept them en masse. Arab hospitality is unfortunately sometimes notoriously lacking.
Actually Arab countries, particularly in the gulf, are often Arab minority. They use guest workers though.
Even more of a reason for them to boost their Arab population through mass Palestinian refugee immigration.
"1) How are immigrants selected?"
Yes, rich and successful people have always found it easier to migrate. I'm skeptical of the social benefits of effectively keeping the lower classes enserfed to their countries of origin while the elites can leave.
"In addition to greater selection on “merit” (roughly their expected income)"
I'm not a utilitarian, per se, but from a strictly economic sense wouldn't you want to encourage people to immigrate to where the *differential* in their expected productivity (or income) is the greatest?
"2) How are immigrants assimilated once in the country?"
I don't know. The inability of immigrants to what would become Texas or Hawaii to assimilate into their new country certainly benefited the US.
"would any of these ideas be of help in dealing with people fleeing conflict situations"
This is a completely separate class of immigration (refuge and asylum), and is dealt with separately. It *might* help to include cultural similarity when countries figure out who goes where, as not even immigrants want too much culture shock.
OTOH, my spouse wouldn't be here if her parent wasn't granted asylum, and her parent wouldn't have been here if the grandparent wasn't denied immigration.
From the POV of the US, what is important is the immigrant's earning here. What he would have earned elsewhere is irrelevant.
Yes, the final paragraph signaled that immigration for the benefit of residents is different from immigration for the benefit of the immigrant.
I was probably too provocative with "assimilate" and "socially invisible" I'd be happy to admit the Amish all over again even though they are very much not "assimilated or socially invisible. But I think that the US at least can go a LONG way with "merit based" immigration without worrying about whether the newcomers will not "assimilate."
"What he would have earned elsewhere is irrelevant."
Not if we have international trade as a significant chunk of GDP.
"Merit based" universally means a certain kind of merit and ignores other kinds of merit. This is easily seen when a rich person with no connections has an easier time naturalizing than a poorer person married to a citizen with citizen children. Or where certain minor crimes are considered deportation worthy while other actions which cause much greater material harm to people aren't considered crimes at all (poor people don't write laws, even here in the US). So I'm really opposed to "merit" as a primary basis for immigration, as opposed to being used as a tie-breaker.
No one knows the future. We resident citizens don't necessarily know what's good for us, just like everyone else. I, for one, don't particularly like the idea of importing a ruling class. It wasn't a great idea for stability in countries in prior years, and I don't think it's a great idea now. No matter how much a more privileged foreigner assimilates to the more privileged class they immigrate into, they are not assimilating into the lower classes.
You may want to reconsider the Amish (or other insular communities): https://www.aetv.com/real-crime/child-sexual-abuse-amish
Even better link: https://www.npr.org/2020/01/19/797804404/investigation-into-child-sex-abuse-in-amish-communities
Amish women sex-abuse victims being sent to facilities to be medicated with Olanzapine. Because apparently they are the problem, not the men who abused them.
Granted what you say about "merit," What better criteria could we use? Ultimately I'm just saying that we are primarily selecting immigrants for the benefits we, the already immigrated, receive. That is not inconsistent with accepting some asylum seekers or spouses of citizens (like my wife).
First come first served, or if quotas are too low for that to really work (as it's gameable), then a non-gameable lottery. Very close relatives or spouses of citizens should be exempted from all quotas, and any behavior requirements other than crimes against persons, and maybe some crimes against property. Regardless, once you're in on an immigrant visa, the naturalization should be pretty automatic after a period of good behavior. Any kind of work visa, except for very temporary purposes (e.g. touring musicians) should be immigrant visas, or convert to such after a period of good behavior. Permatemping sucks, and our immigration system shouldn't recapitulate the worse qualities of our temp agencies.
I understand the 'purpose' of our current immigration system, I just think it's short sighted for the reasons detailed elsewhere in these comments. I'm also personally opposed to it, both for the US and other countries, as I don't think I'd qualify for immigration to a number of other countries, despite being a smart fellow who does add to the common good.
I just want to add on some clarification to this.
When you speak of merit in the context of immigration you're speaking of attributes of an individual (some racists speak of group merit, but I know you aren't one of them). When you speak of assimilation or, as above, the Amish, you're speaking of community. What's relatively unproblematic in an individual (keeping to one's self*), is almost always problematic in a large enough group. Insular groups *need* to be assimilated, to at least some extent, or they will deviate from the legal social norms of the country. For insular individuals this is on a case-by-case basis.
* - "He always kept to himself" - Mass killers are rare, not all of them are loners, some of them have online communities (so aren't insular), most of them have psychiatric issues (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/finding-positivity/202208/mass-shooters-systematic-psychiatric-study ), and regardless they make up a very small minority compared to the many millions of non-affiliative people who live in the world.
> I don't know. The inability of immigrants to what would become Texas or Hawaii to assimilate into their new country certainly benefited the US.
It didn’t benefit the Mexican empire or Hawaiian nationalism though.
And the inability of Europeans in general to assimilate into America was also beneficial to the US, not the nations.
Which makes me wonder what you arguing for.
I'm arguing for an unknown future. Akin to the philosophical argument that if early primates could control their evolution they would have selected for strength and size. And yet here we are today. Pretty tall, but also pretty weak, and of intermediate size.
Hundreds of thousands of years of basically open borders. A few centuries of controlled borders. Whether we like to think of it as so, or not, we've entered a eugenics-like stage of controlled social evolution. Do we have more foresight than those hypothetical earlier primates to know that it is good?
> Hundreds of thousands of years of basically open borders.
Not really. There weren’t passports but large groups of people or tribes didn’t turn up unannounced without being slaughtered or slaughtering.
> Whether we like to think of it as so, or not, we've entered a eugenics-like stage of controlled social evolution.
Have we?
"Not really. There weren’t passports but large groups of people or tribes didn’t turn up unannounced without being slaughtered or slaughtering. "
As I wrote just above: https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/p/immigration-is-both-essential-and/comment/63873085
"When you speak of merit in the context of immigration you're speaking of attributes of an individual (some racists speak of group merit, but I know you aren't one of them). When you speak of assimilation or, as above, the Amish, you're speaking of community."
"Have we?"
If you don't think we have, raise an argument against it.
> When you speak of merit in the context of immigration you're speaking of attributes of an individual (some racists speak of group merit, but I know you aren't one of them). When you speak of assimilation or, as above, the Amish, you're speaking of community."
Not seeing the relevance.
You claim there were open borders - this is factually incorrect in many historical societies, people were factually and legally tied to the land in serfdoms, Rome defended its borders, city states demanded tribute to enter. I just walked a Roman bridge last week that ended at a crossing into the city where there was once a customs building, later a Muslim fort, both designed to keep people out.
In more primitive societies in no way were large groups of competing tribes allowed entry into each other’s lands.
None of this - which is just a response to your aside about Texas and Hawaii and your ahistorical comment on passports - is relevant to present day immigration, which can be easily controlled and even at its fairly high level is right now nowhere near the levels of relative population that caused civilisation collapse or changes in ownership.
Therefore the question should be whether immigration - which will always be controlled should select on culture and merit.
My "few centuries" comment was meant to encompass the existence of states which controlled borders. I probably should have said "few millennia", but didn't because that would have also included many societies a thousand years ago which effectively didn't have borders closed to individual and small family migration. Regardless, a few thousands years pales to insignificance in the context of a few hundred thousands years of pre-state humanity. So I don't understand what you think you're arguing about here.
"In more primitive societies in no way were large groups of competing tribes allowed entry into each other’s lands. "
"Therefore the question should be whether immigration - which will always be controlled should select on culture and merit. "
Again, I'm not arguing for groups. I'm arguing against *individual 'merit'* as a selection criteria.
Define "socially invisible".
Stringing together words in a grammatically correct fashion doesn't render empirical,or predictive meaning.
It just means you think your shit doesn't stink.
Both of my children were born abroad, are bilingual, and have very Spanish first names and it's totally unimportant to their daily lives. That's "socially invisible." I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.
I don't socialize. So to a certain extent I am not socially assimilated into my country of origin (that I also presently inhabit). I have the accent and language down pat though, and my hyposociality is shared by a number of citizens (all countries have a variety of loner and non-affiliative types), but if I had a speech impediment and a different skin tone would I be considered "non-assimilated", would people say "go back to where you came from"?
You seem to define "assimilation" as a one way street wherein the native born defines the terms of interpersonal relationships between immigrant and native born.
This will never happen.
Immigrants aren't idiots.
They see through posturing assholes like you .
Basically, you implicitly think(your own words) you should have power of agency over immigrants with regards to the way they conduct their personal lives.
You obviously have issues.
And you hide behind some fake cloak of "middle of the road" motherfucker.
Did I imply that people in the receiving country are not affected by immigrants? Sorry, I did not mean to.
Immigrants' attitudes towards "assimilation" depends upon the prevailing attitudes of the native born popn towards the immigrants themselves, and that's isomoprhic at an individual level.
Your definition of assimilation puts the preponderance of assimilative costs upon the immigrant(s).
That's the definition of bigotry packaged as "assimilation"
Very odd take. Clearly people who intend to make their life in, say, France or Spain should preferably integrate into the culture in the public space, but not necessarily the private one. Otherwise why emigrate to these countries.
I suppose you've done a methodologically robust statistical analysis of why ppl migrate to spout the unsubstantiated shit your orifice expounds upon.
Define "integrate".
Fuck off. That the author of the blog is too polite to tell you what's what when you're being as rude as you are doesn't mean nobody should. There are real differences in culture that have resulted in some places in the world being nicer to live in than others. Those differences are worth preserving. Cultural assimilation absolutely should be a one way street. If you've gone somewhere to benefit from their superior institutions, fucking take the time to copy how they live and pray that you don't reduce it to the same dysfunction that you come from, instead of prancing around like the morally righteous prick that you're being right now.
You make no sense. Were you being assfucked by your grandpa while commenting?
I'm just as much a US citizen as anyone,and the miserable bigot that you are can do nothing about it. 😂. Get over it.
Just finished fucking the women in your family.
My arsehole's opinion every morning is smarter than you.
Crawl back into your mom's uterus such that you have to have your grandpa assfuck your mom with a chainsaw to extricate you out from her uterus again.
Also, I would like to see your comments defending Bihari culture to Tamilians. Piece of posturing shit.
Here's one comment about Biharis..
They are infinitely preferable to rectum sniffer like you .
I will,after I finish fucking the women in your family . You can keep the used condom.
I mean, if it's not a one way street, why don't you stay back in Tamil Nadu and try and make it a place that's attractive enough that Boston Brahmins will want to come to it, instead of going to the US and complaining that they're not treating Tamil Brahmins well enough?
I never complained "they are ..enough"
You obviously can't read or understand English.
Your mom shat you out,surely.
You're dumber and more irrelevant than the opinion my arsehole has every morning that I flush down the toilet.
You can't even understand English.
I live here. Its not a one way street.
Nothing you can do about it.
Crawl back into your mom's uterus or arsehole..wherever she spat you out from.
So according to you, if you "see" that Tamil is important to me,as well as me catering to the proclivities of my Tamil and English speaking mother , that means I'm not assimilated enough...
Has to be ..by your rationale.
By the way ..whether you realize it or not ..
You just outed yourself as the purest epitome of a bigot ..your own words. Literally.
1) Your relationship with your kids,and their relationship with the Spanish language and the place of their birth may be shallow and phony,and not equivalent to the diverse set of relationships across different latitudes and longitudes that immigrants possess.
2) Immigrants migrate for reasons that are personal as far their expectations, and the optimal paths that facilitate maximization of their life potential.
3) They don't come here to satisfy your idea of who they should be.
4) To lump them all in the "assimilate" or " not assimilated" binomial binomial distribution assumes intimate foreknowledge about them and their lives you don't have .
5) Living inside of your own asshole causes everything about you to be stinky.
6) Social media doesn't change that
I'll try to keep in mind how not to cause the sorts of misunderstanding of my ideas that you exhibit. I take that misunderstanding is always the sender's responsibility.
I'll not try to "correct" you as that would probably just lead to additional misunderstanding.
I will say that it is hard for me to understand some of your posts on first read as you're verbally parsimonious with the development of your ideas.
Or maybe there aren't any ideas
Quit posturing. Words like "assimilation" may sound all substantive, although mean absolutely fuck all but patronizing assholery.
Using your convoluted logic, I could state this....Divorce rate is blah fuckin blah. Therefore native born Americans need to learn to assimilate amongst themselves better.....
Here's another one ....
Ask the women in your family to assimilate better by sleeping with Trumpian white trash.
Will do wonders for national unity....all this assimilation.
I know that many people are strongly against multiculturalism. It works done, slowly, thoughtfully, incrementally.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2019/09/13/the-benefits-of-cultural-diversity-in-the-workplace/
https://www.hult.edu/blog/benefits-challenges-cultural-diversity-workplace/
That's what I'd call "assimilation." :) I want to be a bit provocative ["speak forth"] to draw a contrast along a continuum.
Fair enough. Canadians and Americans have always differed in their approaches. Melting pot is complete assimilation to me. Retention of cultural integrity is more acceptable in Canada in my opinion. You get 3,4-5th generation chinese, Indians, middle easterners that retain a lot of their identity. Tomato/tomata
I enjoy your provocation. ;-D
"cultural integrity"
WTF does that even mean?
It means you can keep your traditions, religion is very pluralistic, you respect other people's traditions and customs while maintaining a level of decency and respect. WTF is the problem with that? :-D
Manners of paramount importance in many cultures, especially in diverse regions.
"you can keep"
That's the fucking problem.
In spite of being born to a upper middle class Indian family in Bombay and migrating here in my 20s...im as full throttle a " go fuck yourself " kinda guy to what you would pbly call "Indian culture".
Meaning, I never a have given a smidgen of a fuck about "keeping what the fuck ever cultural trinkets you imply ppl keep for whatever reason"
And there's many more like me ..
For me, a collective of brown skinned motherfuckers rectum sniffing each other and calling it "tradition" doesn't constitute tradition or "culture".
So,your notion of cultural integrity outside of some imaginary aggregation makes no strong axiomatic sense,as you imply it does.
Even those that fall under that rubric of "cultural integrity" do it for perfectly explainable reasons that mostly are about responding to scarcity of whatever in life.
So,when asshats like this guy talk about assimilation etc for large cohorts of ppl..,it's obviously coming from a totally self absorbed and bigoted view..regardless of his nonbigoted social standing in his personal life.
There nothing edgy as you implied .
Just revealing of a standard issue rectum sniffing,follow the herd style guy.
I find Thomas quite lovely to exchange ideas with. I'm so sorry you feel this way. My parents are Punjabi and have experienced a ton of racism. I've experienced my fair share. Including from the larger "edgy brown sniffers". Recently actually in Oregon. I'm just gonna block you on principle. Best of luck friend.