4 ms·

> The US is steering towards Majority Minority, is it not? It is not, at least not in the context of the present discussion. While whites are set to lose their

> The US is steering towards Majority Minority, is it not? It is not, at least not in the context of the present discussion. While whites are set to lose their majority, one of the minorities overtaking them are African-Americans, who cannot reasonably be called immigrants, because they were brought to the US against their will long ago, and they came before the late 19th-century and early 20th-century influx of European immigrants to which many white Americans trace their ancestry. > That would be great, but isn't the case. That certainly is the case. The second and third generations of immigrants into Europe are overwhelmingly assimilating to the host countries’ language. They may develop a new register of that European language that mixes in words and idioms from the language of their parent or grandparent’s country of origin, but few maintain a strong identification with the old language.

luckylion 6y ago
That's a lot of goal post moving, and for Europe I think you're fundamentally mistaken. Needless to say that this doesn't convince me, why you'd treat the same policy completely different in a moral judgement. Principles that don't hold when transported to new circumstances aren't principles.
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago
  > why you'd treat the same policy completely different in a moral judgement. Where did I take a stand anywhere here? My post above gave a reason why some would criticize nativist anti-immigration attitudes in Europe while being concerned with the Uighurs’ situation, but I have not presented my own opinions on the morality of either Europe nor Xinjiang in this thread. > for Europe I think you're fundamentally mistaken. The sociolinguistics of second- and third-generation language shift in Europe are well documented in innumerable studies. In cases where people think that immigrants in their country are failing to assimilate linguistically, their perception is skewed due to first-generation immigrants (whether the first to arrive, or those who come later on family-reunification grounds) or that portion of second-generation immigrants who maintains active use of the language. However, anecdotes from laypeople are not data.

luckylion 6y ago

That's a lot of goal post moving, and for Europe I think you're fundamentally mistaken. Needless to say that this doesn't convince me, why you'd treat the same policy completely different in a moral judgement. Principles that don't hold when transported to new circumstances aren't principles.

Mediterraneo10 6y ago
> why you'd treat the same policy completely different in a moral judgement. Where did I take a stand anywhere here? My post above gave a reason why some would criticize nativist anti-immigration attitudes in Europe while being concerned with the Uighurs’ situation, but I have not presented my own opinions on the morality of either Europe nor Xinjiang in this thread. > for Europe I think you're fundamentally mistaken. The sociolinguistics of second- and third-generation language shift in Europe are well documented in innumerable studies. In cases where people think that immigrants in their country are failing to assimilate linguistically, their perception is skewed due to first-generation immigrants (whether the first to arrive, or those who come later on family-reunification grounds) or that portion of second-generation immigrants who maintains active use of the language. However, anecdotes from laypeople are not data.