6 ms·

Those may be true, but I always assumed that the US of A aspires to do better, American exceptionalism, land of opportunity and all that jazz.

by rajup 4y ago

car_analogy 4y ago
This is assuming that more immigration equals better. And even if one does think so, then the USA is doing "better" - by orders of magnitude. The Chinese and Indians are not set to become minorities in their own countries, are they? But thanks to immigration, white Americans practically already are [1], yet it is they that are called xenophobic. Double-standards doesn't begin to describe it. [1] https://www.brookings.edu/research/less-than-half-of-us-children-under-15-are-white-census-shows/ https://www.brookings.edu/research/less-than-half-of-us-chil...
- polygamous_bat 4y ago
  In what part of the US Constitution are the white Americans identified as the essential majority for the country? This is a country that was founded through immigration, unlike China or India, so turning around and crying about becoming a minority just as you are enjoying the benefits of your ancestors migrating seems hypocritical.
  - quantumwannabe 4y ago
    Appealing to the history of immigration in the country doesn't diminish the GP's point as the US has discriminated against the origins and identities of immigrants since its founding. >The Naturalization Act of 1790 (1 Stat. 103, enacted March 26, 1790) was a law of the United States Congress that set the first uniform rules for the granting of United States citizenship by naturalization. The law limited naturalization to "free White person(s) ... of good character", thus excluding Native Americans, indentured servants, slaves, free black people and later Asians, although free black people were allowed citizenship at the state level in a number of states. [1] Race based citizenship remained the law until United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) [2] where the Supreme Court interpreted the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause of the 14th Amendment to meant that anyone physically born in the country was automatically granted citizenship. Race-neutral naturalization wasn't enacted until the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 [3] and racial discrimination and national original based immigration (not permanent residency as should be obvious) controls weren't banned until the Hart–Celler Act in 1965 [4]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Ac... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Ac...
    - pyuser583 4y ago
      I’m confused by this … doesn’t “national origin discrimination” make sense in an immigration context. It’s reasonable to treat people from Canada different from people from, say, Litchtenstein. I’m sure there’s some distinction I’m missing.
      - quantumwannabe 4y ago
        What the 1952 law says is that you can't ban people from immigrating because of what country they come from. It doesn't ban the creation caps on the number of people immigrating from a specific countries, which the law also enacted. The 1965 Act repealed country based quotas and replaced them with hemisphere based quotas, which were then themselves repealed and replaced with country based quotas again in the Immigration Act of 1990, which created the modern Diversity Immigrant Visas (as well the modern employment based visas).
  - la6472 4y ago
    And this +1
- rajup 4y ago
  Again, if you want to resort to whataboutism that’s ok but I just want to point out that it’s hypocritical to then go around the world exporting “freedom” and “values” from an alleged high ground.
  - car_analogy 4y ago
    That's a strange definition of "freedom". Do countries that don't practice mass immigration not have "freedom"? To be free, one must allow one's national identity to be diluted into nothing?
    - rajup 4y ago
      Not sure how you make the jump from sane immigration laws to “dilution of national identity”. If anything the USA does a fantastic job of assimilating a wide gamut of cultures without a lot of friction. Of course if your idea of “national identity” is that it consists only of white people, then I’m sorry but your views are racist and not based on factual history or current reality.
- rajup 4y ago
  Also I’m not sure what the race or being a minority or majority demographic has to do with being xenophobic? Pretty sure there are Indian and Chinese xenophobes in the USA as well.
- passivate 4y ago
  >But thanks to immigration, white Americans practically already are [1], yet it is they that are called xenophobic Why does it matter if a particular race is the majority or minority of citizens? What concerns do you have about it?
  - la6472 4y ago

Those may be true, but I always assumed that the US of A aspires to do better, American exceptionalism, land of opportunity and all that jazz.

by rajup 4y ago

Those may be true, but I always assumed that the US of A aspires to do better, American exceptionalism, land of opportunity and all that jazz.

car_analogy 4y ago

This is assuming that more immigration equals better. And even if one does think so, then the USA is doing "better" - by orders of magnitude. The Chinese and Indians are not set to become minorities in their own countries, are they? But thanks to immigration, white Americans practically already are [1], yet it is they that are called xenophobic. Double-standards doesn't begin to describe it. [1] https://www.brookings.edu/research/less-than-half-of-us-children-under-15-are-white-census-shows/ https://www.brookings.edu/research/less-than-half-of-us-chil...

polygamous_bat 4y ago
In what part of the US Constitution are the white Americans identified as the essential majority for the country? This is a country that was founded through immigration, unlike China or India, so turning around and crying about becoming a minority just as you are enjoying the benefits of your ancestors migrating seems hypocritical.
- quantumwannabe 4y ago
  Appealing to the history of immigration in the country doesn't diminish the GP's point as the US has discriminated against the origins and identities of immigrants since its founding. >The Naturalization Act of 1790 (1 Stat. 103, enacted March 26, 1790) was a law of the United States Congress that set the first uniform rules for the granting of United States citizenship by naturalization. The law limited naturalization to "free White person(s) ... of good character", thus excluding Native Americans, indentured servants, slaves, free black people and later Asians, although free black people were allowed citizenship at the state level in a number of states. [1] Race based citizenship remained the law until United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) [2] where the Supreme Court interpreted the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause of the 14th Amendment to meant that anyone physically born in the country was automatically granted citizenship. Race-neutral naturalization wasn't enacted until the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 [3] and racial discrimination and national original based immigration (not permanent residency as should be obvious) controls weren't banned until the Hart–Celler Act in 1965 [4]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Ac... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Ac...
  - pyuser583 4y ago
    I’m confused by this … doesn’t “national origin discrimination” make sense in an immigration context. It’s reasonable to treat people from Canada different from people from, say, Litchtenstein. I’m sure there’s some distinction I’m missing.
    - quantumwannabe 4y ago
      What the 1952 law says is that you can't ban people from immigrating because of what country they come from. It doesn't ban the creation caps on the number of people immigrating from a specific countries, which the law also enacted. The 1965 Act repealed country based quotas and replaced them with hemisphere based quotas, which were then themselves repealed and replaced with country based quotas again in the Immigration Act of 1990, which created the modern Diversity Immigrant Visas (as well the modern employment based visas).
- la6472 4y ago
  And this +1
rajup 4y ago
Again, if you want to resort to whataboutism that’s ok but I just want to point out that it’s hypocritical to then go around the world exporting “freedom” and “values” from an alleged high ground.
- car_analogy 4y ago
  That's a strange definition of "freedom". Do countries that don't practice mass immigration not have "freedom"? To be free, one must allow one's national identity to be diluted into nothing?
  - rajup 4y ago
    Not sure how you make the jump from sane immigration laws to “dilution of national identity”. If anything the USA does a fantastic job of assimilating a wide gamut of cultures without a lot of friction. Of course if your idea of “national identity” is that it consists only of white people, then I’m sorry but your views are racist and not based on factual history or current reality.
rajup 4y ago
Also I’m not sure what the race or being a minority or majority demographic has to do with being xenophobic? Pretty sure there are Indian and Chinese xenophobes in the USA as well.
passivate 4y ago
>But thanks to immigration, white Americans practically already are [1], yet it is they that are called xenophobic Why does it matter if a particular race is the majority or minority of citizens? What concerns do you have about it?
- la6472 4y ago