3 ms·

I agree with your negative version of the point: >> if you don't accept a countries values, you should not be allowed to move there But in the positive versio

I agree with your negative version of the point: >> if you don't accept a countries values, you should not be allowed to move there But in the positive version, I think in America it is much easier to integrate if you do accept American values than it is in some European countries. And this is because, as you alluded, the only thing that makes America a unified country is a social agreement to certain shared values like rule of law, property rights, freedom to conduct business, freedom of religion, and more recently civil rights. Whereas those ideals are only recently tacked on to (most) European nations, and are not core to their identity; one can accept all those values and still never become German, for instance. Even France where many of those values originated has an ethnic nationalist core which denies integration to those who are not ethnically French. So what I mean is, accepting values in Europe is a start, but it is not enough. And what we see in ghettoized cultures around the world, from African Americans to Algerians in France, is that the ghetto creates its own logic of rejecting the norms of the society which has rejected it. Welfare is not a substitute for a path toward individual success and acceptance in society; this is perhaps Europe's greatest mistake. On welfare, in the suburbs, who will believe and not mock the supposed values of equality and fraternity? It becomes a generational problem.

hansworst 2y ago
I think it’s true that people in Europe feel that welfare is part of the problem here. In the Netherlands for example, one of the main right wing talking point is that refugees are given free social housing which could have gone to locals that are often on waiting lists for years. In America on the other hand, land was forcibly taken from the natives by colonists centuries ago. Now, if you’re looking to move to the US, you can expect to work in poverty for a few generations as a second class citizen because that’s just how the “completely fair” capitalist system is set up. Forgetting for a moment that most capital is held by a single ethnicity, and they’re definitely not going to give it away for free.
- noduerme 2y ago
  Er... speaking as a liberal American, this is a wild oversimplification. Housing is not a zero-sum resource. For one thing, to be a bit cheeky, when the white settlers stole the land from the Indians there was absolutely no housing at all. When my grandparents arrived in the US in the 1920s they lived in a tenement with one bathroom per floor. My grandfather saved his money as a tailor and a bartender and eventually built modern apartment buildings. If you harness the ingenuity and resourcefulness of immigrants they will build! This is why I think welfare states in Europe are on the wrong path toward trying to integrate foreign populations, not because it takes resources away from native Europeans (the demand side) but because it chokes off the supply side of what immigrants should expect to need to add and contribute to the society.
  - dachworker 2y ago
    I agreed with most of what you posted, but you have a misconception about these "welfare states". The immigrants end up on welfare because they are not allowed to participate in the economy. Why? Partly because of bureaucracy, and partly, one might say also because of other reasons: protectionism, discrimination, ...etc.
    - noduerme 2y ago
      I think we're saying very much the same thing. Welfare to immigrants in Europe has become a tool to compensate for other elements which make finding work or gaining advancement difficult; so it is a subsidy meant to protect "native" jobs by isolating the foreign labor force. It serves a double purpose to prevent the integration of new arrivals. Worst of all, it attracts people who think they don't need to work. All of these things can be true at the same time.
- Laaas 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - anthk 2y ago
    It's a good fairy tale. But, actually, Europe offers far more choices.
  - achenet 2y ago
    eh... Germany, Netherlands, even France... Switzerland probably... all those places you'll have bright young hardworking people from Spain or Portugal or Tunisia moving there, getting tech jobs, and finding financial/material success. In many cases becoming citizens so their kids can have access to that life without jumping through a bunch of hoops for visas. America is totally a place where a hardworking, intelligent immigrant can become fairly wealthy (assuming no catastrophic bad luck, ie. getting shot because the second amendment says that everyone should have a full-auto assault rifle), but it does not have a monopoly on that :)
    - twixfel 2y ago
      It's not the case in Germany, to get into a management role you generally need to be German. Also, the housing market is completely broken with all the good stock in the hands of white German boomers on old rental contracts paying a 1/3 what immigrants pay. Germany is not a land of opportunity, it is a land of relative comfort, with laws and regulations in place to protect the lives of German boomers. Immigrants will never go far in Germany, but they will be relatively comfortable.
    - notdonspaulding 2y ago
      Just a note on your gun death comment. The chance of dying by a gun in the US is very small. Of those killed by guns in the US, less than 3% are killed by anything resembling an "assault rifle". Over half of all gun deaths are suicides, so even those numbers are inflated if what you want to know is "how worried do I need to be about dying because the 2nd amendment allows assault rifle ownership?" The quick answer is "very little".
  - 2y ago
- A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
  << Now, if you’re looking to move to the US, you can expect to work in poverty for a few generations as a second class citizen because that’s just how the “completely fair” capitalist system is set up. Uh. I want to hope that this is just a oversimplification intended to get a reaction. Yes, US does have real issues that it needs to address those in order to make social mobility reasonably attainable. Arguably, it is a lot harder to "make it" now. I am just an anecdote here, but, I am a first generation immigrant. I have a house, a dog and a partner. Also next week, I am taking my vacation and buying a vette ( well, I scheduled a test drive -- didn't mentally commit to buying yet ). I do not consider myself a second class citizen. I am not rich, but I can't say I am poor either. My kid is starting school ( private, public one is not great here -- ok, but not great ). I honestly do not think I would have been able to do the same in the old country. I absolutely accept that I might not be the norm and the current version of capitalism needs to be reined in, but, honestly, if you do want to drive that point, I think you need a better argument.
achenet 2y ago
> Even France where many of those values originated has an ethnic nationalist core which denies integration to those who are not ethnically French. disagree with this as a French person. That "ethnic nationalist core" is the French equivalent of Trump supporters who say "America is a white (anglo) Christian nation". the country currently known as France was originally Celtic Gaul, which was then conquered by Romans, then by various Germanic tribes, most notably the Franks who gave the country it's current name, and didn't really unify until fairly late. Even to this day, you'll find people in Brittany identify more as 'Breton' then French sometimes, despite the efforts of the French state to kill that local identity in the late 19th century. We're a nation of bastards, and always have been. You'll have sad, sorry people on the far right who conjure up some imaginary ideal of a "true, ethnic French character", but it's like the KKK members in America talking about being 'true Americans'. It's a fallacy. The people with high levels of melanin with parents that arrived in the country less than 50 years ago playing for our national soccer team are, at least to my mind, just as French as my father whose family lived around Saint-Etienne for the past 300+ years, even if some of them act like the equivalent of "that girl from Jersey shore saying she's Italian because her last name is Spaghetti despite not actually speaking a word of Italian and having never been there" sometimes. :)

hansworst 2y ago

I think it’s true that people in Europe feel that welfare is part of the problem here. In the Netherlands for example, one of the main right wing talking point is that refugees are given free social housing which could have gone to locals that are often on waiting lists for years. In America on the other hand, land was forcibly taken from the natives by colonists centuries ago. Now, if you’re looking to move to the US, you can expect to work in poverty for a few generations as a second class citizen because that’s just how the “completely fair” capitalist system is set up. Forgetting for a moment that most capital is held by a single ethnicity, and they’re definitely not going to give it away for free.

noduerme 2y ago
Er... speaking as a liberal American, this is a wild oversimplification. Housing is not a zero-sum resource. For one thing, to be a bit cheeky, when the white settlers stole the land from the Indians there was absolutely no housing at all. When my grandparents arrived in the US in the 1920s they lived in a tenement with one bathroom per floor. My grandfather saved his money as a tailor and a bartender and eventually built modern apartment buildings. If you harness the ingenuity and resourcefulness of immigrants they will build! This is why I think welfare states in Europe are on the wrong path toward trying to integrate foreign populations, not because it takes resources away from native Europeans (the demand side) but because it chokes off the supply side of what immigrants should expect to need to add and contribute to the society.
- dachworker 2y ago
  I agreed with most of what you posted, but you have a misconception about these "welfare states". The immigrants end up on welfare because they are not allowed to participate in the economy. Why? Partly because of bureaucracy, and partly, one might say also because of other reasons: protectionism, discrimination, ...etc.
  - noduerme 2y ago
    I think we're saying very much the same thing. Welfare to immigrants in Europe has become a tool to compensate for other elements which make finding work or gaining advancement difficult; so it is a subsidy meant to protect "native" jobs by isolating the foreign labor force. It serves a double purpose to prevent the integration of new arrivals. Worst of all, it attracts people who think they don't need to work. All of these things can be true at the same time.
Laaas 2y ago
[flagged]
- anthk 2y ago
  It's a good fairy tale. But, actually, Europe offers far more choices.
- achenet 2y ago
  eh... Germany, Netherlands, even France... Switzerland probably... all those places you'll have bright young hardworking people from Spain or Portugal or Tunisia moving there, getting tech jobs, and finding financial/material success. In many cases becoming citizens so their kids can have access to that life without jumping through a bunch of hoops for visas. America is totally a place where a hardworking, intelligent immigrant can become fairly wealthy (assuming no catastrophic bad luck, ie. getting shot because the second amendment says that everyone should have a full-auto assault rifle), but it does not have a monopoly on that :)
  - twixfel 2y ago
    It's not the case in Germany, to get into a management role you generally need to be German. Also, the housing market is completely broken with all the good stock in the hands of white German boomers on old rental contracts paying a 1/3 what immigrants pay. Germany is not a land of opportunity, it is a land of relative comfort, with laws and regulations in place to protect the lives of German boomers. Immigrants will never go far in Germany, but they will be relatively comfortable.
  - notdonspaulding 2y ago
    Just a note on your gun death comment. The chance of dying by a gun in the US is very small. Of those killed by guns in the US, less than 3% are killed by anything resembling an "assault rifle". Over half of all gun deaths are suicides, so even those numbers are inflated if what you want to know is "how worried do I need to be about dying because the 2nd amendment allows assault rifle ownership?" The quick answer is "very little".
- 2y ago
A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
<< Now, if you’re looking to move to the US, you can expect to work in poverty for a few generations as a second class citizen because that’s just how the “completely fair” capitalist system is set up. Uh. I want to hope that this is just a oversimplification intended to get a reaction. Yes, US does have real issues that it needs to address those in order to make social mobility reasonably attainable. Arguably, it is a lot harder to "make it" now. I am just an anecdote here, but, I am a first generation immigrant. I have a house, a dog and a partner. Also next week, I am taking my vacation and buying a vette ( well, I scheduled a test drive -- didn't mentally commit to buying yet ). I do not consider myself a second class citizen. I am not rich, but I can't say I am poor either. My kid is starting school ( private, public one is not great here -- ok, but not great ). I honestly do not think I would have been able to do the same in the old country. I absolutely accept that I might not be the norm and the current version of capitalism needs to be reined in, but, honestly, if you do want to drive that point, I think you need a better argument.

achenet 2y ago

> Even France where many of those values originated has an ethnic nationalist core which denies integration to those who are not ethnically French. disagree with this as a French person. That "ethnic nationalist core" is the French equivalent of Trump supporters who say "America is a white (anglo) Christian nation". the country currently known as France was originally Celtic Gaul, which was then conquered by Romans, then by various Germanic tribes, most notably the Franks who gave the country it's current name, and didn't really unify until fairly late. Even to this day, you'll find people in Brittany identify more as 'Breton' then French sometimes, despite the efforts of the French state to kill that local identity in the late 19th century. We're a nation of bastards, and always have been. You'll have sad, sorry people on the far right who conjure up some imaginary ideal of a "true, ethnic French character", but it's like the KKK members in America talking about being 'true Americans'. It's a fallacy. The people with high levels of melanin with parents that arrived in the country less than 50 years ago playing for our national soccer team are, at least to my mind, just as French as my father whose family lived around Saint-Etienne for the past 300+ years, even if some of them act like the equivalent of "that girl from Jersey shore saying she's Italian because her last name is Spaghetti despite not actually speaking a word of Italian and having never been there" sometimes. :)