The Trump Presidency – 2016

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

What about cloistered nuns?

That's a great example. More akin to hijab than burka which I'm good with (and I think most American's are also).

In case you did not know, here's a link to what burqa is vs hijab.

What's the difference between a hijab, niqab and burka? - CBBC Newsround

[ISiddiqui]

What is this strange argument about 'assimilation'? Italian and Irish immigrants definitely did NOT adopt the manner of the native Americans when they came over - that's why they still have very strong communities (especially in the North East. I am from New Jersey, the dominant culture in many places there is Catholic Italian, not WASP, and guess what I know Italians from Jersey whose grandparents live with the family and speak incredibly broken English, because they've only bothered to learn a little bit of it), because they kept their traditions and their faith.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

What is this strange argument about 'assimilation'? Italian and Irish immigrants definitely did NOT adopt the manner of the native Americans when they came over - that's why they still have very strong communities (especially in the North East. I am from New Jersey, the dominant culture in many places there is Catholic Italian, not WASP), because they kept their traditions and their faith.

Good point.

And six hundred years later, the native Americans were overwhelmed by their non-assimilating "immigrants" who ultimately imposed their norms & culture. Said half-jokingly but some truth to it -- maybe something we should learn from that?

So you don't think the Italian and Irish community are now assimilated in the US? I'm a little surprised by this.

[lungs]

I've probably mentioned this several times around here every time the assimilation question comes up. I'm pretty convinced that the only reason we don't still speak German in our area is that we had a few wars with Germany that made it kind of unpopular. My grandmother (third generation born in USA) spoke German until she went to school despite having parents that could speak English just fine. Newspapers around here were all in German until WWI. We still have a very strong German culture in our town.

I've also had the benefit of being close to the local Latino community and I can say without a doubt that they are assimilating much faster than my German ancestors did. The kids not only pick up English fast, but teach their younger siblings English before they even get to school. It was kind of fascinating as two young girls whose parents used to work for me had their own language that was a mix of Spanish and English. But the three year old knew to speak Spanish to her parents and English to me. The young brain is a powerful thing.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Edward64

It is not based on the definition that previous waves of immigrants didn't change what it meant to be American.

Certainly don't think that is logical to assume we are still all from the white, Puritan stock. There is nothing I read in the linked studies that indicate or implied that (please let me know if you see differently).

What it means to be American evolves over time. At this point in time, a burqa clad woman will not assimilate well is what I am saying.

Per my other post to you -- do you believe the majority women dressed in burqas do so willingly or are they forced?

It's this line:

adopt the mannerisms and behavior of native-born

that I'm stuck on. That hasn't been how other waves of immigrants worked. Why is that a demand now?

I generally think the more fundamental or orthodox the Abrahamic religion, the more patriarchal it is, and anyone forced to obey strictures without consent is wrong. There are certainly women in burquas that would apply to, but there are also Christians and Jews that would also apply to.

My disagreement is in the idea that the woman in a burqua can never be American. I don't understand why that one expression of faith is a problem while other, similar expressions of faith are fine. I think you're hung up in part because it's unfamiliar, but so were the traditions of other immigrant waves. Language, clothing, food, music, etc. have all been used as markers of being an outsider and unable to assimilate. Give it a generation, though, and the children of immigrants mix the dominant culture with their culture and the more native population finds these new expressions of culture more familiar and less threatening.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by lungs

I've probably mentioned this several times around here every time the assimilation question comes up. I'm pretty convinced that the only reason we don't still speak German in our area is that we had a few wars with Germany that made it kind of unpopular. My grandmother (third generation born in USA) spoke German until she went to school despite having parents that could speak English just fine. Newspapers around here were all in German until WWI. We still have a very strong German culture in our town.

I've also had the benefit of being close to the local Latino community and I can say without a doubt that they are assimilating much faster than my German ancestors did. The kids not only pick up English fast, but teach their younger siblings English before they even get to school. It was kind of fascinating as two young girls whose parents used to work for me had their own language that was a mix of Spanish and English. But the three year old knew to speak Spanish to her parents and English to me. The young brain is a powerful thing.

Studies have shown that every wave of non-English speaking immigrants has followed the same path. The first gen largely sticks to their native language. The second gen is bi-lingual. The third gen mostly loses their native language and are English only.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It's this line: that I'm stuck on. That hasn't been how other waves of immigrants worked. Why is that a demand now?

It was my attempt to define "American Identity" and a quote I took from another study/definition.

I don't know that its just "now", I think its always been there/requirement, its just that it worked better on some immigrants than others.

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I generally think the more fundamental or orthodox the Abrahamic religion, the more patriarchal it is, and anyone forced to obey strictures without consent is wrong. There are certainly women in burquas that would apply to, but there are also Christians and Jews that would also apply to.

I think you are agreeing that many/most women in burqa's are "forced". Its just that you also say there are other faiths that do it also.

I honestly don't see this and would appreciate some examples.

The cloistered nun example -- she voluntarily took the cloth, she can leave anytime, she will not be threatened if she took it off etc.

Originally Posted by JPhillips

My disagreement is in the idea that the woman in a burqua can never be American. I don't understand why that one expression of faith is a problem while other, similar expressions of faith are fine.

My issue is I don't see it predominantly as expression of faith, I see it more as assimilation. Does an insistent burqa wearing woman have the mindset to assimilate in the US. My preference is to give the quota slot to someone else that would love to assimilate (e.g. there are limited number of slots so let's give it to someone south of the border etc.)

I think we just agree to disagree here.

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I think you're hung up in part because it's unfamiliar, but so were the traditions of other immigrant waves. Language, clothing, food, music, etc. have all been used as markers of being an outsider and unable to assimilate. Give it a generation, though, and the children of immigrants mix the dominate culture with their culture and the more native population finds these new expressions of culture more familiar and less threatening.

I personally think I'm more familiar with Islam and its norms than most Americans. I've lived in two predominantly muslim countries in SEA (we would define them as moderate countries here and that's why I know about the hijab) and do have muslim colleagues that I interact with (e.g. so I know they can assimilate).

Absolutely not claiming to know everything about muslims or Islam but my POV is not because I'm unfamiliar with them.

I do agree that for most, a generation will bring the assimilation I'm looking for.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Edward64

So you don't think the Italian and Irish community are now assimilated in the US? I'm a little surprised by this.

The kids of the immigrants are and that's the point that has been made continuously. You know, just like the kids of the burka wearing woman, who go to public school and speak English and whatnot. Yeah, they don't eat pork and probably are bigger fans of soccer than other Americans, but how are they not a part of the American community?

But they also live in their own separate sub-cultures. You know those types of folks that were mocked a bit in The Sopranos? That's not much of a stereotype. There are many Italians in Jersey who act that way. They don't act like midwestern English or German decended folk and were picked on for that because they were being told they weren't assimilating.

Originally Posted by lungs

I've probably mentioned this several times around here every time the assimilation question comes up. I'm pretty convinced that the only reason we don't still speak German in our area is that we had a few wars with Germany that made it kind of unpopular. My grandmother (third generation born in USA) spoke German until she went to school despite having parents that could speak English just fine. Newspapers around here were all in German until WWI. We still have a very strong German culture in our town.

Yep. The Lutheran Church I attend (in Atlanta) had services only in German until World War II (and they struggled quite a bit during WWI in terms of membership and funds).

[JPhillips]

I was in Providence, RI for the weekend. While there I went to a festival in an Italian neighborhood. This neighborhood had Italian restaurants. Italian bakeries. Italian grocery stores. Streets named after Italians. A park named after an Italian. Churches named after Italian saints. There was a singer who sang songs in Italian. The Italian flag was displayed all over.

All of that is fine, but it certainly isn't an example of Italian immigrants adopting the mannerisms and behaviors of the native born.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I was in Providence, RI for the weekend. While there I went to a festival in an Italian neighborhood. This neighborhood had Italian restaurants. Italian bakeries. Italian grocery stores. Streets named after Italians. A park named after an Italian. Churches named after Italian saints. There was a singer who sang songs in Italian. The Italian flag was displayed all over.

All of that is fine, but it certainly isn't an example of Italian immigrants adopting the mannerisms and behaviors of the native born.

Sure the stores and flags are examples (but don't agree streets, parks or churches are). But I am sure I can come up with a bunch of other examples that show Italians and Irish are well integrated. So when you look at it as a whole, I'm actually surprised that people don't think they are.

Maybe its because you think I believe everyone needs to be 100% assimilated until we are one big indistinguishable puritan/protestant entity?

In a separate answer with SackAttack.

Don't disagree. I've always used "salad bowl" vs melting pot which means there are cultural, ethnic etc. stuff that says separated but we're all one happy family mixed in a bowl, overlaid by the American "special salad dressing".

However, I do believe there are those that won't get into the salad bowl with the rest of us so let's not waste our time.

[ISiddiqui]

Saying there are those who "won't get into the salad bowl" are the exact sort of things said against the Italians and Irish in the early 1900s. After all, they stayed in their own communities, spoke their own languages, and didn't try to "act American".

This sort of tension, BTW, is all over many forms of media, including movies like The Godfather, Gangs of New York, etc. It wasn't until pretty recently that most people thought Catholics could be good Americans (I mean Kennedy had to be asked in 1960 if he'd follow the Pope over the Constitution if he was elected President!).

And I don't think Italians and Irish are assimilated into the old American WASP worldview. They created an expanded and new idea of what being American was.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The kids of the immigrants are and that's the point that has been made continuously. You know, just like the kids of the burka wearing woman, who go to public school and speak English and whatnot. Yeah, they don't eat pork and probably are bigger fans of soccer than other Americans, but how are they not a part of the American community?

Yup, I have agreed and continue to agree the immigrant kids have assimilated well.

I don't believe 1st Gen burqa women that continue to insist of wearing them in the US will assimilate well. Some of that will rub off on the kids.

Your last question about "how are they not part of the American community" I will take as you asking "why don't you think the burqa clad women can do well assimilating into American community".

I googled and did not find much specific to the US (and some of them were IMO questionable). Plenty from Europe though as there is a longer history and experiences.

France and Belgium have banned the burqa, didn't read alot into the pros & cons but suffice it to say there were enough cons. Other European countries have restrictions etc.

Here's a link on some other opinions, some for and other against burqa's.

https://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/64432

If burqa clad women are having a hard time integrating in Europe, can we not assume it will be same/similar here?

We have a ton of people from our southern borders that would love to have the opportunity, they are closer to us, let's give one of them her quota slot.

[ISiddiqui]

They are integrating just as well as first generation immigrants have from time past. Why do you think they are any different? European countries are banning the burka because a) they think it's oppressive, b) many of them are anti-religious displays in public - France for instance bans school teachers from wearing cross necklaces and in your link, they are talking about banning the "burkini", which has an open face area, like a nun habit. And why would you look to European integration as proof of anything? The US has always been historically a place where immigrants could integrate far easier than in (most places in) Europe.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Saying there are those who "won't get into the salad bowl" are the exact sort of things said against the Italians and Irish in the early 1900s. After all, they stayed in their own communities, spoke their own languages, and didn't try to "act American".

This sort of tension, BTW, is all over many forms of media, including movies like The Godfather, Gangs of New York, etc. It wasn't until pretty recently that most people thought Catholics could be good Americans (I mean Kennedy had to be asked in 1960 if he'd follow the Pope over the Constitution if he was elected President!).

And I don't think Italians and Irish are assimilated into the old American WASP worldview. They created an expanded and new idea of what being American was.

Fair enough. I'll try to do some more research on this.

I think I know the answer from your comments but I'll asked the question I've asked others -

Do you think insistent burqa wearing women will assimilate well in the US? Not their children, they themselves, the 1st Gen?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Do you think insistent burqa wearing women will assimilate well in the US? Not their children, they themselves, the 1st Gen?

They will assimilate just as well as other 1st Generation immigrants from the past. They likely will speak halting, little English, and work in menial jobs, and gravitate to their own communities, just as countless other groups did before them. And that is good enough for me.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

They are integrating just as well as first generation immigrants have from time past. Why do you think they are any different? European countries are banning the burka because a) they think it's oppressive, b) many of them are anti-religious displays in public - France for instance bans school teachers from wearing cross necklaces. And why would you look to European integration as proof of anything? The US has always been historically a place where immigrants could integrate far easier than in (most places in) Europe.

I do think a) is part of the answer, there is also security concerns but there others in the link that believe it prevents/delays the integration.

Let's be honest here, the French bans on religious symbols were really focused on the muslim displays of religion. Not a bad compromise to stop burqa's considering the French Christian school teacher can still wear her cross under her blouse.

I explained why I look at the European integration, I did not find much in the US. Do you have US studies that shows burqa immigrants will have an easier time assimilating?

[larrymcg421]

There are few things less American than a religious test for immigration. That's a non-starter for me.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

They will assimilate just as well as other 1st Generation immigrants from the past. They likely will speak halting, little English, and work in menial jobs, and gravitate to their own communities, just as countless other groups did before them. And that is good enough for me.

I would have thought otherwise for 1st Gen immigrants now (or at least the legal ones) when compared to the past. They are more educated, work in white collar jobs or have their own small business, most can probably speak English somewhat well, and probably much more attuned to being an American.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I explained why I look at the European integration, I did not find much in the US. Do you have US studies that shows burqa immigrants will have an easier time assimilating?

I see no studies or evidence that burka wearing Muslims have a harder time 'assimilating'. My grandmother didn't wear a burka, but spoke very little English and when she went out, she did so with the rest of the family. She was a green card holder. I don't see how a burka wearing Muslim who can speak English would be any less assimilated (and yes, many burka wearing women can speak the local languages to various degrees of competence). Now I can see if you ban the burka that that would have a very negative effect on assimilation, as those individuals would conclude that the society is biased against them.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I see no studies or evidence that burka wearing Muslims have a harder time 'assimilating'. My grandmother didn't wear a burka, but spoke very little English and when she went out, she did so with the rest of the family. She was a green card holder. I don't see how a burka wearing Muslim who can speak English would be any less assimilated (and yes, many burka wearing women can speak the local languages to various degrees of competence).

I did not find any studies for the US either but I think there are plenty of evidence in Europe. Admittedly it may not be all their (e.g. burqa clad women's) fault but how society reacts to them because of their lack of willingness to adapt to the new country.

How well can a burqa clad women, who can speak english, integrate in the US when they are limited to who they can speak to or interact with? Not very well IMO.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

They created an expanded and new idea of what being American was.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

They are integrating just as well as first generation immigrants have from time past.

This is the whole point.

Yes, Italians and Irish are now a part of the American fabric. That happened not because they gave up their culture, but because elements of their culture became a part of a new American culture. That's the strength we have traditionally had and European countries haven't had. There isn't a rigid American culture. Our culture grows and changes, incorporating elements from waves of immigrants. There's no reason to think that won't continue to happen with new waves of immigration.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Edward64

We do live in a country with laws. Sure some laws are bad or inadequate, let's change them (e.g. immigration laws) through the process.

My holistic approach was not just for illegals, it was for legal and illegals (e.g. that's how I define holistic reform). So yes, I am sure my approach addressed some of the issues but would not say it was the all encompassing solution because I wasn't just focused on illegals (nor do I think it should be).

It seems as if you want the "domestic" version? Does that mean you want non-US people, assume you meant from the southern borders but could also apply from all over the world, to be able to travel & work in the US at will (e.g. pretty much no limitations other than for security checks)?

I’m not arguing for an airport style border crossing. I’m saying if the rhetoric was serious, then dramatic actions like that would happen. I’m suggesting that one reason it isn’t happening and we are instead doing expensive symbolic acts (wall, separations, etc) is the system right now is benefiting those in charge. It is getting people elected and making a whole lot of money for others.

So, can you please answer this question: the current illegal immigrants are bad for this country because.....

[digamma]

I am coming back to that same question. Maybe stated another way, what problem are you trying to solve? Because the burka example and assimilation doesn't seem to have much to do with the Wall and illegal immigration.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I’m not arguing for an airport style border crossing. I’m saying if the rhetoric was serious, then dramatic actions like that would happen. I’m suggesting that one reason it isn’t happening and we are instead doing expensive symbolic acts (wall, separations, etc) is the system right now is benefiting those in charge. It is getting people elected and making a whole lot of money for others.

That's actually not how I read your quote, but okay.

If we were serious, we would treat border crossings like an airport. But we don’t because of the massive economic hit that would be to commerce.

I do agree the Wall rhetoric is benefiting Trump. Not so sure about separations though, that's yet to be played out.

I agree its making people money but (not sure if I'm reading you right), I don't think its some organized "cabal" that is pushing the buttons and making money off the illegals. Its those that always have - corporations, small businesses, mom-and-pop operations.

Originally Posted by AENeuman

So, can you please answer this question: the current illegal immigrants are bad for this country because.....

I think I've said it. Its as simple as they are breaking the law? I don't know why that is not an acceptable answer? If the law is wrong or should be changed, let's do it but you can't have people flaunt the laws.

When do you think too many illegals/undocumented is too much? Will there ever be a limit reached in your scenario because it does sound as if you want a free flow of legal/illegal labor and travel into the US?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by digamma

I am coming back to that same question. Maybe stated another way, what problem are you trying to solve? Because the burka example and assimilation doesn't seem to have much to do with the Wall and illegal immigration.

Yes, the burqa was one point in many that took a life unto its own.

The problem I am trying to solve is the breaking of laws of the land.

If the laws are bad, outdated, not necessary etc. that's fine, lets fix them through the process. If some of the laws are good, lets enforce them.

I'm okay with reforming the immigration laws. I've made suggestions on the reforms in above #10569.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Not saying you're wrong, but do you have any sources on this?

Key findings about U.S. immigrants | Pew Research Center

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

This is the whole point.

Yes, Italians and Irish are now a part of the American fabric. That happened not because they gave up their culture, but because elements of their culture became a part of a new American culture. That's the strength we have traditionally had and European countries haven't had. There isn't a rigid American culture. Our culture grows and changes, incorporating elements from waves of immigrants. There's no reason to think that won't continue to happen with new waves of immigration.

Just as an aside, I would say that same thing has already happened here in southern CA with Mexican culture. It's very present and familiar to everyone here, and I meet as many Mexican-Americans who don't speak Spanish and have only been to Mexico on vacation as I do immigrants.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Edward64

How well can a burqa clad women, who can speak english, integrate in the US when they are limited to who they can speak to or interact with? Not very well IMO.

I know this is one small piece of your discussion, but just out of curiosity how many women have you had interactions with that wear a burqa? Also there are many different types of head/body coverings/veils associated with Islam, so how do you differentiate between them, and do different types present a greater obstacle to assimilation? I.E a hijab is okay, but a burqa is not? In truth is it more about security or fear than it is assimilation?

I have know a Muslim woman that wears a hijab for almost 20 years, worked under my at a former company and works in the same department in a different function at my current job. I could not even tell you what color hair she has, as I have only ever seen her face and hands. I can tell you she has assimilated to America just fine, always participating in the Christmas time ugly sweater contest and often winning. She appreciates America and it's freedoms, while still holding her traditions and religious beliefs close. The only thing that could possibly make anyone think she had not assimilated is her appearance, and only then if they didn't know her.

If her "slot" had gone to someone deemed more likely to assimilate I would have missed out on one of the best employees I have ever managed over the years. She is currently at the top in her current position at my employer as well, which to me means she has put forth a great effort, to assimilate.

Again, this is a small point, but still a very complex one that points out the dangers of painting with a broad brush. As others have mentioned, other cultures become American culture and in my view that is one of the great things about this country. Forcing people to assimilate to the point of losing their identity is never a good thing and American history as it relates to Native Americans tells us all we need to know about that. If you have never read on, or researched the "Indian" Schools (such as Carlisle since it is a more well know institution) I would heartily recommend doing so. These efforts to make Native Americans more "gentile" are a proverbial black eye on this country.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I think I've said it. Its as simple as they are breaking the law? I don't know why that is not an acceptable answer? If the law is wrong or should be changed, let's do it but you can't have people flaunt the laws.

Interesting phrasing there. Do you think an undocumented person is always, constantly breaking the law? Or, you don't think they just broke a single law? If the former, I can understand your use of "illegals." To you, then they are like trespassers constantly trespassing?

I'm beginning to think there is something deeper here. You seem to have a fear of the other. Burqas trouble you, foreign languages trouble you, labels like illegals trouble you. Your solutions seem to all want to eliminate troublesome labels and replace them with a safe, english speaking, american acting and living. In essence, to blend in and no longer seem threatening. I also imagine your own personal immigration story plays into this. You followed the rules, waited in the lines, didn't rock the boat...why should others get same things without the same effort...?

Originally Posted by Edward64

When do you think too many illegals/undocumented is too much? Will there ever be a limit reached in your scenario because it does sound as if you want a free flow of legal/illegal labor and travel into the US?

Yes, i've answered that- when the presence of new immigrants does more harm than good.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And I don't think Italians and Irish are assimilated into the old American WASP worldview. They created an expanded and new idea of what being American was.

Agree. And this is where I think race comes into the issue of assimilation. If we say cultural assimilation is the process in which a minority group or culture comes to resemble those of a dominant group, one can argue that most/all of American history has been preventing black Americans from assimilating. Laws were created to prevent it, de sure laws reinforce it, and those in power (politicians, media) to exploit it.

I think this makes sense because if you look at the history of many immigrant waves (Irish, Italian, Jewish) they were all originally treated like they were black: a segregated group with no power, income or voice- an exploited class. The goal then was separate from their "black brothers". One way we see this is the changing definition of who is considered "white".

So really, for a group to assimilate, the dominant group needs to first be willing to see that group as no longer a threat. Perhaps, even seeing the group as an ally against another group (African Americans, for example).

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

I know this is one small piece of your discussion, but just out of curiosity how many women have you had interactions with that wear a burqa? Also there are many different types of head/body coverings/veils associated with Islam, so how do you differentiate between them, and do different types present a greater obstacle to assimilation? I.E a hijab is okay, but a burqa is not? In truth is it more about security or fear than it is assimilation?

I'm going to leave the first question for last because how I answer your other questions hopefully will lend context to why I believe what I believe specifically to burqa (not hijab).

There is a definite difference between a hijab and a burqa. See #10613 where I shared a link. It's pretty easy to differentiate them and yes, I do think a person dressed in a burqa will not assimilate as well. No, it is not about security (until, I guess, the first incident) it is about assimilation (or the mindset to assimilate).

Originally Posted by BYU 14

I have know a Muslim woman that wears a hijab for almost 20 years, worked under my at a former company and works in the same department in a different function at my current job. I could not even tell you what color hair she has, as I have only ever seen her face and hands. I can tell you she has assimilated to America just fine, always participating in the Christmas time ugly sweater contest and often winning. She appreciates America and it's freedoms, while still holding her traditions and religious beliefs close. The only thing that could possibly make anyone think she had not assimilated is her appearance, and only then if they didn't know her.

If her "slot" had gone to someone deemed more likely to assimilate I would have missed out on one of the best employees I have ever managed over the years. She is currently at the top in her current position at my employer as well, which to me means she has put forth a great effort, to assimilate.

I do not disagree at all. I've lived/work in Malaysia and Indonesia (moderate muslim countries, majority of muslim women wear hijabs but I've seen a few burqas.

The companies I've done work for are global firms and I've also traveled to Manila, London & Singapore where I've also met hijab women. I have US muslim women co-workers that wear the hijab. So, I've have plenty of opportunities to work with & socialize freely with many muslim women in hijabs.

And hence, I know devout muslim women can assimilate if they were to immigrate.

So let me answer your first question.

I've had zero interactions with muslim women in burqas. The only passing interactions are -- passing by them when walking, once sitting beside one and her husband/mehram on a flight, relatively close to a group on them in a rail car in Malaysia. Haven't seen one in any retail stores or even government agencies.

From what my colleagues tell me ... it's okay to interact with a burqa clad woman if its on official business, otherwise ...

• It is not okay to initiate a conversation (not polite, not the norm) with a burqa clad woman if you don't know her already or her mehram.
• Women in burqa's will not socialize with you unless the mehram is around (and allows it)
• Hence, IMO assimilation will be very difficult

Originally Posted by BYU 14

Again, this is a small point, but still a very complex one that points out the dangers of painting with a broad brush. As others have mentioned, other cultures become American culture and in my view that is one of the great things about this country. Forcing people to assimilate to the point of losing their identity is never a good thing and American history as it relates to Native Americans tells us all we need to know about that. If you have never read on, or researched the "Indian" Schools (such as Carlisle since it is a more well know institution) I would heartily recommend doing so. These efforts to make Native Americans more "gentile" are a proverbial black eye on this country.

I do agree about we should not assimilate to the point of losing their identity. Not sure how to define "the point" but the concept is good.

However, not trying to or not expecting new immigrants to assimilate is bad. I've used the below a couple times now FWIW.

Don't disagree. I've always used "salad bowl" vs melting pot which means there are cultural, ethnic etc. stuff that says separated but we're all one happy family mixed in a bowl, overlaid by the American "special salad dressing".

However, I do believe there are those that won't get into the salad bowl with the rest of us so let's not waste our time.

**********

FYI - We've used the term assimilate quite a bit. I had a post before trying to define it from other sources and this is where I landed

• They had to accept English as the national language.
• They were expected to live by what is commonly referred to as the US ideal (?) work ethic (to be self-reliant, hardworking, and morally upright).
• They were expected to take pride in their American identity (e.g. adopt the mannerisms and behavior of native-born, civic engagement, social cohesion)

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Interesting phrasing there. Do you think an undocumented person is always, constantly breaking the law? Or, you don't think they just broke a single law? If the former, I can understand your use of "illegals." To you, then they are like trespassers constantly trespassing?

In my #10569, I stated

1) Most of today's illegals come from south of the border. Most come for economic reasons, most are law-abiding but there is a criminal element

So to answer your question, its the latter.

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I'm beginning to think there is something deeper here. You seem to have a fear of the other.

Not sure what "other" is?

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Burqas trouble you,

Yes, this is true in the context of being able to assimilate. Burqas don't bother me in everyday life because when I've been near one, there's never really been an opportunity to interact (not polite unless on official business or with mehram).

Originally Posted by AENeuman

foreign languages trouble you,

Not sure where this came from.

Originally Posted by AENeuman

labels like illegals trouble you.

Not sure where this came from. I'm actually okay with the label "illegal". I think you or someone else had wanted me to use "undocumented"? Illegal is a term that applies to all illegal immigrants not just south of the border.

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Your solutions seem to all want to eliminate troublesome labels and replace them with a safe, english speaking, american acting and living. In essence, to blend in and no longer seem threatening.

Again, not sure where the "labels" part comes in so not going to reply to rest of sentence.

On the last sentence, "blend in" is definitely true. Threatening? I've used the salad bowl analogy, I don't mind different cultures, religion etc. Its about assimilation to me.

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I also imagine your own personal immigration story plays into this. You followed the rules, waited in the lines, didn't rock the boat...

Yes, this is true.

Originally Posted by AENeuman

why should others get same things without the same effort...?

Uh no. In post #10569, I've made recommendations to short-cut the process for many.

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Yes, i've answered that- when the presence of new immigrants does more harm than good.

Pretty nebulous answer IMO but okay. Just different styles I guess.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

FYI - We've used the term assimilate quite a bit. I had a post before trying to define it from other sources and this is where I landed

We aren't a particularly hard-working country. Our biggest industries are real estate, finance, and insurance. Those industries are not self-reliant. And I think the morally upright stuff goes out the window when you start putting people in concentration camps.

I also don't understand what the definition of "American identity" is. Is it gaining 100 pounds and watching the aftermath of school shootings on cable news? Do they have to get really invested in the Kardashians? Is it throwing up some American flags on your Facebook page and blathering on about pizzagate?

Just cut the bullshit and get to what assimilation really means to you and everyone else who uses that word.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

We aren't a particularly hard-working country. Our biggest industries are real estate, finance, and insurance. Those industries are not self-reliant.

I guess it depends on how you define hard-working but I do think Americans are hard-working.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

And I think the morally upright stuff goes out the window when you start putting people in concentration camps.

If you are talking about the kids, I agree.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I also don't understand what the definition of "American identity" is. Is it gaining 100 pounds and watching the aftermath of school shootings on cable news? Do they have to get really invested in the Kardashians? Is it throwing up some American flags on your Facebook page and blathering on about pizzagate?

Just cut the bullshit and get to what assimilation really means to you and everyone else who uses that word.

Look, when you say bullshit to me it kinds ends the conversation.

You may not appreciate the research I did but I did do the research in #10608 and shared what I found (didn't see anyone else volunteering their definition of assimilation, care to share yours?). I also explained the American Identity best I could in #10608, if you aren't good with it, you come up with a definition for it or for assimilation.

[Marc Vaughan]

One thing to mention is that under US law asylum seekers aren't by definition 'illegal' and they aren't required by law to go through a port of entry either.

The way the current administration has been treating asylum seekers is atrocious.

The second thing I'd mention is the logic behind splitting parents from their children is ludicrous - if the administration is truly worried about MS-13 and violent criminals entering then why target the demographic which are least likely to be travelling with young children? ...

PS - Statistically speaking immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than US citizens, so the administration really wants to curtail violent crime then it should deport all the American citizens ... (ducks and runs ).

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Edward64

In my #10569, I stated So to answer your question, its the latter.



Not sure what "other" is?



Yes, this is true in the context of being able to assimilate. Burqas don't bother me in everyday life because when I've been near one, there's never really been an opportunity to interact (not polite unless on official business or with mehram).



Not sure where this came from.



Not sure where this came from. I'm actually okay with the label "illegal". I think you or someone else had wanted me to use "undocumented"? Illegal is a term that applies to all illegal immigrants not just south of the border.



Again, not sure where the "labels" part comes in so not going to reply to rest of sentence.

On the last sentence, "blend in" is definitely true. Threatening? I've used the salad bowl analogy, I don't mind different cultures, religion etc. Its about assimilation to me.



Yes, this is true.



Uh no. In post #10569, I've made recommendations to short-cut the process for many.



Pretty nebulous answer IMO but okay. Just different styles I guess.

Ok, gotta wrap this up because it’s getting reductive.
1. You said they were breaking the law. They are not constantly breaking the law- they broke one law, once (all else being equal).

2. Your first requirement for assimilation is acceptance of English as the national language. You have other requirements that are religious in nature: accept America is your true country, live by this ideal, take pride in a WASPy ideal, believe in subjective ideals (liberty, democracy).

3. To me you have not given a single reason why there is a illegal immigration problem other than saying there are people here illegally, thus a problem. That’s covers the who you want your approach to impact, but without the why it just seems personal and emotional. You don’t like the idea of them walking around your country, I guess.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Ok, gotta wrap this up because it’s getting reductive.

Yup, thanks for the dialog.

Originally Posted by AENeuman

1. You said they were breaking the law. They are not constantly breaking the law- they broke one law, once (all else being equal).

Hmmm. They broke the law and the are "breaking the law" by continuing to be in country. I did not imply the continue to break new laws? I thought #10569 was clear on that.

Originally Posted by AENeuman

2. Your first requirement for assimilation is acceptance of English as the national language. You have other requirements that are religious in nature: accept America is your true country, live by this ideal, take pride in a WASPy ideal, believe in subjective ideals (liberty, democracy).

I don't see the others in being religious in nature. I purposed deleted the word "protestant" to avoid that.

Originally Posted by AENeuman

3. To me you have not given a single reason why there is a illegal immigration problem other than saying there are people here illegally, thus a problem. That’s covers the who you want your approach to impact, but without the why it just seems personal and emotional. You don’t like the idea of them walking around your country, I guess.

Yes, that is true, the problem is we have illegals in the country, they have broken the law and continue to break the law by being in the country illegally.

The last sentence is not true. I've listed ways we should reform immigration laws and allow them to be in the country legally. I like them walking around my country legally.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

One thing to mention is that under US law asylum seekers aren't by definition 'illegal' and they aren't required by law to go through a port of entry either.

The way the current administration has been treating asylum seekers is atrocious.

Good point about asylum seekers. Did a quick look, don't know the counts or intricacies of it. It seems to say there are child separation for non-law breaking asylum seekers but also true illegals.

https://www.vox.com/2018/6/11/174431...arated-parents

There are also some cases in which immigrant families are being separated after coming to ports of entry and presenting themselves for asylum — thus following US law. It’s not clear how often this is happening, though it’s definitely not as widespread as separation of families who’ve crossed illegally.

[corbes]

Who’s Really Crossing the U.S. Border, and Why They’re Coming - Lawfare

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

You may not appreciate the research I did but I did do the research in #10608 and shared what I found (didn't see anyone else volunteering their definition of assimilation, care to share yours?). I also explained the American Identity best I could in #10608, if you aren't good with it, you come up with a definition for it or for assimilation.

I read the post. I just don't think those things you listed have anything to do with the American identity.

Start at the "Protestant work ethic". As I said, we aren't particularly hard-working compared to other countries. Our primary industries don't build or create anything of real value. They just arbitrage.

20% of our country is on food stamps. 39% of farms receive subsidies. A huge chunk of our country can't afford health care or receive help in obtaining it. Our wealthy receive massive subsidies and tax credits. Our primary industries (real estate, finance, and insurance) are considered "too big to fail" and thus receive bailouts any time they are in trouble. It doesn't seem like much of this country is self-reliant at all.

As for taking pride in "America's liberal democratic and egalitarian principles", I don't see it. We don't seem to like democracy all that much. There are countless efforts to restrict voting. Heavy gerrymandering ensures that many people don't have a say in our country. And the two parties have built the system so that it's impossible for a 3rd party with new ideas to even compete. And those existing parties tilt the bar in favor of their preferred candidate through money or straight up collusion (superdelegates for instance).

The egalitarian thing has always been more hype than substance. Look at the schools in poor communities vs rich communities. Tell yourself if you think you'd be treated the same way under the law as a billionaire. With the income gap growing between rich and poor (essentially eliminating any middle class), it's harder to change economic classes even with the best work ethic. That doesn't touch on the differences in race, ethnicity, gender, and so on. Not arguing any policy here either, just saying that there isn't a lot of equality in this country.

As for what my concept of "American identity" is, I don't know. It's a fairly diverse country depending on where you live, what you make, and who you are. I've lived in rural Minnesota and the city of Chicago. I enjoyed both but they are very different versions of America.

If I had to guess, I'd say we base a lot of our identity around our own image (as seen by the popularity of social media). We will bend over backwards to make sure that big businesses are taken care of before all else. We are obsessed with celebrity culture (it shouldn't surprise us that we elected a wealthy reality TV star). Politically we're more of a zombie democracy that is apathetic. We have an authoritarian streak in us too.

Like I joked earlier, I don't know how you assimilate someone into that. Make them sign up for Facebook, force them to watch Bravo, and make sure they forget to vote? The identity you think is America doesn't exist outside of political propaganda and old timey movies.

Then again, I don't see a huge assimilation problem in this country. I don't see women in burqas. Most people gradually adapt to our culture and each generation gets further entrenched in it.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I read the post. I just don't think those things you listed have anything to do with the American identity.

Start at the "Protestant work ethic". As I said, we aren't particularly hard-working compared to other countries. Our primary industries don't build or create anything of real value. They just arbitrage.

20% of our country is on food stamps. 39% of farms receive subsidies. A huge chunk of our country can't afford health care or receive help in obtaining it. Our wealthy receive massive subsidies and tax credits. Our primary industries (real estate, finance, and insurance) are considered "too big to fail" and thus receive bailouts any time they are in trouble. It doesn't seem like much of this country is self-reliant at all..

In my post, I specifically struck out "protestant".

I'll followup with the hard-working question separately.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

As for taking pride in "America's liberal democratic and egalitarian principles", I don't see it. We don't seem to like democracy all that much. There are countless efforts to restrict voting. Heavy gerrymandering ensures that many people don't have a say in our country. And the two parties have built the system so that it's impossible for a 3rd party with new ideas to even compete. And those existing parties tilt the bar in favor of their preferred candidate through money or straight up collusion (superdelegates for instance).

The egalitarian thing has always been more hype than substance. Look at the schools in poor communities vs rich communities. Tell yourself if you think you'd be treated the same way under the law as a billionaire. With the income gap growing between rich and poor (essentially eliminating any middle class), it's harder to change economic classes even with the best work ethic. That doesn't touch on the differences in race, ethnicity, gender, and so on. Not arguing any policy here either, just saying that there isn't a lot of equality in this country.

In my post, I specifically struck out "liberal democratic and egalitarian principles".

Originally Posted by RainMaker

As for what my concept of "American identity" is, I don't know. It's a fairly diverse country depending on where you live, what you make, and who you are. I've lived in rural Minnesota and the city of Chicago. I enjoyed both but they are very different versions of America.

If I had to guess, I'd say we base a lot of our identity around our own image (as seen by the popularity of social media). We will bend over backwards to make sure that big businesses are taken care of before all else. We are obsessed with celebrity culture (it shouldn't surprise us that we elected a wealthy reality TV star). Politically we're more of a zombie democracy that is apathetic. We have an authoritarian streak in us too.

This is fair. I don't know how to define American Identity either and hence copy-and-pasted from the other two article and landed at what I thought was a good definition. I don't know if I agree with you definition but agree its wide open.

... American identity (e.g. adopt the mannerisms and behavior of native-born, civic engagement, social cohesion

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Like I joked earlier, I don't know how you assimilate someone into that. Make them sign up for Facebook, force them to watch Bravo, and make sure they forget to vote? The identity you think is America doesn't exist outside of political propaganda and old timey movies.

How to assimilate someone? Just some thoughts ...

1. Have them speak English. It doesn't need to be their only language, but being able to communicate at a basic level definitely helps.
2. Have them swear allegiance to the US and mean it. My use case here is the dual citizenship thing which has been discussed elsewhere (and know others disagree but just my 2 cents). I'm sure there are other ways to facilitate/show this.
3. Have those that can, work. I think this is a given and just adding it anyway.
4. Provide means for HS and College/vocational education. If we think DACA kids will be US citizens, we should definitely educate them in HS and College otherwise a lost generation/opportunity that US will have to pay for in the future
5. Create some sort of support structure for first X years for those that need it. I'm not talking about long-term, maybe 1-2 years of let me coach you how to rent your own apartment, buy your first house, take you to the tax preparer, help you translate etc.
6. Create a "final exam" from Green Card to Citizenship. Have them show examples of how they have tried to assimilate? Admittedly, don't know how to do this but a rule I go by in project management is "if you don't clearly articulate expectations, roles & responsibilities, deliverables", it won't get done.

Look, I know each one of these have "whatabout" counterpoints. I'm not going to respond to negativity (I know they are not perfect or worded well, there needs to be more thought put in. If you don't like them, come up with your own ideas and let the crowd react) but they are some ideas that came up.

EDIT: the Citizenship test when I went thru it was just 7-8 questions about US history. This could be as easy as - attend a ball game, volunteer at a soup kitchen, volunteer at a church/mosque/temple/aid shelter, attend a parade or similar, have a library card, visit a national park etc. maybe make all new immigrants prove that they voted after becoming a citizen.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Then again, I don't see a huge assimilation problem in this country. I don't see women in burqas. Most people gradually adapt to our culture and each generation gets further entrenched in it.

Not going to get into burqas. Let's agree to disagree specifically on burqas.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Start at the "Protestant work ethic". As I said, we aren't particularly hard-working compared to other countries. Our primary industries don't build or create anything of real value. They just arbitrage.

20% of our country is on food stamps. 39% of farms receive subsidies. A huge chunk of our country can't afford health care or receive help in obtaining it. Our wealthy receive massive subsidies and tax credits. Our primary industries (real estate, finance, and insurance) are considered "too big to fail" and thus receive bailouts any time they are in trouble. It doesn't seem like much of this country is self-reliant at all.

I read through your article. Quick summary

1) Mexicans put in 42.8 hours in a week, US at 34.4, ranking 17 out of 38
2) It says Netherlands is more "productive" per hour worked but not much other data.

I don't know how to compare the US with rest-of-world re: food stamps, farm subsidies etc. but I do think you are selling the US short. I don't think the US compares poorly with ROW.

Turns out Americans work really hard...but some want to work harder

Americans do work hard. Americans work an average of 34.4 hours a week, longer than their counterparts in the world's largest economies.

Many work even longer. Adults employed full time report working an average of 47 hours per week, which equates to nearly six days a week, according to Gallup. That's about an hour and a half more than they reported a decade ago.

Nearly four in 10 workers report logging 50+ hours on the job.

Americans also receive fewer vacation days than their peers elsewhere -- and they don't even take all the time they are given. U.S. workers got about 15 days off in the past year and took 14 days, according to a 2014 Expedia.com survey. Europeans are given an average of 28 days, while workers in the Asia-Pacific receive 19, though they also don't take them all.

I think the difference of opinion is explained by the cnn.com article using the criteria of "longer than their counterparts in the world's largest economies."

These Are the Most Productive Countries in the World | Time

The United States ranks fifth, according to the OECD, contributing $68.30 to the country’s GDP per hour worked, countering claims that Americans are the most productive workers in the world. America put in more hours—33.6 per week on average—than all four of the European countries with higher productivity rankings.

There is a good table on GNP per hours worked.

We are ranked fifth, another similar article, it ranked US as sixth. http://www.businessinsider.com/the-m...pert-market-13

I'm not sure if GDP is the right measure but did not find anything on GNP.

[RainMaker]

I think there is a difference in the types of jobs Americans work and other countries. There's a reason we talk about immigrants working the jobs Americans won't.

We do top a lot of those European countries but they also score higher in quality of life rankings.

In any case, I don't think we're somehow unique to other countries in work ethic.

Originally Posted by Edward64

How to assimilate someone? Just some thoughts ...

1. Have them speak English. It doesn't need to be their only language, but being able to communicate at a basic level definitely helps.
2. Have them swear allegiance to the US and mean it. My use case here is the dual citizenship thing which has been discussed elsewhere (and know others disagree but just my 2 cents). I'm sure there are other ways to facilitate/show this.
3. Have those that can, work. I think this is a given and just adding it anyway.
4. Provide means for HS and College/vocational education. If we think DACA kids will be US citizens, we should definitely educate them in HS and College otherwise a lost generation/opportunity that US will have to pay for in the future
5. Create some sort of support structure for first X years for those that need it. I'm not talking about long-term, maybe 1-2 years of let me coach you how to rent your own apartment, buy your first house, take you to the tax preparer, help you translate etc.
6. Create a "final exam" from Green Card to Citizenship. Have them show examples of how they have tried to assimilate? Admittedly, don't know how to do this but a rule I go by in project management is "if you don't clearly articulate expectations, roles & responsibilities, deliverables", it won't get done.

Some of these are good ideas. I think #2 is kind of silly considering our current administration was cavorting around with Russian spies. Maybe deal with the allegiance of our own before we demand it of immigrants.

The test thing is kind of weird too. Then again I don't see the assimilation problem you do. I live in a big city with lots of immigrants and it's all pretty normal. It feels like the people who are upset about assimilation are the one's who don't live around them.

[Marc Vaughan]

How to assimilate someone? Just some thoughts ...
Have them speak English. It doesn't need to be their only language, but being able to communicate at a basic level definitely helps.

What about the areas of America where English is a second language? - Miami for instance there are large areas where Spanish is the primary language and without it you're at a definite disadvantage.

You've undoubtedly chosen 'English' because its your first language and used in your area as the primary language and is 'seen' as being the American language, but the reality differs quite considerably from that.

Have them swear allegiance to the US and mean it. My use case here is the dual citizenship thing which has been discussed elsewhere (and know others disagree but just my 2 cents). I'm sure there are other ways to facilitate/show this.

Why is this important to you specifically? - I'm very interested in this as I'm not a citizen and have chosen not to become one. This doesn't prevent me from being a contributing member of American society (I pay taxes and have worked with the local homeless population etc.).

Have those that can, work. I think this is a given and just adding it anyway.

This is one of the biggest impediments going forward for society in my opinion as we continue to evolve away from 'meaningful jobs for all' the pay at the remaining ones becomes worse and worse and the amount of them will continue to decline.

Despite this a persons worth is often given by whether they're working and how much they earn.

In some other countries (notably some areas in Europe) they're starting to try and plan and move towards a situation where full employment isn't the case - in the US our fingers are stuck in our ears and we're trying to ignore the fact that automation is continually eroding the jobs available.

Once self-driving Ubers and retail are fully automated I presently fail to see how the present situation will be tenable (I give it another 10-20 years before its impossible to deny).

Provide means for HS and College/vocational education. If we think DACA kids will be US citizens, we should definitely educate them in HS and College otherwise a lost generation/opportunity that US will have to pay for in the future

I definitely agree with this - I fail to understand why people in the US think the country is so much worse than others ones and can't 'afford' to give people a quality education as part of life here (same thing with medical coverage tbh).

Create some sort of support structure for first X years for those that need it. I'm not talking about long-term, maybe 1-2 years of let me coach you how to rent your own apartment, buy your first house, take you to the tax preparer, help you translate etc.

That's actually a very good idea - but I'd expect some of this is done already? (I know in the UK this is very commonly the case not just for immigrants but for people leaving prison after a long sentence for instance).

Create a "final exam" from Green Card to Citizenship. Have them show examples of how they have tried to assimilate? Admittedly, don't know how to do this but a rule I go by in project management is "if you don't clearly articulate expectations, roles & responsibilities, deliverables", it won't get done.

What would you consider 'assimilating' - this could easily be used negatively by an administration imho.

For instance I'm fairly politically active despite not being able to vote - however these are frequently protesting the actions of the current administration, as such are they 'assimilating' because I'm expressing an interest in the country and demonstrating 'free speech' or anti-American as Mr. Trump would like to believe?

(same reason I don't go to Church and pretend to be a Christian)

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

What about the areas of America where English is a second language? - Miami for instance there are large areas where Spanish is the primary language and without it you're at a definite disadvantage.

You've undoubtedly chosen 'English' because its your first language and used in your area as the primary language and is 'seen' as being the American language, but the reality differs quite considerably from that.

True. In the context of "assimilation/integration", English is the majority language in the US and so knowing basic English will help in assimilation. There needs to be some common threads and language is one of them.

Let's use a place other than Miami. If you were spanish speaking only in Dallas (still with a large hispanic population but not as much as Miami), should a person learn?

If its older immigrant or one that just can't, sure give them a pass. If its a younger one, don't really see much excuse for not learning it.

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Why is this important to you specifically? - I'm very interested in this as I'm not a citizen and have chosen not to become one. This doesn't prevent me from being a contributing member of American society (I pay taxes and have worked with the local homeless population etc.).

I had to look up the threads. See #8090, #8092 and #8097 for my take on it.

I was a green card holder once so I know where you are. But this is in the context of voluntarily becoming a citizen.

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

In the US our fingers are stuck in our ears and we're trying to ignore the fact that automation is continually eroding the jobs available.

Once self-driving Ubers and retail are fully automated I presently fail to see how the present situation will be tenable (I give it another 10-20 years before its impossible to deny).

Fully agree. Automation in self-driving cars and trucks will be a disruptor and many driving uber will hurt for sure (e.g. just like they disrupted the yellow cabs) and most truck drivers will probably be left behind in the economy as I'm not sure they have transferable skills.

But in my opinion, progress (in this case, automation) is for the greater good even if people lose jobs they already have. Otherwise the US will be left behind.

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I definitely agree with this - I fail to understand why people in the US think the country is so much worse than others ones and can't 'afford' to give people a quality education as part of life here (same thing with medical coverage tbh).

The cynic in me says its because of "capitalism" and "for profit" education. College tuition has gone up incredibly and some state colleges are close to Ivies because of the easy access to loans.

I would focus on vocational/trade schools. I truly believe not everyone is geared up for college (which is absolutely fine, no stigma at all).

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

That's actually a very good idea - but I'd expect some of this is done already? (I know in the UK this is very commonly the case not just for immigrants but for people leaving prison after a long sentence for instance).

I got the idea from reading something similar (I think it was for the Somali kids that ended up in MN) a while ago. I do think some of it is being done by religious/charity entities but don't think its organized. With that said, not sure if I think a government entity should do this but maybe have private enterprises sponsored by the government.

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

What would you consider 'assimilating' - this could easily be used negatively by an administration imho.

For instance I'm fairly politically active despite not being able to vote - however these are frequently protesting the actions of the current administration, as such are they 'assimilating' because I'm expressing an interest in the country and demonstrating 'free speech' or anti-American as Mr. Trump would like to believe?

(same reason I don't go to Church and pretend to be a Christian)

We were discussing assimilation earlier and I realized we did not establish what that term meant. So I did some research and proposed a definition with 3 "markers", see post #10608 (edit: I said #10569 originally) for my take. As you can imagine, alot of discussions in the last 2 pages around it.

I do think you being politically active falls under my category of "civic engagement" so yes, that is part of assimilating.

I am very interested in knowing how you would define it, especially since you were not born here (e.g. similar to me). Always open to brainstorming ideas.

[PilotMan]

You know, assimilation was one of the primary reasons the original settlers came to the US. They were looking for a place to get away, and be left alone. The William Penn's and the John Smith's of the world. A big part of the US originally was finding a place where they could be who they wanted without the oversight.

The fact that time changes and we make progress and we are no longer a country of vast, open, unexplored areas, where communication takes weeks to make, just proves my point, that we need to be progressive in policy making and in the interpretation of the constitution. This holy standard that the Constitution is held to for all things, big and small is a little ludicrous. We are a nation that moves, changes, and is constantly remaking itself. Obviously, the Constitution is the rock of that foundation and it's important, but with gun control, especially, we lost the context of the entire purpose of the 2nd amendment and it was co-oped for something else completely.

Are we a nation that seeks to homogenize everything inside, or are we a nation that succeeds through the diversity of cultures that it has always represented? Do we come together by taking our differences and boiling them down to a pragmatic answer, or do we have a set system of rules that everyone must 'become'?

It's one of the primary conundrums that society faces, and one that the president has manipulated for his own popularity and support. And not in a good way.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

we need to be progressive in policy making and in the interpretation of the constitution. This holy standard that the Constitution is held to for all things, big and small is a little ludicrous. We are a nation that moves, changes, and is constantly remaking itself. Obviously, the Constitution is the rock of that foundation and it's important, but with gun control, especially, we lost the context of the entire purpose of the 2nd amendment and it was co-oped for something else completely.

The correct response to this IMO is in what you said: it's the word 'Amendment'. The very existence of that possibility involves recognizing that the Constitution is not a 'holy standard', since if it was there wouldn't be an ingrained way to change it. Like all societies we are constantly changing, but that change has no stable base if we simply decide that the Constitution(or other laws) mean whatever we would like them to mean at the time, instead of actually changing/revoking/amending the laws themselves. Doing that renders the laws functionally irrelevant and attacks the rule of the law, the foundation of modern civilization going all the way back to the signing of the Magna Carta pushing a millennium ago now. Along with throwing out separation of powers, the work of previous legislatures and the electorate, etc.

The extent to which this assault is underway has really been illustrated in this most recent discussion. The earnest questions by some about why illegal immigration is a problem are quite a poignant case in point. The fact that such a question can be asked with a straight face, that it isn't immediately obvious that a sovereign nation routinely having it's immigration laws broken and not really trying to do much of anything about it is in the midst of a national crisis/embarrassment/scandal that vastly overwhelms whatever economic benefit accrues from it demonstrates how misguided the approach is. I'm one who is in favor of greatly increased legal immigration, but until and unless that day comes, ignoring the laws we have is far worse than almost any other conceivable outcome.

As far as the term 'illegals' is concerned, I use it and the reason why has nothing to do with dehumanization. It's not the slightest bit dehumanizing, it is simply accurate. We label people often based on where they live(New Englander, Westerner, Southerner, etc.). An illegal is simply someone who is here without the legal right to be. It does not mean they are in any way, shape, or form less of a person or less deserving of basic human dignity than anyone else. It says nothing about their potential to contribute to society. It says simply that they are here illegally - period. And it's a lot more accurate than 'undocumented' ever could be.

[Warhammer]

Well said.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I do think you being politically active falls under my category of "civic engagement" so yes, that is part of assimilating.

I am very interested in knowing how you would define it, especially since you were not born here (e.g. similar to me). Always open to brainstorming ideas.

I see no need for people to 'assimilate' - I think the variety of peoples backgrounds, outlooks and perspectives is valuable within society within reason.

To me the more important aspect of being part of a society is showing respect and tolerance for others - for me a "Neo Nazi" might be white, speak English and have a job but they aren't a constructive part of society because they're seeking to partition and discriminate against people within it.

On the other hand a non-English speaking person in my area might be welcoming to me and happy to engage with me in whatever limited lingual capacity they can, to me they are far more assimilated than the neo-nazi.

Incidentally if you think this is an artificial example - I play soccer a fair bit and a lot of the people I play with are South American, many don't speak much English at all, but we greet each other with smiles and know enough common soccer terms to communicate and play together on the pitch, I consider them friends despite the obvious language barrier between us.

PS - America has a myth of the 'melting pot' where all people become 'one nationality' and take on a common identity, most other cultures see their societies as a mosaic where there are different patterns but they all fit together as an integrated whole.

[JPhillips]

The first federal immigration law wasn't passed until 1882. Was the U.S. not a nation until that year?