Making It Hard For Immigrants To Get By

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn


Then you are an exception. I find it hard to believe that if it were Britons and Anglo-Canadians crawling across the border that this would be nearly as big of an issue.

People aren't agitated by this simply because laws and are being broken but rather because they feel the cultural, racial and linguistic (and ultimately political, as DanS has expressed concern over in the past) fabric of the United States is being altered and that they have little say in the matter (which is true).

Tis true.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Maybe not ethnically, but culturally there very much is an American nation.

Ethnically, too. The American nation perceives itself as, for the most part, speaking the same language, having comparable immigrant origins, living in the same territory (America), and (for the most part) sharing in the same basic religious heritage. What else do you need to establish ethnicity?

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Maybe not ethnically, but culturally there very much is an American nation.

There is an American political culture, but I would argue against any kind of nationwide American culture.

For instance, I don't consider myself, as an urban, coastal New Englander, as sharing too many cultural affinities with, say, a Tennessean - as opposed to, say, a Rhode Islander or a Haligonian or someone from St. John's.

To define culture as being something that's confined by political or national borders is a ridiculous, outdated claim that ultimately leads to stereotypes and prejudice.

[Kuciwalker]

To define culture as being something that's confined by political or national borders is a ridiculous, outdated claim that ultimately leads to stereotypes and prejudice.

It's also true.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Cyclotron


Ethnically, too. The American nation perceives itself as, for the most part, speaking the same language, having comparable immigrant origins, living in the same territory (America), and (for the most part) sharing in the same basic religious heritage. What else do you need to establish ethnicity?

1. Spanish - 28 million
2. Chinese languages - 2.0 million + (mostly Cantonese, some Mandarin)
3. French - 1.6 million
4. German - 1.4 million (High German) + German dialects like Hutterite German, Texas German, Pennsylvania Dutch, Plautdietsch + Yiddish
5. Tagalog - 1.2 million
6. Vietnamese - 1.01 million
7. Italian - 1.01 million
8. Korean - 890 thousand
9. Russian - 710 thousand
10. Polish - 670 thousand
11. Arabic - 610 thousand
12. Portuguese - 560 thousand
13. Japanese - 480 thousand
14. French Creole - 450 thousand
15. Greek - 370 thousand
16. Hindi - 320 thousand
17. Persian - 310 thousand
18. Urdu - 260 thousand
19. Gujarati - 240 thousand
20. Armenian - 200 thousand

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#Table_of_religious_bodies_in_the_United_States

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

To define culture as being something that's confined by political or national borders is a ridiculous, outdated claim that ultimately leads to stereotypes and prejudice.

It's also true.

Yes, because we know for a fact that all national, political entities are mono-cultural. There are no exceptions, and certainly not within the United States.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Cyclotron


In what way do you define nation such that Ireland qualifies and America does not?

Because Ireland is by and large one ethnicity (Irish, although this is changing with immigration).

Immigrant societies, by virtue of their existence as immigrant socities, are not, by definition, nations.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
Because Ireland is by and large one ethnicity (Irish, although this is changing with immigration).

Immigrant societies, by virtue of their existence as immigrant socities, are not, by definition, nations.

But even the "Irish ethnicity" is made of of immigrants; they didn't all spontaneously appear there. That's why your earlier graph doesn't make any sense - what exactly is a German? How many Germans are "germanized" Slavs, for instance? There is no such thing as the perfect, ethnically unified nation-state. Not even Japan can claim that it has one. Ethnicity exists because we construct it to be so, and I would argue that, while Ireland has an older "ethnic identity," it is not neccessarily any more "real," or any more ethnic, than the American nation.

[Bill3000]

Ethnicities are born from the realization of a cultural identity, and is much more dynamic than genetics. You can't say that there is a Hittite ethnicity today, or a Phonecian ethnicity. It's not that the people themselves were wiped out, but said people merged into the cultures that took over them.

New Cultures are formed the same way. Ethnicity absolutely is not limited to ancestry. Language plays a huge part in the creation of ethnicity, which most settled Americans do have - a common language of english, regardless of their ancestries, as well as an culture created by the merge of many cultures. The American culture, while a mix, doesn't mean that heterogenous populations cannot be ethnicities - just the opposite. Heck, you can just look at the Hispanics of America - highly diverse, and yet is still considered an ethnicity.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
Yes, because we know for a fact that all national, political entities are mono-cultural. There are no exceptions, and certainly not within the United States.

What a bunch of crap. Both the US and France are examples of mutli-cultural nations, that overcame very significant ethnical differences when becoming ones.

[Cyclotron]

I think that was sarcasm, Spiffor.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
I think that was sarcasm, Spiffor.

I thought that by "national, political entites", he was meaning nations, and he argues against the existence of a US nation, because the US is multicultural.

Or he has been sarcastic during the whole argument.

[Cyclotron]

I'm not sure, now. I'll shut up and let him answer for himself.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by GePap


What the hell does that have to do with the discussion of whether Mexicans consider themselves the continuation of Mesoamerican culture?

I know, absolutely nothing.

Exactly, you see the light. I'm discussing illegal immigration in the US and you're discussing Mesoamerican culture. Completely irrelevant to eachother. That has always been my point, just took a bit of a work around to get you to see it. But there it is.

No. I argue one thing, you try to debate something tangential at best, thinking you have made a point.

Are you Urban Ranger's DL? The "No, You Are" approach isn't going to work with me. See above.

If American culture came in Spanish the French would fear it too. American culture is not defined by English.

But it doesn't. Japanese culture doesn't come in Spanish either.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Cyclotron


But even the "Irish ethnicity" is made of of immigrants; they didn't all spontaneously appear there. That's why your earlier graph doesn't make any sense - what exactly is a German? How many Germans are "germanized" Slavs, for instance? There is no such thing as the perfect, ethnically unified nation-state. Not even Japan can claim that it has one. Ethnicity exists because we construct it to be so, and I would argue that, while Ireland has an older "ethnic identity," it is not neccessarily any more "real," or any more ethnic, than the American nation.

You're not understanding what fundamentally makes something a nation. Maybe if the US closes its borders and waits for 1000 years of in-breading of all the different ethnicities - then we can discuss an American "nation".

Until then, the US isn't anywhere close to being a nation - in fact, the United States has, by and large, been ideologically opposed to the idea from the begining, hence an immigrant society.

What a bunch of crap. Both the US and France are examples of mutli-cultural nations, that overcame very significant ethnical differences when becoming ones.

Yes, I was being sarcastic with that remark, but not before that. I think you missed something/ misunderstood something I said before.

Ethnicities are born from the realization of a cultural identity, and is much more dynamic than genetics. You can't say that there is a Hittite ethnicity today, or a Phonecian ethnicity. It's not that the people themselves were wiped out, but said people merged into the cultures that took over them.

New Cultures are formed the same way. Ethnicity absolutely is not limited to ancestry. Language plays a huge part in the creation of ethnicity, which most settled Americans do have - a common language of english, regardless of their ancestries, as well as an culture created by the merge of many cultures. The American culture, while a mix, doesn't mean that heterogenous populations cannot be ethnicities - just the opposite. Heck, you can just look at the Hispanics of America - highly diverse, and yet is still considered an ethnicity.

While I agree with what you say in principle, you've invented a whole new definition for the word ethnicity.