To not understand the USA and immigration

[Sprockerdilerock]

Forgive me if I'm being a bit thick but I watched a documentary the other day about the Mexican border wall and it got me thinking.

The whole American ethos is meant to be about small government and freedom to make your own fortune etc. So how is it logically consistent for them to put a wall up stopping people from doing just that? Especially when you consider how new the country is - didn't a lot of Americans descend from Europeans being able to roam?

I just dont get it - it seems to be that the more conservative someone is the more anti immigration they are when logically it should be the opposite?

@PlanDeRaccordement you're missing the point that the Aztecs mixed with the Spaniards creating the mestizos of Central Mexico. So at least around 75% of of those Mexicans (Mexico City has a population of more than 22 million) which would be then what at least 15 million are descended from Aztecs (as much as from Spaniards). Unless you don't understand how genetics work...

Thanks to Brit Wife inthe USA and FromEden for answers to my question about can illegal immigrants vote in USA elections. I suppose the pp meant people worried about illegal immigrants voting illegally though how they would manage that I don't know or have the time even.

I’ve only skimmed through this so it could have been mention, but surely race places a huge part of this. The colonisation of America, the attacks on and rape of the indigenous people, then slavery - there’s an underlying message in the US for centuries (well, as long as it’s existed) that white is welcome, non white is not welcome. Hence why immigrants from South America and other non-white countries is so unpopular.

@Fressia123
Oh, I see the misunderstanding. So, it was my understanding that the Aztec Empire consisted of many ethnicities, with the Aztec ethnicity, the Nahua, and their allies the Texcoco and Tlacopan being the elite ruling class so to speak. They then militarily conquered 500-600 other smaller states/ethnicities comprising around 6million indigenous Amerindians. So while these people were part of the Aztec Empire to my mind they were subjugated peoples and not ethnically Aztecs themselves.

In addition, the Aztec Empire was mostly in southern Mexico. Other peoples not ruled by the Aztecs inhabited the northern half of the country. Even today, there are over 60 indigenous languages still in use in Mexico apart from the Nahuatl language of the Aztecs.

So to me, today’s Mestizos are a mixture of hundreds of different Amerindian peoples and the Spanish.

@MsHedgehog
there’s an underlying message in the US for centuries (well, as long as it’s existed) that white is welcome, non white is not welcome. Hence why immigrants from South America and other non-white countries is so unpopular.

The statistics of who gets a green card doesn’t really support that narrative. The top 19 countries of origin for immigrants getting permanent residency (green cards) are majority nonwhite countries:
Mexico 156,052
China. 62,248
India. 54,495
Dominican Republic 49,911
Phillipines 45,920
Cuba 41,641
Vietnam 39, 712
El Salvador 27,656
Jamaica. 21,689
Columbia 19,841
Brazil. 19, 825
S. Korea 18, 479
Haiti. 17,235
Honduras 15,901
Nigeria. 15, 888
Venezuela 15, 720
Bangladesh 15, 176
Pakistan. 13,921
Guatemala 13,453
Ukraine 11, 762

www.statista.com/statistics/200037/main-countries-of-last-residence-for-us-green-card-recipients/

@MsHedgehog
The above post are just green cards issued in 2019. But Pew Research did a study in 2018 looking at origin country of all US immigrants- all those on visas as well as green card holders. Here is what they found

“Mexico is the top origin country of the U.S. immigrant population. In 2018, roughly 11.2 million immigrants living in the U.S. were from there, accounting for 25% of all U.S. immigrants. The next largest origin groups were those from China (6%), India (6%), the Philippines (4%) and El Salvador (3%).

By region of birth, immigrants from Asia combined accounted for 28% of all immigrants, close to the share of immigrants from Mexico (25%). Other regions make up smaller shares: Europe, Canada and other North America (13%), the Caribbean (10%), Central America (8%), South America (7%), the Middle East and North Africa (4%) and sub-Saharan Africa (5%).”
www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/08/20/key-findings-about-u-s-immigrants/

Also Puzzledand Pised Off for that further clarification, it turns out to be a surprisingly more interesting question than it appeared. I can see where a concern about who is voting could arise if people were being handed registration forms when they applied for a driving licence, after all driving is as necessary as breathing in most of the USA so that could have potentially affected a lot of people,again if they could be bothered. It's sad that the openness of the US is being so increasingly restricted. It reminds me that I do know several people who have taken various routes to be american citizens. One married an American 20 years ago and the only time I visited the USA then I did wonder if I should try to move there but I am afraid I was just too lazy to get anything organised. Another University friend had gone there on a visa then outstayed and was illegal for several years but I think she took the naturalization route in the end, we lost touch. I also know someone whose elderly parents had to flee their African country after a coup made their retirement plans impossible. They had to carry on working at whatever jobs they could find but their son and daughter were there so they had that comfort. I would have no idea who any of them would 've voted for if they did.

So much depends on what state people are living in , I mean Wisconsin is not Florida or Texas is it. By the way is there still much talk of California seceeding and becoming an independent state in its own right?

OOps sorry meant to say Thanks for clarification.

@cateycloggs. My SIL lives in California and although it’s a beautiful state with a great climate, you honestly couldn’t pay me to live there. The cost of living is outrageous and San Francisco
(where they live) has a homelessness crisis on a scale I’ve never seen before. Obviously mentally ill people wandering the streets, shouting and masturbating in public.☹️ I was horrified last time I visited. I’m not suggesting everywhere in the state is like this, but there are a lot of underlying problems.

The state has so much going for it, but I personally don’t think seceding from the rest of the country would be feasible until it’s in better fiscal shape and has addressed many underlying problems.

Don't worry, cateycloggs, I knew what you meant

As you say, it's a shame some of the openness is going, but then many other nations are doing the same
Personally I just wish I'd gone when I could; my ex talked about doing a 12 month teaching exchange, but the issue was that after staying for that length of time I couldn't have borne to leave. Now I wish he'd taken it and applied for a permanent job from a position of having experience of the US system, so that we could hopefully have remained

And then I might have found myself a nice American guy to marry

Cameleongirl I absolutely loved SAN Francisco, but agree that the Homelessness and mental health situation on the streets was critical. I only saw one place worse and that was Los Angeles - unbelievable.

Yes, it’s a lovely city in a stunning setting but I couldn’t imagine living there day-to-day. Housing is so unaffordable for a start. My SIL and her DH paid an eye-watering amount for a modest house outside the city as even on two professional salaries they couldn’t afford anything more central. I want to go back ( when we can travel!) and hopefully find things improved. But I was actually scared at times walking around with my DC, even in the main tourist areas. ☹️

@PlanDeRaccordement That’s interesting, thanks for that. Bit of an eye opener for me!

@GeorgiaGirl52

That was meant to say @GeorgiaGirl52 Could you please respond here - you've not been banned from posting on the thread (Just in case you're not aware).

From :
GeorgiaGirl52
To :
Raceless
Subject :
conversation
Date :
Sun 17-Jan-21 22:29:15

Would gladly have it public or private. Not my intention to offend. Black is an acceptable term here. I think most black Americans don't know where they came from generations ago. Most Americans (black or white) don't know the difference between Angola and Aruba.
The only distinction is made with blacks from Jamaica. They are "special" because of the wonderful music imported from there and the distinctive accents. Otherwise, Black Americans are native born and African-Americans are immigrants who still have ties to their country of birth.

Your second message.

I think most black Americans don't know where they came from generations ago.

Those who’re ‘descendants of slaves’ don’t know where exactly their ancestors were from although DNA Ancestry testing is making things possible to tell where they are/may have been from.
However, those who’re in the US now are Americans just as many European descendants in America are American. If someone wants to find their roots, it’s their prerogative but I don’t think how their ancestors came to the US makes them any less American. They’re born and raised there, often with no other cultural influence, and have been full Americans for at least 3 generations now.

Most Americans (black or white) don't know the difference between Angola and Aruba.

True. I’ve found many ‘black’ Americans just as ignorant of other continents/countries/cultures, especially the continent they insist they represent, as their ‘white’ counterparts who they accuse of ignorance.

The only distinction is made with blacks from Jamaica. They are "special" because of the wonderful music imported from there and the distinctive accents.

I think this is a ridiculous statement because it sounds patronising to Jamaicans. So if they didn’t have “wonderful music” and “distinctive accents” (Who doesn’t have a distinctive accent to someone with a different accent?), in other words if they spoke like you they would be…?

Otherwise, Black Americans are native born and African-Americans are immigrants who still have ties to their country of birth.

This is the interesting point I mentioned in the first response and it ties with my statement above about them being Americans regardless of how their ancestors got there. You’re one of the few people I’ve seen who’ve said this and it’s what I’ve always thought. The language has gone from Black American to African-American to Black American again to African-American and ADOS. Not sure what is acceptable as different people (rightly) have different opinions, though some voices are louder than others.

I made a search on Quora a long time ago to see if others thought the same and there were a few people who agreed and many more who disagreed. The latter group’s point was that since their ancestors came from Africa, they are African-Americans. The former cited people like Charlize Theron as also (and literally) African-American being that she’s African (born and raised in South Africa to parents who were born and raised in South Africa, etc. Though her ancestry includes Dutch, French and German) and now also holds American citizenship.

This caused a bit of a stir for obvious reasons. The argument was that Charlize Theron being a ‘white’ woman nullified her ‘African-American’ claim (not that she’s claiming it) and she should just be called South-African and American or something.

It was quite an interesting read.

Somewhere else (I think), people also mentioned Uzo Aduba as literally African-American but I think the gripe Black/African-Americans/ADOS have is that others know their exact country of origin (not birth) but they don’t. So the term African-American should be left for them while others can be called South African-American, Nigerian-America (as Uzo is), etc. I thought this was understandable given that Americans have this thing for double-barrelled ethnicity. Everybody seems to want a hyphen, with people claiming their ancestors and using terms like Irish-American, German-American, etc.

I have tried to post this several times so apologise if it appears repeatedly and also for length. Tried to edit it and thought it was lost so started again.

I realise this thread has moved on since my last post which was a bit of a red herring and looked like I am an apologist for the notion of American innocence which I most certainly am not. As others have pointed out there was never any innocence of principle about the first invaders - they were in pursuit of land and gold in one form or another or maybe simply adventure but of course were fully laden with their own prejudices as are we all. I do think we all - everybody in the world that is - need tobe aware of what happens in the USA and try to understand because it will affect us.

I have read numerous articles over the years discussing the various separatist movements in the US. Those from the Southern states seem to be motivated by a racist nostalgia for the confederacy as seen in the recent Capitol incursion. I think most economists dismiss that as wishful thinking as the South would not survive economically although with recent industrial and even climatic changes it may be more realistic. But the shock would be for the white supremacist that they would be dependent on immigrant labour, recent or established and they (the immigrants) would not take being treated as slave labour. Imagine seeing those specimens of American freedom from 2 weeks ago or D Trump and his family losing their inherited privilige and money and having to compete in a level work place with energised and detemined immigrants. That is why they are so scared.

The California case is very different. I appreciate that the homelessness and unemployment in the city streets in San Francisco and Los Angeles is shocking but that is similar to this country where so many are kept down in poverty so the few can thrive and they are (the rich thriving, I mean).

But the tech companies and the state itself are incredibly rich. From Wikipedia:
The economy of the State of California is the largest in the United States, boasting a $3.2 trillion gross state product (GSP) as of 2019. If California were a sovereign nation (2019), it would rank as the world's fifth largest economy, ahead of India and behind Germany.
So it is not unfeasible for California to be a successful, functioning country in its own right. And immigration is a driving force in its success. Those armed insurgents may as well take the short cut and shoot themselves in the feet. I believe the term is nativist, I'll look it up. Yes , definition: nativist; adjective: nativist
US
relating to or supporting the policy of protecting the interests of native-born or established inhabitants against those of immigrants.
"he has made his nativist beliefs known through his divisive comments about immigrants"
They are doomed and they know it. Of course the San Andreas fault may take everybody down regardless. I believe there have been rumblings...

@BritWifeinUSA - Thanks for doing your usual brilliant job dispelling misinformation about the US.

Ask the Native Americans if the European invaders were legal immigrants.

By the way is there still much talk of California seceeding and becoming an independent state in its own right?

No. And it was never a serious political movement in the first place.

I am sure you have more knowledge of what is actually happening. But it has been floated as a serious idea. And stranger things have happened, haven't they? Brexit anyone? It would be weird if it did happen within my lifetime - I well remember the 200th Independence Anniversary celebrations . Crazily it does not seem that long ago. As someone once said I counted them all out, I counted them all in. Benefits of age and time. I have to remind myself the 70s were closer to the 2nd WW than we are now to the Falklands for example.

Oh and on the influence of immigrants to the USA, i saw Melania (sp?) telling a joke about the importance of love on the news earlier. Is she starting a new career as a stand up? Well I laughed.

The Supreme Court has ruled that there is no right to secede without the consent of the other states.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States

It would also have huge costs for CA as they would have to replicate functions currently performed by the Federal government. And they would almost certainly lose the benefits of free interstate trade.

It was never a serious idea.

What I never understood was why they accept immigrants from poor countries but not from English speaking western countries without sponsorship.

I went to college and lived there for year before it dawned on me, I was probably a bit thick....

They accept immigrants from poorer countries to do low paid job but god forbid a skilled migrant comes in to take work from an educated American