By the way there are some very eloquent arguments that taking in people from poor dysfunctional countries is not charity, it’s not like the US goes in and scoops people up from the slums to bring back, but that the people that make it out of places like that to reach the US are those with grit and initiative and often, qualifications and/or ambitions that would limit them in their home country. That these are the type of people, just like a hundred or so years ago (like Paul Ryan described his ancestors, Irish, poor but hardworking) who are exactly the type America needs, who have the grit and ambition to keep not only the American ideal but the type of American who made the economy so innovative and world leading, to continue. (Don’t forget there was nothing much in the US but land and freedom 150 years ago, the people made it what it is) You could indeed argue that this type of immigrant will do more for the US than some mollycoddled Western European who’s had everything handed to them on a plate, even if they do have a college degree. (Not intended to insult Western Europeans but to make a point. Also note by the way that the immigrants from “sh*thole” countries aren’t the ones who complain about the US health system or lack of worker protection like the Western Europeans...) And here you could fit in everyone from Elon Musk to a Nepalese family I know who came in with just knowing how to thread eyebrows (and sell food but didn’t do that here) and have ended up with a chain of beauty salons, nothing much you might think but all the youngsters in the family are going to college, one is already doing an MBA, these kids are going places and going to contribute “bigly”.
Susie,....this argument, very eloquent indeed but shallow, is pure bullsh*, sorry,...balloonie. You can't compare the 19-early-20th cenutry raggy jew or starving Irish or the despised Japanese,...to today's unskilled immigrants, because simply today's curcumstances are not the same, and they're not that similar as you think. First of all, indeed there was some sort of natural selection, the journey was just too long, costly, perilous and with uncertain results (they were not guaranteed entry to the US and not even sure they would improve their life) to gamble with even your most modest but stable living conditions,...so only the most adventurous and ambitious made the journey (
and this is something I still notice today,...the ones who work the hardest and succeed are usually the ones who invested the most to be where they are,...the stakes are just too high to fail. ). Second,...life in the US was tough, no welfare, no handouts and no sympathy from nobody...you worked hard or you starved. So only the most hardworking came to the US and survived. Most first immigrants worked hard but led modest lives and made sure their children would have a better life than they. Third, in 19th and early 20th cenutry, there was no multiculturism or diversity was an alien concept. New immigrants had to assimilate, speak english and reject their culture. The lack of internet, television, telecommunications and airplanes also helped them to disconnect completely from their homecountries. America was their new and only country, and they had to melt into the mass. Fourth, we're talking about 19th century and early 20th century,...no computers, no electronics and no sophisticated machinery,...lots of jobs for able-bodied men and lots of opportunities in an underpopulated country with lots of territories to explore and develop and lots of available (and free) land for every european landless peasant ready to sweat for something they can own. The US today is another story. And most importantly, and this is something that can sound a little contreversial,...it was and it's still easier for a european to assimilate into a western, culturally european country, that's self-evident. Immigrants from non-western countries (Lebanese and Syrians, Japanese, early mexicans immigrants) and non-christians (jews) had a harder time to be accepted, but since they were expected to prove their "americanness",...they worked hard to emulate anglo-saxons and americanize themselves. Todays immigrants not only are not expected to assimilate, they're encouraged to stay different. And I could go on but let's stop here,...you're drawing comparisons between different things, different situations and differnt epochs to make a point that one is just as good as the other. And this is a fallacy.
PS: And yes, I can't stand european immigrants either (some even refuse to be called "immigrants" and prefer the term "expats" to not be confused with the Mexicans, you know) in the US criticizing their host country and drawing stupid comparisons like socialized healthcare (
while those who can afford it pay for a private insurance to avoid long waiting times to see a specialist or get a surgery,..and they can't even deduce it from their taxes), free higher education, public transport, food and how everything is sophisticated in Europe,...when they left their "paradise" for something, basically because they had to pay 50% in income taxes to pay for the welfare state, and the free state-controlled universities in Europe haven't produced anything of value since early 20th century ,....and they have to go to US universities because of more research opportunities. I really hope the US will never follow Europe's path, but I'm afraid it's something inevitable,....
