RetiredGySgt
Diamond Member
The problem is the "new" wave do not want to belong, they want to make this into what they ran away from.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I am fairly clear on assimilation. I object to those who fly the mexican flag, refuse to learn English, yet demand the protections of our nation.
Identity is fine so long as it is an aspect of being an American.
The problem is the "new" wave do not want to belong, they want to make this into what they ran away from.
Is that what you think assimilation is, respect for symbols? No question that when my grandparents came here, they couldn't wait to be "yenkees", as they said. But it wasn't just a respect for symbols, though love of country was part of it. It was more a "sense" of being part of something, but it wasn't defineable in any way and it certainly had nothing to do with "inalienable rights", though they appreciated the freedoms they found here. Mostly, being "American" meant they could be themselves and practice their religion without pogroms every Sunday night. As for language, new immigrants, I've found, are only successful at that to a degree. Most speak their native language at home and around others who come from the same place. For example, my neighborhood is largely Russian immigrants. The parents of the kids in my son's class speak Russian while waiting to pick them up after school and speak Russian in their stores. Their KIDS speak English and will have a "culture" that's more like any other person who's family has lived here. But I've never found that assimilating was about symbols. It's simply being here long enough where you're less like where your ancestors came from and more like what you see on TV and the people around you.
In fact, this country was founded on "rebellion" and not assimilation. So I'd say it may be *more* American, if there's such a thing, to be a bit rebellious, non-conformist and individualistic. Just my opinion.... but then again, I also don't come from a white, anglo-saxon background, so my observations might be a bit different.
Noted and agreed. I did misunderstand the intent of your post and I apologize. Sometimes I argue the other person's point best.
Originally posted by Foxfyre
Your short account of history is somewhat revisionist as Mexico had no formal immigration policy at that time but in fact INVITED Europeans and Americans to move into and settle the territory and thus become dutiful tax payers to the Mexican government.
José;636594 said:San Francisco, Yerba Buena, Yerba Mala...
San Francisco, Good Herb, Bad Herb...
Esto es todo español, loco!!!
This is all spanish, you lil fool!!!
José;637017 said:WHAT?!?!?!?!
The mexican government didnt have citizenship and immigration laws in the 19th century!?!?
Did the mexican people live in huts, hunt buffalos, use exotic nicknames like Caballo Loco (Crazy Horse) and pray to the Great Spirit in the 19th century too, Foxfyre?
Dude, you are completely blinded by nationalism and totally unable to debate this issue with a minimum of impartiality.
Mexico HAD immigration policies in the 19th century.
These laws were consistently and blatantly violated by thousands of american settlers who entered Mexico illegally.
These are historical facts that arent even open for debate.
But I understand the reasons behind your denial, Foxfyre.
You are trying to legitimise the landgrab of more than half of Mexicos territory by denying historical facts and by resorting to logical fallacies, like this one:
Hey, we did it, I give you that, but the Spaniards/Mexicans did it to the Indians too.
Let me show you the RIGHT WAY to legitimise the landgrab of Mexican territory, kitten:
America/Americans usurped half of Mexico and the mexican government/people accepted the loss of these territories.
The moment Mexico came to terms with the loss of its northern territories, CALIFORNIA, TEXAS, NEW MEXICO, ARIZONA ETC, ETC... BECAME AS AMERICAN AS APPLE PIE.
Human societies cannot renounce to their lands today and then reivindicate the same territories 150 years later.
I must also add for the umpteenth time that no native hispanic population was displaced by the annexation and this also helped legitimise american sovereignty over these territories.
See what I mean, Foxfyre?
This is the right way to legitimise american possession of all those former mexican provinces.
THERES NO NEED TO DENY HISTORICAL FACTS FOR THAT.