[ctime]

There is a saying in Ireland called "More Irish than the Irish" and refers to immigrants and non-locals who take up all of the local culture to extreme (compared to the average) levels.

Immigrants are statistically the most law abiding and often times, even conservative, members of a a community and it probably is one measure of long-term survival (esp. in the U.S. while living under the microscope of a work visa) so they need to go to great lengths to fit in and avoid even the appearance of impropriety - something the natives (and in all likelihood their children, if raised there) would take for granted. Meanwhile local citizens gather on the street corner protesting mask wearing or whatever nonsense they feel like.

[reissbaker]

Similarly, the Jewish Talmud considers "Ba'alei Teshuva" — Jews who either were born not-religious and became religious later, or who were born religious, left the community, and later returned — to be generally more "righteous," aka, rule-following, than people who simply grew up following the rules of the religion. Part of the explanation given in the Talmud is that Ba'alei Teshuva made a concrete choice to follow the religion's rules, whereas someone who was raised in that environment and never left is just doing what they feel is natural.

Outsiders (after a few years) are more aware of in-group rules since they don't feel natural, and for those there by choice — whether it be immigrants to a different country, or the newly-religious — presumably they're there because they want to be a part of the group, rather than taking it for granted. So they're often both hyper-aware of the rules, and place a higher value on them.

[vimy]

Not true in Western Europe. They are heavily overrepresented in crime statistics and their own communities have grown big enough that there’s no need anymore to try to fit in.

[BurningPenguin]

> They are heavily overrepresented in crime statistics

Judging from my own anecdotal experiences as someone who "doesn't look like a German", i'm willing to take a wild guess why: Because everything they do is under a microscope.

I got my bags searched, because i "walked suspiciously through the isles" in a store (woman thought i'm a foreigner) and i got a false accusation by a police officer who said he "knew people like me".

Also the German BKA crime statistic, as an example, shows reported crimes. It doesn't exactly show how many where actually convicted. So i guess i'm also somewhere in the stats from a few years ago.

[vimy]

Research shows that even corrected for what you’re describing the numbers still show an overrepresentation compared to their % of the population. Just an example, they were 63 % of prisoners in The Netherlands a couple years ago. Similar numbers in other Western European countries.

[BurningPenguin]

Can you link some of those research papers?

[vimy]

If I had saved them but I didn't, so no. I don't feel like googling a long time to find them. You can google yourself, they were in Dutch and French.

[phs318u]

What follows is a generalisation from the Australian experience (my experience - I'm a child of first gen migrants i.e. a 2nd generation Australian). For the first generation and some of the second generation this is true. Migrants often don't know the language, and don't have pre-existing connections in the community, so they tend to cluster in areas where there are more people like them (often cheaper places to live). Working, they are more likely to work for other migrants, prolonging the "bubble" and deferring the need to integrate. This generation tends to live productive if somewhat fearful lives - "look at those locals with their degenerate customs!", "They don't like us!", "Be careful! Don't trust them! They'll take advantage!". These attitudes are of course almost exact mirrors of what the locals thing about the migrants. Attitudes primarily born of ignorance and lack of first-hand experience with the "other".

The second generation - children of first gen migrants - go to school, the local language is the one they're more proficient with. Perhaps its true that this generation feels the weight of anti-immigrant feeling more than any other. Mainly because inside, they don't feel that different. They grew up here, went to school here, understand the local culture. They straddle a cultural divide. They bear the weight of anti-immigrant feeling as well as the parental expectations to stay within their original cultural norms. This is rarely achievable. This generation often achieves well due to the over-emphasis on "Get an education! We never had the chance! You have opportunity! Don't squander it!" They feel the burden to do better than their folks very acutely. For those that can't achieve academically, or in business, or in sport - they are easy prey for ethnically aligned gangs. They can "retreat" into their origin culture and use anti-immigrant sentiment to justify bad behaviour.

By the third generation (e.g. my kids), a lot of the anti-immigrant feeling has moved on... to the new groups of migrants. My parents came from Southern Europe to Australia in the 60s. They were the "wogs" and "dagos" of the era. I remember being told in primary school to "go back where you came from!", which confused the hell out of me because I was born in Australia. Now, people from my ethnic origins are considered part of the wallpaper here. No one thinks of them as anything other than Australian (ok, maybe a handful of hardcore racists). In the 70s, the southern Europeans were replaced as the anti-immigrant bogeyman by the Vietnamese. Then the Lebanese. Then the Somalis. Then the Syrians. With each wave, the crime wave moves to a new group. Within a generation (or at most 2), any such spikes have dissipated.

[_carbyau_]

As a fellow aussie with caucasian lineage from 1800's I grew up a few generations on the "already settled" side of this equation. I'd like to think I'm not racist but I struggle with being a product of my environment in a competitive world too. Your insight is appreciated.

The only other weird thing is how immigrants can pick on each other as much as any racist aussie seems to. I would have thought having gone through it would make people more sensitive to flinging that crap. But I guess the "product of environment + competitive social pressures" gets to us all.

[phs318u]

Haha indeed! Plenty of racist immigrants, more so among 2nd/3rd generation (then it all becomes a bit of a blur). It still churns my stomach to hear adult children of migrants - some of my peers, who themselves have done quite well - making disparaging comments about newcomers e.g. "they live on top of each other!", "they don't make an effort to assimilate!" etc - forgetting that they are describing the stories of our parents and grandparents (many of whom can still barely speak English). People have short memories and little empathy for "others"/"strangers" I guess.

I think the frustration of "competitive social pressures" combined with a desire for "simple solutions" is an achilles heel that gets ruthlessly exploited by fear mongers and outrage merchants, who use racist dog whistles to translate the resulting fear/anger into political capital. It appeals to the reptilian/emotive parts of our brain, and is very, very hard to shift via appeals to reason.(Don't know about you, but I can't wait for this election to be over just so I don't have to see another UAP billboard or cop another UAP robocall).

[_carbyau_]

That second paragraph resonates. Particularly "simple solutions". To some degree I wonder if the modern pace of change is a destablising force in peoples lives too, which is why they want simple solutions.

With UAP, irksome as they are, I take consolation knowing the money they spent to reach me is money wasted and not spent reaching someone else. Somewhat spiteful I guess, and not healthy but is what it is.

[refurb]

You don’t have to look that far back in the US to see how Irish immigrants were treated, then eventually became the dominant ethnic group in the NE.

It plays out in the way you describe in a lot of places.

[coffeeblack]

It can actually both be true at the same time. Because “immigrant” isn’t one homogeneous group.

[bbu]

> Not true in Western Europe. They are heavily overrepresented in crime statistics and their own communities have grown big enough that there’s no need anymore to try to fit in.

you can't just say something like that without any supporting facts.

[vimy]

The facts aren’t in English so not very useful here. Interesting that I need supporting facts but the person who claimed the opposite doesn’t.

[User23]

> who take up all of the local culture to extreme (compared to the average) levels.

What does this mean? My dumb brain goes straight to “even more alcoholism and fighting” but that might just be on account of being Irish diaspora myself.

[refurb]

The best example I heard from a friend who was a recent immigrant from India.

He had quite a few friends who were the children of immigrants who arrived from India a generation earlier.

When my friend’s parents visited (from India where they still lived) they were shocked when these 2nd generation American-India kids greeted them in a super formal way that had disappeared in India decades ago.

Basically the immigrants to the US held onto old customs more strongly than the ones who never left India. And they passed that onto their kids. So they were “more Indian than people from India”.

[hef19898]

The same is true for German immigrants in South America.

[grapeskin]

I suppose, in a way, similar for the Amish in the US.

Speaking the old language and maintaining a 1700s lifestyle, for the most part.

[skissane]

The "more Irish than the Irish themselves" phrase originated as a description of mediaeval Irish history. Norman-ruled England conquered Ireland, and introduced Anglo-Norman settlers – Irish society became divided into two social castes, an English/French-speaking ruling caste and a subordinated caste of indigenous Irish-speakers. (This was prior to the Protestant Reformation, so everyone involved was Catholic – indeed, the English monarchy's conquest of Ireland was approved by the Pope.) The English became concerned that, after a few generations, the Anglo-Norman upper caste began to speak Irish and intermarry with the native Irish-speakers – they saw (quite accurately) that this would lead to weakening of English rule and eventual demand for independence. "more Irish than the Irish themselves" was really meant as a somewhat hyperbolic/ironic reference to this process of cultural assimilation. The English responded with anti-Irish legislation, prohibiting the speaking of Irish, intermarriage between English-speakers and Irish-speakers, and formally subordinating the theoretically independent Irish Parliament to that of England – however, the legislation largely failed to be enforced, the blurring of the boundaries between the native Irish and the Anglo-Norman newcomers continued, and English rule became (in much of the country, especially the parts furthest from Dublin) more theory than fact, as local lords found they could basically ignore the edicts of the English administration in Dublin and do whatever they liked.

This is arguably the earliest historical roots of the Northern Ireland conflict, although with various other layers added on top – the introduction of a religious dimension to what was originally a purely cultural/ethnic/linguistic/political conflict due to the Protestant Reformation; further waves of settlement from Britain; the Irish theatre of the English Civil War and the later Jacobite-Williamite War in which many Irish (especially, but not exclusively, Catholics and Irish-speakers) supported the deposed King James II against the regime of William of Orange.

I don't know how much sense the phrase has in the context of immigrants to contemporary Ireland. I suppose some users of it must have found some way to connect it to contemporary affairs–probably there is some immigrant somewhere who is obsessed with teaching their children to speak Irish when the majority of Irish people don't make much of an effort to do so themselves–but I think some use of it may also be motivated by its long history and memorable phrasing rather than genuine contemporary applicability.