[eesmith]

> you better do everything in your power to pay it back and play by their rules, not yours. You are not entitled to their welcome

That's what you think about the Cuban refugees in Miami who didn't do what you think is right and give up their Cuban culture and heritage?

Because otherwise nothing so far fits your complaint.

Everyone we've talked about is following the rules.

Look, you finished your first 5K. That's impressive.

But that doesn't mean your 5K experience can meaningfully judge that someone halfway through their first marathon - 21 km in with 21km more to go - isn't doing enough.

Why do you think they aren't already doing exactly what you think they should be doing?

[glimshe]

I had just one sentence in my original message about Cuban immigrants, my writeup was not about them in particular. It was just an example of one of the things I was saying, basically that I know that many Cuban immigrants wanted to reject their old regime - not necessarily their culture, which is not in conflict with "the rules" as I see it. I see in Latin Americans refugee a desire to live the US life while preserving their values (which is also the case for other immigrant groups, but NOT all of them).

I was actually praising the integration of law-abiding Latin Americans in the US, including Cubans. In my community, we all eat our food, celebrate our culture and speak our language among ourselves, but we're proud to be American and actually want the American way of life for ourselves and our family. Many of these immigrants easily integrated and even married locals. My wife, who's American, hangs out with Latin American women of different countries, all living a "Latin America spiced" US life.

[eesmith]

The context of this thread is the large number of mostly Arabic speakers who have moved to Sweden, often fleeing for their lives. By bringing up your views about "law-abiding Latin Americans" in that context, you are implicitly saying that Arabic speakers are not law-abiding, and/or not integrating to your satisfaction.

And you are using your own experience as a voluntary immigrant, to judge the much more severe hardships of refugees.

Stop that.

Or let loose your xenophobia and say you think Arabic-speaking immigrants just aren't as good as your Latin American compatriots, and simply aren't trying hard enough.

I brought up Cuban refugees in Miami as an example of how one's native language at home has no relation to the citizenship language requirement. Sweden doesn't have a Swedish language requirement for citizenship, and has many native speakers of Arabic languages. The US does have an English language requirement for citizenship, and has many native speakers of Spanish, including in households from recent Spanish-speaking immigrants.

Just like my Norwegian-speaking ancestors kept their at-home language for a couple of generations after moving to America.

Since I agree with the OP that there's no connection, I asked the OP why it was relevant to bring it up in the first place. That's the thread you jumped into.

> actually want the American way of life for ourselves and our family

Stop comparing yourself to refugees! Refugees want to survive. They want to raise their family. They don't all 'actually want the American way of life'.

Here's a specific example I read about over the weekend: many of the current Ukrainian refugees in Sweden don't want to become Swedes. They want the war to end so they can go home.

They get about $10/day in support from the state - which is great! - but $300/month doesn't go far. Those who cannot speak Swedish or English can't easily find employment, outside the expensive cities. They don't have a Swedish social security number, making it hard to register for rental housing. Nor do they have the option for state-funded Swedish language courses; the account I read mentioned a Ukrainian refugee family that re-located to Norway, which did offer Norwegian courses.

Your 5K experience that you did voluntarily is nothing like the grueling marathon run-for-their-lives of many refugees.

> the American way of life

I don't know if you understand how that phrase sets off alarm bells. It means very different things to different people. To xenophobes, it means immigrants like you must not use Spanish in public, even as "spice."

During the 1950s, "un-American" included anyone who supported communism, or socialism, or criticized America's unfettered- and state-supported capitalism. (Socialism was also quite popular with the then-recent Eastern European immigrants to the US, who were early in the assimilation process, and were still seen as too foreign.)

We can see this in microcosm with recital of the Pledge of Allegiance. Is that part of the American way of life that you aspired to?

If so, you would part of the millions who agree. Many even want that required of all school children, like it once was. And politicians added "under God" during the 1950s, in the view that (Christian)[1] religious faith was part of what it meant to be American.

Mandatory recital of the pledge was struck down by the Supreme Court, because, as it turns out, some Christians interpret the "no idol before me" scriptural injunction to include flags. Children were being punished for breaking that law, when following their religious beliefs.

Another view is the "American way of life" is the 'melting pot' metaphor. We can have an American way of life where Jehovah's Witnesses aren't required to say the pledge. We can have an American way of life where the Amish not only keep their immigrant culture for generations, but where the laws change to accommodate them. We can have an American way of life which includes Spanish New Mexicans and Puertorriqueños whose native language for centuries has been Spanish. Which includes Native Americans, and Hawaiians, and Aleuts.

And which includes Arabic speaking refugees.

That latter support for diverse cultures is what you mean by "American way of life", right?

If not, what's wrong with the Amish?

[1] "Christian" in name, but they meant "Protestant". Catholic JFK even needed to say he would not be subordinate to the Pope, when he was running for president.