My point is the U.S. is built on immigration, people from Spain, Germany, Africa and many other countries live with each other, and because of relatively successful integration, the U.S. is where it's now.
The % of the population who are immigrants is the highest it's ever been. You now have signs in 2 languages. The American south will be integrated into Hispanic culture, not the other way around.
> The American south will be integrated into Hispanic culture, not the other way around.
As someone born in that area, wow, is this ignorant. Yes, a lot of people speak Spanish but that doesn’t mean that most of them don’t identify as American – even the ones whose ancestors lived in that area for centuries before they became part of the United States. Trying to separate that out makes no more sense than trying to split out any other culture which contributed to us - for example, the Texan identity has included Mexican identity since before it was a state and trying to strip that out would produce a result as unrecognizable as it would if you tried to have Texas without the barbecue traditions brought over by German and Czech settlers.
Also, let’s be honest here that the American traditions haven’t exactly been uniformly good – in the Texas example, they seceded from Mexico and petitioned for statehood to protect the institution of slavery. If there’d been a popular vote, there were many thousands of enslaved people who would have enthusiastically stayed part of Mexico if that had meant their freedom decades earlier.
> in the Texas example, they seceded from Mexico and petitioned for statehood to protect the institution of slavery.
Rather ironic to bring this up as an example. Mexico opened its doors to unlimited mass migration from the US, the migrants did not adapt to the local culture, and then they seceded in an armed rebellion. Not exactly a success story when it comes to immigration policy.
If there is a large migrant population that is not integrating (eg. France, with the banlieues), that should be an indication to slow down or pause immigration while figuring out what went wrong. Meanwhile most Western governments see warning signs and then double or triple down to keep those raw GDP numbers up for another election cycle.
> Rather ironic to bring this up as an example. Mexico opened its doors to unlimited mass migration from the US, the migrants did not adapt to the local culture, and then they seceded in an armed rebellion.
Yeah, it’s messy and nowhere near as simple as that – for example, the Mexican civil war is more significant than the immigration aspect (Tejanos joined the pro-secession side over that), the filibusteros weren’t normal immigrants, and arguably both the Mexican and American settlers were unwelcome immigrants from the perspective of the indigenous people.
More to the point, note that I did not recommend the Mexican Republic as a model but was instead rejecting the claim that the American south hasn’t been a complex interplay with Hispanic and other cultures since the beginning. That kind of brown horde rhetoric belongs on Stormfront, not HN.
The Texas comparison is also strange because Texas was for Mexico a sparsely populated frontier territory under frequent attack from plains Indians. Mexico invited colonists willing to live in such a hostile environment specifically to establish a buffer zone between those tribes and Mexico proper. A lot of the Mexican influence in Texan culture came well after its settlement by these colonists.
You are kidding yourself if you think thats an actual possibility.
You think their children, who study at U.S. schools, and live their entire lives in the U.S. will still treat Spanish as their mother tongue?
Odd, it seems that the native Americans not wanting an influx of people with different values that don’t integrate illustrates this person’s point very well.