[pseudo0]

> 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.

[acdha]

> 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.

[GloomyBoots]

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.