Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Also can I ask you why did you desert your own country to join the in your words" pathetic white americans"?.Why did you not stay in india and try to help your country prosper in the coming years.Maybe if all the intelligent,hard working people had stayed in their native countries said countries would be in a better state rather than chasing the "American dream.
You are still missing the point. America is not defined by whiteness. He came here to "join" America, not "white Americans". There is such an evident distinction between the two. American identity is not tied to any race or ethnicity, unlike, say, Switzerland or Hungary. If all the white people in America turned into other races overnight, it would still be the same America. Do you disagree with me?
A realignment of immigration is long overdue with few if any immigrants from failed 3rd world nations. A focus on high skilled, educated immigrants, limited to prevent brain drain, and from like cultures. 100,000 Western European immigrants is a much better idea than 1 million 3rd world immigrants.
Yup, here we go again with the rampant stereotyping.
If you think Western Europe is a "like" culture, you evidently haven't been to Europe. If America was filled up with Europeans overnight, I expect that every conservative-leaning person in the country will have a nervous breakdown. Europeans are not as similar to Americans as you think, and Third Worlders (some) are not as different from Americans as you think.
I would actually like more Western Europeans in this continent, but not for the reasons you think.
"Third World" isn't a well-defined term. The original meaning meant countries not aligned with the Communist Bloc, nor aligned with NATO and allied countries. Contemporary use tends to lean toward "First World" meaning developed countries, "Second World" being developing countries and "Third World" being undeveloped countries and/or countries with a significantly dysfunctional government. There is no hard-and-fast "list" of countries in each category, though. Western Europe, Japan, and the Anglosphere are universally thought of as First World, but after that categorization gets much less consistent.
Generally speaking, traditionally the dividing line between a "developing" and "developed" country is a per-capita GDP of US$ 10,000. Using the PPP method of comparison from the World Bank and 2014 data, Brazil has a per-capita GDP of over $15,800, well above what a Third World country would have and ahead of even some eastern European countries. By comparison, Russia's per-capita GDP is about $22,000, China's is over $13,000, and India's is about $5,700. The world as a whole has a GDP per-capita of about $14,900. The US is about $54,000.
Another objective way to categorize countries is using the Human Development Index. By that measure, Brazil is categorized as "Developed" and India as "Developing."
If I were personally tasked with categorizing countries by a First, Second, Third World categorization, I would probably put Brazil at the border between Second and First World countries, dependant largely on what happens with it politically over the next few years. By economic and human development factors, it could qualify for First World status, but politically it's a mess right now which is more a Second World issue. But I wouldn't even consider calling it a Third World country unless we're only talking about the older Cold War era political categorization meaning of the term. For India, though, I think a case can be made to consider it either Second World or Third World, but I would likely put it as a solidly Second World country because it's mostly politically stable, economically is making great strides, but still has serious human development issues.
Not to pick a fight, but as a student of history I have to point out that the second world referred to the old communist Soviet bloc countries that pretty much don't exist anymore. It's not countries with development somewhere between the first and third worlds.
India's problems are dramatic inegalitarianism and rampant corruption. The middle class is growing but its got so far to go. Sure, there are beggars in virtually every American city but there are generally no more than a handful at a time, even in the bus or train stations. In India, you can expect crowds, if not villages,of desperate panhandlers following you looking for charity. There are great schools, but also countless people who cannot read. Even in the inner city here, people can read. I almost sound like a liberal thinking about how bad India's poor, women and children have it.
But as you suggested it's politically stable. Hey, it's the world's largest democracy.
Better yet, send all those who's grandparents weren't born her back where they came from.
Hey, somebody finally found a way to get rid of Trump! I might even take one for the team and accept my deportation back to Poland to make that happen. But then again, maybe I can avoid it, considering I have one American-born grandparent and Trump doesn't have any.
Yup, here we go again with the rampant stereotyping.
If you think Western Europe is a "like" culture, you evidently haven't been to Europe. If America was filled up with Europeans overnight, I expect that every conservative-leaning person in the country will have a nervous breakdown. Europeans are not as similar to Americans as you think, and Third Worlders (some) are not as different from Americans as you think.
I would actually like more Western Europeans in this continent, but not for the reasons you think.
Europe has a very similar culture, values to America than most Hispanic and African countries. They have a much better education and don't go on welfare like most of the 3rd world immigrants, both legal and illegal do right now.
Not to pick a fight, but as a student of history I have to point out that the second world referred to the old communist Soviet bloc countries that pretty much don't exist anymore. It's not countries with development somewhere between the first and third worlds.
...
A lot of the first-generation American-born and/or American-raised citizens (like myself) would get shipped back to a country that doesn't want them, and where they would be as productive as they are in America.
Were you serious when you wrote that first part? I've met a lot of Americans with European ancestry whose parents emigrated here, or their grandparents were from Canada and they came here.
I wouldn't want to go "back where I came from." No thanks.
I'm pretty sure that poster was being sarcastic in suggesting that.
It is quite clear that no one has ever spent any time learning about immigration other than the demagogues on Fox News.
1. The number one reason why people emigrate is for better economic opportunities. In other words, they move to find work because there are no jobs or way to support themselves at home.
2. Once they get to their destination, immigrants work. They are more likely to work more than one job and they are more likely to start a business -- this is true even for unskilled workers. I cannot understand how people can, with a straight face, complain that immigrants take American jobs while being lazy and on welfare. It doesn't compute.
3. Assimilation into American (or any other) culture is a generational process. The first generation to move here gets by. They don't learn much English and live in ethnic enclaves. The second generation is bilingual and bridges the gap between cultures, and the third generation is English dominant and Americanized. It has been like this for generations. Don't regale me with tales your Polish grandfather who came here and immediately spoke English and assimilated into society. That "model immigrant" is a myth.
FYI -- Americans do the same thing when they move to other countries.
4. America's Total Fertility Rate is about 1.9 children per woman, below the replacement rate of 2.1 children per woman. Without immigration, we would be in the same boat as many European countries and Japan. The dependency ratio would worsen, the average age of the population would get older, and we would face bigger issues with Medicare and Social Security.
Also, while it is relatively easy to get women to have fewer children, getting them to have more children is very hard. Other countries have tried pro-natalist programs with little success. The easiest, most cost effective solution is immigration.
You are the thinking of the USA as a company, needing employees. We aren't. We are a culture, a society, and a group of families. Do you think today's immigrants are looking to provide services and payments to our current aging population? They aren't. They don't care about our traditions, our history, or our infrastructure. If today's immigrant opens a factory, who do you feel that they are most likely to hire? Jerome Washington & Carl Williams, who were laid off when the automobile plant shifted production to Guadalajara, or their own countrymen, often picked from their own village, tribe, or extended family? If you think everyone has an equal chance, you don't understand immigrant culture at all. Look at the world of IT and programming. Once an immigrant is employed in the role as hiring manager, there are no more hires outside of their own ethnic group.
What happened to concern about overpopulation? For generations we have pushed people to limit their number of children, and our laws have made it practically impossible to teach the children we do have basic respect and discipline without the threat of Children's Services knocking at our door. We have been pushed to feel that we should live our lives for ourselves, and the heck with raising a new generation to carry on after we are gone.
On top of that, our best jobs for the working class have been either spirited away to other countries or made obsolete by technology requiring little human intervention or maintenance. And now we are told to serve up our country, and it is OUR COUNTRY, to people from cultures who do not hold values that mesh with ours, and who very tightly hold onto their cultures to the point of wishing to supplant the existing culture with theirs.
I don't care about my neighbor's genetic structure, or country of origin, or physical attributes. What I do care about is for them to value this country MORE than the one they came from, and not treat OUR COUNTRY as a colony to conquer and supplant culturally.
(For the sake of transparency, I am 50% the grand child of Hungarian immigrants, who did NOT teach their 6 children to speak Hungarian, as they were AMERICANS. 25% were Western European immigrants who emigrated in the past 150 years, and the remaining 25% were mostly British subjects who lived in the Western Hemisphere since the late 1600's to early 1700's. )
Last edited by rugrats2001; 04-02-2016 at 12:09 PM..
You are the thinking of the USA as a company, needing employees. We aren't. We are a culture, a society, and a group of families. Do you think today's immigrants are looking to provide services and payments to our current aging population? They aren't. They don't care about our traditions, our history, or our infrastructure. If today's immigrant opens a factory, who do you feel that they are most likely to hire? Jerome Washington & Carl Williams, who were laid off when the automobile plant shifted production to Guadalajara, or their own countrymen, often picked from their own village, tribe, or extended family? If you think everyone has an equal chance, you don't understand immigrant culture at all. Look at the world of IT and programming. Once an immigrant is employed in the role as hiring manager, there are no more hires outside of their own ethnic group.
What happened to concern about overpopulation? For generations we have pushed people to limit their number of children, and our laws have made it practically impossible to teach the children we do have basic respect and discipline without the threat of Children's Services knocking at our door. We have been pushed to feel that we should live our lives for ourselves, and the heck with raising a new generation to carry on after we are gone.
On top of that, our best jobs for the working class have been either spirited away to other countries or made obsolete by technology requiring little human intervention or maintenance. And now we are told to serve up our country, and it is OUR COUNTRY, to people from cultures who do not hold values that mesh with ours, and who very tightly hold onto their cultures to the point of wishing to supplant the existing culture with theirs.
I don't care about my neighbor's genetic structure, or country of origin, or physical attributes. What I do care about is for them to value this country MORE than the one they came from, and not treat OUR COUNTRY as a colony to conquer and supplant culturally.
(For the sake of transparency, I am 50% the grand child of Hungarian immigrants, who did NOT teach their 6 children to speak Hungarian, as they were AMERICANS. 25% were Western European immigrants who emigrated in the past 150 years, and the remaining 25% were mostly British subjects who lived in the Western Hemisphere since the late 1600's to early 1700's. )
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
