US no longer "a nation of immigrants"; Immigration agency rewrites its mission statement - Polidicks

[quote]WASHINGTON (AP) — The agency that oversees legal immigration no longer describes the U.S. as "a nation of immigrants" in its mission statement. The new statement unveiled Thursday describes U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services as administering "the nation's lawful immigration system" by "adjudicating requests for immigration benefits while protecting Americans, securing the homeland, and honoring our values." The old statement had said USCIS "secures America's promise as a nation of immigrants" by providing "accurate and useful information to our customers," granting immigration and citizenship benefits, promoting awareness about citizenship, and ensuring the integrity of the immigration system. [/quote] [url]http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-immigration-agency-rewrites-mission-statement-2018-2[/url] Super short article

At least they're being honest now, with the Cheeto-in-charge's attitude towards immigrants.

[QUOTE=BuffaloBill;53156531]At least they're being honest now, with the Cheeto-in-charge's attitude towards immigrants.[/QUOTE] Is that really a good thing? it will just embolden those who support this crap even more, because fuck you got mine.

I think by now we can stop calling the US a nation of immigrants, they are their own people.

[QUOTE=Boilrig;53156605]I think by now we can stop calling the US a nation of immigrants, they are their own people.[/QUOTE] I don't think these two things are exclusive of eachother.

[QUOTE=Boilrig;53156605]I think by now we can stop calling the US a nation of immigrants, they are their own people.[/QUOTE] Can you tell me why this is not an outrageous attack on the principles the nation was founded on? This is a betrayal of everything that makes America what it is.

[QUOTE=Boilrig;53156605]I think by now we can stop calling the US a nation of immigrants, they are their own people.[/QUOTE] As an American and a son of immigrants, nah.

These nativist assholes are an embarrassment to the country

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;53156543]Is that really a good thing? it will just embolden those who support this crap even more, because fuck you got mine.[/QUOTE] It's not, not by a long shot.

[QUOTE=Boilrig;53156605]I think by now we can stop calling the US a nation of immigrants, they are their own people.[/QUOTE] lol US citizens(and Canadians as well, albeit less so) are incredibly notorious for referring to themselves as Irish(I may be a bit guilty here), Scottish, German, English, so on, rather than "American". They may be patriotic of their country, but often times it isn't the American nationality that comes to their own minds when they think about who they are as a people.

[QUOTE=Boilrig;53156605]I think by now we can stop calling the US a nation of immigrants, they are their own people.[/QUOTE] Disagree. I had a US history teacher who had a really good analogy for why that's not correct. He was this older guy from Charleston, South Carolina. He said that we always teach that America is a melting pot, where cultures from all over the world come together and form a unique identity. This isn't a good analogy because this means that people lose their identity when they come to the United States a better analogy is a salad bowl, where everybody mixes together, and the whole gains a unique flavor, while its individual components maintain their identity. People speak all kinds of languages in America. English, Spanish, Korean, Arabic, Tagalog, etc. and they eat all kinds of food from their home countries. They don't lose their identities when the come to America, but they do gain a new one as well. Immigrants vote, they send their kids to school, they start businesses, they invest money and get married to other immigrants, or the children of immigrants. Though they all come from different cultures, I think that everybody coming to America has a handleful of goals in common: That they want a better life for their children than they had when they were children. That they want to live somewhere they don't have to fear that they will be persecuted for their religion or race. That they want to work hard and generate personal wealth and give some of what they earned back at the end. Immigrants are Americas [B]most valuable[/B] natural resource. They built this country, and they [B]are[/B] this country

[QUOTE=proboardslol;53156783]Immigrants are Americas [B]most valuable[/B] natural resource. They built this country, and they [B]are[/B] this country[/QUOTE] No joke. They literally [b]run[/b] the country. STEM occupations in the United States have loads of immigrants, and the number is only increasing ([url=http://www.nber.org/digest/nov16/w22623.html]NBER[/url]). We couldn't survive without them. [editline]24th February 2018[/editline] Jealousy motivates a lot of nativism. They resent the fact these people are so much more successful and decent than they are.

America is not a nation of immigrants, it was for the longest time a nation of colonists. It has always had its own policy on migration that decided who and from where it wanted to admit and whether it would close the floodgates entirely. This only recently changed. Assimilation is necessary for a healthy democracy. Postcolonial countries don't survive diversity for the sake of it, you need absorption and this isn't possible with constant flow, especially if it is of low skilled migrants who will need to band together politically.

[QUOTE=Conscript;53156855]America is not a nation of immigrants, it was for the longest time a nation of colonists. It has always had its own policy on migration that decided who and from where it wanted to admit and whether it would close the floodgates entirely. This only recently changed. Assimilation is necessary for a healthy democracy. Postcolonial countries don't survive diversity for the sake of it, you need absorption and this isn't possible with constant flow, especially if it is of low skilled migrants who will need to band together politically.[/QUOTE] You can't colonize a place that's already colonized. You're either an invader or an immigrant - and we sure as hell didn't ask permission or seek papers from the native americans to settle where we did. Choose which you feel to see the colonials as because they are one or the other. We are the original illegal immigrants; a nation of them. Even beyond that, our status would be seen these days as refugees fleeing from a hostile government.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53156661]As an American and a son of immigrants, nah.[/QUOTE] As an American and descendant of immigrants (as far back as I can tell my family has been here, but they had to come here somehow), nah, still a nation of immigrants.

[QUOTE=Conscript;53156855]America is not a nation of immigrants, it was for the longest time a nation of colonists. It has always had its own policy on migration that decided who and from where it wanted to admit and whether it would close the floodgates entirely. This only recently changed. Assimilation is necessary for a healthy democracy. Postcolonial countries don't survive diversity for the sake of it, you need absorption and this isn't possible with constant flow, especially if it is of low skilled migrants who will need to band together politically.[/QUOTE] I would say an agreement on facts is more important than assimilation when it comes to democracy. Assimilation just sounds like the Borg.

[QUOTE=Boilrig;53156605]I think by now we can stop calling the US a nation of immigrants, they are their own people.[/QUOTE] the difference between the US and yogurt is that in 200 years yogurt develops a culture jokes aside, the US was founded by immigrants historically recently. people who go there, and people who are born there, can become/be American, but their heritage remains their own: Arab, Italian, Irish, Polish... whomever believes that in a nation founded [B]by[/B] immigrants [b]for[/b] immigrants there are first- and second-class citizens, just because RNG decided you were born there and others weren't... it's fucked up and not acceptable in this day and age

[QUOTE=Conscript;53156855]America is not a nation of immigrants, it was for the longest time a nation of colonists. It has always had its own policy on migration that decided who and from where it wanted to admit and whether it would close the floodgates entirely. This only recently changed. Assimilation is necessary for a healthy democracy. Postcolonial countries don't survive diversity for the sake of it, you need absorption and this isn't possible with constant flow, especially if it is of low skilled migrants who will need to band together politically.[/QUOTE] Disagree. Assimilation is a racially charged and culturally homogeneous term. There is no American culture; there are Mexican Americans with their own culture, Arab Americans with their own culture, Chinese Americans with their own culture, etc. Assimilation simply means "act more white"

If you don't think that the cultures you listed haven't been assimilated into the overall culture of America, I don't know what to tell you. If they are interacting with other cultures and participating in society and not off in their own corner of the country only focusing on themselves, they're assimilated. Maybe you want to say they're completely separate cultures and define assimilation as "act more white," but that's your own definition of the term, and not in any way how things actually work. Those cultures don't stay purely "Mexican," "Arab," "Chinese," or even European due the US being a clusterfuck of every culture on the planet. If the culture is influencing the country and being influenced by other cultures I'd say that's successful assimilation of the culture. I'd also exercise just a bit of skepticism here. Just because the mission statement changes, that doesn't mean policy will necessarily change. There's nothing inherently wrong with the statement given, and until there's actual policies provided which are legitimately doing something bad, the statement means pretty much nothing. I'd encourage people to be a bit less reactionary just from reading a mission statement if possible. [URL="https://www.uscis.gov/aboutus"]https://www.uscis.gov/aboutus[/URL]

[QUOTE=Thomas, TTC;53157122]If you don't think that the cultures you listed haven't been assimilated into the overall culture of America, I don't know what to tell you. If they are interacting with other cultures and participating in society and not off in their own corner of the country only focusing on themselves, they're assimilated. Maybe you want to say they're completely separate cultures and define assimilation as "act more white," but that's your own definition of the term, and not in any way how things actually work. Those cultures don't stay purely "Mexican," "Arab," "Chinese," or even European due the US being a clusterfuck of every culture on the planet. If the culture is influencing the country and being influenced by other cultures I'd say that's successful assimilation of the culture. I'd also exercise just a bit of skepticism here. Just because the mission statement changes, that doesn't mean policy will necessarily change. There's nothing inherently wrong with the statement given, and until there's actual policies provided which are legitimately doing something bad, the statement means pretty much nothing. I'd encourage people to be a bit less reactionary just from reading a mission statement if possible. [URL="https://www.uscis.gov/aboutus"]https://www.uscis.gov/aboutus[/URL][/QUOTE] If that's how you want to define assimilation, then sure. However, I think the vast majority of those on the right now define assimilation as "lose your old culture, stop speaking your old language, learn English and only speak that in public". Like I said, it's a dogwhistle term

[QUOTE=proboardslol;53157139]If that's how you want to define assimilation, then sure. However, I think the vast majority of those on the right now define assimilation as "lose your old culture, stop speaking your old language, learn English and only speak that in public". Like I said, it's a dogwhistle term[/QUOTE] I'd say that's a very small but vocal minority of the general population, and I would disagree that most the people on the right see it as "ditch your culture." I come from an area which is fairly right leaning, and I believe even there most of them would define assimilation the way I gave based on my experiences growing up there. Most people are actually pretty reasonable.

[QUOTE=Thomas, TTC;53157163]I'd say that's a very small but vocal minority of the general population, and I would disagree that most the people on the right see it as "ditch your culture." I come from an area which is fairly right leaning, and I believe even there most of them would define assimilation the way I gave based on my experiences growing up there.[/QUOTE] It's down to anecdotal evidence then, but I think that the Republican platform now officially supports racial/cultural homogeneity in its immigration policies (see Trump's "shithole" comments).

[QUOTE=proboardslol;53157167]It's down to anecdotal evidence then, but I think that the Republican platform now officially supports racial/cultural homogeneity in its immigration policies (see Trump's "shithole" comments).[/QUOTE] Officially how? What policies are being created that enforce this homogeneity within the agency itself. I'm not really a fan of Trump either and won't try to defend what he says (mainly because I don't care), but once again, this comes down to actual policies which most people don't actually even look into. For all I care, he could say "pixies are real," but until he starts dedicating time and resources to making contact and forming diplomatic relations with them, I don't see how what he says is really that relevant to the argument in the same way I don't see how the mission statement change is relevant either.

[QUOTE=Thomas, TTC;53157214]Officially how? What policies are being created that enforce this homogeneity within the agency itself. I'm not really a fan of trump either and won't try to defend what he says (mainly because I don't care), but once again, this comes down to actual policies which most people don't actually even look into. For all I care, he could say "pixies are real," but until he starts dedicating time and resources to making contact and forming diplomatic relations with them, I don't see how what he says is really that relevant to the argument in the same way I don't see how the mission statement change is relevant either.[/QUOTE] You think the policy positions and stances the President takes are the same as an organization's mission statement being changed?

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53157216]You think the policy positions and stances the President takes are the same as an organization's mission statement being changed?[/QUOTE] I didn't say they were the same, but the effect they have as a whole doesn't mean much until there's actual regulations to back up the statements. The point is, for the most part, the president can say whatever he wants, but it doesn't mean that policies are made based on what he says. I'm more concerned with the executive orders he makes and the impact he has on the laws which actually dictate what the government must do. Please point out what policy was made from Trump's "shithole" comments that actually change legislation in some way, and I will most likely agree that it's a bad policy.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;53157048]Disagree. Assimilation is a racially charged and culturally homogeneous term. There is no American culture; there are Mexican Americans with their own culture, Arab Americans with their own culture, Chinese Americans with their own culture, etc. Assimilation simply means "act more white"[/QUOTE] I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean.

[QUOTE=Thomas, TTC;53157248]Please point out what policy was made from Trump's "shithole" comments that actually change legislation in some way, and I will most likely agree that it's a bad policy.[/QUOTE] Sure. He told lawmakers to prioritize immigration from countries he liked and told them, more or less, that he sees no reason to allow immigration from countries he doesn't like. That impacts what legislation they'll offer to the President and - ultimately - what'll be voted or not voted into law. It impacts the legislation because he has the power to veto any bill Congress signs that they did not pass with a supermajority. His statements changed legislation in that manner because it was made clear that he wouldn't support reforms/laws that didn't cater to his viewpoint (after ironically telling them he'd "sign anything") - and he won't sign any reforms or laws he doesn't support that he isn't [I]forced[/I] to sign (and even then he's shown he won't honor what he signed in any case). In other words: "it means that policies are made based on what he says". With this congress, there's practically nothing that they agree on by overwhelming majority except that Russia and her allies should be sanctioned for their attacks on the US -- despite this President abandoning his constitutional mandate to see those sanctions executed by the law that he, himself, signed. He also controls who gets appointed to what federal positions -- which means keeping him happy is a high priority interest for everyone in the government who wants to see those seats filled by those who're sympathetic to their party and personal views.

I'd agree that if he did in fact sign bills that came across his desk that shafted immigration from specific countries solely because he didn't like them, that would be a really shitty move on his part. I'm aware of how he conducts himself in relation to his cabinet, and I haven't been trying to defend things he's done, but currently I am unaware of any specific regulations made that have changed how immigration services actually deals with individuals from those countries which was why I was asking for a specific policy if someone was aware of one. The point of this has been about statements versus actions and policies. So many people seem to be quick to jump to conclusions about what is going to happen because of a statement which may have little influence on actual policy or may not even be put in place in an attempt to change policy. I'm just not a fan of how often times these articles are meant to be reactionary in nature, and in this case, it doesn't outline any specific changes to the department's practices which actually warrant concern about how immigration will change as a result.

[QUOTE=Thomas, TTC;53157325]I'd agree that if he did in fact sign bills that came across his desk that shafted immigration from specific countries solely because he didn't like them, that would be a really shitty move on his part.[/QUOTE] He has said [B]that is what he wants[/B]. He has more or less stated that bills that don't include that [I]will be vetoed[/I]. That means, given opportunity, he will sign a bill that comes across his desk that shafts immigration from specific countries - and he is telling Congress he won't sign any reforms that don't include that. In effect, he has told them to make a bill according to that specification that he will then sign into law. He has already made the 'shitty move on his part'. Cooperating with the President with a Congress that can't get itself to a supermajority is [I]mandatory[/I] if Congress wants to get bills passed. Which they do - because otherwise they look like a 'lame duck congress' despite controlling the House, Senate, and Executive -- which makes them all look damn bad and will hurt their re-election campaigns (and also, importantly, upset their donors who are expecting a return on their investment). That you think this 'is just a matter of how he conducts himself' and that it hasn't 'impacted anything' is weird. Sometimes: Words become actions. Nearly all the time: If the President says he's going to veto a bill that contains "X" - that bill suddenly loses "X". The policies of the President often and typically become the policies of the Legislative and the Judicial - because the Branches do not operate in their own vacuums.

Except for the fact that his statements have the effect when the policy is actually enacted and often times with these kinds of things, what is originally said isn't usually the result we see in the outcome. This is why I've asked twice now for specific legislation because I'd genuinely like to know and even said that I'd probably agree that it was a bad policy if given a specific example. I haven't been disagreeing with you about the impact words [B]can[/B] have, but the impact they have is the actual legislation which may differ entirely from what was originally stated. This is the whole "Words becoming actions" part that I'm more concerned with.