The United States should increase the number of immigrants it accepts

The link to the forum post is below:

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1640

Perhaps make a debate or a forum post on this topic. The comments section isn't a good medium for discussion like this

"I believe the Republic of Texas was vehemently for slavery."

There are 2 contentions that I have with this:

1: If they were pro slavery at one point, would they have wanted to join Mexico once they became anti slavery?
2: This does not explain how we got California, which was anti slavery.

I'm finally deciding to respond. Sorry for the huge delay.

"Why was the union an overall detriment? There was something causing the country to break apart. Something kept France united that divided Austria Hungary, 2 areas comparably big"

That something is France's common language and culture. Austria Hungary lacked this.

"That said, I believe that the french royal crown lands were built up slowly over multiple centuries, and with some exception there was more of a cultural continuum."

I think that France got it's size the same way the U.K got it's size. By conquering. By sending your own people to the conquered area. By assimilating the locals heavily. France assimilated the octillians(at least that's what I think they were called) that were South of France and they don't want to break away. Austria Hungary conquered but failed to assimilate the lands that nation conquered and as a result, they lost their land.

"So, I'm not looking for situations that involve the US. I'm looking for situations that describe the same situation as the US."
"Also, though I'm not familiar with all your examples so I may be wrong, but none of those conflicts occurred as a result of excessive immigration."

It's how Mexico lost Texas and California.

"Did their countries break up on the basis of language? Do you have evidence for this?"

What else could it be in a way that is consistent?

"Do you have evidence for this? Are you sure it wouldn't have to do the(Puerto Rican) historical relationship with the US?"

The US treats PR pretty well. It is because of the US that the GDP per capita of PR is about double the Latin American average and easily the highest GDP per capita in Latin America, with one about as high as South Korea.

They are not compatible. That was decided in the 1850s when the US took Texas because it was more American than Mexican. It also is decided when many in PR want to secede because of their culture. The Hispanics historically assimilate to at least some extent.

The US took Texas because it was more American than Mexican? Do you have evidence for this? Moreover how can you model current integration of culture based on the interaction of 3 states in their infancy? Undoubtedly culture has progressed from that point. I believe the Republic of Texas was vehemently for slavery. So that's certainly one example of progression of culture

Other than that, the currently integration of hispanics and their culture into typical American culture suggests that they are compatible

Why was the union an overall detriment? There was something causing the country to break apart. Something kept France united that divided Austria Hungary, 2 areas comparably big

These seem like questions better answered by a historian. And even then you may not get a satisfying answer. That said, I believe that the french royal crown lands were built up slowly over multiple centuries, and with some exception there was more of a cultural continuum. So what kept France together? I suppose because there was no reason to split and every reason to stay together. Austria-Hungary was basically jammed together from existent smaller states. Why was it an overall detriment? A deteriorating economic situation mostly I suppose.

I have 2 situations that involve America, one of them is present day, so they kindof match America.

So, I'm not looking for situations that involve the US. I'm looking for situations that describe the same situation as the US. That is, mass immigration from a culturally distinct country, into another country which has lead to a secession. I can't speak for your Texas/California examples, so perhaps you can answer why you think the situation is similar. But obviously Puerto Rico is not such an example.

"kids might end up", "kids tend to keep", "that will inevitably", " they would want".

Do you have any facts or evidence other than speculation?

In my examples, none of the leaders thought that their country would break up on the basis of language and by the time they realized it, it was too late.

Did their countries break up on the basis of language? Do you have evidence for this?

Because history rhymes. Ask many Puerto Ricans why they want to secede and they would say because PR is Hispanophone whereas the rest of the country is anglophone.

Do you have evidence for this? Are you sure it wouldn't have to do the historical relationship with the US?

"How then do you justify your fears when Hispanic and American culture are seemly so very compatible?" They are not compatible. That was decided in the 1850s when the US took Texas because it was more American than Mexican. It also is decided when many in PR want to secede because of their culture. The Hispanics historically assimilate to at least some extent.

Sorry for taking so long. I had a lot of work to do.

"Hence, in most cases when that union was perceived to be an overall detriment, secessionist movements formed." Why was the union an overall detriment? There was something causing the country to break apart. Something kept France united that divided Austria Hungary, 2 areas comparably big. I have 2 situations that involve America, one of them is present day, so they kindof match America. They are:

-How the US got Texas and California in the 1st place.
-Why there is an independence movement within PR. They cite cultural differences.

In the case of 1st generation immigrants, this is true. However, their kids might end up breaking away in the future if they get "oppressed" such as having a president they don't like. The kids tend to keep their culture, which is fine, but speaking it should be prohibited(exceptions apply) to help Americanize the population that will inevitably making up the majority within some states in the future. This happened with California because they were culturally diverse, they were sore losers about their president and they used this as an excuse to get an independence movement. If there is a language minority within the US, then they just need to snap once and they would want to secede, just like many in California. In my examples, none of the leaders thought that their country would break up on the basis of language and by the time they realized it, it was too late.

"This being the case, what motivations do Hispanics in the US have to secede?" Because history rhymes. Ask many Puerto Ricans why they want to secede and they would say because PR is Hispanophone whereas the rest of the country is anglophone.

In your examples, people wished to secede due to the perceived right of their own governance. This is due to their own historical, language backgrounds and the way in which they were included in the larger nation. And yes, this may be generally titled under cultural differences. But the key here is that as a whole, entire groups of pre-existent and differing cultural background were included with little say into a larger union. Hence, in most cases when that union was perceived to be an overall detriment, secessionist movements formed. This detriment is what I've described as motivations. I believe in all of your examples, this is the case. Hence in none your examples does the situation match America's. How then do you justify using them as examples for your fears?

In the case of the US, immigrants migrate with the understanding that they are leaving their own country to live in another country which is not their own and perhaps to call it their own eventually. The motivations are completely different as there is no historical or linguistic background. They were not forced into a union, they've voluntarily chosen to immigrate and in most cases, they enjoy equal rights. This being the case, what motivations do Hispanics in the US have to secede?

Finally, obviously calling something ingrained is subjective. However as I understand it, Hispanic culture is pervasive throughout the US, especially in the southern and western states. For example, Cinco de Mayo is celebrated in many parts of the US. The language is spoken widely, up to a 6th of the population. There are many places where Hispanics are a majority of the population. Finally, Hispanic cuisine is extremely popular. In many of your examples, secessionist movements form due to the incompatibility of differing cultures. How then do you justify your fears when Hispanic and American culture are seemly so very compatible?

"So I guess my point about your examples is that there are specific motivations that cause separatist groups to form." Like what? What caused my 1st example, Austria Hungary to break up if it wasn't for the cultural diversity?

"Is the cultural difference really a good enough motivator for a separatist movement, despite the fact that Hispanic culture is already fairly well ingrained in the US in the first place?" It's only a 2nd language for some people in the US. I wouldn't call it totally ingrained within the US. Culture differences often prompt people to want to secede. It did in my examples. Although you're not seeing it, I kindof am.

So I guess my point about your examples is that there are specific motivations that cause separatist groups to form. In many of your examples, it was something like "This was originally our land, these are our rules and customs, why shouldn't we govern ourselves". However in the case of immigrants to the US, I'm not seeing the motivation. There is no feeling of resent from misappropriated lands or customs, they are treated fairly and in general, it is understood that they are guests in someone elses country and should respect that. Is the cultural difference really a good enough motivator for a separatist movement, despite the fact that Hispanic culture is already fairly well ingrained in the US in the first place?

Exceptions to the rule should apply. The exceptions are:

-At home. This allows bilingualism to remain, while minimizing the risk for separatist movements.
-When communicating to tourists or you are a tourist yourself. This helps the economy and tourists usually don't break away from a country. I think they have yet to do it.
-For educational purposes.

Other then that, there is not much incentive to stay multicultural.

"More directly, are you able to provide any evidence that shows that there are rampant numbers of unassimilated migrant Hispanics that have formed distinctive subcultures within America or is likely to be an occurrence in the future?" Most Hispanics do get assimilated, but currently about half of them prefer their native language over English in public communication. I imagine that this trend will increase as the number of Hispanic immigrants inevitably increases as well. My 1st link said that Hispanics will hit the 100 million mark within the US by 2050. This is about 2/7 of the US population and a majority in some areas. This would slow down assilimination into these areas.

"Your first source is actually evidence against this. While it does state that there is a large growth of Latino populations in California due to immigration, it also notes the existence of Spanglish and states that the Spanish language fades in successive generations." Although it does fade in successive generations, I'm worried that this could slow down because the number of Hispanic immigrants is increasing and even many non Hispanics are learning Spanish. It's fine to learn Spanish, but it's not fine to speak it because of the potential for a separatist movements in the US. Also, although the Hispanics are being more assimilated, the American locals are also being assimilated to the incoming immigrants as I mentioned earlier. The willingness that people will inevitably have to communicate in Spanish would slow down assimilation.

I apologize that this took so long to get.

"Spanish for example has persisted in Puerto Rico and near the Mexico/US border" In PR, 1/3 of the residents want the island to be a freely associated state, which is similar to independence. In the South West, English is way more common than Spanish and most of the Hispanophones are bilingual in English and Spanish, so currently they don't want to break away. However, the immigration among Hispanics is increasing(http://www.pewhispanic.org/2017/09/18/facts-on-u-s-latinos/). With this, comes less assiliminated immigrants. As a result, it puts pressure on the US locals to partially assiliminate to them rather than the other way around. It’s why Spanish is learned as a 2nd language in the US. I’m not against it, knowledge is knowledge, however the more immigrants come to the US, the more bilingual the country has become.

I think many of my examples are a result of excessive immigration. In my 1st example, the Austrians could have been Germaniphone because the Austrians might be decedents of German immigrants. Same basic principal applies with Example #2. I think all of my examples fit into one of the 2 categories:

1: They happened as a result of ancient or recent immigration relative to the separatist movement
2: They came when the inhabitants were annexed into a larger country and were failed to be assimilated.

One example I know of for certain was subconsciously due to cultural differences how we got Texas. There were other factors, such as ideological differences, but there are ideological differences within the US, largely motivated by Hispanic immigration that exist. There is even a separatist movement based on ideological and cultural differences; California. Had this multiculturalism not existed, California would not be wanting to be its own country.

But is this a universal definition of americanization? For example, traditionally, many languages have been spoken in the USA and at a federal level, there are no official languages. Spanish for example has persisted in Puerto Rico and near the Mexico/US border, before English was spoken in those areas even. Why then is knowledge of fluent English part of the definition of americanization? Also is it fair to hold immigrants at a higher standard than you would natively born americans? If knowledge/respect of the US constitution and US history/civics is a requirement, I imagine that many natively born americans would fail abysmally. In which case, are they less american than their migratory peers?

Finally, how supported are your fears? When I mentioned the difference between your examples and America, it was to highlight the differences in subculture. In America's case, due to the gradual nature of immigration I'd imagine that there is more of a cultural continuum between hispanic and more traditional American cultures. This is differs to your examples in which the subcultures are uniform. More directly, are you able to provide any evidence that shows that there are rampant numbers of unassimilated migrant hispanics that have formed distinctive subcultures within America or is likely to be an occurrence in the future? Your first source is actually evidence against this. While it does state that there is a large growth of latino populations in California due to immigration, it also notes the existence of spanglish and states that the spanish language fades in successive generations. Is this not an example assimilation?

P.S I'm from New Zealand

To Americanize basically means to respect the US constitution, to know fluent English, to take and pass a course on US History and Civics and stuff like that. You said you weren't american. What country are you from? Just curious.

"America is a melting pot of different cultures that are capable of co-existing peacefully." Most of the cultures assimilate in public life very quickly. Hispanics are the exception because of their numbers. Since Hispanics have immigrated here at much higher rates then the Italians or the Germans or the Chinese, this enables them to keep their culture, which I'm worried could result in a separatist movement just like the historical examples I mentioned.

"But other than that I think the definition of being "american" should adapt as other cultures are blended into american society." The definition of an American is, "a native or inhabitant of the U.S. : a U.S. citizen" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/American).

I don't know if the source of immigration matters. In all of the examples I mentioned, if the bigger power assimilated the smaller power, then the smaller power wouldn't want to secede to form their own country, since the locals would feel more aligned with the bigger power.

An example of this is if Spain assimilated Catalonia, then Catalonia locals would feel more Spanish and therefore would not want to form their own country. Instead, Spain chose to be multicultural and even agreed with the Catalonia that they could keep their culture if they don't break away. The thing is is that even though Catalonia agreed to this, the younger generation denounced the agreement and want to form their own country, ignoring the fact that Spain let them keep their own culture.

What does it mean to be american/to americanize? As a non-american, from my perspective, America is a melting pot of different cultures that are capable of co-existing peacefully. Obviously there are somethings that are more or less set in stone, such as acknowledgement of the constitution and a more-than-healthy dose of patriotism. But other than that I think the definition of being "american" should adapt as other cultures are blended into american society.

Also, though I'm not familiar with all your examples so I may be wrong, but none of those conflicts occurred as a result of excessive immigration. Rather, the nations were already formed with existent and distinct subcultures. Hence those situations are rather different to America

Part 1 is below part 2 and part 2 is below part 3. I apologize if this looks like spam but I have a lot of information on this.

My sources are:

1: http://www.languagepolicy.net/archives/Castro1.htm
2: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MexicoCalledTheyWantTexasBack
3: http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/secession-answer-case-catalonia-flanders-scotland/

If the US broke up on the other hand, it would be significantly less able to defend freedom worldwide. Since the US would have to deal with a separatist movement from Latin Americans, it would mean it would be less able to focus on defending the world from North Korea(NK) and ISIS.

People say NK made peace with South Korea(SK), but whether or not this happens in the long term is up for speculation.

If the US is unable to deal with NK and ISIS due to the Latin American separatist movements, then SK and Japan both become communist from an invasion directed by NK and China because there is no USA to stop them. Russia would probably invade all of Europe because there is no USA to stop them and spread communism there. ISIS would take the middle east and all of Africa because there is no USA to stop them.

This will happen form the US being unable to fight them due to the US having a local Latin American conflict to deal with. Since the UN would preach, (Self determination, you should have assimilated them while you had the chance), the US would resist this and as a form of protest, eliminate the UN within it's borders, which is headquartered in the US. At best, the UN is headquartered somewhere else, at worst, it ceases to exist. The nations become more divided, even if they are already divided.

In summary, if Latinos are allowed to keep their culture, it would make them want to secede. This claim is backed up by some of the many times in world history that different cultures break away to preserve their culture. If the US breaks up, then freedom worldwide would be lost. Over 6 billion people would be under a communist system, with some Islamic law in there. I estimate that 600 million people would get killed under the fascist governments, because that's how they work; by killing all your political opponents.

Either immigrants endure the necessary assilimination pain or the US dies as well as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

What do the separatist movements of:

1:Austria Hungary
2:Ukraine vs Russia Influenced East Ukraine/Crimea
3:Spain vs Catalonia and Basque
4:Mexico vs Texas and Mexican Cession
5:Belgium vs Flanders
6:Various Middle east nations vs Kurds
7:United Kingdom vs Wales
8:Canada vs Quebec
9:Egypt vs Hala'ib
10:Belize vs Southern Belize
11:United States vs Puerto Rico
12:Roman empire vs their multiculturalism

All have in common? They are all on the basis of cultural differences between the parent country and the smaller power.

Why am I telling you this? Because I am afraid of the same thing happening to the United States (US).

Unassimilated Latinos are coming into this country and they are in the process of making super majorities in certain areas in the country. Once they accomplish this, they then will want to secede from the rest of the country.

If you think this is just nonsense, unfortunately, it's not. The president of Mexico has said that he is the president of 123 Mexicans; 100 million in Mexico and 23 million in the US. La Raza and MEChA, which aren't extremist groups, but they are mainstream activist groups, advocate for Mexico to take back the southwest US, even though the US bought this land for a very good price; about $750 million in cash and debt payoffs for land with less combined taxpayers than Tempe, Arizona, a place most people in this country can't locate on a map without guessing.

So, the US is probably going to break up on this basis and the only way to stop it is to force everyone in the US to Americanize.

There are people that are worried about how they would lose their culture. However, how is culture even important? It does not make you who you are, what makes the individual who they are are the things that they accomplish in life, not their ethnicity.

Part 2 is in the next comment.

Break away from the US? Are you trying to argue that immigrants who come to the United States are trying to break away from the union?

They need to be assimilated in order to prevent them from breaking away from the US.