Donald Trump says immigrants are "poisoning the blood of our country"

[TheTide]

Ferguson is taking this out of context just like red avatars took the animals quote out of context back in 2018.

1 - What is the "right" context?

2 - What evidence or reasoning do you have to demonstrate that your interpretation of the context is the correct interpretation, other than "it fits my narrative" and "it's just what I think"?

Given how insanely high this number is, we have zero idea which types of illegal immigrants are coming in

If I am reading that right, the lowest point (over the period that this covers) was around the time when Trump took office. In practical terms it would have made more sense if a Trump like candidate had emerged in this cycle rather than in the 2016 cycle.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

He's correct

Do tell us all how my family immigrating here somehow "ruins" the blood of this country.

Where is your family from?

Why would that matter?

Because culture is important for immigration.

[certified hummus supporter 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

He's correct

Do tell us all how my family immigrating here somehow "ruins" the blood of this country.

Where is your family from?

Why would that matter?

Because culture is important for immigration.

If I said I was Tajik or Igbo, how would that influence your answer?

[jojoju1998]

He's correct

Do tell us all how my family immigrating here somehow "ruins" the blood of this country.

Where is your family from?

Why would that matter?

Because culture is important for immigration.

Culture is subjective.


100 years ago, The Irish were considered to be inferior to the White Anglo Saxon Protestants.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

He's correct

Do tell us all how my family immigrating here somehow "ruins" the blood of this country.

Where is your family from?

Why would that matter?

Because culture is important for immigration.

If I said I was Tajik or Igbo, how would that influence your answer?

Both would make me reply by asking further questions about your familial background (ie, if you are Tajik, is your family religious?). Overall, however, those are both groups I am skeptical of the societal consequences of large immigration from -- so that would make me skeptical of the benefits of letting your family in as well, without further information.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

He's correct

Do tell us all how my family immigrating here somehow "ruins" the blood of this country.

Where is your family from?

Why would that matter?

Because culture is important for immigration.

Culture is subjective.


100 years ago, The Irish were considered to be inferior to the White Anglo Saxon Protestants.

How is that responsive to my point?

[DrScholl]

He's correct

Do tell us all how my family immigrating here somehow "ruins" the blood of this country.

Where is your family from?

Why would that matter?

Because culture is important for immigration.

If I said I was Tajik or Igbo, how would that influence your answer?

Both would make me reply by asking further questions about your familial background (ie, if you are Tajik, is your family religious?). Overall, however, those are both groups I am skeptical of the societal immigrations of large immigration from -- so they would make me skeptical of the benefits of letting your family in as well.

That's not really your business though, is it? As long as immigrants follow the laws here they don't have to subscribe to anyone's perception of culture.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

He's correct

Do tell us all how my family immigrating here somehow "ruins" the blood of this country.

Where is your family from?

Why would that matter?

Because culture is important for immigration.

If I said I was Tajik or Igbo, how would that influence your answer?

Both would make me reply by asking further questions about your familial background (ie, if you are Tajik, is your family religious?). Overall, however, those are both groups I am skeptical of the societal immigrations of large immigration from -- so they would make me skeptical of the benefits of letting your family in as well.

That's not really your business though, is it? As long as immigrants follow the laws here they don't have to subscribe to anyone's perception of culture.

Its not the governments business once immigrants are citizens, but it is the governments responsibility to consider in naturalization and admittance to the country in the first place. Governments should aim to establish immigration policies that best benefit the people of the respective countries they govern, and part of that is recognizing that not all groups of people will integrate as well into or benefit as much the receiving societies. As Juan Bautista Alberdi said, "To govern is to populate." One of the tasks which government is responsible for is determining who we let in to our country and why, which is why our Founding Fathers enshrined the power to determine qualifications for naturalization in our Constitution.

[jojoju1998]

He's correct

Do tell us all how my family immigrating here somehow "ruins" the blood of this country.

Where is your family from?

Why would that matter?

Because culture is important for immigration.

Culture is subjective.


100 years ago, The Irish were considered to be inferior to the White Anglo Saxon Protestants.

How is that responsive to my point?

Culture is subjective. That’s my point.


Besides, if you want to make an argument for restricted immigration, make an argument from economics, and the nation state.



Immigration is not a right, it is granted by the citizens of the country through law. Therefore depending on economic needs, immigration can and should be adjusted. Restricted.


Immigration done right can be a boon, and often times, can benefit the Center Right party.


Illegal immigration subverts the law, and ultimately hurts legal migrants in the long run.

[certified hummus supporter 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

He's correct

Do tell us all how my family immigrating here somehow "ruins" the blood of this country.

Where is your family from?

Why would that matter?

Because culture is important for immigration.

If I said I was Tajik or Igbo, how would that influence your answer?

Both would make me reply by asking further questions about your familial background (ie, if you are Tajik, is your family religious?). Overall, however, those are both groups I am skeptical of the societal consequences of large immigration from -- so that would make me skeptical of the benefits of letting your family in as well, without further information.

And what exactly about being Tajik would make you skeptical of letting someone's family who actually is Tajik in?

[Libertas Vel Mors]

He's correct

Do tell us all how my family immigrating here somehow "ruins" the blood of this country.

Where is your family from?

Why would that matter?

Because culture is important for immigration.

Culture is subjective.


100 years ago, The Irish were considered to be inferior to the White Anglo Saxon Protestants.

How is that responsive to my point?

Culture is subjective. That’s my point.


Besides, if you want to make an argument for restricted immigration, make an argument from economics, and the nation state.



Immigration is not a right, it is granted by the citizens of the country through law. Therefore depending on economic needs, immigration can and should be adjusted. Restricted.


Immigration done right can be a boon, and often times, can benefit the Center Right party.


Illegal immigration subverts the law, and ultimately hurts legal migrants in the long run.

That's not responsive to my point, because even if the precise boundaries of culture may be subjective it is inarguable that culture exists and can (which is not the same as saying that it should) be used to determine immigration policy.

Agreed.

Sure. I'm very pro-immigration.

Sure. I'm anti illegal-immigration.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

He's correct

Do tell us all how my family immigrating here somehow "ruins" the blood of this country.

Where is your family from?

Why would that matter?

Because culture is important for immigration.

If I said I was Tajik or Igbo, how would that influence your answer?

Both would make me reply by asking further questions about your familial background (ie, if you are Tajik, is your family religious?). Overall, however, those are both groups I am skeptical of the societal consequences of large immigration from -- so that would make me skeptical of the benefits of letting your family in as well, without further information.

And what exactly about being Tajik would make you skeptical of letting someone's family who actually is Tajik in?

I believe that there is a large cultural gap between American and Tajik culture, and thus would be concerned both that admitting a large number of Tajik immigrants would result in low rates of assimilation in an absolute sense, and in a relative sense versus other immigrants that could be prioritized instead.

[jojoju1998]

He's correct

Do tell us all how my family immigrating here somehow "ruins" the blood of this country.

Where is your family from?

Why would that matter?

Because culture is important for immigration.

If I said I was Tajik or Igbo, how would that influence your answer?

Both would make me reply by asking further questions about your familial background (ie, if you are Tajik, is your family religious?). Overall, however, those are both groups I am skeptical of the societal immigrations of large immigration from -- so they would make me skeptical of the benefits of letting your family in as well.

That's not really your business though, is it? As long as immigrants follow the laws here they don't have to subscribe to anyone's perception of culture.

Its not the governments business once immigrants are citizens, but it is the governments responsibility to consider in naturalization and admittance to the country in the first place. Governments should aim to establish immigration policies that best benefit the people of the respective countries they govern, and part of that is recognizing that not all groups of people will integrate as well into or benefit as much the receiving societies. As Juan Bautista Alberdi said, "To govern is to populate." One of the tasks which government is responsible for is determining who we let in to our country and why, which is why our Founding Fathers enshrined the power to determine qualifications for naturalization in our Constitution.

Do we really want new migrants to assimilate though ?


There are aspects of American culture that some would not want to assimilate to.


If you’re talking about American culture today, which is very very progressive. Anti Religion.


I mean look at the Vietnamese Americans. The younger Vietnamese voters are very assimilated to American culture and now they’re more progressive than ever..

[jojoju1998]

He's correct

Do tell us all how my family immigrating here somehow "ruins" the blood of this country.

Where is your family from?

Why would that matter?

Because culture is important for immigration.

Culture is subjective.


100 years ago, The Irish were considered to be inferior to the White Anglo Saxon Protestants.

How is that responsive to my point?

Culture is subjective. That’s my point.


Besides, if you want to make an argument for restricted immigration, make an argument from economics, and the nation state.



Immigration is not a right, it is granted by the citizens of the country through law. Therefore depending on economic needs, immigration can and should be adjusted. Restricted.


Immigration done right can be a boon, and often times, can benefit the Center Right party.


Illegal immigration subverts the law, and ultimately hurts legal migrants in the long run.

That's not responsive to my point, because even if the precise boundaries of culture may be subjective it is inarguable that culture exists and can (which is not the same as saying that it should) be used to determine immigration policy.

Agreed.

Sure. I'm very pro-immigration.

Sure. I'm anti illegal-immigration.

What if the existing American Culture as it stands today (not the idealized version ) is More progressive and threatens traditional values ?


Are we going to expect migrants to assimilate into that culture ?

[Libertas Vel Mors]

He's correct

Do tell us all how my family immigrating here somehow "ruins" the blood of this country.

Where is your family from?

Why would that matter?

Because culture is important for immigration.

If I said I was Tajik or Igbo, how would that influence your answer?

Both would make me reply by asking further questions about your familial background (ie, if you are Tajik, is your family religious?). Overall, however, those are both groups I am skeptical of the societal immigrations of large immigration from -- so they would make me skeptical of the benefits of letting your family in as well.

That's not really your business though, is it? As long as immigrants follow the laws here they don't have to subscribe to anyone's perception of culture.

Its not the governments business once immigrants are citizens, but it is the governments responsibility to consider in naturalization and admittance to the country in the first place. Governments should aim to establish immigration policies that best benefit the people of the respective countries they govern, and part of that is recognizing that not all groups of people will integrate as well into or benefit as much the receiving societies. As Juan Bautista Alberdi said, "To govern is to populate." One of the tasks which government is responsible for is determining who we let in to our country and why, which is why our Founding Fathers enshrined the power to determine qualifications for naturalization in our Constitution.

Do we really want new migrants to assimilate though ?


There are aspects of American culture that some would not want to assimilate to.


If you’re talking about American culture today, which is very very progressive. Anti Religion.


I mean look at the Vietnamese Americans. The younger Vietnamese voters are very assimilated to American culture and now they’re more progressive than ever..

1. Yes.

2. American culture is the greatest in the world. That there are bad things within certain subsections of it doesn't change that and doesn't mean I don't want assimilation into it.

3. I don't agree that American culture writ large is either very progressive or anti-religion. America is the most conservative developed Western nation, and the most religious.

4. Vietnamese-Americans swung hugely right in 2020, and young voters of all ages are more progressive, so I'm not sure if this holds up given that shift and given that broader age pattern.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

He's correct

Do tell us all how my family immigrating here somehow "ruins" the blood of this country.

Where is your family from?

Why would that matter?

Because culture is important for immigration.

Culture is subjective.


100 years ago, The Irish were considered to be inferior to the White Anglo Saxon Protestants.

How is that responsive to my point?

Culture is subjective. That’s my point.


Besides, if you want to make an argument for restricted immigration, make an argument from economics, and the nation state.



Immigration is not a right, it is granted by the citizens of the country through law. Therefore depending on economic needs, immigration can and should be adjusted. Restricted.


Immigration done right can be a boon, and often times, can benefit the Center Right party.


Illegal immigration subverts the law, and ultimately hurts legal migrants in the long run.

That's not responsive to my point, because even if the precise boundaries of culture may be subjective it is inarguable that culture exists and can (which is not the same as saying that it should) be used to determine immigration policy.

Agreed.

Sure. I'm very pro-immigration.

Sure. I'm anti illegal-immigration.

What if the existing American Culture as it stands today (not the idealized version ) is More progressive and threatens traditional values ?


Are we going to expect migrants to assimilate into that culture ?

The only "traditional values" that I care about are the correct ones espoused by our Founding Fathers. I have no love for tradition for tradition's sake and only espouse even the values of our Founding Fathers because I think they are correct -- a stance that I think they, being rebels against the crown and free thinkers, would themselves proudly endorse.

I don't agree with your assessment of American culture, but yes, I want migrants to assimilate into American culture.

[Sumner 1868]

It's pretty obvious by now that most Republicans believe in white genocide - they just won't admit it until Fox News and company gives them permission to do so openly.

[certified hummus supporter 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

He's correct

Do tell us all how my family immigrating here somehow "ruins" the blood of this country.

Where is your family from?

Why would that matter?

Because culture is important for immigration.

If I said I was Tajik or Igbo, how would that influence your answer?

Both would make me reply by asking further questions about your familial background (ie, if you are Tajik, is your family religious?). Overall, however, those are both groups I am skeptical of the societal consequences of large immigration from -- so that would make me skeptical of the benefits of letting your family in as well, without further information.

And what exactly about being Tajik would make you skeptical of letting someone's family who actually is Tajik in?

I believe that there is a large cultural gap between American and Tajik culture, and thus would be concerned both that admitting a large number of Tajik immigrants would result in low rates of assimilation in an absolute sense, and in a relative sense versus other immigrants that could be prioritized instead.

And yet how many other cultures have a large cultural gap with American culture and still assimilate here just fine?

[Libertas Vel Mors]

He's correct

Do tell us all how my family immigrating here somehow "ruins" the blood of this country.

Where is your family from?

Why would that matter?

Because culture is important for immigration.

If I said I was Tajik or Igbo, how would that influence your answer?

Both would make me reply by asking further questions about your familial background (ie, if you are Tajik, is your family religious?). Overall, however, those are both groups I am skeptical of the societal consequences of large immigration from -- so that would make me skeptical of the benefits of letting your family in as well, without further information.

And what exactly about being Tajik would make you skeptical of letting someone's family who actually is Tajik in?

I believe that there is a large cultural gap between American and Tajik culture, and thus would be concerned both that admitting a large number of Tajik immigrants would result in low rates of assimilation in an absolute sense, and in a relative sense versus other immigrants that could be prioritized instead.

And yet how many other cultures have a large cultural gap with American culture and still assimilate here just fine?

Not many, actually, even though our culture is probably uniquely strong at assimilating immigrants. Ignoring European and Latin American immigrants, the only groups I think you can even argue have seen large scale assimilation are some East Asian immigrant groups (Chinese, Japanese, South Korean, and Vietnamese in particular), and even there I think there's a lot of evidence that the degree of integration of these groups has been lower than comparable groups from more culturally similar backgrounds. Meanwhile, some immigrant groups, like West Indian immigrants, have failed to integrate into mainstream American society at all.

[jojoju1998]

He's correct

Do tell us all how my family immigrating here somehow "ruins" the blood of this country.

Where is your family from?

Why would that matter?

Because culture is important for immigration.

If I said I was Tajik or Igbo, how would that influence your answer?

Both would make me reply by asking further questions about your familial background (ie, if you are Tajik, is your family religious?). Overall, however, those are both groups I am skeptical of the societal immigrations of large immigration from -- so they would make me skeptical of the benefits of letting your family in as well.

That's not really your business though, is it? As long as immigrants follow the laws here they don't have to subscribe to anyone's perception of culture.

Its not the governments business once immigrants are citizens, but it is the governments responsibility to consider in naturalization and admittance to the country in the first place. Governments should aim to establish immigration policies that best benefit the people of the respective countries they govern, and part of that is recognizing that not all groups of people will integrate as well into or benefit as much the receiving societies. As Juan Bautista Alberdi said, "To govern is to populate." One of the tasks which government is responsible for is determining who we let in to our country and why, which is why our Founding Fathers enshrined the power to determine qualifications for naturalization in our Constitution.

Do we really want new migrants to assimilate though ?


There are aspects of American culture that some would not want to assimilate to.


If you’re talking about American culture today, which is very very progressive. Anti Religion.


I mean look at the Vietnamese Americans. The younger Vietnamese voters are very assimilated to American culture and now they’re more progressive than ever..

1. Yes.

2. American culture is the greatest in the world. That there are bad things within certain subsections of it doesn't change that and doesn't mean I don't want assimilation into it.

3. I don't agree that American culture writ large is either very progressive or anti-religion. America is the most conservative developed Western nation, and the most religious.

4. Vietnamese-Americans swung hugely right in 2020, and young voters of all ages are more progressive, so I'm not sure if this holds up given that shift and given that broader age pattern.

American Culture today as it stands right now is a subversion of what the Founders intended.

 Look at what " American Culture " today has produced. In the eyes of many Conservatives I know, " American Culture " has produced Same Sex Marriage. Euthnasia. Unlimited Abortions. Birth Control. A Radical Left in many Universities. All in the name of Liberty. Academic Freedom. Progress. I symphatize with that view point, very much so.


 

And as for religion ?  https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/


( It should be noted that US Religion is barely holding on thanks to immigrants. But those traditional values are coming to clash with the " New " American Culture.)

If the Founders were to become alive again, they would be shocked at how the US has developed. They would be shocked. And I would think you would be too.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

He's correct

Do tell us all how my family immigrating here somehow "ruins" the blood of this country.

Where is your family from?

Why would that matter?

Because culture is important for immigration.

If I said I was Tajik or Igbo, how would that influence your answer?

Both would make me reply by asking further questions about your familial background (ie, if you are Tajik, is your family religious?). Overall, however, those are both groups I am skeptical of the societal immigrations of large immigration from -- so they would make me skeptical of the benefits of letting your family in as well.

That's not really your business though, is it? As long as immigrants follow the laws here they don't have to subscribe to anyone's perception of culture.

Its not the governments business once immigrants are citizens, but it is the governments responsibility to consider in naturalization and admittance to the country in the first place. Governments should aim to establish immigration policies that best benefit the people of the respective countries they govern, and part of that is recognizing that not all groups of people will integrate as well into or benefit as much the receiving societies. As Juan Bautista Alberdi said, "To govern is to populate." One of the tasks which government is responsible for is determining who we let in to our country and why, which is why our Founding Fathers enshrined the power to determine qualifications for naturalization in our Constitution.

Do we really want new migrants to assimilate though ?


There are aspects of American culture that some would not want to assimilate to.


If you’re talking about American culture today, which is very very progressive. Anti Religion.


I mean look at the Vietnamese Americans. The younger Vietnamese voters are very assimilated to American culture and now they’re more progressive than ever..

1. Yes.

2. American culture is the greatest in the world. That there are bad things within certain subsections of it doesn't change that and doesn't mean I don't want assimilation into it.

3. I don't agree that American culture writ large is either very progressive or anti-religion. America is the most conservative developed Western nation, and the most religious.

4. Vietnamese-Americans swung hugely right in 2020, and young voters of all ages are more progressive, so I'm not sure if this holds up given that shift and given that broader age pattern.

American Culture today as it stands right now is a subversion of what the Founders intended.

 Look at what " American Culture " today has produced. In the eyes of many Conservatives I know, " American Culture " has produced Same Sex Marriage. Euthnasia. Unlimited Abortions. Birth Control. A Radical Left in many Universities. All in the name of Liberty. Academic Freedom. Progress. I symphatize with that view point, very much so.

And as for religion ?  https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/


( It should be noted that US Religion is barely holding on thanks to immigrants. But those traditional values are coming to clash with the " New " American Culture.)

If the Founders were to become alive again, they would be shocked at how the US has developed. They would be shocked. And I would think you would be too.

American culture isn't perfect, but it remains the best in the world and I do not think any of what you just described changes that.

While some immigrant groups have higher rates of religiosity, others have low or non-existent rates.

I do not think our Founders would be shocked by how the US has developed; I think they would be proud of the success it has achieved while being consternated by the growth of government and certain cultural shifts that, while bad, have still left the US and American culture a better expression of their values than anywhere else in the world. And I believe they would share my concern about the relevance of culture for immigration.

[certified hummus supporter 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

-Snip-

You still have yet to answer my question. What exactly about being Tajik makes you skeptical on the prospects of their ability to immigrate and eventually integrate here other than just some vibes of them being culturally different than mainstream American culture?

[jojoju1998]

He's correct

Do tell us all how my family immigrating here somehow "ruins" the blood of this country.

Where is your family from?

Why would that matter?

Because culture is important for immigration.

If I said I was Tajik or Igbo, how would that influence your answer?

Both would make me reply by asking further questions about your familial background (ie, if you are Tajik, is your family religious?). Overall, however, those are both groups I am skeptical of the societal consequences of large immigration from -- so that would make me skeptical of the benefits of letting your family in as well, without further information.

And what exactly about being Tajik would make you skeptical of letting someone's family who actually is Tajik in?

I believe that there is a large cultural gap between American and Tajik culture, and thus would be concerned both that admitting a large number of Tajik immigrants would result in low rates of assimilation in an absolute sense, and in a relative sense versus other immigrants that could be prioritized instead.

And yet how many other cultures have a large cultural gap with American culture and still assimilate here just fine?

Not many, actually, even though our culture is probably uniquely strong at assimilating immigrants. Ignoring European and Latin American immigrants, the only groups I think you can even argue have seen large scale assimilation are some East Asian immigrant groups (Chinese, Japanese, South Korean, and Vietnamese in particular), and even there I think there's a lot of evidence that the degree of integration of these groups has been lower than comparable groups from more culturally similar backgrounds. Meanwhile, some immigrant groups, like West Indian immigrants, have failed to integrate into mainstream American society at all.

1. Vietnamese People are not East Asian. They're South East Asian.



But okay; let's put it this way, the reason why some Asian groups assimilate better is because their cultural values are ironically not American. This allows them to blend in greater than say people from other places.

The Emphasis on Communitarianism, Tradition, family, work ethic, education, obedience, this ( especially the Communitarisn part ) runs counter to the American ideas of individualism, liberty,


And yet it allows them to assimilate faster into American Society. Learning English for example is paradoxically a communitarian virtue, to blend in, to remove that individualistic streak, to be like everyone else.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

-Snip-

You still have yet to answer my question. What exactly about being Tajik makes you skeptical on the prospects of their ability to immigrate and eventually integrate here other than just some vibes of them being culturally different than mainstream American culture?

You haven't yet asked that question.

I am broadly skeptical because Tajikistan is a predominantly Muslim country without a market economy or substantial Western cultural influence (I don't believe the Soviets Westernized Tajikistan, despite their rule there: some Westernization surely did occur, but nothing on the scale of, say, Turkey). I see little reason to assume given those factors that Tajik immigrants would assimilate at a comparable degree or rate to other immigrants we could prioritize instead. I am, however, open to counter-arguments, and I will freely admit that while my knowledge of Tajikistan is greater than your average layman, it is by no means deep.

[jojoju1998]

He's correct

Do tell us all how my family immigrating here somehow "ruins" the blood of this country.

Where is your family from?

Why would that matter?

Because culture is important for immigration.

If I said I was Tajik or Igbo, how would that influence your answer?

Both would make me reply by asking further questions about your familial background (ie, if you are Tajik, is your family religious?). Overall, however, those are both groups I am skeptical of the societal immigrations of large immigration from -- so they would make me skeptical of the benefits of letting your family in as well.

That's not really your business though, is it? As long as immigrants follow the laws here they don't have to subscribe to anyone's perception of culture.

Its not the governments business once immigrants are citizens, but it is the governments responsibility to consider in naturalization and admittance to the country in the first place. Governments should aim to establish immigration policies that best benefit the people of the respective countries they govern, and part of that is recognizing that not all groups of people will integrate as well into or benefit as much the receiving societies. As Juan Bautista Alberdi said, "To govern is to populate." One of the tasks which government is responsible for is determining who we let in to our country and why, which is why our Founding Fathers enshrined the power to determine qualifications for naturalization in our Constitution.

Do we really want new migrants to assimilate though ?


There are aspects of American culture that some would not want to assimilate to.


If you’re talking about American culture today, which is very very progressive. Anti Religion.


I mean look at the Vietnamese Americans. The younger Vietnamese voters are very assimilated to American culture and now they’re more progressive than ever..

1. Yes.

2. American culture is the greatest in the world. That there are bad things within certain subsections of it doesn't change that and doesn't mean I don't want assimilation into it.

3. I don't agree that American culture writ large is either very progressive or anti-religion. America is the most conservative developed Western nation, and the most religious.

4. Vietnamese-Americans swung hugely right in 2020, and young voters of all ages are more progressive, so I'm not sure if this holds up given that shift and given that broader age pattern.

American Culture today as it stands right now is a subversion of what the Founders intended.

 Look at what " American Culture " today has produced. In the eyes of many Conservatives I know, " American Culture " has produced Same Sex Marriage. Euthnasia. Unlimited Abortions. Birth Control. A Radical Left in many Universities. All in the name of Liberty. Academic Freedom. Progress. I symphatize with that view point, very much so.

And as for religion ?  https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/


( It should be noted that US Religion is barely holding on thanks to immigrants. But those traditional values are coming to clash with the " New " American Culture.)

If the Founders were to become alive again, they would be shocked at how the US has developed. They would be shocked. And I would think you would be too.

American culture isn't perfect, but it remains the best in the world and I do not think any of what you just described changes that.

While some immigrant groups have higher rates of religiosity, others have low or non-existent rates.

I do not think our Founders would be shocked by how the US has developed; I think they would be proud of the success it has achieved while being consternated by the growth of government and certain cultural shifts that, while bad, have still left the US and American culture a better expression of their values than anywhere else in the world. And I believe they would share my concern about the relevance of culture for immigration.

https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/immigrants-recognize-american-greatness-immigrants#patriotic-assimilation


This study shows that Immigrants are often times more patriotic than native born Americans.

Do you ever wonder why the democratic voter base is getting increasingly white



Do you assume that people like my parents are not " conservative " or " assimilated " enough ? Are they less patriotic than say a white liberal lawyer in the Bay Area ?