Why did assimilation of immigrants work so well during the 19th century when compared to its contemporary counterpart?

Why did assimilation of immigrants work so well during the 19th century when compared to its contemporary counterpart?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=C52TlPCVDio
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Number of immigrants

Because back then, extremely brutal treatment of foreigners barely caused people to bat an eye. Go read about the situation in immigrant ghettoes and all the lynching in 19th century america.
It's the coddling that prevents assimilation. Foreigners need to understand that assimilating would be an advantage to them. As long as you tell them their own culture is fine and good, why would they bother?

No one was actively working against it. The french government banned it in the 80s. That wouldn't been impossible to even think of a hundred years before

It works just as well now, probably better, however there is simply more media to highlight any instances where it doesn't go smoothly, and more mediums for people to vent their frustrations.

All you're going to see from 19th century new york though is a few black and white photos of poor people.

Immigration became easier, which led to a lower quality of immigrants. When even the lowest trash can move countries, it will.

>is a few black and white photos of poor people.
But mostly black, right? :^)

>It works just as well now, probably better
Statistically nowadays second gen immigrants are more hateful and less integrated than their parents. That's not "working better", it's "not working at all".

>led to a lower quality of immigrants
There's a lower quality than analphabet farmers? Because that's what most italian and irish immigrants were in 19th century america and australia.

Sorry what statistics are you comparing to? I don't believe they did the same studies before.

Also there is one crucial difference, today Europe has immigrants coming from areas where the people believe, with good reason, that the problems in that part of the world are Europes fault. In contrast the Irish going to America or the Greeks going to Australia had nothing but admiration and hope for their new country, not the sense of being owed something that todays immigrants have.

I feel like something should be made clear. Are we talking about immigration to a fairly young country formed from colonies or are we talking about immigration to old countries with rich histories and a homogenic largely native demographic?

I feel like you're right, but the implication is that mistreating immigrants is justified. Is there a way to make assimilation attractive without negative reinforcements?

Yeah this, because they attract wildly different types of people.

There were always problems. Migrations are never easy. Think of the Irish coming in the US, then the Italians. There were people litteraly saying: they take our jobs, they bring a foreign culture and religion we cannot accept, they are violent thugs, etc. And they did cause serious problems, it would be stupid to deny it, but those problems were often ridiculously exagerated, just like today.

Tell us how Trump is going to make America great again.

banned slavery requires workforce

>with good reason
Nigger fuck off to leddit. Imperialism has been the name of the game since fucking prehistory, they don't have any reason to complain when they have been doing and receiving the same exact shit as anyone else ever.

I'm not even american. Do tell me how nowaday's problems are ridiculously exaggerated when southern euro countries are being forced to waste hundreds of millions to house the boatniggers, and the only thanks they get are the niggers trying to burn down the facilities and running to steal and rape as soon as they are let out of them.

>Everybody does it therefore the people fucked over by it can't complain
Right so if i steal from you you cant complain because your great granddaddy once stole a muffin

>tell me how nowaday's problems are ridiculously exaggerated
>the only thanks they get are the niggers trying to burn down the facilities and running to steal and rape as soon as they are let out of them
You at least do not exagerate, and do not sound like a hateful person.

I'm against mass immigration, I despise the absurd way Merkel or the swedish government handled the refugees crisis, but that doesn't mean there isn't a lot of exagerations. And the more you whine about evil libruls, cucks and boatniggers, the more people will think that people who are worried about immigration are just a bunch of paranoid racists. So thanks for that, good job.

Exactly. That's why we have our armed society mete out justice in our stead, because we have no other rule other than violence. There is no complaining, there is just acting. They couldn't defend themselves, so they suffer just like those who couldn't defend from them suffered. That's why I'm not saying that they shouldn't try to fuck us over, I'm saying put them down for trying.

Because there were no welfare programs in the first wave of globalization. America had nearly no immigration controls before WWI (the Chinese exclusion act is a notable exception). If you got on a boat and reached America's shores, you were an immigrant and that was that. The journey wasn't pleasant or free, so people only left their situations at home if they suspected they could do better in America.

As soon as catch-all entitlement programs emerged, people immigrated for better or worse. The native population got more defensive and demanded more immigration controls.

youtube.com/watch?v=C52TlPCVDio

because it was mainly european countries getting rid of proles and new world countries getting cheap and in some cases, skilled labor

>And the more you whine about evil libruls, cucks and boatniggers, the more people will think that people who are worried about immigration are just a bunch of paranoid racists.
Top fucking kek, must be why even the lefties in my country are switching side on the immigration debate.
The problem is so big that even cucks are uncucking themselves, because the truth is very simple: even if every single boatnigger was an honest hardworking man, he would still be a gigantic fucking hassle in a society where unemployment is an issue and services are already strained by the size of population. The very bodily presence of foreigners other than tourists is an issue, and there's no real way around it other than keeping them out.

>Statistically nowadays second gen immigrants are more hateful and less integrated than their parents. That's not "working better", it's "not working at all".

The assumption here is that being hateful means being less integrated. When their native peers are also hateful, I'd say they integrated just fine. It's the outlets they have to express their hate that's the problem.

It's easier to assimilate "people" into a shit, degenerate, non-white culture (Latin American) than proper cultures, such as French, German, New English, New Yorkean, Canadian, Swedish, (north) Italian, etc.

Number of immigrants and quality of immigrants, not to mention the state's attitude towards them and their culture

>(north) Italian
The terroni integrated just fine everywhere they went, no point differentiating here.

The only reason I'm mad at this post is that you not only imply America has a culture, but that it has at least two cultures.

We picked and chose who came in, after screening them.

In the 60's the Demorat party opened the border to enslave brown votes.

...

There was room to grow for them. Immigrants that couldn't find work in the major city they landed in could fan out and find something in the countryside, which was still expanding and developing in the 19th century. Today, immigration is outpacing job growth and there's not that many places for them to leave from their ghettos since the countryside is already developed and already facing issues with jobs.

From what I've observed, the element that contrasts those two waves of immigration resides in the humility of the immigrants. For France that is, the spanish and Italian immigrants from the XIXth century had no qualms about relinquishing their former culture, and making of themselves french citizens, since they had not deluded that they were leaving a better life in either Italy or Spain, for one poorer in France. They clearly knew that life would be better in France, and weren't about to be excessively patriotic and nostalgic for their former countries, and therefore were more humble.

Meanwhile, with the current Muslim immigrations afflicting France, there's within the second and third-generation immigrants an unfounded glorification for their place of origin. """""""French""""""" Algerians for example, believe Algeria to be superior to France in every aspect, and will spit on France whenever that is possible to them. They're unbelievably arrogant enough to believe that, though their parents clearly departed from the Maghreb for a better life in France, that the Maghreb remains superior to France. This is why those immigrants from today don't relinquish their Muslim faith, and foreign traditions. This also should explain why such an undeniably large portion of terrorists are European-raised: having never known their countries of origin, they delude themselves into believing them to be superior, and therefore believe it righteous to commit atrocities in the name of islam.

That's how I see it anyways.

Less mass media to make people go bugshit when some hick farmer did a crime or whatever

And there was a huge association of Italians/Jews with anarchist and communist elements, Italians were even lynched in places, it was just very uneven across regions because there was no mass media

Wait, are we doing American immigration or European immigration?

Have I written this for nought?

they were white europeans coming to a white european country.
The most salient differences stemming from "white" and "European"
Prove me wrong, prove to me that culture and mindset isn't different dependent on race
>inb4/pol/

Looks like both. That's why the thread is shit.

>Prove me wrong
Easy: Irish and Italians were often not considered whites.
You should just have used "european". "White" being the bullshit biologically baseless political concept that it is, leaves you open to all kind of criticism.

That has to do with previous second and third generations actually finding better lives than their parents left behind, while modern second and third generations have high unemployment, remain trapped in the same settlements their parents arrived in, and don't have better jobs if they have them at all than their parents did. Glorification of their culture is a reaction to all of this, an attempt to wash over their problems with a show of pride and belonging which they never really had.

Brazil assimilated everyone perfectly, has 200m people now and has been miscigenated ever since it was discovered by the Portuguese.

>Brazil assimilated everyone perfectly

Doesn't south brazil have a higher proportion of european settlers and a constant chip on its shoulder about everywhere else in brazil being filled with indigios and favelados?

At least thats what I get from brazilians on /int/.

>Veeky Forums os an accurate representation of real life
Please, I've been there and the only differences are ethnical and economical, it's actually quite homogenous culturally, only some dishes or ways of greeting change, from what I got there it's actually hard to see someone outside the internet complaining about someone else's ethnicity as a whole too.
Apparently, southerners don't like the northeners the same way Americans from more proefficient states don't like how much the US has to help Mississipi and Louisiana.

Because it didnt and was arguably worse.

Immigration policies, duh.

They didn't fully assimilate overnight.

They didn't. That's just the nostalgia goggles working.