The nationalist wave in the U.S. and Europe that liberals still don’t get

Point is, if I read this correctly, the Obama administration took credit for 'deportations' that previous administrations did not, in order to make it appear that they were being tougher on illegal immigration than they previous administrations. To correct myself, then, 'they changed the meaning of the word "deport"', should have been 'previous administration did not count all the deportations they should have'.

Either way, drawing a comparison between the two in an effort to claim one is superior to the other, when they measured the same metric in two different ways, is disingenuous at best.

 

Not nessisarily, there were people who previously would not have been subject to deportation who now are. Note that a deportation comes with more severe legal consequences than a return. So to formally recognize someone as a deportee isn't just a change in rhetoric or measuring the same metric in two different ways . It's not just a matter of sounding tougher, it is a matter of expanding the use of deportations onto people who previously would not have been subject to deportations.

You must understand the difference between a returns and a removal. Previously many of these subjects would have been subject to mere returns, but now they are fromally removed(deported). Someone who violates a return is committing a misdemeanor, where as someone who violates a removal is committing a federal felony. Whether you agree with the policy or not, these deportations still took place. There were still more people deported than any previous administration

 

I highly doubt they envisioned all the European colonies splitting into independent nations and being able to fly across the ocean to a continent wide United States. Nationalism has no benefits, it just turns everyone into over-territorial and paranoid loons who love their blood and the plot of land they happened to be born on a little too much.

 

We have a similar situation in Britain with Eastern European migrants. The benefit culture here actively discourages people from working if they feel they can get away with not doing so. In contrast, Poland, for example, has very limited welfare benefits, thus the motivation to work is high. This is also a carry-over from their excellent education system.
Example; a few years ago a BBC TV documentary team visited a fish canning business in the north of England. When the proprietor was asked why his workforce was 90% Polish and Lithuanian, he replied that he had advertised job vacancies locally but had no takers from the local British. Continuing he said that his foreign workforce was reliable, hard-working, and would volunteer to work extra hours; something he could not rely on from the locals, who, in his opinion, clearly would prefer to be paid to lay in bed.

 

Great post.. Maybe you have helped some one look at nationalism more rationally.

 

The Founders also made this country only for white people, white males to be exact despite claiming freedom for all. So naturally, living in the West was better suited for some people than others since many people did not have rights back then or were treated as people.

 

If I accept what you say is accurate, why would immigrants flock to the shores of a country founded on white supremacy? If since it's very founding, the US has oppressed all those in the minority, what's the "fatal attraction"? While the founders may have prefered more kindred persons migrate to our shores, all were welcome to assimilate, and share in the opportunities of an open society. What our founders created is unique, and remains the envy of the world. Perhaps it's time to stop fixing that which isn't broken.

 

For one thing, it's not 1776 anymore so that may have something to do with immigrants wanting to come here.

Black people aren't slaves anymore, Chinese people aren't banned, Native Americans aren't being wiped out en masse, etc. A lot about this country has changed in 240+ years and things have improved, but none of this negates the fact that when the colonies finally became a country the claim was to enact "freedom for all," while slavery was still legal and Native Americans were forced away from their homes.

 

Yet all of these "improvements made over the last 240+ years" took place through constitutional amendments, and civil rights adopted by the white majority. There was slavery in N. America before there was a US. Indian wars as well. French slaves, the French indian wars, and Spanish conquerors were here before American independence. America influenced much of the worlds eventual abolition of slavery. White shouldn't be used as an indictment.

 

None of these amendments prevented Indians from losing all of their lands and being forced onto reservations. Nor did they prevent slaves and freed slaves from being lynched and beaten for no reason. Not to mention the Civil Rights Act didn't become a thing until a century after the abolition of slavery.

 

None of what you say changes the fact that ALL the "improvements" YOU cite, were inacted by the people you malign. Nor has the horrible intolerance, oppression, and subjugation practiced by our founders, as you claim, deterred 10's of millions of immigrants from coming to America. You I'm afraid are in the minority of malcontents who view themselves morally superior, and self entitled.

 

Both Denmark and Britain passed legislation banning slave trade before the US did.

http://www.reuters.com/article/uk-slavery-idUSL1561464920070322

 

I have Three from EU flags with UK.

It is Nationalism with flags home ?!

 

Swedish, Dane and British flags sweat home.

 

Neither of which are the topic, but are both predominantly white christian nations.

 

Did I say "white people are evil?"

 

You brought up the topic of 'influencing'; I merely replied.

 

Neither Denmark nor the UK had industrial sized plantations producing sugarcane, tobacco, rice, cotton etc...

 

If it wasn't for immigration there would be no USA. You actively encouraged migrants for goodness sake!

...nor the climate to grow those crops.

 

Slavery was an economic engine in America..

 

Yes. And America was founded by immigrants! Many of America's most powerful industries were founded by immigrants.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/22/american-companies-founded-by-immigrants_n_3116172.html

 

Which were introduced by the French in Louisianna.

 

Yes, because you can't grow rice, cotton and sugar cane in industrial quantities in France. It's the climate you see, old chap.

 

Yes. We still encourage immigration. Pioneers with hopes of attainig self reliance, and personal successes are welcome in the land of opportunity. The Danish were prolific slave traders, not owners. The West India Trading Co. provided slaves around the globe.