When is an immigrant group considered to be assimilated?

[The Rich Port]

Considering that it's been a hundred or so years since Puerto Rico was inducted into the American Empire, there's still laws on the books calling us "an alien culture" and that they let Puerto Rico languish in a Commonwealth limbo instead of passing laws that ratify it as a state, "assimilating" to a culture is a futile endeavour. You're assimilated when the dominant culture decides you're assimilated, and that can happen from seconds to centuries.

And I say that as someone who loves America and its history and what it stands for, that being acceptance, freedom, and compassion, who desperately wishes Puerto Rico were accepted into America. America is a country of immigrants and it is therefore composed of all cultures. What defines Americans is a respect for democracy, a love of diversity, and a friendliness towards others, which means many conservatives are not Americans in my eyes.

At the end of the day the citizens are the ones who define what it means to be a citizen, and that your actions are what make America. Be what you want the country to be. Live up to your ideal. America might have been founded on the pursuit of wealth and the preservation of slavery and the genocide of Native Americans, but we don't have to let it stay that way.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Considering that it's been a hundred or so years since Puerto Rico was inducted into the American Empire, there's still laws on the books calling us "an alien culture" and that they let Puerto Rico languish in a Commonwealth limbo instead of passing laws that ratify it as a state, "assimilating" to a culture is a futile endeavour. You're assimilated when the dominant culture decides you're assimilated, and that can happen from seconds to centuries.

And I say that as someone who loves America and its history and what it stands for, that being acceptance, freedom, and compassion, who desperately wishes Puerto Rico were accepted into America. America is a country of immigrants and it is therefore composed of all cultures. What defines Americans is a respect for democracy, a love of diversity, and a friendliness towards others, which means many conservatives are not Americans in my eyes.

At the end of the day the citizens are the ones who define what it means to be a citizen, and that your actions are what make America. Be what you want the country to be. Live up to your ideal. America might have been founded on the pursuit of wealth and the preservation of slavery and the genocide of Native Americans, but we don't have to let it stay that way.

We're defined as an alien culture? What?

What kind of language is that? Calling part of the US "an alien culture?"

[The Rich Port]

Considering that it's been a hundred or so years since Puerto Rico was inducted into the American Empire, there's still laws on the books calling us "an alien culture" and that they let Puerto Rico languish in a Commonwealth limbo instead of passing laws that ratify it as a state, "assimilating" to a culture is a futile endeavour. You're assimilated when the dominant culture decides you're assimilated, and that can happen from seconds to centuries.

And I say that as someone who loves America and its history and what it stands for, that being acceptance, freedom, and compassion, who desperately wishes Puerto Rico were accepted into America. America is a country of immigrants and it is therefore composed of all cultures. What defines Americans is a respect for democracy, a love of diversity, and a friendliness towards others, which means many conservatives are not Americans in my eyes.

At the end of the day the citizens are the ones who define what it means to be a citizen, and that your actions are what make America. Be what you want the country to be. Live up to your ideal. America might have been founded on the pursuit of wealth and the preservation of slavery and the genocide of Native Americans, but we don't have to let it stay that way.

We're defined as an alien culture? What?

What kind of language is that? Calling part of the US "an alien culture?"

https://www.history.com/news/puerto-ric ... ted-states

The Insular Cases. Thanks, Teddy Roosevelt, I knew you weren't my favorite president for no reason.

[Libertarians]

Eventually you will reach a generation that does not want to marry within their own ethnic group, which would for sure be the last generation to be non-integrated. Integration may occur prior to that, but willingness/ability to intermarry seems to me the best way to determine someone is culturally essentially part of the same group.

Considering that it's been a hundred or so years since Puerto Rico was inducted into the American Empire, there's still laws on the books calling us "an alien culture" and that they let Puerto Rico languish in a Commonwealth limbo instead of passing laws that ratify it as a state, "assimilating" to a culture is a futile endeavour. You're assimilated when the dominant culture decides you're assimilated, and that can happen from seconds to centuries.

PR is not a state, and will not be a state in our life time because they cannot afford to pay federal income taxes without a massive bail out of PR's government. If PR became a state tomorrow, in order for the "state" government to pay on its debt it would become the state with the highest tax rate by a significant magnitude. It would crush the economy to have to pay federal taxes and continue to service the debt of PR and would cause a massive flight of capital from the island and benefit no one but those in Washington. It has little to do with cultural factors.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

We're defined as an alien culture? What?

What kind of language is that? Calling part of the US "an alien culture?"

https://www.history.com/news/puerto-ric ... ted-states

The Insular Cases. Thanks, Teddy Roosevelt, I knew you weren't my favorite president for no reason.

But in 1901, a series of legal opinions known as the Insular Cases argued that Puerto Rico and other territories ceded by the Spanish were full of “alien races” who couldn’t understand “Anglo-Saxon principles.”

Nothing like some good old fashioned Nordicism.

[The Rich Port]

Eventually you will reach a generation that does not want to marry within their own ethnic group, which would for sure be the last generation to be non-integrated. Integration may occur prior to that, but willingness/ability to intermarry seems to me the best way to determine someone is culturally essentially part of the same group.

Considering that it's been a hundred or so years since Puerto Rico was inducted into the American Empire, there's still laws on the books calling us "an alien culture" and that they let Puerto Rico languish in a Commonwealth limbo instead of passing laws that ratify it as a state, "assimilating" to a culture is a futile endeavour. You're assimilated when the dominant culture decides you're assimilated, and that can happen from seconds to centuries.

PR is not a state, and will not be a state in our life time because they cannot afford to pay federal income taxes without a massive bail out of PR's government. If PR became a state tomorrow, in order for the "state" government to pay on its debt it would become the state with the highest tax rate by a significant magnitude. It would crush the economy to have to pay federal taxes and continue to service the debt of PR and would cause a massive flight of capital from the island and benefit no one but those in Washington. It has little to do with cultural factors.

Gotta make sure Trump has enough fake money to print.

If the economy was the factor and there were few cultural factors, why wasn't Puerto Rico made a state in the past when the economy wasn't in free-fall?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Eventually you will reach a generation that does not want to marry within their own ethnic group, which would for sure be the last generation to be non-integrated. Integration may occur prior to that, but willingness/ability to intermarry seems to me the best way to determine someone is culturally essentially part of the same group.

Intermarriage I agree is a line, but I want to stress what you said: "may occur prior to that". Ie intermarriage is a line beyond which no-one should say they're not integrated yet. But before then, the strong integrating pressure of working together, in a good workplace without bullying or slacking off, can integrate an immigrant quite well in a year. Particularly if they're the beer-drinking type of immigrant :/U

[Libertarians]

Eventually you will reach a generation that does not want to marry within their own ethnic group, which would for sure be the last generation to be non-integrated. Integration may occur prior to that, but willingness/ability to intermarry seems to me the best way to determine someone is culturally essentially part of the same group. PR is not a state, and will not be a state in our life time because they cannot afford to pay federal income taxes without a massive bail out of PR's government. If PR became a state tomorrow, in order for the "state" government to pay on its debt it would become the state with the highest tax rate by a significant magnitude. It would crush the economy to have to pay federal taxes and continue to service the debt of PR and would cause a massive flight of capital from the island and benefit no one but those in Washington. It has little to do with cultural factors.

Gotta make sure Trump has enough fake money to print.

If the economy was the factor and there were zero cultural factors, why wasn't Puerto Rico made a state in the past when the economy wasn't in free-fall?

I am talking about right now. As of right now, there is zero chance it can happen. The democrats looked at doing it in the last several years, and the GAO or some such office issued a report which detailed how much of an economic calamity it would be to do at this point. PR needs to solve its debt problem before it can be a state, or, most likely, we need to negotiate with them a complete separation that allows those working now to get the SS and Medicare benefits they paid for.

In terms of past generations, who knows? That's an interesting question as to why Hawaii had enough desire that their territorial government attempted to join the US proper. As far as I can recall history, both territories were given territorial governments in the post-WWII era when decolonization was the major international focus. Why HI made an effort through it's territorial government to join the US relatively quickly and PR didn't (to my knowledge) didn't is an interesting question. I wonder if Pearl Harbor impacted the thoughts of Hawaii in different ways?

Washington is not benefiting much for PR. When there is a hurricane, we send significant aid despite the fact that PR pays nothing into FEMA. You do pay in to SS and Medicare, but like everyone else you will pull out more than you pay in to that system in your life and the general tax payer is going to have to pay the difference. The current situation has no upside for US taxpayers except maybe military basing rights. We spend far more on PR than we receive, especially if you factor in that PR doesn't have to pay for any sort of defense like every other western society.

[Kubra]

but pineapple pizza is a *hella* Anglo thing

Christ maybe we deserve to be Replaced.

it's funny cuz it started among the Hawaiians, but it didn't get exported until the mainland US really got into the stuff, and then all the tropical Asians found out about it and they were like "genius, why didn't we think of this??"
I guess for what it's worth pineapple pizza is a relative nonoffender for what often passes as "authentic" pizza and pasta abroad. You ain't tasted true depression until you've had lasagna with no ricotta and *ketchup*.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Gotta make sure Trump has enough fake money to print.

If the economy was the factor and there were zero cultural factors, why wasn't Puerto Rico made a state in the past when the economy wasn't in free-fall?

I am talking about right now. As of right now, there is zero chance it can happen. The democrats looked at doing it in the last several years, and the GAO or some such office issued a report which detailed how much of an economic calamity it would be to do at this point. PR needs to solve its debt problem before it can be a state, or, most likely, we need to negotiate with them a complete separation that allows those working now to get the SS and Medicare benefits they paid for.

Or continuation of their current status: that's always been quite popular in PR. Some tweaks may be needed, but of course they'll have to come from the side with the power.

As to their debt, is it really that much compared to the US Federal debt?

$73 billion apparently. I just don't accept that's so much that it should rule out statehood. Just reneging on it wouldn't be good though, if only because so much of it is owed to Puerto Ricans! The US could take on the debt, leaving Puerto Rico owing the money to the US Treasury, and this would be good because the interest rate could be set near to the US borrowing rate.

In terms of past generations, who knows? That's an interesting question as to why Hawaii had enough desire that their territorial government attempted to join the US proper. As far as I can recall history, both territories were given territorial governments in the post-WWII era when decolonization was the major international focus. Why HI made an effort through it's territorial government to join the US relatively quickly and PR didn't (to my knowledge) didn't is an interesting question. I wonder if Pearl Harbor impacted the thoughts of Hawaii in different ways?

I expect so.

Washington is not benefiting much for PR. When there is a hurricane, we send significant aid despite the fact that PR pays nothing into FEMA. You do pay in to SS and Medicare, but like everyone else you will pull out more than you pay in to that system in your life and the general tax payer is going to have to pay the difference.

Well not exactly. You take out more dollars than you put in and that is still viable, because notionally it's still a trust fund. The taxpayer is actually paying what the trust fund is owed, since it was looted by government to spend on nice things for ... the taxpayer. I think it's 4% ... a "deeming rate" that is supposed to approximate investment earnings of the money that was supposed to be "held in trust".

Closely related is the concept of inflation. People who paid in during their working life, paid with dollars that were worth more. So when it's time for them to take back out, they have to be paid more dollars, that are now worth less.

None of this is to say that Puerto Ricans are or aren't getting a sweet deal from Medicare and SS. Just that elderly recipients in general aren't scamming the system by taking out more than they put in: the system was designed that way from the start.

The current situation has no upside for US taxpayers except maybe military basing rights. We spend far more on PR than we receive, especially if you factor in that PR doesn't have to pay for any sort of defense like every other western society.

Some states also get a lot more than they pay. Ironically they're the states that are always complaining about "federal over-reach" but I guess you can't expect gratitude for charity. They get the money on the basis of need, they pay according to their incomes, it's all quite fair and arguably it's gradually having the effect of making poor states less poor. The socialist in me has to approve of that, whatever the political alignment of those states.

Puerto Rico would I think be a real outlier. As a new state, it would take in a lot more money than it could pay in taxes. The real question is "for how long?"

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

Their grandchildren are fully integrated typically.

[Libertarians]

Or continuation of their current status: that's always been quite popular in PR. Some tweaks may be needed, but of course they'll have to come from the side with the power.

As to their debt, is it really that much compared to the US Federal debt?

$73 billion apparently. I just don't accept that's so much that it should rule out statehood. Just reneging on it wouldn't be good though, if only because so much of it is owed to Puerto Ricans! The US could take on the debt, leaving Puerto Rico owing the money to the US Treasury, and this would be good because the interest rate could be set near to the US borrowing rate.

The problem with is how high their state income/sales tax would have to be to continue to pay on that $70 billion. Currently their income tax is north of 30% IIRC, and while they would be able to cut spending in some areas because federal spending would take over, servicing that debt would still require them to have a massive tax burden. The total tax burden that fell (state & federal) that fell on a resident of PR would be far in excess of any other state, and they would not be getting any extra value for that. It would cause massive disinvestment in PR due to the higher taxes than in mainland US, and cause significant economic harm.

The US taxpayer is not going to take on billions of dollars of debt just to get a couple extra senators for a certain party. Not even our leaders would be so bold as to write that big of a check and get literally nothing in return. The current status I'm sure is quite popular, congress should require them to step up and pay for more than they are currently paying if they are allowed to stay in that status. PR residents receive more than 1 billion dollars in federal money for a program similar to SNAP benefits (food stamps). The US tax payer is literally pouring billions of dollars into PR and not asking them to pay anything. The question should go both ways, yes, if PR is happy with their current status. But if American taxpayers knew the actual numbers, we would not be happy with the current system. Which is why it will never become a state. We are already dumping billions of dollars into PR and asking nothing in return, all being a state would do is ask them to pay something they could not pay. And America will never really get a leader that stands up for our taxpayers.

Washington is not benefiting much for PR. When there is a hurricane, we send significant aid despite the fact that PR pays nothing into FEMA. You do pay in to SS and Medicare, but like everyone else you will pull out more than you pay in to that system in your life and the general tax payer is going to have to pay the difference.

Well not exactly. You take out more dollars than you put in and that is still viable, because notionally it's still a trust fund. The taxpayer is actually paying what the trust fund is owed, since it was looted by government to spend on nice things for ... the taxpayer. I think it's 4% ... a "deeming rate" that is supposed to approximate investment earnings of the money that was supposed to be "held in trust".

Closely related is the concept of inflation. People who paid in during their working life, paid with dollars that were worth more. So when it's time for them to take back out, they have to be paid more dollars, that are now worth less.

None of this is to say that Puerto Ricans are or aren't getting a sweet deal from Medicare and SS. Just that elderly recipients in general aren't scamming the system by taking out more than they put in: the system was designed that way from the start.

Yeah, no. That's the story politicians sold us about what social security was supposed to be, and today's seniors passionately refuse to hear any other explanation of the program, but it isn't true. The first people who drew social security never paid a dime into it. The first dollars paid into social security did not go into a trust set aside for when that generation hit retirement, they went to pay the first people who drew social security. It was always pay as you go, and the trust fund had essentially a zero balance until the 80s when Reagan realized there wasn't going to be enough coming in to cover this current Boomer wave. So the Boomers were asked to pay a few percent more, and at that late date they started setting money aside for when the boomer's retired. But they did not set aside enough, and even when every dollar that was paid into SS is repaid with interest there is no way the current system can remain sustainable without our generation paying massive amounts more than they did. SS wasn't a scam, but it also wasn't meant to be what the boomer's passionately believe it is. The money they want wasn't stolen, it was just never paid in. And our generation is going to get screwed because no one was willing to talk harshly to boomers when it was clear in the 90s and 00s that there still was not enough being paid in.

The current situation has no upside for US taxpayers except maybe military basing rights. We spend far more on PR than we receive, especially if you factor in that PR doesn't have to pay for any sort of defense like every other western society.

Some states also get a lot more than they pay. Ironically they're the states that are always complaining about "federal over-reach" but I guess you can't expect gratitude for charity. They get the money on the basis of need, they pay according to their incomes, it's all quite fair and arguably it's gradually having the effect of making poor states less poor. The socialist in me has to approve of that, whatever the political alignment of those states.

Puerto Rico would I think be a real outlier. As a new state, it would take in a lot more money than it could pay in taxes. The real question is "for how long?"

Well, I mean, again, based on the debt levels never.

And yes, you are correct that current systems like SNAP are specifically designed to give blue states the short end of the stick. Eligibility for SNAP benefits is not cost of living adjusted, so you can be fairly well off comparatively in a rural area and qualify, but if you can afford to pay rent in an urban area you're pretty much out. It is so grossly disproportionate because more liberal leaders care more about compassion than numbers and just miss the hard facts. I'm a CPA, so I tend to be numbers based. (And IMO, that leads to food stamps and other benefits being perceived differently in rural areas than in urban areas because in urban areas you have to be really poor to be at that poverty line. In rural areas, at least comparatively to that urban food stamp recipient, you can be significantly less poor.)''

None of that even compares to how out of whack PR is. We spend a lot (a lot) on PR and get basically nothing in return primarily because CNN likes to run headlines and stress that they are US Citizens but buries the fact they are not US taxpayers, which is IMO very misleading because they know the average American thought during the hurricane fiasco that they paid taxes because they are citizens.

I have a feeling we are going to be told we're getting off topic, but my main point is by the numbers PR's problem with statehood is that it simply cannot afford to pay taxes. It has nothing to do about their assimilation to US culture.

[Geneviev]

I agree on the Sauerkraut. Rotkraut is much better. Anyway, claiming partial German ancestry doesn't really make someone German. After a certain point, they're just American, and that's where most of that group is. So they're not really integrated as much as already American for generations.


I think that was the definition of integrated being used here, and at least one person definitely considers us integrated here.

Exactly; that's what I was trying to say. I'd say English, Irish, Dutch, German, and Scandinavian ethnic groups are already all amalgamated into the collective American cultural identity, especially considering the typical person who is culturally white American may very well be, for example, 46% German, 17% Irish, 14% Swedish, 13% English, and 10% Dutch. Someone who comes over fresh from a small village in Germany and hasn't been exposed to too much American culture might have some "exotic" factor when they first arrive here, but that's due to being directly German as opposed to being a fifth-generation American of 46% German descent.

I am of approximately 65% German, 15% Danish, 7% Norwegian, and 13% other European descent. Do I identify as "German-American"? No; I'm full-blown white American, as are my parents and grandparents. (Certain great-grandparents perhaps not as much, as my great-great-grandfather was born in Denmark, but that's beside the point.) To me this is the test of a fully integrated and assimilated group: when you refer to yourself and your family as being (country of residence), as opposed to a hyphenated form (i.e. American, not German-American or French-American or Ugandan-American). I'd say, as mentioned, Anglo-Germano-Celtic ethnic groups all fit this criterion other than fresh-off-the-boat immigrants from those countries. West Slavs are mostly there too; there are plenty of people of Polish descent in my area who've been here forever and are indistinguishable from Americans of non-Polish descent other than maybe their last name ending in "ski" or "wicz". There is still a strong Italian-American identity, so I wouldn't say Italians are completely assimilated into our culture, but they are considered "white" by most people except my dad (he refers to Italians as "European Negroes", but that's a different topic altogether). I'd say in general, "American" identity and culture refers to white American identity and culture, as there are separate Asian-American, Indian-American, Native American, and African-American identities that can overlap with American identity and culture but are still in many ways distinct from it; the African-American culture is different from white American culture due to different backgrounds and experiences, and no matter how much time passes, I don't think everyone will ever be fully assimilated, nor should they be. My mantra is, integrate (learn English and participate in American society), but don't necessarily assimilate to the point of losing all of your own culture.

Ancestry is generally irrelevant. If someone has one German ancestor who immigrated here in the 19th century, they're just not German. Comparing Americans who have no connection with Germany with actual Germans, who maintain German culture and traditions in America, is not really right. Germans are, for the most part, not integrated. Americans who claim German ancestry don't need to be integrated and shouldn't be used to judge Germans.

[Bear Stearns]

Considering that it's been a hundred or so years since Puerto Rico was inducted into the American Empire, there's still laws on the books calling us "an alien culture" and that they let Puerto Rico languish in a Commonwealth limbo instead of passing laws that ratify it as a state, "assimilating" to a culture is a futile endeavour. You're assimilated when the dominant culture decides you're assimilated, and that can happen from seconds to centuries.

And I say that as someone who loves America and its history and what it stands for, that being acceptance, freedom, and compassion, who desperately wishes Puerto Rico were accepted into America. America is a country of immigrants and it is therefore composed of all cultures. What defines Americans is a respect for democracy, a love of diversity, and a friendliness towards others, which means many conservatives are not Americans in my eyes.

A nationality isn't a political ideology and it's pretty fucked up to think that it can be. We are Americans because this is our homeland and we live here, not because of our beliefs.

[Ghost Land]

Exactly; that's what I was trying to say. I'd say English, Irish, Dutch, German, and Scandinavian ethnic groups are already all amalgamated into the collective American cultural identity, especially considering the typical person who is culturally white American may very well be, for example, 46% German, 17% Irish, 14% Swedish, 13% English, and 10% Dutch. Someone who comes over fresh from a small village in Germany and hasn't been exposed to too much American culture might have some "exotic" factor when they first arrive here, but that's due to being directly German as opposed to being a fifth-generation American of 46% German descent.

I am of approximately 65% German, 15% Danish, 7% Norwegian, and 13% other European descent. Do I identify as "German-American"? No; I'm full-blown white American, as are my parents and grandparents. (Certain great-grandparents perhaps not as much, as my great-great-grandfather was born in Denmark, but that's beside the point.) To me this is the test of a fully integrated and assimilated group: when you refer to yourself and your family as being (country of residence), as opposed to a hyphenated form (i.e. American, not German-American or French-American or Ugandan-American). I'd say, as mentioned, Anglo-Germano-Celtic ethnic groups all fit this criterion other than fresh-off-the-boat immigrants from those countries. West Slavs are mostly there too; there are plenty of people of Polish descent in my area who've been here forever and are indistinguishable from Americans of non-Polish descent other than maybe their last name ending in "ski" or "wicz". There is still a strong Italian-American identity, so I wouldn't say Italians are completely assimilated into our culture, but they are considered "white" by most people except my dad (he refers to Italians as "European Negroes", but that's a different topic altogether). I'd say in general, "American" identity and culture refers to white American identity and culture, as there are separate Asian-American, Indian-American, Native American, and African-American identities that can overlap with American identity and culture but are still in many ways distinct from it; the African-American culture is different from white American culture due to different backgrounds and experiences, and no matter how much time passes, I don't think everyone will ever be fully assimilated, nor should they be. My mantra is, integrate (learn English and participate in American society), but don't necessarily assimilate to the point of losing all of your own culture.

Ancestry is generally irrelevant. If someone has one German ancestor who immigrated here in the 19th century, they're just not German. Comparing Americans who have no connection with Germany with actual Germans, who maintain German culture and traditions in America, is not really right. Germans are, for the most part, not integrated. Americans who claim German ancestry don't need to be integrated and shouldn't be used to judge Germans.

I hope you understand that we're basically saying the same thing and that there's no use debating someone you actually agree with. Let's say I'm born in Karlsruhe, Germany, in 1833 and move to America with my family in 1892. In this example, I'm literally German. My great-grandchildren, born around the 1910s, are born in the United States and thus by definition American by citizenship. My 3x great-grandchildren, born around the 1960s-1970s in the United States, are very much American in language and culture, just of (now irrelevant) German ancestry. The confusion results from the fact that people in the United States often refer to their ancestry/ethnicity as if it's their nationality, for example "I'm German and Irish" when you yourself have never been to either place.

[Bassoe]

Once they feel confident enough about their status as members of the in-group to want to keep out-group out to ensure their fraction of the in-group jobs market and government aid money is divided among fewer people and proportionally larger.