MOD WARNING<<<Dismantle multiculturalism?

Yah. Except that Hamilton himself was (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Hamilton)

"Hamilton was born out of wedlock in Charlestown, Nevis to a married mother of English and French Huguenot ancestry[1]:8–9 and a Scottish father. His father, James A. Hamilton, was the fourth son of Alexander Hamilton, the laird of Grange, Ayrshire. Orphaned as a child by his mother's death and his father's abandonment, Hamilton was taken in by an older cousin and later by a prosperous merchant family. He was recognized for his intelligence and talent, and sponsored by a group of wealthy local men to travel to New York City to pursue his education. Hamilton attended King's College (now Columbia University), choosing to stay in the Thirteen Colonies to seek his fortune."

(My emphasis - more @ the URL)

So Hamilton was born on a British island in the Caribbean. He rose from illegitimacy & poverty (?) & being orphaned on talent. So it's a good thing he threw in with the Thirteen Colonies - but @ the same time his loyalties (by birth & family) would have lain with the British Empire. I assume he was radicalized while in the Thirteen Colonies.

He was very capable, & I think he did well by the country. He stumped for a stronger central government, which was probably the right policy, & likely @ that point in the young country's life, it was a good idea to see to the ideological leanings of immigrants. However, the crying need then was labor to work the lands that were being opened up, & the promise of land drew a lot of immigrants. Hamilton's policies favoring industrialization, central bank, strong economy & military also needed more people than the colonists themselves could raise, & so it was immigration, mostly in the North; & slavery, mostly in the South (but the two aspects of the economy helped each other along).

 

Right, but he was ideologically an American.

In other words, all those who belong to a country, should put that country above others. Otherwise, they're just there to take and give nothing back.

Those flying Mexican flags in LA are ideologically Mexican. They don't want to become American, they want to supplant it. They're here to get money and send it back to Mexico, which is exactly what he was warning us about.

That's not to say that a Mexican CAN'T be an American in ideology, but I think it's clear that's not whats going on in the main.

It also doesn't contradict the fact that there is no unalienable right to immigrate to the US, and we are forced to allow you to live here.

The founding fathers argument was that immigration should benefit the nation. Open borders doesn't do that.

 

Hamilton? Of course he was an American, he was born in the New World. If you mean a citizen of the US, no, it wasn't possible. He was born & became a Founding Father, but too soon - he had to help create the US polity. Ideologically, I suppose he belonged to the Enlightenment - he was also @ least aligned with the deists during the US Revolutionary War, per Wikipedia.

In the case of Mexican nationals flying Mexican flags in California - well, there's a historical basis for that. But economics is funny - many of the young single Mexican men who come to the US to work & send back money wind up marrying or bringing their wife to the US. They buy a house, cars, raise the children. & when they finally retire - with the dream of retiring to Mexico - too often their Mexico no longer exists. Their hometown has changed, their families are dead or otherwise gone, their friends likewise. Their children are used to life in the US (& typically speak English) & culturally are mostly US. A lot of the first generation either give up on moving back to Mexico, or try it & return to the US.

here to get money and send it back - Often true enough. But as noted, the first generation often find that they can't really move back. & the service industries & construction & child care & lawn care & lots of other industries in the US would either shut down or have to pass on their costs without a source of labor willing to work. Walmart, for instance, outsources manufacturing to China & wherever, & also hires aliens legal or not, directly or through subsidiaries or subcontractors. So no, there is no unalienable right to immigrate to the US, but capital is always seeking best return on investment. & since we've allowed capital to structure a lot of government, that's what we get.

No, I don't advocate open borders. We should be picky about who we let in. The days of unlimited need for unskilled or semiskilled labor are likely over. Of course, we missed an obvious opportunity in the 1930s CE - we could have easily accommodated all the Jewish & related people (intellectuals, scientists, mathematicians, physicists, ministers) fleeing Nazi Germany & Fascist Italy. History would be very different if we had done so, & the US would probably still be coasting on the resulting influx of skills & ideas. Politically, it couldn't be done short of a massive selling job by FDR & government - which weren't quite convinced of the horrors to come.

 

Well, in Northern Ireland, it was cultural as well as religious. The Protestants were of British descent, not the native Irish Catholics.

 

"I hold the right of expatriation to be inherent in every man by the laws of nature, and incapable of being rightfully taken from him even by the united will of every other person in the nation. If the laws have provided no particular mode by which the right of expatriation may be exercised, the individual may do it by any effectual and unequivocal act or declaration." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1806

"Expatriation [is] a natural right, and acted on as such by all nations in all ages." --Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821

Date: May 28, 1788
"I had always hoped that this land might become a safe and agreeable asylum to the virtuous and persecuted part of mankind, to whatever nation they might belong." George Washington

 

Well,... there is that about the Mexicans, but the Jews sent massive amounts to Israel as well. The government chips in billions as well. Nobody complaint about that one. Part of white privilege?

 

I'm American. No hyphen. Hyphens divide us.

I know my family's origins. I like the foods from there and the traditional dress. I like to hear the language being spoken and the music being played, but I'm an American.

 

Congratulation perdidochas. So when did you arrive from Germany and when were you naturalized as an American citizen ?

Since the Immigration Act of 1965 that cut off most legal immigration from Northern Europe and opened up the flood gates of immigration from third world countries of uneducated and unskilled people who refuse to assimilate and become dependent on government , you don't come across to many European-Americans today.

A hyphenated-American is a foreigner who has been naturalized as an American citizen. If he or she have children in America their siblings aren't hyphenated-Americans, just Americans.

Now hyphenated-Americans have every right to just to call themselves Americans, it's their choice. Hyphenated-American is a legal phrase, to separate hyphenated-Americans from native born and natural born Americans.

This hyphenated-American bull **** began during the mid 1970's when the "New Left" told immigrants to reject assimilation and reject the American culture, customs, traditions and language and that they should hold on to their former homeland language, customs, traditions, culture and become leftist.

America for Americans -> http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/images/research/txtspeeches/672.pdf