That's a great example. More akin to hijab than burka which I'm good with (and I think most American's are also).

In case you did not know, here's a link to what burqa is vs hijab.

What's the difference between a hijab, niqab and burka? - CBBC Newsround

What is this strange argument about 'assimilation'? Italian and Irish immigrants definitely did NOT adopt the manner of the native Americans when they came over - that's why they still have very strong communities (especially in the North East. I am from New Jersey, the dominant culture in many places there is Catholic Italian, not WASP, and guess what I know Italians from Jersey whose grandparents live with the family and speak incredibly broken English, because they've only bothered to learn a little bit of it), because they kept their traditions and their faith.

Good point.

And six hundred years later, the native Americans were overwhelmed by their non-assimilating "immigrants" who ultimately imposed their norms & culture. Said half-jokingly but some truth to it -- maybe something we should learn from that?

So you don't think the Italian and Irish community are now assimilated in the US? I'm a little surprised by this.

I've probably mentioned this several times around here every time the assimilation question comes up. I'm pretty convinced that the only reason we don't still speak German in our area is that we had a few wars with Germany that made it kind of unpopular. My grandmother (third generation born in USA) spoke German until she went to school despite having parents that could speak English just fine. Newspapers around here were all in German until WWI. We still have a very strong German culture in our town.

I've also had the benefit of being close to the local Latino community and I can say without a doubt that they are assimilating much faster than my German ancestors did. The kids not only pick up English fast, but teach their younger siblings English before they even get to school. It was kind of fascinating as two young girls whose parents used to work for me had their own language that was a mix of Spanish and English. But the three year old knew to speak Spanish to her parents and English to me. The young brain is a powerful thing.

It's this line: that I'm stuck on. That hasn't been how other waves of immigrants worked. Why is that a demand now?

I generally think the more fundamental or orthodox the Abrahamic religion, the more patriarchal it is, and anyone forced to obey strictures without consent is wrong. There are certainly women in burquas that would apply to, but there are also Christians and Jews that would also apply to.

My disagreement is in the idea that the woman in a burqua can never be American. I don't understand why that one expression of faith is a problem while other, similar expressions of faith are fine. I think you're hung up in part because it's unfamiliar, but so were the traditions of other immigrant waves. Language, clothing, food, music, etc. have all been used as markers of being an outsider and unable to assimilate. Give it a generation, though, and the children of immigrants mix the dominant culture with their culture and the more native population finds these new expressions of culture more familiar and less threatening.

Studies have shown that every wave of non-English speaking immigrants has followed the same path. The first gen largely sticks to their native language. The second gen is bi-lingual. The third gen mostly loses their native language and are English only.

It was my attempt to define "American Identity" and a quote I took from another study/definition.

I don't know that its just "now", I think its always been there/requirement, its just that it worked better on some immigrants than others.


I think you are agreeing that many/most women in burqa's are "forced". Its just that you also say there are other faiths that do it also.

I honestly don't see this and would appreciate some examples.

The cloistered nun example -- she voluntarily took the cloth, she can leave anytime, she will not be threatened if she took it off etc.


My issue is I don't see it predominantly as expression of faith, I see it more as assimilation. Does an insistent burqa wearing woman have the mindset to assimilate in the US. My preference is to give the quota slot to someone else that would love to assimilate (e.g. there are limited number of slots so let's give it to someone south of the border etc.)

I think we just agree to disagree here.


I personally think I'm more familiar with Islam and its norms than most Americans. I've lived in two predominantly muslim countries in SEA (we would define them as moderate countries here and that's why I know about the hijab) and do have muslim colleagues that I interact with (e.g. so I know they can assimilate).

Absolutely not claiming to know everything about muslims or Islam but my POV is not because I'm unfamiliar with them.

I do agree that for most, a generation will bring the assimilation I'm looking for.

The kids of the immigrants are and that's the point that has been made continuously. You know, just like the kids of the burka wearing woman, who go to public school and speak English and whatnot. Yeah, they don't eat pork and probably are bigger fans of soccer than other Americans, but how are they not a part of the American community?

But they also live in their own separate sub-cultures. You know those types of folks that were mocked a bit in The Sopranos? That's not much of a stereotype. There are many Italians in Jersey who act that way. They don't act like midwestern English or German decended folk and were picked on for that because they were being told they weren't assimilating.


Yep. The Lutheran Church I attend (in Atlanta) had services only in German until World War II (and they struggled quite a bit during WWI in terms of membership and funds).

I was in Providence, RI for the weekend. While there I went to a festival in an Italian neighborhood. This neighborhood had Italian restaurants. Italian bakeries. Italian grocery stores. Streets named after Italians. A park named after an Italian. Churches named after Italian saints. There was a singer who sang songs in Italian. The Italian flag was displayed all over.

All of that is fine, but it certainly isn't an example of Italian immigrants adopting the mannerisms and behaviors of the native born.

Sure the stores and flags are examples (but don't agree streets, parks or churches are). But I am sure I can come up with a bunch of other examples that show Italians and Irish are well integrated. So when you look at it as a whole, I'm actually surprised that people don't think they are.

Maybe its because you think I believe everyone needs to be 100% assimilated until we are one big indistinguishable puritan/protestant entity?

In a separate answer with SackAttack.

Quote:

Don't disagree. I've always used "salad bowl" vs melting pot which means there are cultural, ethnic etc. stuff that says separated but we're all one happy family mixed in a bowl, overlaid by the American "special salad dressing". However, I do believe there are those that won't get into the salad bowl with the rest of us so let's not waste our time.

Saying there are those who "won't get into the salad bowl" are the exact sort of things said against the Italians and Irish in the early 1900s. After all, they stayed in their own communities, spoke their own languages, and didn't try to "act American".

This sort of tension, BTW, is all over many forms of media, including movies like The Godfather, Gangs of New York, etc. It wasn't until pretty recently that most people thought Catholics could be good Americans (I mean Kennedy had to be asked in 1960 if he'd follow the Pope over the Constitution if he was elected President!).

And I don't think Italians and Irish are assimilated into the old American WASP worldview. They created an expanded and new idea of what being American was.

Yup, I have agreed and continue to agree the immigrant kids have assimilated well.

I don't believe 1st Gen burqa women that continue to insist of wearing them in the US will assimilate well. Some of that will rub off on the kids.

Your last question about "how are they not part of the American community" I will take as you asking "why don't you think the burqa clad women can do well assimilating into American community".

I googled and did not find much specific to the US (and some of them were IMO questionable). Plenty from Europe though as there is a longer history and experiences.

France and Belgium have banned the burqa, didn't read alot into the pros & cons but suffice it to say there were enough cons. Other European countries have restrictions etc.

Here's a link on some other opinions, some for and other against burqa's.

https://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/64432

If burqa clad women are having a hard time integrating in Europe, can we not assume it will be same/similar here?

We have a ton of people from our southern borders that would love to have the opportunity, they are closer to us, let's give one of them her quota slot.

They are integrating just as well as first generation immigrants have from time past. Why do you think they are any different? European countries are banning the burka because a) they think it's oppressive, b) many of them are anti-religious displays in public - France for instance bans school teachers from wearing cross necklaces and in your link, they are talking about banning the "burkini", which has an open face area, like a nun habit. And why would you look to European integration as proof of anything? The US has always been historically a place where immigrants could integrate far easier than in (most places in) Europe.

Fair enough. I'll try to do some more research on this.

I think I know the answer from your comments but I'll asked the question I've asked others -

Do you think insistent burqa wearing women will assimilate well in the US? Not their children, they themselves, the 1st Gen?

They will assimilate just as well as other 1st Generation immigrants from the past. They likely will speak halting, little English, and work in menial jobs, and gravitate to their own communities, just as countless other groups did before them. And that is good enough for me.

I do think a) is part of the answer, there is also security concerns but there others in the link that believe it prevents/delays the integration.

Let's be honest here, the French bans on religious symbols were really focused on the muslim displays of religion. Not a bad compromise to stop burqa's considering the French Christian school teacher can still wear her cross under her blouse.

I explained why I look at the European integration, I did not find much in the US. Do you have US studies that shows burqa immigrants will have an easier time assimilating?

There are few things less American than a religious test for immigration. That's a non-starter for me.

I would have thought otherwise for 1st Gen immigrants now (or at least the legal ones) when compared to the past. They are more educated, work in white collar jobs or have their own small business, most can probably speak English somewhat well, and probably much more attuned to being an American.

I see no studies or evidence that burka wearing Muslims have a harder time 'assimilating'. My grandmother didn't wear a burka, but spoke very little English and when she went out, she did so with the rest of the family. She was a green card holder. I don't see how a burka wearing Muslim who can speak English would be any less assimilated (and yes, many burka wearing women can speak the local languages to various degrees of competence). Now I can see if you ban the burka that that would have a very negative effect on assimilation, as those individuals would conclude that the society is biased against them.

I did not find any studies for the US either but I think there are plenty of evidence in Europe. Admittedly it may not be all their (e.g. burqa clad women's) fault but how society reacts to them because of their lack of willingness to adapt to the new country.

How well can a burqa clad women, who can speak english, integrate in the US when they are limited to who they can speak to or interact with? Not very well IMO.

This is the whole point.

Yes, Italians and Irish are now a part of the American fabric. That happened not because they gave up their culture, but because elements of their culture became a part of a new American culture. That's the strength we have traditionally had and European countries haven't had. There isn't a rigid American culture. Our culture grows and changes, incorporating elements from waves of immigrants. There's no reason to think that won't continue to happen with new waves of immigration.

I’m not arguing for an airport style border crossing. I’m saying if the rhetoric was serious, then dramatic actions like that would happen. I’m suggesting that one reason it isn’t happening and we are instead doing expensive symbolic acts (wall, separations, etc) is the system right now is benefiting those in charge. It is getting people elected and making a whole lot of money for others.

So, can you please answer this question: the current illegal immigrants are bad for this country because.....

I am coming back to that same question. Maybe stated another way, what problem are you trying to solve? Because the burka example and assimilation doesn't seem to have much to do with the Wall and illegal immigration.

That's actually not how I read your quote, but okay.

Quote:

If we were serious, we would treat border crossings like an airport. But we don’t because of the massive economic hit that would be to commerce.

I do agree the Wall rhetoric is benefiting Trump. Not so sure about separations though, that's yet to be played out.

I agree its making people money but (not sure if I'm reading you right), I don't think its some organized "cabal" that is pushing the buttons and making money off the illegals. Its those that always have - corporations, small businesses, mom-and-pop operations.


I think I've said it. Its as simple as they are breaking the law? I don't know why that is not an acceptable answer? If the law is wrong or should be changed, let's do it but you can't have people flaunt the laws.

When do you think too many illegals/undocumented is too much? Will there ever be a limit reached in your scenario because it does sound as if you want a free flow of legal/illegal labor and travel into the US?

Yes, the burqa was one point in many that took a life unto its own.

The problem I am trying to solve is the breaking of laws of the land.

If the laws are bad, outdated, not necessary etc. that's fine, lets fix them through the process. If some of the laws are good, lets enforce them.

I'm okay with reforming the immigration laws. I've made suggestions on the reforms in above #10569.

Key findings about U.S. immigrants | Pew Research Center

Just as an aside, I would say that same thing has already happened here in southern CA with Mexican culture. It's very present and familiar to everyone here, and I meet as many Mexican-Americans who don't speak Spanish and have only been to Mexico on vacation as I do immigrants.

I know this is one small piece of your discussion, but just out of curiosity how many women have you had interactions with that wear a burqa? Also there are many different types of head/body coverings/veils associated with Islam, so how do you differentiate between them, and do different types present a greater obstacle to assimilation? I.E a hijab is okay, but a burqa is not? In truth is it more about security or fear than it is assimilation?

I have know a Muslim woman that wears a hijab for almost 20 years, worked under my at a former company and works in the same department in a different function at my current job. I could not even tell you what color hair she has, as I have only ever seen her face and hands. I can tell you she has assimilated to America just fine, always participating in the Christmas time ugly sweater contest and often winning. She appreciates America and it's freedoms, while still holding her traditions and religious beliefs close. The only thing that could possibly make anyone think she had not assimilated is her appearance, and only then if they didn't know her.

If her "slot" had gone to someone deemed more likely to assimilate I would have missed out on one of the best employees I have ever managed over the years. She is currently at the top in her current position at my employer as well, which to me means she has put forth a great effort, to assimilate.

Again, this is a small point, but still a very complex one that points out the dangers of painting with a broad brush. As others have mentioned, other cultures become American culture and in my view that is one of the great things about this country. Forcing people to assimilate to the point of losing their identity is never a good thing and American history as it relates to Native Americans tells us all we need to know about that. If you have never read on, or researched the "Indian" Schools (such as Carlisle since it is a more well know institution) I would heartily recommend doing so. These efforts to make Native Americans more "gentile" are a proverbial black eye on this country.

Interesting phrasing there. Do you think an undocumented person is always, constantly breaking the law? Or, you don't think they just broke a single law? If the former, I can understand your use of "illegals." To you, then they are like trespassers constantly trespassing?

I'm beginning to think there is something deeper here. You seem to have a fear of the other. Burqas trouble you, foreign languages trouble you, labels like illegals trouble you. Your solutions seem to all want to eliminate troublesome labels and replace them with a safe, english speaking, american acting and living. In essence, to blend in and no longer seem threatening. I also imagine your own personal immigration story plays into this. You followed the rules, waited in the lines, didn't rock the boat...why should others get same things without the same effort...?



Yes, i've answered that- when the presence of new immigrants does more harm than good.

Agree. And this is where I think race comes into the issue of assimilation. If we say cultural assimilation is the process in which a minority group or culture comes to resemble those of a dominant group, one can argue that most/all of American history has been preventing black Americans from assimilating. Laws were created to prevent it, de sure laws reinforce it, and those in power (politicians, media) to exploit it.

I think this makes sense because if you look at the history of many immigrant waves (Irish, Italian, Jewish) they were all originally treated like they were black: a segregated group with no power, income or voice- an exploited class. The goal then was separate from their "black brothers". One way we see this is the changing definition of who is considered "white".

So really, for a group to assimilate, the dominant group needs to first be willing to see that group as no longer a threat. Perhaps, even seeing the group as an ally against another group (African Americans, for example).

I'm going to leave the first question for last because how I answer your other questions hopefully will lend context to why I believe what I believe specifically to burqa (not hijab).

There is a definite difference between a hijab and a burqa. See #10613 where I shared a link. It's pretty easy to differentiate them and yes, I do think a person dressed in a burqa will not assimilate as well. No, it is not about security (until, I guess, the first incident) it is about assimilation (or the mindset to assimilate).


I do not disagree at all. I've lived/work in Malaysia and Indonesia (moderate muslim countries, majority of muslim women wear hijabs but I've seen a few burqas.

The companies I've done work for are global firms and I've also traveled to Manila, London & Singapore where I've also met hijab women. I have US muslim women co-workers that wear the hijab. So, I've have plenty of opportunities to work with & socialize freely with many muslim women in hijabs.

And hence, I know devout muslim women can assimilate if they were to immigrate.

So let me answer your first question.

I've had zero interactions with muslim women in burqas. The only passing interactions are -- passing by them when walking, once sitting beside one and her husband/mehram on a flight, relatively close to a group on them in a rail car in Malaysia. Haven't seen one in any retail stores or even government agencies.

From what my colleagues tell me ... it's okay to interact with a burqa clad woman if its on official business, otherwise ...

• It is not okay to initiate a conversation (not polite, not the norm) with a burqa clad woman if you don't know her already or her mehram.
• Women in burqa's will not socialize with you unless the mehram is around (and allows it)
• Hence, IMO assimilation will be very difficult

I do agree about we should not assimilate to the point of losing their identity. Not sure how to define "the point" but the concept is good.

However, not trying to or not expecting new immigrants to assimilate is bad. I've used the below a couple times now FWIW.

Quote:

Don't disagree. I've always used "salad bowl" vs melting pot which means there are cultural, ethnic etc. stuff that says separated but we're all one happy family mixed in a bowl, overlaid by the American "special salad dressing". However, I do believe there are those that won't get into the salad bowl with the rest of us so let's not waste our time.

**********

FYI - We've used the term assimilate quite a bit. I had a post before trying to define it from other sources and this is where I landed

In my #10569, I stated

Quote:

1) Most of today's illegals come from south of the border. Most come for economic reasons, most are law-abiding but there is a criminal element

So to answer your question, its the latter.


Not sure what "other" is?


Yes, this is true in the context of being able to assimilate. Burqas don't bother me in everyday life because when I've been near one, there's never really been an opportunity to interact (not polite unless on official business or with mehram).


Not sure where this came from.


Not sure where this came from. I'm actually okay with the label "illegal". I think you or someone else had wanted me to use "undocumented"? Illegal is a term that applies to all illegal immigrants not just south of the border.



Again, not sure where the "labels" part comes in so not going to reply to rest of sentence.

On the last sentence, "blend in" is definitely true. Threatening? I've used the salad bowl analogy, I don't mind different cultures, religion etc. Its about assimilation to me.


Yes, this is true.


Uh no. In post #10569, I've made recommendations to short-cut the process for many.


Pretty nebulous answer IMO but okay. Just different styles I guess.

We aren't a particularly hard-working country. Our biggest industries are real estate, finance, and insurance. Those industries are not self-reliant. And I think the morally upright stuff goes out the window when you start putting people in concentration camps.

I also don't understand what the definition of "American identity" is. Is it gaining 100 pounds and watching the aftermath of school shootings on cable news? Do they have to get really invested in the Kardashians? Is it throwing up some American flags on your Facebook page and blathering on about pizzagate?

Just cut the bullshit and get to what assimilation really means to you and everyone else who uses that word.

I guess it depends on how you define hard-working but I do think Americans are hard-working.


If you are talking about the kids, I agree.


Look, when you say bullshit to me it kinds ends the conversation.

You may not appreciate the research I did but I did do the research in #10608 and shared what I found (didn't see anyone else volunteering their definition of assimilation, care to share yours?). I also explained the American Identity best I could in #10608, if you aren't good with it, you come up with a definition for it or for assimilation.

One thing to mention is that under US law asylum seekers aren't by definition 'illegal' and they aren't required by law to go through a port of entry either.

The way the current administration has been treating asylum seekers is atrocious.

The second thing I'd mention is the logic behind splitting parents from their children is ludicrous - if the administration is truly worried about MS-13 and violent criminals entering then why target the demographic which are least likely to be travelling with young children? ...

PS - Statistically speaking immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than US citizens, so the administration really wants to curtail violent crime then it should deport all the American citizens ... (ducks and runs ;) ).

Ok, gotta wrap this up because it’s getting reductive.
1. You said they were breaking the law. They are not constantly breaking the law- they broke one law, once (all else being equal).

2. Your first requirement for assimilation is acceptance of English as the national language. You have other requirements that are religious in nature: accept America is your true country, live by this ideal, take pride in a WASPy ideal, believe in subjective ideals (liberty, democracy).

3. To me you have not given a single reason why there is a illegal immigration problem other than saying there are people here illegally, thus a problem. That’s covers the who you want your approach to impact, but without the why it just seems personal and emotional. You don’t like the idea of them walking around your country, I guess.

Yup, thanks for the dialog.


Hmmm. They broke the law and the are "breaking the law" by continuing to be in country. I did not imply the continue to break new laws? I thought #10569 was clear on that.


I don't see the others in being religious in nature. I purposed deleted the word "protestant" to avoid that.


Yes, that is true, the problem is we have illegals in the country, they have broken the law and continue to break the law by being in the country illegally.

The last sentence is not true. I've listed ways we should reform immigration laws and allow them to be in the country legally. I like them walking around my country legally.

Good point about asylum seekers. Did a quick look, don't know the counts or intricacies of it. It seems to say there are child separation for non-law breaking asylum seekers but also true illegals.

https://www.vox.com/2018/6/11/174431...arated-parents

I read the post. I just don't think those things you listed have anything to do with the American identity.

Start at the "Protestant work ethic". As I said, we aren't particularly hard-working compared to other countries. Our primary industries don't build or create anything of real value. They just arbitrage.

20% of our country is on food stamps. 39% of farms receive subsidies. A huge chunk of our country can't afford health care or receive help in obtaining it. Our wealthy receive massive subsidies and tax credits. Our primary industries (real estate, finance, and insurance) are considered "too big to fail" and thus receive bailouts any time they are in trouble. It doesn't seem like much of this country is self-reliant at all.

As for taking pride in "America's liberal democratic and egalitarian principles", I don't see it. We don't seem to like democracy all that much. There are countless efforts to restrict voting. Heavy gerrymandering ensures that many people don't have a say in our country. And the two parties have built the system so that it's impossible for a 3rd party with new ideas to even compete. And those existing parties tilt the bar in favor of their preferred candidate through money or straight up collusion (superdelegates for instance).

The egalitarian thing has always been more hype than substance. Look at the schools in poor communities vs rich communities. Tell yourself if you think you'd be treated the same way under the law as a billionaire. With the income gap growing between rich and poor (essentially eliminating any middle class), it's harder to change economic classes even with the best work ethic. That doesn't touch on the differences in race, ethnicity, gender, and so on. Not arguing any policy here either, just saying that there isn't a lot of equality in this country.

As for what my concept of "American identity" is, I don't know. It's a fairly diverse country depending on where you live, what you make, and who you are. I've lived in rural Minnesota and the city of Chicago. I enjoyed both but they are very different versions of America.

If I had to guess, I'd say we base a lot of our identity around our own image (as seen by the popularity of social media). We will bend over backwards to make sure that big businesses are taken care of before all else. We are obsessed with celebrity culture (it shouldn't surprise us that we elected a wealthy reality TV star). Politically we're more of a zombie democracy that is apathetic. We have an authoritarian streak in us too.

Like I joked earlier, I don't know how you assimilate someone into that. Make them sign up for Facebook, force them to watch Bravo, and make sure they forget to vote? The identity you think is America doesn't exist outside of political propaganda and old timey movies.

Then again, I don't see a huge assimilation problem in this country. I don't see women in burqas. Most people gradually adapt to our culture and each generation gets further entrenched in it.

In my post, I specifically struck out "protestant".

I'll followup with the hard-working question separately.


In my post, I specifically struck out "liberal democratic and egalitarian principles".


This is fair. I don't know how to define American Identity either and hence copy-and-pasted from the other two article and landed at what I thought was a good definition. I don't know if I agree with you definition but agree its wide open.


How to assimilate someone? Just some thoughts ...

1. Have them speak English. It doesn't need to be their only language, but being able to communicate at a basic level definitely helps.
2. Have them swear allegiance to the US and mean it. My use case here is the dual citizenship thing which has been discussed elsewhere (and know others disagree but just my 2 cents). I'm sure there are other ways to facilitate/show this.
3. Have those that can, work. I think this is a given and just adding it anyway.
4. Provide means for HS and College/vocational education. If we think DACA kids will be US citizens, we should definitely educate them in HS and College otherwise a lost generation/opportunity that US will have to pay for in the future
5. Create some sort of support structure for first X years for those that need it. I'm not talking about long-term, maybe 1-2 years of let me coach you how to rent your own apartment, buy your first house, take you to the tax preparer, help you translate etc.
6. Create a "final exam" from Green Card to Citizenship. Have them show examples of how they have tried to assimilate? Admittedly, don't know how to do this but a rule I go by in project management is "if you don't clearly articulate expectations, roles & responsibilities, deliverables", it won't get done.

Look, I know each one of these have "whatabout" counterpoints. I'm not going to respond to negativity (I know they are not perfect or worded well, there needs to be more thought put in. If you don't like them, come up with your own ideas and let the crowd react) but they are some ideas that came up.

EDIT: the Citizenship test when I went thru it was just 7-8 questions about US history. This could be as easy as - attend a ball game, volunteer at a soup kitchen, volunteer at a church/mosque/temple/aid shelter, attend a parade or similar, have a library card, visit a national park etc. maybe make all new immigrants prove that they voted after becoming a citizen.


Not going to get into burqas. Let's agree to disagree specifically on burqas.

I read through your article. Quick summary

1) Mexicans put in 42.8 hours in a week, US at 34.4, ranking 17 out of 38
2) It says Netherlands is more "productive" per hour worked but not much other data.

I don't know how to compare the US with rest-of-world re: food stamps, farm subsidies etc. but I do think you are selling the US short. I don't think the US compares poorly with ROW.

Turns out Americans work really hard...but some want to work harder

I think the difference of opinion is explained by the cnn.com article using the criteria of "longer than their counterparts in the world's largest economies."

These Are the Most Productive Countries in the World | Time

There is a good table on GNP per hours worked.

We are ranked fifth, another similar article, it ranked US as sixth. http://www.businessinsider.com/the-m...pert-market-13

I'm not sure if GDP is the right measure but did not find anything on GNP.

I think there is a difference in the types of jobs Americans work and other countries. There's a reason we talk about immigrants working the jobs Americans won't.

We do top a lot of those European countries but they also score higher in quality of life rankings.

In any case, I don't think we're somehow unique to other countries in work ethic.


Some of these are good ideas. I think #2 is kind of silly considering our current administration was cavorting around with Russian spies. Maybe deal with the allegiance of our own before we demand it of immigrants.

The test thing is kind of weird too. Then again I don't see the assimilation problem you do. I live in a big city with lots of immigrants and it's all pretty normal. It feels like the people who are upset about assimilation are the one's who don't live around them.

What about the areas of America where English is a second language? - Miami for instance there are large areas where Spanish is the primary language and without it you're at a definite disadvantage.

You've undoubtedly chosen 'English' because its your first language and used in your area as the primary language and is 'seen' as being the American language, but the reality differs quite considerably from that.

Why is this important to you specifically? - I'm very interested in this as I'm not a citizen and have chosen not to become one. This doesn't prevent me from being a contributing member of American society (I pay taxes and have worked with the local homeless population etc.).

This is one of the biggest impediments going forward for society in my opinion as we continue to evolve away from 'meaningful jobs for all' the pay at the remaining ones becomes worse and worse and the amount of them will continue to decline.

Despite this a persons worth is often given by whether they're working and how much they earn.

In some other countries (notably some areas in Europe) they're starting to try and plan and move towards a situation where full employment isn't the case - in the US our fingers are stuck in our ears and we're trying to ignore the fact that automation is continually eroding the jobs available.

Once self-driving Ubers and retail are fully automated I presently fail to see how the present situation will be tenable (I give it another 10-20 years before its impossible to deny).

I definitely agree with this - I fail to understand why people in the US think the country is so much worse than others ones and can't 'afford' to give people a quality education as part of life here (same thing with medical coverage tbh).

That's actually a very good idea - but I'd expect some of this is done already? (I know in the UK this is very commonly the case not just for immigrants but for people leaving prison after a long sentence for instance).

What would you consider 'assimilating' - this could easily be used negatively by an administration imho.

For instance I'm fairly politically active despite not being able to vote - however these are frequently protesting the actions of the current administration, as such are they 'assimilating' because I'm expressing an interest in the country and demonstrating 'free speech' or anti-American as Mr. Trump would like to believe?

(same reason I don't go to Church and pretend to be a Christian)

True. In the context of "assimilation/integration", English is the majority language in the US and so knowing basic English will help in assimilation. There needs to be some common threads and language is one of them.

Let's use a place other than Miami. If you were spanish speaking only in Dallas (still with a large hispanic population but not as much as Miami), should a person learn?

If its older immigrant or one that just can't, sure give them a pass. If its a younger one, don't really see much excuse for not learning it.


I had to look up the threads. See #8090, #8092 and #8097 for my take on it.

I was a green card holder once so I know where you are. But this is in the context of voluntarily becoming a citizen.


Fully agree. Automation in self-driving cars and trucks will be a disruptor and many driving uber will hurt for sure (e.g. just like they disrupted the yellow cabs) and most truck drivers will probably be left behind in the economy as I'm not sure they have transferable skills.

But in my opinion, progress (in this case, automation) is for the greater good even if people lose jobs they already have. Otherwise the US will be left behind.


The cynic in me says its because of "capitalism" and "for profit" education. College tuition has gone up incredibly and some state colleges are close to Ivies because of the easy access to loans.

I would focus on vocational/trade schools. I truly believe not everyone is geared up for college (which is absolutely fine, no stigma at all).


I got the idea from reading something similar (I think it was for the Somali kids that ended up in MN) a while ago. I do think some of it is being done by religious/charity entities but don't think its organized. With that said, not sure if I think a government entity should do this but maybe have private enterprises sponsored by the government.


We were discussing assimilation earlier and I realized we did not establish what that term meant. So I did some research and proposed a definition with 3 "markers", see post #10608 (edit: I said #10569 originally) for my take. As you can imagine, alot of discussions in the last 2 pages around it.

I do think you being politically active falls under my category of "civic engagement" so yes, that is part of assimilating.

I am very interested in knowing how you would define it, especially since you were not born here (e.g. similar to me). Always open to brainstorming ideas.

You know, assimilation was one of the primary reasons the original settlers came to the US. They were looking for a place to get away, and be left alone. The William Penn's and the John Smith's of the world. A big part of the US originally was finding a place where they could be who they wanted without the oversight.

The fact that time changes and we make progress and we are no longer a country of vast, open, unexplored areas, where communication takes weeks to make, just proves my point, that we need to be progressive in policy making and in the interpretation of the constitution. This holy standard that the Constitution is held to for all things, big and small is a little ludicrous. We are a nation that moves, changes, and is constantly remaking itself. Obviously, the Constitution is the rock of that foundation and it's important, but with gun control, especially, we lost the context of the entire purpose of the 2nd amendment and it was co-oped for something else completely.

Are we a nation that seeks to homogenize everything inside, or are we a nation that succeeds through the diversity of cultures that it has always represented? Do we come together by taking our differences and boiling them down to a pragmatic answer, or do we have a set system of rules that everyone must 'become'?

It's one of the primary conundrums that society faces, and one that the president has manipulated for his own popularity and support. And not in a good way.

The correct response to this IMO is in what you said: it's the word 'Amendment'. The very existence of that possibility involves recognizing that the Constitution is not a 'holy standard', since if it was there wouldn't be an ingrained way to change it. Like all societies we are constantly changing, but that change has no stable base if we simply decide that the Constitution(or other laws) mean whatever we would like them to mean at the time, instead of actually changing/revoking/amending the laws themselves. Doing that renders the laws functionally irrelevant and attacks the rule of the law, the foundation of modern civilization going all the way back to the signing of the Magna Carta pushing a millennium ago now. Along with throwing out separation of powers, the work of previous legislatures and the electorate, etc.

The extent to which this assault is underway has really been illustrated in this most recent discussion. The earnest questions by some about why illegal immigration is a problem are quite a poignant case in point. The fact that such a question can be asked with a straight face, that it isn't immediately obvious that a sovereign nation routinely having it's immigration laws broken and not really trying to do much of anything about it is in the midst of a national crisis/embarrassment/scandal that vastly overwhelms whatever economic benefit accrues from it demonstrates how misguided the approach is. I'm one who is in favor of greatly increased legal immigration, but until and unless that day comes, ignoring the laws we have is far worse than almost any other conceivable outcome.

As far as the term 'illegals' is concerned, I use it and the reason why has nothing to do with dehumanization. It's not the slightest bit dehumanizing, it is simply accurate. We label people often based on where they live(New Englander, Westerner, Southerner, etc.). An illegal is simply someone who is here without the legal right to be. It does not mean they are in any way, shape, or form less of a person or less deserving of basic human dignity than anyone else. It says nothing about their potential to contribute to society. It says simply that they are here illegally - period. And it's a lot more accurate than 'undocumented' ever could be.

Well said.

I see no need for people to 'assimilate' - I think the variety of peoples backgrounds, outlooks and perspectives is valuable within society within reason.

To me the more important aspect of being part of a society is showing respect and tolerance for others - for me a "Neo Nazi" might be white, speak English and have a job but they aren't a constructive part of society because they're seeking to partition and discriminate against people within it.

On the other hand a non-English speaking person in my area might be welcoming to me and happy to engage with me in whatever limited lingual capacity they can, to me they are far more assimilated than the neo-nazi.

Incidentally if you think this is an artificial example - I play soccer a fair bit and a lot of the people I play with are South American, many don't speak much English at all, but we greet each other with smiles and know enough common soccer terms to communicate and play together on the pitch, I consider them friends despite the obvious language barrier between us.

PS - America has a myth of the 'melting pot' where all people become 'one nationality' and take on a common identity, most other cultures see their societies as a mosaic where there are different patterns but they all fit together as an integrated whole.

The first federal immigration law wasn't passed until 1882. Was the U.S. not a nation until that year?

Specific to your melting pot comment, I agree that term is not valid. I've used the below in prior dialogs.

Quote:

Don't disagree. I've always used "salad bowl" vs melting pot which means there are cultural, ethnic etc. stuff that says separated but we're all one happy family mixed in a bowl, overlaid by the American "special salad dressing". However, I do believe there are those that won't get into the salad bowl with the rest of us so let's not waste our time.

EDIT: Maybe this adds context to what I mean by assimilate (but maybe not).

Well, shit.

Trump gets his travel ban:


https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/26/polit...&utm_term=link

Jill Stein and everyone who voted for her can fuck off.

Forever.

Why don't you refer to people who speed as illegal drivers, or simply, illegals? Also accurate. I mean, after all, depending on the situation, crossing the border, like speeding, is a misdemeanor violation. Let's get all the illegals off the road.

I don't think you can argue with a straight face the word isn't dehumanizing. It's very use, accurate or not, is local to immigration and meant to segregate by status. As we've seen historically, over and over again, that is and becomes dehumanizing.

What he said. The idiots who decided that losing the supreme court was worth their protest vote can fuck off.

Speeders would be more accurate in this case. They aren't illegal drivers; it's not illegal for them to drive if they have a license. It IS illegal for illegal immigrants to be here. There's a big difference. And I'm all for prosecuting speeders. 'Getting them all off the road' is ridiculous, as the penalty for their crime does not involve them not being able to drive(unless it's repeated, egregious offenses, then they might lose their license).

I think a lot of the third party voters PREFER chaos. Once Sanders was out a lot of them were rooting for Trump. Same thing with going back to Nader/Gore, I think it's a misconception that the 3rd party far left voter would prefer the Dem to the Republican but just didn't realize that their vote could actually matter. I think more of them want to see everything burn if things don't go their way, because to them, the country being further right brings us closer to a revolution than the country being moderate left. (I've seen that view expressed at this board over the years - people on the left rooting for the craziest Republican candidates for state offices as if this is some big game and no lives are actually impacted)

THis is not always the case in immigration either, and I think you know that. I admit that my example was hyperbole, but you're breaking this down too simply as well. There may be avenues of relief that do not involve not being here.

I don't think I am breaking it down too simply. If you are referring to cases such as people seeking asylum, they are not by definition illegal immigrants. I wouldn't refer to them as such. If you present yourself to the authorities and request asylum, you aren't one, period. If you try to sneak cross the border, aren't an asylum-seeker, and don't go through the required immigration process, then it does apply. It literally is like calling a felon a felon or calling a tall person tall. I don't call illegal immigrants felons(because they aren't), I'm not trying to make it worse than it is, etc. It is what it is. No more, and no less.

I think it's more a mixture of the two, but what you're describing is even worse to me, as it comes largely from a place of privilege. Most of these people wanting everything to be blown up are not in the blast radius.

As I've said before, as much as I dislike Trump and those who put him in power, at least many of them actually had real problems. They just chose a bad solution. The Jill Stein/Ralph Nader/Stay home crowd are mostly privileged, elitist assholes who can survive the 4-8 years of Trump rule much more easily than the minorities and the poor they're supposedly fighting for.

It's not just asylum seekers--there are more than a handful of ways to avoid deportation and remain in the US. Again, you know this. If you want to make the comparison to an convicted felon, that person has been through a trial. Most often the use is not limited to someone who has been through a removal hearing, and no longer entitled to stay in the US. Maybe you are.

The point is illegal is an adjective that can be used to describe many things. The use of the word as a noun is local to immigration and typically used in a way to segregate, regardless of where that individual is in the justice system.

I get that point, I just don't agree that such usage is either inappropriate or dehumanizing. The other nouns I mentioned also segregate. Any label at all segregates. That's literally their purpose, to describe those who are part of that group and not part of another. I don't see how one can say anything meaningful about things and not use labels of some kind or another.

Thank you, your approach and problem with immigration makes much more sense to me now.

I would argue that your believe that undocumented people are continuously breaking the law is un-American. I mean, your problem is not recognized by the supreme court, law enforcement, or the justice department. Here is a link to AZ v US decision that basically said undocumented people are not considered trespassers:Is living as an undocumented immigrant in the U.S. a crime? | PolitiFact New York

So this was why I was having so much confusion with your problem. It really is just your problem and because your holistic approach did not first include overturning AZ v US, it just seem like a personal grudge.

I disagree then with your description of assimilation. Your notion of American ideals and principles is fundamentally different than the one defined by the government and courts. Categorizing undocumented people as trespassers continuously breaking the law is an arbitrary barrier you are personally creating to prevent assimilation.

You absolutely can make the argument that to you it is not dehumanizing, however I don't think you have the right to tell the recipient that they cannot feel dehumanized by that term.

So the problem is feeling of embarrassment? Other countries are making fun of us and that doesn't feel good?

The urgency you are implying suggests that things must be fundamentally different now. Which is not true, unless the "national crisis" started decades ago. It seems more likely that your current anger and embarrassment are the result of media and politicians banging the drum.

This is a bit of a semantics argument. The US court system is for penalizing US citizens. Since illegals/undocumenteds arent citizens they arent subject to US laws.


It began being treated as a civil matter in the 70s simply because it was easier and cheaper to deport civaly than to convict criminally and then deport a criminal. (2 court cases vs 1 AND most importantly civil matters do not trigger a right to representation) It was a way to get illegal immigrants out of the country quicker. Precedent was set and now it is viewed as exclusively a civil matter.


Its akin to the college stoner argument that its not illegal to smoke pot. Its illegal to buy it, sell it, or possess it. But once I break those laws it isnt illegal to smoke it.


I mena the alternate is we start treating illegal immigration as a crime and fill the prison system up more. That sounds like a great solution, no?

Respectfully, you expecting me to know about this ruling is pretty weird. If you thought I was wrong based on this ruling, you should have been transparent and shared it in the past 2-3 pages.

I don't get personal grudge but okay, just different interpretation I guess.

I'm waiting for your holistic approach, feel free to put something out there in detail for folks to react to it.

Oh good, I wasn't going to research all the legalese and nuances. This will be an interesting dialog so thanks.

Of course not. People have every right to feel however they wish about anything.


It mostly definitely started decades ago. It's getting worse, and covers far more secondary issues than just immigration, but it's definitely not something new that started last year or something. It's been a horrifyingly egregious issue for at least 50 years now, longer than I've been alive.

Hmmm. Couldn't resist to look at it a little more.

It probably is semantics, tricky wording. Any immigration lawyers here?

Is being in the United States unlawfully a 'crime'? | PolitiFact Florida

So maybe as a happy compromise there are 2 categories specific to "south of the border".

1) People who came to the US legally but overstayed should not be called "illegals" (e.g asylum seekers) but "undocumented"
2) People who came to the US illegally (e.g. crossing the border illegally) can be called "illegals"

That's exactly what Trump's zero tolerance policy is doing. The law gives the option of a fine, jail time, or both. The directive from DOJ is to apply the harshest punishment.

I feel like you are saying the issue is white American identity has been unfairly diluted over the last 50 years because of an illegal invasion?

Still have no idea why you think undocumented people do more harm than good (over last 50 years) other then your feeling of embarrassment. It seems that it is merely the existence of an arbitrary law that is cause of your anguish. I say arbitrary because the very people against it are also the ones benefiting from it. Directly in politics, media and industry and indirectly (probably you) from increase tax revenue and lower cost of living.

When the economy crashed there was a net loss in immigration, no wall or extra laws needed. Thus, if we want to stop it, stop the hiring and most importantly change our expectation that things will be more expensive and less efficient. ONLY blaming the person willing to work, take the risk and support their family, and not the society that is begging to exploit them, is, I think, racist.

100 years ago, there was almost no laws against most people coming here. The “invasion” was more massive and in many more cases than today, did more harm than good. But that was the good old days?

Not at all. I could care less about 'white American identity'. Literally. I'm not saying it's a minor issue, I place zero importance on it whatsoever. I'm an anti-patriot, which means I place no greater allegiance to the United States than I do to, say, Liechtenstein. I believe ardently that every human has the same value, regardless of birthplace.


I may well be benefiting in all the ways you describe. That's completely besides the point IMO and truly irrelevant. It is indeed '
merely' the arbitrary law. Let's assume it is arbitrary. It's not important to me whether it's arbitrary, brilliant, heinous, or anything in between. It's the assault on the rule of the law, cornerstone of modern civilization that it is, which bothers me. Immigration is but one symptom, but as I originally said a particularly clear-cut and clearly illustrative example.


I agree. I've said it before but perhaps not recently; things are much easier on the border end of things if we attack the employment end with harsh penalties against those who don't fulfill their responsibilities to verify those they hire. Of course, increasing legal immigration would also help. Preferably both.


Just to repeat, I'm not against immigration per se. But I totally reject this definition of doing more harm than good. There is a massive inherent harm in a nation disregarding, deciding not to enforce, etc. its laws. This is much worse when it affects their relations with other nations, because then they hurt not only themselves but others. That's a lot more important than tweaks in our standard of living or whathaveyou.

All the statistics I've seen indicated there is absolutely NO crisis, even with Trumps increased employment of people on the border apprehensions are down hugely from back in 2000 ...

Stats on Border Apprehensions

PS - What reasoning is behind the belief that immigrants are a net negative? ... they commit crime at a lower rate than citizens and create jobs at a higher rate than citizens etc.

I should point out that on the employment end, it is currently a very low hurdle to cross. I know because I did it for years. If the applicant shows you documentation (I-9 form spells out exactly what the docs need to be) and you do the proper tax withholding, there's no violation of law. Back when I was still employing, ICE could have raided my farm and hauled every single worker away and I would've been in the clear after I showed them all the documentation for my employees I had on file. My employees would've been in trouble for using false documents which are easily obtained on the black market for a few hundred dollars.

Going forward, if we are looking to fix things, the government needs a working database so the fake documents can instantly be weeded out. No, E-verify is not a solution because it has too many holes in it. Right now, there is no good system for employers.

Main issue is they need to enforce the laws. I have no problem with immigration. If we want to up limits, great. If we want to shut it down, whatever. But, whatever we decide on we need to enforce.

Well the government could easily check for duplicate SSN numbers and other things. But, if more people are paying in, its all good in their eyes.

That will never happen. The party that wants to be tougher on immigration is also the party that would never punish companies or their wealthy owners.

Exactly.... It can't be that hard. It is 2018, after all. I'm just saying that before we start throwing employers in jail, we need to have a working system to verify identity.

Then I'm all for executing everybody in violation.

I agree, illegal crossing has been decreasing. Eyeballing it, it says 250K avg for the past several years.

Approx 11.3 - 11.5M illegals/undocumented or approx 3.4% of population.

5 facts about illegal immigration in the U.S. | Pew Research Center

I'm not sure I would classify that as a crisis-crisis but I wouldn't consider it "no crisis".



EDIT: No idea how valid this is but did a quick google. Compared to 12 European countries, US ranks #1 of illegals as % of population.

https://immigration.procon.org/view....ourceID=005235

I don't understand why the enforcement of laws is often the excuse to push for tougher immigration. There are a lot of federal crimes that are either poorly enforced or not enforced at all. Why is it a sticking point with immigration?

We have a lot of underfunded and understaffed federal departments. This issue has become far worse under the Trump administration, partly by design. These are the departments that enforce the law. Currently, the right wants to strictly enforce immigration laws because they exist. However, there's no push to force cooperations to follow EPA laws and regulations. Consumer protection laws are poorly enforced. We could go on and on.

We're more concerned about keeping the brown people out than enforcing the laws that actually protect citizens.

I think bigger corporations have done a better job here with their systems, processes, and e-verify. I remember a time when bogus SSN's could be put into systems. They have the deep pockets and public image to protect.

Not sure how well the small companies and mom-and-pops do thought, suspect not very well.

But they dont.
"Mary9" is the word. Married and 9 dependents on your W4. No income tax is withheld beyond FICA.

I’ve got to assume that this assult is of the mild sort? Not really life altering. I do very much agree that disregard for the law is harmful. It’s just elevating immigration to near warlike invasion status is more demagoguery than reality.

The biggest violation of our rule of law is drug use. I would argue when it was minorities using and dying we declared war on them. All the while the urgency and embarrassment of immigration seem practically non existent. Now the drug users, I’ll call them illegals, are not mostly of color and all sudden we are creating a pathway to legitimatimacy (legalization, rehab not jail, new and cheaper methadone drugs, etc). And back goes the spotlight on brown people. It seems racist that we have made people coming here doing the jobs we are hiring them to do is somehow a worse example of flaunting the rule of law, than white people using drugs in a purely destructive way.

I did have one guy run into trouble with the IRS. 21 years old, 6 dependents. When asked for documentation on his dependents, some shady tax accountant gave the IRS info on five kids all born within weeks of each other. He got hit with back taxes. To his credit, he did pay them.

Nicaraguans all put six because they never file a return. Most from Mexico that I dealt with were truthful.

Trump said that maybe we could replace the income tax with tariffs, the way it was when McKinley was President.

I think he's playing Victoria2.

I've done a version of this for 20 years, from back when the advice was that you should keep your money in your pocket rather than giving the government an interest-free loan for a year. (Advice that I first heard from Rush Limbaugh, strangely enough.)

The idea isn't necessarily '9', but to get as close to tax-neutral as you can. No one ever asked me to prove that I had 7 kids when I was claiming 7 in my W-4, as long as I only claimed my actual kids on my 1040.

Yes and no.

What you are talking about I agree 100% with.

What I am talking about is maxing it at 9 so zero income tax is taken up until about $80k income. Then the folks im talking about dont file income tax returns at year end, so there is no settle up. They never pay the deficit they owe. They never file a 1040.

I've got 2 employees I know who claim M9. I know because my payroll service alerts me to this. Despite the fact that they don't speak much English, I can't deny their employment legally. I dont really think their names are Brian and Eric..but that's what their paperwork says. They dont have bank accounts, they still want hard checks. Only 2 guys I have who don't direct deposit. But you know what, they do a damn good job. Not the most technically knowledgeable team members but low maintenance, work hard, dependable and good guys. I can't hate on them for trying to improve their family situation.

In fairness, they likely would owe little to no federal income tax if they did file. And the FICA they pay into yet receive no benefit from more than makes up for it.

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/eco...mounts-n886621


I believe there was some discussion about this when the tax bill was passed. Whoever could have seen it coming, that the massive tax breaks for corporations would be used to make the already wealthy even wealthier.

Pretty funny.

Colbert, Fallon and Conan team up to tease Trump

Here's the video.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/cnnmoney/...-night-laughs/

In our discussion about proper use of term illegal vs undocumented, I found it interesting that "brown" has been used in related discussions.

I don't know so I am asking - I would never use or thought to use the word "brown people" to describe Hispanics or Latinos. Is this acceptable?

I wouldn't have thought to use the term "brown" because, although not dehumanizing per the debate re: the word illegal, it seems akin to "black" vs African American or referring to a chinese person as "yellow".

I think we knew that would inevitably happen. But let's be fair, the article said stock buybacks have helped shareholders, so its not just the rich, its anyone that have mutual funds in a 401k or IRA. Some wealth has been shared but agree that rich have become richer.

Unemployment is pretty low. It is debatable how much of that goes to Trump but some credit does go to him. True, much of that is lower-wage jobs but that trend existed in the Obama administration also.

(Somewhat related to our discussion on a holistic immigration reform, the low unemployment is more reason to encourage and fast-track the highly skilled immigrants and really ramp up the guest worker program).

I would have said US economy was doing well a couple weeks ago but now with the talks of trade wars, tariffs etc. I don't know. I've seen estimates for 2.9-3% of economic growth in 2018 and that's pretty good compared to since the Great Recession.

I don't think anyone has said its a "net negative" but it may have been inferred by some. I think there are several of us that believe -- if you have immigration laws, enforce them. If you don't like the immigration laws, change or reform them. But you can't have people "flaunting" the laws.

And I have not seen anyone say -- no more or greatly reduce "legal" immigration.

I didn't really know what was in the ban other than the countries and the word "travel". CNN had a nice summary with more details below.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/26/polit...rnd/index.html

I'll agree and concede the second point regarding FICA. Its the first that I think most bury their head in the sand over.


Specifically in construction trades we are talking real money. Solid middle class. The 2 employees I referenced earlier- with a quick check one made 64k last year the other made 48k but he started in May.


In my area, at least, it isnt min wage jobs. It is unskilled or semi skilled labor (13-22)/hr and averaging 55 hours per week. In that case, depending of course on true numbers and scale, the dollars at play could be significant.

Other than the Trump admin, which is why they killed the bipartisan immigration bill.

Oh sorry. I was responding to Marc Vaughan thinking it was specific to FOFC members and our discussion.

Re-reading it I can see where it was more of an open question beyond the FOFC members that responded.

The administration has repeatedly indicated it intends to reduce 'legal' immigration - that is one of the reasons a lot of businesses are finding it hard to get casual labor in shrimping industry and such because the number of visa's allowed has been reduced drastically.

PS - There are a huge number of 'laws' to which lip-service is generally given within a society because they're seen as out dated or not constructive, heck even some very sensible laws are flouted or enforced incredibly liberally in many states.
In Florida for instance if you're driving and found to be driving badly/speeding chances are you'll get a warning or a ticket reduced from its 'real' penalty* ... I expect the reasoning is that without a car its near impossible to hold down a job because of the poor public transport, but I'm just using it to show that society doesn't stick to the letter of the law because its the law and routinely flexes them.

Examples - I was caught speeding at over 90mph going to visit my daughter in Tallahassee a few years ago (with my English sister in the car gleefully exclaiming 'hey he's got a gun' when the officer came up no less ;) ) ... the ticket read 75mph because otherwise the penalty would have been far more severe.
I've also been rear ended while stopped at a traffic light by a lady who in her words 'didn't know why she didn't stop' - the officer didn't even give her a ticket because the damage to my vehicle was (cough) only $5,000 worth ...