Civic solutions in US vs "homogenous" nations

[sisu]

@AK84

Cannot say that the US is particularly non homogenous. It has a dominant language, culture and religion, with at best regional variations and some exotic flavours. African Americans and Italian Americans each speak English, follow a variation of Anglo culture and worship the Christian style.

A Heterogeneous place is the Subcontinent, the Middle East, C and W China, the Balkans, Iberia.

Christian style, no most Americans worship in the American tradition of Christianity. It is very different to how most Christians around the world practice.

Australia has almost 30% of our population born overseas, so struggle to see how this counts.

Looking at America from afar (and with some fondness) it seems that there are large differences in established populations. A 3rd generation New York shop owner as a general rule will be very different from an 3rd generation Appalachian coal miner.

[Northern_Piper]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

I would say a minimum should reasonably be expected of all non-retarded immigrants to this country such as knowledge of the English language, …

This suggestion illustrates my point. In Canada, immigrants have to be reasonably fluent in English or French. A person who is unilingual French can qualify for immigration, provided they meet the other criteria. Our model of a nation is intrinsically more diverse than is the US model.

[puddleglum]

@Northern_Piper

I’m still puzzled by what standard some American posters are using to define American diversity.

To my mind, countries that have two or four official languages (Belgium and Switzerland, respectively), with no expectation that all citizens eventually should learn a single language, aren’t “arguably as” diverse as the United States; they are more diverse.

Can someone explain by what measurement some Americans appear to think the US is the most diverse country in the world?

It is not just the percentages but also the number. In the US there are 22 ethnic groups that have more than 2 million members. There are half as many German-Americas as there are Germans, there are seven times as many Irish-Americans as Irish, one Quarter as many Mexican-Americans as Mexicans, as many African-Americans as Africans in Kenya, one quarter as many Italian-Americans as Italians, one quarter as many Polish-Americans as Poles, one seventh as many French-Americans as French, four fifths as many Scottish-Americans as Scots, one quarter as many Dutch-Americans as Dutch, nine tenths as many Norwegian-Americans as Norwegians, four times as many Native Americans as Canada, half as many Swedish-Americans as Swedes, more Jewish-Americans than Jews in Israel, etc.
Because many of these groups started immigrating when the country was sparsely populated many settled in one area and created a region that was unique with its own culture. So you have Pennsylvania Dutch, Minnesota Norwegians, New York Jews, Applachian Scots Irish, Boston Irish, Black Southerners, etc, all existing in the same country and they all have pockets of political power that need to be represented nationally.
Norway has a higher percentage of its population born outside its border than the US, but do they matter politically? There are only 5 non-white members of the Norwegian parliament. That is not a great way to measure political influence but it is one way.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@Acsenray

“Non-retarded?” Really?

I mean obviously in the technical sense of those who are not mentally retarded.

Who got to decide this? How were they appointed for this task? And how will it be enforced? And what are the punishments for its violation?

If it’s not in the law, then it’s not a requirement. Period.

Not necessarily: cultural/social expectations do not always have to be encoded into law. You are not legally required to avoid picking your nose in the middle of the street, but its generally expected you should.

Nonetheless when potential immigrants those who fulfill these criteria should be given an advantageous position over those who do not.

I don’t see how any of these things should be different in the United States as compared to other places.

Language is a matter of free expression. People should be free to choose what language they want to speak. But this isn’t actually a problem. There are pretty much zero people in the United States who want to not speak English, because speaking English is an economic advantage. There’s no need for any rule, legal or non-legal to enforce it.

Then why are there such large numbers of American-born students enrolled in ELL programs (http://www.csun.edu/~krowlands/Content/SED610/ELL%20Instruction/ell%20language%20change.pdf). Obviously I’m not suggesting that people’s mouths should be forcibly washed out of soap if they accidentally speak their native tongue, but English language use should be encouraged by the government and all tendencies towards bilingualism discouraged. Proposition 227 in California provides a good model of what should be done (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_227_(1998)).

Same with hygiene. Except to the extent that someone might become a public health risk, people who fail to meet basic hygiene standards will suffer economic harm. Again, no need for a rule. If there is a matter of risk to the public health—vaccination, sex education, hand washing by service employees, etc.—it should be mandated by law.

Again social expectations supported by the resources of the State does not necessarily require the force of law. Here one might consider the example of tobacco use-it is not completely prohibited but it is certainly actively discouraged by the State as well as society.

Manners. What manners is one referring to? This is again a free expression issue.

Basic manners expected in American society. Thus things such as norms against speaking loudly in public, spitting, and so forth.

Racial/religious tolerance. Public accommodations, public services, and businesses or services open to the public should not discriminate on the basis of religion (skin color, language, sexual preference, etc.). Other than that, I don’t know what kind of tolerance you’re talking about.

I certainly mean those public actions but additionally personal tolerance.

I don’t think my ideas are particularly controversial, I merely advocate the application of these fine words of former President Theodore Roosevelt:

"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here does in good faith become an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with every one else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed or birthplace or origin. But this is predicated upon the man’s becoming in very fact an American and nothing but an American.

"If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn’t doing his part as an American.

“We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile. We have room for but one language here and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, and American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house; and we have room for but one soul [sic] loyalty, and that is loyalty to the American people.”