Is a multilingual America good or dangerous for the future of the USA?

Topic's posts
Posts in total: 20
I think multiculturalism is dangerous for the future of the country because of the various former countries that have accepted multiculturalism and that have broken up on this basis.  All immigrants should assimilate into their country before they enter the country.  If they fail, they should assimilate in classes that they or their parents pay for.  If they can't afford it, they take out a loan to pay for it just like college.
--> @dustryder

"Why was the union an overall detriment? There was something causing the country to break apart. Something kept France united that divided Austria Hungary, 2 areas comparably big"
That something is France's common language and culture. Austria Hungary lacked this.
"That said, I believe that the french royal crown lands were built up slowly over multiple centuries, and with some exception there was more of a cultural continuum."
I think that France got it's size the same way the U.K got it's size. By conquering. By sending your own people to the conquered area. By assimilating the locals heavily. France assimilated the octillians(at least that's what I think they were called) that were South of France and they don't want to break away. Austria Hungary conquered but failed to assimilate the lands that nation conquered and as a result, they lost their land.


"Did their countries break up on the basis of language? Do you have evidence for this?"
What else could it be in a way that is consistent?

"Do you have evidence for this? Are you sure it wouldn't have to do the(Puerto Rican) historical relationship with the US?"
The US treats PR pretty well. It is because of the US that the GDP per capita of PR is about double the Latin American average and easily the highest GDP per capita in Latin America, with one about as high as South Korea.

"I believe the Republic of Texas was vehemently for slavery."
There are 2 contentions that I have with this:
1: If they were pro slavery at one point, would they have wanted to join Mexico once they became anti slavery? 
2: This does not explain how we got California, which was anti slavery.

--> @Alec
That something is France's common language and culture. Austria Hungary lacked this.
Fyi this is a response to your own question that I answered

I think that France got it's size the same way the U.K got it's size. By conquering. By sending your own people to the conquered area. By assimilating the locals heavily. France assimilated the octillians(at least that's what I think they were called) that were South of France and they don't want to break away. Austria Hungary conquered but failed to assimilate the lands that nation conquered and as a result, they lost their land.
Yes. But in the idea of keeping a nation united, modern France was built up over centuries and the regions that comprised of modern France were more likely to have had a similar culture.

This is rather different to Austria-Hungary, where it was a modern union of two distinctive and already established states with their own history and cultures.

What else could it be in a way that is consistent?
With the countries that have actually broken up, it seems to be that hostile military action was more than culprit than anything else

The US treats PR pretty well. It is because of the US that the GDP per capita of PR is about double the Latin American average and easily the highest GDP per capita in Latin America, with one about as high as South Korea.
And yet it can't be ignored that despite being US citizens, they are still comparatively poor. They lack representation. And historically, it was ceded to the US without much say.

1: If they were pro slavery at one point, would they have wanted to join Mexico once they became anti slavery? 
I mean.. I don't think they were for or against self-governance or unionization based on slavery in the first place

2: This does not explain how we got California, which was anti slavery.
Didn't you guys get California as a result of the mexican-american war?



--> @Alec
The US has always been multilingual and multicultural, with English as the universal language.  Whatever the consequence, its reality.  I think proper English should be endorsed

Good Reasons in no particular order

General
Mitigating Language Barriers
 - Excessive translation (Time/errors)
 - Familiar Language (Sociability)
 - Maximal Social Opportunity
 - Access to Educational Literature
Alleviates Ingroup Reliance
International Recognition
Tied with American History
Promotion Abroad

Right of Passage
Proving America is for You



There are no negatives to learning English as a prospective American.  Its a question of implementation and opportunity.



--> @dustryder
Yes. But in the idea of keeping a nation united, modern France was built up over centuries and the regions that comprised of modern France were more likely to have had a similar culture.

This is rather different to Austria-Hungary, where it was a modern union of two distinctive and already established states with their own history and cultures.
If Austria Hungary had assimilated the locals that they conquered, then the country would still exist today possibly.  The Country might have broken up like Czecosloviaka, but they would still retain huge parts of their former country.

With the countries that have actually broken up, it seems to be that hostile military action was more than culprit than anything else
Why would this nationalistic military action take place?

And yet it can't be ignored that despite being US citizens, they are still comparatively poor.
Their GDP per capita of PR in 2016 is about the same as the US in 1996 and only slightly poorer then Mississippi in terms of GDP per capita.  

They lack representation.
They have representation, they just don't have as much because they are a territory.

 And historically, it was ceded to the US without much say.
Spain agreed to sell PR with some other islands for $20 million.  There was a war for it but Spain in the end got money for the land.

I mean.. I don't think they were for or against self-governance or unionization based on slavery in the first place
Can you rephrase this?  I don't think it makes much sense.

Didn't you guys get California as a result of the mexican-american war?
It was a combination of war and purchasing.  But why did the US want the land?  I think it was because culturally similar to America as opposed to Mexico.  Unless you or someone else can provide an alternative reason, I don't know what else was the cause.  Gold wasn't discovered until after the Mexican American war for the Mexican cession, so the reason wasn't purely economic.
--> @Alec
If Austria Hungary had assimilated the locals that they conquered, then the country would still exist today possibly.  The Country might have broken up like Czecosloviaka, but they would still retain huge parts of their former country.
Your hypothetical doesn't make sense in the context of Austria-Hungary. It wasn't one culturally distinct nation that conquered and absorbed many other smaller nations, it was a union of two culturally distinct and existent nations.

Why would this nationalistic military action take place?
Well it differs for each example. But as in most conflicts, typically it's a struggle for resources between conflicting ideologies and cultures.

Their GDP per capita of PR in 2016 is about the same as the US in 1996 and only slightly poorer then Mississippi in terms of GDP per capita.  
Puerto Rico's recent poverty rate was measured to be about 45%
In comparison, the US state with the worst poverty rate is Mississippi, at around 22%

They have representation, they just don't have as much because they are a territory.
So unequal representation compared to a state despite being comparable to a state

Spain agreed to sell PR with some other islands for $20 million.  There was a war for it but Spain in the end got money for the land.
But mainland Spain is not equivalent to Puerto Rico. What say did Puerto Rico's inhabitants get in being passed around like a football?

Can you rephrase this?  I don't think it makes much sense.
Well I can't imagine that countries secede or unionise based solely on one issue such as slavery

It was a combination of war and purchasing.  But why did the US want the land?  I think it was because culturally similar to America as opposed to Mexico.  Unless you or someone else can provide an alternative reason, I don't know what else was the cause.  Gold wasn't discovered until after the Mexican American war for the Mexican cession, so the reason wasn't purely economic.
The obvious answer is that land is just more resources. It's not just about gold. You get space to expand and grow, rivers and streams for new sources of fresh water and accompanying fish stocks, forests for timber, hills and mountains to mine for coal/minerals. 
--> @Alec
I think multiculturalism is dangerous for the future of the country because of the various former countries that have accepted multiculturalism and that have broken up on this basis
What countries are "broken up"?
Can you define "broken up as" well?
If you can do tell me how it was the fault of multi-culturalism.
All immigrants should assimilate into their country before they enter the country.
I thought you require to be in the country for I think 3-5 years in order to be a legal citizen. Why are you making this distinction?
If they fail, they should assimilate in classes that they or their parents pay for.
What if their parents can't pay for it?
If they can't afford it, they take out a loan to pay for it just like college.
What if by taking out a loan they have started a trend of not being able to pay off their bills or the loan is the start of their debts? 
--> @Alec

How does Abuela fit into this?
Didn't we have a war over multiculturalism in the 1860's?
--> @Greyparrot
Didn't we have a war over multiculturalism in the 1860's?
Basically.  The US just happened to win that war.  With the UN existing, I doubt there would be a war.  It instead would be a bunch of Hispaniphone Hispanics stating that they want to be independent of the US and as a result of that, the UN would use their self determination theory to force the US to break apart.  If the UN didn't exist, we might have a war, possibly a nuclear one in order to maintain American sovereignty.  I don't want to lose land or to have to fight a war to keep the country together.  This is partly why assimilation is so crucial for the country.
--> @dustryder
 It wasn't one culturally distinct nation that conquered and absorbed many other smaller nations, it was a union of two culturally distinct and existent nations.
It was a union of 2 distinct cultures conquering other cultures without assimilation.  If they assimilated the cultures that they conquered, Austria Hungary might have broken up, but they would have broken into only 2 nations instead of the several or so that it did break into.

But as in most conflicts, typically it's a struggle for resources between conflicting ideologies and cultures.
Exactly.  It's a struggle between 2 different cultures.  One culture wants to hang on to what they have (the parent country).  The other culture wants an independent state for themselves or wants to join another state (the separatist movement).

Puerto Rico's recent poverty rate was measured to be about 45%
In comparison, the US state with the worst poverty rate is Mississippi, at around 22%
What does poverty mean and can you cite this just to make sure?

So unequal representation compared to a state despite being comparable to a state
I am fine with PR becoming a state if Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island merge into one state.  But that's basically the status quo.

What say did Puerto Rico's inhabitants get in being passed around like a football?
They were a territory of Spain.  Besides, PR has a GDP per capita higher then Spain due to the American influence, so it benefited the locals.

Well I can't imagine that countries secede or unionise based solely on one issue such as slavery
Texas wanted independence from ideological and linguistic differences.  California wanted it on linguistic differences.

The obvious answer is that land is just more resources. It's not just about gold. You get space to expand and grow, rivers and streams for new sources of fresh water and accompanying fish stocks, forests for timber, hills and mountains to mine for coal/minerals. 
If the US was solely interested in more natural resources, we would have taken all the land that wasn't populated by Mexicans by sending Americans over there in much greater numbers if Mexico would accept them unassiliminated (Mexico learned their lesson).  The US wanted the anglophone land in North America (with the exception of Canada since we didn't want a war with the UK and Belize since it was at the time, British too).  Mexico claimed much of the hispaniphone land in North America at this time.  That's how it was.
--> @omar2345
What countries are "broken up"?
Here are just some separatist movements on the basis of language differences.:

1:Austria Hungary
2:Ukraine vs Russia Influenced East Ukraine/Crimea 
3:Spain vs Catalonia and Basque 
4:Mexico vs Texas and Mexican Cession 
5:Belgium vs Flanders 
6:Various Middle east nations vs Kurds 
7:United Kingdom vs Wales 
8:Canada vs Quebec 
9:Egypt vs Hala'ib 
10:Belize vs Southern Belize
11:United States vs Puerto Rico
12:Roman empire vs their multiculturalism

Can you define "broken up as" well?
Broken up in this context means that your country loses some land to a new country or to a existing foreign country.  

I thought you require to be in the country for I think 3-5 years in order to be a legal citizen. Why are you making this distinction?
If your already assimilated, what's the point of you being in the country for 3-5 years.  I don't like this immigration requirement because in order to be here, you have to show that your already here.  I think it's pointless.

What if by taking out a loan they have started a trend of not being able to pay off their bills or the loan is the start of their debts? 
You can make that argument about any loan someone takes out.  They'll pay it off with interest eventually at a previously agreed upon minimum rate or they will suffer the consequences of not paying back a loan.  It's for them and their creditor to figure out.  It's good for the economy.
--> @Alec
1:Austria Hungary
Based on political reasons.
>>From 1867 onwards, common expenditures were allocated 70% to Austria and 30% to Hungary. This split had to be negotiated every decade. By 1907, the Hungarian share had risen to 36.4%. The negotiations in 1917 ended with the dissolution of the Dual Monarchy.
From what I can gather most of the other one's from what I know are due to political reasons. I will allow you to pick one that was primarily caused by having multiple languages.
Broken up in this context means that your country loses some land to a new country or to a existing foreign country.  
Split would be a better word.
If your already assimilated, what's the point of you being in the country for 3-5 years.
This word you use assimilation is not important. It matters if they are a legal citizen or not. For you to deny that and say assimilation is more important really does tell how little you have done research on this topic. I would like to know a country that split primarily based on having multiple languages.
You can make that argument about any loan someone takes out.  They'll pay it off with interest eventually at a previously agreed upon minimum rate or they will suffer the consequences of not paying back a loan.  It's for them and their creditor to figure out.  It's good for the economy.
So it doesn't matter there is wage stagnation on only the higher earners are receiving wage growth. It only matters if you have a good economy? Okay.

--> @Alec
Lol the "US" didn't win that war. Northern Culture wiped out an inferior Southern culture. 

That's how nature and evolution of humankind works. Inferior cultures must be allowed to go the way of the dodo bird. Making safe spaces for inferior cultures is hubris and dangerous to the survival of the human race.

Imagine how the world would look If Lincoln said..fuckit, lets just give the South their own Nation.

Imagine how the world would look if Israel said "Fuckit, lets just let Hamas have their own nation-state."

Imagine How the world would look if AMERICA said "FUCKIT, LET'S HAVE A SAFE SPACE NATION FOR HITLER"

Cause multiculturalism and all...
--> @Greyparrot
The US won that war since the Union represented the US.  The confederacy represented the CSA.

Inferior cultures must be allowed to go the way of the dodo bird.
I agree with this.


--> @Alec
The Union represents the Union.  The US invaded itself, and the CSA proved to be nothing but a bogus claim based in ill founded superstition.  You can't win a civil war
--> @Snoopy
The CSA was a separatist movement on the basis of ideology.
--> @Alec
I don't see that there is anything particularly wrong with a separatist movement.  Our primary concern should be of maintaining the integrity of the US.  Should we fail, a separatist movement from the federal government very well may be necessary in the future.  Hopefully the opposite is in store, and United States continues to grow.  
--> @Alec
In terms of separatist movements, it may not be so much about culture as it is having a common sense of civic duty.  The problems may arise over disrespectful manipulation through the high government.  One must ask I suppose, if it is actually practical to expect the populous to maintain a degree of selflessness, agreeing to disagree, mutual respect.
--> @Snoopy
Even Hillary Clinton and her leftist supporters realize that multiple cultures are now a bad thing.

Why else would she call flyover culture a basket of deplorables?

Why else would an FBI agent tweet "Just went to a Southern Virginia Walmart. I could smell the Trump support."

Why else would a certain user on this site call a culture that puts Americans first as an immoral Trumpanzee culture?

Clearly this is not the multi-culturalism the left envisioned.