The U.S. will never be a white country again

[♔The Black Knight♔]

I don't think people are denying that there are differences between ethnicities, it's just that ethnicities are messy and can't be defined cleanly. Can you clearly define each ethnicity of every person? Are there concrete differences between the Basques and the French? What about the French and Bretons? When you transition from Russia to Asia, who is European and who is Asian? What about people with mixed ancestory (like much of Latin America)? Are Somalis a homogenous group, or is it made up of multiple ethnicities? There is not always an objective answer here. It's ultimately an abstract construction that we use to categorize people based on real perceived differences. If you could provide me an objective categorization of every human being into an ethnic group, only then would I change my mind.

Also they would likely push back on essentialist elements of ethnicity in general. The ethnicity of someone doesn't determine their culture, their personality, their morals, their religion, or really much of anything. It's only once that person enters society where those things are developed. If you adopt a baby from Ethiopia into an American household, it's likely going to emulate the culture that it was immersed in.

[conon394]

Dude, I look Mediterranean as , I could pass for Greek, Spanish or Portuguese but never German. Can't you guys stop denying that there are evident ethnic differences? It's not like I'm offended by the fact that I don't look Germanic.

So Germans can only be white. Would you say the same of Poles because my father very much does not look stereotypical polish white think surfer dude with a perpetual dark tan, brown eyes and black hair.

But I still not seeing what you are driving at are saying becuse you don't look a white German you are fundamentally different than a white German.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Such a nonsense, my "pure" german father has black (now grey) hair and brown eyes and get a bronze tone skin in the sun.

South Europeans have always talked to him in their native language first in holidays in South Europe.

Those whiteness fetish is nothing more than pointless stereotypes.

[Aexodus]

Europe has never been homogeneous. Its probably the most diverse Continent in the world historically. There is more nations, and languages and cultures out of Europe then anywhere in the world most likely. Ethnicity, is not only about the color of your skin. Cultural aspects are of the most importance here. I wonder if any of you even read any of Basil links?

Not that they dont conclude anything revealing or radical, i mean who knew that having several people from various cultures, Races and backgrounds to form a society, it would make it less cohesive socially?!?! That its several groups would tend to focus more inwards, then to focus on all the groups in the community.

It is what the studies show, the more diverse or integrated a neighborhood is, the less socially cohesive it becomes, while the more homogeneous or segregated it is, the more socially cohesive.

Its nothing new for me really. As a person who lived all their life in an Urban Multicultural environment, that is my experience with it as well. Both in the city and in the suburbs. Unless you are part of a certain ghetto neighborhood, which is usually by definition not that diverse. Otherwise the sense of community is more easily found in small towns and villages which, normally are not centers of multicultural diversity.

Africa is full of such conflicts and divisions due to artificial nature plenty of African countries were born, for example. And it is no secret in western countries social division is increasing. I mean our societies are pretty divisive right now generally speaking.

Personally, given that diversity of religion, ethnicity, language tend to hamper social policies and redistributive welfare, I don’t understand why it’s so promoted.

Maybe the people who are behind it don’t want good public services and good public healthcare. Or perhaps the more cheap labour, the better their corporate bottom line is and promoting diversity is the way to do that. The Blairites of this world embraced this wholeheartedly in the 1990s.

[hellheaven1987]

my "pure" german father has black (now grey) hair and brown eyes and get a bronze tone skin in the sun.

How do you know your ancestors were "pure" German??

[Ludicus]

There are zero successful multiethnic societies.

The most powerful country in the world is multiethnic.The British society, like most western European societies is de facto multiethnic.In one comparison of 55 nations on the average subjective well-being, relatively ethnically homogeneous Asian nations of China, South Korea, and Japan ranked 53rd, 48th, and 42nd, respectively, much lower than ethnically heterogeneous nations of the US (7th), United Kingdom (14th), and Brazil (17th) (Diener et al., 1995).
A number of socio-economic factors are associated greater national well-being, including income per capita/ income inequality/social welfare/ individualism, democracy and freedom/ social capital and physical health.
.....
Satisfaction - OECD Better Life Index
......

Map of life satisfaction and happiness in Europe

Europe has never been homogeneous. Its probably the most diverse Continent in the world historically. There is more nations, and languages and cultures out of Europe then anywhere in the world most likely. Ethnicity, is not only about the color of your skin. Cultural aspects are of the most importance here.

Cultural aspects are important, not ethnicity. I don't agree with Basil.Cultural and ethnic identity aren't exactly the same thing.Beyond their relation to the/ethnic/religious in-group, immigrants also form bonds with the receiving country.Let's keep in mind that science in the US is built on immigrants.

--

Personally, given that diversity of religion, ethnicity, language tend to hamper social policies and redistributive welfare, I don’t understand why it’s so promoted

Social policy reflects society's values.Ethnicity can impact the ways in which these values are perceived by ethnic groups.The public healthcare in Europe is better than the American one.

[Ludicus]

Delete.

[Knight of Heaven]

Cultural aspects are important, not ethnicity. I don't agree with Basil.Cultural and ethnic identity aren't exactly the same thing.Beyond their relation to the/ethnic/religious in-group, immigrants also form bonds with the receiving country.Let's keep in mind that science in the US is built on immigrants.

Yes but you cant say American society is cohesive socially, between their multicultural melting pot. Strive, conflict, and tensions between several ethnic groups are part of of its historical past, and its issues are still alive. Today specially, division is probably more underlined then ever, with current "indentitarian wars" going on. Even between genders.

Also i wouldn't discount ethnicity, as plenty of times it goes hand in hand with culture, and at the end of the day is one more differential marker. Whenever we like it or not it stands out and has the potential to cause issues socially, even within an unconscious bias dynamic. Again it depends, context is key in this imo. Drastic changes in the composition of a society, historically always had consequences. And we both know humanity track record on this issues.

Still I read the articles Basil posted, the studies done , were done by left leaning Academia, they do seem reach reasonable conclusions imo.

[Mithradates]

Would you say the same of Poles because my father very much does not look stereotypical polish white think surfer dude with a perpetual dark tan, brown eyes and black hair.

Eastern Europe has a sizable gypsy populace so dont be surprised if a genetic ancestry test would show some indian heritage.

[Muizer]

Personally, given that diversity of religion, ethnicity, language tend to hamper social policies and redistributive welfare, I don’t understand why it’s so promoted.

Maybe the people who are behind it don’t want good public services and good public healthcare. Or perhaps the more cheap labour, the better their corporate bottom line is and promoting diversity is the way to do that. The Blairites of this world embraced this wholeheartedly in the 1990s.

I do not have the feeling it's being 'promoted' or that there are people 'behind it'. All of this suggests this is a strategy whereby we are actively diverted from ethnic and cultural stasis.

The whole 'celebrating diversity' thing is IMHO best generalized as a coping strategy for people once they accept diversity is
a) inherently human (e.g. gender)
b) an historical inheritance (e.g. ethnic and cultural diversity relatable to a colonial past)
c) the alternative to draconic repressive measures (migration).

This is accepting diversity as a given and us having to make the best of it. In this situation, insisting everyone conforms to a past norm is not 'making the best of it', but actively disruptive.

The only debatable thing concerns the rate at which change happens, and to what extent it can be managed. And in this debate there's no place for arguments that use the current or past society as a static benchmark. That benchmark itself has always been shifting. We're all in the process of destroying the older generation's benchmarks for normality.

[Basil II the B.S]

As Coleman Hughes argues, it's not just about ''accepting diversity'' or tolerating. You have to prefer it and you have to make public demonstrations that you love diversity instead of your own group. That's mainly because racial intolerance is way down, thus in absence of racism, anti-racism makes no sense. The solution is simply to expand the notion of anti-racism.

The most powerful country in the world is multiethnic.The British society, like most western European societies is de facto multiethnic.In one comparison of 55 nations on the average subjective well-being, relatively ethnically homogeneous Asian nations of China, South Korea, and Japan ranked 53rd, 48th, and 42nd, respectively, much lower than ethnically heterogeneous nations of the US (7th), United Kingdom (14th), and Brazil (17th) (Diener et al., 1995).
A number of socio-economic factors are associated greater national well-being, including income per capita/ income inequality/social welfare/ individualism, democracy and freedom/ social capital and physical health.
.....
Satisfaction - OECD Better Life Index
......

Map of life satisfaction and happiness in Europe





Cultural aspects are important, not ethnicity. I don't agree with Basil.Cultural and ethnic identity aren't exactly the same thing.Beyond their relation to the/ethnic/religious in-group, immigrants also form bonds with the receiving country.Let's keep in mind that science in the US is built on immigrants.

Don't misquote me. Please?

I didn't say ''there are zero successful multiethnic societies.''
What I said: ''There are zero successful multiethnic societies, not just democracies, where no particular ethnic group held the ruling power and political equality existed.''

Which is actually very different, isn't it? All of the multiethnic societies you listed have one ethnic group which is the absolute majority and shapes institutions through its culture. Minorities are tolerated, so long that they don't cause trouble. However, political power doesn't shift from ethnic one group to another via elections, nor there's political equality among them. There's one power group and the rest.
In the UK it's the English, in Brazil it's the ''whites''/primary the descendants of Portuguese colonials, the US also ''whites''. All of which shapes the country at all levels. In the Uk they speak... English. Not Scottish, nor Welsh, nor Irish. What language do they speak in Brazil? And the US? This is what btw the social justice crowd translates to ''the US is inherently white supremacist'' simply because the institutions were made by whites.

The closest you can get is the Blair governments in the UK, which had a strong Scottish component. The price of it however was culture: they were Anglicized, English Speaking, Eton educated Scots. The Soviet Union had similar cases of governments with strong Ukrainian and Georgian components (eg Stalin) with the same compromise. There's always a common structure that holds the system together. If minority ethnic groups make it to power in a multiethnic society, then it's people who have fully absorbed the cultural aspect. You don't get a single case of successful multiethnic society with complete political equality among different groups. This is especially true if cultural differences among groups are significant. The more distance the groups are in terms of cultural values, the less likely it is they are welcomed into high political power. Look at the Middle East for examples, where ethno-cultural diversity is quite extreme.

Edit: since you brought up the UK, here's how unsuccessful it is. Once ethnicty overlapped with religion, one group left. Catholic Ireland became independent from the rest of the mainly Anglican UK. It takes 2 highly polarizing elements like religion and ethnicity for a group to decide they are better on their own rather than competing for power in democratic elections.

So, if anything the UK is an example of how multiethnic and multicultural societies end. The social collant is shaped by the largest ethnic and cultural group. If there's too much overlapping diversity, the country splits.

I do agree with your other point that culture and ethnicity aren't the same thing (then again, never claimed otherwise). However, culture, language and ethnicity often overlap. They are not exclusionary by necessity, but they overlap.

[Ludicus]

Yes but you cant say American society is cohesive socially, between their multicultural melting pot.

Basil sees their/any multicultural melting pot in a negative light, and I don't agree with him. Transfusions of blood and culture across the Atlantic ocean made America great (not Trump's racism).
Who are true Americans? the "white" Americans? the Indians? what is white culture, exactly? In the US, African Americans, both slave and free also made significant contributions to the US economy and culture, and Black Americans have always helped fight America's wars. Some would even say that The American Civil War is the central event in America's historical consciousness. What about the American Muslims? Muslims have fought in all major US wars- American Civil war, WW1 and WW2, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Aren't they Americans?
What about the Italian immigrants? in Italy, few people in 1830 believed that an Italian nation might exist. In the US, Italian immigrants began arriving in large numbers in the late 1800s as unskilled labor. Over half a million Italian Americans served in the American military during World War Two. The Italian immigrants helped fuel the industrial economy of America, but they were also suspected of being terrorists. Should they be sent back to Italy?
Political propaganda depicting Italians as an inferior race.The Klan was opposed to Italians on racial and religious grounds. Italians were often depicted as an impure race in service of a corrupt foreign power.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

In the name of "social cohesion" are we still living in the racist past? The US has been a multicultural success story. Australia remains a cohesive society with one of the highest levels of positive sentiment towards multiculturalism and immigration in the western world- according to the Scanlon Foundation Mapping Social Cohesion survey.
What about the Italian Jews? The Union of Italian Jewish Communities recently said in a statement Italian Jews say plan for Roma 'registry' has echoes of fascist past
Let's suppose that the Jews are not true "white Italians". If "true white" Italians are the priority, should they be sent to Israel, or to Auschwitz? is there a future for Jews in Italy?
What about the Chinese American community? the Chinese helped build America.

[Basil II the B.S]

The collant remains Anglo-Saxon culture and language. German immigrants anglicized their surnames (like Trump ancestors did). The US is multicultural but not a Tower of Babel . It's not like there are hundreds of groups that speak different languages and have completely different value sets. The overwhelming majority speak English. The Constitution is based on Anglo-Saxon tradition political thought and education is similarly shaped. The Pledge of Allegiance isn't based on, for example, Hindu traditions but on Anglo-Saxon Christianity. In the Oath of Office, the US president swears on the Bible, not the Quran.

Do I need to go on? What you call ''multicultural society'' doesn't have political equality among different cultures. There's one culture that's clearly dominant and there's the rest. If you want political equality among cultures, then you'll get secession.

[♔The Black Knight♔]

As Coleman Hughes argues, it's not just about ''accepting diversity'' or tolerating. You have to prefer it and you have to make public demonstrations that you love diversity instead of your own group. That's mainly because racial intolerance is way down, thus in absence of racism, anti-racism makes no sense. The solution is simply to expand the notion of anti-racism.



Don't misquote me. Please?

I didn't say ''there are zero successful multiethnic societies.''
What I said: ''There are zero successful multiethnic societies, not just democracies, where no particular ethnic group held the ruling power and political equality existed.''

Which is actually very different, isn't it? All of the multiethnic societies you listed have one ethnic group which is the absolute majority and shapes institutions through its culture. Minorities are tolerated, so long that they don't cause trouble. However, political power doesn't shift from ethnic one group to another via elections, nor there's political equality among them. There's one power group and the rest.
In the UK it's the English, in Brazil it's the ''whites''/primary the descendants of Portuguese colonials, the US also ''whites''. All of which shapes the country at all levels. In the Uk they speak... English. Not Scottish, nor Welsh, nor Irish. What language do they speak in Brazil? And the US? This is what btw the social justice crowd translates to ''the US is inherently white supremacist'' simply because the institutions were made by whites.

The closest you can get is the Blair governments in the UK, which had a strong Scottish component. The price of it however was culture: they were Anglicized, English Speaking, Eton educated Scots. The Soviet Union had similar cases of governments with strong Ukrainian and Georgian components (eg Stalin) with the same compromise. There's always a common structure that holds the system together. If minority ethnic groups make it to power in a multiethnic society, then it's people who have fully absorbed the cultural aspect. You don't get a single case of successful multiethnic society with complete political equality among different groups. This is especially true if cultural differences among groups are significant. The more distance the groups are in terms of cultural values, the less likely it is they are welcomed into high political power. Look at the Middle East for examples, where ethno-cultural diversity is quite extreme.

Edit: since you brought up the UK, here's how unsuccessful it is. Once ethnicty overlapped with religion, one group left. Catholic Ireland became independent from the rest of the mainly Anglican UK. It takes 2 highly polarizing elements like religion and ethnicity for a group to decide they are better on their own rather than competing for power in democratic elections.

So, if anything the UK is an example of how multiethnic and multicultural societies end. The social collant is shaped by the largest ethnic and cultural group. If there's too much overlapping diversity, the country splits.

I do agree with your other point that culture and ethnicity aren't the same thing (then again, never claimed otherwise). However, culture, language and ethnicity often overlap. They are not exclusionary by necessity, but they overlap.

One "culture" (which is ultimately impossible to define and is not as monolithic as you may think) may dominate the politics of these countries, but the ethnic makeup changed over time. The United States transitioned from Anglo Saxon/ Protestant males to further be inclusive of all whites. It is has also done better at including Americanized "minorities" (however you would like to define it) and women.

The UK is the same way. Sizeable diverse segments of the population (diverse in terms of religion, race, language, or culture) are dangerous due to power dynamics, not because they are different (I would recommend reading Cordell and Wolff's book on ethnic conflict or Michael E Brown's work on internal conflict) . When human beings feel they are unempowered and the controlling group is excluding them from changing that, those humans will grapple to other identities and cause conflict. We can prevent that by promoting the integration of the controlling group and the minority group (which doesn't mean the controlling group should just roll over and adopt the culture of minorities) to create a more cohesive culture and allow for a redefinition of who should be in power. It has its limits if the group is too big (which is why I'm not for unrestricted immigration in the US), but integrating sizeable minorities over time will enable for better integration into politics within the United States and allow them to be included in the majority group that governs the country.

[Vanoi]

The collant remains Anglo-Saxon culture and language. German immigrants anglicized their surnames (like Trump ancestors did). The US is multicultural but not a Tower of Babel . It's not like there are hundreds of groups that speak different languages and have completely different value sets. The overwhelming majority speak English. The Constitution is based on Anglo-Saxon tradition political thought and education is similarly shaped. The Pledge of Allegiance isn't based on, for example, Hindu traditions but on Anglo-Saxon Christianity. In the Oath of Office, the US president swears on the Bible, not the Quran.

You're not required to swear on the Bible if elected President. Thats just tradition. You can swear your oath on a cook book and it'd still count.

Do I need to go on? What you call ''multicultural society'' doesn't have political equality among different cultures. There's one culture that's clearly dominant and there's the rest. If you want political equality among cultures, then you'll get secession.

There's definitely political quality between different cultures here in America. Americans aren't a monolithic group of people.

[conon394]

The Pledge of Allegiance isn't based on, for example, Hindu traditions but on Anglo-Saxon Christianity

Actually its based in cold war hysteria because that what produced it. It really should have died with the cold war.

In the Oath of Office, the US president swears on the Bible, not the Quran.

Two presidents used books of law, one TR used nothing (their maybe another I can't recall). So help me got is not part of the Presidential oat and for the civil service on if affirm over swear it is also excluded. And of since there is no religious test Muslims in the use qurans all the time to swear oaths of office.

The Constitution is based on Anglo-Saxon tradition political thought

Of course that is why have a Witen and counsel of elected earls for a legislative branch

[Basil II the B.S]

Here's what you guys are not getting.

You say ''the US has different groups of people, it's multicultural, it works, case closed''.

Nope. Do you want to make it truly multicultural? Then its institutions must be multicultural. That means that there's a Muslim president, backed by a significant Muslim minority, he starts changing the Constitution according to Islamic traditions and the country does not fall apart. After that, let's say some Hindu takes over, backed by a Hindu minority and starts changing the Constitution according to those traditions and the country does not fall apart. Then you have a Chinese one doing the same with Confucian based laws. Only in that case the power would be shared legitimately in a ''multicultural'' way and if the country does not fall apart, then you'll have your point. Once the US has power transitions across completely different cultures and ethnicities peacefully and without imploding, then you can legitimately claim ''my country is multicultural'', because political power is shared among all different groups, equally. You don't have that. No country, nor society has ever achieved anything remotely like that.

What you have is a country whose institutions and laws simply reflect primarily the Anglo-Saxon institutional development and to a secondary degree the experiences of continental Europe. Indeed many of the non-Anglo-Saxon immigrants simply Anglicized themselves to fit in. The US is a country where a bunch of dudes from different backgrounds play by primarily WASP rules. Now, when the SJW crowd talks about ''institutionalized racism/white supremacy'' they mean exactly that. The US institutions are made by ''white people'' and enshrine the domination of ''white people's culture''. What they want is to tear them apart and replace them to make them room for other experiences, primarily the African/Muslim ones. Why do you think they are obsessed with ''power structures''? It's not like that basic analysis finds no grasps in reality. The power structure in white majority societies reflects... the culture of the majority. Just like in other majority countries it reflects those majorities.

The problem with what they want to do is that their goal is to simply tear apart what is the fabric of society, thinking they can do any better by making a puzzle of other cultures.

Ethnicity and religion once they overlap create too much of a frictionary element to last long. If the minority group is big enough to make its case, they leave. It blows my mind seeing Brits claiming ''my country is multicultural and works''. Guys, in the previous century Ireland left you out of ethnic and religious differences.
Lebanon also imploded out of religious differences between two large groups. Syria? Well just look at that cluster, and part of the reason is that the largest group, Sunni Muslims, finds less representation than it could have. Slovaks and the Czech divorced not long ago over basic ethnic differences, despite being from the same family, sharing the same religion and having a similar language as well. Yugoslavia? Again, ethnicity and religion overlap, the country goes up in flames. And that's just the previous century.

[Vanoi]

That makes no sense. First i don't think you understand while the US it is multicultural the various cultures all share similarities in the first place. They aren't entirely seperate cultures. Like Chicano-American culture and Southern culture. Both have differences but are similar to one another since both are just sub-groups of American culture.

Your example with the Muslim President is bad. Nevermind he'd never be able to change the Constitution, but you assume because he is a Muslim that he will enact Islamic laws and Islamic culture in general. Thats a massive assumption and kind of ignores the fact Muslom or not he likley was born and grew up in the US. He'd be exposed to American culture in the first place. He could even take aspects from his religion's culture and simply add it in while still being compatible with what is American culture.

You use the same example with Hindus. It all assumes that those Hindus and Muslims want to enforce their religious beleifs and culture over the native culture. Yet in the entire history of US immigration thats never happened.

We have Muslim Congressmen and women. Not one of them has advocated for Islamic law or forcing Islamic beliefs on the rest of the population. We have millions of Muslims and other religious minorities. They seem to be perfectly fine with the US not promoting their religion or enacting laws to suit thier religious beliefs. No riots or escalating violence.

Yes American law and its Constitution are based on some Anglo-Saxon tradition and WASP culture defined the US at the time. Yet this isnt 1789 anymore and American culture has changed dramatically since then.

If American culture still played by WASP rules we wouldnt have had Obama as President or Kennedy since he was Catholic. Women wouldn't be as prominent in politics or positions of power either.

WASP culture is long dead. Got replaced. Way too much influence from non-WASP people for it to still be considered WASP culture.

I don't know why you focus so much on religion. America isn't Lebanon or Syria. No where near the same religious tension and violence.

[conon394]

Nope. Do you want to make it truly multicultural? Then its institutions must be multicultural. That means that there's a Muslim president, backed by a significant Muslim minority, he starts changing the Constitution according to Islamic traditions and the country does not fall apart. After that, let's say some Hindu takes over, backed by a Hindu minority and starts changing the Constitution according to those traditions and the country does not fall apart. Then you have a Chinese one doing the same with Confucian based laws. Only in that case the power would be shared legitimately in a ''multicultural'' way and if the country does not fall apart, then you'll have your point. Once the US has power transitions across completely different cultures and ethnicities peacefully and without imploding, then you can legitimately claim ''my country is multicultural'', because political power is shared among all different groups, equally. You don't have that. No country, nor society has ever achieved anything remotely like that.

That's a straw-man argument of ludicrous nature. How exactly would a Muslim president who apparently commands the absolute loyalty of the Muslim minority. Alter the Constitution? He has super majorities in 2/3rds of the House and Senate, and 2/3 of the sates back him? You know by 2050 Hindus might make up 1.2 percent of the population I quiver the electoral power they will have to topple the Constitution. What's is funny you spiel here is the kind thing my hear when JFK was elected he follow the Popes rules, blah ,blah amazing nothing like that happened.

Indeed many of the non-Anglo-Saxon immigrants simply Anglicized themselves to fit in.

Umm they turned English? Not generally much in the first generation - Thus China towns and Italian, Polish, Armenian, Romanian, Italian, etc ethnic enclaves where you could live quite comfortably never speaking English. The US has survived lots of groups that stand apart the Amish the LDS (in the past). And I think there can be no doubt the attempt to convert the people of the first nations via boarding schools was a disaster.

Now, when the SJW crowd talks about ''institutionalized racism/white supremacy'' they mean exactly that. The US institutions are made by ''white people'' and enshrine the domination of ''white people's culture''.'

Well yes it has been you forget the country was founded as polity for white male Protestant property owners and the need to preserve racial slavery and largely also sustain the inferior status of Chinese, Mexicans and First Nations people. I see no reason why it has to stay that since the Constitution explicitly always change. I do believe that day has passed. Its all to bad racism inherent in the system could not been stopped with the civil war perhaps interracial marriages might have common a 150 years ago the ideal of race might seen as a odd notion now in the US

[dogukan]

I am not going to go from the route of the other posters here.

But having more muslims and being non-white are not equivalent. Being "less-white" does not mean the country is "multi-cultural" either.

Culture and ethnicity are different things. Much of the concepts people in the west debates are ridiculous to me as a Turk.

Some of the most secular and western oriented people in Turkey are dark-skinned Alevites, while some of the most troubling Islamists are LITERALLY caucasian whites from northern parts of Turkey.

Non-white majority =/=cultural shift.
One way or another, USA managed to create an "American" nation, with regional cultural varieties of American-ness. An Alabaman American will not have similar cultural background to a dark skin New Yorker or a California surfer...etc.
Geography makes an impact, and USA is very diverse in that.
They also have a unique federal+decentral system to make sure that these differences manage to stay together.

If you argue that USA is failing to "absorb" immigrants by integrating them into the American national identity, that is one thing. If you see the problem in the change of color of people's skin, that is another.

I do agree that immigration should carefully consider the overflow of people from vastly different cultural backgrounds. But this is not an issue in USA. Most of the "left" that you hate in USA are local people. Generations of Americans. USA isn't getting a ton of unsustainable immigration from "Muslims". In fact, most of their immigration is from CHRISTIAN latin america.

Europe has had to face the impact of
1. Global warming that you are denying which causes a ton of conflict in Africa and unsustainable lives which uproots millions
2. The Middle Eastern Instability and a many civil wars + Israel's war which expelled tens of millions of Arabs

This has created a situation where there is an overflow of vastly different people that are tearing the fabric of society apart. Not because of their skin color. It is simply higher than the rate of absorbtion.