There are several very different types of anti-immigrant sentiment in the US. They differ by region and they also differ from the feelings in Europe.
1. Basic, racist, "this person is a different skin color".
2. "We're not racist, but they're willing to work cheaper and take our jobs".
3. "They want to keep their own culture and not integrate with ours."
The third one is far less prevalent in the US than it is in Europe. I think this is for several reasons, but chief among them is that immigrants to the US do actually want to integrate into their new society, whereas immigrants to Europe generally do not. Unlike Europe, the US offers the possibility for immigrants to become as "American" as anyone else, regardless of their race or religion. Whereas immigrants to France, for example, can never become "French". This is mutually reinforcing - the French won't let them become "French", and the immigrants naturally react by not wanting to. Even if they do support liberal French cultural values without excessive judgment, which many do not, that is rarely their main reason to move there except in some political cases. The aim of immigrants to the US is not just economic prosperity, but to join the society and to be American (speaking for my own mixed Latin, Arabic and Jewish immigrant family).
This leaves a situation in the US where only (1) and (2) are arguments that have any traction, and those only have traction with a backwards and racist part of the population, aka MAGA. (3) is a much more difficult question, and it would have more traction here if it were true that immigrants to the US were similar to immigrants to Europe, in only seeking economic gains and choosing to remain separate from the societal mainstream.
You seem to be conflating (3) with the previous two. And maybe for some right-wing European nationalists it is. But I'm not a European white man, and myself and my Filipina partner have heard from some of those right-wing Europeans that as long as we want to learn their culture, they have no problem with us.
When JD Vance goes to Europe and scorns their immigration policy, he is using #3 to their faces, but he is appealing to racist voters who claim #1 and #2 at home. Conversely, when a European tells Americans that all anti-immigrant sentiment in Europe falls into the 1 and 2 categories, you are not honestly telling them about #3.
It's the same in Saudi Arabia, isn't it? You can't go get a job in an oil field and go around waving a bible and drinking bourbon. The fact that the West tolerates a lot of different beliefs and ways of life is a good thing, it adds to our diversity and that is our strength. But that tolerance for others has to also be a foundational understanding for newer arrivals who come here. And if it's not, and if they enter into open hostilities with the country that received them, then I don't think all of that can be laid at the feet of ignorant skin-color-based racism.
As for 3, regardless if it's true or not as it's also quite subjective, you need to also ask yourself the question whether that's really desired, or, whether the society has the moral right to ask that. Think about Jews during the ages - they survived, their culture survived in exile thanks to that.
In an ideal world, the majority would just appreciate the variety, in the actual world the minority will always suffer by just being different, though. (Grave incompatibilities aside, such as underage marriages and other ways of harming people.)
> Whereas immigrants to France, for example, can never become "French"
That's untrue. It really depends on where they arrived and their support system. If their support system isn't French, of course integration is extremely hard. I know a lot of people hosting political refugees (my mom and her friends basically), and met a lot of immigrants. I'd say the only couple that didn't integrate was hosted and worked through a Kazak support group before being contacted by cimade and moved far from Paris (tehy were white and christian, so racism and islamophobia are out). Other refugees i've met through the association integrated just fine. I must add that refugees who already have a support system in a big sity often refuse Cimade's help, so the refugees/immigrants i met had a specific profile (either single moms with child or highly educated middle-aged, most from a minority group in a violent country. Kurds and Druze, Kazaks, some russians, one Iraki from before the Irak war, some non-french speaking Africans).
I guarantee you most of them became French. I agree it's the minority, but it's the minority targeted by new laws and the far right (refugees, who can't have their papers in order until Cimade take care of that and teach them french).
I would agree we should do more for cultural integration for the rest of the immigrated crowd, through sport, through games, popular education in general (if you're an immigrant and your child go in youth camps with the Francas every summer, your child will end up French enough. Maybe a bit communist though, be carefull) and maybe through school, but we've dropped the ball in the 2000s, and killing the proximity police (which, while it didn't work as much as expected in big cities, worked extremely well in mid-size ones) didn't help. I understand the general sentiment, but i feel like current policies target the wrong crowd, and are ineffective in solving the actual issues.
1. Basic, racist, "this person is a different skin color".
2. "We're not racist, but they're willing to work cheaper and take our jobs".
3. "They want to keep their own culture and not integrate with ours."
The third one is far less prevalent in the US than it is in Europe. I think this is for several reasons, but chief among them is that immigrants to the US do actually want to integrate into their new society, whereas immigrants to Europe generally do not. Unlike Europe, the US offers the possibility for immigrants to become as "American" as anyone else, regardless of their race or religion. Whereas immigrants to France, for example, can never become "French". This is mutually reinforcing - the French won't let them become "French", and the immigrants naturally react by not wanting to. Even if they do support liberal French cultural values without excessive judgment, which many do not, that is rarely their main reason to move there except in some political cases. The aim of immigrants to the US is not just economic prosperity, but to join the society and to be American (speaking for my own mixed Latin, Arabic and Jewish immigrant family).
This leaves a situation in the US where only (1) and (2) are arguments that have any traction, and those only have traction with a backwards and racist part of the population, aka MAGA. (3) is a much more difficult question, and it would have more traction here if it were true that immigrants to the US were similar to immigrants to Europe, in only seeking economic gains and choosing to remain separate from the societal mainstream.
You seem to be conflating (3) with the previous two. And maybe for some right-wing European nationalists it is. But I'm not a European white man, and myself and my Filipina partner have heard from some of those right-wing Europeans that as long as we want to learn their culture, they have no problem with us.
When JD Vance goes to Europe and scorns their immigration policy, he is using #3 to their faces, but he is appealing to racist voters who claim #1 and #2 at home. Conversely, when a European tells Americans that all anti-immigrant sentiment in Europe falls into the 1 and 2 categories, you are not honestly telling them about #3.
It's the same in Saudi Arabia, isn't it? You can't go get a job in an oil field and go around waving a bible and drinking bourbon. The fact that the West tolerates a lot of different beliefs and ways of life is a good thing, it adds to our diversity and that is our strength. But that tolerance for others has to also be a foundational understanding for newer arrivals who come here. And if it's not, and if they enter into open hostilities with the country that received them, then I don't think all of that can be laid at the feet of ignorant skin-color-based racism.