For instance, America conquered much of its southern and western territories from Mexico - there wasn't migration, and thus, any who lingered from that time, staying in their place of birth were already here, and thus, face discrimination for no reason more or less

But of course, in the case of actual migrants

Generally free will - Governmental programs needed to help the states (like the Braceros program) - An economically forced migration north (As in, crushing poverty, possibly starvation, and minimal healthcare if one chooses to remain in an area) - Or just deciding to move anyways

While migrating to another nation isn't a right (the whole concept of rights are abstract/made up anyways, but that's the case with most things, like borders, or the very state itself), freedom of movement independent of birth status is an ethic nearly universally held

However, just because a government permits some migration doesn't mean society holds equally tolerant attitudes

Alright, so they're never victims no matter what they do.

*they're always

No?

How do you take that away from what I'm saying?

Because that was what you were asked

"Are they ever at fault?"

"Who let them in?"

"Who passed legisilation?"

I'm describing a history

also pardon the type, *legislation

If a migrant commits a crime, then that individual migrant is at fault.

Anyhow, as I was saying

Societal attitudes most certainly are discriminatory, despite a supposedly egalitarian government

And moreover, the government isn't entirely egalitarian itself

And if a group of migrants is more criminal than the native population? Is it the native population's fault?

That wasn't what those questions meant, by the way

In addition to prohibitive costs preventing many from legally migrating, and not to mention often discrimination

It isn't.

"It sure seems like white people are bad at discrimination when they go out of their way to prevent it"

If I may have a second to answer...

is what I was getting at

sure

I'm not entirely sure how to phrase this...

But more or less, you're treating ethnic groups like monoliths.

Explain

I think it's unwise to generalize birth groups. Birth groups show extreme variation

There is variation, always

You're clustering "a group of migrants" and "a native population" together

Extreme variation.

To a degree where it's not really worth making de jure policies on

You're also neglecting the plethora of other factors

Isn't the purpose of a generalization meant to demonstrate what they are like "in general?"

I've never understood the "NOT ALL!" response

In general, most mass shooters are white Americans, for instance.

Would it be reasonable to create policies off of this information?

No.