> You think that if you took 10,000 people raised by Dutch mothers and had them build a city, it would turn out the same as if you took 10,000 people raised by Bangladeshi mothers. I reject that premise.

Are you trying for some kind of world record in strawmen? If so this one should definitely be nominated.

No, you can add whatever crap you want after that it is founded on something blatantly dishonest.

And you are apparently in love with some aspects of dutch society while you ignore the fact that - just like in your country - we have a massive issue with racism, have a huge problem with drugs and drug related crime as well as with human trafficking. Bangladesh, I'm sure has problems but they are just different problem. Food, clothing styles and architecture are not superficial, neither are family and friendship bonds, etc. Besides that we also have a massive pollution problem, have some of the largest CO2 emissions on the planet per square meter on account of our incredibly successful but also ridiculously dense pig, cow and chicken factories and associated slaughterhouses and so on.

Yes, Bangladesh is poor, and yes, there are issues there. But those issues have nothing to do with immigration and there is zero chance that Bangladeshi immigrants would recreate the society they left behind. Just like you and your family did not.

Not to pile on, but I think part of the issue is that the GP's argument has cause and effect reversed. He believes Bangladesh is poor and unpleasant in various ways because of their culture, while in fact it runs the other way. Culture is in many ways downstream of economics, not upstream.

Of course it's more complex than that in total, and it can go both ways, but that's my view.

You're correct that the direction of the causality is the key question. I'd argue that your view, however, suffers from results-oriented thinking. You assume cultural equality as axiomatic. That forces you to assume that Bangladesh's culture is caused by poverty and not the cause of its poverty.

I think most of the evidence points in the other direction. Bangladesh today has a per-capita GDP, adjusted for purchasing power, of over $12,000 (in 2024 U.S. dollars): https://www.worldeconomics.com/Processors/Economics-Countrie.... That's about where the U.S. was at the time of World War I, adjusted for inflation. Despite having economic productivity comparable to WWI-era U.S., Bangladesh is a vastly inferior society in terms of governance, political stability, cleanliness, law and order, etc. It excels in a few areas (low homicide rate and surprisingly good health indicators) but otherwise lags far behind.

You can also compare across countries that were similarly poor until recently. When my dad was born in what was then Pakistan, China was poorer than Pakistan. Today, China is much richer, more stable, cleaner, and more advanced. And Bangladesh, as bad as it is, is pulling away from Pakistan.

The resource curse, geographic location and climate are huge factors as well as those 'successful' western countries usually taking advantage of being a few decades ahead on the tech curve. That alone accounts for a huge fraction of the wealth and perceived advantages of one country over another. Bangladesh has a very rich history and was at times way ahead of the curve but the combination of various western (mostly British) influences in the region as well as a series of wars and coups have left it in shambles. But no Bangladeshi born today had any part in that, just as no Dutch person born today can take credit for where NL sits (not that there is all that much to take credit for, if anything my national pride extends as far as the waterworks and ASML but not much further than that and I'm well aware of the history of both).

> The resource curse, geographic location and climate are huge factors as well as those 'successful' western countries usually taking advantage

You have a theory of why some countries are rich and others are poor. I also have a theory. How are you so stridently confident that not only is your analysis is correct, but so obviously correct that my contrary view somehow is outside the boundaries of debate?

> Bangladesh has a very rich history and was at times way ahead of the curve but the combination of various western (mostly British) influences in the region as well as a series of wars and coups have left it in shambles.

Britain didn't conquer the subcontinent through superior weaponry. The Mughal Empire was one of the gunpowder empires: https://www.thoughtco.com/the-gunpowder-empires-195840. Britain was able to conquer the subcontinent using superior institutions and organization. In contrast, the Mughal Empire lacked such institutions, or any sense of nationalism. Indeed, the British East India company conquered India with an army largely comprised of Indians. https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/armies-east-india-company.

Instead, the technology that enabled Britain to succeed was cultural technology. In Britain, nuclear families were the norm back in the 13th century. Those weak family ties--which, frankly, I find upsetting even as someone raised among Americans--spurred the development of civic institutions to perform functions that in other societies were handled by extended family networks.

You're correct that I think you're entirely wrong about how culture works, but that's not what I'm asking you about.

My point is that under your rules and worldview, you should not have been allowed to come to the US, because you are from the "bad" culture.

Why should an exception have been made for you? Why are you and your family special and different from everyone else in your home culture? Under your own rules, that makes no sense.