This must be a stupid thread, like people put some thread like is Hong Kong developed because of UK,
so if that's true, then you can say that New York is developed because of UK?

:|

This must be a stupid threat, like people put some threat like is Hong Kong developed because of UK,
so if that's true, then you can say that New York is developed because of UK?
if it wasnt for england new york wouldnt exist and it would not be called new york.

Nah, it was the Dutch who made it a great port city.

This must be a stupid threat, like people put some threat like is Hong Kong developed because of UK,
so if that's true, then you can say that New York is developed because of UK?

do you mean thread? if not, what threat?

on topic- It was call New Amsterdam before it was New York, so no.

if it wasnt for england new york wouldnt exist and it would not be called new york.

:|

Wow, some of you guys need a lesson on the history of the city.

Yes, it would be new Amsterdam - yes?

if it wasnt for england new york wouldnt exist and it would not be called new york.

Um... the Dutch founded it (thanks guys :)). The English just renamed it, though they did help build it afterwards.

The Dutch made New York into an important trade and port city. The British really didn't do much with it. They really just maintained what was there.

New York as we know it became what it is because of the Americans.

who developed/built this?
http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/199/small4xm6gf.jpg

^^^^^^^^^^^
The Dutch

You gotta understand... US's (New York) Independence from UK is wayyyyyyyyy long time ago... while Hong Kong's Independence from UK was just in the 21st Century. So mostly UK's developments over HK is very significant

^^^^^^^^^^^
The Dutch

Your joking right?

Everyone knows the British built that

actually the british developed the earth and the solar system :) those crafty canucks invented the sun though

Yes, this thread is stupid. The entire world would be different

You gotta understand... US's (New York) Independence from UK is wayyyyyyyyy long time ago... while Hong Kong's Independence from UK was just in the 21st Century. So mostly UK's developments over HK is very significant

1997 is 21st Century?

You think that British built all the buildings in Hong Kong?
Who protect Hong Kong during the Asian economic crisis?
Chinese. China's development is the most significant factor of Hong Kong's continuous development and its position.

the british are not responsible for NYC...

America is responsible for New York being what it is. The Dutch were powerful traders back when they founded New Amsterdam. So they made it an important sea port. But America took New York to the next level and centered a lot of things other than trade around it.

Europeans traders and settlers establiched New Amsterdam back in 1624 and it grew through-out the years.

But it was American ingenuity that built the great skyscrapers.

Your joking right?

Everyone knows the British built that
The British didn't build that. The Americans did. :)

IN SPITE OF...

If only we had a "What If?" Machine like the one in Futurama, any one see those (there were two) episodes?

who developed/built this?
http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/199/small4xm6gf.jpg

the mob.

New York was under British rule for less than 150 years, under American rule for over 230 years. I would say it is America that has ensured the development of NY, no the UK.

This is one interesting thread! :)
Let them be the Dutch and England, NYC certainly not only built by these two, think of all the gernerations of races and nationalities came from so many other places into this crowded island. The people from around the world whom came to nyc and dedicated their lives enriched the city are the ones who paved its developments! :)

Britain has left her mark on the developed world. If America was not colonialized by Great Britain, it would still have been a developing continent say like South America, which the iberians ransacked! So yes, Britain was the catalyst to New York's development.

BTW, that picture is amazing!

1625 - 1664 - 39 year rule by Dutch
1664 - 1783 - 119 year rule by the British
1783 - 2005... - 222 year rule by the Americans

New York is some 380 years old - the British ruled it for around 1/3 of that time - thats pretty significant. Britain's contribution to New York was its placing as one of the most important rts of the world during the rise of the British empire. After that the Americans did the work, but Britain had its fingers in New York's making - just like the Dutch did, albeit in their short stay.

i think the dutch really set it up to be a 'major' city... it was THE major city during their rule a situation that continued right up through history

I believe it were immigrants mainly from Europe that came to America and set feet on Ellis island and settled in the booming city of New York before heading to other parts of the U.S. So I would say New York was created by immigrants mainly Europeans in the past. Which explains the districts in Manhattan like little Italy (mainly Italians), Chinatown later, Harlem (mainly blacks), SOHO and so on.

1625 - 1664 - 39 year rule by Dutch
1664 - 1783 - 119 year rule by the British
1783 - 2005... - 222 year rule by the Americans

New York is some 380 years old - the British ruled it for around 1/3 of that time - thats pretty significant. Britain's contribution to New York was its placing as one of the most important rts of the world during the rise of the British empire. After that the Americans did the work, but Britain had its fingers in New York's making - just like the Dutch did, albeit in their short stay.

During the Revolutionary War, NYC had fewer than 30,000 people. So after 119 years of British rule, it had gone up to less than 30,000 people.

In the next 119 years, under American control, NY's population touched 3 million people.

LONDON AND THE UK ARE THE GREATEST EVER!!!!!!

During the Revolutionary War, NYC had fewer than 30,000 people. So after 119 years of British rule, it had gone up to less than 30,000 people.

In the next 119 years, under American control, NY's population touched 3 million people.Then again Britain could have decided to abandon New York and it wouldn't be here now.

so because britian could have abandoned NYC when it is when around 20,000-30,000 people, what was built afterwards is credited to them?

trying to claim NYC was a british invention is fucking retarded.

The Brits started it, but they aren't the catalyst for it, like HK's case.

No, the dutch started it. NY was their major port of north America. England only continued the trend.

I doubt that the UK had anything to do with its developement.

^ actually they had a lot to do with it!

Britain has left her mark on the developed world. If America was not colonialized by Great Britain, it would still have been a developing continent say like South America, which the iberians ransacked! So yes, Britain was the catalyst to New York's development.

This is probably for me the best reply of the entire thread. The British were critical in NYC (and The US for that matter) success. The British at that time developed the most sound institutions; banking, infrastructure etc. This therefore provided the very stable platform for the economic development of NYC. Had New York been developed by the Spanish (or any other European power at the time) then it would have no way become what it is now. Now that's not to say that NYC is a product of the British, it really made itself a success, but to deny history is stupid. NYC's success does come in small part to the British system and institutions that were firmly set not only in the city but also is the psyche of the ppl. The same can be said about my city and country too.

if it wasnt for england new york wouldnt exist and it would not be called new york.

It would exist and would be called New Amsterdam... Open an history book.

Britain has left her mark on the developed world. If America was not colonialized by Great Britain, it would still have been a developing continent say like South America, which the iberians ransacked! So yes, Britain was the catalyst to New York's development.

More likely because UK (and then US) policy was to wipe most of the native population.
It was the same thing in Argentina (95% of the population is European) and it was the 3th most powerful country in the world in the 1900's. (then it collapsed because of the civil war but that's another story; it could have been the same with the civil war in the USA).

trying to claim NYC was a british invention is fucking retarded.Well actually New York is the British invention. New Amsterdam was the Dutch invention.



It would exist and would be called New Amsterdam... Open an history book.Actually that is doubtful. The Dutch lost it to the British and the British took it on as a vital port. The British could have quite easily left and that would have meant no more current day New York....it wasn't the other way around.



More likely because UK (and then US) policy was to wipe most of the native population.
It was the same thing in Argentina (95% of the population is European) and it was the 3th most powerful country in the world in the 1900's. (then it collapsed because of the civil war but that's another story; it could have been the same with the civil war in the USA).Hang on wasn't that the French's plan? Also my memory is a little hazy on successful French colonies - could you recall a few to me!

You could argue that the greatest reason for New Yorks development is due to the promoters of the Eirie canal. From what I understand it is this development that allowed New York to become the pre-eminment port for the Mid West. The canal allowed the cities catchment to break out of the Hudson river valley and into the great lakes. This lead was maintained until the arrival of Railroads from the UK. Who knows if Philidelphia or Boston would now be more/just as important now.

Really its the boosterism of New Yorks own politicians and businessmen who were primarily responsible for its growth. Britain certainly supplied a base from which flowed new american customs and practices, but thats about it.

Your joking right?

Everyone knows the British built that

no, the dutch has build it.

as there were no dutch people, there was no new-york today

Well actually New York is the British invention. New Amsterdam was the Dutch invention.


SHUT THE FUCK UP

Heh. Nick... New Amsterdam and New York just so happen to be the same city. You can't really invent something that's already been invented, because that's called stealing. ;)

Heh. Nick... New Amsterdam and New York just so happen to be the same city. You can't really invent something that's already been invented, because that's called stealing. ;)If the British weren't around it wouldn't be New York would it! It would be New Amsterdam still. Then again without the British the port could have fizzled out and 2005 New Amsterdam could be a small fishing village. The name though is a re-invention.




great prairie - Using multi-coloured wording might have attracted more attention ;)

SHUT THE FUCK UP

next time, if you can't find an intelligent way for a rebuttal, don't bother.

I think its developed because the citys always been primarily about trade/making money from the start, first for the Dutch, then the British and then after independance that philosophy was carried on...same sort of thing with Hong Kong.

its not really anything to do with one group of people being better or worse than the others...

HK was given independence in 1997. New York has been free of the UK since 1783. Ergo, the UK's power and influence affected HK for a FAR greater portion of its lifetime than New York.

Originally, UK did not want the Industrial Revoultion to spread into the colonies hence that idea was brought in when an intellectual came there, which made made NYC very much developed.

next time, if you can't find an intelligent way for a rebuttal, don't bother.


intelligence is absent from this board.

Hang on wasn't that the French's plan? Also my memory is a little hazy on successful French colonies - could you recall a few to me!

Louisiana (territories from New Orleans to Québec, including Détroit, Chicago and St Louis.)

Last time I checked, these territories were quite successful.

http://www.canadiana.org/citm/_images/common/nf-1759-e.jpg

If the British weren't around it wouldn't be New York would it! It would be New Amsterdam still. Then again without the British the port could have fizzled out and 2005 New Amsterdam could be a small fishing village. The name though is a re-invention.

It would be nearly the same city as today but called New Amsterdam.

Of course NYC's development had to do with the UK. Regardless of what the Dutch were using it for, the main point is that it was a vital port in the massively-profitable transatlantic trade system that fed the British Empire. Its political and financial importance was due mostly to the influence of British aristocracy. Even after independence its growth was fed largely by boats of immigrants and trade ships coming over from British ports.

So yes, the UK had a lot to do with NYC becoming what it is today. Is there supposed to be some kind of dishonor in that?

HK was given independence in 1997. New York has been free of the UK since 1783. Ergo, the UK's power and influence affected HK for a FAR greater portion of its lifetime than New York.

What? HK was given back to China (the PRC) in 1997 as we all know.

As for this question, I say yes. Any sign/guide in NYC is written in only English.

Louisiana (territories from New Orleans to Québec, including Détroit, Chicago and St Louis.)

Last time I checked, these territories were quite successful.Rust belt cities and cities that were part of New France that were lost to Britain in the Treaty of Paris of 1763 and then the final chunks in the Louisiana Purchase after gaining them back from the Spanish. Even then it should be noted that the original 13 colonies were more prosperous, developed and larger than New France. Also the likes of what is now Canada was developed, not in the years of the French, but in the years of British rule where Canada actually became a new sort of new 13 colonies. I should note also, that Britain's direct rule over Canada lasted longer and even though Canada has independence, the head of state is the Queen of Canada, ie Queen Elizabeth II. So no, the French had compared to the British far less say in the success of Canada except for the foundation of a few settlements (although I shall note French culture remains, it is the English culture that took over and has evolved into its own Canadian culture). Now try and find other examples which are successes, eg like Australia, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc my little French troll!

As for the rest of 'New France', rust belts and mostly backward orientated places - bar Chicago which was incorporated long after the French had left the continent, so you can't use Chicago as an example. I should note though that it did have a large American-French population, but Chicago is essetially an American exercise.



It would be nearly the same city as today but called New Amsterdam.I somehow doubt that. I don't think New Amsterdam would be the equivalent it is today had the British not arrived. The decline of the Dutch and French Empires in contrast to the rise and global domination of the British Empire saw too that.

Rust belt cities and cities that were part of New France that were lost to Britain in the Treaty of Paris of 1763 and then the final chunks in the Louisiana Purchase after gaining them back from the Spanish. Even then it should be noted that the original 13 colonies were more prosperous, developed and larger than New France. Also the likes of what is now Canada was developed, not in the years of the French, but in the years of British rule where Canada actually became a new sort of new 13 colonies. I should note also, that Britain's direct rule over Canada lasted longer and even though Canada has independence, the head of state is the Queen of Canada, ie Queen Elizabeth II. So no, the French had compared to the British far less say in the success of Canada except for the foundation of a few settlements (although I shall note French culture remains, it is the English culture that took over and has evolved into its own Canadian culture). Now try and find other examples which are successes, eg like Australia, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc my little French troll!

Pissed because I showed you an example of successful french colony ? :cheers:
Your little story about Queen Elizabeth II is quite funny especially when I think that she's technically the head of Quebec. It just show that it represent nothing in real life.
On the other hand, France is still the head of French Guiana, New Caledionia, Reunion and many other territories. And this lead isn't only representative...


I somehow doubt that. I don't think New Amsterdam would be the equivalent it is today had the British not arrived. The decline of the Dutch and French Empires in contrast to the rise and global domination of the British Empire saw too that.

I think the worst is that you really think what you write.

Pissed because I showed you an example of successful french colony ? :cheers:
Your little story about Queen Elizabeth II is quite funny especially when I think that she's technically the head of Quebec. It just show that it represent nothing in real life.
On the other hand, France is still the head of French Guiana, New Caledionia, Reunion and many other territories. And this lead isn't only representative...

I think the worst is that you really think what you write.How am I pissed? I knew that if anything came up it would be regarding Canada and the Louisiana Purchase states. Yet France never made them successful (you were wrong about Chicago also), under the French these lands were insignificant and it wasn't until Britain and the Americans came along and infused their economies with the results of the Industrial Revolution and that of mass-immigration, that they actually took off. Then again they aren't former French colonies - the likes of Canada were at independence British. So if France is somehow claiming these to be successful colonies then by god surely your accepting that the UK and US created stars out of the French quagmires.

You'd also have to be shitting me if you think the likes of French Guiana, New Caledonia, Reunion, etc are comparable to the likes of Australia, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc.... I know your a troll, but theres no need to make idiotic comparisons.

If the British had their way, the US revolutionary war would have been won by them. There would probably be no coast to coast country called the US. Without such a country there would not be a world power city like NY. During the great 20th century wars in Europe, Britain would almost certainly have been overtaken by Germany or Russia. So we probably would not have a great city like London either. Both cities might exist, but in radically different conditions than we see now.

I disagree. The example of British ruled cities like Hong Kong, Singapore, Sydney, Toronto that were all British run for much longer than the US cities did pretty well. Were the US a dominion of the UK there is much more chance they would have joined the world wars sooner and potentially saved man lives in Europe. It's possible Germany would not have had the courage to attack Poland in the first place, it's more likely France may never have been invaded (ironically considering the support they gave the US in the war of independance.

As someone else I read just now said. If only we had a "what if" machine.

How am I pissed? I knew that if anything came up it would be regarding Canada and the Louisiana Purchase states. Yet France never made them successful (you were wrong about Chicago also), under the French these lands were insignificant and it wasn't until Britain and the Americans

British land were also insignificant before the American independence. And not it's not the Brits who made "successful" the french land as you're claiming. It's the American, not the Brits. Don't even try reclaim the America sucess as a British one. Most of the job was made AFTER the US independance so don't try to tell it's a british success. It's an American sucess, not a british one and from this point of view North American former British and French colonies are on the same level. America may be speaking English but the Brits only represent 8% of its population. Get over it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_American
"The Germans and Irish are the largest self-reported ethnic groups in the nation but British ancestry is considered the most common by experts."


bitchin'

youre right tho obviously that America's what is today because of Americans..and not the British/Germans/Irish/French or whoever.

British land were also insignificant before the American independence. And not it's not the Brits who made "successful" the french land as you're claiming. It's the American, not the Brits. Don't even try reclaim the America sucess as a British one. Most of the job was made AFTER the US independance so don't try to tell it's a british success. It's an American sucess, not a british one and from this point of view North American former British and French colonies are on the same level. America may be speaking English but the Brits only represent 8% of its population. Get over it.Actually if we compare New France to the 13 colonies, we would note a slight difference in population.....

the settler population was tiny perhaps 60,000 in 1759 compared to over a million in the British American colonies.

Thats a population difference of some 16.6x - I'd call that pretty insignificant and thats long before the rebellion! Thats 60,000 for all of New France, from the Mississippi up to Quebec. To top it off France lost its remaining chunks to the Brits and Americans. Britain has had more to do with the success of North America than France because its simply been around longer, had a greater impact and sowed the roots for the immigration destination it is. I'm also not denying that most of the work post-independence was not done by the Americans. I am saying though that Britain had more of any impact than any other foreign power - you on the other hand seem to be going on about colonies you lost even when they were less important. Your the one who should get over it - France has been a failure at colonisation and your too much of an idiot to accept that!

This is one interesting thread! :)
Let them be the Dutch and England, NYC certainly not only built by these two, think of all the gernerations of races and nationalities came from so many other places into this crowded island. The people from around the world whom came to nyc and dedicated their lives enriched the city are the ones who paved its developments! :)


I agree and that is the only truth.

I suppose the UK being one of the bigger world players and traders, and having shipped many people to New York, can claim to have had a strong influence on NY, and the UK remains to theis day one of the biggest foreign investors.

Actually if we compare New France to the 13 colonies, we would note a slight difference in population.....

the settler population was tiny perhaps 60,000 in 1759 compared to over a million in the British American colonies.

Thats a population difference of some 16.6x - I'd call that pretty insignificant and thats long before the rebellion! Thats 60,000 for all of New France, from the Mississippi up to Quebec. To top it off France lost its remaining chunks to the Brits and Americans. Britain has had more to do with the success of North America than France because its simply been around longer, had a greater impact and sowed the roots for the immigration destination it is. I'm also not denying that most of the work post-independence was not done by the Americans. I am saying though that Britain had more of any impact than any other foreign power - you on the other hand seem to be going on about colonies you lost even when they were less important. Your the one who should get over it - France has been a failure at colonisation and your too much of an idiot to accept that!

You just try to use the American power to make Britain greater. It's just so pathetic. America is what America is today because of the American people, not because of the British people. It would have been the same if any other nation would have colonized this nearly empty space to set up some colonies. New Amsterdam would have been the same. That's the immigrants from all around the world who made what NYC and the USA are today, not the first British settlers.

British colonisation was also a failure. African and India colonies represented most of the population of the British colonies at that time. The developpment of your so called "successful british colonies" started a long time after their independance from Britain. You're just trying to use the hard work of millions of non-British immigrants to these independant former colonies to make Britain greater today. It's just plain pathetic.

amen Ning, well said

You just try to use the American power to make Britain greater. It's just so pathetic. America is what America is today because of the American people, not because of the British people. It would have been the same if any other nation would have colonized this nearly empty space to set up some colonies. New Amsterdam would have been the same. That's the immigrants from all around the world who made what NYC and the USA are today, not the first British settlers.

British colonisation was also a failure. African and India colonies represented most of the population of the British colonies at that time. The developpment of your so called "successful british colonies" started a long time after their independance from Britain. You're just trying to use the hard work of millions of non-British immigrants to these independant former colonies to make Britain greater today. It's just plain pathetic.I am? Your the one claiming New France was more successful than the orignal American colonies to give dear old France a boost, when in reality it wasn't significant until the British developed the Canadian part and the Americans the American part...that American part already cultivated by the Brits.

Fact is had the French not set up 'New France', the interior would not have been purchased later one, had the Dutch not set up, there would be no New York, had the British not set up the original colonies, there would be no US, etc... I think because I showed you that New France was unimportant, before France lost it and the fact that Britain developed the Canadian part and the Americans the American part - that your getting pretty annoyed at constantly getting shot down.

Then again theres a difference between claiming success now and claiming the success of planting the seeds and watching the roots take root - that is the early history of the US. The US itself would later cultivate this plant and spread the seeds itself. History tends to follow the same course. I also tend to think the average British colony has been more of a success than that of the average French colony.

I will also add that I don't negate the impact of immigrants having a large boost to the expansion of the US, but when I talk about America, that encompasses everything within - including immigrants - America is afterall around because of immigration.

You just try to use the American power to make Britain greater. It's just so pathetic. America is what America is today because of the American people, not because of the British people. It would have been the same if any other nation would have colonized this nearly empty space to set up some colonies. New Amsterdam would have been the same. That's the immigrants from all around the world who made what NYC and the USA are today, not the first British settlers.

British colonisation was also a failure. African and India colonies represented most of the population of the British colonies at that time. The developpment of your so called "successful british colonies" started a long time after their independance from Britain. You're just trying to use the hard work of millions of non-British immigrants to these independant former colonies to make Britain greater today. It's just plain pathetic.

Ok, you obviously dont kno anything about history, or the begining of NYC! thats pathetic for someone who wants to live their. Anywayz.

From 1825-1925 London was the most popular city in the world, and more people lived there than any other city of its time.
We all know the UK ruled the world - its a fact in history- then the sudden time the British brang their knowledge and know how to the states, New York ends up being the popular city, till today. It hasnt been as popular as London but i predict that London will snatch the title back thanks to the olympics, and its world-class projects

Yes the UK ruled the world, So did the Romans!! Who cares?!?! That was 200 years ago. And I dont think there is a "title" to gain back, both cities are awesome, I don't know when we all decided to turn them against eachother.

What? HK was given back to China (the PRC) in 1997 as we all know.

I know... I meant independence from British rule, not independence from China.

NYC was not built by the dutch or the UK. It was built by millions and millions of immigrants, mostly europeans, who came and stayed in the area...so basically the WORLD developed NYC...and that's that boys and girls!;)

this thread is a bit loopy at this point - the legacy of the brits in NY was largely eradicated in the last century when nearly 70% or so of the city was bulldozed and rebuilt in the image of an american skyscraper city. the brownstone or rowhouse is a rare relic of that time and has obviously been altered from its original role/use in the city.
The 20th century brought a distinctly american (global immigrant) feel to the city and the remnants of new york or new amsterdam as they were known before 1900 are just that - remnants. one thing about new york is its quickness to evolve and dispose things that are inefficient esp. before historic preservation. so the whole who did what thing is really mute - i prefer the comment about the influence of trade along the erie canal and the strategic port location that destined it to be a major metropolis regardless of who had it as what developed new york.

NYC was not built by the dutch or the UK. It was built by millions and millions of immigrants, mostly europeans, who came and stayed in the area...so basically the WORLD developed NYC...and that's that boys and girls!;)

agreed

While that might be true, it is important that it was the UK that started the Industrial Revolution and used for developement throughout the British Empire.

It hasnt been as popular as London but i predict that London will snatch the title back thanks to the olympics, and its world-class projects
Yes, because we all know that Athens took the title as the most popular city in the world away from NYC during the 2004 summer olympics and still retains it. Please, you have to be joking. Do you honestly think that the upcoming Olympics and London projects will really somehow help London surpass NYC in popularity? Using your reasoning; If projects has anything to do with it, Chicago will surely be more popular than London for many years to come, thanks to the Fordham Spire and other great projects made by Americans :)
http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/graphic/2005-07/18742543.gif

I'd say NY became so big because all the immigrants had such poor conditions at home. Which early on, was probably in Ireland/England etc. But of course it was built on the backs of those immigrants and their descendants. Most of the significant building occured after the British left.

^ NYC became large because of immigrants. However, it was wealthy long before the immigrant waves started. Its status as a major British port was the beginning of its importance to the nation and eventually the world. There is no getting around its roots as a point of trade for the UK.

If anything, NYC has remained influential in spite of -- not because of -- its high immigrant population. Many cities would be third-world hellholes if they tried to take on that many poor refugees.

Ok, you obviously dont kno anything about history, or the begining of NYC! thats pathetic for someone who wants to live their. Anywayz.

From 1825-1925 London was the most popular city in the world, and more people lived there than any other city of its time.
We all know the UK ruled the world - its a fact in history- then the sudden time the British brang their knowledge and know how to the states, New York ends up being the popular city, till today. It hasnt been as popular as London but i predict that London will snatch the title back thanks to the olympics, and its world-class projects

Your answer is pointless. You're talking about London from 1825 and 1925 whereas the thread is about New York. New York wasn't in England in 1825 anymore last time I checked. Your answer just reenforce my point about modern New York and the modern USA being built by millions of non-British immigrant, not by the Brits.

I am? Your the one claiming New France was more successful than the orignal American colonies to give dear old France a boost

I've never claimed such things. It's just you who is obsessed by France once again. I've always claimed that modern USA and Canada have been built by millions of immigrants from all around the world and that some Brits are just trying to use the power of the modern USA to feel better wheras most of the work have been done by non-British immigrants.

Immigrants built New York