What should be the best attitude of an immigrant to the host country and to its own origin?

[Argentano]

i said equilibrium but i think the descendants of that person in the foreign country should be 100% that foreign country.

Like a 6th generation italian american feeling italian is nuts

[alnortedelsur]

bump

[N1019]

Failure to assimilate tends to foster division within the general population, which is great if you are among the elite and want to manipulate people by playing them off against each other, but not so good for ordinary folk themselves.

Having a strong sense of pride in anything, including one's foreign ethnic origins, is also a potential problem, for the proud individual himself and community cohesion, but again, multiculturalist elites encourage it for their own corrupt purposes.

I think the best situation is near-full assimilation by the time the first locally-born generation reaches adulthood, with some retention of foreign customs and traditions permissible for private practice at family gatherings etc. which will probably fade away after a few generations, perhaps leaving only the family name and physical appearance to distinguish them from locals. Unfortunately, statistics I recently saw on first locally-born generation criminals in the Netherlands were not encouraging.

Racial discrimination protections can be retained, but there should be zero financial support for non-assimilation from the government. No diversity programmes, no celebration of immigrant-multiculturalism, no picturing brown, yellow and veiled people in advertisements for public events and government services, and no printing of government pamphlets in a thousand languages to ensure that people never have to learn the local tongue.

[alnortedelsur]

Failure to assimilate tends to foster division within the general population, which is great if you are among the elite and want to manipulate people by playing them off against each other, but not so good for ordinary folk themselves.

Having a strong sense of pride in anything, including one's foreign ethnic origins, is also a potential problem, for the proud individual himself and community cohesion, but again, multiculturalist elites encourage it for their own corrupt purposes.

I think the best situation is near-full assimilation by the time the first locally-born generation reaches adulthood, with some retention of foreign customs and traditions permissible for private practice at family gatherings etc. which will probably fade away after a few generations, perhaps leaving only the family name and physical appearance to distinguish them from locals. Unfortunately, statistics I recently saw on first locally-born generation criminals in the Netherlands were not encouraging.

Racial discrimination protections can be retained, but there should be zero financial support for non-assimilation from the government. No diversity programmes, no celebration of immigrant-multiculturalism, no picturing brown, yellow and veiled people in advertisements for public events and government services, and no printing of government pamphlets in a thousand languages to ensure that people never have to learn the local tongue.

That sounds great to me, but more when it applies to non-white immigrants too foreign to Europe, North America, Australia, etc. That's why I am against the immigration of Africans, Muslims middle easterners, south Asians, Afro Latinos, etc to Europe or to other western and developed countries, because their cultures and way of living are totally incompatible with the culture, race and customs of people from Western and Euro/Euro descent countries.

However, an Euro/mostly-Euro Latin American in Europe or North America, or an European immigrant in other European country, North America or Australia, are not much different, from the racial perspective, from the people of the host countries, and their cultures, customs and values, are not that dissimilar/incompatible with that of the host country. And remaining proud of their origin would not cause any damage to the host country, as long as they keep it to themselves, and put an effort to assimilate to the culture and customs of the host country.

Regarding the language, I agree, that even if the immigration is of fellow Europeans or Euro descent people into another European/Euro descent country, the local language should be encouraged, and the foreign immigrants obliged to learn it, even if they could have TV channels and newspapers in their own languages. But the local language of the host country should be mandatory for everybody, to get jobs and for everything.

[Hexachordia]

As long as the West can maintain leading status in world powers, there will be no problems in guilding migrants to comply and contribute to local cultures. The loyalty thing is of secondary importance since it is a matter of ever volatile global security issue, requiring all migrants to be loyal to local power not causing any legal treason is a downright fantasy unless from colonies. As long as taking in migrants from countries of opposing ideologies, I assume the recepting nation is prepared(confident) for all coming issues. Maybe it is why americans make the best movies, they can take on some real issues. others cannot.

[N1019]

That sounds great to me, but more when it applies to non-white immigrants too foreign to Europe, North America, Australia, etc. That's why I am against the immigration of Africans, Muslims middle easterners, south Asians, Afro Latinos, etc to Europe or to other western and developed countries, because their cultures and way of living are totally incompatible with the culture, race and customs of people from Western and Euro/Euro descent countries.

However, an Euro/mostly-Euro Latin American in Europe or North America, or an European immigrant in other European country, North America or Australia, are not much different, from the racial perspective, from the people of the host countries, and their cultures, customs and values, are not that dissimilar/incompatible with that of the host country. And remaining proud of their origin would not cause any damage to the host country, as long as they keep it to themselves, and put an effort to assimilate to the culture and customs of the host country.

Where the cultures are similar or virtually identical, e.g. in English-speaking countries, and to some extent throughout the West (languages and so on excepted), assimilation is for all intents and purposes not required. It is only where differences exist that the question of assimilation should arise.

[alnortedelsur]

Where the cultures are similar or virtually identical, e.g. in English-speaking countries, and to some extent throughout the West (languages and so on excepted), assimilation is for all intents and purposes not required. It is only where differences exist that the question of assimilation should arise.

A white or mostly Euro descent Latin American still needs to assimilate if he/she immigrates to any European country (even Spain or Portugal), and French, Croatian, Romanian, German, Polish, or even British and Irish immigrants, still need to work on getting used to the new country if they immigrate to North America, Australia or New Zealand, or even Spaniards if they immigrate to Argentina.

But in all those cases, assimilation is far easier, because of a great compatibility in race and customs/cultures (even if they are not exactly the same) than if we talk about Africans, south Asians, etc immigrating to any European or mostly Euro descent Western country.

[Kriptc06]

An equilibrium between getting adapted to the host country, and don't forgetting their roots.

This, If I ever moved to a country I'd try to adapt to their reality, but never forget who I am. Trying to impose your culture to others is wrong specially if you are a migrant, you are the one that have to adapt.

When in Rome do as Romans do.