Lets talk about "integration on western society"

[PointOfViewGun]

Weird question! Anyway, as you ask, actually I'm cooking a divine dish of 'Gnocchetti al Pesto'.

Ah, a dish that originated in Middle East and introduced into Europe by the Roman legions, though the latest iteration that's done with potatoes was created once potato arrived from across the Atlantic. Very Italian.

By the way, why did you ignore the rest of my post? Are you unable to come up with a valid argument against the fact that you're championing an arbitrary criteria that doesn't really have much of a solid presence in various European countries?

[Vanoi]

Exactly. If you follow these suggestions, you'll experience a lot of goodwill from the natives, even those skeptical of immigration.
I would also add "not lobbying to have more of your (ethnic/religious) kind imported into the host country", "not badmouthing the natives at every opportunity" and "not demanding special treatment", but those should be a given as well. Even though some individuals make a career out of behaving like that.

Love those high standards. Higher than you have to follow yourself. Also expecting someone to convert? Is this Saudi Arabia now?

[Aanker]

...

To be frank, his argument was more in line of: why should immigrants live up to greater standards (e.g. loving their new country), when so many natives do not? The remainder of the post, to my understanding, is an explanation of everything there is, rationally not to love about Britain. Britain is just like any other country, a mishmash of individuals with a heritage that is the consequential result of the good, the bad and the ugly.

If we are to love everything about a country, then we must also love the undefendable, which is the mistake of the nationalist. That is not to say we can hate everything either, because that would imply also hating the lovely. Ironically, that is also a mistake made by nationalists when they speak of other countries than their own. There are very few things which can be uniformly hated or loved, anyway. Countries are so much more complex than monolithic constructs that can either be praised or derided, they are a patchwork of communities of individuals living together in a shared space. Their history is similarly not a story for the state to praise and elevate. It is merely that, history, with all the uncomfortable facts and figures.

Which is why the idea of assimilation is an affront to reason. Something is not good merely because it conforms with a certain culture, or ideal, or national identity. What is found to be good, by its consequences for human beings, is ultimately what is good.

Integration leaves the question of what we love and hate open, while ensuring societal function. Each immigrant is unique, as is every native. I can move to Britain and like the pub culture and working climate, while disliking the weather and the food. Or I could just move there for a higher wage. It’s up to me, the state doesn’t know what I should or shouldn’t like. It’s an arrangement that works for me - I earn a higher wage, let’s say - and for my employer, who earns a skilled employee. And it’s good for the rest of Britain too, what with my perusal of local services, and my payment of taxes. If I’m booted because I don’t love everything about my new home, it would be Britain’s loss.

[athanaric]

It’s certainly not assimilation or blending into the dominant culture, as that sort of erases the point of immigration anyway.

It erases the point of immigration? What exactly do you think the "point of immigration" is?
Aside from this, you don't need to refuse assimilation in order to bring in new ideas. Hell, even natives can do that.

Language? Which one? English? It's a trade tongue, an evolution of saxon german, norman french, church latin and norse. Over the years we have adapted words from imigrant cultures. Glitch is yiddish, patio is spainish, kareoke is japanese, typhoon is chinese, pukka is indian.
Don't even get me started on the french, german and latin words used in every day english.

Um, see above.

The flag? The union flag is just the flags of the four patron saints of the four countries united under the crown. The scots just use the flag of st andrew and republican irish whine it represents oppression prefering the flag of ireland while the nationalists fly the red hand of ulster all the time and the english dump it for the st george flag first chance they get and the welsh ignore it completely and prefer thier little winged lizard.

So what's wrong with the English flag, or do you hate that one too?

You want imigrants to love our flag when nobody in the UK bloody does unless it's an olympic year?

Plenty of foreigners love the Union Jack...

The moral and ethical values? Well that is constantly changing, I have a gay friend old enough to remember a lover being locked up for no other reason than being gay. That's living memory for crying out loud. look at British history and our moral compass is a bloody pendulum swinging from violent oppression to liberal freedom and back again.

There are also more constant values. For example said liberalism. Of course, these days any self-respecting liberal would have to join UKIP, given how the other parties are on an authoritarian trip again.

The history? Well germany and russia made good efforts with the holocaust and stalin. America gets full marks for their wholesale genocide of the native americans but no nation can beat Britain for a history of oppression, genocide, wars of aggression and persecution. The French and Spainish come in 2nd and 3rd with honourable mentions to the romans and portugeese but British history is a thousand years of pages soaked in so much blood they still stin the floor to this day.

The culture? Two words: Morris Dancing.... we'll move on i think

Art? We are famous for a pickled cow and a messed up bed...... ok lets move on

If that is all that comes to your mind about British culture, art, and history, I find that depressing. Maybe you should think of taking up other hobbies beside videogames? Like, seriously. That is not really a good understanding of these subjects at all.
Your view of history also seems extremely Eurocentric, as well as leucocentric.

The landscape? Now this is something I do love, in all fairness. The UK is a beautiful nation shame about the people.

Do you honestly think that people abroad are better?

Why the hell should I expect an immigrant to love and be proud of the things we are not?

I don't know, perhaps because it's better for social cohesion, safety, and all these other boring issues? Also, you're free to leave if everything British is so dreadful. I'm sure someone from Africa or Eastern Europe who loves British culture (and has actually heard of Shakespeare) would eagerly take your place.

Love those high standards. Higher than you have to follow yourself.

Who says I'm not following those rules myself?

Also expecting someone to convert? Is this Saudi Arabia now?

Well, since you've mentioned that point, personally I'm happy with people going atheist and ditching whatever backwards creed they used to adhere to (yes, that applies to Christianity as well ).

[95thrifleman]

To be frank, his argument was more in line of: why should immigrants live up to greater standards (e.g. loving their new country), when so many natives do not? The remainder of the post, to my understanding, is an explanation of everything there is, rationally not to love about Britain. Britain is just like any other country, a mishmash of individuals with a heritage that is the consequential result of the good, the bad and the ugly.

If we are to love everything about a country, then we must also love the undefendable, which is the mistake of the nationalist. That is not to say we can hate everything either, because that would imply also hating the lovely. Ironically, that is also a mistake made by nationalists when they speak of other countries than their own. There are very few things which can be uniformly hated or loved, anyway. Countries are so much more complex than monolithic constructs that can either be praised or derided, they are a patchwork of communities of individuals living together in a shared space. Their history is similarly not a story for the state to praise and elevate. It is merely that, history, with all the uncomfortable facts and figures.

Which is why the idea of assimilation is an affront to reason. Something is not good merely because it conforms with a certain culture, or ideal, or national identity. What is found to be good, by its consequences for human beings, is ultimately what is good.

Integration leaves the question of what we love and hate open, while ensuring societal function. Each immigrant is unique, as is every native. I can move to Britain and like the pub culture and working climate, while disliking the weather and the food. Or I could just move there for a higher wage. It’s up to me, the state doesn’t know what I should or shouldn’t like. It’s an arrangement that works for me - I earn a higher wage, let’s say - and for my employer, who earns a skilled employee. And it’s good for the rest of Britain too, what with my perusal of local services, and my payment of taxes. If I’m booted because I don’t love everything about my new home, it would be Britain’s loss.

That was the point I was trying to convey, yes.

Within the UK we have vastly different cultural difference in the native population. Yorkshire, Norfolk, Cornwall these counties could almost be seperate countries in some regards.

I hear the EDL say England for the English all the time but nobody can really agree on what "English" actualy means.

As far as you immigrating, bring the meatballs but leave the ikea at home

[Ludicus]

My two cents- we can have special affection and/or concern for a particular country without thinking it best or denying its flaws.That's a healthy moderate patriotism.I firmly believe that patriotism grounded in national identity is essential for political stability in a multiracial/multicultural democracy, and is of utmost significance on safeguarding our national sovereignty and interests.

And I say more- patriotism is a kind of emotion (1),a feeling of loyalty/love for our motherland, and there is nothing wrong with that.
That said, extreme patriotism (eg. racial nationalism) is a dangerous vice.

(1) Fernando Pessoa: "Could it think, the heart would stop beating"; "My country is the Portuguese language". Camões in 1580 ""All will see that so dear to me was my country that I was content to die not only in it but with it".
(2João de Barros, the Portuguese chronicler, 1450,
"The Portuguese arms and pillars...are material things, and time may destroy them. But time will not destroy the religion, customs and language..."

In Italy, Dante was a patriot for Florence; and it's not really difficult to understand Petrarch when he says,

Italia mia, benché’l parlar sia indarno
a le piaghe mortali
che nel’ bel corpo tuo sì spesse veggio...

My Italy, although to speak is vain
to heal the mortal wounds
that upon your beautiful body I so often see...

Let's hear Cowper (1785) in the poem Task, "England, with all thy faults, I love thee still- My country!"
Thomson writes, " transported by my Country's love...etc"

to certain extent I love England

Well,I'm not surprised, you are English.

but Wales, Scotland and NI? Couldn't really care less to be honest.

That's the Spanish problem...

English? It's a trade tongue

No, English isn't merely a "trade language". And you can eventually read the language of patriotism in Chaucer(albeit incipient, but he was the first writer in English explicitly to claim status as a national poet), Milton, Keats, Shelley, Kipling...and I could go on.

[Vanoi]

Who says I'm not following those rules myself?


Well, since you've mentioned that point, personally I'm happy with people going atheist and ditching whatever backwards creed they used to adhere to (yes, that applies to Christianity as well ).

Are you an immigrant? Cause I don't think you are so I don't think you are following those standards that are unrealistic at best.

My point stands about religion. I don't care if your are atheist. Forcing people to be athesists and converting to a religion is not only wrong but also you absolutely gurantee they will never integrate.

[Aexodus]

Just saying, none of us has the obligation to speak the language of our country of origin / residence unless we want to work for the state. I could spend the rest of my days in Spain without speaking Spanish (or any other recognized language or the Spanish state). The only obligation we have is to comply with the laws of the country. Why should we demand more from other people?

So if millions of people come to Britain to live, they have no obligation to speak English? That’s ridiculous.

[Aexodus]

Language? Which one?

Speaking English, or indeed one of the other indigenous languages if one so chose is a central part of being British.

The flag? The union flag is

Rightfully respected and celebrated for all it represents by most British.

You would think someone who calls themself a supporter of the military would think moderately well of the flag soldiers serve under?

You want imigrants to love our flag when nobody in the UK bloody does unless it's an olympic year?

This is the most ignorant thing I’ve read on TWC in a while. One of the many occasions where Brits celebrate the flag was less than a week ago.

The moral and ethical values? Well that is constantly changing, I have a gay friend old enough to remember a lover being locked up for no other reason than being gay. That's living memory for crying out loud. look at British history and our moral compass is a bloody pendulum swinging from violent oppression to liberal freedom and back again.

The history?

The history of Britain has forged one of the best countries to live in today.

War and conflict is not unique to the UK, why do you act like it is.

The culture?

We have plenty of our own culture like Pipe Bands, football, british humour, the list goes on.

The food?

We have lots of food here, think of all the seafood that we’re rightfully known for as an island nation. Things like sunday roast and christmas dinner, I know it seems mundane to you and me but these things are what make our country what it is, believe it or not.

The landscape? Now this is something I do love, in all fairness.

It won’t last if we continue to grow our population at current levels.

The UK is a beautiful nation shame about the people.

What’s wrong with them.

Art? We are famous for a pickled cow and a messed up bed...... ok lets move on

Ok sorry but you don’t know what you’re talking about here. Literature? Check. Music? British artists are famous across the world. Architecture? Just take a stroll through any British city.

Why the hell should I expect an immigrant to love and be proud of the things we are not?

The phrase ‘cultural enrichment’ comes to mind.

[95thrifleman]

Speaking English, or indeed one of the other indigenous languages if one so chose is a central part of being British.



Rightfully respected and celebrated for all it represents by most British.

You would think someone who calls themself a supporter of the military would think moderately well of the flag soldiers serve under?



This is the most ignorant thing I’ve read on TWC in a while. One of the many occasions where Brits celebrate the flag was less than a week ago.

The moral and ethical values? Well that is constantly changing, I have a gay friend old enough to remember a lover being locked up for no other reason than being gay. That's living memory for crying out loud. look at British history and our moral compass is a bloody pendulum swinging from violent oppression to liberal freedom and back again.



The history of Britain has forged one of the best countries to live in today.

War and conflict is not unique to the UK, why do you act like it is.



We have plenty of our own culture like Pipe Bands, football, british humour, the list goes on.



We have lots of food here, think of all the seafood that we’re rightfully known for as an island nation. Things like sunday roast and christmas dinner, I know it seems mundane to you and me but these things are what make our country what it is, believe it or not.



It won’t last if we continue to grow our population at current levels.



What’s wrong with them.



Ok sorry but you don’t know what you’re talking about here. Literature? Check. Music? British artists are famous across the world. Architecture? Just take a stroll through any British city.



The phrase ‘cultural enrichment’ comes to mind.

I love the Northern Irish, I really do. Most stubborn people in the UK and here we give full marks for stubbornly and deliberately ignoring the point.

[Aexodus]

Well the whole thing is - should migrants coming to Britain be coming to be British? Should migrants to Ireland be coming to be Irish? Should migrants to China be coming to be Chinese? Or Japanese, Brazilian...

[Genghis Skahn]

To be frank, his argument was more in line of: why should immigrants live up to greater standards (e.g. loving their new country), when so many natives do not? The remainder of the post, to my understanding, is an explanation of everything there is, rationally not to love about Britain.

There was little rationality in it, and it contained a number of factual errors which both hurt his argument and misrepresented the history of the UK itself. A faux-pas when referencing history to support your argument during any discussion. It would be misleading to read that if you were someone who wasn't educated enough to tell otherwise, that's why it's worth picking apart.

Which is why the idea of assimilation is an affront to reason. Something is not good merely because it conforms with a certain culture, or ideal, or national identity. What is found to be good, by its consequences for human beings, is ultimately what is good.

Integration leaves the question of what we love and hate open, while ensuring societal function. Each immigrant is unique, as is every native. I can move to Britain and like the pub culture and working climate, while disliking the weather and the food. Or I could just move there for a higher wage. It’s up to me, the state doesn’t know what I should or shouldn’t like. It’s an arrangement that works for me - I earn a higher wage, let’s say - and for my employer, who earns a skilled employee. And it’s good for the rest of Britain too, what with my perusal of local services, and my payment of taxes. If I’m booted because I don’t love everything about my new home, it would be Britain’s loss.

TBH it just seems like "integration" is a new politically correct word for the term "assimilation". Expecting an immigrant to adopt some of his new home's culture and values really isn't unreasonable at all, it's what traditionally happened for innumerable immigrants(or foreign colonists, like Greeks for example) throughout history... In fact, a multiracial/multicultural society pretty much depends on the adoption of common values(as Ludicus stated). It's too easy to generate conflict between groups as it is, and adopting common values and customs is one way we avoid conflict between two different(and potentially hostile) groups by turning them into a heterogeneous single group.

Within the UK we have vastly different cultural difference in the native population. Yorkshire, Norfolk, Cornwall these counties could almost be seperate countries in some regards.

Those are just regional differences which have occurred countless times throughout history in any but the tiniest of nations. All of those communities still share many common cultural traits with one another to be able to consider them English. They also likely share many genetic traits as well(I'm talking about "native" populations here, like those which inhabited the island since the Kingdom of England or before), possessing a roughly shared ancestry as well. For example, it's a myth that the Romans or Anglo-Saxons totally replaced the native populations of Britain. They came to rule over them and changed their culture, but the people themselves remained, although it must be noted that(AFAIK) the south of England has seen a lot more immigration and hence genetic intrusion when compared with the rest of the island. At any rate, much of England's "native" population has a shared ancestry comprised of "Celtic"(Brythonic/Brittonic, but there was also Belgae intrusion in the southeast), Roman(later evolving into Romano-British)and Germanic peoples(Angles, Saxons, Jutes and, later, Norse) peoples.

If that is all that comes to your mind about British culture, art, and history, I find that depressing. Maybe you should think of taking up other hobbies beside videogames? Like, seriously. That is not really a good understanding of these subjects at all.
Your view of history also seems extremely Eurocentric, as well as leucocentric.

Yep.

I don't know, perhaps because it's better for social cohesion, safety, and all these other boring issues? Also, you're free to leave if everything British is so dreadful. I'm sure someone from Africa or Eastern Europe who loves British culture (and has actually heard of Shakespeare) would eagerly take your place.

I know it sounds crazy to some of you, but maybe, just maybe, letting someone immigrate to the UK because he admires British culture is safer for national security than letting a foreigner in who despises British culture? Natives who despise their country aren't nearly as much as a threat because they have so much inherently invested in their country just by being born and living there like a job, as well as friends and family, all of whom are likely citizens. Not to mention a permanent place of residence and a shared history or even ancestry. Though far from foolproof, these factors theoretically reduce the incentive to betray or harm your country(at least for political purposes IMO).

[95thrifleman]

Well the whole thing is - should migrants coming to Britain be coming to be British? Should migrants to Ireland be coming to be Irish? Should migrants to China be coming to be Chinese? Or Japanese, Brazilian...

I recently broke my leg and the awesome, yet underfunded and understaffed, NHS where great.

Thing is, one of the nurses who put my leg in plaster was from Zimbabwe, the registrar was Greek, one of the x-ray technicians was south african, another was spainish and the trauma out-patient receptionist was Asian.

I got quite chatty with the x-ray techs, the south african lass was quite proud of her son recently qualifying as a vet. I asked the Spainish girl why she'd leave such a wonderful country for the rain and crap food of the UK. She told me the money was better in the NHS.

Made me think, how many migrants and imigrants are actualy here because they want to be British? I think far fewer than the nationalists would like to admit.

[Aanker]

It erases the point of immigration? What exactly do you think the "point of immigration" is?
Aside from this, you don't need to refuse assimilation in order to bring in new ideas. Hell, even natives can do that.

From an employer's perspective, it could be to import new perspectives and new ideas, founded in unique experiences, into a company. From a native's perspective, it could be access to some new food item, or restaurant. At a societal level, immigration can potentially be the source of healthy cultural competition. That's to name a few aspects of the 'point of immigration'. Assimilation, on the other hand, seeks to transform the immigrating individual into a carbon copy of the national ideal, merely a shallow scaffold of supposedly French or British or American (etc) behaviours. Assimilation is of no use but for its contribution to the population size.

And natives can come up with ideas, but they might not be as unique or radical as those brought in by foreign competence. That's partly why some companies recruit overseas.

As far as you immigrating, bring the meatballs but leave the ikea at home

lol, at this point IKEA is so ingrained in British culture that it's just part of the integration process

My two cents- we can have special affection and/or concern for a particular country without thinking it best or denying its flaws.That's a healthy moderate patriotism.I firmly believe that patriotism grounded in national identity is essential for political stability in a multiracial/multicultural democracy, and is of utmost significance on safeguarding our national sovereignty and interests.

I agree, insofar as the feeling of patriotism must be directed towards the nation only when its systems or institutions further the interests of the individuals within it. A nation must be deserving of patriotism. It can be positive especially when directed towards benevolent concepts such as democracy, or fair trials, or individual freedoms. When the choice becomes the state or those concepts or an innocent individual, however, I believe everyone is within their right to no longer support their own country. It's sort of like, my country right, but not wrong.

There was little rationality in it, and it contained a number of factual errors which both hurt his argument and misrepresented the history of the UK itself. A faux-pas when referencing history to support your argument during any discussion. It would be misleading to read that if you were someone who wasn't educated enough to tell otherwise, that's why it's worth picking apart.

I can't comment on the accuracy of the arts section, but he certainly made a good point on the history of the nation. We cannot summarise the history of Britain as either good or bad. Select British individuals or features of British society (the magna carta for example) have made positive contributions to mankind while yet others have caused great harm. I think it's fair to say that British history certainly is interesting and deserves being taught in schools for that very reason, but we shouldn't paint a rosy picture on the colonisation of the Americas, for example. After all, those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it, and it would hardly be patriotic to raise new citizens who fail to guide the nation correctly because of inaccurate history lessons.

TBH it just seems like "integration" is a new politically correct word for the term "assimilation".

I mean, in my country, it is the populist fraction that is openly protesting integration and wants assimilation instead, so I suppose there must be some non-political-correctness difference for them to kick up so much fuss about it. For the purposes of this thread, though, I think the difference between the concepts is quite clear. Some believe immigrants should follow what everyone has to follow, i.e. the law, and become contributors to society, whereas others argue that they should go further and adopt the native culture as their own. That seems to be what we're discussing here.

Expecting an immigrant to adopt some of his new home's culture and values really isn't unreasonable at all, it's what traditionally happened for innumerable immigrants(or foreign colonists, like Greeks for example) throughout history... In fact, a multiracial/multicultural society pretty much depends on the adoption of common values(as Ludicus stated). It's too easy to generate conflict between groups as it is, and adopting common values and customs is one way we avoid conflict between two different(and potentially hostile) groups by turning them into a heterogeneous single group.

To my understanding, that wasn't exactly what Ludicus said. Patriotism can serve as a glue that binds the nation together and forwards its positive aspects - but that doesn't necessarily mean that immigrants have to become patriotic, as Mr. Sarkozy seems to have suggested. I believe patriotism (like any respect) should be earned, not forced upon people. Furthermore, it's easy to say that assimilation should only involve "some" culture. Often it comes down to what is general consensus, because it is sensible to everyone, and such cultural items are already law, which is precisely what integration is all about.

Those are just regional differences which have occurred countless times throughout history in any but the tiniest of nations. All of those communities still share many common cultural traits with one another to be able to consider them English. They also likely share many genetic traits as well(I'm talking about "native" populations here, like those which inhabited the island since the Kingdom of England or before), possessing a roughly shared ancestry as well. For example, it's a myth that the Romans or Anglo-Saxons totally replaced the native populations of Britain. They came to rule over them and changed their culture, but the people themselves remained, although it must be noted that(AFAIK) the south of England has seen a lot more immigration and hence genetic intrusion when compared with the rest of the island. At any rate, much of England's "native" population has a shared ancestry comprised of "Celtic"(Brythonic/Brittonic, but there was also Belgae intrusion in the southeast), Roman(later evolving into Romano-British)and Germanic peoples(Angles, Saxons, Jutes and, later, Norse) peoples.

The same can be said of European nations, which although they have significant differences still possess many similarities. In fact, it can be said at any scale of human civilisation, especially if we look at genetics (I mean, on the whole, there are a lot of ethnic populations around the world, but they share more similarities with each other than they do with the closest species...).

What constitutes the population foundation of the nation isn't exactly rigid. New communities are added and erased constantly. There are many examples in Europe where two arbitrarily separate nations could, in theory, be merged without much of a difference in culture and language. It's a matter of size and speed. The EU is progressing at its own rate, and there seems to be a growing inclusivity in some nations, in spite of opposition. The Remain camp popular movement (which is still very active) is one example in Britain. We've started seeing EU flags being flown during marches and demonstrations. Whom we associate ourselves with - nationals or fellow Europeans - is a fluid thing, though the flow is at times slow. I for one don't feel much in common with some of my countrymen, while I might feel much more connection to other Europeans of similar educational and professional level.

I know it sounds crazy to some of you, but maybe, just maybe, letting someone immigrate to the UK because he admires British culture is safer for national security than letting a foreigner in who despises British culture?

But what if said person, who despises British culture, is a company executive who pays the taxes for your medical bill? Or exposes government corruption? It's rather difficult to find someone who despises a nation's culture outright anyway, would probably have to be a nationalist of some description...

Natives who despise their country aren't nearly as much as a threat

I'd say they are the far bigger threat. Trusted by people who value someone's nationality above their actual opinions or intentions, perhaps ignored by authorities and police, could easily be a greater threat than an isolated foreigner without a contact network. Some such dangerous natives even win presidential elections.

[Prodromos]

@Rifleman:

The NHS is crap, dude. Stopped reading right there. Your judgement of quality is clearly poor and unreliable.

-

Regarding high assimilation standards for immigrants, I think that's justified. There are obviously a lot of low-quality natives in any country, but you can't really deport them; at most, you could imprison or shun them. When it comes to foreign immigrants, however, you can be selective and choose only the immigrants that would actually make the country better. So yes, I believe immigrants should be better than the natives, with regards to morality, religiosity, patriotism, economic contribution, etc. The ideal immigrant is the ideal native, not an average native, and certainly not a below-average native.

[95thrifleman]

..



I'd say they are the far bigger threat. Trusted by people who value someone's nationality above their actual opinions or intentions, perhaps ignored by authorities and police, could easily be a greater threat than an isolated foreigner without a contact network. Some such dangerous natives even win presidential elections.

The vast majority of terrorist attacks in the UK over the past century have been commited by natives. Fun fact.

[Aanker]

Regarding high assimilation standards for immigrants, I think that's justified. There are obviously a lot of low-quality natives in any country, but you can't really deport them; at most, you could imprison or shun them. When it comes to foreign immigrants, however, you can be selective and choose only the immigrants that would actually make the country better. So yes, I believe immigrants should be better than the natives, with regards to morality, religiosity, patriotism, economic contribution, etc. The ideal immigrant is the ideal native, not an average native, and certainly not a below-average native.

So, who is this ideal native?

Is it a he, is it a she? Presuming it's a he, does he earn much? Does he earn little? Is he a winner or loser in the current globalised economy? Is he a university graduate, or does he lack any education? Does he espouse solidarity, or is he an individualist? Does he believe in scientific evidence and climate change, or is he opposed to such ideas? Is he OK with abortion? Does he travel a lot? What music does he listen to? What's his hairstyle? What's his skin colour? Is he religious? Does he smoke pot? What's his opinion on how strictly speed limits should be followed? Does he use public transport or is he a car owner?

[Prodromos]

So, who is this ideal native?

An ideal human tailored to his country's specific circumstances and culture.

Is it a he, is it a she?

It can be either.

does he earn much? Does he earn little?

He earns whatever suits him, but pays more than he takes in from the government.

Is he a winner or loser in the current globalised economy?

This seems like a non-issue.

Is he a university graduate, or does he lack any education?

He's fairly well-educated, but it doesn't have to be from a school or university.

Does he espouse solidarity, or is he an individualist?

Both. He is voluntarily charitable, without any need for government force.

Does he believe in scientific evidence and climate change, or is he opposed to such ideas?

He is open to science but not scientism.

Is he OK with abortion?

Of course not.

Does he travel a lot?

Sure if that's what he likes, so long as he considers his country to be his home.

What music does he listen to? What's his hairstyle? What's his skin colour?

These seem irrelevant.

Is he religious?

Of course.

To be more general, the ideal citizen strives for excellence in every area of life, especially virtue. Immigrants ideally should be as close to that as possible. No one is perfect, but everyone can become good enough for the purpose of immigration with enough willpower.

[Vanoi]

Immigration based on personal and political beliefs? Really?

[Prodromos]

Immigration based on personal and political beliefs? Really?

What political beliefs did I mention?