3 ms·

> In modest numbers, people adapt to the home country and become indistinguishable from the locals after a few years. We must be in huge numbers territory then

> In modest numbers, people adapt to the home country and become indistinguishable from the locals after a few years. We must be in huge numbers territory then because definitely not the case in Bay Area or quite a few places I’ve been in the US. You can tell a local from non-local easily here… There’s almost no interest in assimilation - this cascades down even into the children who identify more with their parent’s home country and less with the country they were raised in. I’ve seen this attitude transcend multiple continents and generations - ones born in Africa from Asian parents migrate to Europe and then raise their own children in the USA but those kids still identify more heavily with their grandparents asian home country.

mschuster91 4y ago
> I’ve seen this attitude transcend multiple continents and generations - ones born in Africa from Asian parents migrate to Europe and then raise their own children in the USA but those kids still identify more heavily with their grandparents asian home country. Immigration is not one-sided (=the immigrants have to assimilate and that's it) like the far-right wants - the majority society also has to do their part in integrating immigrants. At least here in Europe, wherever you look immigrants face massive discrimination: they have it vastly harder, even after multiple generations, to find jobs [1] and housing [2] simply due to their migrant-heritage last name, they have a harder time in schools [3], in social life... it's no surprise that immigrants prefer to turn to their ethnic community as a result, furthering segregation. [1] https://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2017-09/diskriminierungsbericht-jobcenter-auslaender-namen-studie https://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2017-09/diskriminier... [2] https://www.sueddeutsche.de/leben/gesellschaft-auslaendischer-name-ist-bei-der-wohnungssuche-eine-huerde-dpa.urn-newsml-dpa-com-20090101-170622-99-952689 https://www.sueddeutsche.de/leben/gesellschaft-auslaendische... [3] https://www.zeit.de/gesellschaft/2018-08/rassismus-schule-metwo-diskriminierung-migrationshintergrund-namen https://www.zeit.de/gesellschaft/2018-08/rassismus-schule-me...
- grapeskin 4y ago
  If a society is unable to accept and help assimilate immigrants, it seems it’s probably for the best that that society maintains a policy of strictly limited immigration. It’s very apparent neither the host country nor the immigrant benefits from moving there. It’d be ridiculous to say Bhutan needs to make efforts to help people assimilate, wouldn’t it? Most people have zero desire to adopt their culture (and thus don’t move there) and Bhutanese have zero desire to invite people into their country to reside if they’re not ready to adapt quickly (and thus don’t invite them). And I think that’s perfectly okay.
- bradlys 4y ago
  I agree it’s definitely not one sided but I’ve seen many people where I’m at very happy to accept people with a different background and culture but… the other side just has absolutely no interest. It’s very much stay within the family/community mentality. Which definitely goes against how Americans in general work (individualistic).

mschuster91 4y ago

> I’ve seen this attitude transcend multiple continents and generations - ones born in Africa from Asian parents migrate to Europe and then raise their own children in the USA but those kids still identify more heavily with their grandparents asian home country. Immigration is not one-sided (=the immigrants have to assimilate and that's it) like the far-right wants - the majority society also has to do their part in integrating immigrants. At least here in Europe, wherever you look immigrants face massive discrimination: they have it vastly harder, even after multiple generations, to find jobs [1] and housing [2] simply due to their migrant-heritage last name, they have a harder time in schools [3], in social life... it's no surprise that immigrants prefer to turn to their ethnic community as a result, furthering segregation. [1] https://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2017-09/diskriminierungsbericht-jobcenter-auslaender-namen-studie https://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2017-09/diskriminier... [2] https://www.sueddeutsche.de/leben/gesellschaft-auslaendischer-name-ist-bei-der-wohnungssuche-eine-huerde-dpa.urn-newsml-dpa-com-20090101-170622-99-952689 https://www.sueddeutsche.de/leben/gesellschaft-auslaendische... [3] https://www.zeit.de/gesellschaft/2018-08/rassismus-schule-metwo-diskriminierung-migrationshintergrund-namen https://www.zeit.de/gesellschaft/2018-08/rassismus-schule-me...

grapeskin 4y ago
If a society is unable to accept and help assimilate immigrants, it seems it’s probably for the best that that society maintains a policy of strictly limited immigration. It’s very apparent neither the host country nor the immigrant benefits from moving there. It’d be ridiculous to say Bhutan needs to make efforts to help people assimilate, wouldn’t it? Most people have zero desire to adopt their culture (and thus don’t move there) and Bhutanese have zero desire to invite people into their country to reside if they’re not ready to adapt quickly (and thus don’t invite them). And I think that’s perfectly okay.
bradlys 4y ago
I agree it’s definitely not one sided but I’ve seen many people where I’m at very happy to accept people with a different background and culture but… the other side just has absolutely no interest. It’s very much stay within the family/community mentality. Which definitely goes against how Americans in general work (individualistic).