Even that's not true. If you have too much mass migration, it becomes impossible to assimilate, so you don't even have Civic Nationalism.
Immigration can still work with Ethnic Nationalism, because it require the immigrants to integrate by intermarrying with the other ethnicities within the state.
Immigration can work a little easier with Civic Nationalism because it requires you to assimilate the immigrants into your social and moral system. Frankly, that suggests to me that an immigrant could be deported regardless of any length of time in the country should they engage in violations of the law.
Requires? Who's going to enforce the assimilation, in a liberal democracy? The people who opened the immigration, who don't care about preservation of the native culture and blood? The ones who will pander to immigrants they imported? The people who didn't want the immigrants in the first place, but wouldn't speak up for fear of being called racist? Allowing immigration from anything but developed countries of similar race and culture will never work because they always bring in more 3rd worlders. Multi ethnic civic nationalism doesn't work.
Allowing immigration from anything but developed countries of similar race and culture will never work
"Who's going to enforce the assimilation in a liberal democracy? The people who opened the immigration, who don't...
Your response doesn't challenge your own position. Your position doesn't make sense with limited migration, your position makes sense with the suspension of all migration.
Most societies are multi-ethnic, including places you think are single ethnicity like Ireland and the Czech republic. Integration can be mandated by law within a liberal society, because a liberal society can't tolerate an illiberal institution. These would require language requirements, residency requirements, caps on migration both generally and locally, ceasing remittances, refusing to provide welfare to migrants, mandated cultural and educational courses; ect. Possibly even a restriction on voting rights for 1st generation migrants as well.
Whether or not a country is developed or not is utterly meaningless. Just because a country is developed, or similar in development, it does not meant the problems with migration cease. Even cultural similarity is not enough, since they are similar but not the same. If England can colonize Scotland and Ireland, then there is no reason why "similar development or culture" is enough to prevent there from being problems with integration.
The questions you bring up are based not on inherent problems with 3rd world integration, but with political party boss systems that exploit migration to create ethno-states within another state that acts as a political block. If you bring in a migrant group in a large chunk, and you are the only person that speaks the language, you can become the defacto power broker for the community. This happened with basically every immigrant group that came to NYC from the 1860's to about the era of Rudy Guliani.
Multi-ethnic Civic Nationalism works because over a long enough time it creates it's own ethnic group through integration. It is also fairly common in Empires.
If it works it becomes a mongrel English hell, or a mongrel French hell, or a mongrel Germany hell, or a mongrel Italian hell, or a mongrel Ukranian hell, or a mongrel Greek hell.
Don't be dumb. These people are not their own absolutely unique identity that has no dissimilarity in it. Even the Germans (who had a sense of cultural identity prior to the Unification) were still culturally, ethnically, and legally divided and integrated.
Even that's not true. If you have too much mass migration, it becomes impossible to assimilate, so you don't even have Civic Nationalism.
Immigration can still work with Ethnic Nationalism, because it require the immigrants to integrate by intermarrying with the other ethnicities within the state.
Immigration can work a little easier with Civic Nationalism because it requires you to assimilate the immigrants into your social and moral system. Frankly, that suggests to me that an immigrant could be deported regardless of any length of time in the country should they engage in violations of the law.
Requires? Who's going to enforce the assimilation, in a liberal democracy? The people who opened the immigration, who don't care about preservation of the native culture and blood? The ones who will pander to immigrants they imported? The people who didn't want the immigrants in the first place, but wouldn't speak up for fear of being called racist? Allowing immigration from anything but developed countries of similar race and culture will never work because they always bring in more 3rd worlders. Multi ethnic civic nationalism doesn't work.
"Who's going to enforce the assimilation in a liberal democracy? The people who opened the immigration, who don't...
Your response doesn't challenge your own position. Your position doesn't make sense with limited migration, your position makes sense with the suspension of all migration.
Most societies are multi-ethnic, including places you think are single ethnicity like Ireland and the Czech republic. Integration can be mandated by law within a liberal society, because a liberal society can't tolerate an illiberal institution. These would require language requirements, residency requirements, caps on migration both generally and locally, ceasing remittances, refusing to provide welfare to migrants, mandated cultural and educational courses; ect. Possibly even a restriction on voting rights for 1st generation migrants as well.
Whether or not a country is developed or not is utterly meaningless. Just because a country is developed, or similar in development, it does not meant the problems with migration cease. Even cultural similarity is not enough, since they are similar but not the same. If England can colonize Scotland and Ireland, then there is no reason why "similar development or culture" is enough to prevent there from being problems with integration.
The questions you bring up are based not on inherent problems with 3rd world integration, but with political party boss systems that exploit migration to create ethno-states within another state that acts as a political block. If you bring in a migrant group in a large chunk, and you are the only person that speaks the language, you can become the defacto power broker for the community. This happened with basically every immigrant group that came to NYC from the 1860's to about the era of Rudy Guliani.
Multi-ethnic Civic Nationalism works because over a long enough time it creates it's own ethnic group through integration. It is also fairly common in Empires.
If it works, it eventually becomes a mongrel Mexican hell, if it doesn't it becomes mongrel Brazilian hell, sounds appealing.
If it works it becomes a mongrel English hell, or a mongrel French hell, or a mongrel Germany hell, or a mongrel Italian hell, or a mongrel Ukranian hell, or a mongrel Greek hell.
Don't be dumb. These people are not their own absolutely unique identity that has no dissimilarity in it. Even the Germans (who had a sense of cultural identity prior to the Unification) were still culturally, ethnically, and legally divided and integrated.