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.
Integration under the threat of violence from the monarchy of the dominant ethnicity. You can't force integration through liberal democracy, the best you'll get is everyone sinking to the lowest common denominator of nigger culture. If there are no politicians who pander to the minorities, who don't undermine the country's laws for political gains, the minories will have to assimilate, but if you already have a such high integrity population in the first place, any form of government or economic system could be functional. True civic nationalism has never been tried
"Monarch of the dominant ethnicity" again, doesn't make sense. Most empires are not dominated by a single ethnic group.
Yes, you can force integration through liberal democracy by limiting migration and mandating certain policies. You don't allow enclaves to form in the first place.
True Civic Nationalism has been tried many times, and normally works. To be honest, true Ethno-Nationalism (where one and only one ethnic group exists and forms a single state), is almost literally never done, and normally doesn't form states larger than a few cities.
"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.
Integration under the threat of violence from the monarchy of the dominant ethnicity. You can't force integration through liberal democracy, the best you'll get is everyone sinking to the lowest common denominator of nigger culture. If there are no politicians who pander to the minorities, who don't undermine the country's laws for political gains, the minories will have to assimilate, but if you already have a such high integrity population in the first place, any form of government or economic system could be functional. True civic nationalism has never been tried
"Monarch of the dominant ethnicity" again, doesn't make sense. Most empires are not dominated by a single ethnic group.
Yes, you can force integration through liberal democracy by limiting migration and mandating certain policies. You don't allow enclaves to form in the first place.
True Civic Nationalism has been tried many times, and normally works. To be honest, true Ethno-Nationalism (where one and only one ethnic group exists and forms a single state), is almost literally never done, and normally doesn't form states larger than a few cities.