yes it is strange that when you import people from alien cultures on a massive scale and in turn you get a resurgence of nationalism, that you blame the inhabitants of the host country and don't call into question the immigration policy.

let us not forget that europeans have a long legacy of nationalism that has only recently come out of fashion in the region, and it took two world wars for that to happen. prior to that it was hard enough to convince european nationalities to get along with each other, let alone with people from cultures much different from their own.

of course assimiliation doesn't mean you abandon all aspects of your old culture. that is what makes it multicultural. your question, though, was whether assimilation matter beyond language. the answer is yes. there is more to the 'american' culture that we are expected to share beyond just speaking the language.

Those immigration policies may explain rise in nationalist tendencies, but that hardly excuses it. Simple.

well, that is assuming that nationalism is something that needs an excuse. in reality, when it comes right down to it, people will often react in rather predictable ways. and if we see a policy mistake that is leading to a problematic situation then it is rather irrational to ignore that policy mistake in favor of trying to shame people into acting in a way that would render the policy less problematic.

i would say that if the immigration policies are the cause of the tension, and the tension is problematic, then the immigration policies are also therefore problematic. simple cause and effect, really.

similarly, you can point to the situation in iraq as having resulted from western intervention in that region. first, the british drawing lines that formed that country without understanding the people they were grouping together. second, with the american/nato intervention which gave power to a shia minority which in turn didn't do much to give representation to the sunnis and kurds in that country.

none of this excuses the actions of ISIS. none of it excuses the actions of the insurgents. but this is irrelevant as to whether the western policies were problematic or not.

sure, you can hope that we can evolve past our tribal instincts to some extent and that nationalism can be minimized. that is something you will have to come up with a proper strategy for. i would argue that importing people from alien cultures on a massive scale and then shaming any nationalist sentiment that comes as a result is a pretty terrible strategy, really. you are worrying more about holding common people accountable for ignorance than you are about holding governments accountable for counter productive policies. basically this will only fan the flames of nationalism, not help put out the fire. so to continue this course of action and then complain about nationalism is just downright idiotic, imo.

Personally I don't why people get so heated up about immigration anyway, historically people eventually assimilate into their new country and if they don't then their children usually do. Sure for many there are numerous issues adapting but it's all part of the process and language barriers are not all that difficult really to overcome.

Immigrants bring a wealth of new culture with them and also pick up the culture of the country that they've moved to, so you end up with a kind of marriage that will initially have its ups and downs .

People have moved around the world since they became aware of transport, so there is no reason why it should stop now.

also... with regard to the previous argument over whether culture matters.. i would really think that one over again if i was you.

keep in mind that modern multiculturalism is largely a social experiment. this isn't the ordinary way in which societies have functioned throughout history. people in a community sharing a common cultural identity has always been a vital part of any truly functional society. this isn't to say you can't have sub-cultures within the larger shared culture. however, for this to work, all of these sub-cultures have to at least be compatible with the larger shared culture.

to import people from foreign cultures and say the only thing that matters is a shared language and respect for the law is making a pretty drastic assumption about the importance (or lack thereof) of culture in a functional society. and to my knowledge, there aren't many historical precedents you can draw upon to suggest that this radical version of multiculturalism is plausible.

i would say that western countries need to lay out the most vital beliefs and principles that are at the core of their way of life - things like pluralism, secularism, democracy, free speech, feminism, etc. if the sub-cultures that are imported are compatible with these ideals, then perhaps multiculturalism can work. if not, then you have a basic recipe for conflict and tension. to expect anything else while importing these kinds of cultures defies all common sense to me.

so... for example... a lot of muslim immigrants in europe hold ideologies with little to no respect for these central ideals or the western way of life. if you import enough of these people(the conservative muslims, i'm not speaking about all muslims), then they will gather into clusters and develop their own communities which exist within the host country but make little to no effort to interact with said country to any extent beyond what is pragmatically necessary for them to exist. when you have this sort of thing, you once again have a basic recipe for tension and conflict. instead of compatible sub-cultures within a larger shared culture you have competing cultures. you have an in group/out group situation within a single society. these in group/out group tendencies are what is at the root of nationalism. it isn't some social construct... it is something ubiquitous to all human societies. there's a good reason for that. so you really need to consider that when constructing a multicultural society.

imagine the shoe was on the other foot and you imported massive amounts of westerners with no respect for islamic or arab culture to saudi arabia. when the current inhabitants of saudi arabia then predictably became hostile to the new arrivals, would you similarly say too bad and its their fault for being so xenophobic? or maybe question whether the westerners should've been imported into that society in the first place?

^There already is something that coerces people into adopting, or at least adhering to, vital beliefs of a culture. It's called legislation.

As for the shoe being on the other foot, I would obviously be singing the same tune. If it's predictable for you to punch people in the face when they say hi to you, people saying hi is not the issue in the first place but rather it's on you.

People reacting negatively to the outcome of a policy does not make it problematic in itself but rather shows a problematic element in the people. I support allowing in immigrants and oppose xenophobia, regardless of whether or not their xenophobia is supposedly justified by a higher presence of immigrants.

Dude, you just McPosted JWB. He made an intelligent, well thought-out argument (whether you agree with it or not), and you basically just reiterated what you'd already said, without really addressing any of his points or putting forth any of your own of any substance.

It's possible to have a conversation with JWB without reiterating your point ad nauseum? This is news to me.

I'm pretty much 100% with JWB on this whole thing.

Well if your point amounted to anything but, "I don't like nationalism, so I'm just gonna cross my arms and hold my breath until everyone starts playing nice," then maybe reiterating it would be worthwhile. You're in college. Your pamphlets must have had more to say than that.