Emmigration and children of emigrants

clairefontaine

I'm extracting and abstracting this question from something that is on PI, but I have seen it time and time again, this question emigrants face as they raise their children in a different country from their own.

Their children will very often be learning different histories, different assumptions, different legacies, and sometimes different languages from their parents.

Sometime their parents choose themselves to go through the painful transformations of assimilation and sometimes they choose to live in exile in their new country remaining austerely of their originating culture.

To what extent is it fair to make your children learn, adapt, contort to their parents originating culture while growing up in a different one? I've seen many kids of emigrants struggle with negotiating this, while also appreciating their heritage.

What do you think?

clairefontaine

clairefontaine wrote: »

I'm extracting and abstracting this question from something that is on PI, but I have seen it time and time again, this question emigrants face as they raise their children in a different country from their own.

Their children will very often be learning different histories, different assumptions, different legacies, and sometimes different languages from their parents.

Sometime their parents choose themselves to go through the painful transformations of assimilation and sometimes they choose to live in exile in their new country remaining austerely of their originating culture.

To what extent is it fair to make your children learn, adapt, contort to their parents originating culture while growing up in a different one? I've seen many kids of emigrants struggle with negotiating this, while also appreciating their heritage.

What do you think?

More and more kids are 3rd culture, with escalating emigration and intermarriage it's almost normal in much of the West. The extent to which children adhere comfortably to the parent's original traditions tends to depend on how culturally diverse their new society is from their culture of origin. A child of Irish parents in almost any US city is probably going to be fine, a child of Vietnamese parents in the same city will have a harder time if the parents aren't fully assimilated themselves.

The bigger problem is the ownership of identity. If you're of the same ethnicity as the majority of the adopted culture, it's less of a challenge to your identity. If you're Asian in a predominantly Caucasian society, and your parents speak only their first language, the tendency is to maintain something of each identity - and the barrier between the two is only as thick as the front door of the family home. If a solid sense of identity isn't established and stability is an issue, many 3rd culture kids hate being asked where they come from as the answer can be unclear.

Being trans culture tends to single kids out, which can be a tricky path to negotiate in school, although if it means a second or third language it tends to be more of an advantage, if you're obviously different then not so much, if your parents can't easily negotiate the adopted society even less so.

Basically it depends on how well the parents assimilate, the use of languages of origin in and outside the home, ethnic conformity, and social integration.

I think parents choosing to raise their kids in a very different culture have a duty to assimilate as much as possible so they can guide their kids through the society they live in. In an established multi cultural society like the USA, where so many will describe themselves as a [insert nationality]-American, it's a pretty commonplace event. In an emerging multi cultural society, like Ireland, it's likely to be more difficult.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

To what extent is it fair to make your children learn, adapt, contort to their parents originating culture while growing up in a different one?

I was born in Italy and moved to Ireland with my parents around the time I would be starting first class (six - seven years of age). While it would be inaccurate to say I was the child of immigrant parents (my mother is Irish), I was culturally completely Italian when we moved; I spoke no English (although I understood a bit) and my attitudes were heavily influenced by the Italian side of my family (including my attitudes twoards Ireland, that was seen as a well meaning but backward and barbaric nation, by them).

At home we still lived as an Italian family; cuisine was naturally Italian, as was our dietary schedule (dinner at 8 or even 9 pm, rather than 'tea-time' at 5) and Italian was the language spoken at home.

All this meant that I often viewed things in Ireland slightly differently to most Irish people. I couldn't understand, as a seven-year old, why you would want to run away from a girl who wanted to kiss you, for example. Or, as a twelve-year old, would have a far more secular or cynical view of the Church, than the slavish devotion (fear) that was so entrenched in Ireland. Or, as a ten-year old, was able to see the horrifically Anglo-phobic slant that was taught in Irish history classes. Or, as a sixteen-year old, be dumbfounded at the obsession with alcohol and getting drunk and how talking to the opposite sex without it was almost taboo.

Now, where it comes to your question of to what extent is it fair to make your children learn, adapt, contort to their parents originating culture while growing up in a different one, the first thing that springs to mind, having had this experience growing up, is that there are limits to what parents can do and the environment is very important.

Ireland, pre-Celtic Tiger, was a pretty homogeneous country ethnically. There simply were no foreigners to speak of. There were very few other Italians around and more often than not neither I or my family would have much in common with them.

This meant that outside of my family home, there was little or no Italian influence. As a result, I integrated almost completely - I say almost because I still identified as 'Italian' if asked, largely out of principle. In reality, I was becoming less so, even my language fluency was slowly deteriorating and in the end it was only when I moved 'back' to Italy for a while in my twenties that I was able to regain both it and renewed cultural orientation.

Nonetheless, the strong Italian bias at home kept this side of by heritage alive until I was able to do this myself, and for this I am very grateful to my parents.

So, to respond to your question, to what extent it is fair has a lot to do with the environment outside the home. If there is little or no influence from the emigrant culture outside, then greater influence at home is not only fair, but probably a good idea. However, if that external influence is strong (e.g. you're ethnically Turkish and living in Kreuzberg) then compounding this influence outside with more at home will most likely harm the child's later ability to integrate.

clairefontaine

I agree, it's probably a bit easier in the US than it is in Ireland or maybe any other European country, simply because of the culture and attitudes to identity.

But on the other hand, the American external attitudes can make it more challenging for those parents who want to remain in exile and choose the strong traditional back home practises. There were a couple of girls, one from Greece, and the other from India who were born and raised in the US, and we as this peers never saw them as different, but the railed against the strictness of their parents. One plotted to kill them because of an arranged marriage. She didn't need to integrate because she wasn't an immigrant, but her parents refused to and it made some problems. I didn't think this was fair at all, for them to impose this on her.

The Chinese however, have a lot to learned from. I was in a taxi with a Chinese taxi driver, and his son is studying at Johns Hopkins on a full scholarship. I thought to myself, goodbye Irish Setter Mom. Hello tiger Mom.

I can appreciate bi lingualism, but this tyeing it up with identity is a little to Irish for me. You aren't always what you speak, but its nice to have more than one language.

It would be really interesting to see how the children of western emigrants in places like Dubai and Saudi living in those compounds feel.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

I agree, it's probably a bit easier in the US than it is in Ireland or maybe any other European country, simply because of the culture and attitudes to identity.

Yes and no. For example, had I grown up in New Jersey I would have had a lot of fellow 'Italians' there around me. However, most would have traced their roots to southern Italy, while mine is rooted in Tuscany and further north; so while there would have been commonalities, it wouldn't really have been the same culture, often down to language, as many will speak dialects when they do speak 'Italian'.

And over time immigrant communities diverge culturally from the nation of origin. There's very little really in common between Irish-Americans and the Irish, in reality. Even in my case, when I did return to Italy, I was at first a curiosity because I spoke with a vocabulary that was twenty years out of date.

Then again, that may be the price of emigration. Cultures are not static and once you emigrate they don't suddenly freeze just because you don't live there any more.

But on the other hand, the American external attitudes can make it more challenging for those parents who want to remain in exile and choose the strong traditional back home practises. There were a couple of girls, one from Greece, and the other from India who were born and raised in the US, and we as this peers never saw them as different, but the railed against the strictness of their parents. One plotted to kill them because of an arranged marriage. She didn't need to integrate because she wasn't an immigrant, but her parents refused to and it made some problems. I didn't think this was fair at all, for them to impose this on her.

Well that's down to another factor, related to your question, which is what is the gap between the original and adoptive culture. Between one European nation and another, it's not terribly big, however start adding differences in religion, tradition, morality and custom and you can find some pretty fundamental differences there that cannot be reconciled.

In such scenarios, I think you probably need to favour assimilation over tradition, because at the end of the day, your children aren't living in the 'old country' any more.

The Chinese however, have a lot to learned from. I was in a taxi with a Chinese taxi driver, and his son is studying at Johns Hopkins on a full scholarship. I thought to myself, goodbye Irish Setter Mom. Hello tiger Mom.

Well, that's called imposing a work ethic on your children; not spoiling them, making them work for what they want, pushing them to achieve and a strong emphasis on education. Chinese culture is noted for this, but they're hardly the only ones to do this.

I can appreciate bi lingualism, but this tyeing it up with identity is a little to Irish for me. You aren't always what you speak, but its nice to have more than one language.

I strongly recommend bilingualism, regardless of whether it is inherited or not.

It would be really interesting to see how the children of western emigrants in places like Dubai and Saudi living in those compounds feel.

Expats in places like that generally only stick around for a few years. The children go to outrageously overpriced international schools, separated from the local people, and live either in 'compounds' or in areas along side other expats.

There's little incentive for them to integrate, because when you go there it's on the understanding that you're going to leave when you've done the work you've been hired to do.

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

Yes and no. For example, had I grown up in New Jersey I would have had a lot of fellow 'Italians' there around me. However, most would have traced their roots to southern Italy, while mine is rooted in Tuscany and further north; so while there would have been commonalities, it wouldn't really have been the same culture, often down to language, as many will speak dialects when they do speak 'Italian'.

And over time immigrant communities diverge culturally from the nation of origin. There's very little really in common between Irish-Americans and the Irish, in reality. Even in my case, when I did return to Italy, I was at first a curiosity because I spoke with a vocabulary that was twenty years out of date.

Then again, that may be the price of emigration. Cultures are not static and once you emigrate they don't suddenly freeze just because you don't live there any more.

Well that's down to another factor, related to your question, which is what is the gap between the original and adoptive culture. Between one European nation and another, it's not terribly big, however start adding differences in religion, tradition, morality and custom and you can find some pretty fundamental differences there that cannot be reconciled.

In such scenarios, I think you probably need to favour assimilation over tradition, because at the end of the day, your children aren't living in the 'old country' any more.

Well, that's called imposing a work ethic on your children; not spoiling them, making them work for what they want, pushing them to achieve and a strong emphasis on education. Chinese culture is noted for this, but they're hardly the only ones to do this.

I strongly recommend bilingualism, regardless of whether it is inherited or not.

Expats in places like that generally only stick around for a few years. The children go to outrageously overpriced international schools, separated from the local people, and live either in 'compounds' or in areas along side other expats.

There's little incentive for them to integrate, because when you go there it's on the understanding that you're going to leave when you've done the work you've been hired to do.

I'm sorry I can't multi quote so I'm quoting in one big chunk. I also find zig zaggy quotes confusing.

There is a difference when you as a child are also an immigrant and when you are a native born to immigrants. I'm thinking the former could be even more complex and maybe in some ways easier.

In New Jersey for example, those kids born there, would also be born to Italian American parents. The American part always supersedes the other part of the hyphen. If those kids go to public school, they would be facing the flag every morning and pledging allegiance, for twelve years of their lives, along with all the other hyphenated beings going to public school. The ethnic part of the hyphen, is a simple modifier ultimately. And the community, the nation will also see them as American first. In Europe, things are a bit different.

Because of the history, the white ethnics, don't have the same dilemmas wrestling with the pains of transformation. Also, the cultures don't have the same tensions with American culture, because they were so integral in shaping it, and in the formation of the nation. And this is the legacy Europeans are joining when and if they emigrate to the US.

But, when I hear of parents making their non immigrant kids go though very uncomfortable contortions to conform to a country they were not reared in, I think it's unfair. Offering a legacy, a language, an alternative perspective is one thing, but forcing the child to,live in exile in their own homeland is another.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

In New Jersey for example, those kids born there, would also be born to Italian American parents. The American part always supersedes the other part of the hyphen. If those kids go to public school, they would be facing the flag every morning and pledging allegiance, for twelve years of their lives, along with all the other hyphenated beings going to public school. The ethnic part of the hyphen, is a simple modifier ultimately. And the community, the nation will also see them as American first. In Europe, things are a bit different.

Well yes, I agree. When I say I am Irish-Italian, I mean I actually am both Irish and Italian; I hold both citizenship and passports, can and have voted in the elections of both nations and can 'fit in' to both societies.

The American model appears to see the hyphenated prefix nationality as a vague ethnic designation; even if one holds dual citizenship, it's just on paper and they will never really 'fit in' in the second society, nor will they ever really try - an Irish-American will typically always be seen as American in Ireland, because they ultimately see themselves and behave as such.

But, when I hear of parents making their non immigrant kids go though very uncomfortable contortions to conform to a country they were not reared in, I think it's unfair.

As I said, I think this is very much linked to the cultural gap between the old and new nation. Europeans, and other Westerners, have little difficulty integrating in America, for example, as the gap is quite small (usually only language is a factor). For non-Westerners, who arrive with considerably more religious and traditional 'baggage' this process of integration demands far greater compromise, some of which they're unwilling to make.

Offering a legacy, a language, an alternative perspective is one thing, but forcing the child to,live in exile in their own homeland is another.

Comes down to what is more important; raising a child so that it is best placed to thrive in the environment it will live in as an adult, or ethnic family traditions?

You might think that such a question is a no brainer, but in many cultures the good of the individual family member is often superseded by the good of the whole family - it's a strategy successfully followed by many cultures, including the Chinese, which you were admiring just a few posts back.

clairefontaine

I'm not going to make or agree with general assumptions about Irish Americans ever rally trying to integrate into Ireland. I doubt they are a significant group to draw any general conclusions from. There are far more Irish historically integrating into the US to draw generalisations. However, it would be intriguing to see how the children of Irish Americans who are born and raised there are viewed by the external community. But yes in the US the American part is dominant. Because ultimately, it doesn't matter where you are from, you are here now, so lets go with that. This clashes with immigrants who choose to life in exile but whose kids are not immigrants themselves, like you said you were, but native born and reared. Some put blinkers on to this, not fully accepting some of the losses that come with immigration. And some of the gains.

It appears to me Europe is a bit different. The myths of origin still hold dear. Maybe this makes it a harder choice or harder to negotiate when you emmigarte, although technically your not emmigration because your still within Europe? I don't know, but there are so many cultures, it would still strike me as emmigration.

They hyphenated being can hold many meanings,probably because identity is not static and language is not perfect. And once you leave Ireland, not matter how little or lots irish you ar you still can't vote. But that's another discussion.

So yes, it does depend on what will help the child thrive.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

It appears to me Europe is a bit different. The myths of origin still hold dear. Maybe this makes it a harder choice or harder to negotiate when you emmigarte, although technically your not emmigration because your still within Europe? I don't know, but there are so many cultures, it would still strike me as emmigration.

Europe is different because European nations are defined by our ethnicity. Germany is ethnically German, Ireland is ethnically Irish, Italy is ethnically Italian and up until recently the only way you could gain citizenship was through the law of jus sanguinis in many such nations. It's not easy to let go of thousands of years of history.

The US is different. It's not defined ethnically (as much as Fox News wishes it were). It's a melting pot. It assimilates rather than integrate.

So yes, it does depend on what will help the child thrive.

But that's not what I said; I gave two viewpoints and you've only addressed one.

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

Europe is different because European nations are defined by our ethnicity. Germany is ethnically German, Ireland is ethnically Irish, Italy is ethnically Italian and up until recently the only way you could gain citizenship was through the law of jus sanguinis in many such nations. It's not easy to let go of thousands of years of history.

The US is different. It's not defined ethnically (as much as Fox News wishes it were). It's a melting pot. It assimilates rather than integrate.

But that's not what I said; I gave two viewpoints and you've only addressed one.

US is a melting pot and a tossed salad. Full menu really.

It's somewhat defined ethnically, but incredibly complicated. Many competing histories, we are both European and not European, western and non western.

Obama recently changed the rules on citizenship. I won't remind anyone of the irony of this. Blood isn't enough. It's first territory, on US soil. If your born abroad, your parents have to have had recent continuous residency in the US as well as being citizens. It used to be an entitlement just from having an American parent.

I missed the second viewpoint sorry. Can you point it out?

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

I missed the second viewpoint sorry. Can you point it out?

This:

The Corinthian wrote: »

Comes down to what is more important; raising a child so that it is best placed to thrive in the environment it will live in as an adult, or ethnic family traditions?

You might think that such a question is a no brainer, but in many cultures the good of the individual family member is often superseded by the good of the whole family - it's a strategy successfully followed by many cultures, including the Chinese, which you were admiring just a few posts back.

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

This:

Ok thanks.

Well, yes I've come across that before, but in its opposite thesis.

Some have said the reason Italian Americans became more successful faster than the Irish is because they were more individualistic. In other words, they would invest in one member of the family and let that person, most likely a male lead the way, borh in terms of wprk and education. The Irish on the otherhand, being more "egalitarian" would split everything up and share it among the family, so no one rose up particularly quickly. Earlier on in the century, the Italians were very much into assimilation. Made their kids learn English, were not pushed on them learning Italian. Obviously the Irish didn't have to learn English and the Irish language was a non issue. Dropped like a hot potato.

I'm not really sure what the Chinese do here, but they kick ass. And they are probably rhe most successful non western immigrant group, both in terms of financial success but in co ordinating life in the west. The Irish better watch out, not that the chinese are there, tough competition.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

Some have said the reason Italian Americans became more successful faster than the Irish is because they were more individualistic. In other words, they would invest in one member of the family and let that person, most likely a male lead the way, borh in terms of wprk and education. The Irish on the otherhand, being more "egalitarian" would split everything up and share it among the family, so no one rose up particularly quickly. Earlier on in the century, the Italians were very much into assimilation. Made their kids learn English, were not pushed on them learning Italian. Obviously the Irish didn't have to learn English and the Irish language was a non issue. Dropped like a hot potato.

Not really that simple. Italians learned English because, ironically, it was the common language even amongst each other. Remember, Italy was united only in 1861 and regional dialects persisted as the lingua franca well into the twentieth century - I have neighbours who came from Calabria forty years ago and while they speak with me in Italian, you can see that they struggle as it's not their mother tongue.

The same thing happened in South America - particularly Argentina. There 60% of the population is of Italian descent, but despite being the ethnic majority the language did not displace Spanish simply because it was not unified.

As for Italians being more individualistic, I wouldn't agree there. Investing everything in one offspring was also done in Ireland (happened on the Irish side of my family) and the philosophy of putting the 'honour' of the family first, is almost a stereotype in southern Italy.

Even today, an Irish parent is far more likely to be put in a care home in their old age than an Italian one. It's actually considered somewhat shameful to do that in Italy. Not exactly individualistic.

If you ask me, my guess is that if the Irish were less successful, it's probably because of much higher incidences of alcoholism.

I'm not really sure what the Chinese do here, but they kick ass. And they are probably rhe most successful non western immigrant group, both in terms of financial success but in co ordinating life in the west. The Irish better watch out, not that the chinese are there, tough competition.

One thing that one may point out is that much of Chinese culture puts family first, over the individual. Parents will push their children to succeed, far more than many others. They'll also sacrifice more to allow their children to succeed. But in return, the implicit deal is that once the children have succeeded, it's payback time and the parents will go to live with and be taken care of in their old age, by them. Individual desire is secondary.

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not really that simple. Italians learned English because, ironically, it was the common language even amongst each other. Remember, Italy was united only in 1861 and regional dialects persisted as the lingua franca well into the twentieth century - I have neighbours who came from Calabria forty years ago and while they speak with me in Italian, you can see that they struggle as it's not their mother tongue.

The same thing happened in South America - particularly Argentina. There 60% of the population is of Italian descent, but despite being the ethnic majority the language did not displace Spanish simply because it was not unified.

As for Italians being more individualistic, I wouldn't agree there. Investing everything in one offspring was also done in Ireland (happened on the Irish side of my family) and the philosophy of putting the 'honour' of the family first, is almost a stereotype in southern Italy.

Even today, an Irish parent is far more likely to be put in a care home in their old age than an Italian one. It's actually considered somewhat shameful to do that in Italy. Not exactly individualistic.

If you ask me, my guess is that if the Irish were less successful, it's probably because of much higher incidences of alcoholism.

One thing that one may point out is that much of Chinese culture puts family first, over the individual. Parents will push their children to succeed, far more than many others. They'll also sacrifice more to allow their children to succeed. But in return, the implicit deal is that once the children have succeeded, it's payback time and the parents will go to live with and be taken care of in their old age, by them. Individual desire is secondary.

When I speak of individualism. I don't necessarily mean what you seem to mean. What I mean is the family investing resources into one individual rather than sharing the bread jar among many siblings. Sociologists attribute the success of the Irish to several things, knowing English, being white, and inheriting the trust of hierarchy, the latter leading them to jobs in the police force, the church etc, where there were clear cut rings on the ladder to climb. They were also master politicians.

The culture being so individualistic, the US is not egalitarian, this can also cause clashes between the more group oriented families and their American children, who might like to marry outside their culture, or choose to to follow a religion, etc. Choice is part of the prism of the American experience. I sing the song of myself, celebrates Whitman, so when adults emigrate to the US, this is what they are looking for, and yet, some when it comes down to it, don't want to,pass it onto their kids. They want their kids marrying Greek or Italian, or the girls to stay at home and not get educations, blah blah blah, stick to the script of the motherland. Maybe in Europe where there is more of a when in Rome philosophy, this is less negotiable. Doesn't mean it's any less painful though. That's more of a question really.

Banjoxed

clairefontaine wrote: »

I'm sorry I can't multi quote so I'm quoting in one big chunk. I also find zig zaggy quotes confusing.

There is a difference when you as a child are also an immigrant and when you are a native born to immigrants. I'm thinking the former could be even more complex and maybe in some ways easier.

In New Jersey for example, those kids born there, would also be born to Italian American parents. The American part always supersedes the other part of the hyphen. If those kids go to public school, they would be facing the flag every morning and pledging allegiance, for twelve years of their lives, along with all the other hyphenated beings going to public school. The ethnic part of the hyphen, is a simple modifier ultimately. And the community, the nation will also see them as American first. In Europe, things are a bit different.

Because of the history, the white ethnics, don't have the same dilemmas wrestling with the pains of transformation. Also, the cultures don't have the same tensions with American culture, because they were so integral in shaping it, and in the formation of the nation. And this is the legacy Europeans are joining when and if they emigrate to the US.

But, when I hear of parents making their non immigrant kids go though very uncomfortable contortions to conform to a country they were not reared in, I think it's unfair. Offering a legacy, a language, an alternative perspective is one thing, but forcing the child to,live in exile in their own homeland is another.

I was born in London and at the insistence of my mother our family moved from London to Kildare in 1970. Superficially Ireland was similar in most ways but what I wasn't prepared for was the viciousness of a significant number of school kids towards my London accent. This lasted almost throughout my time in school and found it very difficult to fully integrate unless I adopted the same attitude as the bullies, so I never did.

Nowadays I keep most of my criticisms of Irish society to myself because of the intense chippiness of some. The main reason why I am here is to care for my parents but I am happier being an Irishman in London than having a foot in the other island here.

clairefontaine

Banjoxed wrote: »

I was born in London and at the insistence of my mother our family moved from London to Kildare in 1970. Superficially Ireland was similar in most ways but what I wasn't prepared for was the viciousness of a significant number of school kids towards my London accent. This lasted almost throughout my time in school and found it very difficult to fully integrate unless I adopted the same attitude as the bullies, so I never did.

Nowadays I keep most of my criticisms of Irish society to myself because of the intense chippiness of some. The main reason why I am here is to care for my parents but I am happier being an Irishman in London than having a foot in the other island here.

Same thing happened to my mom and her sister when their family moved from England to Ireland. They were bullied and had stones thrown at them for their accents.

I don't think as a foreigner if ever be able to integrate their either.

I'm living in China now, and it's unlikely I'll be returning to Ireland any time soo . The thing is that raising children under Chinese culture is not an option here. We are foreign, regardless of whether the mother is Chinese or not. I suspect it's far easier having a western ethnic background in a wwestern country than a mixed western/asian setup. The thing is that the Chinese while admiring aspects of western culture or advances feel themselves to be culturally superior to everyone. Five thousand years of civilisation is a very common comment here about chinese beliefs... Regardless of the facts of the matter, the chinese view themselves as being separate from other nationalities. While I can get a green card here, I will always be a foreigner. That will not change.

The chinese who do succeed abroad only mimic their surroundings. On the inside 1st gen and 2nd gen Chinese are completely loyal to their culture in their homes. There are many cultural aspects relating to what happens in public and what happens in private and they just transport that into other countries.

ABC tend to have huge problems here because the Chinese themselves don't know how to treat them especially if their chinese isn't good. I suspect they feel far more welcome in the west than here. I won't even go into the reactions towards chinese/Japanese children...

Just to say that whilst integration is and can be possible in western countries, there is very little chance of that here. I have foreign friends living in china with their families, their children speak fluent chinese, and they don't tend to stay long. There are just too many barriers to actual acceptance (our skin and eyes being the primary ones.)

Edit: although I would say that the Muslims that came here a few hundred years ago are quite well received. At least as long as they leave the violence and religious public sermons behind. But it's primarily those that are western or from a noticeable mixed background that get more... Attention.