"Garett Jones documents the cultural foundations of cross-country income differences, showing that immigrants import cultural attitudes from their homelands—toward saving, toward trust, and toward the role of government—that persist for decades, and likely for centuries, in their new national homes. Full assimilation in a generation or two, Jones reports, is a myth." (https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=35594)

> the cultural foundations of cross-country income differences, showing that immigrants import cultural attitudes from their homelands—toward saving, toward trust, and toward the role of government

Don't social class and education play a big role here too? University-educated professionals in country X very often have rather different attitudes from poor villagers in country X, so whether your immigrants from country X are mostly university-educated professionals vs mostly poor villagers may be much more significant than the mere fact that you are accepting immigrants from that country.

> Full assimilation in a generation or two, Jones reports, is a myth.

The two largest non-European immigrant groups in Australia are Chinese-Australians (over 5% of population) and Indian-Australians (over 3%). Among second-generation Chinese-Australians, 35% of married men and 48% of married women have a non-Chinese spouse; for the third and subsequent generations, the percentage rises to 69% for men and 73% for women. Similarly, for second-generation Indian-Australians, 56% of married men and 58% of married women have a non-Indian spouse. And those are figures from the 2006 census, [0] and I expect 2nd/3rd+ generation intermarriage rates have likely increased since then.

Isn't that an example of "assimilation" working? My friends in high school included a half-Chinese guy and a half-Indian guy, and I have half-Japanese second cousins – and I couldn't tell you what differences in culture exist between them and myself, I don't know whether there actually are any.

[0] https://tapri.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/v17n1_2khoob...

> University-educated professionals in country X very often have rather different attitudes from poor villagers in country X, so whether your immigrants from country X are mostly university-educated professionals vs mostly poor villagers may be much more significant than the mere fact that you are accepting immigrants from that country

I don’t think that makes much of a difference. I’m part of the south Asian diaspora immigration to America—that community carries with it culture and attitudes from back home as much if not more so than any villagers. In particular attitudes towards government, social hierarchy, child rearing, social obligations to others, etc.

Which country you’re talking about also makes a difference. America, in particular, was mostly founded by the poorest immigrants from Europe. The Germans, Italians, and Irish came here from the absolute bottom of the ladder. In my observation, poor immigrants from Latin America are a better cultural fit than university educated Indians or Chinese.

Also, refugees (as in Europe) versus voluntary immigrants (as in Australia and Canada) makes a big difference. If you poll people in Asia and the Middle East, only single digit percentages of people say they would leave their home country if they had the opportunity if they had the chance. So the people who undertake voluntary immigration are a self-selecting group of especially anti-social people. My parents left Bangladesh because they don’t like Bangladeshis. This is not an uncommon background for those Asians whose kids end up inter-marrying.

And finally, Indians are a bit of a special case. Remember India (and Bangladeshi be Pakistan) was a British colony for hundreds of years. My mom grew up with English, reading the canons of western literature, etc.