# data[].attributes.body
1) In our opinion, local culture is not threatened by immigration and the word “threatened” is too strong to describe its influence. It is true that culture is dynamic and undergoes many changes over time. In fact, immigration can culturally enrich the country as in case of the Turkish inventing doner in Germany.
2) Immigrants should be granted most of the rights and privileges depending on the time they spent in the country, their contribution to the economy and the level of social integration. However, voting is a special right which has a significant impact on the politics of the country and, therefore, it should be earned by getting a citizenship.
3) yes, immigrants should be required to learn the local language because it is the most crucial aspect of social and cultural integration that can provide many opportunities such as employment and social capital.
4) Immigrants should be able to choose the preferred language of instruction for themselves because their interests and future plans can vary from case to case. Nonetheless, it is certain that language courses should be easily available to them as additional help.
5) The amount of time spent in the country, criminal record, language qualification, interview
6) Approximately 5 years because it shows their commitment and proves sufficient social integration.
7) In this case, employers should not be held responsible for hiring immigrants so-long as they avoid tax evasion and operate within the framework of law. The fault here lies on the security agencies and the government that has failed to prevent and resolve illegal migration.
8) The third law of Ravenstein has raised concerns and doubts among researches because it is hard to empirically confirm and quantify. This, in turn, challenges the assumptions and claims of this particular law.

# data[].attributes.body
1) Maybe in the past local culture was more likely to be threatened by the new immigrants (different colonizing countries showed threat for locals of colonized ones). However, for now we think that it is a rare situation to happen.
2) We think that in majority of cases they should have the equal rights. But since they are living in another country for a limited amount of time, we consider that they have limited rights in cases like voting.
3) They have to learn basic level of local language of that country in order to avoid some cultural problems.
4) We think that they should have a choice to select the language of the education they prefer. But it would be better if the government educational organizations specifically for the immigrants with their mother tongue as language of instruction.
5) Naturalization requirements:
-Be at least 18 years old at the time of filling the form of Naturalization
-Be a permanent resident in that country for at least 5 years
-Have a basic level of the local language. Be able to write, read and speak in simple situations
-Know and understand own rights.
6)They must be a permanent resident in that country for at least 5 years and be physically present in the country for at least 30 months.
7) Yes, they should be penalized if the employers knowingly hired the illegal immigrants. As a result, government will check and search for the evidence of mistreatment of workers such as smuggling, harboring, fake documents and other criminal conducts. So, the employer will be prosecuted before arresting the illegal immigrant workers.
8) The fifth law that states: “The natives of towns are less migratory than those of rural districts”. This law was published in 1885, and the statistics that Ravenstein provided were not persusive. P.Sorokin, C. Zimmerman and J.Galpin stated that the statics could show the opposite. Especially, this law was not considered by writers on British migration.

# data[].attributes.body
1.Yes, because immigrated people`s culture can be totally different and if citizens will immigrate frequently, there is a high chance that a local culture can disappear.2. Yes, because since they became citizens of one or another country and they plan to live in this country for long enough time, they have to have a chance to vote. 3. Yes, because in order to survive and socialize it will be better for them to know the language. 4. Local language, it would be hard for government to care every citizen and provide an opportunity for them. 5. To be a resident for 2 years and paying taxes. 6.2years. 7. No, as an example I want to mention illegal immigrants who do dirty works that citizens usually refuse to do it, in this case both employers and employees win. 8.The natives of towns less migrate than those who are from rural areas.The doubt was because statistics was unconvincing. Today, the natives of towns migrate a lot because of jobs, family, education and so on.

# data[].attributes.body
Assel Kenzhebek, Khanzada Kuatbay, Zarina Syzdykova

1. Local culture might be threatened when the proportions of migrants coming to the country are high . As an example, Turkish immigrants coming to Germany created their own neighborhoods with their own established rules. They change the German lifestyle by bringing the features of their own culture to the West.

2. Those with the citizenship are the ones who should be given a right to vote. Seasonal immigrants (for instance, students) aren’t allowed to participate in a civil life of society.

3. State should not require the immigrants to learn local language until they are applying for the citizenship in a country. This might be done through state programs, in which state offers special language courses for the immigrants. Otherwise, it is okay for them to live there without knowing a language well. There’re many opportunities now to live in a country, not knowing the language, using translation services.

4. Immigrants should be educated in foreign language at state institutions. They might be educated in their own local language as soon as they open their own institutions in local language.

5. Language test, history test (testing their knowledge of history of host country), refugee status, payments/investments to a host country, having historical roots in a host country

6. The living period depends on peculiarities of a host country. It’s different for every country.

7. Employers should be penalized since employing illegal immigrants usually lead to the poor labor conditions for the immigrants themselves, shadow economy, and basically stealing job opportunities from a local population. However, it’s a problematic question to tackle as you cannot find all illegal immigrants and penalize them all.

8. It’s difficult to prove the 2nd law: migration proceeds step by step. Ravenstein’s methodology basically used the birth places of mothers and children, and was mostly applied to large towns. However, the immigration itself was usually done by young people, not the families, and no one could actually test traces of their migration.

# data[].attributes.body
8. The first law of Ravenstein raises doubts about its applicability over time. Ravenstein talks about migration in England and particularly between counties, which is sensible to do in the 19th century, but today migration can occur in distances far greater due to availability of transport that can cover far greater distances.

# data[].attributes.body
7. Yes, because they are exploiting these people instead of raising wages so that locals would agree to work for that pay.

# data[].attributes.body
5. Some knowledge of the history of the state, of the culture and traditions as well as national holidays and laws.
6. 2-5 years.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I think cultures interacting does not threaten either of the cultures.
2. Yes, after they after acquire citizenship.
3. I do not hold a strong opinion on this question. But probably yes
4. I think that the nation hosting the immigrants should not be required to provide schooling for them in their native tongue.

# data[].attributes.body
Akbota Kamaliyeva

1) Local culture is not threatened by immigration. It might be changed, as it will adopt some features of migrants' culture, however, it will not be that substantial that the existing culture will be damaged or go extinct.

2) If immigrants do not have citizenship, I do not think that they should have right the vote. However, they should have the other rights on the level of the citizen.

3) Immigrants should obligatory know native language to some extent (at least to be able to communicate with the community).

4) Immigrants should be taught in the official language of the country, however, there should be courses that would ease transition from native language to the language of the country.

6) Immigrants should live in the country for period of 5 years to become naturalized.

7) Employers should not be penalised for employing them, because they often occupants the sector, which is not desirable for locals, so they become the cheap labour force.

8) Towns grow more by migration than by natural increase.
This might be true at a certain stage of development of town (when it just became the economic or production center). However, the majority this massive flow of immigrants will stay at this town, and this enlarged population will produce the natural increase. The inflow of immigrants will correlate with fastening of natural increase, so at some point the speed of natural increase will outgrow the speed of inflow of migrants.

# data[].attributes.body
1. A large inflow of people of different origins with variety of cultures and values might disturb the local culture, either by partly integrating to it, or even replacing it.  3. No    4. Local language. 5. regular payment of taxes, obedience with law, year of inhabitance in the country, contribution to economic growth of the country etc. 8. "Females are more migratory than males within the Kingdom of their birth, but males more frequently venture beyond." This Law is not fully applicable to the realities of modern world. Today, both males and females are actively migrating both within and beyond the country of their birth.

# data[].attributes.body
1) If there is no any acculturation,migration breaks down host cultures.
Alua Makhanova and Madina Bekbergenova

# data[].attributes.body
Darina Zhaxybayeva and Anel Abeldinova
1. Yes! For example, when British people colonized North America, they made genocide of indigenous people. 2. in our opinion, basic human rights should be preserved, but only citizens should have a right to vote. 3. Yes, they should be able to adapt. 4. They should be educated in local language. 5. They should be residents at least for 5 years, they should know local language, culture and history aspects. 6. At least 5 years. 7. Yes. 8. In our opinion, the fourth law is ambiguous, it is not always applicable, because some of the countries are  more developed than others, probably that is why, inflow of the migrants in such undeveloped countries is much lesser than outflow.

# data[].attributes.body
1) If there is no any acculturation,migration breaks down local cultures.

# data[].attributes.body
1) As immigration is something that brings flow of new people, there is a great chance that new society from different part of the world may also bring new culture and consequently change the socio-cultural aspects of host country. 2) Native people are those who greatly contributed to the well-being of their home country, therefore it is reasonable to give them more rights and priorities. 3) If every local citizens speaks only in the local language, then it is better to learn their language in order for immigrants to survive. 4) There might be a very low chance to find people who will teach in their original language, moreover it is convenient to learn local language and subject at the same time. 5) Being able to speak local language, having someone in the family who is local, working at the local places. 6)no less than 5 years maybe. 7) In my opinion, they at least should pay fine. 8) Migration increases in volume as industries and commerce develop and transport improve:  But there might be strict regulations in the developed regions which will not allow every random immigrant to enter the country.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I think the local culture is not likely to be changed completely, however, a prolonged interrogation between immigrants and local people will certainly lead to some mixture of these cultures.
2. Yes, because they are also the members of that society. Therefore, they deserve to have a right to state their opinion in a free form.
3. They should not be obliged to do so, however, this would lead to better communication between the immigrants and the local people. For this reason, learning the local language is even more convenient for the immigrants themselves.
4. If the language is also taught in the country they immigrate taught, then it is totally fine that they would be taught in their native language.
5. I think that the evidence of future perspective of the positive effect on the society should also be a factor determining whether the person should be granted with the citizenship.
6. Several years would be enough to witness the profitability of a person to the country.
7. No. Even though it is known that immigrants are often used as a cheap labour force, I think that it is a mutually profitable deal. Both the employee and the immigrant receive their benefit during this process.
8. The third law of Ravenstein states that people making a decision to travel long distances and choosing a certain point there as a final destination point do so because the city is considered to be the best industrial and commercial point. Even though it seems to be true that people tend to immigrate to the cities where they can easily find work, however, it is not possible to estimate a certain number of people travelling long distance with the purpose of immigrating to that place. Therefore, this law contains a lot of doubts in it.

# data[].attributes.headline
Daulet Teginbayev, Roza Zhakhina, Karina Saifulina

# data[].attributes.subject
Daulet Teginbayev, Roza Zhakhina, Karina Saifulina

# data[].attributes.body
1) Threatened is a rather strong word to describe the influence of the foreign culture on the native one. There are cases when the integration of new ethnic groups culturally enriched the country. Turkish migrants in Germany have invented doner which became one of the most popular dishes in Europe.
2) Immigrants should not be granted the right to vote since they have not been fully integrated into the society and have not contributed enough to prove their loyalty.
3) Language is a crucial part of integration and socialization. And also knowledge of the local dominant language helps create economic and social opportunities, such as employment.
4) Migrants should be able to choose between the options and make a decision based on their preferences and priorities. If they switched countries temporarily they should be granted an opportunity to learn in their own language.
5) Citizenship should be granted on the basis of the language proficiency, minimum 5 years of work experience in the country of residence, and interview.
6) 5 years
7) They should not be punished because the blame falls on the security forces of the respective country which has failed to prevent the inflows of illegal migration. In that case, employers should be able to employ anyone freely so-long as they pay taxes.
8) The second law of Ravenstein which stipulates that migration proceeds step by step is subject to doubt and concerns because researchers find it difficult to empirically prove this hypothesis. It is why they are skeptical about its validity and applicability.