I agree with Harrison Pitt .....
(Please listen to the above video clip first)
I think its a very useful grouping and distinction. One that I would use myself. And it is a mistake actually both left and right makes because I don't think its a political mistake. I think its a mistake of a people who are disconnected by their own culture, values, and traditions so much that they only grasp for things at face value - they are unable to investigate deeper. This wasn't much of an issue post world war or even post cold war era. People intrinsically knew these three main groupings of non-native populace in most Western countries, and so did the governments, and actions were taken appropriately. It is only in an age where the West is witnessing the end point manifestation of materialism in its cultural milieu that it just can't deal with such issues.
I would say those who are hostiles, should be removed immediately, and if on average they belong to a particular ethnic group in abundance with certain severe criminality then it should also be followed by an immediate immigration ban from those countries. And this should happen regardless of the person's citizenship status. If you are not going to hold your end of the bargain after attaining the citizenship of the country, then they should most definitely revoke your right to it.
Those who are indifferent - can be persuaded by the host nation believing more in itself and less by pandering to their indifference, to be better citizens. Because these are the people who can either become hostile or fall in the third category as described. They don't need to be accommodated. Because once you accommodate you are showing them that they need not make the effort, or that the host nation will put more effort towards them then they are required to reciprocate the effort. And that is a game that will always end up in system abuse. Because you are weakening yourself toward a foreign entity without first establishing concrete evidence of good intention.
Third category where Harrison puts me in, and I thank him for the mention, does not need persuasion or accommodation. It just needs to access opportunities without unfair discrimination. This group has already bought in to the tribe, so to speak. For them their adopted tribe is their primary now. People in this group detest being pandered to as well - because it means to them that they perhaps are not seen as part of the tribe. This is why most of such people are not easy with the current political left's woke agenda which makes people's immutable characteristics a focal point rather than their abilities or intentions. This group is not multicultural but often times bi-cultural, depending on their immigration generation. They have their cultural things but they buy into an overarching British cultural values. They have sworn an allegiance to the King and Country, and they mean it. And overtime this group become more and more ethnically native as well, with passing time and generations.
I can take my example with it as well. I came here 14 years ago. I had my set of cultural values that I brought with me - although in my case they were already Westernised due to my upbringing. Then I married a Polish women who had her set of cultural values. Both our cultural values although not wholly British (meaning belonging to at least one nation within the Isles) were closely related to it as it was still within the Western sphere. It doesn't have to be though for this third group. But if God willing we have children, and then they have children, and on and on, the ethnicity will be blended and the culture will become indistinguishable. At least one would hope so.
And yes, people who are bicultural bring certain additions to the native system - but only when its a positive addition and never to subvert the overarching culture. As happened with the Huguenots when they came to England overtime.
The only thing I would point out is that these three groups exist but perhaps under two main overarching groups. One group is of those who have been here for some generations, and those who are first generation immigrants. The hostiles of those who have been here for some generations also include many natives, and they are difficult to deal with compared to the new arrivals hostiles who should be relatively easier to deal with. The group that is indifferent probably overlaps - but main distinction being the indifferent group who has been here generations would still consider it home enough to not want to leave while the new arrival indifferent group would readily leave when the going gets tough. The third group would also have overlapping, probably more so, the only difference would be in the fervency of the bi-culture. And maybe at times the affectionate display towards the native culture would be too vigorous than necessary. But its good intentioned.
This third group however is the only group that should ever be a valid citizen - someone who has decided to make the native tribe as their primary. And the reason why it can be maintained with a healthy accommodation is because of the rarity of this third group. That obviously is with the view that we still want to maintain nations and nationhood. In a Star Trek fantasy which most of our experts seem to live in, this sounds very outlandish.