The basic characteristics of all liberals and liberalism are the same. But there is an added nefariousness to the foreigner, Third World, liberal.
An American (or a Canadian) liberal is after civil disruption and maybe even civil war. But he is an American or a Canadian first, and has that legacy of the history, culture, ancestry, heritage etc. of the country, and might at some point be convinced to conserve his country, especially as he sees it being destroyed and transformed by immigration and Third World foreigners.
A Third World foreigner "liberal" comes to invade. He has no regard for the country's history, culture, ancestry or heritage.
The Third World foreigner "liberal" comes to destroy, although his initial approach is parasitical by living off the host country's riches.
He hates his host country (eventually, if not at his arrival) for a variety of reasons: envy, inferiority complex, inability to live at the same level as the host's cultural sophistication.
His ire translates to destroying what is before him, which he then replaces with what he knows: his own culture, his own religion, his own way of life.
He is a conservative at heart.
But this replacement has no cultural anchor or cohesiveness within the national context of his "new" country. Somali immigrants are VERY different from Ethiopian immigrants.
I don't think this was the case between say German and Irish immigrants. There is some unified European culture. This is not the case with Africa or Asia (or even Latin America, despite the language).
Wherever Third World foreigners congregate in large enough numbers, there is a sense of emptiness. There is no attempt to develop their neighbourhoods, with flowers and gardens, trees on the sidewalks, etc. An Indian restaurant next to an Ethiopian coffee house does not add diversity and interest, but rather a hodgepodge of unrelated elements with no aesthetic cohesiveness.
A Third World foreigner, although he comes to stay, is always referring to his native country. His activities, his choices, his lifestyle, deeply reflect this native country. He may have come to find better shores but his heart and his imagination are with the homeland he left behind. He has no desire to reconstruct and to rebuild a new home, and instead lives in perpetual upheaval with his suitcase, metaphorically, left unpacked even after decades and generations of habitation.
This temporality continues down the generations. Immigrants' children and grandchildren have a nostalgia for the country their families left. This manifests itself with their persistent references and adhesions to this far-away land: through their cultural choices, their earnest attempts to meld their cultural and personal lives with the country left behind, and eventually with their loyalties in politics and other social ties given to those which best represent this homeland.
They have never really left home.
And they have a latent anger, unfocused and diffused, at this difficult life of divided loyalties they are forced to live. And when made to chose a culprit for target, instead of directing their wrath at their families, which pulled them across nations to this land of apparent opportunity, they glare at the country itself, calling it "racist" and "discriminatory" and "hateful."
But they are the ones who hate, or learn to hate, this land which they believe only pretends to give them everything as it curtails all their potentials.
They lose hope and optimism. They become grudgeful and dangerous citizens. Rather than generic liberals, they become far-left leftists who hold their fists up in revolutionary fury.
"Me Too!" they cry out with raging anguish.