I would go with the "you live there" answer personally. You have a legal status that allows you to live there for an extended period of time, and you live there at least part time.

I think it does mean more than just living there. You relate to the nature of the people and its culture. But I'm not sure what that's like if you are very different to those around you: a European in China, a Somali in Australia.

Shared history, art, customs and, most importantly, languages.

I’m sure you’re looking for something more indepth so highlight what your interest is in the question please :)

Shared history, art, customs and, most importantly, languages. — I like sushi

I’m not trying to be smart here, but if you don’t have those, maybe you’re an immigrant and a citizen, does that mean you’re not part of that country?

I’d say so. It’s not exactly an easy thing to define. By moving to another country you don’t automatically understand the nuances of the culture, so in term of “being part of” as more than simply “visiting”, nope.

That is why I asked to OP what they meant.

Countries are going to be plethoras of cultures, arts, customs, etc. Those things vary by all different sorts of social groupings, whether they're localized or diasporas, from broad trends all the way down to individual neighborhoods and families even. The different cultures, arts, etc. both overlap and diverge in all sorts of complex ways.

you not wrong, you understand the question but I was looking for an answer that would envelope all types of people we would consider part of the country.
Myself I think imgrants can become part of the country.

"part of a country" is similar to nationality, however nationality does mean you live there so I had you use different words.

The current theory I have is each country has a set of traits that are associated with them. The problem though is that we can debate the traits.

I wonder if you want to play in the world of possession? The Native American culture, as far as my little understanding reaches, has a strong sense of the people belonging to the land. It is perhaps somewhat alien to a culture in which the land belongs to people. There is something of the same sense in Scotland; one belongs to the clan and the clan belongs to the land, and the laird - well the clan belongs to the laird, and so does the land, but still somehow, the laird belongs to the land. In this sense possession is opposed to freedom.

We know we belong to the land
And the land we belong to is grand!
Rogers & Hammerstein, Oklahoma!

It's about having roots in the soil, having a particular terroir.

The Jews from Russia and Eastern Europe who came to the United States between roughly 1880 and 1920 didn't immediately belong to this land. They still belonged to land a long ways away. They were, however, here to stay and they sank roots into this soil and where they settled (New York City, in particular) was changed, but remained American. The same thing has happened over and over here before and since.

The Irish came in very battered condition earlier in the 1800s. They came from famine, they were largely rural/village dwellers, and were not seasoned urbanites. The Irish immigrants appalled the established earlier immigrants from the UK and the various German states. In time the Irish sank roots into American soil as deeply as everyone else.

To belong to this country means "sinking roots into the soil" -- coming to stay; giving allegiance to a new government; accepting (even if not liking) the extreme plurality of religions and habits.

Some immigrants have put down roots, and then been pulled up periodically to see whether they really were rooted. The rootedness of Asian immigrants in California seems to have been doubted more than the rooty commitments of Scandinavians on the west coast. Eventually Asian roots were acknowledged (but not so much that Japanese citizens weren't sequestered during WWII).

There answer basically what the government legal considers them of the country. (Citizenship)
I said that seems empty to me. — hachit

Note that it isn't empty for a lot of people. Go to a foreign country and the people there will define you being from the country you have originated from. You'll first notice this when you have to give your passport to the immigration official or the border guard. And your citizenship is quite crucial for the society of your country. The tax officials make a big fuss about you being a citizen of your country. (Especially if you are an American, they won't even stop caring about you even if you live abroad.)

Think about it like a marriage. When married, you can have a lot of feelings to the one who you are married to (good or bad feelings). Hence it can mean a lot to you emotionally to be married (or single or a widow). But marriage is also this legal issue. Again the tax official (and other officials) looks at you in a different way if you are married or not.

Mostly it comes down to culture. Arguably the most important factor is language. Language has embedded within it aspects of history, art and politics - regional dialects also count as well as slang and pop culture (habits of the contempory time).

We’re essentially talking about about personal identity. I don’t leave my identity at home when I go shopping or when I go to work. Humanity is cetainly moe “global” than ever before so these kind of questions are coming more and mroe to the fore it seems.

Maybe it doesn’t mean anything anymore.

It is interesting to look at what people wear. If you were to go to any major city in the world and look at their wardrobe you’d probably have idea where in the world they were (at best you’d be able to make a vague guess about the climate they live in).

Perhaps it could also mean one who resonates with the collective culture that is designated to the people who live in a geographical location.

If you were an immigrant from a different culture wouldn’t you have to strive to find that? And because of that would you feel part of it or not?

What is a country, anyway?

If you were an immigrant from a different culture wouldn’t you have to strive to find that? And because of that would you feel part of it or not? — Brett

Perhaps. But it may not always be so, but I guess it depends on the individual/family. I would suppose a family from Qatar who moves to Brooklyn New York would pick up the culture and customs of what "Brooklyners" do from day to day, but this is a process of course.

I was thinking that if you were an immigrant but also a citizen would that make you feel a part of the country? Maybe that’s one experience of being part of a country: an outsider.

I was thinking that if you were an immigrant but also a citizen would that make you feel a part of the country? — Brett

Maybe not initially but it also depends how long you've resided in the country. I think duration and time would eventually allow someone to feel a part of their adopted country. The longer you stay the more acclimated you'll become.

I really feel that depends on the degree of difference. I live in another country, it’s easy to assimilate because I’m hardly noticed. Everything is similar. I can imagine the next generation of immigrants feeling as you suggest, but not those first immigrants from a radically different culture. But I really don’t know what it’s like for them. Though I’ve met some older immigrant who could still not speak the language very well and they seemed intent on being that way, or unable to adapt.

I can imagine the next generation of immigrants feeling as you suggest, but not those first immigrants from a radically different culture — Brett

Right. In my previous example, I don't think first generation Qatari immigrants would feel and act American, but I think as children are raised in America, they take on the collective cultural mannerisms based on where they live. I think the reason first generation immigrants are less likely to acclimate perhaps is due to their resistance from the idea that by acclimating, they're giving up their culture.

Yes, so to be part of a country is to take on that culture. So country is culture. But whose?

Well culture by geography is more complex. For example, I am African-American and I identify with African-American culture (that is, culture that relates to descendants of African slaves such as common foods, slang, music, religion). But I also I identify as an American because I reside in the United States, and my culture nationally is American, and that culture is the conglomeration of other citizens of different ethnic and domestic/national origins that reside in the United States. So one can identify with several cultures, and you may ask whose culture? And like I said it is the collective (that being the people and their common experience and commonality of those experiences) that makes the culture.

Yes, so what is a country? A country is a border.

A nation with its own government occupying a specific territory containing districts, settlements and towns.

Okay. So that’s not culture, then.

culture is what develops from that

There is the theory that peoples inhabiting similar climates have suffered similar hardships and problems and thus have simile cultural traditions.

I think there is some value to this idea and I imagine that peoples who’ve grown up in artic conditions would share some traditions due to the effects of the environments their cultures have frown from.

Um, in regards to what exactly?

Huh? In regards to ... what I said? Sorry you’ve lost me?