In other words, of course we have problems, but presenting the idiotic rhetoric of the far-right as a one side, other side issue in which we have to be fair and even-handed will not give us any light. It’s not only their ideology that is repellent, they are pushing an analysis that is patently false but that might become partially self-fulfilling if we let them push it without retort.

I have recently written in the Atlantic Review about an incredibly smart, international conference devoted to the "Collapse of Europe?", which will take place in California next month. As payback, Alex Harrowell discusses "The Disunited Sta

Good point wrt the semantics of assimilation and integration. Integration is probably the preferable term.

To the larger point, I think the key is integration, not necessarily assimilation. I think often we fall into this false dichotomy where someone has to be “completely like us” or not be a real member of society. There very likely is a middle ground.

I don’t think there’s much danger of that here in the US. The danger lies, imo, in the American “melting pot” becoming a series of smaller pots insulated from eachother. That kind of dynamic would bring us closer to where Europe seems to be – with ghettoized underclasses based on ethnicity and culture.

Let’s just hope our culture is strong enough that we don’t need to go get the torches and pitchforks out of the barn.

The difference today in both America and Europe are that ties to the old culture are not cut, which makes assimilation harder and less desirable for the immigrant. When Italians/Irish/Chines/Whoever came over here from across they might as well have gone to another planet. No real communication, no real ties to the “old” world to sustain their culture past one generation. They had to learn english simply to survive. They HAD to assimilate.

Today, it’s much different with the global media and mass communication and the proximity of Central and South America to the US only makes those cultural ties stronger here. Many such “immigrants” come simply to earn money here and have no desire to become part of the American diaspora. Those immigrants are actually very similiar to the legions of Filipinos and Pakistanis who work around the world (but particularly in the middle east) simply for the money to send home. Others do want to stay here, but with the proximity, global communication technology, etc. assimilation takes longer. There’s nothing inherently wrong with any of that, but people need to realize there is a fundamental difference between immigration in the 19th and early 20th centuries and immigration today.

In Europe this effect is exacerbated by Europe’s lack of any real history or experience of assimilating significant numbers of people from other cultures. Europe is certainly more xenophobic than the US and, base on my 5 years living there, more intolerant as well. So these communities in Europe are ghettoized into a de facto second class status. Europeans don’t really know what to do with them or how to assimilate them, and the immigrant communities are not forced to assimilate because they are not torn from their mother cultures and can therefore exist in a mini-society within a society.

“Oh no! The inferior races are going to overwhelm our protestant utopia!”

Immigration is successful for both the immigrants and the host country when assimilation occurs. It must be a two-way street, where the dominant cultural values of the host country are accepted by and integrated into the daily lives of the new immigrants, while their cultural contributions that are not in direct conflict with the host country’s values either get added to the hodge-podge or are tolerable.

The real problem, IMHO, is when non-assimilation based immigration is attempted, i.e., an attempt to move in and either maintain a separate existence under the old culture and laws, or even worse an attempt to replace the host country’s culture.

> That actually should say
> the ESTABLISHMENT left
> hates this. Immigration
> is on or near the top of
> “problems” for most
> ordinary citizens across
> Europe.

> The liberal establishment
> is just far behind it’s
> constituents on this issue,
> which is why a man like
> Sarkozy won in a country
> like France.

It’s similar here. Ordinary, normal people aren’t buying the multiculturalism hype; they’re either neutral on immigration or want immigration reform. That includes the populist Left that is most angered by business’s exploitation of illegal immigrants (which encompasses a far larger group of people than the activists behind the “living wage” movement).

Even establishment liberals have balked at the worst of the multiculturalists’ ways: Consider New Deal dinosaur Arthur Schlesinger (quite liberal), who even wrote a book decrying the excesses (”The Disuniting of America”). Criticism of it on the Left fails.

“The classic image of the American nation — a melting pot in which differences of race, wealth, religion, and nationality are submerged in democracy — is being replaced by an orthodoxy that celebrates difference and abandons assimilation.”

http://www2.wwnorton.com/catalog/fall98/disuniting.htm

http://www.amazon.com/Disuniting-America-Reflections-Multicultural-Society/dp/0393318540

http://lilt.ilstu.edu/gmklass/pos334/archive/schlesin.htm

“The issue is ethnicity. Schlesinger poses any competing creed that would chal­lenge the Anglocentric ‘American Creed’.”

http://afgen.com/disuniting.html

http://mtprof.msun.edu/Win1992/goebrev.html

That actually should say the ESTABLISHMENT left hates this. Immigration is on or near the top of “problems” for most ordinary citizens across Europe. That does not mean most Europeans are conservative, by any means. Certainly a conservative European is more likely to hold negative views about immigration than a liberal one, but that only means that a VAST majority of conservatives feel negatively about immigration while a lesser majority of liberals do as well. The liberal establishment is just far behind it’s constituents on this issue, which is why a man like Sarkozy won in a country like France. Progressive civilization we like, idiot-like submission to those who do not respect the law (both foreign and native), not so much. Oh and the attitude that it’s the immigrants RIGHT to come into our country, and our OBLIGATION to provide for him and his family, never mind legal status, is also a very negative factor. I blame the NGOs for teaching them that sense of entitlement.

If you come legally, work and obey the law, fantastic. I am all for giving them all the rights of a citizen (short of voting or holding public office, until naturalization). I really don’t care WHAT you call your imaginary friend, as long as you respect our laws (which include non-discrimination, by the way).

You can see that the USA has problems, too, especially if replacement migration is sought to prop the support ratio to make the USA’s retirement welfare programs sustainable.

“Scenario VI keeps the potential support ratio at its 1995 value of 5.2 persons aged 15-64 for each person aged 65 or older. … By 2050, out of a total population of 316 million, 25.0 million, or 7.9 per cent, would be post-1995 immigrants or their descendants.

Scenario V does not allow the potential support ratio to decrease below the value of 3.0. … By 2050, out of a total population of 352 million, 61 million, or 17 per cent, would be post-1995 immigrants or their descendants.

Scenario VI keeps the potential support ratio at its 1995 value of 5.2 persons aged 15-64 for each person aged 65 or older. … By 2050, out of a United States total population of 1.1 billion, 775 million, or 73 per cent, would be post-1995 immigrants or their descendants.

In the absence of migration, the figures show that it would be necessary to raise the upper limit of the working-age to 66.9 years to obtain a potential support ratio of 3.0 in 2050, and to about 74 years in order to obtain in 2050 the same potential support ratio observed in 1995 in the United States, which was 5.2 persons of working age per each older person past working age. Increasing the activity rates of the population, if it were possible, would only be a partial palliative to the decline in the support ratio due to ageing. If the activity rates of all men and women aged 25 to 64 were to increase to 100 per cent by 2050, this would make up for only 21 per cent of the loss in the active support ratio resulting from the ageing of the population.”

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/ReplMigED/USA.pdf

Good geographical details here.

> What some might call
> “pushing multiculturalism”,
> others might call dealing
> with reality.

They could call it whatever else they wished, too, and still they would be wrong.

“Scenario IV keeps the size of the population aged 15-64 constant at its 1995 level of 249 million, which would be the maximum level that it would ever reach in the absence of post-1995 migration. … By 2050, out of a total population of 418.5 million, post-1995 immigrants and their descendants would be 107.7 million, or 25.7 per cent.”

“Scenario V does not allow the potential support ratio to decrease below the value of 3.0. … By 2050, out of a total population of 520 million, 209 million, or 40 per cent, would be post-1995 immigrants or their descendants.”

“Scenario VI keeps the potential support ratio at its 1995 value of 4.3 persons aged 15-64 for each person aged 65 or older. … By 2050, out of a total population of 1.2 billion, 918 million, or about 75 per cent, would be post-1995 immigrants or their descendants.”

“The annual number of migrants necessary to keep the potential support ratio constant at its 1995 level would be 15 times greater than the net migration level in the 1990s. Towards the end of the period, i.e. by 2040-2050, the net annual number of migrants required by the European Union would be equivalent to half the world’s annual population growth.

Thus, if replacement migration were to be used as the mechanism for shoring up the potential support ratio in the European Union at its present level, by 2050 the total population of the European Union would have grown to more than three times its present level. In this process, the European Union’s share of world population would have more than doubled, from 6.6 per cent in 1995 to 13.8 per cent 2050. In addition, three quarters of the total population in 2050 would consist of post-1995 migrants from outside the present boundaries of the Union and their descendants.

In the absence of migration, the calculations in this report indicate that the upper limit of the working age would need to be raised to 71.3 years to obtain a potential support ratio of 3.0 in 2050, and to about 76 years in order to obtain in 2050 the same potential support ratio observed in 1995 in the European Union, which was 4.3 persons of working age per older person.”

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/ReplMigED/EU.pdf

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/ReplMigED/migration.htm

Regarding what Kritter said,

> Why don’t they establish
> stricter immigration policies?

The Left hates this in Europe as in the USA.

I’d like to see our own policy changed to a points system or individual evaluation or assessment form in place of the much more liberal current policy of “family reunification.”

What some might call “pushing multiculturalism”, others might call dealing with reality.