Kate says London has been multicultural since the Romans, and I'll add, racist since then, too! We're talking about a country that arguably has treated foreigners and minorities worse than any other in history -- save maybe the Nazis. In fact, Britain was oppressing Catholics up to the present.

God save the Queen (and her inbred relations)!

Kate - you sound like a bleeding heart liberal who can't see the approaching train until it runs her over.

America benefitted from immigrant because it was a huge country with very few people and many natural resources that needed developing. It was also largely farm-based. that situation doesn't exist today.

You can care for and help people in thier own borders without letting them move to your country to live.

You answered none of my questions about strain on social welfare systems and lose of cultural identify and just got emotional on me.

Think through the current situation without trying to make the guy who asks valid questions a racist or demon.

SteveJudd, I was interested in your constitutional point; if your legislature passed a law to say that butchers had to sell meat in grammes, would that be unconstitutional.

A good parallel with your gun law argument is the fox hunting issue. But in both cases (gun law and fox hunting) whilst there's a vocal lobby in favour of both guns and fox hunting, the silent majority is opposed.

I think the difference is that the gun lobby in the US spends a lot of money buying influence. The country sports lobby here used to, but they forgot that the Tories sometimes lose.

Dumas,

There are huge problems about immigration here. I THINK that we need them more than they need us, but that is NOT the public perception.

I don't think anywhere is pristine culturally; I also don't think the scale is a problem. I suspect that is also not a universal view.

We rarely find that those who are admitted are poor or old. They tend to be young and hard working.

A greater problem is the demographics of an aging population.

In America, if a young worker gets in, they invariably bring both parents into the country, usually within a few years. These folks are then eligable for many social security, medical and welfare benefits. Its a hidden factor that pro-immigrant people often ignore or try to sweep under the rug. There are no free rides in the end, so somebody has to pay for aging parents who are brought into a country.

Dumas' argument illustrates a very important point.

Western Europe has assimilated more non-Europeans in the last 40 years than ever in its recorded history. Those immigrants have changed the countries they've moved to. It's perfectly legitimate to discuss whether that's a trend Europeans want to continue.

But that discussion didn't take place in the 50's and 60's (in Britain the Cabinet papers at the time show that discussion was wilfully suppressed). And it's not taking place now.

Some of Dumas' arguments - especially about numbers - are nonsense (as ever in any political discussion). But the underlying questions aren't allowed in Europe to be publicly aired. And when they are, taunts about "Le Pen" and racism immediately try to avoid any real debate.

The result is bizarre. Seriously dangerous extremists pop up: some (like Britain's BNP), probably doomed to stay in the psychotic fringe: others (like Le Pen) a real threat from time to time. Today's The Times carries an extraordinary list of anti-immigration views from first generation British Asians (who aren't inhibited from sensible discussion by externally imposed guilt)

All because of one of Europe's serious weaknesses: the way in which decisions are constantly taken by elites, non-transparently.

Obviously, some of us might like some of those decisions. Personally, I favour more immigration, and I'm delighted the UK is almost the only country in the EU that will allow "new" EU members to work here from the day they join. I love the fact that Europe has infinitely freer trade than NAFTA, and that, unlike the US, we offer free access to our markets for 99% of the goods manufactured in poor countries.

But none of these liberal innovations were ever seriously debated by European electorates. And when someone tries, like Dumas, they're shot down with red herrings.

And in some ways, Bitter, this European tradition of stifling debate is one of the most important aspects of today's European political scene.

Are those numbers really nonsense?

I heard muslims make up 20% of France's population. Maybe that includes illegal immigrants? Just asking a question since I really don't know the real answer.

Okay, I did a google search and found many sites that say France has an estimated 8 or 9 million people of North and West African origin, twice the number in 1975 ? and at least 5 million of them are Muslims.

This is the largest muslim population in Europe. Demographic projections suggest that their descendants will number 35 million before this century is out, more than a third of the likely total population of France.

I think my question about the risk of losing cultural identify is valid.

Jacko - go take a pill and lie down until you have some idea of what you are talking about, you're polluting an interesting discussion with sarcastic rubbish.

The Immigraton Reform Act of 1996 addressed the problem of young workers bringing older or indigent family members into the country and putting them on the dole.

Anyone who sponsors an immigrant must prove they can support that person at 125% of the US Poverty Level until the immigrant has 1) worked in this country for 10 years 2) become a naturalized citizen (and is therefore self supporting) 3) died or left the US. In the meantime the immigrant is not eligible for federal (and often state) assistance or benefits. If a sponsored immigrant receives emergency benefits (SSI or Medicaid), the sponsor can be sued by the Fed or state for reimbursement.

I'm sure this isn't airtight in execution but I think the US law is a little more stringent than you portrayed.

Dumas:

I was (wrongly) extreme in my language. On what I see as the fundamental issue - that Europeans should debate important issues - you and I seem to agree.

You've finally conceded your original numbers were silly. 100-year out projections are meaningless, and we can all now accept that France's Muslim population is 5 million. My point is that that's still a lot.

But let's take your other point - about cultural identity. What cultural identity? (I really shouldn't have called this point nonsense)

Britain once defined the core of its identity as Protestantism. Now, by coincidence, it has 5-7 million Catholics.

And they're everywhere. Two and a half of Britain's three leading politicians. The last head of the BBC. One of Britain's two Euro Commissioners. Probably the next Queen (if Big Ears makes it that far).

Does anyone care? Does anyone even know?
Of course not. Cultural identities are in constant flux.
Now Britain is an island, with relatively controlled borders. Europe isn't. Europe has had a Muslim population almost as long as Islam has been in existence. And its inevitably porous borders (even if you can define Europe) opens it to all kinds of influence.

Of all the ways Europe might change in the next century, Islamification is among the most benign.

Personally, I'd be a great deal sadder if, as a result of Europe's walking away from religion, Notre Dame became a museum where no religious service was held than if it became a mosque. Or if the Seine rose through global warming and drowned it. Or if it took sponsorship from businesses, or if the Catholic church started advocating murder - or a Papist jihad - from its pulpits.

But that's my view. You're absolutely right to say the issue should be faced.

obxgirl, the requirments are a sham and have holes big enough to drive a truck through. You can walk away from finanical support after they get in the country. We can't even keep track of foreign visa holders much less all the legal iimigrants who move a couple of times and apply for benefits a few years later. Its a joke.

I'm not a math expert, but those population projections should not be brushed off so quick. I also think you
are taking the Islamification too lightly, it appears benign, but look at the trouble the extremists can cause and how reluctant the rest are to condemn violence and terrorism. When was the last time you saw a muslim cleric get on TV and slam the extremists? All they can do is complain about muslims being searched at airports.

Flanneruk: I don't know if you call the trend "political correctness", but that is a term used in the US. It is supposedly used to prevent insensitivity, but what it really does is stifle frank and honest discussion. What then happens is that frank and honest (although sometimes misguided) discussion only happens between like-minded individuals. Misperceptions are then perpetuated and inflate into resentment, racism, etc., and real issues are never explored. Ironically, this is in the land of freedom of speech.
Guns and Americans: I think most of us understand that there is a problem in the US, but I don't want to deny lawful persons (including myself) the right to bear arms. Too often, in our quest for equal treatment of all, we tend to restrict the rights of decent people, to address the crimes and problems of "bad" people. This (also) in the "land of the free"!