I don't agree with all that. I do however agree immigrants should at least learn the language. I know personally what this does when they accomplish that one thing. The doors it opens are astounding and makes living in the host (or adopted) country so much easier. I think a person more or less gravitates towards assimilation just by being able to communicate with the general population. It's not the total answer but it certainly presents a lot more options.

Except that's not at all the historical experience.

David:

I agree with what I think is your point. My Norweigian grandparents spoke very little English when they immigrated in approx. 1900. My Father and uncle (born in Seattle) spoke no Norweigian. My Father and his brother were forced to assimilate because there weren't enough Norweigians in Seattle to make a life (speaking only Norweigian)[plus the fact that my grandparents didn't emigrate from Norway to have their children speak Norweigian -- they would have stayed in Oslo]. But, I wonder, if Norweigian-only speakers were half or more of the population of Seattle and surrounding regions, would there have been the same incentive to assimilate, linguistic or otherwise?

Mazeltov from a Lutheran Child of Israel.

I thought there was a strong (almost overwhelming) correlation between failure to achieve economically and failure to leave a foreign language ghetto. I think this is true for all ethnicities: Chinese, Germans, Serbs... etc.

Pepys:

Speaking only from personal experience as a Norweigian grandson and a Chinese son-in-law, I agree with your broader statistical point.

So, Tom, you would let the bureaucrats decide whether to kick a mother of four out after five years because she hasn't mastered Dutch?

Obviously the whole concept of assimilation implies acquiring a host language, but what is offensive about all this is there is no sense that immigration is a process that extends over at least two generations, no sense that immigrant status carries legal rights subject to obeying the law and every sense that immigrant status will be subject to ongoing surveillance to ensure politically correct views.

There is also a strong element of the Euros telling themselves fairy stories here, and offensive ones at that. One of the whole problems with immigration to continental Europe is that non-European immigrants are NEVER accepted as natives, even after several generations. Too much blood and soil thinking. Instead of having the courage to confront this flaw, what they are doing is simply converting their historical ethnocentrism into postmodern terms (instead of demanding religious conversions like in the good old days, they have compulsory porn. So even if lots of native Dutch can and do speak out against their famous hyper-liberalized society, the immigrants risk legal hassles and even deportation if they do?) and setting increasingly detailed "conditions" that keep the immigrants muzzled and in legal limbo indeterminately.

They don't like or want them and they have decided to take the high road and blame the immigrants for that.

This story is about the Europeans finally responding to the fact that they have a big problem with Muslims. If this doesn't work, and I don't believe that it will, then expect to see the Euros making it harder for them to stay, or want to stay there.

Why don’t they just have them sign indenture agreements?

They don't have to, as that is already covered by our normal tax rates.

In your subsequent comment you point out that immigration is at least a two generation process. Immigration by non-europeans itself is a fairly recent occurence, starting around 1960/1970, with the expectation of both sides that the immigrants would return home (something which certainly does not help integration). Earlier immigrants, mainly of European origin, seem to have been accepted just fine. Perhaps for comparison we can look at how well blacks have integrated in American society and how long that process is already taking.

And while you accuse Europeans of ethnocentrism, Americans can be just as bigoted. I think it was fairly recent that the enlightened Yale administration had to defend their acceptance of a former Taliban ambassador as a student. Can you say 'crushing of dissent and opposing viewpoints'?
The USA even requires a citizenship test as one of the many harsh measures 'that keep the immigrants muzzled and in legal limbo indeterminately'. Unfortunately it seems that our government is stooping to the same low level.

Bureaucrats are already deciding whether to kick out mothers of four (or entire families). And, similair to illegal immigrants in the US, they largely decide not to.

Oh, yes, that Taliban guy is the perfect example of a forward-looking immigration policy.

Are you suggesting that a colour-blind immigration policy implies being forced to admit unrepentant jihad-loving Islamicists?

You can add some html tags for sarcasm if you want to.

I'm suggesting that when Europe implements some measures that are already in place in the USA, that such is not proof of irredeemable racism or an insidious preparation to shipping all immigrants to camps (although I'm making an exception for the French).

There is no such thing as a colour-blind immigration policy (unless you are strictly talking about skin, which I'm assuming you are not).

"Can you say 'crushing of dissent and opposing viewpoints'?"
Some viewpoints and dissents deserve to be crushed.

That Yale Jihadist is a perfect poster boy for the attitude that got Europe into its present mess, and we in America are criticized as bigots for not wanting him or his type (and his Yale enablers) doing to us what they did to Europe.

i would like to know why the euies let immigrants in, but then denied them the possibility of gainful employment. it makes as much sense as anything from that head-up-the-fundament continent. personally i look forward to western europe getting its just desserts, after so much evil behavior. my money is on the muslims, all the way.