Expectations in Denmark build more and more on lies

– the number of naturalizations have increased substantial compared with 2007 – the mainsteam-media report the opposite several days without any documentation
For the last days we have read very often on TTVs that the number of granted naturalizations has decreased compared with granted number in 2007.
A lie of course.
Totally 3,648 naturalizations were granted in the year 2007. That is documented on http://www.statistikbanken.dk/statbank5a/default.asp?w=1024, when go to ‘Befolkning og valg’ and choose the map ‘Udlændinge’, click on the fourth link and click on ‘Vis tabel’ on below to the right
The yearly account from Denmarks Statistics includes both grown-ups and their children.
Danish naturalization have been granted by law two twice in 2008, law no. 158 of 6 Mars and law no. 461 of 17 June 2008. Their names and the municipalities of stay can be read respectively on: https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=115607" and
https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=120244 6 Mars 2008 2,100 were granted of which 552 were granted on the condition that another citizenship is dissolved latest 30 April 2010. 17 June 2008 1,827 naturalizations were granted.
Naturalized children are not included in any of those numbers just mentioned.
When we then add the numbers in the first 6 month of 2008 the result is 3,927 (excluded children). In the whole year 2007 the total number of naturalizations – adults and children – we have documented above to be 3,648
The shysters of the main-stream media ‘interpret’ this as a decrease.

We don’t

J. E. Vig, M. Sc. (Economics)

In no Western country except for Denmark there has been made a corrected account of the population.

The official population statistics get more and more incorrect, i.e. more and more politically correct as time goes by:

A private qualified initiative has been taken in Denmark:

http://danmark.wordpress.com/2008/09/04/the-lies-runs-in-overtones-now/

For the moment I guess you might have to multiply by a little more than two to get the real number of foreign immigrants in a city or in another Western country.
Naturalized and their children have to be included. The alternative has
lots of fateful implications.

J. E. Vig, M. Sc. (Economics)
Denmark

in reply to Atheling:

Jefferson said: "[We wish] but to consecrate a sanctuary for those whom the misrule of Europe may compel to seek happiness in other climes."

You see, he says "of Europe".

You don't have to be a historian to know that Jefferson could not possibly have shared the views of the 21st century's leftists, who support the displacement of the whites by third-world people and say it doesn't matter because the USA is based on a civil contract.

I agree that Jefferson sounds a little like today's leftists. He makes universalist declarations because it sounds better. But even when he does not say so explicitly, he thinks of European settlers exclusively. His universalist rhetoric is clearly in contradiction with his practice of keeping slaves. The wikipedia article about Jefferson quotes an American historian who said: "His solution seems to have been for slaves to be freed then deported peacefully".

In the quotations you supply, he does not really speak of building a nation based on a civic contract. He only says he expects refugees from tyrannies to integrate and not make trouble. He liked the romantic idea that oppressed people can find freedom in the new world. But in the real world, Europeans who settled in America during Jefferson's time were not refugees at all.

Another Jefferson quote :

"Although as to other foreigners it is thought better to discourage their settling together in large masses, wherein, as in our German settlements, they preserve for a long time their own languages, habits, and principles of government, and that they should distribute themselves sparsely among the natives for quicker amalgamation, yet English emigrants are without this inconvenience. They differ from us little but in their principles of government, and most of those (merchants excepted) who come here, are sufficiently disposed to adopt ours." --Thomas Jefferson to George Flower, 1817. ME 15:140

--> He thinks English people provide the best material to make Americans !

Germans are all right, in small contingents. But it is easy to guess that Jefferson would have disapproved of distributing African or Chinese people sparsely among Americans of European stock for quicker amalgamation.

Armor: "Europeans from the North-West of Europe just settled in America and went on living their lives. The abstract theories about creating a new people with no race or ethnicity appeared much later...Americans had a homogeneous nation of North-Western European descent. It was more homogeneous than France. I don't think most of them were interested in changing the ethnic stock of their country."

I am not convinced that the melting-pot concept explicitly foresaw the intermarriage of each ethnic group that immigrated to the United States; rather it claimed that immigrants left behind their prior social identities and subscribed to a new one uninhibited by ethnicity or class. Secondly, no socio-political theory is entirely abstract: it is a reaction to contemporary realities. Indeed, there were substantial numbers of Italians, who incidentally were considered to be virtually Black according to Victorian conceptions of Whiteness, as well as Jews, freed African slaves and small numbers of East Asians.

I fully agree with your last point. I think Europeans would have loved to have two whole continents for which to escape from troubles at home. Unfortunately, race relations and national identity is destined to challenge the integrity of the United States, Canada and eventually Australia and New Zealand.

Armor: "I disagree. I think they have a distinct national character."

Perhaps their lack of one is their national character. If one examines its relatively recent inception, emphasis on the individual (which naturally weakens it) and change over time, one realizes that this "character" will never crystallize - at least under present circumstances.

Armor: "There isn't such a thing as a civic nation. The Americans had developped crazy theories about the abstract principles that make a nation, but it did not matter as long as immigration was kept low and from Europe only. Their nation is now unravelling due to third-world immigration. The french theories about the universality of the french republic are the same kind of nonsense."

Exactly. Instead of a nation, Americans are blasting into Thirty-Years-War territory at breakneck speed.

marcfrans: "I draw 'lines' between people on the basis of whether they are law-abiding  or not, and whether they are respectful of genuine democracy or not, NOT on the basis of racial features."

Democracy means different things to different individuals, and can be liberal as well as totalitarian. And good luck getting the rest of the world to adopt the liberal variant seeing as Western states are in a tug of war between liberal and social democracy.

marcfrans: "Many blacks and whites in the USA are much "closer" to each other than many liberals and conservatives are today."

On liberal and conservative issues...

marcfrans: "There is however no denying that a sizable number of blacks are trapped in a pathological sub-culture which has largely been sustained and fed by 'white' cultural-liberal values and policies."

From an abstract, objective, universal and moral perspective all human beings are equal and therefore so too are their societies. However, in every way that matters, African societies are not winners. They were not able to compete with European ones on any terms. The fact that Whites are held responsible for Africa's condition is proof that they will never rebound, not unless every individual of European, South Asian and East Asian ancestry is dead.

marcfrans: "The current problem of illegal latino immigration has the same root cause, and that cause is 'white liberalism'."

Short of gunning them down, you will not prevent illegal immigration. Unless Lou Dobbs fantasizes about being an East German border guard and is willing to volunteer for trigger duty, he might as well change topics. Heck, the Mexicans would give Omaha Beach a run for its money. They would have had the panzers up on blocks before the Germans woke up...

marcfrans: "Whether democracy will survive in America or not, will not be depend on the presence of many 'races', but on the outcome of the liberal-conservative 'culture war'."

That 'culture war' is an excuse to ignore the elephant in the room. Canadians attempt to focus on Quebecois separatism and linguistic tensions rather than focus on their takeover by Third Worlders. Moreover, how would conservatives fundamentally change the immigration problem?

marcfrans: "I demand more than 'racial purity', or because I insist on a common civic culture and controlled immigration (depending on circumstances, perhaps even no NET immigration if parliament decides that democratically)..."

Unfortunately, the immigration/multiculturalism issue has been decided by elected representatives and not through direct democracy such plebiscites and referenda. Political correctness works not only to prevent effective legislation to counter these policies and programmes but to suppress public discourse, thus keeping the anti-immigration/multiculturalism social movement uncrystallized (no clear aims or strategy) and disorganised (large but weak). Therefore, democratic means cannot be relied upon in this particular case. Furthermore, these policies and programmes find massive and democratic support from immigrants and their offspring, a veritable Fifth Column that would squash future democratic attempts at legislative reform.

marcfrans: "Do you really think that 'brown' Condoleezza Rice and 'oriental' Elaine Chao are bigger threats to Western civilisation than, say, 'white' Segolene Royal(e) and 'white' Oskar Lafontaine?"

This issue is one of probabilities, generalities and groupthink.

marcfrans: "The problem of "hyphenation" is mcuh [sic] more severe in Europe than in America."

Again, European states are (or were) nation-states, whereas the United States is a state: anyone can become an American, however, one can only be born German, English, Polish, Japanese, etc.

marcfrans: "And, what is worse, is that in Europe it can be sometimes 'dangerous' to even discuss the issue publicly, given the presence of legislation in several European countries that EXPLICITLY undermines freedom of (political) speech."

Agreed.

marcfrans: "I wish you could channel your anti-immigration fervor in other directions that are more in line with 'traditional' values of western civilisation. You should stress (a) the right of (cultural and political) self-determination of all peoples (i.e. control over their immigration policies), and (b) the right of individuals for self-determination, i.e. for genuine democracy.  Those are valuable 'standards' to strive for, racial purity is not."

Nations (determined by ancestry i.e. jus sanguinis) are the raison d'etre for states. Without nations, there is no need for separate states; indeed, a global state or decentralised subnational governments could provide individual self-determination. Certainly there is a tension between national and individual self-determination, however, neither should be allowed to become excessive such that the expression of one fundamentally detriments the other.

Armor: "In the past, America had never been a 'proposition nation' adhering to a set of abstract principles. On the contrary, the American ethnic homogeneity (except for the black minority in the South) was a great asset. Third-world immigration is now in the process of destroying the country."

Some have argued that the United States was intended as a European 'melting pot' whereby Europeans could live without the political, socio-economic and religious oppression many experienced in their native countries and without ethnic prejudices, although notion is clearly debatable. Though I agree that American demography will determine its destiny, the United States does not even have an official language, let alone a national character in the traditional sense. American nationalism is purely civic and can accommodate a Hispanic population as much as a Muslim or European one. This reminds me of a discussion I had with an academic on Argentine political culture. He asked me to take an analytical approach with regards to socio-economic indicators to determine why Argentinian politics were so turbulent. I responded briefly that the vast majority of Argentinians are Europeans from either Spain or Italy, and that the country's political history reflects both Spanish (e.g. fascist) and Italian (e.g. weak coalition governments) history. 'Nuff said.

Armor: "France qualifies better to be a "proposition nation". It has been kept in one piece by a strong undemocratic state. There were several different people belonging to different civilizations. The different civilizations have been destroyed first by military conquest, and then by a deliberate policy of frenchification (imagine yourself being frenchified: it is horrible!). People who belonged to different nations have been deliberately moved around and interchanged. And the state authorities are now pursuing the same policy with people they import from Africa and Turkey. (But I think the result will be different this time)."

Post-revolutionary France did not lose its ethnic French character anymore than the post-revolutionary Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic lost its ethnic Russian character. However, France is a special case in that the French nation emerged from Celtic (Gauls), Mediterranean (indigenous tribes, Italians/Romans), Germanic (Franks, Burgundians, Alemanni) and Alpine (Italians/Romans, indigenous Alpine tribes) peoples. These various elements have caused geographic and other tensions, yet the Breton problem seems to be the most pressing claim against French homogeneity. Naturally, your own experiences and identity make you sensitive to French nationalism.

Armor: "It is absurd to evoke the defense of racial purity when what we have is a population replacement. Preserving purity would mean that you won't accept a single African into a European country. But what is happening now is that Africans are becoming a majority in whole districts of our cities."

Agreed.

Armor: "By the way, I have noticed that the leftist institutions are openly promoting miscegenation, especially in france (where it is called 'métissage'). What are their motivations? Do they like mixed-raced people? Are they racist? I suspect they just like to destroy society."

Governmental, media and special interest group support for miscegenation is almost conspirational it is so endemic. All miscegenation accomplishes is creating another group that seeks the literal deconstruction of Whiteness.

@ Armor

1) I suspect that, on both sides of the Atlantic (and throughout the world), there are more people who agree with you than people who agree with me.  Racism is universally quite popular, and always has been, but few will admit their racism as openly as you.    

2) So, I am now "responsible for civil wars, and for rising numbers of murders and gang rapes"?  How is that so?  Because I demand more than 'racial purity', or because I insist on a common civic culture and controlled immigration (depending on circumstances, perhaps even no NET immigration if parliament decides that democratically)?

3) To some extent I agree with you and Shakespeare that an important question is "to be or not to be".   But, there are other important questions as well, and Shakespeare certainly did not use that expression in the particular meaning that you are.  He was talking about individual survival, not that of a particular 'race'.   Do you really think that 'brown' Condoleezza Rice and 'oriental' Elaine Chao are bigger threats to Western civilisation than, say, 'white' Segolene Royal(e) and 'white' Oskar Lafontaine?  If you do, I think you very naive and obsessed.

4)  I fear that you are deluding yourself.  The problem of "hyphenation" is mcuh more severe in Europe than in America.   And, what is worse, is that in Europe it can be sometimes 'dangerous' to even discuss the issue publicly, given the presence of legislation in several European countries that EXPLICITLY undermines freedom of (political) speech.

5)  I think that current immigration is a severe problem in both Europe and America, but I have NO fun "denouncing your racism".  On the contrary, I regret it.  I wish you could channel your anti-immigration fervor in other directions that are more in line with 'traditional' values of western civilisation.   You should stress (a) the right of (cultural and political) self-determination of all peoples (i.e. control over their immigration policies), and (b) the right of individuals for self-determination, i.e. for genuine democracy.  Those are valuable 'standards' to strive for, racial purity is not.

6) Honesty is another 'traditional' value.  I did NOT argue for legalisation of an illegal wave of immigration.  But, I did stress that the presence of sizable illegal immigration indicates that something is very wrong with the political system, i.e. the absence of 'rule of law'.   I have also stressed (in the past) that immigration should be "limited" and that immigration policies should be democratically-determinded.  I draw 'lines' between people on the basis of whether they are law-abiding  or not, and whether they are respectful of genuine democracy or not, NOT on the basis of racial features.

7)  You are factually incorrect about American political conditions.  A large majority of Republicans wants current immigration laws enforced, and a smaller majority is probably also in favor of more restrictive immigration policies.  Among Democrats the picture is less clear, but at least a sizable segment also wants to restrict immigration.   Also, it is NOT true at all that "the anti-immigration point of view is not allowed" in the major American media.   

8)  Many blacks and whites in the USA are much "closer" to each other than many liberals and conservatives are today.  There is however no denying that a sizable number of blacks are trapped in a pathological sub-culture which has largely been sustained and fed by 'white' cultural-liberal values and policies.   The current problem of illegal latino immigration has the same root cause, and that cause is 'white liberalism'.  Whether democracy will survive in America or not, will not be depend on the presence of many 'races', but on the outcome of the liberal-conservative 'culture war'.

About the dissociation of civic "nationalism" from ethnic awareness, you should read my quote of P.Brimelow. In the past, America had never been a "proposition nation" adhering to a set of abstract principles. On the contrary, the American ethnic homogeneity (except for the black minority in the South) was a great asset. Third-world immigration is now in the process of destroying the country.

France qualifies better to be a "proposition nation". It has been kept in one piece by a strong undemocratic state. There were several different people belonging to different civilizations. The different civilizations have been destroyed first by military conquest, and then by a deliberate policy of frenchification (imagine yourself being frenchified: it is horrible!). People who belonged to different nations have been deliberately moved around and interchanged. And the state authorities are now pursuing the same policy with people they import from Africa and Turkey. (But I think the result will be different this time).

PS: After reflection: in the US too, the English speaking part of the population has managed to eliminate the distinct communities of the Dutch, Swedes, French, etc. Fortunately, the Amish are still resisting.

@ Armor

1) I do not think that nationalism and racism are necessarily "intertwined".  I can assure you that most patriotic (nationalist in a positive sense) Americans, Canadians, and Australians, do not see themselves like that at all.  But in your case, nationalism and racism are clearly intertwined, and in that terrible marriage lies the seed of its destruction (as illustrated for instance in 1945). 

2)  Indeed, you are not a "conservative", at least not of values.  For you 'ethnicity' seems to trump everything else.  It is a kind of 'fundamentalism'....

3)  I did NOT "imply that the difference between white and non-white is irrelevant", so I did NOT make an "ass" of myself.  You, on the other hand, do make an ass of yourself by imagining and claiming that I implied such a thing.  

4) I think Atheling can speak for HERself on matters of immigration, but I am certain she knows the difference between an American and a hyphenated-American, and I suspect that she is not favorably disposed to people who emphasize the latter.   You, on the other hand, are simply repeating the same racist mantras.  You obviously haven't got a clue how many 'white' Americans have (different degrees of 'native-indian' blood in them, and how many of them are proud of that.  You also seem unaware that there are almost no 'pure black' Americans left, etc...

5)   In answer to your specific questions:

-- Yes I think there is a serious problem with the CURRENT illegal immigration wave from Mexico.  Mainly because it is an illegal wave.  It suggests that there are powerful forces at work in society which undermine 'rule of law'.  The problem is not 'Mexican', but rather 'American', i.e. there is a political alliance at work of selfish capitalists (on the right) and of naive-left selfhaters (on the left).  Most Americans are opposed to illegal immigration, but it remains to be seen if enough of them (in their voting pattern) give the issue the proper priority that it deserves.  Recently, concerning this issue there are some positive signs on the right of the political spectrum, but less so on the left.  

-- Whether the (ethnic) diversity wil "disappear" over time depends on the actual policies persued by the federal government.  In the past it tended to disappear, but since the late 1960's and with the advent of naive-left values and opinions it has becomes increasingly less so.  Ultimately, this depends on the outcome of the culture wars (left-right) in the American part of Western civilisation.

6) As I have said before, using Google, Wikipedia, etc... is dangerous unless one has had a PRIOR decent education and can put things in a proper 'big picture'.   I am not going to waste my time on the opinions of one Peter Brimelow. 

7)  I think your reference to slavery in the 18th century is very unfair and ridiculous.  It is about as irrelevant to the subject at hand as bringing up the holocaust in the heart of Europe only 65 years ago.  At least the Americans got rid of slavery themselves (at a tremendous human cost).  The ethnically homogeneous Europeans, much more recently, couldn't even get rid of their totalitarianisms...without American help.   So, a bit of humility would be appropriate for 'Europeans' like you and me.   

marcfrans: "It is ironic that for a long time Europeans and others have had this image of Americans as 'racists'. Both their own media and the American liberal media, have mightily striven to convey that image. But, in reality, racism runs much deeper in Europe and Asia."

Outside of settler societies such as the United States, racism and nationalism are intertwined in that the latter is the ethnic variant, given that ethno-nations possess racial and sub-racial characteristics. Given that settler societies are nations in the civic sense (even "White Australia"), racism and nationalism can be divided (although IMHO, ethnic nationalism is the only true and full nationalism possible), which is why White Nationalism has arisen in the United States as opposed to France. Most White Americans do not want to become a minority any more than Europeans do, however, it is difficult for them to argue the morality of American Whiteness for obvious reasons.

@ Atheling

As you can see, some "conservative Europeans" can not see Americans. They can only see 'hyphenated-Americans'.  It is even worse, Armor thinks that you cannot be a "conservative" unless you see Americans as "European-Americans".  He doesn't understand that American conservatives strive to conserve the individualistic values of the American Constitution and the Bill of Rights, not some ethnic exclusivity.  

It is ironic that for a long time Europeans and others have had this image of Americans as 'racists'.  Both their own media and the American liberal media, have mightily striven to convey that image.  But, in reality, racism runs much deeper in Europe and Asia.

I have found this comment (June 2005) by Peter Brimelow on the VDare website:

"If you read the conservative press in the United States — which in effect means the neoconservative press—you will find a lot of despairing talk about the damage immigration is doing to Europe. What you are unlikely to find, however, is despairing talk about the damage immigration is doing to the United States. That's because there is a consensus here—held as strongly on the Right as on the Left—that immigration is good for Americans and good for the American economy.
But thanks to the internet—and the sheer weight of immigrant numbers—the consensus is being challenged. "

How come American neoconservatives worry about mass immigration to Europe but not to the USA?

I don't think their concern for Europe is heartfelt anyway. They sound like restrictionists because they have such fun describing the ill effects of immigration to Europe (especially rising anti-semitism). They enjoy speaking sternly and appearing worried... but they still favor more immigration! We can not take them seriously.

"The writer really has no clue. Socialism has crept in and in fact has almost completely taken over the left and even certain components of the right. The US is but a few steps behind and maybe even worse off then Europe in our immigration woes. Just because Hispanics don't strap bombs to themselves doesn't mean that our country is any less invaded nor any less on it's way to internal destruction. Add in our steady inflow of Muslims too and we have a real recipe for disaster."

While the main thrust of this piece is to criticize Zapatero. This writer really has no idea of what they speak of when talking about the American immigration system.

" the United States seems to do a far better job with immigration than does Europe."

Maybe 50 years ago this was true but it is not today. Matter of fact our immigration system is out of control and a complete mess.

is the largest immigrant-receiving country in the world.

This is true but that doesn't mean it is an attribute.

roughly half of the 100 million newest Americans are recent immigrants or their descendents; and many of them, as Zapatero probably knows, are from Mexico.

This is also true and it is certainly not an attribute.

while in the United States, almost all immigrants take one or more entry-level jobs and work their way up the economic ladder. Welfare is simply not the American way.

While in theory "Welfare is not the American way " it has turned into a welfare state.

The result is that most immigrants to the United States, a country with no dominant ethnic group, are fully integrated into American society by the second generation, regardless of their country of origin.

Full integration used to be the rule but it is no longer true today. Assimilation is not stressed and "multiculturalism" rules the day. We are being balkanized. In addition I would argue about "no dominate" ethnic group. Whites are still a majority although some have been brainwashed and indoctrinated into believing multiculturalism is nirvana but not all have ingested the koolaid and many are starting to awaken to the lies that have been foisted on us.

no matter how long they have been living on the continent.

The US has the same problem particularly with Hispanic immigrants but not exclusively.

The Spanish prime minister, who like so many other European leftists is religiously fixated on building a post-modern multicultural utopia,

And what do you think is happening in the US?

seems blinded to the fact that runaway immigration combined with socialist mismanagement is creating a Eurabian horror story. Much easier, it would seem, for Europeans to criticize America than to acknowledge their own shortcomings.

As I said earlier. The writer really has no clue. Socialism has crept in and in fact has almost completely taken over the left and even certain components of the right. The US is but a few steps behind and maybe even worse off then Europe in our immigration woes. Just because Hispanics don't strap bombs to themselves doesn't mean that our country is any less invaded nor any less on it's way to internal destruction. Add in our steady inflow of Muslims too and we have a real recipe for disaster.

Kern: "This unfortunate reality provides the political context for Zapatero’s concern with the US-Mexico border. The Spanish prime minister, who like so many other European leftists is religiously fixated on building a post-modern multicultural utopia, seems blinded to the fact that runaway immigration combined with socialist mismanagement is creating a Eurabian horror story. Much easier, it would seem, for Europeans to criticize America than to acknowledge their own shortcomings."

Agreed. However, taking up the reverse position is no less helpful to either demographic issue.

Kern: "Indeed, many analysts believe that the steady weakening of Europe is the underlying cause of growing anti-American and anti-Israel bigotry among Europe’s elites, many of whom are bending over backwards to please Muslim immigrants in naive attempts to buy fake peace with radical Islamists. Says Fouad Ajami, a well-known authority of the Arab world: 'In ways both intended and subliminal, the escape into anti-Americanism is an attempt at false bonding with the peoples of Islam'."

European anti-Americanism existed before Islam topped the Western agenda. Irrespective of cultural differences and opinions of the trans-atlantic elites, it emerged during the 1960s in combination with Neo-Marxism, anti-colonialism, anti-racism, fascism, feminism, and often communism. The United States became identified with crass capitalism, colonialism (foreign military bases), racism (race relations, especially in the southern states), and fascism (foreign covert and overt interventions e.g. Latin America, Vietnam). Unfortunately, for many contemporary analysts of European anti-Americanism, they are unaware that: (a) similar social movements were in effect in American colleges and universities, (b) European students made similar claims about their own countries and governments, and (c) one must distinguish between the aforementioned anti-Americanism and the national prejudices fomented by elites in every country, including the United States.

Kern: "In Spain, meanwhile, dozens of would-be migrants have been killed and many more injured by rubber bullets or beatings in their bids to climb over the ten foot (three meter) fences around the Spanish enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla. Zapatero’s response? He has just built a third perimeter fence in order to keep the immigrants from crossing."

If the current problems in Anglo-Russian relations are any indication, there is a startling difference between actions and words.

Kern: "Whatever the case may be, the fact remains that the United States and Europe are facing many of the same challenges on the issue of immigration."

Right.

Kern: "But for a variety of cultural, historical and structural factors, the United States seems to do a far better job with immigration than does Europe."

Wrong.

Kern: "In fact, roughly half of the 100 million newest Americans are recent immigrants or their descendents; and many of them, as Zapatero probably knows, are from Mexico."

Unfortunately.

Kern: "But the European experience with immigration is very different from that of the United States. Part of the reason is that in Europe, many or most immigrants to the continent end up on welfare, while in the United States, almost all immigrants take one or more entry-level jobs and work their way up the economic ladder."

I assume that low-paid work in services, construction, sweatshops, etc., all constitute a climb up the "economic ladder"? Certainly, Western European states take in immigrants at a net economic loss; however, so too does the United States, as illegal aliens are entitled to a variety of social services including public education for their children.

Kern: "The result is that most immigrants to the United States, a country with no dominant ethnic group, are fully integrated into American society by the second generation, regardless of their country of origin."

Not exactly. There are powerful arguments to support why the "American melting pot" has become the "American nightmare."

Kern: "By contrast, most immigrants to Europe, where countries are built around a population base with a common ethnicity, are Muslims who are not easily integrated, no matter how long they have been living on the continent."

So ethnic homogeneity is to blame? It is a terrible shame that Europeans are not so mixed as Americans. What about non-Muslim Africans and South Asians in Europe?

Kern: "By contrast, the first-ever, nationwide, random sample survey of Muslim Americans finds them to be largely assimilated, happy with their lives, and moderate with respect to many of the issues that divide Muslims and Westerners around the world."

Not true. 31% of American Muslims under 30 either support to some degree or would be complicit with the suicide bombing of civilian targets to defend Islam. Only 40% of American Muslims believe Arabs committed the September 11th, 2001 attacks, with 7% believing that Washington was secretly responsible. 5% are favorable to Al-Qaeda and only 28% considered themselves American before Muslim. Moreover, althought being socially conservative, American Muslims supported larger government and the welfare state, with 71% preferring the Democrats.

If an American president had made sanctimonious remarks about the Spanish fence while on a visit to Morocco, he would have been mercilessly ridiculed in the American press for his inconsistency.  What was the response in the mainstream Spanish press to Zapatero's comments?

It's pretty much a given that Muslims will support the ummah over any Western country they inhabit.

However, the Mexican LEGAL immigrants generally DO assimilate, notwithstanding the stupid PC Multi culti policies that encourage them to do otherwise.

It's amusing to hear Euro leaders like Zapatero, who would like to divert attention to the US's problems rather than focus on their own. As someone else here once said, "dead man talking"...

I disagree with the author's point that all our immigrants by the second generation have assimilated and worked their way up the ladder. 

If a conflict ensued between the US and Mexico or between the US and a Muslim country they would not support their "adopted" country and I wouldn't be surprised if they engaged in sedition against the US.

As for Prime Minister Zapatero, he has no right to interject himself into our affairs. As the Spanish refrain goes, "¡Zapatero, a sus zapatos!"

"There is no wall that can obstruct the dream of a better life". - Zapatero.

Frankly,Zapa,I disrespectfully disagree with you.Try this 'wall' for instance.His name is Alan Wall and he has written extensively on the subject of illegal immigration to the United States from Mexico (and all points south).Each article he writes on the subject could be viewed symbolically as a single 'brick',and together these 'bricks' constitute a veritable 'wall of truth' on this highly contentious topic.To view the 'wall',click on here:

http://www.vdare.org/awall/index.htm

Perhaps Europeans could learn from this grand construction.