As the descendent of a long line of refugees, I cannot be against immigration—though common sense suggests that some immigrants may be easier to integrate successfully than others.
My mother arrived in Britain penniless, but fortunately for her—and for Britain—no one sought to persuade her that she need not learn English, and no one set up expensive and ineffective services for her in case she did not. She was not obliged to give up her tastes or conform in private respects, but she was expected (de facto) to blend into society as much as possible, rightly and reasonably, in my opinion. There was no ideology seeking to Balkanize the sensibilities of the population, enclose people in ghettoes and so forth, in the process acting as an employment opportunity for hordes of officials and bureaucrats.
Although it is not a complete answer, a flexible labor market is very important, because there is nothing like work to integrate people. One of the problems in France is that youth unemployment is very high, and you only have to ask a plumber or a carpenter why he does not employ anyone to find out why. Thus, huge numbers of young immigrants or descendents of immigrants gather in one area—“social housing”—without realistic prospect of work.
In Britain, 25 percent of medical students are now of Indian subcontinental origin. This is not the result of official policy, but because Indian schoolchildren are best, both because their families are intact and there is a serious emphasis on education among them. Not long ago in Britain, black football players were scarce because of prejudice, and the behaviour of the crowds towards them authentically revolting. Fortunately, however, there were 92 competing clubs in the league, and once a few clubs started to use black players, the rest soon had to follow suit—because of the logic of the situation, not because the directors of clubs suddenly became more broadminded. However, prejudice declined in the end as well.
In so far as fear of the future leads governments—often at the behest of the people—to make labor markets rigid, it increases the potential for violence and intercommunal conflict. It is therefore necessary to destroy the prejudice against flexible labor markets. In France, the words “savage” and “liberalism” go together like a horse and carriage (of love and marriage one cannot speak); but this is, in present circumstances at least, the precise opposite of the truth.