A multi-ethnic society can survive a tendency to be torn apart by ethnic differences PROVIDED that it is monocultural. For the earliest 400 years of America, immigrants arrived with cultural differences and adapted to the prevailing "American culture" they found here because it was socially and economically rewarding to do so, and because the "American culture" was little removed from the culture they brought with them. Add-in the long pauses between cultural waves that allowed assimilation rather than ghetto formation and you had the great American success story.

      What has changed since 1965 are several things:

       1. The cultural gap of the new arrivals is larger than in the early centuries since America began, even if the economic gap is the same.

      2. The large waves have allowed ghettos to appear and grow, promoting a language other than English. Indeed, Miami is a large city in which Spanish-speaking people need never learn how to speak English.

      3. The gaps that allowed assimilation have not been permitted to occur.

      4. Immigrants tend to settle (for various reasons) in the same areas as other immigrants. Increasingly, this leads to ethnic tension and criminal activity. (LA, Miami, Brooklyn, etc.)

      5. Increasingly, immigrants not only are consuming a larger share of the public purse in the form of welfare programs, they are actually being encouraged to do so, against their better instincts.

      6. Whereas America once selected its immigrants on the basis of useful skills, that is no longer the case, and, in fact, skillless immigrants actually have easier access.

      7. Whereas America once selected its immigrants on the basis of an existing cultural commonality, that is no longer the case, and, in fact, other-culture immigrants actually have easier access.

      A society with a high and unbroken immigration pattern is in great danger of losing its culture, and the people can be held in a suspended state of non-violence only by the strong (if not oppressive) hand of government, as the USSR provided in the Balkans.

      The claim that immigration is necessary for economic growth is disproven by the example of Japan, which has virtually zero immigrants.

      The claim that immigrants are necessary because they do the work others will not do is disproven by the discovery that there are more than 40 states where immigrants do not settle, and someone does those jobs in those states.

      We now have sufficient evidence to prove that immigration over the past 10 years has consumed more of the US taxpayer's money then the immigrants have provided, despite the showcasing of individual cases which have succeeded here in the great traditional way. This is in tax dollars that are traceable. What is untraceable, and is no doubt a larger figure, is the consumption of public resources drained into fighting additional crime, drug use, and related anti- social behavior.

      It is time for several fixes to our immigration policy:
a) the flagrant illegal immmigration patterns must be stopped cold. If that means fences on our open borders, so be it;
b) legal immigration must be reduced;
c) periods (10 year lengths) must be inserted between open immigration periods to encourage assimilation;
d) English must be made the official language, which also means that street signs, public documents, and the like appear in English only;
e) end the bizarre rule that an illegal immigrant giving birth in America becomes the mother of a US citizen.