If anyone hasn't seen this already...

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/lifting-the-veil-of-islamophobia

It's an interview of Ayaan Hirsi Ali by Sam Harris, from May 8, 2014. (Very long.)

I may be wrong, but reading between the lines, I'd say she's suggesting that multiculturalism isn't automatically wrong - it just needs to be done differently from the way it's being done now.

Hirsi Ali said:

"In any case, I gave a speech at an award ceremony in Berlin, in the spring of 2012, on the shortcomings of policies based on the theory of "multiculturalism," and I said that Breivik (the 2011 Norwegian terrorist who slaughtered 77 people) was one deeply unfortunate product of these policies, as are the rising number of European jihadis. They are unintended products, to be sure, because multiculturalism is all about good intentions. But an analysis of Breivik’s writing and testimony shows that he complains bitterly of seeing no way to engage in politics other than to use violence. I also said that I have come across many other people who complained in this way. Instead of violence, for now, these people preach apathy, distrust of the system, and "white flight." But it is all too easy to see the progression from this type of thinking to violence, and that is a very dangerous place for society to be. Sadly, in extreme cases, until something changes, I think we should expect more violence.

"My remarks in Berlin were a plea to lift the iron curtain of political correctness so that citizens can engage in politics through peaceful means and debate, and thus channel their frustrations with immigration and Islam through the system. This is elementary political science—but, of course, Islamists and their friends on the Left have twisted my words to make me sound like I was applauding an atrocity. Multiculturalist policies and political correctness make it easier for radical Muslims to preach, inspire, mobilize, and target immigrant communities on the grounds of religious freedom. And those who criticize them in Europe are silenced or branded as racist Islamophobes. In the long run, you get more jihadist ghettoes and intolerant right-wing enclaves. That is the tragic outcome of decades of policies that had good intentions in theory, but in reality have instead cemented divisions between groups and bred too much insularity and mistrust. We cannot be so afraid of causing verbal offense that we lose the ability to have open debate—because that debate will still be had, but by less peaceful means."

And later:

Harris:..."How you’ve been treated reminds me of what many liberals did during the Salman Rushdie affair, blaming him for his recklessness in the face of the hair-trigger sensitivities of the Muslim community.

"I’m a liberal by nearly every measure. Give me a list of liberal values and prejudices, and I will check almost every box.

Hirsi Ali: "So will I."

And near the end:

Harris..."Remind our readers how you felt about Salman Rushdie when you were twenty."

Hirsi Ali: "I think of myself back then as analogous to a sheep. Everyone in my community believed that Rushdie had to die. After all, he had insulted the Prophet. I believed that if you insult the Prophet, well, then you have to face the consequences—which means you have to be killed. I didn’t question the merits of that idea. I thought it was moral for Ayatollah Khomeini to take steps to ensure that this apostate who had insulted the Prophet would be punished, and the appropriate punishment was death. I didn’t make that up, of course, and I didn’t just get the idea from my friends; it came from scripture and from my religious teachers."

Harris: "Funny enough, that was something you had in common with Cat Stevens. Incredibly, it’s possible for a Western rock star, who has every advantage in life, to acquire such a view. And this is not an accident..."

(snip)

You can find responses to that interview in Google.

Is she on crack? She made these multiculturalism remarks a few years ago which was why I was so surprised when she opened the gates.

I think she is basically trying to force the rest of Europe to take some, but everyone else is saying, "Non". Luckily Switzerland seems to be following France and England's leads... happy to take a few, sure, a gazillion, not so much.

I am wondering if she has dementia. My other thought is since she has no kids she doesn't care about the future of Europe and is angling for a UN role.

I have a position on immigration that makes my friends on the left and right equally angry... let some in, but not too many, consider the cultural implications and adjust quotas accordingly, use your resources to focus on integrating a small number really well rather than on a large number not at all.

That is the danger of being reasonable NicoleK.

So Henry Luce created the TIME Person of the Year thing to recognize the person who had done the most to change the course of world events during that year, for better or worse. That's why Hitler was recognized in 1939. It's not really an "award" in the conventional sense; winning it is not necessarily a good thing. From that perspective, Merkel was one of the most apropos choices the TIME staff has made in recent years. Think about this: the "Christian Democrat" flavor of center-leftism has been by far the dominant political philosophy in western Europe since WWII. Merkel's actions are probably going to bring that to an end. What comes after it is hard to say at this point.

What NicoleK suggests is what the U.S. has done, during times when smarter people were in charge. Europe has never done immigration very well, and the problem is that the nature of their cultures is, when you get down to it, tribalist. It's often been said that you can be brought into France at the age of one day old and spend the rest of your life living there, but you will still never be French. Immigrants can't fully assimilate, because there will always be that barrier of birth. Not to say that America has never had nativists, but America is based on a set of principles rather than bloodlines, so that barrier isn't present. That makes the job easier. That said, America could not possibly absorb Merkel's flood either. And that's before we even start to consider security concerns.

NicoleK: :"I have a position on immigration that makes my friends on the left and right equally angry... let some in, but not too many, consider the cultural implications and adjust quotas accordingly, use your resources to focus on integrating a small number really well rather than on a large number not at all."

That's the position of pretty much all of my conservative, evangelical Christian relatives and friends. They might modify it just a little to:

Let as many as we can in, consider the cultural and economic implications and adjust quotas accordingly, use our resources to integrate as many as we can really well rather than all of them poorly.

I see nothing wrong with multiculturalism, as long as it comes about by everyone being left alone to pursue their own happiness. The problem is that some cultures, like Islam and leftist-progressivism, seem compelled to subjugate, dominate and oppress all the others. And they have no qualm about using force and violence to do so - Islamists directly by way of brutal atrocities and terrorism, and leftist-progressives by way of the police, guns, courts and jails of the government.

Islamists and leftist-progressives are not going to leave other people alone. It seems like a necessary element of their pursuit of happiness is the conformity or subjugation of others. It's like an innate part of their nature. They can't stand the idea of other people going around doing whatever they want. Simply disagreeing with them can cause them intolerable distress.

I think those who are tolerant of other cultures and more than happy to live and let live need to at least consider the possibility that if we do not begin to proactively dominate and oppress them, they will dominate and oppress us.

Isn't NicoleK in Europe Ken? I've found that due to the significant suppression of right wing view points most of the European right wingers are fairly extreme. That is a major benefit freedom of speech brings to the US.

Ben: "Isn't NicoleK in Europe Ken?"

I don't know. Maybe. She seems kind of smart for a European. Maybe she emigrated from the U.S.

I am thinking that since they are refugee's from a war, once the war is over they should be sent back. Perhaps not all at once.

Nicole: I have a position on immigration that makes my friends on the left and right equally angry...

From everything I've read, that's something that's really missing from Congress (and has been missing for quite some time): any kind of "broad middle" positions. And I've read (and believe) that's reflective of U.S citizens: we Americans are very polarized in our views.

"From everything I've read, that's something that's really missing from Congress (and has been missing for quite some time): any kind of "broad middle" positions. And I've read (and believe) that's reflective of U.S citizens: we Americans are very polarized in our views."

Yes and no, it's more so with congress and all politicians, but less true with people in general.
Some is due to those who have middle of the road positions, often don't have that strong opinions on things and don't go out and protest, or canvas, or blog, or run for political office. And they therefore don't get filmed on the news or quoted. So it seems like they are few. But look at protests, for and against, and 100 or 1000 people show up, it's considered big, but that is out of 1 million in the area, or 1 in 1000 who are polarized enough to protest. Compare that to how many show up to a weekly pro sports game.

As to the politicians, generally only those who are politicized run, and once out there they tend to get echo chambered: Only hear "their side" or only talk to their side and the occasional extreme nut from the other side.
Heard a long standing politician blame it on the internet. In the old days after a day of congress in session right and left would have dinner and drinks together and off camera talk. But now no one is ever off camera. After session, they don't hang out they go on line and hear from their most extreme constituents.

To answer the question I am binational American-Swiss, living in Switzerland, grew up in Boston. Switzerland has high immigration but limits it, and is not in the EU. It does a much better job of integrating people, perhaps due to the lack of huge cities where they can amass in miles of ghetto.

And yes, I meant to include economics in the equation.

"that's reflective of U.S citizens: we Americans are very polarized in our views."

Yeah, I don't buy this either. To the extent that we have become that, it's because our political leadership has backed us into a corner. However, there's also this problem: our current ruling class has a very, very different concept of America than the concept that was established by the Founders and is held to, more or less, by most Americans. Because of that, any discussion of restoring the kind of America where people can live their own lives with minimal interaction with the government gets branded "extreme". There are an awful lot of people onboard the government chuck wagon and they are very possessive of their rice bowls.

My observation is that when someone says "Why can't we all just get along?", what they are really saying is, "Everyone must agree with me!"

"the government chuck wagon and they are very possessive of their rice bowls. "

Wow, how's that for a brutally mixed metaphor. Sigh. I must be hungry or something.

We all make a little word salad sometimes CD.

Props for that one, Ben. I guess I was really in the soup.