Being assimilated is similar to being pregnant, in the respect that you either are or aren’t assimilated. You either adopt the prevailing social customs and shed your native customs or you don’t. Acculturation, on the other hand, is blending or modification of cultural mores with the introduction of differing cultural mores and practices and does not require the abandoning of any cultural mores or practices.

It has been my experience that some liken “assimilation” to the abandoning of their heritage, and many are unwilling (rightly so) to do that. Perhaps, it is a case of nitpicking, but we should be precise, or try to be, in our word usage.

Asking for assimilation is asking too much, if one is suggesting that immigrants should learn to communicate in English I say let the free-market reward or punish those who do not, why use some form of coercion?

Lets not make this a discussion about extreme cases because nobody is arguing in favor of those. All the WSJ is trying to say here is that fostering a culture of isolationism, where neither assimilation or even mere mixing happens, is bad for the country at large.

And what is wrong with multiculturalism? I’ve always perceived culture as a good thing. Should I stop my cultural customs to make European Americans more comfortable?

Why no bilingual education? I think students should be required to learn multiple languages (most other countries require students to learn at least English beyond their native tongue.) I also see no problem offering ESL classes to new immigrants.

Racial quotas are hopefully no longer ‘necessary.’

I don’t see the point in making laws that enforce “norms.” I like the idea of this being a free country where people can do whatever the hell they want. If they want to speak French and ride through the desert on a bananamobile then more power to them, as long as they don’t bug me.