Not me, I'm not necessarily advocating assimilation. Let the Irish or Italians, or Jews, remain in their own enclaves if they wish - they all have their own reasons. If they also happen to violate the laws of the land, then they will be dealt with (hopefully). However, Irish criminal thugs and Sicilian mafiosi, evil as they may be, are still not in the league of a religious culture which, to all intents and purposes, seeks to either dominate or physically destroy the rest of the world - by their own words and visible actions, which, by and large, have not yet been repudiated by their otherwise apparently peaceful masses

This distinction is so obvious, that I am amazed it has to still be continually explained to otherwise intelligent people. Unless you think that the contemporary highly dangerous and violent aspects of Islam, can all be explained by social and economic discrimination alone. I doubt that you do, and I continue to treat you as an intelligent poster.

Let 'baby Mohammed' grow up to clearly repudiate the obviously dangerous political/religous aspects of his milieu - and then I'll feel a lot more comfortable with large-scale Muslim immigration - whether they choose to assimilate, or not. Please don't suggest I'm being reactionary: "by their actions shall we know them" applies to groups - very obviously in this case - even if not necessarily to every individual within that group.

In the meantime I agree that no economic and social barriers should exist to them, since that is a matter of principle. That still doesn't mean that I'm happy about their religion and culture dominating entire Western countries. And that's what Tom's original post was all about, surely.