It is often forgotten by those who pursue such policies that most migrants are escaping countries that are dysfunctional.  One reason they are dysfunctional is because people are not used to trusting, co-operating with, and helping those who are different.  We should be wary, then, of the mantra to have 'respect for other cultures'.

Then at the other extreme there is permanent cultural isolation of migrants in a hermetic community where schooling and language are separate, and married outside the group is punished by expulsion.

Multiculturalism began primarily because many migrants preferred to congregate together in clusters that protected their culture of origin. but to criticise them for this was thought to border on racism, forgetting that anyone of any race can absorb any culture, Hence multiculturalism was projected as desirable in itself.

That would be fine if the outcome was 'fusion' - a middle ground in which everyone brings something distinctive to the common table from which all eat, exemplified by the popularity of chicken tikka, an  innovation by an immigrant who rose to the challenge of fusing his own cultural experience with an indigenous demand for fast food

Fusion demands upon both migrants and indigenous Britons to be curios about other cultures and to adopt them.  But the dominant tendency so far has been to interpret multiculturalism as the right to persistent cultural separation.

Long term assimilation as a goal for immigrants populations has sadly, pretty well fallen out of fusion.  I say sadly because it  has some major advantages not just for the indigenous, but for everyone.

To may mind there is no ethical reason why- as part of the deal in being admitted to this country- a migrant should not be expected to absorb the indigenous culture, not least its language. Assimilation also breaks down distrust and replaces it with mutual regard.

Instead we have a situation where migrants have become steadily more concerned concentrated in a few cities and especially in London. The 2011 census revealed that the indigenous British had become the minority in their own capital.

Separation also shows up in cultural practices resulting from Islamic fundamentalism. Single-ethnicity immigrant schools are encouraged.  British Bangladeshi women are increasingly adopting the full veil, whereas in Bangladesh itself the veil is not worn.

Research also shows that another barrier to greeter integration is the easy access welfare system, which tempts migrants into remaining  at the bottom of the social ladder.

Of course, it also tempts the indigenous population but it appears to be more tempting for migrants because they are accustomed to radically lower living standards. Even the modest income provided by welfare systems seems attractive, and so the incentive to work to get a higher income by getting a job is weaker.

Thus, between them, multiculturalism and generous welfare systems hamper integration at home and at work.

The failure to assimilate quickly enough has two crucial effects. First the data shows that the bigger and more separatist an immigrant community is, the more it supports further immigration to join it. This the influx will not stop, but speed up.

Second, and more surprisingly, social bonds within the indigenous population can be weakened.  AS their locality becomes  more  culturally fragmented people tend to withdraw from taking part in group activities and retreat into isolation. They opt out and hunker down- so society as a whole losses some of its cohesion.

Feeling English should be open to everybody. Everyone permanently living here should pitch in to forge a common cultural identity of which we are all proud.

Yet under multiculturalism, being English is in danger of being relegated to the status of just one racial-cum-cultural community among many others: 'the English community' alongside the 'Bangladeshi community' or the 'Somali community'.

 The English community has to be integrationist; anything less would breach anti-discrimination laws. Yet the English cannot be expected to be integrationist if that same expectation is not placed on IMMIGRANTS.

In setting migration policy, governments need to balance fairly the interests of the indigenous poor, in particular, against the interests of migrants.

As we have seen, integration of migrants into British society has proved more difficult than anticipated.  Newcomers are not being assimilated.  If a balance is to be achieved, we need to make some fundamental choices.

FIRST, we must decide whether it is morally right or wrong to restrict immigration. If , as some people believe, all restrictions are wrong by definition, then we need to face up to the fact that migration will build to rates far in excess of those in recent decades.