Eugene Volokh discusses this Guardian article [1] in two posts: first [2] and second [3]:

But if the Le Monde correspondent, and others who have made this point (both in the anti-war context and outside) about other European countries, are right, then it shows that the French and other Europeans have made a very bad mistake with their immigration policy, assimilation policy (or nonassimilation policy), or both.

As I mentioned in a post on this blog's very first day, "letting in immigrants [equals] letting in your future rulers." I had in mind immigrants participating in the ruling of the nation through the ballot-box, and sometimes providing a swing vote that could materially change the nation's laws. But it sounds like the Le Monde correspondent believes that the immigrants have started ruling France in another way -- through "domestic conflagration and terrorism." And the worst of it all is that he seems to see nothing wrong with that; he seems to have accepted it as just part of the new French political reality. Terrifying.

Permittez-moi to answer in link form:

Here's 'Immigration in France: A Short History' [4]. He doesn't seem to see much of a problem.

For the other side, here's just two of the many articles I could link to:
'The Barbarians at the Gates of Paris' [5]

"the face of Islamism in Europe" [6]

There are parallels between the European situation and that here. Read this post and all of the items it links to.

Now, our situation is not exactly the same as that in Europe. However, the same forces and (arguably traitorous) actors that caused the situation there caused the situation here (see the comments to this post [7]).

Is it really acceptable that there are more than 10 million citizens of other countries in the U.S. illegally? Especially since many of them have no need to [8] or interest in assimilating and becoming American? Don't you think that gives their home (i.e., "real") country the teensiest bit of influence on our policies? Is giving another country influence on our internal politics a good thing?

Do you think it's healthy that a country is allowed to lobby local and state governments [9] to do an end-around of the U.S.'s immigration laws?

When Mexico's former foreign minister, Jorge Castaneda, said that the Mexican goverment was going to begin "propagating militant activities" in the U.S., and no one except for me and a few other bloggers paid any attention, doesn't that indicate a very major problem? When a Mexican official says "I want the third generation, the seventh generation, I want them all to think 'Mexico first'", ('Mexico's Northern Strategy' [10]) doesn't that raise an alarm bell or two?

Maybe we should have a national debate about this issue before we go any further down the same road as Europe.

--------
[1] www.guardian . co . uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,913895,00.html
[2] volokh . blogspot . com/2003_03_09_volokh_archive.html#90700052
[3] volokh . blogspot . com/2003_03_09_volokh_archive.html#90700296
[4] www.sunderland . ac . uk/~os0tmc/contemp1/immig2.htm
[5] www.city - journal . org/html/12_4_the_barbarians.html
[6] michielvisser . blogspot . com/2002_12_08_michielvisser_archive.html#85838406
[7] polstate . com/archives/001452.html#001452
[8] dailypundit . com/archives/008616.php
[9] cis . org/articles/2003/back303.html
[10] amconmag . com/03_10_03/feature.html