At present, as is well known, Europe is going through a period of relative demographic instability for several reasons, including violence and insecurity in parts of Africa and the Middle East that has prompted a significant displacement of people in search of shelter. Other reasons include low birth rates in Europe, which generate considerable demand for immigrant labor, as well as the historical ties between European countries, such as France and Great Britain, and their former colonies. If we add to these factors the fact that many of the newly arrived in Europe have a higher birth rate than more established Europeans, it is safe to say that European nations, or at least some of them, will experience far-reaching demographic change within a few generations.

The mere fact of population change, or even of displacement between nations, is not in itself a problem. The problem occurs when those who come to a host country do not share, or only partly share, their host’s cultural, linguistic and moral foundations. The arrival of immigrants and refugees from a culture that is quite different from that of the host country presents a challenge because at first, the two groups do not know or trust one another. For practical purposes, they are like strangers who bump into each other on the road. They do not know where the other comes from, nor are they familiar with each other’s lifestyles, values, priorities, experiences, and aspirations. Frequently, they do not even share a common language.

When we do not know the other, we easily give in to fear and distrust and become defensive. The stranger becomes a threat, and can even be perceived as an enemy— one who threatens "our" jobs, "our" way of life, one who does not respect "our" customs and values, etc. This reaction, which has been reinforced by far-right European political parties, reflects an understandable fear of the unknown, and a very human attachment to the values, customs, and welfare of "our" community or people.

European leaders have failed to interpret and respond convincingly to this negative reaction and thus have created a political opportunity for parties that aggressively oppose— supposedly on behalf of the people— the admission of immigrants and refugees.

But xenophobic and aggressively anti-immigration policies are not likely to generate a greater sense of solidarity and social cohesion. On the contrary, they are likely to generate division between the supposed "native" and the "other” who purportedly does not belong in "our" society. And this division, if cultivated over time, can give rise to discord and dangerous levels of social resentment, which may eventually give rise to waves of crime and violence, as is often seen on the outskirts of Paris.

To overcome these destructive divisions, a sensible immigration policy should include three key aspects: first, rather than dividing the people between "natives" and "strangers," we should clearly outline the essential conditions that we can reasonably require of those who seek to integrate into European communities and communicate this vision effectively to refugee and immigrant populations. We could achieve this by making a clear distinction between the refugee or immigrant who comes in good faith, and the delinquent or criminal who refuses to obey the rules of the game and takes advantage of hospitality instead of being grateful for it.

Second, legal and economic infrastructures should be developed to allow newcomers to play a constructive role in the economy and society instead of becoming chronically dependent upon the welfare state. If we are not prepared to give foreigners the opportunity to play a constructive role in our communities, we relegate them to the status of wards of the state. Doing what it takes to survive, they will sooner or later succumb to a sense of humiliation and exclusion from the dominant community.

Third, we should offer migrants and refugees affordable educational and cultural integration programs that enable them to learn the language, customs, and values ​​that unite our communities and facilitate social cooperation. But these programs would have to be based on a model of reciprocal integration, not on a model of pure "assimilation" to the dominant culture. It is not fair that a person be asked to give up his or her own culture entirely. Rather, the most appropriate model is one of mutual integration in which the host community, even if it has a certain primacy (if I am in your house, I will respect the "rules of the house"), also strives to empathize with the situation, culture, and customs of its guests. According to this model, learning occurs in both directions, and through this learning, the host and the guest get to know each other and grow in mutual trust.

In order to initiate and sustain a process of mutual learning, we must establish and maintain organizations, possibly coordinated by the state, dedicated to the linguistic and cultural formation of newcomers, as well as the cultivation of social relations between newcomers and the communities that welcome them. Only with these programs, backed by legal and social access to opportunities for participation in civil and economic life, can we turn this demographic crisis into a tremendous opportunity for mutual enrichment between host and guest cultures.