The effects of immigration are multiple and complex: they depend, to a large extent, on the status prevailing in the destination countries, and on the subject of the immigrant who moves to a new plot of land. In the case of Spain, immigration was beneficial before the economic crisis, bringing investment and consumption, and cheap and abundant labor in marginal or neglected economic and social sectors. With the crisis, immigration has become a hindrance, with a very high unemployment rate among the immigrant population and an increase in poverty, with many people without a fixed roof over their heads, job qualifications or a permit for residency program and work.

Immigration brought more births and more youth, but immigrants have been matching native patterns in terms of fertility, and the regrouping policy means that not only young people but entire families are coming, so rejuvenation has also slowed down.

Ignorance of people and traditions of other cultures naturally generates distrust and estrangement, without this meaning racism (hatred because of a different race) or xenophobia (hatred because of a different nationality). But the migratory phenomenon has been so rapid and so voluminous that, although we cannot speak of a "clash of civilizations", in Spain there is currently a relatively peaceful coexistence status , but there is no real solidarity or understanding plenary session of the Executive Council. The immigrant population is not fully integrated, and there is a danger of the creation of "ghettos". There is mutual suspicion, and the Government's migratory policies -if they exist- are confusing and contradictory.

A phenomenon that was positive a few years ago is now in danger of becoming a negative reality. Over time, the different groups grow in mutual understanding and the harmonious accommodation of immigrants takes place. But for this to happen, a great effort is needed from all groups, plus a coherent and clear policy on the part of the authorities. On the contrary, there is a danger that the problem of poorly accommodated immigration will become entrenched, as has happened in other countries around us, for example in France.

After two generations of children of immigrants born on French soil, France has not found a formula for the accommodation of an already large segment of its population. The violent riots in Parisian neighborhoods, the rifts within the French soccer team and the expulsion of Romanian gypsies by order of President Nicholas Sarkozy show that the paradigm of integration does not work in the muddy terrain of the attempt to assimilate immigrants by force.

Whether they are Gypsies or Romanians is secondary; the essential issue is the lack of integration on the one hand, and exclusion and intolerance on the other. This misunderstanding is taking place within the historical and geographical framework of a multi-secular melting pot of civilizations, contrary to the founding principles of the European Union and in one of its most emblematic member countries. Immigrants cannot impose their own discordant criteria on the native population. They cannot isolate themselves from the majority, creating "societies within society" (being physically in the country of destination, but psychologically in the home country), and pretend to assert their rights by force, demanding respect for the minority, which they are not willing to give to the majority. Especially if there is no sincere will of peaceful settlement, as in the case of certain radical and fanatical religious groups, also in our own country, and possibly in the case of the gypsies expelled from France. But it should not be forgotten that culture is acquired and cultivated, and cannot be imposed or legislated unilaterally.

Any attempt at forced acculturation entails contempt, injustice and violence. A country cannot expect immigrants to assimilate one hundred percent into its culture, thus losing their cultural and historical roots (attitudes, traditions, language, religion), contrary to the spirit of breaking down political and psychological borders, and against openness to multiculturalism.

That liberal and democratic France, and above all President Sarkozy - himself a second generation immigrant, with a mixture of Hungarian and Greek, Catholic and Jewish roots - are the architects of a policy of exclusion against immigrants, sample that integration and solidarity, or their opposite, are issues that concern collectivities, but also - and primarily - individuals. The misunderstanding that is being observed in Sarkozy's France should serve as notice for other countries around it, for example Spain.