You're blaming Europeans for not forcing their culture onto immigrants. You're also making the naive assumption that a sizable proportion of immigrants WANTS to assimilate - the truth is that certain groups are simply not interested in assimilating. Why would they be? Foreign customs are hard to learn and - here's the part many proponents of immigration conveniently miss - directly opposed to Western customs.
When you are raised to believe that women are property, for example, and that your customs and culture are biblically justified, and some white idiot welcomes you into his country, provides you with free (to you) government assistance, while you live comfortably in your homogeneous ghetto, don't be surprised if you get laughed it at best, taken advantage of at worst.
And when one side not only denies that any of this is happening, but worse, slanders their countrymen as "xenophobes" for not wanting to accommodate the culture of their home and Homeland for that of ungrateful immigrants, populism suddenly has a very strong appeal.
In the U.S., for example, immigrants vote Democrat. You have millions of people who have called the U.S. their home for generations, and now you have a large group of people flowing into your communities and imposing their cultural values onto you via government. This is not xenophobia - people have a right to preserve their peaceful ways of life - otherwise you are arguing that one culture is superior to another.
I assume you must be talking about native americans and the large influx of white people who won't assimilate to their local Ute or Navajo or whatever culture. Because literally any other interpretation I have of this comment is less charitable because it would imply you have a staggering level of hypocrisy.
We live here now. Our families, our friends, our communities. We have every right to self preservation that they did-there is nothing hypocritical here.
The comparison is disingeneous. Ignoring the fact that most natives were wiped out by disease, European arrival in the U.S. was a clash of totally independent groups. There was no forced integration and little intermingling of communities-this was warfare, not simple immigration.
It wasn't right (through the lens of our Western culture) to uproot natives who had built their lives here, but that doesn't justify doing the same to generations who've similarly replaced them. In any case, land is finite, all current peoples have displaced others at some point. That doesn't mean their communities and countries suddenly have no right to cultural self preservation.
And I have no reason to believe that your Bavarian example is representative of other populist agendas. Limited immigration does not mean no immigration.
But the obvious solutions to this problem, regardless of who's fault it is, is to not import people if you can't offer them jobs/health/education/language courses.
Calling human individuals with similar heritages by monikers of worst and best is a gross overgeneralization.
The obvious solution is, there isn't one.
Yeah I know that's why I put it in quotes. But that's how they're commonly perceived in media and academic institutions.
efficiency in a systems problem is almost never easy, and it requires everyone who participates to put forth their fullest effort. It is telling to me that when people are unconstrained by space/cost/time, they don't tend to create extremely efficient situations, but in fact prefer those that intentionally less so.