Between 1820 and 1979, more than 49 million immigrants came to live in the USA. Historians are pretty unanimous on the effect these frontier-people had on America as they sailed in past the Statue of Liberty toward Ellis Island - they helped make it the most powerful and influential nation on Earth.

Third-generation American John F. Kennedy called America "a society of immigrants, each of whom had begun life anew, on an equal footing. This is the secret of America: a nation of people with the fresh memory of old traditions who dare to explore new frontiers.... "

Re Australia, I guess the answers here depend on how you define a nation's success or failure. In comparison to other nations, Australia's policy of multiculturalism has been a success. That's not to say no race riot has ever occurred or will ever occur.To say it's been "an abject failure" (as Dresdener did) is clearly silly from any reasonable viewpoint - the vast majority of Australians live and work with people from other cultures in safety and harmony every single day.

Botheration,
It seems to me that increased numbers (as in, more consumers, entrepreneurs, workers) was the main spur and not ‘diversity’. If all the immigrants mentioned had been from the same culture you may well have had the same or even greater growth.

Monocultural leaning Japan had few problems growing in the absence of state sponsored multiculturalism/ethnic diversity.

I am still scratching around for a definition of the word ‘multiculturalism’. Before we can answer whether the USA is a multicultural success story, we must first define the word.

Now Botheration has perhaps given a clue to the definition of the word by saying that the USA is very multicultural because it has received lots of immigrants. If that is so, then Australia is stuck in a policy of ‘multiculturalism’ no matter what path the government chooses to follow from now on. (If we choose to halt all immigration now, the population will drop alarmingly, but that is a different issue.)

Was Australia a multicultural continent in the centuries before European colonisation? The original inhabitants never received many immigrants from outside the continent, but they did speak dozens (or was it hundreds) of different languages.

Was South Africa multiculturalist in their attempt to manage their waves of immigrants under the system of apartheid?

Horus wrote: "It seems to me that increased numbers (as in, more consumers, entrepreneurs, workers) was the main spur and not ‘diversity’. If all the immigrants mentioned had been from the same culture you may well have had the same or even greater growth."

Perhaps. Let's discover a new continent, feed it immigrants from just one cultural group, wait 500 years and compare.

But the truth is I disagree with you. Japan's an excellent counterpoint. Its monoculture hasn't been able to produce anything like the cultural sphere of influence that the USA has - and yet economically it's almost competitive. The USA reaches right into the heart of the continents that it has drawn it citizenry from - Europe, Africa, Asia and South America.

President Kennedy's point is one made by many anthropologists about multicultural societies. Migrants are, generally, brave, hopeful people. Migrants of different stripes make for a country that's tolerant, elastic and robust.

A walk in Manhatten is a terrific education in the drama and colour and strength that multiculturalism brings. Don't get me wrong, the USA is a flawed beast - a profoundly terrible place as well as a great one. Multiculturalism itself is a flawed beast. But can anyone think of a system that's better? That's more life-affirming and exciting? That brings the world to our children and helps them appreciate what citizenship means and teaches them not to look uncertainty and fear in the face and embrace it? That's fairer?

Fortune favours the brave, and the brave are not only the migrants, they're also the citizens who welcome them and are not afraid.

Dan S de Merengue - yes, a common definition would be helpful. I guess I'm using it to signify a country with migrants from many different cultures that respects those cultures rather than attempts to render them void through assimilation. So Australia, the US and the UK rather than, say, France. Obviously it's also as apposed to mostly monocultural countries like most Asian countries.

Botheration,
Re Cultural influence, I am not sure that Japan is as outclassed as you imply. Japanese toys: Pokemon, Digimon, tamagochi etc, Japanese film: anime, Music formats: Karaoke, Sony, and Panasonic, give Japan punching power with the younger generations, well beyond its weight division

But apart from that, a lot of the cultural variation that many western political thinkers revel in is littler more than window dressing .It may be aesthetically stimulating for some to see characters dancing in the street in 15 different national costumes, or living in little Italy’s or Chinatown’s, but I question its net contribution to the commonweal. And as we are seeing in Aust, pandering to the differing groups has become a growing political past time, very wasting in terms of money & time.

We can have diversity of thinking in the sciences, in industry and education without any of the multicultural baggage we’re currently dragging around – and diversity in the aforementioned fields is where it really adds up

Really? You live in a far Japanesier world than I. I totally agree that Japan punches above its weight, but I think Hollywood outreaches Pokemon. Think about how many hours of US-made TV you watch a year, compared to Japanese TV. How many movies. How many books. I don't know too much about electronics, but Japan has Sony, the US has Microsoft. Even-stevens?

I'm never sure what people who don't like multiculturalism actualy want. French-style assimilationist policies? Or White Australia? Or Indigenous Australia? Where do you want us immigrants to go? My great-grandfather came here from Bath in England, and, actually, if you can get me an English passport, I'll happily return for a while - would like a few years in the old country.

Personally, I think multiculturalism works well. (But then I like a good parade - and I often eat in Chinatown.) Often, first generation immigrants have a tricky time, but by the second generation the new culture has part-assimilated, part-enriched - think the British, Chinese, Southern Europeans, Vietnamese. The same will happen with the Sub-Saharan Africans and the Iraqis. Because of our geographical positioning, we're never going to have a preponderance of one particular group, and it's pretty obvious our Britishy culture is in no danger of dying out. I live in a very diverse, inner-city area and there's a lot of tolerance. It's not perfect, but it's a community.

Boazy, you wrote: "Can anyone imagine that in all those marriages, each individual culture is being clung to? and that both cultures are being passed on to the kids? (who would be quite confused if they did)" I know heaps of people who's parents came from different cultures. (Including one Muslim/Christian family.) I can't think of a single case where anyone I know doesn't revel in and enjoy their diffent cultural heritages.

Isn't it generally Anglo-Saxon types who don't like multiculturalism? I think most ethnic Aussies are pretty at home with it.