OK, fine, I'll quote one paragraph:
Let me give a small example of the wrong way of looking at things. It’s not life threatening, but if you don’t understand the philosophy that underpins it, it can become life threatening. In your nation and in mine, many people have acknowledged, and indeed even boasted, that immigration changes our country. For example, in Australia, and to a lesser extent in Canada, there are a lot of people who wish to replace the monarchy with a republic and there are respectable arguments for and against the monarchy. But the dangerous argument is the lazy line pedalled by too many politicians that in an Australia or a Canada of evolving immigration patterns, an immigrant from Moldova or China or Brazil or Saudi Arabia can’t be expected to relate to the Queen, to the existing constitutional system. Now try this line the next time you’re in Saudi Arabia: if you immigrate to Saudi Arabia and say ‘hey man, I just can’t relate to the House of Saud, and what’s with this Wahhabism, can’t we get a couple of sports bars with wet t-shirt nights every Thursday’? The Saudis would have a grand old laugh about it and then behead you. So when we accept that argument, in essence we’re explicitly promoting the principle of reverse assimilation; that immigration imposes not the obligation that the immigrant assimilate to his new land, but that his new land assimilate to him. And thereby lies great peril, not for the Queen, she’ll get by, but for a whole bunch of the rest of us. Multiculturalism makes a nation no more than a holding pen, its whole merely the sum of its parts. And so in the absence of cultural confidence, demography will decide. Or in the superb summation of the American writer James C. Bennett, ‘democracy, immigration multiculturalism … pick any two’.
Now go read! And spread it around.