> the truth is, large swathes of the United States actually would be “speaking Arabic” (or Chinese or Indian languages)
This is the line in grandparent comment I was referring to. I think it would be same to assume that Chinese and Indian culture — the actual culture, not westernized and modernized "buddhism" and curry — is just as distant from Western culture as Muslim culture.
Muslims make up somewhere between 4% and 12% of all legal immigrants. When you include illegal inflows, falls to between 2% and 9%. I derive these estimates based on country-of-origin data for legal permanent residents, so there's a wide error band, as we don't know exactly how many from a given country are actually of a specific religion.
I'd also note that I focused on Arabic due to current controversies--- but Chinese or Indian languages are of course way more important. These groups are a large and growing share of immigrants. Just didn't seem germane to focus on them.
Regarding German and Gaelic groups today, yes, there are some, but people routinely speaking non-English, European languages other than Spanish are probably a smaller share than in the past wave of immigrants. Don't know for sure though.
Regarding integration: no, Germans and Irish were NOT easier to integrate. That's nonsense. Intra-European animosity was intense and real, far more intense than what modern Americans feel towards Muslims. Suspicion of Catholics puts current suspicion of Islam to shame. The idea that Europeans were easier to integrate is, in my opinion, a hindsight bias.
This is the line in grandparent comment I was referring to. I think it would be same to assume that Chinese and Indian culture — the actual culture, not westernized and modernized "buddhism" and curry — is just as distant from Western culture as Muslim culture.