Crime Terrorist attacks inside Brussels airport and metro

[Maciamo]

That's because the attitude in America is to be American first and foremost, something black and white people take equal pride in. Let's not blame the victim here. Belgians have every right to be Belgian, as do the French. They should take pride in their identity, and there is no room for hyphens, or people who have loyalty to a religion, or some other identity outside of France or Belgium. Nobody would challenge this in China, India, Japan, Iran or elsewhere, just in Europe, where you get called a racist for having loyalty to the heritage of your freaking country. It needs to stop.

That's also the way I see it.

Colonial countries, including the whole American continent, Australia and New Zealand, have completely different attitudes to the whole concept of citizenship, because the majority of the population are immigrants from Europe, Africa or even Asia. But anywhere else in the world citizenship is perceived as something linked with ancestry and ethnicity.

One of the concepts I like about the EU is that is confers a broader EU citizenships to all citizens of member states. This allows to have a two-level concept of citizenship, in which people can see themselves as belonging to their part of Europe (member state, country, region or whatever you call it) AND belonging to a larger country called the European Union. This allows Europeans to set aside their historical differences and see themselves as part of a common society where anyone can move, live and work anywhere else in the EU. This is the foundation idea behind the EU.

However, even EU citizenship would, in my eyes, require at least partial European ancestry, with the added condition of being born in the EU or to at least one parent with EU citizenship. I would set the minimum European ancestry to around 25% (one grand parent) so that Turks, Iranians, upper-caste Indians and Central Asians who have between 10% and 20% of Bronze Age European ancestry do not automatically qualify if they were born in Europe from first generation immigrants.

I'm not going to go into detail about all of this because I really don't believe in heaping criticism on a country in the middle of this kind of crisis, but if the prevailing attitude is that these people can only become "real" Belgians after seven generations in the country, then not only the immigrants are to blame for their alienation. Part of the blame for all of this lies also with the Belgian people and their attitudes. If this was going to be the attitude then these people should never have been allowed to immigrate to Europe.

I proposed 7 generations because practically any European can trace back their ancestry that far. For young people today, 7 generations means ancestors in the early to mid 19th century, during the Industrial Revolution, and after Napoleon imposed civil registries for births, marriages and deaths on over half of Europe. Seven generations of ancestors is also what modern inhabitants of Rome consider necessary for someone to be accepted as a "native Roman" (or so I was told when I was studying in Rome). The idea of seven generations has long had a symbolic value in many cultures.

Seven generations is also long enough for practically any migrant family to have intermarried with locals and absorbed local language and culture (I would hope). So far we can see that many Maghrebi families are still not integrated on any level (social, economic, religious, cultural, linguistic, political, psychological) after three generations, and in some cases even four (their marriage age being much lower than that of average Europeans). So seven generations seems like a reasonable minimum for people like that. Actually we can't know if all of them will be integrated in 3 or 4 generations from now. At the rate things are evolving, and with the ever increasing tensions between Muslims and non-Muslims since the rise of Islamic terrorism in the last 15 years, it is totally conceivable that ghetto Muslims will not integrate any faster than Gypsies have since the Middle Ages. Then there is no hope for them and it would be better for everyone if they just went back to their country of origin while they still have ties with it (for the Gypsies it's too late).

 

[Maciamo]

today they arrive at the border and they apply for asylum, maybe with fake pasports and fake stories, and maybe bad intentions
immigration authorities have to accept their stories if they cannot disprove them and have to motivate if asylum is refused
even if asylum is refused, it is very dificult to sent them back, many turn into illegality
if asylum is granted, they get full citizenship rights and social security from day one, and it is irreversible
there is a big chance there are another bunch of troublemakers among the new immigrants who will cause dificulties over the next decades
we've allready seen it happening at the Köln new years eve

I don't think you can get a green card and full American citizenship by telling fake stories nobody can check?
No, they have to apply from abroad and everything is checked before they can enter America

That is the madness and the hipocrisy of 'Wir schaffen dass' and of the Geneva Convention.

Very good point. Americans are much stricter when it comes to conferring Green Cards and citizenships than we are in Europe. It is a huge mistake to grant citizenship to Third World immigrants and refugees. First they wouldn't qualify in the US because they couldn't pass any citizenship or language test, they don't have stable employment or ties to the local community. But i's not just because they aren't integrated yet. These poor immigrants and refugees come to Europe (and not the USA) because they know that once they get citizenship or permanent residence they will qualify for the very generous social security and unemployment benefits, especially in countries like Belgium and France. The system as it is now is a giant magnet for all the opportunistic, lazy, poor, illiterate and good-for-nothing people in the world. No wonder local people are fed up and governments are crumbling under debts.

The Third World immigrant situation was already bad enough before terrorism. Now it is insufferable. And it really gets on my nerves when Americans (mostly Trump and his supporters) compare the situation in Europe with Mexican immigrants to the US. I would trade all the Mexicans in the US for the Muslims of Europe in the blink of an eye! There is nothing comparable between poor, but hard-working Mexicans with Western values doing all they can to integrate in American society, and lazy opportunistic Maghrebi who come to live on free benefits, don't work, don't integrate, don't share remotely similar values, and come to bomb local people. This is when they are not conducting other criminal activities, considering that 45% for all prisoners in Belgium are Muslim, almost 10x more than there share of the population. In France 60% of people in jail are Muslim. In the prison of Forest in Brussels, 80% of the inmates are Muslim. I think that says a lot about their efforts to integrate after three generations.

 

[bicicleur 2]

One of the concepts I like about the EU is that is confers a broader EU citizenships to all citizens of member states. This allows to have a two-level concept of citizenship, in which people can see themselves as belonging to their part of Europe (member state, country, region or whatever you call it) AND belonging to a larger country called the European Union. This allows Europeans to set aside their historical differences and see themselves as part of a common society where anyone can move, live and work anywhere else in the EU. This is the foundation idea behind the EU.

However, even EU citizenship would, in my eyes, require at least partial European ancestry, with the added condition of being born in the EU or to at least one parent with EU citizenship. I would set the minimum European ancestry to around 25% (one grand parent) so that Turks, Iranians, upper-caste Indians and Central Asians who have between 10% and 20% of Bronze Age European ancestry do not automatically qualify if they were born in Europe from first generation immigrants.

That would be ideal. I believe most Belgians would like to switch their Belgian identity for a European identity.
I think most Europeans would like to do that.
There exists something like a European identity.
And most Europeans realise that their own national identity doesn't mean anything in the world.

But politicians are opposed to that.
They cling to their own power on all levels. If there were a unified Europe, we would need much less politicians.

 

[mr_y82]

^I think this is a sound point...


And to all, I wanted to say thanks for such a diplomatic thought based discussion... An uncommon commodity on this side of the pond... see the end of my post for some links that sum up ¨debate¨ over here.... (well in a couple posts; I will break this up a bit)

Donald Trump has already weighed in, of course, saying he would have had this detainee water boarded.

In terms of Europe, the establishment of an EU wide counter-terrorism organization would seem absolutely essential. The police forces of these smaller countries, in particular, don't seem to have the resources or the expertise, and there has to be a central organization where all the information is gathered.

One other thing I would say is that I think it's a good idea that the media have censored themselves in terms of broadcasting about the things that law enforcement is doing. It seems to escape people that bad guys watch television, and use the information to their benefit.

As to expelling people, and putting it in American terms, it's one thing to expel illegal immigrants or refugees; it's entirely another thing to expel American citizens without a trial and conviction for terrorist activity. That would involve a shredding of the American constitution. I don't think it will ever happen, but if it does, I hope I'm not alive to see it.

I hope we can leave Trump out of it permanently... I tend to agree with your logic...

It's a detail I know, but what possessed Belgian authorities to tell the press that this guy was talking? I'm sure that influenced the cells to push the attacks forward. Honestly, these people need some serious retraining. Or is there another ridiculous law that says information like that has to be released? Also, are bomb sniffing dogs deployed at transportation hubs? If they're not, they should be, and I don't mean just for a few weeks; I mean year round, seven days a week.

Fire-Haired,
Any Republican would be good on this issue, even Kasich, unlike the Democrat candidates; we don't need that clown Trump. What we also don't need is more of the Obama foreign policy, like Kerry's visit to Paris after the bombings...a wreathe of flowers, a hug, and James Taylor singing "You've Got a Friend". Pathetic doesn't begin to describe it. Meanwhile, Hollande's plea to stop batting away bees and go after the hive were ignored by this administration. This is the modern Democrat Party.

Also, nice as these light displays in the European capitols are, what they need to do is focus less on symbolism, forget their childish ethnic and nationalistic disputes, and put together an EU wide plan for immigration, refugees and security. Otherwise, just scrap the whole damn thing. This is a joke.

Oh, and meanwhile the U.S President is watching a baseball game in Cuba and discussing the long term deleterious effects of colonialism, global initiatives against poverty, and other progressive goals with those champions of civil rights, the Castro Brothers.

He is the definition of an empty suit. A Nato ally has been attacked. He should be in the Situation Room in contact with European leaders hammering out a plan.

You couldn't make this up.

All of that said, if you're going to strip people of their citizenship for committing crimes, then it should apply to everyone. You can't penalize people just based on their ethnicity and religion.

Obama may not have the answer, but suggesting any member of our GOP does, gives me pause... I think they do more to perpetuate problems (both foreign and domestically) than to solve them... This goes for both Corporately owned parties... Republicans and Democrats... Our system is broke largely because our electorate is so ignorant and disinterested...

I agree with most of what you said!

Waiting for Obama to give another "They're not real Muslims. They're a tiny minority. We need to let in Syrian refugees" speech. However, when crazy people in America shoot schools, there's something wrong with American society according to Obama.

As arrogant and racist and unprepared people say Trump is, one thing he will do is protect us.

Southern US drivel! People don´t just call Trump those things, he seems to have embraced and embodied those characteristics... Even if he´s not a racist, he´s exploiting people fear, prejudices, biases, etc... for the good of no one (ultimately including himself)...

I won't listen to the media any more today, to avoid hearing the same things 20 more times.

Of course Trump will benefit, because there are so many things that should have been said and done before the attack that never were said and done.
They have presented him an open goal in which he can score.
Trump should never have made it this far as a candidate.
But it is because so many things remained untold.

I agree it is very hard to expell people once they are in. They shouldn't be allowed in that easy. We should be very critical about those coming in, and those who we let in should not get a permit for permanent stay. It should be conditional with a trial period of a couple of years whiole they are monitored. Those who are not integrated and can't support themselves after that trial period should be sent back again.

Have you seen the movie ¨Idiocracy¨ (trailer attached to below post)? It may shed some light on how the US has regressed to the state it´s in... I wish we could figure out a way to help Europe and the World, but we´re generally too stupid to help ourselves!

From my perspective, this isn't just an EU problem or a U.S. problem; it affects every western style democracy, and they have to present a united front. Part of what has become clear to me watching as the chaos around the world has increased during his two terms is that the U.S. has to lead these coalitions. Holland knows that; that's why he came to the U.S. after the terrorist bombings in Paris. Leading from behind hasn't worked.

So, as to what he should have done, in my opinion, he should have come home and gathered his entire national security team together, demanding precise information on how there could have been such a security failure and what part we may have played in it. Then, he should have ordered a total re-examination of our current directives on the gathering of such information both electronically and through human intelligence. This would never happen, of course; this is a President of the United States, the leader of the free world, who goes weeks without getting a briefing from the CIA or the NSA, and who gutted intelligence gathering. Of course he also wouldn't do that because that would be to acknowledge that this is a huge problem, and that indeed the west is at war with radical fundamentalist Muslims...not all Muslims, but those Muslims who espouse this ideology. You can't fight something you won't call by its real name.

There's also a symbolic component to this as well. Yes, I know I just railed against the inadequacy of lighting up buildings. However, people need to be calmed and reassured so that they can think clearly and make good decisions. That's the role of a leader. They have to believe that someone is on top of things, is in charge. They also have to be inspired to do their absolute best...why should all these security people put everything into their work when their Commander in Chief thinks listening to a dictator condescend to a President of the United States and lecture him about democracy is more important? I almost thought he would whip off his shirt to reveal a Che T-shirt. The man is a walking cliche of 60s western Marxism, a true pupil of Marcuse and Ayres.

The next thing he should have done is to start sounding out the leaders of all the European democracies and getting them to understand that they have to work together and with the United States to get a handle on the problem. Maybe that would entail a meeting of all the Defense Ministers and Security and Intelligence Chiefs of these countries. Co-ordinate enhanced intelligence gathering methods, share technology and security procedures to be used at high value targets. I would think it should be clear by now that the U.S. was right and wasn't being paranoid about what could happen. Knock some heads together, even if just figuratively, and get them to stop this nation on nation squabbling. Make it crystal clear that if they don't cut this crap out, the U.S. will leave them to drown in their own mess.

Then, there is the broader attack on ISIS. If ISIS is obliterated as a force, how strong will its appeal be then? Disaffected low level criminals who really have nothing to lose anyway, which seems to be the profile of many of these new converts, might think twice about signing on. Every video showing those monsters crucifying boys who won't convert, or raping women, or beheading people with impunity is a recruitment tool for every sick **** out there, and there's a lot of them in every nation and ethnic group, trust me on that. If Europe, and more importantly the Obama administration, hadn't pulled out of the Middle East, and telegraphed exactly when they were going to do it, to add insult to injury, ISIS could have been stopped before they got off the ground, and Europe would be facing far less of a refugee crisis, a refugee crisis that serves to bring in jihadists to add to the home grown terrorists. There also wouldn't be all these training camps for your own disaffected Muslim youths.

This is not just a defensive problem. You can never totally protect all of an area's soft targets; intelligence services can never get it right all of the time. You have to go after the source.

Maybe that would require making it a NATO mission. If Turkey won't go along with it, kick them out until they have a new leader.

Again, I find myself largely in agreement, but please don´t bastardize Marx´s name by associating him with the likes of any Democrat (save maybe Bernie and a fraction of FDR, lol)... We certainly do need a strong, united coalition... If the US was not such a bully people might be more open to the idea... I agree we destabilized the Middle East... Hussein was not a nice guy, but he was a stabilizing force (and no worse than a lot of leaders we ignore due to no vested economic interest)... Anyway, I think a better plan would have been to never launch the Neoimperialist war in the first place... I guess the US formed late and we missed out on all that good Imperialism... so now we want to make up for lost time, and be like our European Brethren of old! Whilst those Brethren have become much more progressive and don´t deserve to suffer the negative consequences of ill thought out military and political interventions!

 

[mr_y82]

It is indeed ridiculous. All Belgians know that the Belgian police is a joke. By the way, many policemen in Brussels are of Moroccan extraction, so they may not be efficient at catching their fellow Moroccans on purpose.

I confirm that I have never seen sniffing dogs in metro stations or airports in Belgium.

I agree with all this. But what do you think the American president be doing concretely in such a situation ? It's mostly the EU that should get its act together and make in-depth reforms about immigration, refugees and security, as you said. The US could maybe consult to help establish security agencies like the FBI and Homeland Security at the EU level.

Europe traditionally applied the principle of jus sanguinis for nationality, even though politicians have yielded to the pressure of immigrants in countries like the UK, France and Belgium to make it easier for anyone to acquire citizenship after 5 to 10 years of residence in the country.

For me the whole concept of nationality in non-colonial countries does not make much sense without a reference to ancestry. If it were up to me there would be a clear distinction between nationality, which requires continuous ancestry in one country for at least 7 generations at least on one parent's side, and permanent residence, which would confer similar rights to any family who has immigrated to the country without intermarrying (and having children) with locals.

In the case of Muslims living in Europe, if they have acquired the country's citizenship it must have happened only in the last few decades. Since they have no right of jus sanguinis their citizenship should be conditional to good behaviour. Therefore logic dictates that a criminal could be stripped of their acquired citizenship. And that is in fact the law in the UK, France and Belgium, among others.

British Law stipulates that a naturalised citizen could be deprived of their British citizenship if they engaged in conduct “seriously prejudicial” to the UK’s vital interests. That would include terrorism, but also planned terrorist activities, Islamic activism, etc.

French Law foresees five cases in which a naturalised citizen can be deprived of his/her nationality:

1. If he is convicted of an act of crime or offense constituting a breach of fundamental interests of the nation

2. If he is convicted of an act of planned crimes or offenses punishable under Chapter II of Title III of Book IV of the Criminal Code (that is to say as part of an attack on the public administration)

3. If convicted of evading his obligations under the Code of National Service

4. If they committed acts incompatible with the status of French and detrimental to the interests of France to the benefit of a foreign state

5. If he was convicted in France or abroad for an act constituting a crime under French law and that resulted in a sentence of at least five years' imprisonment

That's more than enough to strip most naturalised criminals and suspected terrorists of their citizenship and expel them from the country. I think that the law should apply also for children of naturalised citizens.

Art. 23 of the Belgian citizenship code also specifies that a naturalised citizen can be stripped of their nationality if he/she seriously neglects his duties as Belgian citizens (e.g. terrorism) (the law does mention the example of terrorism).

In conclusion, you may be right that you cannot discriminate based on ethnicity or religion. BUT, you can make a clear distinction between citizens by ancestry and naturalised citizens. Deprivation of citizenship applies to any naturalised citizens conducting criminal activities or any other activities that are seriously prejudicial to the country's interests or incompatible with the country's values. This would include any individual who belongs to an organisation that supports terrorism (even if they haven't committed terrorist acts themselves), plan the overthrow of the government, or try to establish Sharia Law, or professes values that are contrary to Western values. In other words, any radical Muslim should be stripped of their citizenship according to the law as it is now.

It would be easy enough for Western governments to infiltrate radical Islamic organisations in their country, list all the members, gather evidence, then strip them all of their citizenships and expel them back to their country or origin. This is the first and most important step in combatting terrorism.

well said. One thing this tread certainly makes clear is our problems cannot be solved simply!

I agree, ISIS and the like (e.g. Boko Haram of which nobody speaks but who makes more casualties than ISIS) should be attacked in their own home bases.
We need to make a U-turn, for what has been done till now is quite the oposit.
Both US and Europe supported Arab spring and so created an unstable area where ISIS could and still can (in Lybia) grow.
And Turkey and Saudi Arabia are still considered allies. NATO is not an option.

We should stop being naive and rely on partners that are not thrustworthy.
We shouldn't think the west can solve the problems worldwide if there are areas where the western values are not accepted.
For some areas and some instances we need some kind of martial law.

I'm very vague, I'm not an expert, I don't know the solution, I only know we are on the wrong track.

Firstly, you said THRUSTworthy! I laughed!!!
Indeed... We can´t just ¨kinda interfere¨ (stir things up, destabilize, and leave) and expect positive results... We created the opportunity for ISIS to rise, and now it seems we have a responsibility to react... But what are the chances we will do a better job than we have been? lol... well I guess ¨nrl¨, as the kids say... I´d like to believe Noam Chomsky... If we had just left the global status quo alone under Reagan (in the Middle East and Central America), or before... Vietnam was certainly not a bright idea either... maybe our problems today would not be so severe... I can get behind justified humanitarian intervention (if such a thing exists), but US policy has been much more about our own interests at the expense of so many nations and people... Did we not expect this to cause some tension?

That's because the attitude in America is to be American first and foremost, something black and white people take equal pride in. Let's not blame the victim here. Belgians have every right to be Belgian, as do the French. They should take pride in their identity, and there is no room for hyphens, or people who have loyalty to a religion, or some other identity outside of France or Belgium. Nobody would challenge this in China, India, Japan, Iran or elsewhere, just in Europe, where you get called a racist for having loyalty to the heritage of your freaking country. It needs to stop.

I think loyalty to heritage/nation is great so long as it does not preclude our greater identity... Might sound idealistic, but I want to be a global citizen with all who will join me. I know some will not, and I am no pacifist (even if my last name is Amish/Swiss Anabaptist), some will undoubtedly have to be dealt with as the era of global cooperation begins... but long story short guys... If we don´t change our mentality we are doomed as a species regardless, and these attacks are just the tip of the iceberg... I can be proud to live in Appalachia, I can simultaneously be proud of being a North Carolinian, an ¨American,¨ etc... Nothing wrong with that unless it influences me to have unethical attitudes toward other human beings. Let´s take the power back and use it for good.

I'm not going to go into detail about all of this because I really don't believe in heaping criticism on a country in the middle of this kind of crisis, but if the prevailing attitude is that these people can only become "real" Belgians after seven generations in the country, then not only the immigrants are to blame for their alienation. Part of the blame for all of this lies also with the Belgian people and their attitudes. If this was going to be the attitude then these people should never have been allowed to immigrate to Europe.

The attitude is very different here because of decisions made over a hundred years ago by the ruling people of mostly British descent. That's why the Islamist attacks here have been by one or two people radicalized over the internet. We don't have this kind of organized terrorist activity even among the most disadvantaged residents of our black ghettos.

I'm a naturalized American citizen, not from an "Anglo" country, and I've never been treated as a second class citizen because of that. Does anyone think that I would have such admiration for the American system, have taught my children to subscribe to an American identity and ideals if I had been? Maybe it should be a surprise that every man, woman and child in those suburbs isn't a sympathizer and co-conspirator.

The opinion of some experts:

This illuminates further the complexity of these issues... Otherwise we´d all still be on the same page.

 

[mr_y82]

If it is true, does anyone know why? I ask because it's important to know whether it's mainly a question of lack of resources or lack of proper training. The "talking heads" on cable news shows seem to think it's a little of both.

Btw, I hope the Belgian people don't get too down about reports like this.

It absolutely stinks to me of typical Obama administration "cover your ***". Notice that this is coming partly from a Democratic lawmaker, and it was a featured story in "The Daily Beast" in the U.S. They want the world to believe that none of this was their fault, their policies are not to blame; it was these feckless Europeans. It's just like after nearly eight years as President he's still blaming Bush for everything that's gone wrong in the Middle East. What does he expect from a country the size of Belgium? There's more people in the New York metro area.

Where is their honor for God's sake? You kick an ally when he's down? Where is their knowledge of human psychology? Do they really want to demoralize these security people totally just when they need to up their game? Of course, once you realize that it's always and forever about ego gratification and reputation and maintaining power, and not about the country or international security, then it makes perfect sense.

Maleth,
I think part of the answer is indeed that as I've always heard, the French security apparatus is pretty damn good, even if they don't have the kind of resources the U.S. has. From news reports, they foiled a lot of attacks; this one got past them because it was hatched in Brussels, not France.

Could another part of the puzzle be that even though France also has an integration problem, it's not as severe as the one in Belgium and Germany? I'm in France almost every year, often specifically around the Midi, and I don't get the feeling of constant tension between the two groups. I don't know though, someone with experience of all these countries would be better equipped to answer.

Problems in the Middle East certainly have their origins long enough ago that one man in 8 years is not going to fix it... Maybe a lot of people working together and using good sense... but good sense is hardly a threat in the current US political climate... I sent the following to a friend in response to an email... Some related videos at the end of post (Trump is also creating huge revenue for the media... it´s a shame and a sham).

Happy Easter... The Bunny is one of my favorite remnants of European paganism!


I saw a clip... maybe on the daily show... in which Rubio made a good point (pause and be scared)... Pertaining to the free media coverage given Trump ($2 billion worth... more than all other GOPers together), he made the observation that he didn´t get any attention when he talked policy, but as soon as he responded to Trump´s personal attacks, with attacks of his own, the media picked it up posthaste (and primarily to tell us how sad it is that our political process has been reduced to this, which he is right in suggesting the media is perpetuating by covering it, to the exclusion of anything with SUBSTANCE)... He compared the campaign to reality shows... which I don´t think is news to any of us, but it´s a little disconcerting to find common ground with anything GOP these days...


It´s pretty clear the media is helping (intentionally or not) to make a Trump presidency a likely reality... and I certainly can´t get pumped for Hilary... I prefer that barking to her speeches of late... Her voice... it grates on my nerves...


Cheers!

 

[mr_y82]

Very good point. Americans are much stricter when it comes to conferring Green Cards and citizenships than we are in Europe. It is a huge mistake to grant citizenship to Third World immigrants and refugees. First they wouldn't qualify in the US because they couldn't pass any citizenship or language test, they don't have stable employment or ties to the local community. But i's not just because they aren't integrated yet. These poor immigrants and refugees come to Europe (and not the USA) because they know that once they get citizenship or permanent residence they will qualify for the very generous social security and unemployment benefits, especially in countries like Belgium and France. The system as it is now is a giant magnet for all the opportunistic, lazy, poor, illiterate and good-for-nothing people in the world. No wonder local people are fed up and governments are crumbling under debts.

The Third World immigrant situation was already bad enough before terrorism. Now it is insufferable. And it really gets on my nerves when Americans (mostly Trump and his supporters) compare the situation in Europe with Mexican immigrants to the US. I would trade all the Mexicans in the US for the Muslims of Europe in the blink of an eye! There is nothing comparable between poor, but hard-working Mexicans with Western values doing all they can to integrate in American society, and lazy opportunistic Maghrebi who come to live on free benefits, don't work, don't integrate, don't share remotely similar values, and come to bomb local people. This is when they are not conducting other criminal activities, considering that 45% for all prisoners in Belgium are Muslim, almost 10x more than there share of the population. In France 60% of people in jail are Muslim. In the prison of Forest in Brussels, 80% of the inmates are Muslim. I think that says a lot about their efforts to integrate after three generations.

But I thought they were all rapists and murderers... All kidding aside, I would compare our hard working Mexican Americans (and other Latinos, who are more closely related to the aboriginal people of this territory anyway, before it was rudely take away by a bunch of guys with metal) more to the Turks who have been living and working in Germany for decades now... They are not a threat to our society and I am also sick of the nonsense!

That's also the way I see it.

Colonial countries, including the whole American continent, Australia and New Zealand, have completely different attitudes to the whole concept of citizenship, because the majority of the population are immigrants from Europe, Africa or even Asia. But anywhere else in the world citizenship is perceived as something linked with ancestry and ethnicity.

One of the concepts I like about the EU is that is confers a broader EU citizenships to all citizens of member states. This allows to have a two-level concept of citizenship, in which people can see themselves as belonging to their part of Europe (member state, country, region or whatever you call it) AND belonging to a larger country called the European Union. This allows Europeans to set aside their historical differences and see themselves as part of a common society where anyone can move, live and work anywhere else in the EU. This is the foundation idea behind the EU.

However, even EU citizenship would, in my eyes, require at least partial European ancestry, with the added condition of being born in the EU or to at least one parent with EU citizenship. I would set the minimum European ancestry to around 25% (one grand parent) so that Turks, Iranians, upper-caste Indians and Central Asians who have between 10% and 20% of Bronze Age European ancestry do not automatically qualify if they were born in Europe from first generation immigrants.

I proposed 7 generations because practically any European can trace back their ancestry that far. For young people today, 7 generations means ancestors in the early to mid 19th century, during the Industrial Revolution, and after Napoleon imposed civil registries for births, marriages and deaths on over half of Europe. Seven generations of ancestors is also what modern inhabitants of Rome consider necessary for someone to be accepted as a "native Roman" (or so I was told when I was studying in Rome). The idea of seven generations has long had a symbolic value in many cultures.

Seven generations is also long enough for practically any migrant family to have intermarried with locals and absorbed local language and culture (I would hope). So far we can see that many Maghrebi families are still not integrated on any level (social, economic, religious, cultural, linguistic, political, psychological) after three generations, and in some cases even four (their marriage age being much lower than that of average Europeans). So seven generations seems like a reasonable minimum for people like that. Actually we can't know if all of them will be integrated in 3 or 4 generations from now. At the rate things are evolving, and with the ever increasing tensions between Muslims and non-Muslims since the rise of Islamic terrorism in the last 15 years, it is totally conceivable that ghetto Muslims will not integrate any faster than Gypsies have since the Middle Ages. Then there is no hope for them and it would be better for everyone if they just went back to their country of origin while they still have ties with it (for the Gypsies it's too late).

I can see the validity of some of this, but also understand how it could make some uneasy... Again these issues are so complex and so many innocent good people can be affected either way (by harsh policies or unchecked terrorism)... I really appreciate the mood of the discussion here. Maybe I am used to interacting with ¨Americans¨ and expect any disagreement to descend into a riot!

Prost!

I've said it many times, those Maghrebis should never have been allowed.

And I blaim the Walloon socialists for that, who thaught they were importing a whole new voting public for themselves.

And it is true, America can absorb those North African immigrants because they can diffuse them over a large territory and they don't have these strong links with their home country any more.
But also America is much more selective on who they let in. They don't arrive en masse in small rubber boats on the remote American shores.

And subscribing this quote from Gilles Kepel, you might as well subscribe Trumps ideas. Both have the same validity.

And for 9/11 it may be commited by different people, the ideology that make people blow themselves up to make as many casualties as possible is the same in both cases.

Geography certainly does make a difference!

All this talk about terrorists coming into Europe in the last couple of years, and discussions about green cards etc. are not relevant to my argument, because it ignores the fact that many of these jihadis in Euroope are second and third generation, born and raised in Europe, and some are also citizens. There are also obviously native born people who are providing aid for would be terrorists. Pretending that this isn't the case, and that many Europeans have never made any secret of their antipathy and their disinclination to accept these people as full citizens is dishonest. The Muslims are not the only ones to blame for their alienation.

As both the Obama administration and academics have pointed out,

"Unlike their U.S. counterparts, most Muslim newcomers to western Europe started arriving only after World War II, crowding into small, culturally homogenous nations. Their influx was a new phenomenon for many host states and often unwelcome. Meanwhile, North African immigrants retained powerful attachments to their native cultures. So unlike American Muslims, who are geographically diffuse, ethnically fragmented, and generally well off, Europe's Muslims gather in bleak enclaves with their compatriots.

The footprint of Muslim immigrants in Europe is already more visible than that of the Hispanic population in the United States. Unlike the jumble of nationalities that make up the American Latino community, the Muslims of western Europe are likely to be distinct, cohesive, and bitter. In Europe, host countries that never learned to integrate newcomers collide with immigrants exceptionally retentive of their ways, producing a variant of what the French scholar Olivier Roy calls "globalized Islam": militant Islamic resentment at Western dominance, anti-imperialism exalted by revivalism.

As the French academic Gilles Kepel acknowledges, "neither the blood spilled by Muslims from North Africa fighting in French uniforms during both world wars nor the sweat of migrant laborers, living under deplorable living conditions, who rebuilt France (and Europe) for a pittance after 1945, has made their children ... full fellow citizens."

As for 9/11, I assure you that I don't need a foreigner to remind me of it; I went to the funerals of a dozen friends who died on that day. Not one of the jihadis responsible for it was an American. Yes, we've had some isolated incidences by a few people who've spent a lot of time here, but that's exactly what they've been, isolated. We have no enclaves that are breeding grounds for terrorism and also no go zones. We have no third generation jihadis. Generally, the Muslim-American community is quite different from the one in Europe, partly perhaps because different types of people came, but partly also because they've been treated differently. Those are the facts, whether it's convenient or not.

@Aaron,
I'm not telling any country how to conduct its immigration and labor policy. I'm a firm believer in only legal, controlled immigration. Neither am I telling them how they should define themselves. However, I'll repeat; if there was never any intention to integrate these people as full citizens with equal rights, they shouldn't have been brought into the country. To think that doing less than that wouldn't eventually result in resentment and a lack of commitment to the larger society and its culture shows a stunning lack of reason and no understanding whatsoever, imo, of either personal or group psychology. You either co-opt them or they're going to be a festering enemy colony in your own country. The leaders of the United States, Canada, and Australia understood that. The Europeans didn't.

Now, as the comments seem to be veering away from reasoned discussion and into emotional responses, I'm out of this discussion.

More good points... A sad proportion of Americans don´t or can´t differentiate between Central American immigrants... Your point still stands though, there´s not the same kind of cohesion and bitterness... I appreciate all of your input on this thread. Thanks for sharing and being diplomatic!



The promised videos... Surely none of the well spoken individuals in this thread think either of these two are the answer...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMZqS7q7voY



http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/hillary-ad-mocks-trump/2016/03/17/id/719619/



Soon this will be us!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGUNPMPrxvA

 

[LeBrok]

I proposed 7 generations because practically any European can trace back their ancestry that far. For young people today, 7 generations means ancestors in the early to mid 19th century, during the Industrial Revolution, and after Napoleon imposed civil registries for births, marriages and deaths on over half of Europe. Seven generations of ancestors is also what modern inhabitants of Rome consider necessary for someone to be accepted as a "native Roman" (or so I was told when I was studying in Rome). The idea of seven generations has long had a symbolic value in many cultures.

7 must be a lucky number. It won't work in Eastern Europe though, where records were destroyed in many recent wars, WW1 and 2, Bolshevik Revolution, uprisings , domestic wars, you name it, plus many fires of wooden churches where most certificates were kept, etc. History of last 200 years were not kind for Eastern Europe.

Seven generations is also long enough for practically any migrant family to have intermarried with locals and absorbed local language and culture (I would hope). So far we can see that many Maghrebi families are still not integrated on any level (social, economic, religious, cultural, linguistic, political, psychological) after three generations, and in some cases even four (their marriage age being much lower than that of average Europeans). So seven generations seems like a reasonable minimum for people like that. Actually we can't know if all of them will be integrated in 3 or 4 generations from now. At the rate things are evolving, and with the ever increasing tensions between Muslims and non-Muslims since the rise of Islamic terrorism in the last 15 years, it is totally conceivable that ghetto Muslims will not integrate any faster than Gypsies have since the Middle Ages. Then there is no hope for them and it would be better for everyone if they just went back to their country of origin while they still have ties with it (for the Gypsies it's too late).

There are always few weird cases to throw off a perfect plan. Are Gypsies Europeans? Even though they didn't intermarry with locals, or got assimilated much? Are Jews in Israel, whose parents or grandparents lived in Europe, able to get EU citizenship? What about Europeans who de-assimilated themselves, became buddhists with all their traditions and values, or became Islamic Terrorists. Where are they going to live if their EU citizenship is revoked? No other country will accept them. Perhaps Antarctica? Antarctica becomes new Australia for modern convicts.

What does it mean to assimilate? Apart from language and subscribing to democratic values, what about religion, clothing, music, dancing, food, alcohol, calendar, holidays, symbols, jewelry, traditions, etc. I'm curious if there is a scale, for example in Germany which is strong on assimilation, against which assimilation could be measured?
For me most important are western values of freedom, equality, tolerance and democracy, and of course language for communication. If an immigrant doesn't subscribe to them, is out. On other hand half of Europeans wouldn't pass the criteria.
It almost impossible to devise anything acceptable in this regard to pass through EU legislation and implement it. Europe is too diverse in its borders to have one solid measure for integration and assimilation.

 

[LeBrok]

^I think this is a sound point...


And to all, I wanted to say thanks for such a diplomatic thought based discussion... An uncommon commodity on this side of the pond...

We are trying to keep it civilized here. Not always works, but we don't spare the effort.

Obama may not have the answer, but suggesting any member of our GOP does, gives me pause... I think they do more to perpetuate problems (both foreign and domestically) than to solve them... This goes for both Corporately owned parties... Republicans and Democrats...

It is hard to say if Obama's philosophy, either on domestic or foreign arena, is the right one. Only future will tell. However, I appreciate his willingness to try something new. For example, if decades of hardline sanctions can't keep Iran from atom bomb, let's try engagment, negotiations and new deals. Perhaps a promise of a bigger carrot will have greater value for Iranian leaders than owning nuclear weapon. If decades of sanctions couldn't make a dent in Cuba's terrible conduct, let's try humain face and seduction of American goods. It might work it might not, but at least let's try.
Actually there are great examples of friendly engagement with enemy bringing positive results. When Reagan opened to Gorbachev communist block dissolved few years later. When China opened to US and vice versa, we have 500 million middle class buying western goods and enjoying more freedoms, in spite of communist party still in power and I'm sure its days are numbered.

Our system is broke largely because our electorate is so ignorant and disinterested...

Whole democratic world is in the same pickle, I suppose. What would be the way to improve on Democracy, so we always have the smartest and most honest politicians of us all.

Southern US drivel! People don´t just call Trump those things, he seems to have embraced and embodied those characteristics... Even if he´s not a racist, he´s exploiting people fear, prejudices, biases, etc... for the good of no one (ultimately including himself)...

I completely agree, he plays his electorate like a fiddle.

Hussein was not a nice guy, but he was a stabilizing force (and no worse than a lot of leaders we ignore due to no vested economic interest)... Anyway, I think a better plan would have been to never launch the Neoimperialist war in the first place...

Sooner or later Hussein would be gone and Iraq disintegrated in 3 parts. US only accelerated the process. Keeping a bloody dictator indefinitely in power it is not a viable solution, neither for Iraqis nor for the world. Change needed to happen.

 

[Maciamo]

7 must be a lucky number. It won't work in Eastern Europe though, where records were destroyed in many recent wars, WW1 and 2, Bolshevik Revolution, uprisings , domestic wars, you name it, plus many fires of wooden churches where most certificates were kept, etc. History of last 200 years were not kind for Eastern Europe.

Hence the alternative of DNA tests. I wasn't clear enough, but there are two possibilities for citizenship:

1) Prove that the family has been in the country for 7 generations

2) Have at least 25% of European DNA for EU citizenship + being born in Europe (otherwise most North and South Americans and Australians would qualify too).

There are always few weird cases to throw off a perfect plan. Are Gypsies Europeans? Even though they didn't intermarry with locals, or got assimilated much? Are Jews in Israel, whose parents or grandparents lived in Europe, able to get EU citizenship?

Both Gypsies and Jews did mix to some extent with Europeans. Ashkenazi Jews have the highest percentage of European ancestry. Using Eurogenes K=15 they have 32% of North Sea; Atlantic, Baltic, and Eastern Euro + nearly 15% of West Mediterranean. So they are almost half European, and almost as European as South Italians and Greeks, and considerably more than Cypriots (who have 14% + 16% using the same admixtures). I don't have the admixture data for the Gypsies, but I expect at least 20% of European ancestry.

What about Europeans who de-assimilated themselves, became buddhists with all their traditions and values, or became Islamic Terrorists. Where are they going to live if their EU citizenship is revoked? No other country will accept them. Perhaps Antarctica? Antarctica becomes new Australia for modern convicts.

I don't see how Buddhist values clash with modern Western ones. If anything they might be more compatible than Christian values from an Atheist point of view (Buddhism being an Atheist religion, so actually more a philosophy or lifestyle than an actual religion). Nowadays about half of people in northern and central Europe are Agnostics or Atheists (the main exceptions being Ireland and Poland), and the percentage increases every year.

If an ethnic European converts to Islam and becomes a terrorist, he should be executed, like all terrorists. I have always supported death penalty for terrorists, serial killers and war criminals (but not in other cases). So ethnicity and citizenship are irrelevant for terrorists. If such a person were simply to join a radical Islamist group, then they should be imprisoned as you can't send them back to their home country. Anyway such cases are extremely rare and they won't affect much prison population.

What does it mean to assimilate? Apart from language and subscribing to democratic values, what about religion, clothing, music, dancing, food, alcohol, calendar, holidays, symbols, jewelry, traditions, etc. I'm curious if there is a scale, for example in Germany which is strong on assimilation, against which assimilation could be measured?

Assimilate means mostly:

- Learning the local language with the aim of speaking it like a native speaker. This may not be possible for most adult immigrants, but their children, especially if born and raised in the new host country, should have no difficulty. If the children and grandchildren or immigrants still do not speak the local language properly it means that they have little contact with the local community, do not go to compulsory school, do not socialise with locals, etc.

- Subscribing to democratic values and respecting the freedoms and rights defined by the constitution (or other relevant laws).

- Understand the country's political system

- Being economically active as an adult

- Do not engage in criminal activities

Other things you mention like clothing, music, dancing, food, alcohol, jewellery and traditions are less important, although they play a part in integration.

Integration is a gradual process. It's not black or white. People are more or less integrated, for example on a scale from 0 to 10. Each small thing you mention contribute to the level of integration. It's not because you always listen to your ancestral country's music that you aren't integrated, if in every other respect you behave like a local citizen.

When I say that someone is not integrated, I mean that they have adopted less than 50% (or often less than 30%) of the local ways and customs. The poorly integrated Moroccans of Molenbeek speak Arabic (or French with a strong Arabic accent and grammar as they speak in Morocco), eat Moroccan food, listen to Arabic music, follow the rules of Islam (even when it's illegal in Belgium, like sacrificing sheep in their bathtub) and follow the Moroccan traditions and holidays, and none of the Belgian ones. If in addition they don't socialise or intermarry with Belgians, don't have jobs, don't pay taxes and engage in criminal activities to survive, then their integration level is close to 0. And unfortunately it is the case of many of them.

A religion like Islam acts as a strong deterrent against integration because it is a religion that aims to dictate how everything in a Muslim's life should be done. That is why Islam is so popular in poor countries with weak or selfish governments that do not care about their citizens. Islam takes over the role of the government in these countries. This is also why Muslims (especially if they aren't very educated or intellectually flexible) cannot or do not want to integrate in Western countries.

Modern Western countries value a certain amount of freedom and cultural diversity, as long as they do not go against the fundamental values of democracy. The problem of religion, and particularly of dogmatic religions like Islam, Christianity and Judaism, is that they cannot adapt to modern values and lifestyle. I would consider that religious fundamentalists and extremists can never properly integrate in the EU, whether they are Muslim or Christian.

For me most important are western values of freedom, equality, tolerance and democracy, and of course language for communication. If an immigrant doesn't subscribe to them, is out. On other hand half of Europeans wouldn't pass the criteria.

He is out ? I only proposed to expel radical Muslims promoting Jihad and the violent overthrow of Western society. How many ethnic Europeans do you know who would adhere to such values ?

Note that I have nothing against ethnic Arabs who aren't particularly religious (or downright Atheistic) and lead a peaceful life in Europe. Regarding food, I also eat falafel, hummus and couscous from time to time, and much more often curry, which could be seen as a partly Muslim dish too (Pakistan, Bangladesh + parts of India are all Muslim). Turkey and Indonesia are good examples of Muslim countries where I didn't feel uncomfortable when I visited them because they are relatively secular, democratic and tolerant (especially when compared to places like Saudi Arabia).

It almost impossible to devise anything acceptable in this regard to pass through EU legislation and implement it. Europe is too diverse in its borders to have one solid measure for integration and assimilation.

I strongly disagree. I have always been in favour of cultural diversity and tolerance (N.B.: my wife isn't European), but only as long as it respects fundamental democratic values. Islamists want to impose their Sharia Law and their religion on Westerners and kill those who resist (just as the IS is doing in Syria now). This is a complete breach of democratic values. How can you say that it is impossible to pass EU-wide laws against that ? It is already illegal. It's just that governments are not enforcing enough the law and expelling foreigners who hold such extremist beliefs.

 

[bicicleur 2]

What does it mean to assimilate? Apart from language and subscribing to democratic values, what about religion, clothing, music, dancing, food, alcohol, calendar, holidays, symbols, jewelry, traditions, etc. I'm curious if there is a scale, for example in Germany which is strong on assimilation, against which assimilation could be measured?
For me most important are western values of freedom, equality, tolerance and democracy, and of course language for communication. If an immigrant doesn't subscribe to them, is out. On other hand half of Europeans wouldn't pass the criteria.
It almost impossible to devise anything acceptable in this regard to pass through EU legislation and implement it. Europe is too diverse in its borders to have one solid measure for integration and assimilation.

half of the Europeans wouldn't subscribe these values?
where did you get that?
do you have info to support that or are you just asuming that? that would make you a racist, Lebrok
I think you have a totally wrong idea of Europeans in general

it is like Europeans would listen to Trump and believe every American thinks like Trump

yes, Europe is diverse, but I believe something like European identity exists, it is politicians that don't want to give up national/regional identities in fear of losing their power bases.
If Europe were one we would need a lot less administrators, but also a lot of politicians would becom jobless
I have to admit I'm pessimistic about that, but it is not because of what is in the European peoples mind

 

[Carlos]

My sincere condolences to all the families of the victims of the terrorist attacks of Brussels. My mother has been crying all day.

 

[mr_y82]

Yes, this^ first and foremost. My heart aches every time this happens... And for innocent civilians who have been slain otherwise in recent years.

half of the Europeans wouldn't subscribe these values?
where did you get that?
do you have info to support that or are you just asuming that? that would make you a racist, Lebrok
I think you have a totally wrong idea of Europeans in general

it is like Europeans would listen to Trump and believe every American thinks like Trump

yes, Europe is diverse, but I believe something like European identity exists, it is politicians that don't want to give up national/regional identities in fear of losing their power bases.
If Europe were one we would need a lot less administrators, but also a lot of politicians would becom jobless
I have to admit I'm pessimistic about that, but it is not because of what is in the European peoples mind

you guys are just further clarifying the complexity of the issue... the balance between liberty and security, the effort to keep people safe while trying not to infringe on rights unduly... It is a tricky business... Trump studied a lot of Hitler and seems to model his public appearance style after Mussolini, so we here in the US especially need to make sure we don´t slip into the same kind of (albeit more subtle) traps of Germans before WWII... It´s a potentially dangerous and slippery slope...

We are trying to keep it civilized here. Not always works, but we don't spare the effort.[/COLOR][/FONT]


It is hard to say if Obama's [/COLOR]philosophy, either on domestic or foreign arena, is the right one. Only future will tell. However, I appreciate his willingness to try something new. For example, if decades of hardline sanctions can't keep Iran from atom bomb, let's try engagment, negotiations and new deals. Perhaps a promise of a bigger carrot will have greater value for Iranian leaders than owning nuclear weapon. If decades of sanctions couldn't make a dent in Cuba's terrible conduct, let's try humain face and seduction of American goods. It might work it might not, but at least let's try.
Actually there are great examples of friendly engagement with enemy bringing positive results. When Reagan opened to Gorbachev communist block dissolved few years later. When China opened to US and vice versa, we have 500 million middle class buying western goods and enjoying more freedoms, in spite of communist party still in power and I'm sure its days are numbered.

Whole democratic world is in the same pickle, I suppose. What would be the way to improve on Democracy, so we always have the smartest and most honest politicians of us all.

I completely agree, he plays his electorate like a fiddle.


Sooner or later Hussein would be gone and Iraq disintegrated in 3 parts. US only accelerated the process. Keeping a bloody dictator indefinitely in power it is not a viable solution, neither for Iraqis nor for the world. Change needed to happen.

Civil is good and much more productive... I agree with you we need to use our mouths, not our bombs, to figure out how to get along as a species... What a novel idea! I can grant Reagan a little credit for Glasnost, but it´s overshadowed by his interventions in the middle east and central american. Obama is, in my opinion, a much better president than he gets credit for in the South (and maybe elsewhere), but I still see him as an establishment candidate who stands for lobbies and corporate interests (even if he says otherwise)... When <5% control 95%+ of the wealth it´s hard to prevent them from controlling the entire process! We didn´t learn a lot from the Gilded Age!

I agree Hussein was a problem, but meanwhile female circumcision was still occurring in Sudan, there were a variety of warlords tearing Africa apart, and there was still plenty of corruption in the Middle East and elsewhere... Here´s my problem... First we were there for WMDs... Didn´t pan out so we decided it was out job to bring democracy to the Iraqi people... What a joke! In my mind (and I am not the origin of such thinking), revolution has to start in the hearts and minds of the people revolting, not some imperialist country thousands of miles away... Imagine if France had a vested interest in naval stores, or tobacco, or whatever, and they wanted to control that economy... So, they invade the continental US and then attempt to force us to fight, with them, against the Brits... I am pretty sure we would have been very suspicious, and probably turned our guns on the French, before sorting out of differences with the Brits... Franklin went to France, and appealed for support in our effort, because we had a Podunk army and our navy consisted of some guys floating around on driftwood (yes, I am exaggerating... a bit). The French graciously agreed to help us and here we are today, free to elect one of the dumbest individuals to ever strive for the US presidency... and to make fun of our French allies (¨freedom fries¨ *shudder*)... Good for us! lol...

Anyway, had an Iraqi independence movement appealed to us for help fighting off a brutal dictator, I may have enlisted myself! I just don´t think that we stood a chance of success because of the nature of our entry into the war and our Imperialist past in the region, dating to well before the first Gulf War... I might just be confused and naive though!

Cheers LeBrock!

Hence the alternative of DNA tests. I wasn't clear enough, but there are two possibilities for citizenship:

1) Prove that the family has been in the country for 7 generations

2) Have at least 25% of European DNA for EU citizenship + being born in Europe (otherwise most North and South Americans and Australians would qualify too).




Both Gypsies and Jews did mix to some extent with Europeans. Ashkenazi Jews have the highest percentage of European ancestry. Using Eurogenes K=15 they have 32% of North Sea; Atlantic, Baltic, and Eastern Euro + nearly 15% of West Mediterranean. So they are almost half European, and almost as European as South Italians and Greeks, and considerably more than Cypriots (who have 14% + 16% using the same admixtures). I don't have the admixture data for the Gypsies, but I expect at least 20% of European ancestry.



I don't see how Buddhist values clash with modern Western ones. If anything they might be more compatible than Christian values from an Atheist point of view (Buddhism being an Atheist religion, so actually more a philosophy or lifestyle than an actual religion). Nowadays about half of people in northern and central Europe are Agnostics or Atheists (the main exceptions being Ireland and Poland), and the percentage increases every year.

If an ethnic European converts to Islam and becomes a terrorist, he should be executed, like all terrorists. I have always supported death penalty for terrorists, serial killers and war criminals (but not in other cases). So ethnicity and citizenship are irrelevant for terrorists. If such a person were simply to join a radical Islamist group, then they should be imprisoned as you can't send them back to their home country. Anyway such cases are extremely rare and they won't affect much prison population.




Assimilate means mostly:

- Learning the local language with the aim of speaking it like a native speaker. This may not be possible for most adult immigrants, but their children, especially if born and raised in the new host country, should have no difficulty. If the children and grandchildren or immigrants still do not speak the local language properly it means that they have little contact with the local community, do not go to compulsory school, do not socialise with locals, etc.

- Subscribing to democratic values and respecting the freedoms and rights defined by the constitution (or other relevant laws).

- Understand the country's political system

- Being economically active as an adult

- Do not engage in criminal activities

Other things you mention like clothing, music, dancing, food, alcohol, jewellery and traditions are less important, although they play a part in integration.

Integration is a gradual process. It's not black or white. People are more or less integrated, for example on a scale from 0 to 10. Each small thing you mention contribute to the level of integration. It's not because you always listen to your ancestral country's music that you aren't integrated, if in every other respect you behave like a local citizen.

When I say that someone is not integrated, I mean that they have adopted less than 50% (or often less than 30%) of the local ways and customs. The poorly integrated Moroccans of Molenbeek speak Arabic (or French with a strong Arabic accent and grammar as they speak in Morocco), eat Moroccan food, listen to Arabic music, follow the rules of Islam (even when it's illegal in Belgium, like sacrificing sheep in their bathtub) and follow the Moroccan traditions and holidays, and none of the Belgian ones. If in addition they don't socialise or intermarry with Belgians, don't have jobs, don't pay taxes and engage in criminal activities to survive, then their integration level is close to 0. And unfortunately it is the case of many of them.

A religion like Islam acts as a strong deterrent against integration because it is a religion that aims to dictate how everything in a Muslim's life should be done. That is why Islam is so popular in poor countries with weak or selfish governments that do not care about their citizens. Islam takes over the role of the government in these countries. This is also why Muslims (especially if they aren't very educated or intellectually flexible) cannot or do not want to integrate in Western countries.

Modern Western countries value a certain amount of freedom and cultural diversity, as long as they do not go against the fundamental values of democracy. The problem of religion, and particularly of dogmatic religions like Islam, Christianity and Judaism, is that they cannot adapt to modern values and lifestyle. I would consider that religious fundamentalists and extremists can never properly integrate in the EU, whether they are Muslim or Christian.

He is out ? I only proposed to expel radical Muslims promoting Jihad and the violent overthrow of Western society. How many ethnic Europeans do you know who would adhere to such values ?

Note that I have nothing against ethnic Arabs who aren't particularly religious (or downright Atheistic) and lead a peaceful life in Europe. Regarding food, I also eat falafel, hummus and couscous from time to time, and much more often curry, which could be seen as a partly Muslim dish too (Pakistan, Bangladesh + parts of India are all Muslim). Turkey and Indonesia are good examples of Muslim countries where I didn't feel uncomfortable when I visited them because they are relatively secular, democratic and tolerant (especially when compared to places like Saudi Arabia).

I strongly disagree. I have always been in favour of cultural diversity and tolerance (N.B.: my wife isn't European), but only as long as it respects fundamental democratic values. Islamists want to impose their Sharia Law and their religion on Westerners and kill those who resist (just as the IS is doing in Syria now). This is a complete breach of democratic values. How can you say that it is impossible to pass EU-wide laws against that ? It is already illegal. It's just that governments are not enforcing enough the law and expelling foreigners who hold such extremist beliefs.

Totally out of unrelated curiosity, where is your wife from? Maciamo, I think Islam can evolve and become generally less fundamentalist. I don´t think it´s unsalvageable... I have a great deal of respect for Muslims I have met here in the US and those whom I have gotten to know are kind-hearted people, who embody some of the universal ideals their doctrine shares with other religions, specifically respect for others and love rather than hate... The Bible can be used for similarly radical purposes/ideologies (and is here in the US); I have never done an in depth study of the Quran or Bible (beyond exposure due to being an ex-catholic... I am not a Zennonite, lol... it´s not really a thing, but it sounds cool... ¨Buddhist¨+ Amish ancestry), but from what I have read I don´t think the Quran is significantly more radical than the Bible (esp. the Old Testament)... Am I wrong? I think Islam can, and for many many people around the world, has transcended the need to be a homogeneous forcec and destroy the separation of church and state... Maybe I am too much of an optimist or idealist in this regard, but sitting here in a rural town in the safety of the US might make that easier than for you, who have just suffered another tragic attack and are reeling with the effects of that reality.

Cheers Maciamo!

 

[Carlos]

Killer in Spain to cook in Belgium.

Belgium refuses to extradite the alleged ETA member Nativity ...
http://www.lavanguardia.com/.../belgica-niega-extraditar-presunta-etarra-nativi...

Jauregui Espina, Spanish escape from justice since 1979 and detained in Belgium this October, has been released for "immediate" way
http://www.abc.es/espana/20131120/abci-extradicion-etarra-201311201801.html

A Belgian court has denied the extradition of ETA Ventura Tomé Quiroga, a 17-year sentence pending in Spain. ... The terrorist is pending a sentence of 17 years in prison for placing explosives.
http://www.elperiodico.com/.../belgica-niega-extradicion-del-etarra-tome-quiro...

Belgium refuses to send an ETA member to Spain for alleged risk of torture and leave it free
The Spanish Foreign Ministry has moved its "deep concern" that no protest despite the insult received, the Belgian Government and the European Commission by the Ghent court decision denying the extradition to Spain of ETA
http://xyzediciones.com/belgica-se-...e-alegan-riesgo-de-torturas-y-la-dejan-libre/

BELGIAN PARADISE OF ALLEGED ETA member
Jauregui remained fled more than 30 years, until he was found and arrested in Belgium. However, it not is judged on charges of murder and belonging to a terrorist organization imposed on it due to an unpublished decision of Justice of Belgium, which has refused to extradite to Spain.

I hope that does not happen again such disunity, barbarity and injustice in Europe. In Spain we have experience with the cruel and savage terrorism E.T.A. and after 11M with those beasts that threaten our world and way of life.

 

[Maleth]

Y The Bible can be used for similarly radical purposes/ideologies (and is here in the US); I have never done an in depth study of the Quran or Bible (beyond exposure due to being an ex-catholic... I am not a Zennonite, lol... it´s not really a thing, but it sounds cool... ¨Buddhist¨+ Amish ancestry), but from what I have read I don´t think the Quran is significantly more radical than the Bible (esp. the Old Testament)... Am I wrong?

There are some fundamental differences and one can interpret basically anything the way they want to to any direction they would like it to go. They all claim Abraham as the founder. Most things written in the Quran all have a link to the The Jewish Torah (Old testament found in the bible) One can find in the three literature's a kind of angry god that is in a constant battle with the satan (the one who he himself created but betrayed him) so the ideology is that god is good, he had to chose some people to represent him and the rest (who were satans servants unless they converted) were continuous ordered to be slaughtered and kill non believers with this angry god giving a helping hand (The flood story, sodom and gomorah, the misfortunes of the Egyptians pharaohs to support Moses..... so and and so forth)

These are stories to be found in all three religions. The main difference is that some just over 2000 years ago there was a new movement called the Jesus movement that believe that Jesus was sent by his father (god) to perfect the atrocities that were committed in the name of religion. He was very anti establishment saying things like eye for an eye tooth for a tooth happens no more...its turn your cheek kind of thing. He abolished stoning (story of Maria Magdelene) we are all sinners so who are we to stone?, he also promoted forgiving (how much shall we forgive asked a disciple, he said 7 for seven for seven times). There are many more anti establishment quotes and comments, and a good chunk of the Gospel is slamming the pharisees (who could be equivalent to book keepers and lived by the book, that ordered stoning and things of the sort). So while Christians like to say that Jesus perfected things, in reality he clearly challenged the old establishment.....and that was ultimately the reason why he was executed which happens to be celebrated today.

Now some 600 years after this new movement of challenging the establishment a new person Mohamed came along and he describes both Christians and Jews (because they were not practicing the mosaic law word to word) as lost people. Now here came the revival of the Mosaic law especially Deuteronomy that allows all these atrocities to happen in the name of god. So stoning and killing people because of sin (satan) amoungst so many other things like the allowance to marry four wives (mosaic law) so on and so forth. These teachings were revived and became law.

Today most Christian countries have separated the law of Religion and that of the state, however there are many Muslim countries that are still run by religions law (in this case the Muslim one). The Sharia law differs greatly from one country to the other and some have very soft approaches towards it while others are radical.

Now having said all this logical and realistic people try to find softer interpretations not to promote unnecessary violence and persecution. The irony with the Christian religion is that while its founder had preached so much tolerance and peace and charity, example the popes during the middle ages had to quote the old testament to justify the crusades, that killing in the name of god is ok and also quoted some verses from the Gospel to persecute Jews (for example)

This is very simply stated, as its much more complicated then this. One can go into much more detail into what the literature say and how it worked on the Psyche of the people in different regions of the world and how it all evolved by time and how it all was woven with changing times especially with growing knowledge and Science.

 

[mr_y82]

Thanks Maleth. I (obviously) knew about the Abrahamic origin of the 3 faiths, and I am aware that Islam has (like all other major religions) a form of the ¨Golden Rule¨ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule#Islam)

¨Aheb li akheek ma tuhibu li nafsik. This can be translated as "Wish for your brother, what you wish for yourself" or "Love your brother as you love yourself".¨

¨"...and you should forgive And overlook: Do you not like God to forgive you? And Allah is The Merciful Forgiving."
— Quran (Surah 24, "The Light", v. 22)¨

etc....

---------------


I have spent a great deal of time studying human consciousness, and the evolution of consciousness throughout history. In my opinion (and again I am not the origin of the idea, Ken Wilber is the transpersonal psychologist I borrowed this from) the shift from the Old Testament power god (vengeful and violent as you say) to the New Testament mentality of forgiveness, compassion, and more equality (but a strict doctrine and Absolute Truth) represents a greater paradigm shift that swept across society... My assumption was that Mohammed took this legacy and extended it; I know he shifted from a nonviolent approach to a reactionary/defensive position, but I thought Islam promoted peace and equality in general (in doctrine and amongst many followers, obviously there are exceptions). My belief in the evolution of human consciousness is one reason I think that Islam can (and in some places does) still fit within the framework of democratic western society, but it may only resemble itself once that transition occurs/finishes... I think a literal interpretation of any religious doctrine, especially dating 1500-3000+ years, is a mistaken trajectory, but I know many will be reluctant to give up those positions (Christian and Muslim alike)... I think it can work (and I would like it to), but that does not mean that it will.

Ken Wilber wrote a book called ¨Up From Eden¨ on the subject of societal evolution and how it corresponds with individual evolution of the consciousness (he wrote a lot more too, but this one deals specifically with societal evolution)... He proposes 4 quadrants (in all his work), as on the chart below... You have ¨exterior,¨ ¨interior,¨ ¨individual,¨ and ¨collective.¨ Taken together they form 4 areas we can ¨observe¨ evolution in...

¨Interior self¨ would be your subjective experience at each level, ¨exterior self¨ if what others can observe and the ¨science¨ that makes you you... ¨interior collective¨ is like the collective subjective experience of a society ("culture"...think of anthropologists who want to understand society from the point of view of the people, and what it ¨means¨ to them, versus the objective approach of trying to understand the structure and function of society in "scientific" terms, stripping it of it´s cultural meaning and trying to understand the root purpose of rituals etc. in terms of how they help a society meet its needs and survive...); the latter is the ¨exterior collective¨... So everyone from Freud to Jung, from Aristotle to Descartes to Maslow, from tribal religions to the western philosophical ¨religions¨ exist on this spectrum, and as humans we share the same capacity to awaken greater and greater understandings, but the global population is not equally evolved...


Some New-Agers, here in the states at least, want to believe all cultures are equally valid; they deny hierarchy in human consciousness because they believe it to be misguided (and this is reinforced when they mistakenly compare it to outdated anthropological practices that supposed some humans were "better" than others)... But in essence they are saying their position of cultural relativism is better than not believing in cultural relativism, and thus they create a hierarchy and destroy their own position...

Anyway... I have great respect also for Sufism, or indeed any member of any religion who does not promote self righteous positions of Absolute Truth and silly dogma... I believe that Jesus, Muhammad, Siddhartha, and others realized truths that had not occurred to most others around them at the time, and at the core their teachings were the same (or similar); most religious texts, when literalism is discarded, can be interpreted along very similar lines.

A related field called Spiral Dynamics has emerged that deals with the same concepts... I will stop with my lecture, but include this final image to help clarify the murky waters I may have stirred up!

 

[Maleth]

Thanks Maleth. I (obviously) knew about the Abrahamic origin of the 3 faiths, and I am aware that Islam has (like all other major religions) a form of the ¨Golden Rule¨ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule#Islam)

¨Aheb li akheek ma tuhibu li nafsik. This can be translated as "Wish for your brother, what you wish for yourself" or "Love your brother as you love yourself".¨

¨"...and you should forgive And overlook: Do you not like God to forgive you? And Allah is The Merciful Forgiving."
— Quran (Surah 24, "The Light", v. 22)¨

etc....

That is exactly what I meant when you can pick and choose for someone to take it where ever they like:- At the same breath to this there is

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun(the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to "fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you"

Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."

Quran (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..." Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense?
And there is so much more violence to quote. These teachings came 600 years after Christianity where the founder has rejected converting people by violence but spoke mostly of the hereafter and the suffering will be done in hell.---------------

I have spent a great deal of time studying human consciousness, and the evolution of consciousness throughout history. In my opinion (and again I am not the origin of the idea, Ken Wilber is the transpersonal psychologist I borrowed this from) the shift from the Old Testament power god (vengeful and violent as you say) to the New Testament mentality of forgiveness, compassion, and more equality (but a strict doctrine and Absolute Truth) represents a greater paradigm shift that swept across society... My assumption was that Mohammed took this legacy and extended it

Not exactly so in my opinion. Dont forget that Mohamed was a warrior himself and spent the last few years of his life fighting the pagans in Mecca. Jesus never had an army and Rome was not converted by war, there was never a Christian army that attacked Pagan Rome.

I know he shifted from a nonviolent approach to a reactionary/defensive position, but I thought Islam promoted peace and equality in general (in doctrine and amongst many followers, obviously there are exceptions). My belief in the evolution of human consciousness is one reason I think that Islam can (and in some places does) still fit within the framework of democratic western society, but it may only resemble itself once that transition occurs/finishes... I think a literal interpretation of any religious doctrine, especially dating 1500-3000+ years, is a mistaken trajectory, but I know many will be reluctant to give up those positions (Christian and Muslim alike)... I think it can work (and I would like it to), but that does not mean that it will.

My experience with Muslims is also that they are normal people and as societies they are very kind and friendly and cannot do enough to help you. I have a friend who been to Syria before the civil war, and told me he was impressed with the hospitality and was really looking forward to go back. Personally I have been to Tunisa and Beirut. Both were nice experiences. Tunis was a bit dodgie in the Kasba, but it was more people haressing you to shop and getting abit agressive you did buy nothing. People who worked in Libya always praised how friendly the Libyans where and some of them left really in the last moment when things got out of hand. However they are very sensitive to Religion and no one can even discuss it and have their own dogmatic approaches towards it. (I consider its just like how Christianity was even up to a 100 years ago) But as I have stated before they also have their pains visa vi Western society and Politics and religion can be intertwined and Religion always used as an excuse. Example the Palestine issue and the creation of Israel has created a huge resentment towards what we call the west, and the west has not really been kind to them even in the aftermath (like insult to injury kind of thing) and they see it as a huge injustice. They even have their own interpretation of the crusades and the aggression it brought about. It all depends on the sentiments of the day and political evolution of the time.

 

[mr_y82]

^all well said... My interpretation of the Crusades is very critical of Europe... Seems unrealistic to believe anything other than that those were dark violent times that had little to do with what Christianity (New Testament) teaches... Anyway, I do see your point about picking and choosing (people here do that all the time... using the old testament to condemn gays while eating their pork and shellfish while wearing their cotton polyester blends, and planting more than one crop in the same field, etc...Thanks Leviticus!). I agree that Christianity was still similarly trouble not all that long ago, and we have still some pretty weird Fundamentalists remaining, lol... Google "Holy Ghost People" (i.e. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40931991?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents).

One thing I find curious is that seemingly preexisting Arab culture "hijacked" (no pun intended) some of the teachings of Islam, just as Paganism influenced Christianity in Europe... What I mean is, it seems in early Islam, as they conquered Northern Africa etc, they practiced a great amount of religious tolerance to hold the large empires together (similar to the Persians, Alexander the Great , etc...), and persecuted people much less that Christianity did, esp. later when it was stronger and divided (Inquisition, etc...)... Islam proposed equality for women too, but local culture again derailed that (in my eyes)... So maybe we need to be careful not to blame some cultural faults on a doctrine that they don't necessarily follow to a tee?

Doesn't even the New Testament have it's share of violence passages and dogmatic statements?
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt_list.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_violence#Descriptions_of_violence_2


I will give this a listen when I get home... http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124494788 (of course here in the US NPR may be considering liberal quackery, but relative to Europe it's much more center of the road...).

Thanks for the conversation!

ADDENDUM: CAN I CHANGE MY SETTINGS SO THAT I AM NOT SIGNED OUT SO QUICKLY??? I DON'T HAVE TIME TO READ AND RESPOND TO POSTS BEFORE IT BOOTS ME, LOL... GUESS I AM SUPPOSED TO READ AND TYPE FASTER!!!

 

[Garrick]

half of the Europeans wouldn't subscribe these values?
where did you get that?
do you have info to support that or are you just asuming that? that would make you a racist, Lebrok
I think you have a totally wrong idea of Europeans in general

it is like Europeans would listen to Trump and believe every American thinks like Trump

yes, Europe is diverse, but I believe something like European identity exists, it is politicians that don't want to give up national/regional identities in fear of losing their power bases.
If Europe were one we would need a lot less administrators, but also a lot of politicians would becom jobless
I have to admit I'm pessimistic about that, but it is not because of what is in the European peoples mind

Terrorism is European problem, and it is better level, rather than each country individually acts.

European identity exists despite differences, and some common values exist.

I'm slightly more optimistic, events will affect faster integration.

 

[bicicleur 2]

Killer in Spain to cook in Belgium.

Belgium refuses to extradite the alleged ETA member Nativity ...
http://www.lavanguardia.com/.../belgica-niega-extraditar-presunta-etarra-nativi...

Jauregui Espina, Spanish escape from justice since 1979 and detained in Belgium this October, has been released for "immediate" way
http://www.abc.es/espana/20131120/abci-extradicion-etarra-201311201801.html

A Belgian court has denied the extradition of ETA Ventura Tomé Quiroga, a 17-year sentence pending in Spain. ... The terrorist is pending a sentence of 17 years in prison for placing explosives.
http://www.elperiodico.com/.../belgica-niega-extradicion-del-etarra-tome-quiro...

Belgium refuses to send an ETA member to Spain for alleged risk of torture and leave it free
The Spanish Foreign Ministry has moved its "deep concern" that no protest despite the insult received, the Belgian Government and the European Commission by the Ghent court decision denying the extradition to Spain of ETA
http://xyzediciones.com/belgica-se-...e-alegan-riesgo-de-torturas-y-la-dejan-libre/

BELGIAN PARADISE OF ALLEGED ETA member
Jauregui remained fled more than 30 years, until he was found and arrested in Belgium. However, it not is judged on charges of murder and belonging to a terrorist organization imposed on it due to an unpublished decision of Justice of Belgium, which has refused to extradite to Spain.

I hope that does not happen again such disunity, barbarity and injustice in Europe. In Spain we have experience with the cruel and savage terrorism E.T.A. and after 11M with those beasts that threaten our world and way of life.

I can't tell whether this is correct or not, I don't know the details.
I can only say, the Belgian juridical power is very arrogant. It claims to know everything and does not allow criticism.
In their mind, that is how it should be.
I guess it is the same in other countries.