EU Immigration Crisis Megathread

[Jacob]

I don't want to engage assholes, neither Nazis nor Islamists.
There are some basic liberal values and if you accept them you are welcome. Else please leave or don't come and search your happiness elsewhere.

I concur that there's a baseline of liberal values that are non-negotiable.

That does not, from my view, mean that there's never value in engagement with people labelled as Nazis or Islamists especially given how broadly those labels are applied by bigots.

In particular, I find the usage of the term Islamist somewhat fuzzy, so I'm not particularly keen on categorically closing off the option of engagement with Islamists until I know what definition is being used.

Also, I'd note that engagement with - say - a confused 16 year old embracing extremist labels and rhetoric may in fact be pretty fruitful, while at the same time I'm perfectly at peace with having no engagement with people organizing and profiting from violent attacks on innocents.

[Jacob]

Good question.

I was merely explaining what I thought was meant when people suggest engaging with Islamists. I'm not particularly interested in arguing for or against it as a proposition at this time and place.

10-4

Though as you see, in my previous post I'm kind of engaging in the question against my better judgement...

[Admiral Yi]

Though as you see, in my previous post I'm kind of engaging in the question against my better judgement...

Flip flopper.

(This part not just to you.)

I have no problem with studying the radicalization process to see what steps we can take to halt it.  That is not what the word "engagement means to me.  In what I described the targets are subjects in a social engineering process.  "Engagement" to me sounds perilously close to negotiation.  "We'll give you a little more sharia if you give us a few less bombings."

[Jacob]

Though as you see, in my previous post I'm kind of engaging in the question against my better judgement...

Flip flopper.

(This part not just to you.)

I have no problem with studying the radicalization process to see what steps we can take to halt it.  That is not what the word "engagement means to me.  In what I described the targets are subjects in a social engineering process.  "Engagement" to me sounds perilously close to negotiation.  "We'll give you a little more sharia if you give us a few less bombings."

For me, I see engagement as being useful along two axes:

1) The studying of the radicalization process and ways to head it off, as you point to. F. ex. by listening to angry young Islamists (or Nazis) can we identify problems that we can solve in ways that lead fewer angry young Islamists ending up doing something radically violent. Relatedly, it's fine to negotiate about water rights with people who have legitimate grievances (say "hey, these assholes are using all the water so we can't water our crops"), even if they organize their political efforts along Islamist lines. And if, say, a conflict is rooted in water and land rights it's worth it engaging and finding that out - and try to address it - even if the conflict is sometimes/ frequently framed in terms of religious conflict.

2) I'm okay with a little more Sharia, depending on context; not as a quid pro quo for "fewer bombings" because yeah, negotiating in the face of violence is a no-go. But ways to maximize the available amount of Sharia while maintaining the non-negotiable basic liberal values are fine - like f. ex. Sharia family law arbitration in Ontario (which is a subset of faith based family law arbitration).

[Razgovory]

I'm a little fuzzy on what "Islamist" means in this context as well.  Presumably something negative.

[Martinus]

I'm okay with a little more Sharia, depending on context; not as a quid pro quo for "fewer bombings" because yeah, negotiating in the face of violence is a no-go. But ways to maximize the available amount of Sharia while maintaining the non-negotiable basic liberal values are fine - like f. ex. Sharia family law arbitration in Ontario (which is a subset of faith based family law arbitration).

This is where we clearly disagree. I am not interested in drawing our thin red line as far back as "non-negotiable basic liberal values". There are plenty of liberal values that fall short of being "non-negotiable" and "basic" but which nonetheless are infinitely better than those of Sharia law, for example, and which should not be given up or watered down.

[Martinus]

I'm a little fuzzy on what "Islamist" means in this context as well.  Presumably something negative.

Islamism is to Islam what dominionism is to Christianity. Both are incompatible with liberal values, although islamism is more dangerous than dominionism, simply because Christianity offers more options for non-oppressive, non-violent interpretation than Islam does.

[Gups]

I'm a little fuzzy on what "Islamist" means in this context as well.  Presumably something negative.

An Islamist is a fundamentalist Muslim. We engage with them all the time. We have embassies and trade relations in Saudi Arabia for instance.

[Duque de Bragança]

Why even have social housing, when regular subsidies would be better, faster and less distorting to the housing market?

Is it to ensure ghettoization of the poor or something? Keep them segregated?

There is quality social housing too, despite the bad realities of banlieues. In central Paris, they are really coveted with 20-year long waiting lists. As for social housing vs regular subsidies, both distort the market...
Keep them segregated does not really work as in the US, since public transport is much better, even in the province.
It's easy to forget that once social housing, even high-rises, were popular during the Glorious Thirties, so the people living there would not mess them up.

Jacob

PTSD? Possibly, but this would show once again that screening really leaves a lot to desire.

[Martinus]

I'm a little fuzzy on what "Islamist" means in this context as well.  Presumably something negative.

An Islamist is a fundamentalist Muslim. We engage with them all the time. We have embassies and trade relations in Saudi Arabia for instance.

Which is probably the greatest Western shame of our times.

[Capetan Mihali]

It's easy to forget that once social housing, even high-rises, were popular during the Glorious Thirties, so the people living there would not mess them up.

Just because they were popular with those in power doesn't mean they were ever a good idea.  Godard had a film criticizing them in 1967, IIRC.  Not to mention that they were principally a "solution" to the favelas that the guest-workers were living in during the 50s.

The same ideology held sway in the US and is now thoroughly discredited.  Look at Cabrini Green for one notorious example.

[Tamas]

I don't want to engage assholes, neither Nazis nor Islamists.
There are some basic liberal values and if you accept them you are welcome. Else please leave or don't come and search your happiness elsewhere.

Yes that is the key. We MUST defend the very basics of our societies because that is how we defend those who depend on the benefits of a modern, equalitarian society. This should be made clear to everyone in our countries: what we have is not the natural order of human societies, it is the remarkable result of centuries of gradual and painful development full of sacrifices, and it is extremely fragile and vulnerable, as evidenced by recent happenings: the slightest challenge to it seems to push many people away from it.

If somebody is arguing for legal, or even moral, superiority of a group of people over the other (man vs. woman, believers vs. nonbelievers, white people vs. coloured people), they deserve no understanding and definitely not a seeking of compromise.

[Duque de Bragança]

It's easy to forget that once social housing, even high-rises, were popular during the Glorious Thirties, so the people living there would not mess them up.

Just because they were popular with those in power doesn't mean they were ever a good idea.  Godard had a film criticizing them in 1967, IIRC.  Not to mention that they were principally a "solution" to the favelas that the guest-workers were living in during the 50s.

The same ideology held sway in the US and is now thoroughly discredited.  Look at Cabrini Green for one notorious example.

Wrong. Those living there liked them, but they had not entitlement so close after the war, not to mention no identity politics, as most were French and/or European. Cities had to be rebuild after the war, immigrants or no immigrants. And quickly, which explains lots of the problems appearing after. There was even a name for it, taken from one of the largest suburbs near Paris, Sarcelles: sarcellite. No "guest worker" issue there. Hint: DSK. .)

As for Godard, well '67 was the beginning of his Mao period so what movie are you thinking about? I don't think it's la Chinoise.  Week-End? Even Godard said it was a caricature.

Besides, in the '50s you had not a majority of immigrants in the "grand ensembles. It was still the '50s, the Communist party reigned supreme in the "banlieues rouges". The Athenes charter was the model for these housing projects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athens_Charter. Influenced by Le Corbusier, who himself has a few not-so-good banlieues designed (ahem). Pre-war somewhat utopian designs which were an inspiration from the France and the UK to the USSR. Yes, there is a reason why the housing projects (high-rises- look alike.

Furthermore, as strict marxists the PCF wanted no immigrants to reinforce the reserve army of labour, as per capitalist practices, still in use today. PCF betrayed in the mid '80S thanks to Juquin.
The real spike of immigrants started only at the end of the 50s, with family regrouping only starting from '74-75 (bloody Chirac!).

The US situation is too different to compare with the French one. Public transport, different city organisations since "inner cities" are all the chic here (it's central!), different space constraints.

[Martinus]

I don't want to engage assholes, neither Nazis nor Islamists.
There are some basic liberal values and if you accept them you are welcome. Else please leave or don't come and search your happiness elsewhere.

Yes that is the key. We MUST defend the very basics of our societies because that is how we defend those who depend on the benefits of a modern, equalitarian society. This should be made clear to everyone in our countries: what we have is not the natural order of human societies, it is the remarkable result of centuries of gradual and painful development full of sacrifices, and it is extremely fragile and vulnerable, as evidenced by recent happenings: the slightest challenge to it seems to push many people away from it.

If somebody is arguing for legal, or even moral, superiority of a group of people over the other (man vs. woman, believers vs. nonbelievers, white people vs. coloured people), they deserve no understanding and definitely not a seeking of compromise.

I wouldn't go that far - some cultures and value systems are morally superior to others.

[Jacob]

PTSD? Possibly, but this would show once again that screening really leaves a lot to desire.

PTSD is not uncommon amongst people who have escaped warzones, who have lost most of their worldly possessions, and so on; so I would expect that it's pretty common amongst refugees from a number of places. I expect that the process of fleeing has the potential for some pretty harrowing moments as well.

As for screenings, I think it's reasonable to diagnose PTSD so you can provide help; though at this juncture that does not seem like something supported by the political situation.