Tom Holland on Europe

[dps]

The question, of course, is "how do tell if the Muslims really have adopted the values inherent in European citizenship so that we only reward those willing to accept the values of their new societies." 

So, is your suggestion that Europe brings back the Inquisition, except this time, instead of torturing and executing those suspected of only pretending to be Christian, they target those only pretending to be secular?

I am asking a question.  Is the Inquisition your suggestion, or just a strawman?

No, I asked if that was your suggestion.  If it's not, then do tell, how do you propose to figure out who has truly accepted Western values, and who is just pretending to do so?

[grumbler]

I am asking a question.  Is the Inquisition your suggestion, or just a strawman?

No, I asked if that was your suggestion.  If it's not, then do tell, how do you propose to figure out who has truly accepted Western values, and who is just pretending to do so?

I don't propose anything. other than to note the risk of fraud.  I commented about MM's proposal.  Do you think it unimportant to determine who has truly accepted Western values, and who is just pretending to do so in order to gain membership in European society?

[The Minsky Moment]

g- I don't think it is needed in the US, but it might be in Europe.

To elaborate:
The "Muslim problem" seems intractable but I strongly suspect it is temporary and will resolve itself in a generation, maybe two.  The cultures of majority Muslim countries and societies are all in the middle of cultural transition and are converging to the West.  In particular birth rates have dropped and are dropping rapidly across the Muslim world.  That is a critical indicator of a shift from traditional to modern mores as control of reproduction entails a shift in mentality as well as some degree of female empowerment.  Education and literacy levels also continue to rise although the positive effect here is partially counteracted by the spread of Saudi financed schools and the like.  Unfortunately, transitional periods can be rocky and we are seeing that today in the ME and North Africa. 

Emigrants by definition tend to be more mobile and "open" than non-emigrants.  Economic opportunity is a key driver, but ultimately what drives people to leave their homes behind for a strange new land is the attraction of the full package that the "West" offers - rights to political participation, rule of law, protection from arbitrary treatment etc.  So emigration in itself is one of the best and most effective indicator of acceptance of western values. 

The problem in Europe is that severe patterns of cultural segregation block effective integration, hence most immigrants don't get the benefits of the Western package.  Either that has to change or Europe will have to far more selective on who they take in.  Arguably, a combination of immigration reduction in the short term combined with more meaningful integration policy for those who do come is the most optimal solution, though one must keep in mind that asylum is a right and the Syrian situation shows how the best laid plans can be overtaken by events.

I don't see a similar "Muslim problem" in the US that would necessitate a tighter citizenship control.  Yes we have our lone wolves too but that is a phenomenon the kind of proposal you are talking about can't address.

[dps]

I am asking a question.  Is the Inquisition your suggestion, or just a strawman?

No, I asked if that was your suggestion.  If it's not, then do tell, how do you propose to figure out who has truly accepted Western values, and who is just pretending to do so?

I don't propose anything. other than to note the risk of fraud.  I commented about MM's proposal.  Do you think it unimportant to determine who has truly accepted Western values, and who is just pretending to do so in order to gain membership in European society?

Yes, actually, I do consider it unimportant.  Obey the law, absolutely (and I think it should be very easy to deport immigrants who break the law), but accept Western values, not so much.  To start with, freedom and tolerance are pretty much the foundation of modern Western values, and it's a fundamental contradiction in terms to, in essence, say, "We value tolerance and won't tolerate those who don't agree with us on that".  Beyond that, I don't see how you can tell who doesn't accept our values without some Inquisition-like institution, and even then, you can't really tell unless you can read minds.

[grumbler]

g- I don't think it is needed in the US, but it might be in Europe.

To elaborate:
The "Muslim problem" seems intractable but I strongly suspect it is temporary and will resolve itself in a generation, maybe two.  The cultures of majority Muslim countries and societies are all in the middle of cultural transition and are converging to the West.  In particular birth rates have dropped and are dropping rapidly across the Muslim world.  That is a critical indicator of a shift from traditional to modern mores as control of reproduction entails a shift in mentality as well as some degree of female empowerment.  Education and literacy levels also continue to rise although the positive effect here is partially counteracted by the spread of Saudi financed schools and the like.  Unfortunately, transitional periods can be rocky and we are seeing that today in the ME and North Africa. 

Emigrants by definition tend to be more mobile and "open" than non-emigrants.  Economic opportunity is a key driver, but ultimately what drives people to leave their homes behind for a strange new land is the attraction of the full package that the "West" offers - rights to political participation, rule of law, protection from arbitrary treatment etc.  So emigration in itself is one of the best and most effective indicator of acceptance of western values. 

The problem in Europe is that severe patterns of cultural segregation block effective integration, hence most immigrants don't get the benefits of the Western package.  Either that has to change or Europe will have to far more selective on who they take in.  Arguably, a combination of immigration reduction in the short term combined with more meaningful integration policy for those who do come is the most optimal solution, though one must keep in mind that asylum is a right and the Syrian situation shows how the best laid plans can be overtaken by events.

I don't see a similar "Muslim problem" in the US that would necessitate a tighter citizenship control.  Yes we have our lone wolves too but that is a phenomenon the kind of proposal you are talking about can't address.

I agree with this, and note, once again, that we are talking about Europe only in this discussion about "Tom Holland on Europe."

Yes, the immigrant population is self-selecting and so more inclined towards change (else they wouldn't have self-selected), but the refugee issue and the possibility of Fifth Columns raise doubts in my mind that merely offering citizenship will change the minds of some of the key resisters to integration.   

[grumbler]

Yes, actually, I do consider it unimportant.  Obey the law, absolutely (and I think it should be very easy to deport immigrants who break the law), but accept Western values, not so much.  To start with, freedom and tolerance are pretty much the foundation of modern Western values, and it's a fundamental contradiction in terms to, in essence, say, "We value tolerance and won't tolerate those who don't agree with us on that".  Beyond that, I don't see how you can tell who doesn't accept our values without some Inquisition-like institution, and even then, you can't really tell unless you can read minds.

The Western principal of equal treatment under the law makes your proposal to deport naturalized citizens who break the law pretty dubious.  The western value of tolerance isn't a value of tolerance for everything, and I see absolutely no problem in the idea that European countries refuse to grant citizenship to those who reject the principals of freedom and tolerance.  You, obviously, disagree.  I think we will just have to agree to disagree.

[Sheilbh]

Meritocracy is the worst possible system, except for all the alternatives.

Yep. But it still needs tempering. I often wonder how much modern inequality is shaped by the fact that, for the most part, the 1% do deserve a lot of success. A few inherited their money many more are genuinely self-made men from relatively humble backgrounds.

As for the OP I find the argument incoherent.  "More Christianity" will not help integrate Muslim immigrants into Europe. Baptism is an act of apostasy for Muslims which is why pre-modern European states never integrated Muslims without coercion (and in the Spanish case still rejected them after that).

I don't think the argument is for more Christianity but for a re-understanding of Europe's history and culture that incorporates the 1000 years when Christianity was its defining feature. Even secularist liberalism seems to me to be a very Christian heresy. A lot of it isn't somehow culturally pure but stems very much from the New Testament and its influence on European culture. Can you have the secular liberalism if you are willing to entirely ignore the culture and influences it stemmed from? Or will it come under pressure and break and end up with people reaching a darker bit of Europe's Christian heritage - of the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Reconquista etc?

We have a modern equivalent to baptism.  It is called citizenship.  If we are looking for an integrative model that can be applied to modern Europe it is not Otto's slaughter and conversion of Magyars or for that matter Charlemagne's brutal wars of cultural extirpation against Germanic pagans.  It is Rome and the extension of the attractive concept of civitas.

Well I don't know how much that exists in Europe. I remember when the UK introduced citizenship ceremonies and lots of people, including myself, thought it was a silly American import. But all the reports since then actually emphasise how much it's appreciated by the new citizen. First for just having a ceremony to mark a really important day for them but secondly the whole rigamarole of it: portrait of the Queen, flags, national anthem, little speech by the Mayor/Council Leader. It works and I was a cynical snob about it.

The "Muslim problem" seems intractable but I strongly suspect it is temporary and will resolve itself in a generation, maybe two.  The cultures of majority Muslim countries and societies are all in the middle of cultural transition and are converging to the West.  In particular birth rates have dropped and are dropping rapidly across the Muslim world.  That is a critical indicator of a shift from traditional to modern mores as control of reproduction entails a shift in mentality as well as some degree of female empowerment.  Education and literacy levels also continue to rise although the positive effect here is partially counteracted by the spread of Saudi financed schools and the like.  Unfortunately, transitional periods can be rocky and we are seeing that today in the ME and North Africa. 

Emigrants by definition tend to be more mobile and "open" than non-emigrants.  Economic opportunity is a key driver, but ultimately what drives people to leave their homes behind for a strange new land is the attraction of the full package that the "West" offers - rights to political participation, rule of law, protection from arbitrary treatment etc.  So emigration in itself is one of the best and most effective indicator of acceptance of western values. 

The problem in Europe is that severe patterns of cultural segregation block effective integration, hence most immigrants don't get the benefits of the Western package.  Either that has to change or Europe will have to far more selective on who they take in.  Arguably, a combination of immigration reduction in the short term combined with more meaningful integration policy for those who do come is the most optimal solution, though one must keep in mind that asylum is a right and the Syrian situation shows how the best laid plans can be overtaken by events.

I don't see a similar "Muslim problem" in the US that would necessitate a tighter citizenship control.  Yes we have our lone wolves too but that is a phenomenon the kind of proposal you are talking about can't address.

I should say I don't think there is a 'Muslim problem'. That's not the argument that I was thinking about.

But I agree with all of that. The only thing that is worrying for me is I'm not necessarily a Whig in my views so I'm not convinced things are converging to the West (I'm not even sure the West is converging to what the West once stood for anymore). I agree we're in a transitional phase especially in the Middle East, though as well as the material forces you highlight there are genuine theological issues in debate which I think people should take seriously. It is easy to say a 'generation or two' - we only need to look at Europe's last century to know how much damage and loss of life there can be in a generation or two. I don't think there's necessarily a benign end to transition - collapse is also a possibility.

I'd add that integration does seem to be far more of a problem in continental Europe. I think integration in the UK (especially in London) is far ahead of where it was 10 years ago in part because of policies nicked from the US like the citizenship ceremony. There's still a long way to go

[The Brain]

Emigrants by definition tend to be more mobile and "open" than non-emigrants.  Economic opportunity is a key driver, but ultimately what drives people to leave their homes behind for a strange new land is the attraction of the full package that the "West" offers - rights to political participation, rule of law, protection from arbitrary treatment etc.  So emigration in itself is one of the best and most effective indicator of acceptance of western values. 

Muslim immigrants to Sweden tend to be refugees.

[The Minsky Moment]

Emigrants by definition tend to be more mobile and "open" than non-emigrants.  Economic opportunity is a key driver, but ultimately what drives people to leave their homes behind for a strange new land is the attraction of the full package that the "West" offers - rights to political participation, rule of law, protection from arbitrary treatment etc.  So emigration in itself is one of the best and most effective indicator of acceptance of western values. 

Muslim immigrants to Sweden tend to be refugees.

Read the rest of the post - there is a specific reference to that problem.

[The Brain]

Emigrants by definition tend to be more mobile and "open" than non-emigrants.  Economic opportunity is a key driver, but ultimately what drives people to leave their homes behind for a strange new land is the attraction of the full package that the "West" offers - rights to political participation, rule of law, protection from arbitrary treatment etc.  So emigration in itself is one of the best and most effective indicator of acceptance of western values. 

Muslim immigrants to Sweden tend to be refugees.

Read the rest of the post - there is a specific reference to that problem.

OK?

[dps]

Yes, actually, I do consider it unimportant.  Obey the law, absolutely (and I think it should be very easy to deport immigrants who break the law), but accept Western values, not so much.  To start with, freedom and tolerance are pretty much the foundation of modern Western values, and it's a fundamental contradiction in terms to, in essence, say, "We value tolerance and won't tolerate those who don't agree with us on that".  Beyond that, I don't see how you can tell who doesn't accept our values without some Inquisition-like institution, and even then, you can't really tell unless you can read minds.

The Western principal of equal treatment under the law makes your proposal to deport naturalized citizens who break the law pretty dubious.  The western value of tolerance isn't a value of tolerance for everything, and I see absolutely no problem in the idea that European countries refuse to grant citizenship to those who reject the principals of freedom and tolerance.  You, obviously, disagree.  I think we will just have to agree to disagree.

When I said, "I think it should be very easy to deport immigrants who break the law', I wasn't talking about those who had already gained citizenship.  I suppose I should have made that clearer.