On integration, assimilation and multiculturalism

[Kubra]

Exactly. Technically, one can't say that a nazi is not french, because there are french nazi's, though they are deprived of formal organization (fortunately, don't get me wrong). By the same token there are french islamists, insofar algerian migrants from after 1947 that stayed after Algerian independence were french citizens, along with their children. However, it seems be your point that this are not french in terms of spirit.

Though I'm familiar with the identitaires, I'm not familiar with any trials involving them. Could you help a brother out?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's a-ok to admit salafists, that's a no-no. What I'm against is the treating of french immigration policy like old french colonial policy: formal exclusion in all but formality. Consider a syrian migrant, probably has some idea of not liking the assad regime for being undemocratic and all that jazz but never having had any opportunity for formal education that involves our "values", our liberal democratic tradition and thinkers. Heck, it's not even necessary that I specify a nationality, pick and choose, uzbeks, indonesians, sudanese, rwandans, so on and so on. That's not even to speak of having them have very specific ideas of what republicanism and its values are.

And on an unrelated note, while trying to find out about prosecution of the identitaires, I found some video in which they celebrate being the generation that does not let people bum smokes. Man I don't even smoke any more and that grinds the fuck out of gears.

Well, in practice, there are obviously French passport holders who proclaim themselves Nazis, fascists, and Islamists. But in the eyes of the Republic, in the eyes of the majority of French, in the ideal of France, in the French psyche, they are not French.

There doesn't seem to be much in depth coverage of them in English. Do you perchance speak French? Serge Ayoub is, arguably, their leading figure, and he is on trial now and has been before. He's had a few groups dissolved now too. Alain Soral is an associate who has also been in many legal affairs, as is Dieudonné M'bala M'bala. To a certain extent, Jean-Marie Le Pen and much of his clique also roamed in those circles sometimes, and they've faced legal troubles too. Notable recent trials include the killing of Clément Méric and their recent trial in Amiens. They've had many more trials too, some for hate speech, Holocaust denial etc.

And if they don't share our values, then they don't belong. France is the textbook example of a nation-State, of an ideological project. There are Syrians, mostly of the bourgeoisie and left opposition admittedly, who share France's values, and they are welcome. But, and I understand that this is a product of their acculturation and environment, there are Syrians (most Syrians), mostly of the working class and rural areas who do not share our values. And they should not come to France. Life here will not be as they want it to be, and we will not be pleased by them either. For their sake and ours they should go somewhere else. Clearly, we've not been very successful in the whole let's take them in and we'll teach them our values shtick so far, and until we find a fix, we can't keep doing this.

Bum smokes? The identitaires? Maybe. They're into some interesting causes I guess. Hitler loved animals after all

EDIT: Here is a not very detailed English Wikipedia article about it, which also compares them to the Alt-Right, apparently:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identitarian_movement

I would contest that comparison because the identitaires are older and more organized, though ideologically they are pretty similar I guess.

And that's the thing. If it's a standard that can exclude citizens, it's a standard than can hella restrict migrants for reason that are outside their control. Those syrians do not share these values because they could not in the first place. Our values are not such that they appear spontaneously, they must be taught, bribed, and forced.

Of course you lot "haven't been successful", the migrant crisis has been a thing for like what, 2-4 years? Integration is a slow and often multigenerational process, there are no quick fixes to it.
One luxury of living across the atlantic is that, even when we take migrants in the thousands, we dictate terms. We're able to distribute migrants over provinces and municipalities, meaning that even in cities with significant migrant populations insular communities are comparatively more difficult to form. Tbh it's a more civil version of organizing concentration camps, but hey shit works. It means folks, migrant and native-born, basically have to interact with a greater cross section of society and learn to talk to each other. It's not cost free, obviously some amount of subsidisation (particularly of housing) occurs, but hey it's an investment. There's a lot of value of breaking up everyones ethnic ghetto's, and that includes white ones. It's also not a quick fix, but it's so far worked reasonably well. I mean hell, when you meet brown people complaining about immigration, it means you're doing something right.

Ah, my french isn't the best. It survives casual conversation, but nothing more technical. These english sources are for pretty big stuff, str8 up violence. I'm more than willing to take you at your word that they've been in on hate crimes and holocaust denial, and that's more up the alley of what you and I need for our attention. Indeed, by that it would seem that their inability to figure out where to speak their politics and where to conceal them leads them into legal trouble.

[Olerand]

Well, in practice, there are obviously French passport holders who proclaim themselves Nazis, fascists, and Islamists. But in the eyes of the Republic, in the eyes of the majority of French, in the ideal of France, in the French psyche, they are not French.

There doesn't seem to be much in depth coverage of them in English. Do you perchance speak French? Serge Ayoub is, arguably, their leading figure, and he is on trial now and has been before. He's had a few groups dissolved now too. Alain Soral is an associate who has also been in many legal affairs, as is Dieudonné M'bala M'bala. To a certain extent, Jean-Marie Le Pen and much of his clique also roamed in those circles sometimes, and they've faced legal troubles too. Notable recent trials include the killing of Clément Méric and their recent trial in Amiens. They've had many more trials too, some for hate speech, Holocaust denial etc.

And if they don't share our values, then they don't belong. France is the textbook example of a nation-State, of an ideological project. There are Syrians, mostly of the bourgeoisie and left opposition admittedly, who share France's values, and they are welcome. But, and I understand that this is a product of their acculturation and environment, there are Syrians (most Syrians), mostly of the working class and rural areas who do not share our values. And they should not come to France. Life here will not be as they want it to be, and we will not be pleased by them either. For their sake and ours they should go somewhere else. Clearly, we've not been very successful in the whole let's take them in and we'll teach them our values shtick so far, and until we find a fix, we can't keep doing this.

Bum smokes? The identitaires? Maybe. They're into some interesting causes I guess. Hitler loved animals after all

EDIT: Here is a not very detailed English Wikipedia article about it, which also compares them to the Alt-Right, apparently:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identitarian_movement

I would contest that comparison because the identitaires are older and more organized, though ideologically they are pretty similar I guess.

And that's the thing. If it's a standard that can exclude citizens, it's a standard than can hella restrict migrants for reason that are outside their control. Those syrians do not share these values because they could not in the first place. Our values are not such that they appear spontaneously, they must be taught, bribed, and forced.

Of course you lot "haven't been successful", the migrant crisis has been a thing for like what, 2-4 years? Integration is a slow and often multigenerational process, there are no quick fixes to it.
One luxury of living across the atlantic is that, even when we take migrants in the thousands, we dictate terms. We're able to distribute migrants over provinces and municipalities, meaning that even in cities with significant migrant populations insular communities are comparatively more difficult to form. Tbh it's a more civil version of organizing concentration camps, but hey shit works. It means folks, migrant and native-born, basically have to interact with a greater cross section of society and learn to talk to each other. It's not cost free, obviously some amount of subsidisation (particularly of housing) occurs, but hey it's an investment. There's a lot of value of breaking up everyones ethnic ghetto's, and that includes white ones. It's also not a quick fix, but it's so far worked reasonably well. I mean hell, when you meet brown people complaining about immigration, it means you're doing something right.

Ah, my french isn't the best. It survives casual conversation, but nothing more technical. These english sources are for pretty big stuff, str8 up violence. I'm more than willing to take you at your word that they've been in on hate crimes and holocaust denial, and that's more up the alley of what you and I need for our attention. Indeed, by that it would seem that their inability to figure out where to speak their politics and where to conceal them leads them into legal trouble.

While it is unfortunate that they are being excluded for issues outside their control, we can't change reality. They don't share our values, and probably never will. They shouldn't come to France.

I didn't mean the recent Syrian migrants, I meant the earlier waves of Maghrebian immigration. We've not been very successful, socially, culturally, ideologically, etc. So we need to slow down until we find a fix.

I agree that avoiding the creation of ghettos is preferable, which is obviously not what we have done, but the problem is here now and we have to deal with it. There are, in some ways, programs to fix ghettoization, but they're not very significant. France loves social housing, and the easiest way to make those quick and cheap is to build whole towns of them. We do that with less frequency now, but the problem is already there and we're not exactly working to fix it.

Well, Islamism is not known for being short on violence, hate speech, or Holocaust denial either. It is a fascism after all. And I don't mean Jihadism, I mean Islamism, which is quite popular in the Muslim world.

[Neu Leonstein]

Just gonna leave this here before I head to bed: Should France Have Its Own Version of Islam?

[Olerand]

Just gonna leave this here before I head to bed: Should France Have Its Own Version of Islam?

Yes, and the amount of times politicians say this and create yet another Muslim culturel (cultural) and cultuel (religious, sort of) group to "represent French Islam" are innumerable.

It's good Tareq Oubrou gets some coverage in Anglo media. Wish it would have been the NYT or someone with more circulation than the Atlantic, but it's a good start anyway. A refreshing breeze away from the usual toxic "essentialist" crowd that dominates discussion of Islam in the Anglo world.

[NERVUN]

*shrug* If everyone agrees to follow the law of the country they are in, and respect each other's boundaries, then who gives a crap what culture you are? IDIC - we should rejoice in each other's differences.

Thing is, these differences are what usually leads people to disrespect law of the land and each other's boundaries.

When in Rome, do as the Romans do. Otherwise, GTFO. That's my take on how people ought to live in a foreign land.

Have you ever lived in a different culture?

[Kubra]

And that's the thing. If it's a standard that can exclude citizens, it's a standard than can hella restrict migrants for reason that are outside their control. Those syrians do not share these values because they could not in the first place. Our values are not such that they appear spontaneously, they must be taught, bribed, and forced.

Of course you lot "haven't been successful", the migrant crisis has been a thing for like what, 2-4 years? Integration is a slow and often multigenerational process, there are no quick fixes to it.
One luxury of living across the atlantic is that, even when we take migrants in the thousands, we dictate terms. We're able to distribute migrants over provinces and municipalities, meaning that even in cities with significant migrant populations insular communities are comparatively more difficult to form. Tbh it's a more civil version of organizing concentration camps, but hey shit works. It means folks, migrant and native-born, basically have to interact with a greater cross section of society and learn to talk to each other. It's not cost free, obviously some amount of subsidisation (particularly of housing) occurs, but hey it's an investment. There's a lot of value of breaking up everyones ethnic ghetto's, and that includes white ones. It's also not a quick fix, but it's so far worked reasonably well. I mean hell, when you meet brown people complaining about immigration, it means you're doing something right.

Ah, my french isn't the best. It survives casual conversation, but nothing more technical. These english sources are for pretty big stuff, str8 up violence. I'm more than willing to take you at your word that they've been in on hate crimes and holocaust denial, and that's more up the alley of what you and I need for our attention. Indeed, by that it would seem that their inability to figure out where to speak their politics and where to conceal them leads them into legal trouble.

While it is unfortunate that they are being excluded for issues outside their control, we can't change reality. They don't share our values, and probably never will. They shouldn't come to France.

I didn't mean the recent Syrian migrants, I meant the earlier waves of Maghrebian immigration. We've not been very successful, socially, culturally, ideologically, etc. So we need to slow down until we find a fix.

I agree that avoiding the creation of ghettos is preferable, which is obviously not what we have done, but the problem is here now and we have to deal with it. There are, in some ways, programs to fix ghettoization, but they're not very significant. France loves social housing, and the easiest way to make those quick and cheap is to build whole towns of them. We do that with less frequency now, but the problem is already there and we're not exactly working to fix it.

Well, Islamism is not known for being short on violence, hate speech, or Holocaust denial either. It is a fascism after all. And I don't mean Jihadism, I mean Islamism, which is quite popular in the Muslim world.

Ah yes, the earlier magreb populations. That was certainly bungled, but I'd say this is more the result of historical mismanagement from its colonial history, rather than problems with current policy. Granting algerians french citizenship after the war was a bad move, I mean the whole idea of integrating Algeria as part of metropolitan france was a bad idea in itself. A lot of folks obviously weren't going to stay in Algeria if the option of France was open, and their experience ended up disappointing, to say the least. Part of managing intake is also managing outcome, folks are more amenable to integration and assimilation when it pays off, when it seems rewarded, and less so when that does not occur. France could obviously not do that with its algerian migrant waves, even if it wanted to. Ghettoization was basically inevitable.
IMO, the most successful colonial project was the US in the Philippines, primarily because annexation and direct governance weren't options put up, after a bit of congressional debate and military governance it was decided that the independence of the Philippines was a when and not an if, and what was important was building up the infrastructure for a state that would function as a favourable trading partner for the United States. Incidentally, it also means that the US doesn't need to compete with anyone else for skilled filipino migrants, it gets first pick of the cream of the crop. Even as other potential migrant destinations grow more and more attractive worldwide, the US maintains a reliable place to drain brains from. Hell, one could even kinda roll in Japan into an example of this sort of project. But I guess it's too late for that sort of thing, as it relates to France.

over here we don't have socialized housing proper, one pays their rent out of income assistance. Still, we set the municipality, and the usual result is that with levels of assistance for recent migrants being more or less the same as other migrants and citizens on assistance we usually end up with mixed neighbourhoods, whether they like it or not. As for breaking up french ghettos, relaxing restrictions means having a greater pool of migrants to choose from, which means you can take folks from elsewhere in the world and throw em into the mix. Banlieue's remain banlieue's, but now you've got Filipinos and Ukrainians thrown into the mix. Folks learn to either accept each other and if they don't, taken individually they're too small to really fuck much up. As for the islamism bit, I recall that the brits, as part of their counter-radicalisation methods, throw money at certain Sufi mosques, try to make them look more attractive. I suppose the reasoning is that while it's difficult to get folks to abandon their religion, one can at least divert folks into more favourable denominations.

[Major-Tom]

And that's the thing. If it's a standard that can exclude citizens, it's a standard than can hella restrict migrants for reason that are outside their control. Those syrians do not share these values because they could not in the first place. Our values are not such that they appear spontaneously, they must be taught, bribed, and forced.

Of course you lot "haven't been successful", the migrant crisis has been a thing for like what, 2-4 years? Integration is a slow and often multigenerational process, there are no quick fixes to it.
One luxury of living across the atlantic is that, even when we take migrants in the thousands, we dictate terms. We're able to distribute migrants over provinces and municipalities, meaning that even in cities with significant migrant populations insular communities are comparatively more difficult to form. Tbh it's a more civil version of organizing concentration camps, but hey shit works. It means folks, migrant and native-born, basically have to interact with a greater cross section of society and learn to talk to each other. It's not cost free, obviously some amount of subsidisation (particularly of housing) occurs, but hey it's an investment. There's a lot of value of breaking up everyones ethnic ghetto's, and that includes white ones. It's also not a quick fix, but it's so far worked reasonably well. I mean hell, when you meet brown people complaining about immigration, it means you're doing something right.

Ah, my french isn't the best. It survives casual conversation, but nothing more technical. These english sources are for pretty big stuff, str8 up violence. I'm more than willing to take you at your word that they've been in on hate crimes and holocaust denial, and that's more up the alley of what you and I need for our attention. Indeed, by that it would seem that their inability to figure out where to speak their politics and where to conceal them leads them into legal trouble.

While it is unfortunate that they are being excluded for issues outside their control, we can't change reality. They don't share our values, and probably never will. They shouldn't come to France.

I didn't mean the recent Syrian migrants, I meant the earlier waves of Maghrebian immigration. We've not been very successful, socially, culturally, ideologically, etc. So we need to slow down until we find a fix.

I agree that avoiding the creation of ghettos is preferable, which is obviously not what we have done, but the problem is here now and we have to deal with it. There are, in some ways, programs to fix ghettoization, but they're not very significant. France loves social housing, and the easiest way to make those quick and cheap is to build whole towns of them. We do that with less frequency now, but the problem is already there and we're not exactly working to fix it.

Well, Islamism is not known for being short on violence, hate speech, or Holocaust denial either. It is a fascism after all. And I don't mean Jihadism, I mean Islamism, which is quite popular in the Muslim world.

What I can never figure out is how the existing ghettos, of which there are a ton, north of Marseille, northeast of Paris, etc etc can be "deghettoized" so to speak. You can't just tell the Moroccans and Algerians who haven't integrated to leave, especially since a lot of 'em are second and even third generation.It just seems like an issue public policy alone cannot fix.

[Olerand]

While it is unfortunate that they are being excluded for issues outside their control, we can't change reality. They don't share our values, and probably never will. They shouldn't come to France.

I didn't mean the recent Syrian migrants, I meant the earlier waves of Maghrebian immigration. We've not been very successful, socially, culturally, ideologically, etc. So we need to slow down until we find a fix.

I agree that avoiding the creation of ghettos is preferable, which is obviously not what we have done, but the problem is here now and we have to deal with it. There are, in some ways, programs to fix ghettoization, but they're not very significant. France loves social housing, and the easiest way to make those quick and cheap is to build whole towns of them. We do that with less frequency now, but the problem is already there and we're not exactly working to fix it.

Well, Islamism is not known for being short on violence, hate speech, or Holocaust denial either. It is a fascism after all. And I don't mean Jihadism, I mean Islamism, which is quite popular in the Muslim world.

Ah yes, the earlier magreb populations. That was certainly bungled, but I'd say this is more the result of historical mismanagement from its colonial history, rather than problems with current policy. Granting algerians french citizenship after the war was a bad move, I mean the whole idea of integrating Algeria as part of metropolitan france was a bad idea in itself. A lot of folks obviously weren't going to stay in Algeria if the option of France was open, and their experience ended up disappointing, to say the least. Part of managing intake is also managing outcome, folks are more amenable to integration and assimilation when it pays off, when it seems rewarded, and less so when that does not occur. France could obviously not do that with its algerian migrant waves, even if it wanted to. Ghettoization was basically inevitable.
IMO, the most successful colonial project was the US in the Philippines, primarily because annexation and direct governance weren't options put up, after a bit of congressional debate and military governance it was decided that the independence of the Philippines was a when and not an if, and what was important was building up the infrastructure for a state that would function as a favourable trading partner for the United States. Incidentally, it also means that the US doesn't need to compete with anyone else for skilled filipino migrants, it gets first pick of the cream of the crop. Even as other potential migrant destinations grow more and more attractive worldwide, the US maintains a reliable place to drain brains from. Hell, one could even kinda roll in Japan into an example of this sort of project. But I guess it's too late for that sort of thing, as it relates to France.

over here we don't have socialized housing proper, one pays their rent out of income assistance. Still, we set the municipality, and the usual result is that with levels of assistance for recent migrants being more or less the same as other migrants and citizens on assistance we usually end up with mixed neighbourhoods, whether they like it or not. As for breaking up french ghettos, relaxing restrictions means having a greater pool of migrants to choose from, which means you can take folks from elsewhere in the world and throw em into the mix. Banlieue's remain banlieue's, but now you've got Filipinos and Ukrainians thrown into the mix. Folks learn to either accept each other and if they don't, taken individually they're too small to really fuck much up. As for the islamism bit, I recall that the brits, as part of their counter-radicalisation methods, throw money at certain Sufi mosques, try to make them look more attractive. I suppose the reasoning is that while it's difficult to get folks to abandon their religion, one can at least divert folks into more favourable denominations.

All of Algeria was never granted citizenship. Algerians who chose to immigrate to France were. Only the pieds-noirs and Algerian Jews were granted citizenship at independence, because Algeria expelled them. That the handling of their migration was very much less than ideal, I'll grant you that. But there was a pressing need for housing for French in France, so the idea of creating entire new towns of social housing didn't, at the time, seem like a bad idea at all.

It's a similar system in France, social housing is not free, but very affordable. How is it owned in America (I presume), however? In France, there are non-profit public associations which build and manage them, not the State directly, but rather indirectly.
As for looser immigration, until what we already have has been solved, that proposition is unfeasible, even if just politically.

And we don't fund mosques, churches, synagogues, etc. It is strictly illegal.

[Olerand]

While it is unfortunate that they are being excluded for issues outside their control, we can't change reality. They don't share our values, and probably never will. They shouldn't come to France.

I didn't mean the recent Syrian migrants, I meant the earlier waves of Maghrebian immigration. We've not been very successful, socially, culturally, ideologically, etc. So we need to slow down until we find a fix.

I agree that avoiding the creation of ghettos is preferable, which is obviously not what we have done, but the problem is here now and we have to deal with it. There are, in some ways, programs to fix ghettoization, but they're not very significant. France loves social housing, and the easiest way to make those quick and cheap is to build whole towns of them. We do that with less frequency now, but the problem is already there and we're not exactly working to fix it.

Well, Islamism is not known for being short on violence, hate speech, or Holocaust denial either. It is a fascism after all. And I don't mean Jihadism, I mean Islamism, which is quite popular in the Muslim world.

What I can never figure out is how the existing ghettos, of which there are a ton, north of Marseille, northeast of Paris, etc etc can be "deghettoized" so to speak. You can't just tell the Moroccans and Algerians who haven't integrated to leave, especially since a lot of 'em are second and even third generation.It just seems like an issue public policy alone cannot fix.

You can build new, more separated housing, all around the city, and tell the people to move there because their buildings are being demolished as part of a renovation project. That's essentially what de-ghettoization programs are.

[Major-Tom]

What I can never figure out is how the existing ghettos, of which there are a ton, north of Marseille, northeast of Paris, etc etc can be "deghettoized" so to speak. You can't just tell the Moroccans and Algerians who haven't integrated to leave, especially since a lot of 'em are second and even third generation.It just seems like an issue public policy alone cannot fix.

You can build new, more separated housing, all around the city, and tell the people to move there because their buildings are being demolished as part of a renovation project. That's essentially what de-ghettoization programs are.

I suppose. But neither LePen or Macron have substantial solutions in regards to assimilation.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

The only thing immigrants need to do is follow the host nation's laws* and learn the main language.




*Unless said laws interfere with immigrant's religion

[Olerand]

You can build new, more separated housing, all around the city, and tell the people to move there because their buildings are being demolished as part of a renovation project. That's essentially what de-ghettoization programs are.

I suppose. But neither LePen or Macron have substantial solutions in regards to assimilation.

Well, what do you formulate for such a complex problem? Le Pen wants to appear tough, Macron wants to appear soft. Neither are striking the right balance.

The only thing immigrants need to do is follow the host nation's laws* and learn the main language.




*Unless said laws interfere with immigrant's religion

Uh... Yeah... We'll let America/UK/and especially Canada have this. Good luck et bon voyage onto this uncharted territory.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Uh... Yeah... We'll let America/UK/and especially Canada have this. Good luck et bon voyage onto this uncharted territory.

All the world should have this

[Olerand]

Uh... Yeah... We'll let America/UK/and especially Canada have this. Good luck et bon voyage onto this uncharted territory.

All the world should have this

Mmm... We'll let the rest take this up first. We'll join you later. Later.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

All the world should have this

Mmm... We'll let the rest take this up first. We'll join you later. Later.

Arright. Just catch up with us, arright?

[Olerand]

Mmm... We'll let the rest take this up first. We'll join you later. Later.

Arright. Just catch up with us, arright?

At a later date. You start the race now, and we guarantee that in 2, 3, 4 hundred years tops we'll reconnect with whatever is left of America/Britain/Canada.

[Major-Tom]

I suppose. But neither LePen or Macron have substantial solutions in regards to assimilation.

Well, what do you formulate for such a complex problem? Le Pen wants to appear tough, Macron wants to appear soft. Neither are striking the right balance.

I do not know. It is complex, I just know that Macron's wishy washy "let everyone in" solution is piss poor, as is LePen's hardline stance. If I knew what to do, I wouldn't just be on a forum.

[Danceria]

To immigrate and become a citizen, one must:

Speak the language of the nation, as well as write it, and be willing to teach it to their family (if family is moving to the nation, for practical purposes. They are free to speak what they wish at home, as it is their personal property.)

Understand the political and legal processes of the nation, and be willing to uphold them.

Have been able to hold down a job, and have a tolerable criminal record (jaywalking is one thing, murder and arson is another) in comparison to the laws of the nation. (Example: While pot is legal in the Netherlands, it's not legal in the United States (nationally), so being stoned is not a wise move), this ensures people on the nation's end to incorporate the immigrant into the workforce. Someone who has a degree in astrophysics should not be flipping burgers for the rest of their life. (Though personally, I'd recommend holding down an entry job so they understand work environments, and involve them in the community. Whether or that it means they're working at McDonald's, we should find a way to make sure there are as little culture shocks as possible, especially in the work environment).

Not be a part of any violent or extremist groups, or possess ideologies or beliefs that may be classified as such, we shouldn't want a Chinese person going on a rampage/ethnic "crusade" against Inuit people.

If they have issues either between citizens or with the government, to voice their concerned in a civilized manner, and without violence.

Again, this is very broad, and I don't really have all the specifics ironed out, but in general my ideal requirements for an immigrant.

[Olerand]

Well, what do you formulate for such a complex problem? Le Pen wants to appear tough, Macron wants to appear soft. Neither are striking the right balance.

I do not know. It is complex, I just know that Macron's wishy washy "let everyone in" solution is piss poor, as is LePen's hardline stance. If I knew what to do, I wouldn't just be on a forum.

Well, Macron's policy isn't exactly let anyone in, but he does seem to be fairly lenient and unwilling to see the root cause of the problem. He says he wants to make naturalization requirements tougher, especially on linguistic criteria, but that doesn't mean much.

[Major-Tom]

I do not know. It is complex, I just know that Macron's wishy washy "let everyone in" solution is piss poor, as is LePen's hardline stance. If I knew what to do, I wouldn't just be on a forum.

Well, Macron's policy isn't exactly let anyone in, but he does seem to be fairly lenient and unwilling to see the root cause of the problem. He says he wants to make naturalization requirements tougher, especially on linguistic criteria, but that doesn't mean much.

Easier, yes. I'm using hyperbole. I mean - with a fractured National Assembly, I imagine he'd have a hard time drastically changing France's immigration policy, no? Yes, France has many problems with people who are already there, but Sarkozy and Hollande did make sure that French immigration policy was relatively decent comparable to some other places.

[Olerand]

Well, Macron's policy isn't exactly let anyone in, but he does seem to be fairly lenient and unwilling to see the root cause of the problem. He says he wants to make naturalization requirements tougher, especially on linguistic criteria, but that doesn't mean much.

Easier, yes. I'm using hyperbole. I mean - with a fractured National Assembly, I imagine he'd have a hard time drastically changing France's immigration policy, no? Yes, France has many problems with people who are already there, but Sarkozy and Hollande did make sure that French immigration policy was relatively decent comparable to some other places.

Hollande could have tried harder, but not doing major harm is good enough I suppose. He also didn't further any of that multicultural mumbo-jumbo that Macron might like to see, so I'll give him credit for that.

Indeed, he is unlikely to have a majority. If he forms a coalition with the right, however, stricter immigration reform will probably be on the agenda. Fillon ran on quotas and minimum immigration, and the LR aren't exactly champions of immigration even with Fillon out of the picture.

[Faarali]

France and Quebec are living proof radical secularism has failed.

Pope Paul vi should come back from the dead and save france.

[Kubra]

Ah yes, the earlier magreb populations. That was certainly bungled, but I'd say this is more the result of historical mismanagement from its colonial history, rather than problems with current policy. Granting algerians french citizenship after the war was a bad move, I mean the whole idea of integrating Algeria as part of metropolitan france was a bad idea in itself. A lot of folks obviously weren't going to stay in Algeria if the option of France was open, and their experience ended up disappointing, to say the least. Part of managing intake is also managing outcome, folks are more amenable to integration and assimilation when it pays off, when it seems rewarded, and less so when that does not occur. France could obviously not do that with its algerian migrant waves, even if it wanted to. Ghettoization was basically inevitable.
IMO, the most successful colonial project was the US in the Philippines, primarily because annexation and direct governance weren't options put up, after a bit of congressional debate and military governance it was decided that the independence of the Philippines was a when and not an if, and what was important was building up the infrastructure for a state that would function as a favourable trading partner for the United States. Incidentally, it also means that the US doesn't need to compete with anyone else for skilled filipino migrants, it gets first pick of the cream of the crop. Even as other potential migrant destinations grow more and more attractive worldwide, the US maintains a reliable place to drain brains from. Hell, one could even kinda roll in Japan into an example of this sort of project. But I guess it's too late for that sort of thing, as it relates to France.

over here we don't have socialized housing proper, one pays their rent out of income assistance. Still, we set the municipality, and the usual result is that with levels of assistance for recent migrants being more or less the same as other migrants and citizens on assistance we usually end up with mixed neighbourhoods, whether they like it or not. As for breaking up french ghettos, relaxing restrictions means having a greater pool of migrants to choose from, which means you can take folks from elsewhere in the world and throw em into the mix. Banlieue's remain banlieue's, but now you've got Filipinos and Ukrainians thrown into the mix. Folks learn to either accept each other and if they don't, taken individually they're too small to really fuck much up. As for the islamism bit, I recall that the brits, as part of their counter-radicalisation methods, throw money at certain Sufi mosques, try to make them look more attractive. I suppose the reasoning is that while it's difficult to get folks to abandon their religion, one can at least divert folks into more favourable denominations.

All of Algeria was never granted citizenship. Algerians who chose to immigrate to France were. Only the pieds-noirs and Algerian Jews were granted citizenship at independence, because Algeria expelled them. That the handling of their migration was very much less than ideal, I'll grant you that. But there was a pressing need for housing for French in France, so the idea of creating entire new towns of social housing didn't, at the time, seem like a bad idea at all.

It's a similar system in France, social housing is not free, but very affordable. How is it owned in America (I presume), however? In France, there are non-profit public associations which build and manage them, not the State directly, but rather indirectly.
As for looser immigration, until what we already have has been solved, that proposition is unfeasible, even if just politically.

And we don't fund mosques, churches, synagogues, etc. It is strictly illegal.

IIRC it was not for existing emigrants, but any who elected to emigrate in the first place, with few barriers to such. You're right in that I spoke wrongly, but that is nonetheless effectively granting blanket citizenship to a particular migrant group, thus setting up the migration waves that occurred.

Loosening restrictions is more about opening up the "emigration market", I suppose that's how one would term it. The reasoning goes is that immigration restrictions in the way you've proposed them cuts off these sources from market, while the black market of illegal migration is something France is in a difficult position to stem, resulting in one supplier dominating the market as a whole. France ends up with one supplier that it does not want, instead of many suppliers that it at least half-wants. The idea is not to increase the immigration rate, but to diversify the sources, and open up the market itself to greater competition. it would mean France would have to open itself up to greater cultural influences, but it's easier to deal with a multitude of smaller communities and integrate them into ones national culture as opposed to a single large one. Multiculturalism is, let's be honest, a modern and mild form of divide et impera, but hey that's a time tested principle.

Canada, so basically America lol. Publically owned an funded housing is super rare outside bigger cities of bigger provinces, and isn't limited to just large housing blocks but also townhomes and single household rent to own schemes. Folks here like to use home ownership rates as a proxy of successful economic outcomes, so programs end up geared to such. It's well, it's not the best scheme, it just happens to be incidentally useful for this particular problem.

Your french is better than mine, you being french, if you've not got a publicly available copy of the 1947 Organic Statute of Algeria I've got a JSTOR link
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4321994
Conventional wisdom is that France organized its colonial affairs of the french union on the assumption that they were keeping what they had, regardless of how they structured local autonomy, which of course creates a great incentive for emigrating to mainland france. It may be more useful to consult primary source material on the matter, but, well, I can't really do that.

Oh no, you don't have to fund, but if some folks asking for mosques end up having an easier time getting a building permit, than others, well....

[San Lumen]

France and Quebec are living proof radical secularism has failed.

Pope Paul vi should come back from the dead and save france.

Im sorry? What are you talking about?

[Conserative Morality]

Uh... Yeah... We'll let America/UK/and especially Canada have this. Good luck et bon voyage onto this uncharted territory.

'Uncharted territory'

It's like the past two centuries didn't even happen.