Originally Posted by NYS

No doubt France's failure to integrate its immigrant Muslim community

And you reply

Originally Posted by mmarsh

Since most of these people arrivied 20-30 years or so ago I say its normal. It took America almost 200 years to intergrate in Black community and its still not finished. Clearly if the editors of the NY Sun ever left their snobby, posh, offices on Chambers Street and visited Chinatown (a 10 min walk) without a Cantonese interpreter they would see that intergration of an ethnic group takes much longer than a decade or two. And most Chinese have been in the US much longer than the Africans in France. Can anyone name a large ethnic group that was intergrated in less than 25 years? Its a stupid claim.

Well what I'm getting from the news is that most of these rioters in France are actually third generation French. Born and raised in France by parents who were born and raised in France. Isn't that the failure of integration?

Originally Posted by NYS

It turns out that France's Muslim community lives in areas rampant with crime, poverty, and unemployment, much the fault of France's prized welfare system

You say

Originally Posted by mmarsh

What a crock! Compare crime rates, poverty in the Muslim Areas against those poor areas in the US (like South-Central LA). The US is much higher, right?

I don't know, is it? And even if it is, does it somehow mean the French model has been successful?

Originally Posted by NYS

It's a barely kept secret that Mr. Chirac led the opposition to the Iraq war out of fear of how his Muslim population would react

You reply

Originally Posted by mmarsh

Italian Guy, I thought France was in it for the oil...

Me quoting an article doesn't mean I wrote it nor do I fully agree with it. I believe France opposed the war because of its oil business with Saddam. You say and your hated NYS says it was because of fear. At best, it was for both. Not too encouraging, is it?

And about your last comment, I don't see any contradiction in the article conclusion.

1. Thats right 3rd generation, they are teenagers. SOME of the 2nd generation were born in France but not all. This is really the first generation to be fully naturalized here. My point is thats its impossible for the NYS to draw a conclusion on intergration based on 2-3 generations when there are countries such as the US that took 10 times as long to do it.

2. There is much more crime and poverty in the US which as a weaker welfare system. So to blame the crime figures in France due to its stronger welfare system is absurd. In fact the opposite is true. Generally with a better welfare system there is less crime and less poverty.

3. Relax Italian Guy, it was just alittle friendly ribbing, thats why the smiley was there. I dont hate the NYS, but its a joke of a newspaper. I can tell you nobody in NY reads it, even amongst conservatives. Its not considered a crediable newspaper.

4. The contradiction was A. blaming Chirac for being afraid of local Muslims and thus acknowleging that they would be a problem, and B. then telling the French to do precisely that. Sort of like saying yes the muslims are a problem but heck! do it anyway and that they would react positively to such a move. Its laughable.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

Can anyone name a large ethnic group that was intergrated in less than 25 years? What a stupid claim.

Germans, (my family) in 1700s and 1800s. English, Irish, Scottish, Mexicans. Anyone who wanted a life different from what they suffered in their own country. There was and is one way to succeed in America, total immersion in the language, customs, business, and general behavior expected of all of us.

Mod edit: The last sentence was deleted. It was too personal.

Originally Posted by Missileer

Germans, (my family) in 1700s and 1800s. English, Irish, Scottish, Mexicans. Anyone who wanted a life different from what they suffered in their own country. There was and is one way to succeed in America, total immersion in the language, customs, business, and general behavior expected of all of us. You may have been an American once but you are French now whether you like it or not.

Just take a look at how Iranian-American society works. (I am saying this since I have many persian friends in the US too and it is a bright example) and they are well-educated, wealthy and respected in their communities.

Why?!

Becuz they respect the law, learned the language very well and interact with the host society greatly.

I was in the netherlands last October and my friend in Utrecht (where a large community of Turkish & morrocan emigre live there) told me that they don't like the Turks or Arab emigres since they have no interest in being a dutch but he liked Iranians as they became totally dutch in the past 27 years.

That is why I claim that my countrymen in other countries are very well integrated into their hosting countries and you hardly hear any thing about them.

Therefore the claim that any ethnic group can be integrated in 25 yrs is not stupid but it is also possible!

Originally Posted by Missileer

Germans, (my family) in 1700s and 1800s. English, Irish, Scottish, Mexicans. Anyone who wanted a life different from what they suffered in their own country. There was and is one way to succeed in America, total immersion in the language, customs, business, and general behavior expected of all of us. You may have been an American once but you are French now whether you like it or not.

And they did so completely with 25 years? I doubt it. The life expentancy in the 18th century was only 37 years.

Secondly its far easier for Europeans such as English, Irish, Scots and even non English speaking to immigrate as the culture and language is the same than it is for someone whose entire culture, religon and language is different. Look at Chinatown, look at the Barrio in LA, look at South Florida. None of those areas fully intergrated and they have been around alot longer than 25 years.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

1. Thats right 3rd generation, they are teenagers. SOME of the 2nd generation were born in France but not all. This is really the first generation to be fully naturalized here. My point is thats its impossible for the NYS to draw a conclusion on intergration based on 2-3 generations when there are countries such as the US that took 10 times as long to do it.

I thought France is a more humane, less racist place with a much stronger commitment to social welfare programs. Shouldn't that mean that integration would not take as long? Also, keep in mind that African-Americans did not choose to come to this country, these muslim immigrants chose to go to France.

2. There is much more crime and poverty in the US which as a weaker welfare system. So to blame the crime figures in France due to its stronger welfare system is absurd. In fact the opposite is true. Generally with a better welfare system there is less crime and less poverty.

We don't have a weak welfare system, saying that implies that it is corrupted and does not serve the purpose it was meant to, we have a much smaller welfare system because welfare is a bad thing. Look at Paris for example, 40% of those people don't have a job, live in government standardized housing, but yet drug dealers are supposedly everywhere. Where are these people getting the money to be buying these drugs? The only place they can, welfare.

3. Relax Italian Guy, it was just alittle friendly ribbing, thats why the smiley was there. I dont hate the NYS, but its a joke of a newspaper. I can tell you nobody in NY reads it, even amongst conservatives. Its not considered a crediable newspaper.

A.) If nobody read the Sun it would be out of business long ago and B.) What it said was not really that bad compared what some tabloids say on a regular basis. (cough *Rathergate* cough)

4. The contradiction was A. blaming Chirac for being afraid of local Muslims and thus acknowleging that they would be a problem, and B. then telling the French to do precisely that. Sort of like saying yes the muslims are a problem but heck! do it anyway and that they would react positively to such a move. Its laughable.

No, it was saying that Chirac appeared weak for not helping the US in Iraq and then it was saying that Chirac should get some balls and send troops to Iraq, not that I totally agree with that but it's what was said. Sending more troops to Iraq now will not send a good message at all, not this late in the game.

1. No I dont think thats accurate. Im not sure you can say its more/less humane than the US. Racism is still a problem here. The walfare program was designed as financial aid for all people not just to help intergrate the immigrants. I dont think you can draw any conclusions.

2. I mean 'weak' as in less generous, not corrupt. France has a more generous system than in the US. The benefits are better and it lasts longer thats what I meant. Unemployment s up to 20% within the immigrants as for drug use again I dont you if can draw conclusions thats due to the welfare system. Drug abuse is much more common in the US and yet even with a less generous welfare system people still manage to shoot up much more.

3. I was exraggerating slightly, but it is true that the NYS readership is very small compared to the other area papers. Liberals dont read it at all and conservatives prefer the WSJ or Daily News. As for B. Thats just it, I dont read tabloids, left or right.

4. Ok perhaps I misundertood. Still, its a pretty stupid idea. This current domestic situation has nothing to do with Iraq and sending troops there it only make the situation worse. Besides France already has troops in Afganistan and thats more important in the fight against terrorism than Iraq.

I agree with a (very) few things you said, Mmarsh, and don't agree with most of them. Neither of us is going to lose sleep over it, though. I still think European immigration policies and integration models have failed.
I definitely think it is ridiculous that

President Mitterrand, the Washington Post reported in 1992, blamed the riots on the "conservative society" that Presidents Reagan and Bush had created and said France is different because it "is the country where the level of social protection is the highest in the world".

Typical French snobbish attitude.
Let me say I enjoy discussing with respectful and polite people, on "on-topic" comments, as is the case here.

Ok now I'm mad. Somebody had to bring up Mitterand (Just kidding )

Mitterand was:

1 a anti-American, anti-de Gaule far-left socialist. Neither of which represented the will of the French people.

2. A nazi collaborator. (his role was hidden until after he was president)

3. The worst President in French history after WWII. This immigration mess was thanks to him before+during his presidency.

4. Been out of Office for past 10 years.

5. Dead since 1996.

6. Very corrupt, his presidency was founded on corruption. Ruled France like a Monarch. I could go on about this, the man was unbelievable...

7. An egotistical elitist snob who turned his nose up to everyone (not just the USA). For example for his last meal he ate Orlatan a endangered species yellow song bird (that legend says is suppose to embody the soul of France). Its illegal to eat Orlatan in France so he did it in Egypt because he thought doing so would secure his place in History.

So Attributing those statements 15 years ago made by Mitterand (who is mostly hated here) to the entire French population is unfair. We had to endure him 16 years, we've been punished enough. I am no fan of Chirac, but he is a Godsend compared to Mitterand. Mitterand statements do not represent the opinion of the public neither then nor now. Just mention Mitterand to my Grandma, steam comes out of her ears...

Gotta go now and although we didnt agree I enjoyed the discussion too.

We surprisingly agree over Mitterrand = worse than Chirac.
But -hey, he was President of France for fourteen years, not exactly a couple of days. I mean he had to be representative of at least the majority of the French people.
I didn't bring up some unknown second-rate jerk.