Said Sarkozy, getting tough.
He vowed to deny automatic citizenship at 18 to French-born children of foreigners if they are juvenile delinquents. He said he would also strip foreign-born citizens of French citizenship if they had been convicted of threatening or harming a police officer, or of crimes like polygamy and female circumcision, which are widespread in North Africa.
Posts
53 comments:
Sounds like he's quoting directly from "Man In the Iron Mask".
You want to earn French nationality?
Surrender to the Wehrmacht.
What is he talking about? Joining the foreign legion?
My prediction (and I have thought this for a long time) is as Muslim radicalism increases in Europe, you will see Europeans start to react far harsher than Mr. Sarkozy is reacting now. There is only so many Danish cartoon death threats, Dutch sidewalk assissinations, or Parisian suburban riots/car burnings that will be tollerated.
assassinations
mon erreur
The second sounds like he's paraphrasing U.S. law, which allows people to be de-naturalized. Althouse has to have known that.
Say, this is entertaining and all, but the 14th thing is counter-productive and, to the extent that they're supporting it, #TeapartyDumb. It's never going to succeed in the current climate, but what it is going to do is allow the far-left to portray those who support our laws as meanies. And, there's little that the latter group can do about it because most of the loudest voices are, to be frank, idiots.
The way to resolve this issue is to first realize that you have to discredit the bad guys and prevent them from lying. After that happens, we can have a real debate. Trying to have a real debate while not going after the bad guys is pointless: they'll keep on winning.
Along the road there, people have to realize that much of the so-called opposition to Obama is bogus: they're incompetent and fringe like the teapartiers, or they're mostly just in it for the money.
If you want to resolve this issue, don't follow the bogus opposition. Instead, give me a hand and do things in a smart and effective way. See what's at the first four links on my topics page for examples of how I do things and who I discuss. Then, help out by linking to one of those individual entries or by doing one of these. If you follow a bogus opposition group, the problem's only going to get worse. Instead, do things that are smart and effective.
Here's a country for which citizenship means something. Good on him.
""French nationality is earned, and one must prove oneself worthy of it""
Sarkozy can't very well say this to native French "hoodlums" and their families and still expect to get elected.
BUT, this statement is safe to speak openly about when he is talking about immigrants. Particularly when talking about Muslim immigrants in Europe.
Let's at least be honest about what needs to be discussed.
From the article, "There is a social and cultural marginality that has instituted itself.”
The same is true in poor cities all over America. We have our native born "thug" culture too. But shhhh...
Much easier to open up the American dialogue when we are talking about illegal Mexican immigrants who can't vote and who don't have the protections that the US Constitution provides than it is to talk about the ghetto culture of lawlessness.
Oh...and those mafia thugs...and those white collar thugs too! They may not be poor in the "classic sense", but they apparently don't have "enough", so "poor"...in their own way, and all with their own social and cultural circles.
So what is the REAL problem, and why is it so hard for all of us to talk about?
"The way to resolve this issue is to first realize that you have to discredit the bad guys and prevent them from lying. After that happens, we can have a real debate. Trying to have a real debate while not going after the bad guys is pointless: they'll keep on winning."
You may be a loner, but not always a wacko.
"Instead, do things that are smart and effective."
Like calling your potential allies "stupid"? How do you describe someone who attempts to self promote by insulting his audience? Underachiever? Fool? Self- destructive? I got it: stupid, unless you're Don Rickles - he was pretty funny too.
Walk the walk.
American Europhiles pleading for us to emulate this in 3...2...1...
No wait...
Well, the thing to keep in mind here is that this isn't some new thing. The French, despite all the bullshit about fraternity and equality, have never embraced their immigrants and have always made it hard to gain citizenship. That's the primary reason that France has such a problem with "youths."
For the United States to emulate this sort of behavior would require a massive change in law, attitude, everything.
All we need to do with immigration is to do a slightly better job at acclimating and Americanizing our immigrants.
If people want to build a wall between the United States and Mexico, I can support that. However, it's unjust, un-American, ludicrous, and practically impossible to round up illegal immigrants and send them back where they came from. The property issues alone are mind boggling.
Bagoh, if you can't take the BEST from what Lonewacko has to say, or any of the rest of us for that matter, then I say, shame on you.
Frankly, your last comment was not the BEST of you either.
We're all human though, so I will "squint" through this, while looking forward to your usual wisdom yet again.
Offered respectfully,
Penny
if you can't take the BEST from what Lonewacko has to say, or any of the rest of us for that matter, then I say, shame on you
I disagree. Wacko comes here all the time and calls people idiots for not following his plans, whatever they are. He is a loony voice in the wilderness and has criticized people here constantly.
Ditto 7m
Seven, you are right that the problems aren't new, but our messages have changed dramatically.
For example...
Mexicans and Information...well..."They just want to be FREE!"
How many times do we need to read that once a door is opened and many rush through, that it can never be closed again?
So many believe the above that they lie in anxious wait of Muslim immigration, and have given up on nearly all their personal values because of the WHOOOOSHHH of humanity entering, and "the tide that cannot be stemmed".
HOGWASH!
Believers of this must also believe that Adam and Eve opened the door to sin, and that Pandora knew her multiplication tables.
Believers of this must also believe that Adam and Eve opened the door to sin
They did. That's the point of the whole story.
"STORY" is the operative word.
And it seems that the STORY "resonated".
And INFORMATION, it wants to be free!
A story says a lot about reality, Penny. Has any record of history or mere collection of facts ever explained the early 1920s better than The Great Gatsby?
This is a bad story and speaks ill of human nature.
Know what speaks well of human nature? That would take a thread jack. Apologies. Spaghetti with red kale.
Well, looks like Sarkozy doesn't like how the MEU is turning out. Don't say you weren't warned.
It seems to me that this conundrum is true of not only our country but most of the developed world.
The left has made promises it could not, definitely cannot possibly keep now and the chickens are coming home to roost.
"A story says a lot about reality, Penny."
Who could disagree...
And thanks for that reminder, Seven.
With that, I humbly beg your pardon. Off to dreamland.
Frickin' New York Times, still unable to use the I word.
So many...lie in anxious wait of Muslim immigration, and have given up on nearly all their personal values
As the left adopts sharia best practices, and censors the New York Times, and censors South Park, and censors free speech, and has nothing to say about gays being stoned, or women not being allowed to vote, or work, or use birth control, and then they start bitching about the Jews, and complaining about Christians, and crying for car-burners, I'd have to say that the people who have abandoned their values appear to be on your side. At least Muslims have a belief system. The left, vis-a-vis Islam, is just a bunch of obsequious, cock-sucking nihilist appeasement monkeys. Except for Hitch, god bless.
Good for Sarkozy.
Good for him. We should do the same.
Seven Machos,
How does one acclimate a group of immigrants who believe women are property?
Liberals worship at the altar of political correctness. But it is an open-ended and indefinite religion. They do not know for sure what is PC. All they know is they must obey.
When liberals say, "Piss Christ," Christians object. So liberals check with their PC masters, who tell them that Christians have not killed anyone in hundreds of years, and Christians are well off and happy. So Piss Christ!
As liberals say, "cartoon Muhammad," Muslims object. So liberals check with their PC masters, who tell them that Muslims are poor victims of the world, suffering. Plus they are very serious and occasionally homicidal. So rip off your Porky Pig T-shirt. And the PC liberal obeys.
And so the PC vacuum is quietly (shhhh!) filled with ideas from sharia. Not because the liberal agrees. Not because sharia is sensitive or liberal or nice. But becasue the PC liberal has been conditioned to obey, like a nice little servant girl, to whatever is PC.
The PC mind is a weird contraption that feels sorry for the inferior while it obeys the superior.
Lisa -- Don't be ridiculous. The United States does a problem with illegal immigration by Muslims. Our immigration problem is with people from Mexico and Central America.
On that note, however, we have no problem with the enslavement of women by people based on religion or based on anything else. The laws, written and unwritten, prevent that pretty well.
Are you really suggesting that we have some sort of calamity with Muslims in this country who are subjugating women? Come on. Get serious.
Sarkozy has balls. Obama doesn't.
Excuse me. It's early. My point is that we don't -- do not -- have a problem with Muslims immigrating illegally to this country.
Sounds like Sarko has a problem with vibrant cutural diversity.
So Sarkozy is following the theme of the previous post.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
It seems like the second part of the clause is being ignored.
Aren't illegal immigrants not subjecting themselves to this "jurisdiction" simply by virtue of being here in clear violation of our law?
The way to get them to go home is to take away the incentives to come here. Stop the hiring illegals. They will go home.
We'll see how the French manage the mess they are in. We need to take notes.
Here we are where we look to the French as a model of direct action in confronting a threat.
Sigh.
Trey
Hey Seven --
How many of the 9/11 19 were on expired visas?
How many illegal Islamic terrorists are coming across the Border with Mexico?
Why isn't the left highlighting the theocracy mongering Islamic bent like they wet their pants (unjustifiably) over the Alaska Governor about?
Just asking as I go off to make applesauce from our overburdened apple trees.
France has a huge problem, and I am glad to see some pushback.
How many of the 9/11 19 were on expired visas?
How does this help the argument that somehow beefing up immigration law implementation will help? How do you propose tracing people already in the country?
How many illegal Islamic terrorists are coming across the Border with Mexico?
I don't know. How many?
Seven Machos: Well, the thing to keep in mind here is that this isn't some new thing. The French, despite all the bullshit about fraternity and equality, have never embraced their immigrants and have always made it hard to gain citizenship. That's the primary reason that France has such a problem with "youths."
Yeah, that's the primary reason why France has a problem with the "youths". Just like every other European country that has a problem with "youths". There is nothing inherently destabilizing about mass immigration that can't be fixed with a little attitude adjustment on the part of the host.
Oddly, you can find a plethora of French blogs where the silly things just don't seem to grasp this, and have a completely different understanding of what's going on. But what do they know? They just live there. Probably they should hire some American consultants to explain it all and straighten things our for them.
All we need to do with immigration is to do a slightly better job at acclimating and Americanizing our immigrants.
The wheels started coming off our assimilation machine decades ago, SM. There is no "slightly better" that can repair accelerating national incoherence.
Lone whack-a-mole: ...but what it is going to do is allow the far-left to portray those who support our laws as meanies.
As if the far left ever did anything but portray anybody who disagreed with them as meanies. But just keep tailoring your strategy to maintain the approval of thugs and loonies, while alienating potential allies. Remember: eyes on the prize!
I am not speaking for France, Angel. I agree that France goes about it all wrong.
You do realize, don't you, that 100 years ago the influx of Irish and Italian immigrants was the bane of a large segment of the country?
If you want to keep out illegal immigrants, build a wall between the United States and Mexico. That's the only reasonable solution. As for the illegal immigrants here, now, we are stuck with them if they don't choose to leave. There is no way to round them up that is politically or morally feasible.
JAL said,
"Aren't illegal immigrants not subjecting themselves to this "jurisdiction" simply by virtue of being here in clear violation of our law?"
DING,DING,DING!!!
Give that man a cigar. This issue of "birthright citizenship" to the children of aliens is getting very close the reason why Obama is not an eligible Natural Born Citizen, and I'm sure it makes them nervous. Especially in light of the recent damage control by Rhinos Graham and McCain (the other Non Natural Born Citizen) about "amending the 14th Amendment right to Birthright citizenship".
There is NO SUCH THING in the 14th Amendment that gives children of Non Resident aliens automatic citizenship. American Indians are not US Citizens at birth, even if born off the reservation, in the US, precisely because they are subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign power. Children of aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of their parents, and then their parent's country. If born to 1 US Citizen and 1 Alien, then you are subject to the jurisdiction of both parents and country's, and jurisdiction is mainly by location. At the age of 18, by election (place of residence, obtaining Passport or other affirmation) one may become a citizen by Election. Birth to 2 aliens (Non US legal Resident), even in the US, would require Naturalization Unless their parents bacame citizens or legal residents.
Now, do McCain and Graham not know about our citizenship laws, or are they trying to cover for their treason in allowing the election of an ineligible Non Natural Born Citizen?
Funny that you mention Olsen, who with Laurence Tribe, defined Natural Born Citizen as "one born WITHIN A NATION'S TERRITORY AND ALLEGIANCE" during the Resolution 511 hearings, which fraudulently proclaimed McCain was a Natural Born Citizen (he's not because of the fact that he was born in Colon, Panama, and was granted birthright citizenship of Panama at that time). WITHIN THE ALLEGIANCE is Singular allegiance at birth, one can't be Within the allegiance and have dual allegiance, as McCain and Obama (presumably, if born in HI.) did.
God Forbid that we give these treasonous bastards the key to the Crypt of the Constitution.
Oh God.
7M: I am not speaking for France, Angel. I agree that France goes about it all wrong.
I can't figure out if you misread me, or I'm misreading you, 'cause honestly, I can't figure out what this sentence is in response to. Oh well, not important. It happens. (BTW, I'm an angle, not an angel.)
You do realize, don't you, that 100 years ago the influx of Irish and Italian immigrants was the bane of a large segment of the country?
Of course not. I'm shocked to discover that.
7M, are you familiar with the expression "argument by bet you didn't know!"? If not, it was defined way back in the Golden Age of blogging by, iirc, a Norwegian blogger expressing his impatience with people who would adduce the most pedestrian and universally-known bit of information, with the apparent belief both that it was hitherto unknown, and that its revelation would surely put an end to any honest disagreement, or at the very least cause his interlocutor to seriously question his position.
The immigration debate, like any big controversy, is lousy with BYDK!. There is no comment thread on this subject in existence where someone doesn't show up in 3,2,1... with some variant of the ostensibly viewpoint-shattering revelation that "Europeans stole the land from the Native Americans!", and/or "Your ancestors were immigrants, too!" For some reason, these are presented either as triumphant revelations of vilest hypocrisy, and/or as fresh, unassailable arguments for open borders or amnesty or whatever debatable immigration topic is being argued, always with that trademark BYDK! flair.
But the likelihood that there is a disagreement about immigration because one of the sides is unaware of the history of the European conquests in the New World, or the history of anti-immigrant prejudice and rough spots in assimilation, is vanishingly small. (Particularly since it's very likely that those experiences are part of family lore, as well as history class). A far more reasonable assumption is that everybody knows these things, but disagrees about their relevance (e.g., believes that the differences between immigration c2010 and immigration c1840 or 1900 are now more important than the similarities).
I hope I did not just commit BYDK! by explaining BYDK!.
As for the illegal immigrants here, now, we are stuck with them if they don't choose to leave. There is no way to round them up that is politically or morally feasible.
Oh, I dunno, Seven. Of course you're not going to expel all of them. But cut off the bennies and start putting the hammer down on employers, and I suspect the problem would gradually reduce itself to a more manageable level in due time, with very little direct deporation action.
Or, you can wait 'til locale after locale gets fed up and starts being more inhospitable (which will happen no matter what some judge decrees), and eventually the "sanctuary" minded states are going to be stuck with problems that will make even their truest-bluest residents shout "Basta!". (Kinda like people do here, when Mick shows up.)
It'll be "solved" one way or the other. I'm not betting on the 19th/early 20th century program being re-run, though.
bagoh20: why would I want those who are dumb enough to be useful idiots for Armey and who are emotionally-challenged enough to throw tantrums at public meetings as allies? There aren't enough 'partiers to worry about; my target audience is those who support our immig. laws and who are smart and sane.
P.S. Yes, I realize I can be caustic (well, duh). However, it's further proof of the stupidity of the 'partiers that they can't use my years of coverage of groups like the NCLR and the SEIU as part of their campaigns against those groups. To them, not helping me is more important than opposing those groups. And, that's stupid and indicative of emotional problems.
To them, not helping me is more important than opposing those groups.
Dude, nobody knows who you even are. Opposition to you is not the same as your oblivion.
Phyllis Chesler is an interesting person to follow re what America might be facing. (Pause while left [and C4] starts foaming at the mouth and spitting invectives.)
It's educational. Especially since, as latma sez, "the truth will never make its way to your tv."
So glad you asked, Seven.
Here's a quick google catch Terrorist: The Other Illegal Immigrants
Visas and Drivers' Licenses
According to authorities, all of the hijackers who committed the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks were foreigners. All of them entered the country legally on a temporary visa, mostly tourist visas with entry permits for six months. Although four of them attended flight school in the United States, only one is known to have entered on an appropriate visa for such study, and one entered on an F-1 student visa. Besides the four pilots, all but one of the terrorists entered the United States only once and had been in the country for only three to five months before the attacks.
The four pilots had been in the United States for extended periods, although none was a legal permanent resident. Some had received more than one temporary visa, most of which were currently valid on September 11, but at least three of them had fallen out of status and were, therefore, in the United States illegally.
The terrorists had obtained U.S. identification that was used for boarding flights in the form of Florida, Virginia, California and New Jersey driver’s licenses/ID cards. One of the terrorists, Mohamed Atta, was detained in Florida for driving without a license, but subsequently obtained one. Thirteen of the terrorists had Florida driver’s licenses or ID cards, seven had Virginia driver’s licenses, at least two had California licenses and two had New Jersey driver’s licenses. According to the March 28, 2002 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Robert Thibadeau, director of Carnegie Mellon's Internet Security labratory, says that "the 19 terrorists on Sept. 11 were holding 63 state driver's licenses for identification."
So actually they had visas, though not legitimate. (Murderer and Demolition not being occupation categories.) There was the problem that almost none of the terrorists should have been granted visas because of the way they filled (or didn't) out their applications.
So sneaking across our southern open border takes care of that nicety.
It would be good to start by following the law we do have.
Maguro said...
Sounds like Sarko has a problem with vibrant cutural diversity.
If as in vibrant you mean bat shit fucking crazy, then yes, he has a problem with it.
It would be good to start by following the law we do have.
The law we have now is unenforceable given the cost required to actually enforce it and the draconian measures that would be necessary. If you'll just think things through, you'll see that there is no way to round up illegal immigrants and give them basic civil rights while deporting them at a reasonable cost. There is also no way to investigate every business and punish the ones that hire illegals.
7M: The law we have now is unenforceable given the cost required to actually enforce it and the draconian measures that would be necessary.
Oh bullshit. That every illegal would have to be rounded up and deported, and every employer prosecuted, is so much hysterical propaganda.
We can't afford to enforce the law, but somehow we can afford the billions in social costs added to the public tab by our imprudent immigration non-policies. It would be just too "draconian" to enforce the law, but somehow no civil unpleasantness will ever result from undermining respect for the law in the heretofore law-abiding.
The cost of not enforcing all law from an actual spending-of-money standpoint is zero.
If you want to prevent illegal aliens from receiving welfare, that's far easier to do.
Post a Comment