The "African" or "French" rioters, or "youths" as they are variously called in the media, are Muslims. This is the unassimilated Muslim population that conservatives have warned about in western Europe for decades.

Aside from the substantive question of what the French government should do about the situation, there is also the question of why the media are so squeamish about naming the most obvious defining trait that all the rioters share.

An interesting insight from Belmont Club:

The events in France may turn out to have a greater strategic impact than September 11. French policies, however maddening, had the virtue of serving as the control case to the American experiment of attempting to reform the Islamic world. The latter acknowledged, however shyly, that it was facing an aggression which had to be met at the root; which had to be resolved by building viable societies in Islamic homelands. The former, and France in particular, maintained there was nothing that temporizing and appeasement, in one form or another, could not solve. What events in France have done is discredit the liberal recipe so badly that even those who are not prepared to admit that American policy may have been right must now root around for an alternative theory.

From 2002's "The Barbarians at the Gates of Paris": Whether France was wise to have permitted the mass immigration of people culturally very different from its own population to solve a temporary labor shortage and to assuage its own abstract liberal conscience is disputable: there are now an estimated 8 or 9 million people of North and West African origin in France, twice the number in 1975—and at least 5 million of them are Muslims. Demographic projections (though projections are not predictions) suggest that their descendants will number 35 million before this century is out, more than a third of the likely total population of France.

Although you'd hardly know it, we're facing something similar here in the U.S.

Because of corrupt employers and politicians, we're importing millions of Mexicans into states that used to be part of... Mexico. How old would a bright student have to be in order to see that's not such a good idea? Six? Seven?

And, those new arrivals are not being assimilated. Rather, we're allowing the Mexican government to spread propaganda and keep them Mexican. And, a good percentage of them are becoming radicalized through ethnic studies programs and joining racial separatist organizations.

Here's one small attempt to start a riot. As with other events featuring violent, Communist-linked events, the media tried to hush it up. Here's the L.A. Times lying about ANSWER, and here's the Boston Globe's turn.

Because of the money involved and because of PC, all of that is allowed to happen. Perhaps we should take a closer look at those politicians and companies that profit off this and see whether they have America's best interests at heart.

Raz,

I'm not too sure the Belmont Club snippet offers much insight into what the strategic significance of the Paris riots is. It's actually a rather confusing post. What exact policies are they referring to when they say "...reform the Islamic world?" And the suggestion that "building viable societies," be they in Islamic homelands or not, is somehow not a liberal recipe and liberal foreign policy objective is a woeful misreading of history. The fact that a "conservative" web site like the Belmont Club now openly believes in the efficacy of the Imperial Project and the ability of outside actors to "shape" and "build" and "mold" societies is rather telling of how incoherent Republican thinking actually is on foreign policy these days. Y'all just want to be you're old conservative selves, but it just so happens that you have to support a splendidly liberal policy, of the type your party criticized (on very valid grounds I might add!) for so many decades. This small little paradox simply leads to gross intellectual inconsistency. I mean really, David Brooks and his ilk will piss all over poor little Jeff Sachs and his idealistic pledge to "End Poverty" (and Sachs undoubtedly deserves such criticisms!), but turn right around and applaud the Good Prince of Darkness Richard Perle and his pledge to "End Evil." Surely one can "end evil" if one can "end poverty" right? Just be creative!

Now, in terms of being able to gauge the significance of the riots right now, I'd say it is hard to do so because reporting from France is very superficial. Feel free to jump to conclusion as Andrew Sullivan has, and call the riots "Islamist Underground Riots," but I have seen absolutely NO reporting that clearly explains the role of Islamist groups or the French Islamist "Underground." I don't doubt that they may play a role, but for now, absent that evidence, the riots look no different than poor Irish Catholics rioting in Belfast. Then again, all the Irish Catholics are terrorists too right?

In the past ten days there have been: riots between Muslims (Pakistani descent) and blacks in Birmingham, UK. Rioting of Muslim (Turk, Palestinian) 'youth' in Aarhus, Denmark.

Generalizations are intellectually lazy, but how about these:

1. In countries with a Muslim majority, minorities are oppressed (perhaps Turkey being an exception).

2. In countries with significant Muslim minorities, there is rebellion and fractiousness.

Please clue me in if I am incorrect.

The somewhat off-topic post above about Mexicans coming to the United States got me thinking about why European governments, with their vast apparatus for regulating the private economy, didn't take steps years ago to recruit a better class of immigrant.

Better, that is, for Europe. I mean, it should long have been evident that demographic trends were pointing in the direction of there being many jobs native Europeans were no longer willing to do, and that someone from somewhere would need to do them. Why did not European governments take steps to import guest workers from Latin America for this very purpose?

Granted that for most Latin Americans the United States is the preferred destination; it is closer than Europe, and many Latin American communities are already here. But the United States cannot provide work for all the people who want to come here. Moreover Spanish speaking South American immigrants would relate to native Europeans much more easily than Arabic or Turkish speakers can; the cultural ties between countries of the old Spanish empire and Western Europe are also much stronger than those between Europe and Africa or the Arab countries.

Lastly, Europe has a great number of ancient churches that are now little more than museums instead of citadels of light and life, which large numbers of mostly youthful Latin American Catholics could have made them. And, a policy of preference in employment and housing for Latin American immigrants or even guestworkers could have made Europe a less attractive destination for less easily assimilable immigrants from other parts of the world.

All this really isn't by way of comment on the riots outside Paris; it's water over the dam anyway. I just wonder what the point is of having a Minister for Social Cohesion if European governments never think of things like this. For that matter I wonder that the Catholic Church, so anxious over the decline of Catholicism in Europe, never made this an issue.

Here's an even better one...

1. Throughout history, there have been riots in many countries.
2. Throughout history, these riots have typically been spearheaded by the poor and disadvantaged.

Clue me in if I am incorrect?

The level of reasoning around here is beyond pathetic.

1) To those who worry about America's Mexican immigrants, I would point out that Mexican immigrants today are in about the same state (in terms of socio-economic status and degree of cultural assimilation) that their Italian or Irish predecessors were at this stage. Mexicans practice the same religion as most Americans, their culture isn't very different, I see no ticking time bomb here.

2) micawber 78, it is not true that most Muslims are terrorists. It is true, however, that most terrorists are Muslims. The Islamic world is almost an unbroken sea of violence, ignorance, and tyranny. Muslims are living in the midst of their own cultural Dark Ages right now, and France's immigration policies, which are keeping Muslim immigrants poor and unassimilated, seem designed to cause a situation like what we are now seeing. It would make far more sense for western countries to focus on assimilating their Muslim immigrants, adopting them into the surrounding culture, making sure they get jobs, and basically separating them from the poisonous aspects of their homelands. With Muslim immigrants above all others, it is crucial to focus on assimilation.

Zathras,

The short answer to your question of why Europeans did not recruit a better class of immigrant is race. France had possessed Algeria for 120 years. The French "knew" North Africans. North Africans were not terribly ambitious--it took them generations to throw France out. Presumably, the ones who came over to France were interested in living under French rule permanently and peaceably--they were the "good ones." Perhaps they were so a generation or two ago, but their children hate their new homeland every bit as much as their grandparents hated the colonial masters.

Hubris--born in France. Chickens--come home to roost.

Micawber,

As for your rudimentary analysis of "riots through the ages" (more deathless undergraduate prose?), I suggest you pick up anything by E.P. Thompson. He's a good old-fashioned lefty historian, but don't think he'll back you up in this one. His classic read on bread riots in 17th century England (which has been copied shamelessly for 40 years) argues that riots are usually caused by a powerful actor (the state, an employer, a well-meaning NGO, what have you) breaks an implicit contract with "the people." They are led by respectable workers (the "labor aristocracy"--also a Thompsonian coinage) and tend to have well defined goals. Since the 1960s, riots are far more anarchic, leaderless, mindlessly destructive and harder to quell. Don't look back through time and across history on this one. All riots are not alike.

Kelli,

I appreciate your analysis, but the intention of my post was to rival Save-The-Rustbelt's level of simplicity and overgeneralization in the post above. I am not of the opinion that only the poor take part in riots or that poverty is the principal cause of violence, but one can make such easy generalizations as Save-The-Rustbelt does in his/her post above regarding Muslims and the CAUSES of rebellion. As he/she says, generalizations are intellectually lazy. So, Kelli, pardon me if my humor didn't come across to you as clearly as I would have hoped. And as for Thompson's argument on powerful actors spurring riots, I would certainly argue that's true in many instances. I think the role of powerful and influential political actors is important and actually serves to discredit simplistic arguments that "Islam" or "ancient hatreds" are the root cause of rebellion and violence. On the role of powerful actors in fomenting conflict, see Jack Snyder's "From Voting to Violence" and his most recent book "Electing to Fight."

Also, Joel, the fact that most terrorists are Muslims is not in and of itself evidence that being a Muslim is the principal cause of one becoming a terrorist. Similarly, statistics that show that most terrorists are male cannot be viewed as causal evidence that being male is the principal reason as to why some males become terrorists when the vast majority of males are not terrorists.

Whatever the cause, the riots are spreading and apparently growing in intensity.

And so far my generalizations, as intellectually lazy as they are, have not be refuted.

Question: the immigrants were often brought into the country for cheap labor, so how is it that so many are unemployed - social engineering gone bad -- bad economic policy -- both?

Wait a sec - aren’t these youths “freedom fighters”? Isn’t this the beginning of the French Intifada? Isn’t this part of the great French revolutionary tradition ... the downtrodden and disenfranchised rising up to claim their just deserts?

If the French media is going to remain true to its historical biases, shouldn’t it be lionizing these downtrodden Muslim ghetto dwellers who are rising up against Gallic oppressors and the armor of French goon squads? I mean how dreadful!! Armed police attacking poor Muslim youths like Nazis!! What in God’s name is France coming to? Lol - oops (trying to suppress laughter).

I can’t wait for the Islamic Fourth Estate to raid the Elysee Palace and hold Chirac for ransom.

Pardonnez moi while I uncork a bottle of Chateau Trimoulet Saint Emilion and raise a glass to the stormers of the Bastille!!

TLB here.

Joel: To avoid being even more OT: see this and this.

Since the 1960s, riots are far more anarchic, leaderless

As my links above show, recent mini-riots in the U.S. were caused by Communist agitators. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the L.A. Riots were caused at least partly by them; I know that there were some of them around during the riots.

And, this (warning: apocalyptic and Insty-approved) points to this: Officials said that "small, very mobile gangs" were harassing police and setting fires to garbage cans and vehicles throughout the region. It doesn't sound like just a spontaneous or grassroots riot, unless all those "gangs" are just trying to take advantage of the riots.

Maybe someone with better French can see what it says here.

On a more sober note, this reveals the cruel irony that is written into a French model of integration, that is anything but.

This urban uprising has been a long time coming.

[T]here are now an estimated 8 or 9 million people of North and West African origin in France, twice the number in 1975—and at least 5 million of them are Muslims.

Where did the author of that piece get those numbers?

Rafie Boustani and Philippe Fargues’ 1990 The Atlas of the Arab World cites a population of two million Arabs in France circa 1989, reflecting the author’s definition of an Arab as someone connected to an Arab "language and historical conscience" (106). The 1982 French census identifies 796 thousand Arabs as being of Algerian origin, 431 thousand as being of Moroccan origin, 189 thousand as being of Tunisian origin, and another hundred thousand or so coming from another six Arab countries (Djibouti, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Mauritania, Syria). The difference between the two could be explained by a rate of population growth of 3.5% growth per annum between 1982 and 1990.

Figures of eight million French Muslims are regularly tossed around, based, it seems, on panicked fears of high Muslim immigration and a high Muslim birth rate. These figures are vastly overestimated, though. Figures on religious affiliation and ethnic background aren’t kept by the French government, as part of a long-standing reaction against the misuse of those figures by Vichy to deport immigrant Jews to the concentration camps. The suggestions of The Economist that there are a bit over four million French Muslims seem to be more sensible and generally accepted. This amounts to roughly 7% of the French population--a significant number, to be sure, but not an overwhelming majority.

Moreover, I'm not sure why people are assuming that Algerians are more distant from French than Mexicans are from Americans. Don't forget that Algeria was a French colony for 130 years, that the society was heavily Francized to the point that even now French occupies a place of near-equality with Arabic. Algerians are more acculturated to French culture than Mexicans are to American culture. French is the dominant language among young French Muslims, not Arabic or Berber or Wolof.

http://www.ined.fr/publications/pop_et_soc/pes376/index.html

Does France have problems? Yes. As people have pointed out, the high rate of youth unemployment disproportionately affects immigrants, and social mobility out of the immigrant ghettos isn't high enough. Start from sane first principles, please, from actual data.

Aidan:

Such glee at France's travails is a bit unseemly. Were you this happy during the Los Angeles riots of 1992?

I'm not sure what point you are attempting to make by citing all these stats Randy. That we need to be less concerned?

European governments need to be compelled to confront a problem that their policies have created. Working hard on the multicultural window-dressing while in a state of studious denial won't cut it any more.

Moreover that attitude of denial has isolated Muslim communities and led to simmering resentment, exactly the right conditions for home bred terrorism to take root and flourish. Maybe events like this will compel them to enbrace much needed realism.

How you got from an obviously satirical take on the events in Paris (after years of Chirac's pomposity), to the assumption that my presumed "glee" extends to the Los Angeles riots of 1992 completely escapes me.

I'm not sure what point you are attempting to make by citing all these stats Randy. That we need to be less concerned?

What I'm saying is that people are quoting statistics that have no relationship to reality. "Eight or nine million" Muslims in France? That number's absurdly inflated. Similarly, France is an officially multicultural society? That's doubtless news for the "one and indivisible republic" that doesn't officially collect data on ethnicity, never mind support affirmative action policies or recognize minority languages.

Presumably, if you're interested in talking about reality you'll be using real figures. Otherwise you're simply talking about fiction.

Figures of eight million French Muslims are regularly tossed around, based, it seems, on panicked fears of high Muslim immigration and a high Muslim birth rate.

I'm not the author so I don't know. However, in the U.S. case some try and say there are only 8-10 million illegal aliens in the U.S. Those are usually apologists for massive illegal immigration. OTOH, Bear Stearns estimated there are actually 20 million here. No one knows who's right. A similar situation might exist in France.

Randy,

First, a first principle. The rioters are French, they are French born. The French state makes no distinction. It is not immigrants rioting, but the offspring of immigrants. Of course, they wouldn't be there but for the immigrants. So lets get the actors straight.

Now, this same class, people who are a) children of immigrants b) Muslim have been rioting in x) the UK y) France and z) Denmark in the past two weeks. And of course we just past the aniversary of yet another European born Muslim's murder of Dutch filmaker Theo van Gogh.

So you see, there is a problem population. Yes, this is a generalization, but that is what social scientists and policy people do, Randy, we generalize. And here is a sociological rule as close to being a law as you will every get in the subject. Let a large mass of Muslims in a non-Muslim country, let them procreate, and you have just increased your chances of 'social unrest' by an unspecified but large amount.

Better to stop immigration, let wage rates rise, and institute more 'kindergeld'. That will fix Europes demographic problem.

Good to see simple minded bigotry is still alive, and even better, dressed up in polite but idiotic generalisations.

First, with respect to history:
France had possessed Algeria for 120 years. The French "knew" North Africans. North Africans were not terribly ambitious--it took them generations to throw France out. Presumably, the ones who came over to France were interested in living under French rule permanently and peaceably--they were the "good ones." Perhaps they were so a generation or two ago, but their children hate their new homeland every bit as much as their grandparents hated the colonial master

Not terribly ambitious? Poor bloody bastards fought the French for a good century as French rule slowly expanded (it did not start covering all that big blot on the map that is now Algeria), and after some frankly genocidal sweeps (including some lovely famines engendered by French land siezures and droughts - the French authorities using the famines as weapons to subdue the 'unruly tribes') by the French, died out in the late 19th century and popped up again a generation later.

Ignorant fools should keep their mouths shut.

As to the gross bigotry of the generalisations supra, it's frankly disgusting.

Given, for example, in England one has had nasty and similar riots by non-Muslims (Caribeans etc) off of similar sociological bases - and in Europe as well - it strikes me as abundantly clear the Islamophobes are engaging in the typical cherry picking that bigots due to ident a group as the "bad ones." Nothing new, indeed rather tediously familiar.

(This leaves aside the fact the immigrant neighbors effected are hardly 100 percent Muslim and it is rather more accurate to note the rioting youth are second generation African descended youth - but then it is out of fashion now to bang on with anti-black bigotry in such a simple minded fashion, however the scary terrorist Muslims are fair game. Bloody bigotted scum.

Randy

Regarding the number of minorities in France. The usual number I've seen is around 4M to 6M, about the same as the UK. Which sounds about right based on my own experience spending a fair amount of time in both countries over the last few years.

The big difference between the UK and France is that most minorities in the UK have assimilated whereas most in France seem to be deeply alienated. There is a visceral hatred between the minority/majority in France that is almost completely missing in the UK.

France has a long history of dealing with serious social problems in a disastrous and bloody manner. It has a very brittle political culture prone to collapse ever generation or so. The problem of “les zones” is intractable and will probably end with large scale bloodshed and/or large-scale repatriation.

Its not going to be pretty. You may see the Front National in government at the national level in the not too distant future - or the UMP stealing FN policies..

Monitoring Air America:

I'm not the author so I don't know. However, in the U.S. case some try and say there are only 8-10 million illegal aliens in the U.S. Those are usually apologists for massive illegal immigration.

The usual figure quoted for illegals in France seems to be between 200 and 400 thousand.

http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20050511-100133-3494r.htm

Firstly, let's assume that there are actually twice as many illegal immigrants as de Villepin says. Secondly, let's assume that they are all Muslim, that there are no Chinese, no eastern Europeans, no Latin Americans, no non-Muslim Africans. Even with these two assumptions, this boosts the numbers of French Muslims only by one-quarter.

Mitchell Young:

So you see, there is a problem population. Yes, this is a generalization, but that is what social scientists and policy people do, Randy, we generalize.

We generalize, yes, but we must do so on the basis of actual data. Thus, for instance, French Muslims are overwhelmingly and increasingly Francophone as I noted above. Moreover, they're quite secular

http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2003-07/18/article05.shtml

and they are well advanced in the demographic transition

http://www.insee.fr/fr/ffc/docs_ffc/IP898.pdf

Can we generalize from this? Sure. French Muslims, treating them as a single population, constitute an immigrant population with a generation or two of existence and are increasingly culturally assimilated, with those French Muslims who live in periurban communities suffering from considerable social exclusion.

Lounsbury:

Poor bloody bastards fought the French for a good century as French rule slowly expanded (it did not start covering all that big blot on the map that is now Algeria), and after some frankly genocidal sweeps (including some lovely famines engendered by French land siezures and droughts - the French authorities using the famines as weapons to subdue the 'unruly tribes') by the French, died out in the late 19th century and popped up again a generation later.

Yep. The Algerians have been marked profoundly indeed by the French colonial experience.

jmc:

The big difference between the UK and France is that most minorities in the UK have assimilated whereas most in France seem to be deeply alienated. There is a visceral hatred between the minority/majority in France that is almost completely missing in the UK.

Cite? Given the statistics for cultural and religious assimilation that I've cited above, this seems just a bit of a stretch.

How you got from an obviously satirical take on the events in Paris (after years of Chirac's pomposity), to the assumption that my presumed "glee" extends to the Los Angeles riots of 1992 completely escapes me.

Satire, sir, is rooted in fact in some form.

Lounsbury,

I think you're running a bit behind on your meds. And while you're at it, look up "ironic" in the dictionary.

As someone noted, the fanciful New Orleans riots got more coverage and demanded more 'root causes' debate than this very real race riot in France has. The reason this is spreading and will spread is that the politically correct quasi-socialist French government has only its own precepts to fall back on- ie, its not the people shooting at cops fault, its the governments fault for not stuffing more goodies into their welfare stockings.
As much as anything this is a riot over jobs, and falling back on the failed welfare state only makes the jobs situation worse. I think the French are more willing to address their 'Muslim' problem than their 'socialism' problem. Multiculturalism will go overboard before the nannystate.

I found it interesting that many of the media accounts I've read haven't mentioned ethicity, religion, class, etc. As a reader first learning about the situation, I really didn't have a picture in my head of what the situation might look like, or an idea what might have exacerbated outrage over possible police mistakes.

This is more a question of journalism ethics, but perhaps the concern about sober, "just the facts," non-analytical writing - when combined with political correctness - can leave out what I consider to be valid facts.

Of course rioters don't have spokespersons, but there must be a way to better convey what is happening.

Trying reading the blog of the Picuayane-Times. They are still on the ground in New Orleans and coming up w/ outstanding things about the magnitude of the destruction.
I suggest you learn French and read the French blogs.
Both indicate the damage is far more than you can believe. The damage to human beings is where you can not get a clear picture.

French Muslims, treating them as a single population, constitute an immigrant population with a generation or two of existence and are increasingly culturally assimilated

Well, the policy is obvious then. Drastically reduce the number of new arrivals, or else you keep repeating the problem.

But here... in the article you cite (you gotta read all the way down, man)

On Friday, July 11, al-Asfar told IOL that the French government approved the establishment of a secondary Muslim school in Lille, where students would study Arabic and Islamic subjects along with French curricula, in an unprecedented move in France's eventful history.

So it looks like their going the route the 'British' Muslims have already tread. Reaching for power. I've lived in both countries, and both have taken radially different approaches to the Muslim population. Both are having riots at the moment. Hmmm....

BTW Randy, the statistical report covers fertility for foreigners, not Muslims born in France. One would expect the same trends, but that data is not in your report. Second, with only two data points, the institute presents straightline reductions in fertility, but we have no idea with we are really looking at declining declines in fertility rate (i.e. reaching asympototes) or what have you. In short, not the greatest data.

Randy

> Cite sources

???

As I said I actually spend quite a bit of time in France, I have family living there. As for the UK, I was born in London, and spend quite a bit of time there too.

I may add that I lived for years in what is probably the most multi-cultural city in the US, San Francisco, where as a white Anglo I was just another minority. That experience was a great education in the dynamics of inter-ethnic and inter-racial social interactions, and for developing very sensitive antennae for dealing with people from many different cultures and races.

As I have spent the last few years bouncing back and forth between San Francisco, London, and Paris I get to experience first hand the very noticeable differences in the various countries. So sorry, no sources to cite, just my experience of actually living in these countries...

There is a visceral hatred between the minority/majority in France that is almost completely missing in the UK

While I respect people who get the 'feel' of a place, I think you are 100% wrong about this. I can't speak for France, as its been a few years since I lived there, but I am writing this from the UK. We've had four days of black v. Pakistani riots up in Birmingham. We of course had the July bombings in the Tube.

If you just hang out in pubs in central London, where overwhelmingly British (i.e. white) people who make tons of money in the City or in Law or media or whatever, of course you get the impression that everything is hunky dory in Britain. But its not the case, as a trip south of the Thames will quickly show you.

Well, the policy is obvious then. Drastically reduce the number of new arrivals, or else you keep repeating the problem.

Actually, the French have. You are familiar, I take it, with French immigration policies and their shift after the oil shock?

BTW Randy, the statistical report covers fertility for foreigners, not Muslims born in France. One would expect the same trends, but that data is not in your report.

Indeed, or even lower TFRs assuming that the acquisition of citizenship signals the continuance of assimilation.

Second, with only two data points, the institute presents straightline reductions in fertility, but we have no idea with we are really looking at declining declines in fertility rate (i.e. reaching asympototes) or what have you. In short, not the greatest data.

How's this?

By 1976, the number of immigrants was estimated at 3,700,000 or 7% of the total population. Of this total, Portuguese immigrants accounted for 22%, Algerian for 21%, Spanish for 15%, Italian for 13%, Moroccan for 8%, Tunisian for 4%, Turkish for 1.5%, and black African for 2.3% (figures from the 1975 census). Most of these immigrants were adults, men who had been selected (their mortality rate was well below the French average). The immigrant birth rate was high: immigrants from the three North African countries had an average of 5 to 6 children per woman, Portuguese 3.3, Spanish 2.5, Italian 2. 'On average in 1975, this indicator [the fertility rate] was 3.32 for all immigrants, as against 1.84 for the French and 1.93 for the whole population resident in France.' But once the immigrants have settled in France, their fertility rate, wherever measurement is possible, tends to 'fall in parallel' to the indigenous French fertility rate.

(Michel-Louis Levy, "Les étrangers en France," in Population et société, July-August 1980, no. 137.)

"Les étrangers en France" is online, t ined.fr. The evidence does support much sharper declines in TFRs among people of Tunisian and other African descent than among Algerians and Moroccans, FWIW.

Does France have a population of immigrant origin that has higher fertility rates than the French mainstream? Yes. So does the United States in Latinos. It hasn't been demonstrated nearly adequately, on this thread or elsewhere, that the two are dissimilar.

Randy,

You obviously know a lot more about French population and immigraiton policy than I do. First, I am very happy to hear that France has limited immigration. One of the refreshing things about France, in the few months I lived there, was that they talked fairly honestly about demographics and immigration. Maybe that honesty translated into policy.

I will concede the point that Muslims and others in France are coming to resemble the native French in fertility patterns -- except, as you point out, the Algerians. That is a huge exception, of course. Still, we have evidence before our eyes that the second generation Muslim population (males especially) is a problem. Not only in France, but elsewhere. "Theodore Darymple" has written about this in the English context and the microlevel.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_4_suicide_bombers.html

Actually, in many ways the "Latinos" in the United States are the same, although less so. Mexican (for the vast majority are Mexican) culture is, like Muslim culture, very macho very devoted to 'honor' (amor propia is probably a better term). The thing that makes it different is that it is not supported by a network of radical mosques and preachers that sees itself as the enemy of the West.

Hi Mitchell

My last trip to London, just after 7/7, was precisely to get a feel what the various areas were like to live in. And its more than 20 years since I last set foot inside a pub in central London..

While looking at places to live in London I had realized that I was a Zone 1 person, that I really did not have a good idea what a lot of the areas outside Zone 1 were actually like to live in. So I decided to spend a week or two just traveling around London by public transport getting to know lots of areas I only knew by name, or had just passed through. I spent many hours a day ranging all over London to the edge of Zone 4 checking out the various areas, walking the neighborhoods, and hanging out in cafes. I also spent many hours on the Tube, which was an interesting experience in itself.

I had just come from France, via Ireland, I was in France on 7/7, and the contrast between London and Paris was fairly stark. Leaving Paris I took the RER out to CDG airport which passes through some of the areas that have been rioting the last few weeks. The tension in the train while passing through the banlieu was palpable. It reminded me of that air of menace that was prevalent in large parts of LA in the early 90's, both before and after the riots..

If things do not quieten down in the next day or two its going to get very ugly in France. The patience of the provinces is wearing very very thin. Dousing a white handicapped woman on crutches with petrol and setting her on fire may prove to be the last straw..

A lot of nonsense is being written about the riots in France but here is one good commentary (from the Independent): http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article324953.ece

I will concede the point that Muslims and others in France are coming to resemble the native French in fertility patterns -- except, as you point out, the Algerians. That is a huge exception, of course.

I disagree that it's huge. The TFRs of second-generation Algerians and Moroccans are ~50% higher than the averagem French TFR, itself one of the highest in Europe. The factor of assimilation is fairly high, as I said above. Moreover, rates of intermarriage appear to be comparable to those of mid-20th century American Jews. Too, the Berbers who predominate in this immigration flows are known for their secularist inclinations.

Randy,

I meant huge in the sense that Algerians are a large large part of the total immigrant population. I don't have time to look at your figures again, but surely they must be a plurality, if not majority, of the Muslim immigrants.

jmc

I too am a zone one person. If there is less tension in London (than elsewhere), I think its because their are so few native English left in the city. Basically they've given over the place -- all, except for the twenty somethings making it big in the City. They move out of London soon as they get married.

Mitchell:

I don't have time to look at your figures again, but surely they must be a plurality, if not majority, of the Muslim immigrants.

The single largest, group, yes. French Muslims actually form a relatively homogeneous group, with subpopulations coming from points as culturally separate as Mali, Morocco, and Turkey. The two youths who died were of Tunisian and Mauritanian origin.

For "homogeneous" above, read "heterogeneous."