[Mika]

Yeah, took me a while to consider whether I bother responding here.

First of all, call me racist all you want. On the questions on why do I employ black humor to this incident is because that's the most reasonable reaction to the stupidity unfolding. Additionally, making political leaders look laughable is the last thing they want.

What it comes to no-go-zones, you'll find plenty of them in Sweden, Belgium and France. One is forming in Eastern Helsinki too. It's also a first time I'm hearing the argument they would not exist. Do not exist, like really? Go travel there yourself then, it should not be a problem. Better yet, go live there yourself and do not ask other people to tolerate (and pay) things for you. I'm sure you can make a big difference on arbitrating between the local immigrant community and the natives living there.

What it comes to other arguments such as "studies have shown that when the income disparity and socio-economic status are corrected, the refugees and immigrants obey law better than natives", pretty much all I can say is:     
I do not understand how this kind of study can first of all satisfy any kind of scientific scrutiny, and how arguments such as those could possibly be accepted in peer-reviewed papers. And I have reviewed some myself so I'm actually aware of the process. No doubt the quality of peer reviewing has gone downhill in the last decade, but then again, self irony is an art in itself.

So what's the logical problem in the study? Well, in Physics you can reduce or remove certain factors from the observed results and can expect the effect to work. This is because a large fraction of things in nature are really deterministic. Unfortunately what I see in the above is a generalization of something like a reference measurement in Physics being applied to something like Social Studies. Unfortunately, it does NOT work like that. What you have a statistical process, and applying similar kind of deterministic reduction is actually not possible there at all. I'm also sort of surprised that I need to explain this, since that should really be self-evident. Then again, the Humanistic Sciences never were that good with Maths or Statistics (neither are Physicists but we know that). You'd actually need a reference to do this, but that reference cannot exist as people are individual and not cloned. In any other scenario, you're faced with a number of variable you cannot possibly control, enter the statistics.

So what you have are really only the statistical facts. The undisputed facts there are that people with Middle Eastern origin (arrived early 2000s) are 20 times more likely to commit violent crimes than the natives. Additionally, they are also like 6 times more likely to hit unemployment (17 % of Iraqis are employed, Finnish average 75 %, topped by Nepalese at 85 %, these being Finnish statistics). These are hard facts. Now what I'm seeing is an attempt to explain that these people would have a potential to be something had they been given a different start. It could, or could not happen, but it doesn't take away the fact that the people are here and now with their actual background.

Additionally, it is disheartening to see the happy integration songs being sung once again when the actual integration results are lacking in the EU. France, Sweden and UK come to mind first. People are really quick to point that the natives in the countries are preventing the happy integration being racistic, yet this applies a double-standard towards the refugees/immigrants. They are apparently incapable of wrong doing, (it is really considered as if they were autistic), like being racistic themselves (which is evidenced by rising Anti-Semitism in Sweden). So is it really so that EVERY European country where a substantial amount of immigrants have flowed is racistic by nature, or is it so that the immigrants do not want to integrate themselves? I don't actually believe EU nations being racistic from what I've seen - there's plenty of people from all over the globe are successful in these countries, so I'm inclined to believe that the implied racism is actually a minor thing, and the far bigger thing are the attitudes of the immigrants themselves.

The next question you'll have to ask is whether there is really a difference on the people arriving to the US and the EU. There is, as demonstrated in the earlier thread by MP-Ryan. North American countries actually employ a much more stringent border control (and yes, felt that personally, I need to travel to the US next week - again). There's no screening in Europe, and what we are actually seeing here are the refugees lying their name, lying their age, lying their education and lying their occupation. Great start in a culture that respects honesty, I've to say - had they said sheep herder I'd value that actually far better. If we were to believe all they said, a substantial amount of Iraqi police force is actually residing in this country. When tested in reality, the results are appalling: 75 % of the immigrants that tried to answer to the questionnaire could not read (study performed in a couple of reception centers), and those who could had substantial difficulty filling out a form in their own NATIVE language. While it could be argued that the sampling is not cohesive of the 30 000 arrived persons (actually 22 000, 8 000 have left, next winter is likely going to halve remainder), the counter argument is that the people arrived randomly and were divided randomly to different reception centers.

Interestingly, it also seems that the number of actually highly educated people is greater in earlier countries in the refugees path. If I didn't know better, I'd expect the EU countries in south have done some cherry picking of the immigrants themselves and then complain to us of not dealing with current bunch properly. So we are faced with a bunch of 30-40 year old illiterate people here who cannot possibly be of any use to Finnish society. Why? We have 600 000 unemployed of our own already. The only way I can see immigrants could possibly contribute is that the legalization was changed, but then you are actually favoring those immigrants over the 600 000 unemployed people who HAVE paid their taxes, making it positive discrimination. Not a good idea, nor is it morally sound. This is actually the root cause of "racism" you'll see in the Nordic Countries. But guess what? The unemployed natives also get flak for living on welfare and not contributing.

This begs the question why is the immigration to the EU countries so much hoped for by the politicians? The only rational answer I can think of is the dwindling birth rates in the EU countries. You could say "because we want to be nice" as a reason, but that doesn't actually hold any water. Whenever we are accepting refugees entering illegally, you are taking away those who were applying through the existing process. That process had a better control over the people coming here. Now that we have had 33 % of the people applying for asylum returning back to where they came from, effectively it means that there was a significant abuse of the asylum practices. Not once have I heard anything being said about this. Instead what I'm hearing is that the Lutheran church is protecting those who get a negative decision on the asylum. "Protecting those who got a NEGATIVE decision on their asylum application", and here I thought the laws should be applied to everybody. And once again Finns are burning the wooden churches, likely pre-emptively (this happened in Easter).

And now to the birth rates issue; statistical fact is that the immigrant population indeed has greater birth-rates than natives. We have also seen that 2 to 3 generations is not ENOUGH to integrate Middle Eastern origin people to the EU countries. So while I've no doubt we could integrate the Middle Eastern population over time, my question is how long does that take? I'm expecting well over hundred years, and the birth rates are higher also due to practices I'd consider really to lie in the gray zone to say the least for those easily offended. So what is not said is that the immigrants will start to affect the EU policies, whether you like it or not. Some of their culture will be integrated to the EU level decision making, and you'll have to deal with it in the future.

Question that I'm asking myself is why do I need to tell you this.

[666maslo666]

What it comes to other arguments such as "studies have shown that when the income disparity and socio-economic status are corrected, the refugees and immigrants obey law better than natives", pretty much all I can say is:     
I do not understand how this kind of study can first of all satisfy any kind of scientific scrutiny, and how arguments such as those could possibly be accepted in peer-reviewed papers. And I have reviewed some myself so I'm actually aware of the process. No doubt the quality of peer reviewing has gone downhill in the last decade, but then again, self irony is an art in itself.

Moreover, you can use the exact same science and come to a very different interpretation about that should be done. For example, even if we assume that differences in criminality are caused by socio-economic differences (a huge assumption indeed), then naturally the next question is why the hell is the immigration so weakly regulated that we import poverty? So either way, it comes down to the need to tighten immigration policy, IMHO.. Socio-economic differences can probably explain some differences in criminality, but they do not explain them away.

[Dragon]

(a huge assumption indeed)

This is, in fact, the real problem with attempting to research the situation. Sometimes, sooner or later, every study makes "a huge assumption" that it then takes for absolutely true. You can easily prove two opposite arguments using the same data if you pick your "huge assumptions" correctly. This is why I seldom put much stock in social sciences. On a rare occasion they don't screw up their methodology (I remember reading an article somewhere that social experiments have a terrible reproducability rates), they assume far more than a physicist could ever get away with.

[Grizzly]

What it comes to no-go-zones, you'll find plenty of them in Sweden, Belgium and France. One is forming in Eastern Helsinki too. It's also a first time I'm hearing the argument they would not exist. Do not exist, like really? Go travel there yourself then, it should not be a problem. Better yet, go live there yourself and do not ask other people to tolerate (and pay) things for you. I'm sure you can make a big difference on arbitrating between the local immigrant community and the natives living there.

Why don't you do that yourself then? Show us these no go zones. Bring a bodycam!

Or, you know, Listen to the people that live there. The relevant bit: "Ook socioloog Dirk Jacobs, eveneens verbonden aan de VUB, signaleert dat de kritiek flink  binnenkomt in België. „Aan mensen die Brussel niet kennen heb ik eindeloos moeten uitleggen dat Molenbeek geen jihadistennest is, of een no-go-zone waar je niet over straat kunt.” De socioloog is ervan geschrokken hoe gemakkelijk zo’n grim en ongenuanceerd beeld van België de wereld over gaat. En hoe moeilijk het is dat vervolgens bij te stellen."

Okay, you don't speak dutch (which is a shame as it's a cool language). Lemme try to translate, or use google translate on the entire article:

Dirk Jacobs too notes that the critique hits hard: "I have to endlessly explain to people that do not know Brussel that Molenbeek is not a Jihadists' nest, or a no-go zone where you can not cross the street." The sociologist was shockd by how easily such a grim and unnuanced view on Belgium crosses the world, and how hard it is to adjust this view now that it's there.

Thing is, you really don't have to tell us anything. But I'd really prefer it when you'd stop lying.

[Bobboau]

"Show us these no go zones."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42jpuXJPk0w&t=154
/*shrug*/

[Grizzly]

"Show us these no go zones."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42jpuXJPk0w&t=154
/*shrug*/

Considering what has already been said in this thread, previous threads, by steven emerson, A swedish local newspaper, who has helpfully provided us with the actual no go zones as well as some interesting states that do undercut a few talking points, I have much doubts about the validity of that report.

[Phantom Hoover]

So you've linked to an American jackass who was proven to be wrong, a Swedish piece that vaguely assures us that Sweden isn't a Muslim rape capital, and a joke article and you expect that to convince me that an Australian report showing convincing evidence that hostile migrant enclaves do in fact exist is bull****? I've been saying this for months now and I'll say it again: until the left can actually take the social issues caused by immigration seriously they are going to feed the radical nationalist right more and more people, because they're the only political group that do.

[NGTM-1R]

Your argument would be more convincing if it did not provide a false dichotomy between "social issues are not acknowledged" and "they ****ing murder people here because they're muslims and nobody can do anything about it".

[Phantom Hoover]

Please go away until you're willing to make some effort to speak in good faith.

[NGTM-1R]

Please go away until you're willing to make some effort to speak in good faith.

Same to you. You responded in absolute bad faith by making that very argument in response to -Joshua-'s assertion that the no-go zones are not a thing, then immediately leaping to how the fact they might be means people are not taking social issues seriously. There's a lot of ground to cover between those two assertions; you're arguing a pattern of behavior without bothering to demonstrate it and using an extremely marginal single case instead.

I mean, I don't know, maybe there was a brillant midpoint between those in your head, but it's sure as **** not in your post.

EDIT: And even if there was, you've still kind of skipped the necessary step three, which is rather than merely asserting that far-right is acknowledging these problems and therefore people go to them, actually laying out some kind of case for how this is so. Even if they are acknowledging them, that's no guarantee anyone will listen to their proposed remedies or agree with them beyond acknowledgement.

There's a lot of "and then a miracle occurs!" in this equation you want us to believe. You don't seem to understand it's there.

[666maslo666]

I have much doubts about the validity of that report.

It is a video, we can see the incident with our own eyes, so what is there to doubt? Unless you think it was paid actors, but then I find that very unlikely..

As I said before, if by no-go zone you mean an area where natives and police do not dare to go, then those dont exist (yet). But if by no go zone we merely mean a muslim ghetto, an area where they cause disproportionate amount of crime and where it may not be a good idea to go alone if you are a scantily clad woman or a Jew, then those zones do exist. And that alone is enough to be considered a huge social problem, IMHO.

"I have to endlessly explain to people that do not know Brussel that Molenbeek is not a Jihadists' nest or a no-go zone where you can not cross the street."

The assassination of the Afghan anti-Taliban commander Ahmed Shah Massoud, immediately before the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001; the train bombings in Madrid in 2004; and the killing of four people at the Brussels Jewish Museum in 2014. And just this year the foiled shooting on a high-speed train, the anti-terrorist raid in the eastern Belgian town of Verviers, the attack on a Paris kosher supermarket and, finally, the Nov. 13 attacks on the French capital — all had some connection to Molenbeek.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/19/opinion/molenbeek-belgiums-jihad-central.html?_r=0

Sounds like a Jihadist nest to me. But then maybe I am not used to the new normal in western Europe, where having multiple Jihadists coming from a single neighbourhood is considered business as usual, lol..

[Grizzly]

So you've linked to an American jackass who was proven to be wrong, a Swedish piece that vaguely assures us that Sweden isn't a Muslim rape capital, and a joke article and you expect that to convince me that an Australian report showing convincing evidence that hostile migrant enclaves do in fact exist is bull****? I've been saying this for months now and I'll say it again: until the left can actually take the social issues caused by immigration seriously they are going to feed the radical nationalist right more and more people, because they're the only political group that do.

Sorry, how did this australian report show "convincing evidence"? It said something about 55 no go areas which it links to migrants, but the swedish report on which this is based said the following:
"I Sverige finns i nuläget 55 geografiska områden där lokala kriminella nätverk anses ha negativ påverkan på lokalsamhället." -> "Currently in Sweden there are 55 geographic areas where local criminal networks are considered to have a negative impact on the local community".
There is no mention of migrants or islam at all, nor any mention of "No go areas",  it just mentions that it has issues with local criminals. This is not a new phenonom, nor is it a phenonom exclusive to sweden or indeed any european nation.  Therein lies the problem with your stance on this: The conclusion you draw is correct in the sense that "if these things exist and hte left is not doing anything about them, then the left is ignoring them and thus deserves backlash" - but the problem is that they don't exist in the way you seem to believe they do. People have been claiming that these zones exist in Belgium, France, the UK and Sweden, and in every statement they have to be continously debunked.

But to summarize those last links, the confusion with "No go zones" in france is that there are indeed areas in france that are designated as "Sensitive urban zones". These zones are not muslim enclaves where the french won't go, but rather areas that France recognizes have been volatile in the past (remember those riots?), and have been targeted for urban renewal. In short, the right wing media has managed to spin French politicians designating areas as having a social issue and investing money into doing something about it as politicians ignoring the issues caused by immigration. This is complete bull****, but as usual it takes ten times more energy to debunk bull**** then to create bull****, esp. when the people who you throw the bull**** at don't speak your language and in general just don't give a **** about your bull****.

EDITed for more linkage.

[Phantom Hoover]

The insane claims that there are a bunch of Sharia microstates embedded in every European city are bull**** and keep getting rightfully rebutted, but that's not really what I'm concerned about. In Northern Ireland there were, and still are to an extent, enclaves of communities so hostile to the police that they would avoid operating there when possible; I can absolutely believe, in a climate where certain Islamic communities in Europe are so radicalised that thousands of people have gone to fight with ISIS, that similar zones exist. And after the extreme chilling effect that the establishment response to the Cologne attacks demonstrated, I can absolutely believe that official, public reports on them would euphemise in terms of "local criminal networks" having a "negative impact".

I just don't know who to believe any more. It seems clear to me by now that Islamic immigration and integration into Europe has resulted in a hateful, bloody failure, and something needs to radically change; yet all I ever here are voices like yours telling me loudly that everything's fine, it's all under control, and screaming nationalists telling me that we have to send all the bastards back to Iraq.

[Mika]

What you are dealing with here is in my opinion a byproduct of the after-WWII legislation, specifically regarding nationalism and racism in Germany, and the integration policy of the EU. Since Germany holds a significant fraction of power due to the recent economical crisis, it can enforce some of its own publication policies elsewhere in the EU. The integration policy itself is a bigger player if you ask me; the idea is to make the EU more united on the national level. Unfortunately, the healthy nationalism and right wing ideas were ridiculed for a number of years in the media, and now that there is a substantial number of people saying the immigration policies do not work, the media is challenged and faces believability issues. The side effect of this effective suppression was the rise of ultra-right wing nationalism, which is what you see now, and rest assured that you are not the only one who has been trying to explain the effect to the left leaning people. And no, I don't have scientific proof for this, this is just what I thought would happen.

All I can say is make up your own mind. You don't have to believe anyone telling you what to do. These are free countries and you are free to act any way you'd like within the bounds of legalization.

Moreover, I can actually speak Swedish - Dutch is a bit too far from Deutsch and svenska to be understandable to me. From the Finnish perspective, the Swedish media has been downplaying and using euphenisms for quite a long time on what it comes to integration policies. When you compare the nationalities in the Nordic Countries, Swedes are the most tolerant; culturally Swedish value the common discussion between participants and tend to continue negotiations until everybody is satisfied. Based on that, I can understand why Sweden is now facing the biggest pressure, up to the point their prime minister admitted the country has been naive with respect to the immigration issues at the end of the last year.

Culturally, a substantial fraction of the Finns will not understand the usage of euphenisms in the same way as Central Europeans (usage of euphenisms tend to get considered as derogatory). Instead dysphemisms are often employed to make things sound harsher than they are. This is something what I tend to talk with expat-Finns, branding that cultural part as Clear Finnish Communication^TM. But hey, at least the point gets across. Some people will inevitably get offended (and some will laugh), but hey, at least you'll then know their cultural tolerances then. Which is very useful information indeed.

[Mika]

Additionally, the question I'm asking is the role of racism towards the immigrants.

The root cause for this question are two things I've picked up during my travels. I'll start with a simple question: what is the most integrating country in the world, historically speaking? If your answer is the USA, you are wrong. A better answer would be China. The country's been taken over by several regional players (Manchus, Mongols etc.) during the time, and every single time China has reversed the situation, absorbed and integrated it all. When I talked about this with the Chinese and compared that with the US saying of melting pot, they were actually laughing. When I pressed forwards with that, they said USA does not have the history of actually integrating people there. Which made me wonder what "integration" actually meant in this context - seemed more like absorption in the Chinese context.

The second thing I noted is that since I'm slightly off from a normal Chinese person, every shop I visited had a different pricing for me. One could argue that this is racism, but I tend to think that is more "let's cheat the daft foreigner off his money!" No, I don't attribute that to racism, it's just business to me. Then again I did meet some of the Chinese racism (big nose and all that jizz), but that's partially to be expected. The combined effect of them both is actually an interesting social pressure, where you silently, over the time, conform to the norms of the society.

Which again made me think some of the responses towards the immigrants here. Right now I'm wondering about the role of racism (or perceived racism) in the integration process itself. For me it actually seems that those societies that do exert social pressure towards the minorities have actually integrated the minorities better (or driven them off, but that's another thing). You could call the pressure racism, or you could call the pressure "show us you are actually contributing", and I suspect the interpretation is different depending who is receiving it.

Now that would make an interesting Social study, but I sort of suspect that the topic is too hot.

[Grizzly]

yet all I ever here are voices like yours telling me loudly that everything's fine, it's all under control

I have not told you this.  Did you miss my talks about how France and Belgium had and still have serious issues? My point is not that there is no issue with immigration policies, but rather that immigration issues are symptoms of far bigger issues that plague contemporary politics. Remember those designated trouble zones in Paris? They were designated in 1996. The Banlieu are an issue not so much because of the composition of immigrants but because french politicians have simply let the area rot. Living in a flat whose elevator has been broken for 20 years is not a social stabilizer. France, as a country, is getting more and more broken, facing rising poverty, unemployment and suicide rates. Belgium suffers from a similar problem in that it is segregated to the point that it is broken politically. There used to be 19 different police districts in Brussel.  Now there are six. There should really be one - One can not effectively police a borough when one is actually six. The country's federal politics are more busy with defining what is dutch and what is french and stuck in a cultural divide.

And off course this is giving rise to the nationalists! The nationalists see a complex but broken situation and offer a simple answer, similarily to how Trump can rise in the US by seeing a complex system failing and blaming the mexicans for it. Blaming the migrants is easy, but people see the biggest issues with migrants because migrants are the weakest people in society who still have a clear distinct voice.

My point has never been that everything is fine and everything is under control. My point is simply that we can get issues under control in a way that is ultimately more efficient and empathic then the Trump solution.

The insane claims that there are a bunch of Sharia microstates embedded in every European city are bull**** and keep getting rightfully rebutted, but that's not really what I'm concerned about. In Northern Ireland there were, and still are to an extent, enclaves of communities so hostile to the police that they would avoid operating there when possible; I can absolutely believe, in a climate where certain Islamic communities in Europe are so radicalised that thousands of people have gone to fight with ISIS, that similar zones exist. And after the extreme chilling effect that the establishment response to the Cologne attacks demonstrated, I can absolutely believe that official, public reports on them would euphemise in terms of "local criminal networks" having a "negative impact".

Right, that's fair, although I would say that these things are not at all dissimilar to issues that the US faces, and when it comes down to it it's not the community that radicalises terrorists persé. When you look at interviews with people who live in the same flat as people who were arrested for terrorism in the wake of the paris and brussels attacks the story you hear is always the same "They were isolated people talking to a few others we never knew". It's not so much that the community is radicalized, but rather that the community has so little social cohesion (which, yes, is partly an immigration issue) that there's simply nothing holding people back (and it's not like there's thousands living inside one community - there's hundreds spread all over europe). Is there not a similar story with perpetrators of a mass shooting or other form of domestic terrorism in the US?

Northern Ireland is an interesting case but you know what it took for those communities to form.  I have absolutely no doubts that areas can become hostile to the police, but I have seen ways where, for example, the dutch managed to de-escalate that (And that was not so much a case of hostility but rahter a case of people not relying on the cops to solve issues that the cops are best equipped to solve) and heck the British managed to de-escalate that and they had a LOT more on their hands.

But I do think that when the Swedish police talk about 55 areas that they have trouble policing (becuase otherwise there wouldn't be criminal networks obv.), they don't avoid talking about the specifics because they want to be euphamistic - these reports predate Cologne - but rather that they don't have a whole lot of specifics and are investigating. The E has talked about the establishment's response to Cologne before.

[Phantom Hoover]

The issue here remains that you are, as far as I can tell, unreasonably dismissing immigration as a particular, major contributor to 'the bigger issue'. Yes, poverty and deprivation are massive problems, yes I want them fixed, yes I think the nationalists who pretend deporting everyone with a funny skin colour and accent will make everything better are awful con artists. But poverty and deprivation alone don't account for the attacks in Paris and Brussels, or the sexual assaults in Cologne. These both seem to be specifically due to immigration and integration of certain Islamic populations, and to merit urgent, specific action to fix the underlying causes. I believe and hope that that action can be efficient and empathic, but I can't see it coming from a left wing which seems to mostly concern itself with attacking reactionary nationalism and hand-waving about how we just need to fix the real underlying problem.

This quote from the aftermath of Cologne sums up, I think, the most despicable extremes of that attitude:

What happens on the right-wing platforms and in chatrooms is at least as awful as the acts of those assaulting the women.

[NGTM-1R]

Additionally, the question I'm asking is the role of racism towards the immigrants.

The root cause for this question are two things I've picked up during my travels. I'll start with a simple question: what is the most integrating country in the world, historically speaking? If your answer is the USA, you are wrong. A better answer would be China. The country's been taken over by several regional players (Manchus, Mongols etc.) during the time, and every single time China has reversed the situation, absorbed and integrated it all.

Yeah so your history is bad.

It has nothing to do with China and everything to do with the people who took it over, who weren't empire builders. They were conquerors. They did not build new infrastructures or governments; they made existing ones swear fealty to them. If the Chinese had been conquered by the Romans...yeah, good luck with this.

This also ignores China's long history of an inability to cope with trying to integrate Korea into it, or their total inability to effectively influence the Japanese despite a strong cultural similiarity that has marked Japanese and Chinese interactions since at least the 10th Century, or their strategy for integration basically being colonialism in the model of how the British colonized the Americas by sending in their own people until they could outnumber and disenfranchise the natives and eventually drive them out or rendering them a shrinking underclass. (Which isn't actually integration; it's extermination in slow motion.)

So China has about as much history of successful integration as the UK did before the 1900s.

[Grizzly]

The issue here remains that you are, as far as I can tell, unreasonably dismissing immigration as a particular, major contributor to 'the bigger issue'. Yes, poverty and deprivation are massive problems, yes I want them fixed, yes I think the nationalists who pretend deporting everyone with a funny skin colour and accent will make everything better are awful con artists. But poverty and deprivation alone don't account for the attacks in Paris and Brussels, or the sexual assaults in Cologne. These both seem to be specifically due to immigration and integration of certain Islamic populations, and to merit urgent, specific action to fix the underlying causes. I believe and hope that that action can be efficient and empathic, but I can't see it coming from a left wing which seems to mostly concern itself with attacking reactionary nationalism and hand-waving about how we just need to fix the real underlying problem.

You are right, poverty and deprivation don't alone account for the attacks in Paris and Brussels, but they are issues that already lie within the framework of what a state can handle. A similar thing was true for cologne: Those gangs were already known to the police before the attacks happened - And decisive, specific actions were taken when the next big event took place.

And mabye I am misexplaining myself here: I think that if you fix a lot of poverty and deprivation you already go a very long way into fixing immigration issues and vice versa, because they are all part of this ... bigger package. Did I not mention social cohesion in my previous post?

But I think you are mistaken when you think  that urgent specific action can fix immigration of islamic populations. The immigrant muslims in the netherlands, for example, were low income workers that were imported into the country on the behest of companies seeking cheap labour in the 1960s. The perpetrators of both Cologne, Brussels and Paris are people of the second generation of immigrants: Raised by immigrant parents in a foreign system who had counted on them to return to their country of origin. In part there are issues there: Your succes in society is heavily dependant on what your parents can give you, and your parents can give you very little when they don't speak the native language. But that's a process that takes years to fix, in a similar sense that the social status of black people in the US is still affected by things that happened 50 years ago (although the issues there were obviously very different but bear with me here). As an immigrant, you can handle the issues you face if you have the time and resources to deal with them. If you are poor, you can handle those issues because you know who to talk to. If you are both poor and an immigrant you have both few resources and not the knowledge to effeciently spend those resources - and then you have to take care of your kids too! If you can fix all that you will not immediately see improvement, but rather improvement in years down the line.

When I talk about this bigger issue is that these issues were already known in the 90s  but there's issues in french and belgian politics that ensure that all of those things that show neglect, Poverty, deprevation and lack of social cohesion (in which immigration plays a very big role!), were not dealt with. The 'bigger issue' is that the political system leads to inaction. It's very similar to the refugee crisis in that way (which was known to have happened since 2010).

But now that I think about it, there is an issue that is very specific to muslims in this case:
Because when you are a muslim living in an impoverished neighbourhood in a world that is becoming increasingly hostile towards you for your beliefs or for reasons you know have nothing to do with you, and you turn on the news and see afghanis being bombed, you see palestinian protestors being shot for throwing rocks, you see people like trump and Geert Wilders and Pegida, you see refugees being treated like ****, it's very easy to draw the destructive conclusion: The west, the country you live in, is sending a simple message: "Muslim lives do not matter".

Try to debunk that one! Try to debunk that to someone who lives in an area that is completely neglected by contemporary politics. Try to debunk that in a world where Israel is treating the Palestinians in a way that echoes nazi lebensraum policies. Try to debunk that in a world where the west claims the greatness of democracy yet supports dictators in the middle-east both financially and militarily. Try to debunk that when all countries fall over themselves when they run away from the promises they made after the second world war now that there are muslims involved. When you are already in a bad case that's the point that starts to push you over the edge - that's where ISIS's promises and propaganda start making sense. And whilst I know it's not true, it's not really like I can completely blame them. It's a very galling perspective.

In the end though, that is something that happens when people start reaching a certain breaking point. A state is far better at preventing people from reaching that breaking point then looking at what happens after that breaking point has been reached.

This quote from the aftermath of Cologne sums up, I think, the most despicable extremes of that attitude:

I do think that a german minister has cause to be concerned.

[Phantom Hoover]

'Having cause to be concerned' is a very different thing to literally, outright saying that "German right-wingers saying hateful things online is as bad as or worse than gangs of Muslim men sexually assaulting women". You want to try to debunk something, try to debunk the notion that Western progressives have a vested interest in downplaying that violence. Much like the notion that the West hates Muslims so much that they might as well throw their lives away fighting for an apocalyptic theocracy, you're going to have to; otherwise the entire moral foundation of your political stance will collapse.

Reading through your post, you don't seem to assign much agency to these immigrant people; you see them entirely reactive to Western actions. I don't think this is enough; I don't think you can understand ISIS, say, as just a reaction, and I don't think you can effectively make them go away by undoing whatever action you perceive as causing them.