IMMIGRATION thread

[Snowhobbit]

There was not just a quran on the floor:




The latter may be the desired effect of such measures. You basically ruin the lives of people by making all their neighbors suspect them (really helps integration!) and make them lose trust in the government.



And then you also extend these "do whatever you want"-powers because it's so nice to have them and you just want to save people.
My point can also be found in the article:



I'm worried about our western values, but it's not the muslims who are eroding them, a few of them just push the right buttons and then we do it ourselves.

When there is a state of emergency then those rules apply. If the rules say no warrants are needed, then no warrants are needed.

It is generally common for police officers to handcuff people when making arrests or detaining individuals.

I suppose they can queue up behind the jews who are leaving the country due to actual danger.

[Husar]

When there is a state of emergency then those rules apply. If the rules say no warrants are needed, then no warrants are needed.

A state of emergency usually requires some kind of emergency. Since they hardly charged anyone after a lot of raids, why the state of emergency? And noone has to believe their emergency rules are fair.

It is generally common for police officers to handcuff people when making arrests or detaining individuals.

That doesn't change that plenty of people around the globe complain about HOW they do it and TO WHOM they do it at times. Are they all wrong?

I suppose they can queue up behind the jews who are leaving the country due to actual danger.

What does that have to do with this issue or are we back to "two wrongs make a right"?

[Snowhobbit]

A state of emergency usually requires some kind of emergency. Since they hardly charged anyone after a lot of raids, why the state of emergency? And noone has to believe their emergency rules are fair.



That doesn't change that plenty of people around the globe complain about HOW they do it and TO WHOM they do it at times. Are they all wrong?



What does that have to do with this issue or are we back to "two wrongs make a right"?

I guess the November and January events were just regular things happening on a daily basis. I was unaware that you had access to the French intelligence services and have assessed that there is no real threat, most impressive. Fair or not, those are the rules.

Plenty of people complain here when we arrest rapists and murders, should we listen to them also? People complain about everything and anything, complaints alone do not make for a valid argument.

It has something to do with you believing that there is no reason for a state of emergency, that there is nothing going on in France and everything is just business as usual.

[Montmorency]

I guess the November and January events were just regular things happening on a daily basis. I was unaware that you had access to the French intelligence services and have assessed that there is no real threat, most impressive. Fair or not, those are the rules.

Plenty of people complain here when we arrest rapists and murders, should we listen to them also? People complain about everything and anything, complaints alone do not make for a valid argument.

It has something to do with you believing that there is no reason for a state of emergency, that there is nothing going on in France and everything is just business as usual.

THat's all orthogonal to the point though. To turn in around: what do you know of the details of France's state-of-emergency policy, its current implementation, and the general conditions that permit it to be invoked? On the other hand, what in the abstract is the use of a state-of-emergency policy and how should it be formulated or regulated? These are the relevant questions here.

[Snowhobbit]

THat's all orthogonal to the point though. To turn in around: what do you know of the details of France's state-of-emergency policy, its current implementation, and the general conditions that permit it to be invoked? On the other hand, what in the abstract is the use of a state-of-emergency policy and how should it be formulated or regulated? These are the relevant questions here.

I know that it was implemented after one of the worst terror attacks in recent times on European soil. I know that there is not widespread complaint about abuse, and I know that the kill count has fallen dramatically after the steps were implemented. But sure, we can keep crying about Qurans on the floor, how many lives is that worth?

IIRC the article mentions some 3200 raids with about 5 arrests. Please explain how that hints towards them having concrete evidence.
As for that's the rules, insert Godwin here...

Yep, concentration camps next up. I dunno, I would have thought that you would become better at forming an argument after more than a decade on the forum, but you only seem to devolve. Sad to see.

[Montmorency]

I know that it was implemented after one of the worst terror attacks in recent times on European soil. I know that there is not widespread complaint about abuse, and I know that the kill count has fallen dramatically after the steps were implemented. But sure, we can keep crying about Qurans on the floor, how many lives is that worth?

A common rhetorical formula, but not an interesting argument with pertinent details or sound judgements. The basic question is the same as was asked in 2001 America regarding civil liberties vis-a-vis government emergency powers, whether the focus is on the efficacy, the legitimacy, the ethical stakes, or what-have-you. Your comment would be simplistic even by the standards of the 2001-contemporary discussion, but I'll break it down:

I know that it was implemented after one of the worst terror attacks in recent times on European soil.

What does that have to do with the specific conditions, obligations, and policies involved with such decisions?

I know that there is not widespread complaint about abuse

Do you? And whether or not there has been widespread complaint, or what even constitutes "widespread" is still tangential to the fundamental issue of specific powers and conditions involved, which is ultimately what we care about.

and I know that the kill count has fallen dramatically after the steps were implemented

The kill count? Well, if there is violence at a sporting event, and 12 hours later there is no longer violence, is it that the immediate police or security response to the disturbance is to be pointed at - and so there should henceforth be a strong security presence at sporting events - or is it that 12 hours after the event, everyone had already gone home?

But sure, we can keep crying about Qurans on the floor, how many lives is that worth?

That's not the question at hand.

[Husar]

I know that it was implemented after one of the worst terror attacks in recent times on European soil. I know that there is not widespread complaint about abuse, and I know that the kill count has fallen dramatically after the steps were implemented. But sure, we can keep crying about Qurans on the floor, how many lives is that worth?

Montmorency has already adressed this really well, especially to the point about "widespread complaint about abuse" I would like to add two things:
1. The raids targeted a community that has raised "widespread complaint about abuse" for a long time now, so maybe you were just not aware of it.
2. It was also known for a while that a lot of French citizens of all colors think of their police as comparatively brutal, you can also count that as "widespread complaint about abuse" as far as I'm concerned.

Yep, concentration camps next up. I dunno, I would have thought that you would become better at forming an argument after more than a decade on the forum, but you only seem to devolve. Sad to see.

That's a nice personal attack that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Regardless, my point was not so much about concentration camps but a general critique of your point that "these are the rules", which is easy to say as long as you agree with them but does not make the rules just or fair or morally supportable. I could have also mentioned pretty much every dictator or the Russian law that makes being homosexual in public a crime. What about North Korea? Do you have no qualms with their rules? Yes, I know, we are talking about France and it's certainly not North Korea, but a country does not have to be that for its rules to be inadequate, wrong or morally reprehensible. Not to forget that some big changes come in baby steps and people only realize it when it is too late.
I may have asked this before, can you explain how having warrantless searches of thousands of people, their entire homes etc. is within the spirit of western democratic culture?
Things like everybody is equal before the law, due process etc. all these pillars of justice seem to be out the window during this state of emergency, so yes, we should ask whether thie is warranted, both the state of emergency itself and the powers it gives to the government and police.

Can you, for example, show any attacks or plans for attacks that lasted for five months and would warrant having a state of emergency for that long? And if there is ample evidence, why have a state of emergency if you could easily get warrants with your evidence even without the state of emergency?

[Snowhobbit]

A common rhetorical formula, but not an interesting argument with pertinent details or sound judgements. The basic question is the same as was asked in 2001 America regarding civil liberties vis-a-vis government emergency powers, whether the focus is on the efficacy, the legitimacy, the ethical stakes, or what-have-you. Your comment would be simplistic even by the standards of the 2001-contemporary discussion, but I'll break it down:



What does that have to do with the specific conditions, obligations, and policies involved with such decisions?



Do you? And whether or not there has been widespread complaint, or what even constitutes "widespread" is still tangential to the fundamental issue of specific powers and conditions involved, which is ultimately what we care about.



The kill count? Well, if there is violence at a sporting event, and 12 hours later there is no longer violence, is it that the immediate police or security response to the disturbance is to be pointed at - and so there should henceforth be a strong security presence at sporting events - or is it that 12 hours after the event, everyone had already gone home?



That's not the question at hand.

Do they not have the right to a fair trial? Have there been extra-judicial executions or imprisonments, of citizens and foreign nationals? Unless you count the bombing of ISIS there has not, and it is thus not comparable to the 2001 American situation.

If there had not been terror attacks, would the measures have been implemented? That is why it is relevant.

Other than an Amnesty report about police using words and handcuffs while investigating, I have not seen any widespread complaining. You are of course welcome to prove otherwise.

Are you saying the events in November are comparable to a soccer game?

Husar was crying about the Quran, hence the question of how many people died a single Quran on a floor is worth.

Montmorency has already adressed this really well, especially to the point about "widespread complaint about abuse" I would like to add two things:
1. The raids targeted a community that has raised "widespread complaint about abuse" for a long time now, so maybe you were just not aware of it.
2. It was also known for a while that a lot of French citizens of all colors think of their police as comparatively brutal, you can also count that as "widespread complaint about abuse" as far as I'm concerned.



That's a nice personal attack that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Regardless, my point was not so much about concentration camps but a general critique of your point that "these are the rules", which is easy to say as long as you agree with them but does not make the rules just or fair or morally supportable. I could have also mentioned pretty much every dictator or the Russian law that makes being homosexual in public a crime. What about North Korea? Do you have no qualms with their rules? Yes, I know, we are talking about France and it's certainly not North Korea, but a country does not have to be that for its rules to be inadequate, wrong or morally reprehensible. Not to forget that some big changes come in baby steps and people only realize it when it is too late.
I may have asked this before, can you explain how having warrantless searches of thousands of people, their entire homes etc. is within the spirit of western democratic culture?
Things like everybody is equal before the law, due process etc. all these pillars of justice seem to be out the window during this state of emergency, so yes, we should ask whether thie is warranted, both the state of emergency itself and the powers it gives to the government and police.

Can you, for example, show any attacks or plans for attacks that lasted for five months and would warrant having a state of emergency for that long? And if there is ample evidence, why have a state of emergency if you could easily get warrants with your evidence even without the state of emergency?

Yes, insinuations of being a Nazi are way more classy than critiquing your "style of arguing".

There is always complaint about abuse among those who choose to clash with law enforcement agencies. I am unaware of protesters being shot at in the streets or the government planting bombs to kill civilians however.

Well, this might be news to you, but we live with what is known as "Rule of law", and have additionally signed a whole bunch of treaties that even ban the death penalty, let alone concentration camps. But sure, keep making the argument that locking up people who break the law, and conducting police actions within the constraints of the law is somehow akin to the Third Reich, it really makes you look cool.

It is perfectly simple, everyone is equal before the law and the French law allows, certain conditions being fulfilled for a state of emergency. That state of emergency suspends or alters certain rights. But I forget, all Muslims in France are now locked up in Vichy death camps or being worked to the bone in the factories as slaves.

Now do excuse me while I go and call my friend the head of the French intelligence services to provide you with the details of prevented attacks.