Tom Tancredo, we hardly knew ye!

by shamanic

You know, you get wrapped up in a deadline for a week and THE ENTIRE POLITICAL LANDSCAPE IS ROCKED!

The shocking, election-changing announcement by Tom Tancredo yesterday that he SECRETLY LOVES MITT ROMNEY was a stunner. I would have thought he'd throw his CONSIDERABLE POLITICAL MUSCLE behind someone less hospitable to the Mexicans, but I guess on the Tancredo scale of anti-immigrant sentiment, there's Tom Tancredo and then there's just everyone else.

(Oh, and Happy Solstice.)

Polish-German Border Dissolves

As of midnight today, central European time, the Germany/Poland border - one of the most fought over borders on earth - is no more.

While across the bond American doomsayers talk about the supposed coming Caliphate of Europe, they fail to mention that most European nations' immigrants technically aren't immigrants at all, coming as they do from a united Europe. Where Poles used to be illegal immigrants to Britain, for instance, now they're neither illegal nor, technically, immigrants. Such a move redefines a kneejerk non-problem of artificial categories into insignificance and those who travel to settle elsewhere are responsible for growth in economies at home (by sending money, opening new trading markets, creating a mobile labor market) as well as where they end up. It's a great argument for an open borders out-of-the-box answer to illegal immigration.

Surge success put to the test

By Libby

It appears we're about to see the much touted success of the surge be put to the test. Many, including myself and my fellow Newshoggers, have speculated the drop in violence was as much or more due to ethnic cleansing of the neighborhoods and the out-migration of Iraqi refugees than any inherent success of the military tactics.

Well, the return of refugees from Syria has begun in earnest as the Iraqis' money and visas are running out and many will find they have nowhere to go as their homes have been occupied by members of an opposite sect. Mixed neighborhoods don't exist in Baghdad anymore. Even the US military is warning that influx could rekindle sectarian violence and disturb the fragile security our troops' lives bought over the summer and the Iraqi government is urging those with the means to remain in exile, to do so.

I pray for the Iraqis' sake the security holds but I fear that peace bought at gunpoint and enforced by concrete walls will not endure and our military cannot maintain the troop levels to ensure it. However, I take hope in something Phoenix Woman pointed out recently. [via]

Meanwhile, the place in Iraq that has had the biggest actual drop in violence and chaos recently is Basra, which had been an ungovernable mess as recently as three months ago. How did this occur? Well, instead of seeing a “surge” (read: escalation) in troop numbers, Basra actually saw the complete pullout of coalition (in this case British) troops, which resulted in a 90% drop in violence. Yes, you read that right: Ninety percent.

Now Basra isn't the same as Baghdad, but still, one might conclude that allowing Iraqis to solve their own intercine problems is the best solution. It certainly belies the handwringing that was going on prior to the surge about the bloodbath that would occur if we withdraw troops.

Housing and the politics of pain

Betting that the American consumer is tapped out and unable to spend any more is a good way to lose money. I have been convinced that the American consumer has been tapped out for a couple of years now and any time now PCE should be slowing down or going negative. Each time I have thought/wrote that sentiment, I've been wrong as we collectively go into more debt. Ian Welsh is making the same declaration at the Agonist based on the Black Friday sales numbers --- aggregate sales up, sales per person down ---

Looks like the American consumer is finally tapping out. Expect a really abysmal Christmas, followed by a year where consumer demand drops.

Consumer spending has been entirely driven by home price asset inflation, which has been withdrawn in the form of loans, along with other forms of consumer borrowing. The US consumer actually has a net negative savings rate. That's not sustainable, and now that housing prices are beginning to drop, and ARM (adjustable rate mortgages) are going down, it's not going to be sustained.

During the summer of 2006, I was and still am curious as to how the housing bubble bursting will affect politics. Most of my questioning at the time was related to local politics and stuck flippers, but I think these questions can be expanded to a much larger group of people and geographical scope:

However, what happens when speculators are forced to stay in properties that they were trying to flip because they are effectively upside down at current market prices. They have three basic choices; the first is sell now to minimize guaranteed losses due to carrying costs and find outside assets to make your mortgage holder whole, the second is a variation of the first, and that is to default and walk away with damaged credit. The final option is to hunker down, piss money down the hole while minimizing carrying costs and wait for the market to turn around at some indeterminate point in the future.

If this third scenario is the basic course of action adapted by a speculator, then the incentive to get involved in local politic goes up massively. Now if you live in Pittsburgh like I do, the crushed speculator demographic is minuscule and politically irrelevant. However if you live on the East Coast, in California or on the Florida coasts, this demographic is going to be fairly large, and fairly loud because they are in significant pain. So how will they respond in local politics? [emphasis added]

People who are stuck with mortgages and houses that they can not sell, refinance or service will be looking for help. They will be looking for refinancing deals, special breaks, holds on foreclosures, delays on credit reporting, and most significantly at the local level, assistance on minimizing the quasi-fixed costs. That means support for more heating and energy assistance, lobbying for lower insurance limits for flooding and hurricanes in disaster prone areas with the hope of either dodging the bullets, or shifting those costs to someone, somewhere else, and most importantly, constant and downwardly revising re-assessments without concurrent increases in millage rates. Ian sees something different...

Aided by the bankruptcy bill passed by Congress, the leg-breakers will be out after Americans. But they're going to find that no matter how much Uncle Sam is willing to bust kneecaps to help you get your 20% plus penalties, you can't get blood from a stone.

I expect, as entire communities are devastated, that those who try to repossess cars, homes and other assets will, by 2009, be facing actual threats and violence.

I don't expect a lot of this to happen; instead I expect a combination of localized political actions to become much more favorable to debtors, as the US has a long history of these types of actions, starting with the pre-cursors of the Shays Rebellion. Even more likely, I think in severely impacted domains state and local officials will make it known to debt collectors to not expect timely help if they run into troubles enforcing debts.

On a national scale, I think Digby is right in that tough times will create openings for new groups to be blamed; right now immigrants are bearing the brunt of these accusations, but this could expand if more scapegoats are needed:

The election feels eerily reminiscent of 1992, when so-called reasonable centrists stoked the crazy man Ross Perot's campaign by backing his obsessive concern for "the deficit" which was nothing more than a weird abstraction into which misinformed discontented voters could pour their economic fears.

People are going to be looking for others to blame instead of looking for tough, systemic explanations, so there will be openings for demagogic populists out there and an even nastier zero-sum politics.

The true cost of immigration enforcement

By Libby

This is how the government inures us to the incremental chipping away at the bill of rights. They target their initial violations against hated minorities. It used to be mostly drug consumers. Now the focus has shifted to undocumented immigrants. Take for instance, Operation Community Shield, "a two-year-old national program singling out violent gang members for deportation."

Sounds like a great idea, no? Who could object to deporting violent criminals? The only problem is they're not catching a whole lot of gang members. They're busting into private homes without a warrant and mostly rounding up a lot of hard working immigrants with no criminal records. In the latest attack, only one of the eleven arrested were on the four person target list and they already knew two of those targets were currently in jail.

It's a clever trick. Since illegals tend to change addresses, they had a lot of them to search. Obviously most of the addresses were wrong and to their credit, the entire town is appalled and some of the arrested employers stepped forward to aid in the immigrants' defense. They discovered the arrested immigrants were effectively disappeared.

For the first six to eight days, the Lopez cousins and Mr. Salazar were held incommunicado, without access to counsel, at the maximum-security Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, where Muslim immigrants considered terror suspects were held after 9/11.

Others were transferred from jail to jail so quickly that by the time one employer hired counsel and went to post bail in New Jersey, he discovered his employee had already been flown to New Mexico. The authorities say it's legal.

“We’re not here stomping all over anybody’s rights,” said Peter J. Smith, the special agent in charge of the Long Island operation, which led to the roundup of 186 men. “We’ve got immigration powers.”

When immigration powers include busting into private homes without a warrant, we should all be worried. The next address could be your own.

Meanwhile, Digby busts some of the myths fueling the misplaced hatred that allows this sort of conduct to be condoned. The anti-immigrant crowd is convinced that the illegals are bankrupting us by draining our social services. Nothing could be further from the truth. There's more at the link, but these two points are the most important.

"Immigrant contributions to social services are similar across the country. The National Research Council concluded that immigrants will pay on average $80,000 per capita more in taxes than they will use in government services over their lifetimes.

"In 2001, the Social Security Administration concluded that undocumented immigrants "account for a major portion of the billions of dollars paid into social security that don’t match SSA records," which payees, many of whom are undocumented immigrants, can never draw upon. As of July 2003, these payments totaled $421 billion."

In other words, instead of draining the system, the illegals are propping it up. Those who agitate for mass deportation might want to take a moment to consider the true effect on our economy if their vengeful fantasies of "punishing these people for breaking the law" ever comes to fruition.

The driving question

By Libby

Matthew weighs in on the question today and he makes some good points on enforcement and immigration policy in general but frankly, I don't understand the brouhaha over issuing a drivers license to illegal immigrants. It really is, in its most basic form, a yes or no question. Of course we should do it if we can. What's the harm? In the end it's just one more plastic card in your wallet and they're going to drive with or without a license.

The real question is how many would even bother to get one if they could? I don't know about the rest of you but when I went to just change my license from Mass to NC, even with a valid, unexpired Mass ticket to drive, it took two trips to produce enough ID to satisfy the DMV. I expect it would be much more difficult for an illegal to establish identity. And of course, obtaining the license would be a defacto admission of one's illegal status. I mean, why bother? They could just go straight to immigration to start their deportation and skip the middleman. These people live in constant fear of the INS. What makes anyone believe they would willingly march into a government agency and declare themselves?

Maybe it's just my residual crankiness over the time change but the whole debate strikes me as just short of nonsenical.

US border fence made in China

By Libby

You can't make this stuff folks. I think the US-Mexico border fence is one of most boneheaded wastes of tax dollars the government has ever foisted off on us but to add insult to injury, they used Chinese steel to build it.

“By allowing the use of Chinese pipe [a type of steel], DHS is allowing the U.S. taxpayer to subsidize Chinese production at the expense of the American workers,” Rep. Phil English (R-Pa.) said at a press conference. “This is completely unacceptable.”

English displayed photos of a portion of the border fence from San Luis, Ariz., that shows pipes marked “China” holding the border fence in place. He said DHS’s Office of Congressional Affairs had indicated it had waived the so-called Buy American rules in order to use the Chinese pipe and tube. The rules normally require the use of U.S. steel in such projects.

Wouldn't you think our chest thumping "patriots" would have bought US steel just on principle? Last I looked the industry wasn't exactly thriving. But who knows, maybe the incompetent fools in charge were hoping the illegal immigrants who are going to be breaching the fence would be fooled into thinking they had tunneled too far when they see China written on the steel and will simply turn around and go home.

Deport 'Em Now!!!!

by shamanic

I see that the crew at Hot Air is now heading up the latest bit of nativist drivel ("criminal alien rapists!") and pushing a new "Deport Them Now!" campaign. You know, before those "criminal aliens destroy the American dream." And, uh, "Our safety and sovereignty are at stake."

Well count me in. I do so hate the hordes of criminal alien rapists destroying our dreams of sovereignty, or whatever, so in solidarity (is that too socialist?) with Michelle and friends, I am proud to unveil the latest offering at the Newshoggers store, the handsome "Who Would Jesus Deport?" line:
Offered in a range of styles and colors, plus a handsome tote bag in which to carry all your alien-hunting surveillance gear, the "Who Would Jesus Deport?" line from Newshoggers makes all the statement you'll need when it comes to the immigration battle.

Adding... I hope it's understood that I'm not pushing t-shirts because I want to sell a bunch of t-shirts, but rather it's a visual medium that I find especially comical. Political satire on casual wear is just extra teh funny, in my view.

Speaking of the immigration debate...

by shamanic

I guess this is just one more good reason for Conservatives to oppose immigration.

Whatever the crazies think, I'm glad to hear that the government has made it easier for gays and lesbians to come to the US, the way that persecuted people always have. And as an added bonus, al Qaeda hates the gays even more than Christian Conservatives do, so it's an unlikely population for terrorist sympathy.

Unless of course you're one of those who thinks that the single biggest threat to civilization is hot gay love. Then, I guess, it's just bad news.

The most important thing you'll read today

by shamanic

If you absorb only one item on the Internets today, make it this one.

It sounds cliched, repetitive, even PC to say it, but America's greatest strength is the monumental, unprecedented diversity of her population. Our tolerance for newcomers to our country and our willingness to let people from around the world become Americans and work for their American dream is simply a marvel. We are a nation powered at a very deep level by the hopes and aspirations of people. And people abroad, even now, know it.

This is Almost Sad

by shamanic

In the same week that a major news organization revealed the extent to which George Bush has merely been a placeholder for his own VP, he loses his final chance to have something other than 9/11 and Iraq as his legacy.

This video at TPM is a little painful to watch. And it's harder still to know that we're stuck with this wasted, beaten, burnt out man as the nominal leader of our nation for nearly a year and a half.

The Immigration Bill Dies

by shamanic

And I say, "Good riddance". Polls showed that it was very unpopular among the public, probably because it was so complex. I think a bill that could be sold as "We're going to enforce the border and get people green cards" would have been much more popular (but not among Republicans). We Americans do love clarity.

This was Bush's bill and Bush's dream. I don't see immigration as a big deal. It seems to me that a lot of people's needs are being met, and while there are a lot of problems with the status quo, they aren't problems that will go away with a bill that contains punitive measures.

The public is really interested in the war in Iraq concluding. If Congress wants to wow the public, figure out how to make a difference there.

The Last Honorable Wingnut

By Cernig

A.J. Strata just became my favorite wingnut blogger. Why? Because he's willing to say this:

Too many conservatives are out of control emotionally when it comes to the immigration issue.

...the current immigration bill has made these people so unstable they call fellow conservatives - including our President George Bush - traitors and un-American simply because we don’t share their amnesty hypochondriac-views. That is bad enough and has made the GOP a broken and divided party. But now some of these same lunatics are threatening to let al Qaeda win the war in Iraq - and throw away the sacrifices our military has given in life and blood - if we continue to allow the democratic process, the foundation of this country, to work its way on the issue of immigration:

Conservative leaders among House Republicans say that President Bush’s upcoming showdown with them on immigration could threaten support for the Iraq war as well as for the president’s other top policy goals.

Got that? If Bush continues to work with moderates and democrats as duly elected representatives in our Congress these turncoats will stop supporting the military and their efforts in Iraq. How dare these people call those of us who simply support a bill they oppose traitors! They are the ones who are threatening the lives of our military men and women on the front line with punishment if they do not get their way on a totally independent matter.

Doesn't that tactic and the underlying dishonesty sound familiar? AJ's had enough, and is sticking to what he believes in.

I can never align myself with a party that would make such threats during a time of war. I cannot abide anyone who tolerates or allows anyone to threaten our democracy by holding a financial gun at the heads of our soldiers on the front lines. I will NEVER become part of a political effort which would threaten to let our enemies win a critical base of operations from which to launch attacks against us because some immigrants might become US citizens in 15 years time. This really puts the nail in the coffin of the GOP for me. Either they pass this bill as proof they will not abide blackmail of this kind, or they continue to rationalize why they are willing to lie down with disreputable thieves and blackmailers. Rationalization is covert support for these threats - nothing else.

There is no way for the GOP to pretend their cause is rightous and honorable now that we have had another threat to cripple our war effort if democracy proves to be against them on one issue. I really cannot in good conscience ever support a party that does this to our military and our national defense.

Good for him. I disagree with him on his underlying logic about the occupation of Iraq but I admire his honor in sticking to that logic.

I'm wondering, though - now that he's found out what slimy, double-talking, unprincipled scum his fellow-travellers really are, will that scale falling off be just the first of many? I'm wondering whether, for AJ, this is the first step in a journey that ends up at positions taken by the likes of John Cole, Greg Djerjian, Andrew Sullivan, Steven Taylor and others who had too many scales drop from their eyes in too short a period.

There have been a fair few conservative pundits who have made that journey in the last couple of years. But I'm hard pressed to think of even one prominent pundit or blogger who has travelled in the opposite direction.

Hillarious

By Cernig

Steve Benen is right, this is freaking funny.

Despite extremist Republican rumblings about immigration policy being a code for a quiet invasion, the California Republican Party has decided to hire a Canadian citizen, Christopher Matthews, as their state deputy political director. He has been hired by another immigrant - Michael Kamburowski, the state GOP’s chief operations officer, is an Australian citizen.

Matthews is being hired under the H-1B visa program, which is designed to focus on “specialized workers” whose unique skills are unavailable in the American workforce...Like competently running the Republican Party.

If evidence is required that such skills are unavailable in the US, the two appointees can always cite the last six years.

Keeping The "White, Christian, Male Power Structure"

By Cernig

Bill O'Reilly and John McCain agree about what's really behind rightwing resistance to any immigration bill at all. Fear.

Bill O'Reilly: But do you understand what the New York Times wants, and the far-left want? They want to break down the white, Christian, male power structure, which you're a part, and so am I, and they want to bring in millions of foreign nationals to basically break down the structure that we have. In that regard, Pat Buchanan is right. So I say you've got to cap with a number.

John McCain: In America today we've got a very strong economy and low unemployment, so we need addition farm workers, including by the way agriculture, but there may come a time where we have an economic downturn, and we don't need so many.

[crosstalk]

O'Reilly: But in this bill, you guys have got to cap it. Because estimation is 12 million, there may be 20 [million]. You don't know, I don't know. We've got to cap it.

McCain: We do, we do. I agree with you.

I may be an immigrant but I also fit the WASP profile (other than being non-Christian). However, since the entrenched "white, Christian, male power structure" is made up of asshats like O'Reilly and McCain I figure breaking it down would be a damn good idea - and isn't going to happen anytime soon no matter how many immigrants who don't fit their phenotype come to America. It's rampant, paranoid xenophobia, that's all.

Now they're pissed off?

By Libby

I haven't said much about the immigration bill because frankly, I just don't know what the answer is, although I'm pretty sure I know what it isn't. And it surely isn't deporting 12 million illegal immigrants and building a wall. But what I really love is this sudden concern in the far right echo chamber over the rule of law.

The same people who have given pass after pass to Bush himself for destroying our civil rights while breaking every law and constitutional custom in the book, are suddenly outraged that the man won't crack the legal whip against the backs of people who are cleaning toilets and risking their limbs in the vile stench of meat packing plants to deliver their prime ribs in nicely sized portions, suitable for tonight's dinner?

Don takes the outrage up a notch.

He failed to press Mexico to keep its people in Mexico. Despite NAFTA, GATT and other agreements, we are being invaded by illegal aliens.

Excuse me for noticing, but that should have been "because of NAFTA,GATT and other agreements" and I'm guessing Mr. Surber fully supported all those agreements. It's precisely those sellouts to mega-corporate interests that created the exodus of Mexican workers. Those agreements effectively destroyed Mexico's formerly agrarian society and turned it into an urban-industrial poverty pit. It drew in all the workers from the rural reaches of the country and concentrated them on the border to serve US corporations for pennies on the dollar.

They wonder why those workers crossed over? Who in their right mind would slave for pennies on one side, when they can come over here and work for the same mega-corps under better conditions and for 100 times the money? The illegals may be poor and uneducated, but they're not stupid. I'd bet money, under the same circumstances, there's not one of these upstanding materialistic conservatives that wouldn't do the same, rule of law nothwithstanding.

To tell the truth, given the choice, so would I. Who wouldn't?

Beware of Terr'ists In Diapers!

By Cernig

At last, the rightwing's xenophobes have evidence to back up their previous assertions (Rick Perry, anyone?) that the southern border of the US is an open door, nay a seven-lane highway, for dangerous terr'ists called Mohammed packing suitcase nukes.

Three of the Fort Dix plotters - after 17 months that's all they were still doing if it hadn't been for FBI informers giving them hints - came across the Mexican border at Brownsville, Texas.

Ruuuun, the Terr'ists are coming! No?

Steven Taylor explains why not:

Now, I will confess that I am surprised to learn that they possibly came across in Brownsville (although how this is know is unclear), not because I don’t see how it could happen (I can), but more because Brownsville is a long way from Jersey (and because there are so many ways to get in that going via Brownsville seems like a lot of trouble). Still, the fact that they were brought in as children hardly shows some vast al Qaeda plot to use the Mexican border as a means of penetrating the United States. Of course, that hasn’t stopped Michelle Malkin from crowing about how the Duka brothers came across the Mexican border (which is one of her great areas of interest). It is noteworthy that Malkin’s post doesn’t comment on the fact that the alleged crossing took place when the brothers were still in diapers (her update does have the information in a block of quoted information, and it is, to be fair, highlighted along with some other bits of information).

...Indeed, if al Qaeda is so smart that it was able (before it even existed, mind you) to smuggle in toddler sleeper agents who would one day be poised, in the post-911 world, to wreak havoc on New Jersey after some paint-ball training, well then we are as good as doomed and might as well quit now.

And what about Debbie? Well, she's in fine frothing form. "Islamic terrorists and illegal aliens know about sanctuary cities, and they purposefully locate themselves there so they can continue their terror plotting unfettered." The emphasis is mine. The screaming paranoia that says all illegal aliens are terrorists is entirely Debbie's.

Of Ostriches And Islam

By Cernig

My post yesterday on the latest Europol report on terrorism in Europe seems to have aroused some ire over on the Right of blogtopia.

Michael van der Galien, a European conservative, wrote in response to my post:

Cernig makes one major mistake: his reasoning is that as long as Muslims do not commit a lot of terrorist attacks there is no problem. This is - of course - not true. The problem with radical Islam specifically, and Muslim immigrants generally, is not just terrorism, there is much more to it.

He then cites a Telegraph account of a report by the rightwing think tank Policy Exchange as proof of his belief that there is an inherent problem with Islam and that "young British Muslims are getting more and more radical..In fact, they are adopting more fundamentalist beliefs on key social and political issues than their parents or grandparents." Since when haven't young people been inclined to radicalism? They mellow as they grow older.

Not to mention that, for anything about immigration quoted by the Telegraph's Colonel Blimps, it's always good to check they are quoting accurately. Or maybe look at alternative reports.

One of the authors of the Policy Exchange report, Munira Mirza, writing in the Guardian, took the UK media to task for it's spin on the report.

Inevitably, media coverage of the report Living Apart Together: British Muslims and the Paradox of Multiculturalism, which I co-authored, focused on its more alarming poll statistics. The Guardian correctly reported that "support for sharia law, Islamic schools and wearing the veil in public is significantly stronger among young Muslims than their parents" (More young Muslims back sharia, says poll, January 29).
However, the research revealed a broad diversity of opinions and experiences within the most intensely scrutinised group in Britain. One of our aims was to get past the sensationalist portrayal of Muslims as "the problem" - either as terrorists or as victims of Islamophobia.
Most Muslims are well integrated, want to live under British law and prefer to send their children to mixed schools. They do not live in bleak ghettoes cut off from society. Their religion is not a barrier to integration and is very often perfectly reconciled with being - and feeling - British. While some younger Muslims are turning to religion, others have secular habits such as drinking and pre-marital relationships. Although there is some support for sharia, we should be wary of seeing this as automatic qualification for the label "extremist".
The central concern of the report was not Muslims per se, but a particular type of politicised religious identity. British-born Muslims are more likely than their parents to assert their identity in the public sphere, express anti-western feelings, and feel a strong sense of victimisation. Although most Muslims - even devout ones - will not become active Islamists or "fundamentalists" who seek to reform the state along religious lines, this type of thinking is becoming noticeable at the periphery.
The problem is not immigration, which benefits Britain. In fact, Muslims have arrived in large numbers since the 1950s, yet radicalisation is a relatively recent phenomenon. Rather, the weakening of collective political and national identities over the past 20 years has meant that younger people generally are searching for meaning. A similar impulse lies behind the resurgence of Scottishness, and even Englishness.

The report itself makes fascinating reading - all 100 pages - and is far more nuanced than the Telegraph article Michael cites suggested. It's central thesis is that, far from being a "Clash of Civilizations" menace, Islam in the UK is fractured and mostly moderate. So fractured, in fact, that it makes no sense whatsoever to speak about or treat Muslims in the UK as if they are all part of one homogenous group. In response to those who, like Michael, fear that Muslims will want all "women be oppressed, be forced to wear scarves and even burkas," the report itself notes:

Therefore, the majority of Muslims does not want sharia law and is opposed to its implementation in Britain. Among those who would like to live by sharia, more would prefer to see it reinterpreted than not. This is important to stress, because statistics about sharia can wrongly give the impression that Muslims who want to live by it are in favour of the most brutal punishments and strict regulations, which many non-Muslims feel alienated by. At the same time, there is a significant strand of young Muslims who say they wish to live by sharia and who do not wish to see it reformed. What is the appeal of sharia law to these younger Muslims, who have had the benefits of living under a more liberal system? During the interviews, the respondents who favoured sharia law explained it was superior because it expressed stronger moral codes and was harsher on criminals, although there was little appetite to impose it on the wider British population.

As to support for terrorism, only 7% of those surveyed (72 people) said they admired organisations like Al-Qaeda. The report notes:

Despite the shock headlines, it is important to put these statistics into perspective. The vast majority of Muslims condemn terrorism, and even those who express sympathy will probably not become violent. The 1990 Trust has pointed out that the questions asked in some surveys can be misleading, and that expressing sympathy for the bombers’ motives should not necessarily be taken as endorsement of the action itself. In its own survey of 1213 Muslims, it found a rather small proportion - 1.9% - of Muslims felt it is actually justified to commit terrorist attacks on civilians in the UK101. This does not eliminate concern, but may put things in better perspective. Nor were those who expressed admiration of Al-Qaeda necessarily very religious. Of the 72 people who said they agreed with the statement, (38%) either never prayed or only occasionally. 32% of them do not want to live under sharia law. 52% believe sharia law should be reformed. These are clearly not people who follow Wahabist doctrine.

Clearly, this report is a far different beast than that which the Telegraph - and Michael - would like it to be.

Michael's a nice guy, if gullible on this issue, but he's (unintentionally) setting up a strawman here by suggesting I'm ignoring such issues. It was a blog post, not a book - I'm not going to stray too far into related topics.

But if he wanted he could have searched Newshogger's archives. He would have found treatments of how a reformation of Islam might come about and be encouraged as well as well as posts on how the islamist extremists and Europe's undoubted islamobigots must each shoulder their part of the blame for the state of Muslim opinion and action in Europe today.

Other commenters have essentially focussed on the same strawmen, attacking me for what I didn't say in the post rather than what I did. They could all do with some time in my old logic Prof's classes.

Should I perhaps make it clearer exactly what I was saying in my previous post?

The dangers of Islamist terrorism are real and present, however they are not so prevalent and so overwhelming - as the analysis of incidents shows - as they have been hyped to be, mostly by the Right. That it is hyping is shown by the fact that there have been far more arrests than is justified by the number of convictions. It is also shown by the way in which those who declare themselves simply concerned with the effects of immigration regardless of religious or ethnic background - i.e. not bigots - aren't making any noise at all about the alleged threat to normal life posed by other immigrants - from Eastern European nations, for instance. In the UK, for instance, 40 or so gangs from Bulgaria in particular are currently engaged in a violent takeover of the UK's crime. That, according to one Home Office source, is the current "biggest thing" disrupting civil society. Yet nary a word from those concerned about immigration. Could it be because these criminals are at least ostensibly Christian and...well...white?

When a minority is unfairly or overly targeted for arrests based on a hyped up perception of the threat presented by a minority of that minority, you call it bigotry - for that is what it is.

Thankfully, not everyone in Europe is so inclined. I'm pleased to note a European initiative has brought Jewish and Islamic groups together "to create a dialogue over global concerns, opposition to racism, and their common future in a diverse Europe."


Postscript - Michael, to accuse me of ad hominem attacks by using the word "Islamophobe" to describe Mark Steyn and then turn around and use an ad hominem attack by comparing me to the "useful idiots" who "talked about the Soviet Union and Stalin back in the day - you know “Communists aren’t a real threat, the business owners are the real threat,” that kind of thing." is either the gravest error of consistency or rank hypocrisy.

European Islamic Menace Hype - The Facts Say Different

By Cernig

The latest Europol report on terrorism in the European Union is out - and it won't be mentioned by the Islamophobes of the extreme Right. Because the figures just don't fit their "Clash of Civilisations" narrative of doom for Europe under an Islamic tide.

Swedish writer Kristoffer Larsson notes:

There were 498 incidents in eleven EU countries last year labelled as "terrorist attacks." The Basque separatist group ETA did best (136 terrorist attacks) and was responsible for the only deadly attack, killing two in Madrid. The remaining 497 fortunately cost no human lives.

How about the Islamic terrorists then? Considering the perpetual warnings in our daily papers, the findings in the Europol report is, to say the least, surprising. The truth is that Islamists only carried out one out of the 498 terrorist attacks in the European Union in 2006.

...If we look at the people arrested on suspicion of terrorism offences, the figures are rather disproportionate; about half of them arrested were Muslim. In plain English: Muslims are a group causing very little terrorism in Europe, while at the same time much more likely to be arrested on suspicion of it.

The entire Europol report, in PDF, is here.

The large number of Muslim's being arrested isn't a case of "where there's smoke, there's fire" either. On March 5th, the BBC reported:

Fewer than a fifth of people held in anti-terror inquiries in Britain since the 9/11 attacks in 2001 have been charged with terrorism-related crimes. The Home Office figures show that of the 1,166 people detained, just 221 were charged by the end of last year...The 1,166 arrests led to 40 convictions under anti-terrorism laws and 180 convictions under other legislation.

It's easy to hype up the rhetoric, as people like Canadian Mark Steyn have done. But it's a lot harder to argue with the hard facts. Which is why the Right aren't talking about this report at all.

Integration, Immigration, Stakeholding, and Terrorism

As Atrios noted yesteday, determined attacks against public targets will get through and the best that can be achieved is minimization, mitigation and diversion if the attacker is determined enough:

if people want to kill people and don't care if they get killed or caught they're going to kill people. The existence of guns facilitate certain kinds of crimes, but there are many other options. Large motor vehicles could be quite effective, too, and don't require much creativity or skill. More creative options also exist.

Obviously security measures can protect specific locations and minimize the likelihood of certain kinds of violence at those locations

A couple of weeks after 9-11, when there were no follow-up transportation system attacks against American subways, rail, bus or aviation networks, I have always downplayed the probability of a significant sleeper cell action in America as that would have been a near optimal time for a series of systems disruption attempts. Just imagine how jittery the US would have been and how much of an economic slowdown would have been if the transportation networks were under intermittent and unpredictable attacks. The attacks would have been fairly simple in their requirements and planning size, and very difficult to stop. For these reasons, I think a good deal of the security measures put in place with the Patriot Act and the national security state are purely theatrical.


The few cases of American residents and citizens who have been arrested and whose indictments have not been laughed out of the courts for support of terrorism charges are tiny and primarily composed of people who do not operate within our shared version of reality. Taking up arms against a society that has a good grievance resolution or redirection method and does not wantonly and visibly screw too many people over is a very high threshold for people to jump over.

Outside the Beltway is linking to a Salon piece on the growing strength of Al-Quaeda in Afghanistan and northern Pakistan. There is some evidence that a new network of training camps is springing up. US officials fear that the centralized planning capacity for deep strikes against the West has been reconstituted.

"The news is alarming. U.S. and French intelligence agencies are convinced that terrorist network al-Qaida has reorganized and, what’s more, developed new training camps in both Afghanistan and the remote tribal regions of northern Pakistan. They believe that a new generation of terrorists has come of age, and some are suspected of planning attacks in the West."

For the past several years Al-Quaeda has decentralized its planning and diluted its branding to support anyone who has a grudge against the West or against a non-Islamist government. This re-purposing of Al-Quaeda has been successful in creating a more unified narrative and identity of disparate and disconnected groups that are engaged in armed actions and terrorism.

For instance, the AP is reporting that Al-Quaeda affiliated groups are successfully recruiting some of their shooters and suicide bombers from the margins of society. The 9-11 hijackers were men whose aspirations as educated professionals were blocked due to the hereditiy power structure and authoritian single party regimes in the Middle East. Both the disaffected and the thwarted do not have a stake in the continuation of the common rule sets that they diagnose as screwing them over.

Western Europe is also a fertile recruiting ground for jihadist organizations as there is a large pool of disaffected and disassociated individuals who do not believe that the society in which they live in offers them a stake and a chance. Great Britain's MI-5 believed that there were over 1,200 potential attackers who lived in the UK, and the conspirators behind the Madrid bombings had a significant residential component to that cell.

The perception of a politically, culturally and economically open society is one of the best protections that the United States can wield in protecting itself from the vast majority of distributed, minimally directed terrorist attacks. We offer a pretty good package of acceptance and assimilation for the vast majority of people who live here, and as the immigration debate continues to crawl on its belly forward, this is something that we should keep in mind. Openness works in our favor.