Support NeoGAF

[Alx]

Where does this come from ? Do you have any sociological data to share, or is it homemade bullshit?

What is "the country's culture" ?

It is very important to understand that in France multiculturalism is really different than whatever the hell is going on in the US or in the UK.
It's why it's always superbly funny having a random asshole claim that what's happening is because of multiculturalism or something that have nothing to do with how things work in France.
To put in perspective, when France ruled colonial places they STILL taught people about the "Gauls ancestor" and stuffs.
Even current French culture is wildly different than what was French culture before the Revolution.
My point is the situation is complicated and you can't come with a solution for a problem from another situation.

Yeah French culture is something actually difficult to define, maybe impossible, because it's a mix of everything. It's easier to identify the different regional cultures (britton, ch'ti, alsacian, provençal...), but it's harder to find anything common to the whole population.
Heck if you had to judge it by pop culture, French youngsters read mangas, play Pokémon, watch Games of Thrones and listen to... I actually have no idea what's trending right now.
There was a whole debate a few years ago about defining "national identity", and in the end it raised more troubles than anything because trying to define it would most likely arbitrarily exclude people for no good reason.
France is better defined by what it's not : it's not religious, it's not a royal family, it's not a specific hair or skin color, ...

 

[Lime]

People saying citizenship should be revoked when you do a crime. So much for justice and equality and liberal principles...

And the whole "integrate/assimilate or get the fuck out" fails to take into account the many instances we have of the society simply rejecting immigrants from the Middle East or Asia because of their name or skin color or way of speaking or institutional discrimination.

European countries are really racist towards a lot of these groups coupled with institutional failures, so of course it's gonna be hard to "do as the Romans do" when you are constantly marginalized and discriminated against in the media, in public, on the street, in school, at the job, and so forth.

People need to adopt a broader perspective and realize that "integrating" into a new society that constantly rejects and discriminates you is simply not possible or efficient.

 

[Mael]

Yeah French culture is something actually difficult to define, maybe impossible, because it's a mix of everything. It's easier to identify the different regional cultures (britton, ch'ti, alsacian, provençal...), but it's harder to find anything common to the whole population.
Heck if you had to judge it by pop culture, French youngsters read mangas, play Pokémon, watch Games of Thrones and listen to... I actually have no idea what's trending right now.
There was a whole debate a few years ago about defining "national identity", and in the end it raised more troubles than anything because trying to define it would most likely arbitrarily exclude people for no good reason.
France is better defined by what it's not : it's not religious, it's not a royal family, it's not a specific hair or skin color, ...

Even that shift from religion and royal family is fairly recent.
As you said the national identity is incredibly hard to define, you have people from 2nd generation or even immigrants that are more French than some shitheads from Civitas that still haven't noticed that it's not 1750 anymore.
And even the regionalism, France did its best to squash it in the most effective way available (for good reasons I'd add).
Think about it, France doesn't even try to keep regionalism, of course it's not going to try to keep foreign identity!

People saying citizenship should be revoked when you do a crime. So much for justice and equality and liberal principles...

And the whole "integrate/assimilate or get the fuck out" fails to take into account the many instances we have of the society simply rejecting immigrants from the Middle East or Asia because of their name or skin color or way of speaking or institutional discrimination.

European countries are really racist towards a lot of these groups coupled with institutional failures, so of course it's gonna be hard to "do as the Romans do" when you are constantly marginalized and discriminated against in the media, in public, on the street, in school, at the job, and so forth.

People need to adopt a broader perspective and realize that "integrating" into a new society that constantly rejects and discriminates you is simply not possible or efficient.

You can't remove the citizenship.
Doing that would require shredding the constitution.
Might as well cut the chase and reinstate monarchy while we're at it.

 

[GYODX]

People saying citizenship should be revoked when you do a crime. So much for justice and equality and liberal principles...

And the whole "integrate/assimilate or get the fuck out" fails to take into account the many instances we have of the society simply rejecting immigrants from the Middle East or Asia because of their name or skin color or way of speaking or institutional discrimination.

European countries are really racist towards a lot of these groups coupled with institutional failures, so of course it's gonna be hard to "do as the Romans do" when you are constantly marginalized and discriminated against in the media, in public, on the street, in school, at the job, and so forth.

People need to adopt a broader perspective and realize that "integrating" into a new society that constantly rejects and discriminates you is simply not possible or efficient.

I see we're going the old "we have no one but ourselves to blame" route.

 

[chugen]

The murder of a priest and the wounding of one of his parishioners in Normandy was an act of terrorism carried out by two followers of Islamic State, the French president, François Hollande, has said.

A witness to the attack has described how the two men forced the 86-year-old priest, Father Jacques Hamel, to his knees, slit his throat and filmed themselves appearing to preach in Arabic at the altar.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...urch-police-normandy-saint-etienne-du-rouvray

 

[TM94]

The families need to be questioned, as does every single senior figure at the mosque where they prayed at.

 

[MistakenMobius]

Yeah the Yankeesplaining seeing thing through their own racial problems miss the elephant in the room.

European country spend much more money on public infrastructure than the US.
You obviously have racists but not in the US way and minorities hate each other as much as they hate the local.

 

[BouncyFrag]

The two knife men forced the priest to his knees and slit his throat while they gave a sermon in Arabic at the altar. At this point, I have no words.

 

[Mael]

The families need to be questioned, as does every single senior figure at the mosque where they prayed at.

Even if they were accused of robbery the family would be questioned...
What do you think the investigation is going to be?
"Let's sprinkle some crack and call it a day"?

 

[CheDominik]

You can't remove the citizenship.
Doing that would require shredding the constitution.
Might as well cut the chase and reinstate monarchy while we're at it.

There are ways to remove citzenship for dual citizens in Germany that are constitutional. One of them is to fight for a foreign army(or something comparable) that you have citizenship of. I wouldn't be surprised if that caveat of needing the citizenship of the army you fight for gets removed if the IS problems lingers on and then it would be interesting if the Constitutional court allows it.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...urch-police-normandy-saint-etienne-du-rouvray

Disgusting.

 

[Royal_Phalanx]

Being able to remove citizenship destroys the whole concept of citizenship. Interesting how blind fear makes a liberal society dump all its principles and values that you're trying to defend. Stop being cowards and take responsibility for them.

It's not like there's no will to deport career criminals from another country. There are many legal and bureaucratic obstacles, like their home country being unwilling to accept their citizens back. That's why Germany for instance has to do things like make deals with Morocco where their government agrees to take back people being deported. There's also international legal obligations to not deport people where they'll face the death penalty or torture. Germany has a pretty strict citizenship law as well where ANY criminal history bars you from the right of having citizenship even if all other conditions are fulfilled. In the UK, Denmark, etc, for instance, someone has to serve a 'penalty period' before being once again eligible+meeting all other conditions.

Interesting how otherwise liberal Europeans are so anti immigration, honestly. I don't think the system itself is flawed, just that many are unwilling to engage with the help being offered. Otherwise why do Japanese, etc. immigrants in Europe do so well?

 

[Mael]

There are ways to remove citzenship for dual citizens in Germany that are constitutional. One of them is to fight for a foreign army(or something comparable) that you have citizenship of. I wouldn't be surprised if that caveat of needing the citizenship of the army you fight for gets removed if the IS problems lingers on and then it would be interesting if the Constitutional court allows it.

there is something similar in France but it's like death penalty* in that it's extremely limited in scope and only in the most extreme cases (that this is absolutely not part of).
For nearly all the cases of Terrorism in France, you could probably absolutely not remove their citizenship.
The constitutional council already weighted on the idea, it's not actually feasible)

*(was for a time only limited to high treason at war, it's now offically banned even in that case)

 

[TM94]

Even if they were accused of robbery the family would be questioned...
What do you think the investigation is going to be?
"Let's sprinkle some crack and call it a day"?

Referring to questioning along the lines of...

Do his family members share his extremist views?
Did they know he was an extremist?
Has he previously exhibited extreme behavior?

 

[ClosingADoor]

Being able to remove citizenship destroys the whole concept of citizenship. Interesting how blind fear makes a liberal society dump all its principles and values that you're trying to defend. Stop being cowards and take responsibility for them.

It's not like there's no will to deport career criminals from another country. There are many legal and bureaucratic obstacles, like their home country being unwilling to accept their citizens back. That's why Germany for instance has to do things like make deals with Morocco where their government agrees to take back people being deported. There's also international legal obligations to not deport people where they'll face the death penalty or torture. Germany has a pretty strict citizenship law as well where ANY criminal history bars you from the right of having citizenship even if all other conditions are fulfilled. In the UK, Denmark, etc, for instance, someone has to serve a 'penalty period' before being once again eligible+meeting all other conditions.

Interesting how otherwise liberal Europeans are so anti immigration, honestly. I don't think the system itself is flawed, just that many are unwilling to engage with the help being offered. Otherwise why do Japanese, etc. immigrants in Europe do so well?

Don't you see the problem with that last part? You can offer all the help you want, but if someone actively refuses to contribute to society, what is that country supposed to do? Just stand by and keep hoping those people change their minds somehow? Why would they if there is no active punishment for that behavior.

Most European countries have free schooling, pretty much free healthcare for whatever you might need, social housing and other services and much more. It can always be better, but for everyone who wants to, the opportunities to join society are there.

So yes, when someone does not want to make use of those opportunities, there is a line somewhere and progressive and liberal thought has ended and that person is now responsible for his own choices.

And all the talk about taking citizenship away is for people with two passports. If you don't want to join society in Germany, Holland, France or other European countries, maybe you should make the choice and join your other country and see how it is there.

 

[Mael]

Referring to questioning along the lines of...

Do his family members share his extremist views?
Did they know he was an extremist?
Has he previously exhibited extreme behavior?

Yes?
Again what the hell did you think the investigators were going to ask?
If he liked GTA and had a skateboard ready?

 

[AcademicSaucer]

Is this the first time the Islamic State has directly attacked the Catholic Church?

 

[Lime]

I see we're going the old "we have no one but ourselves to blame" route.

Is there just like a tiny bit of nuance to do this, you think?

 

[Mael]

And all the talk about taking citizenship away is for people with two passports. If you don't want to join society in Germany, Holland, France or other European countries, maybe you should make the choice and join your other country and see how it is there.

It's a BS solution that is pointless AND unconstitutional.
You're basically created a double standard between citizen, this is contrary to the 2nd sentence of the very 1rst article of the constitution :

La France est une République indivisible, laïque, démocratique et sociale. Elle assure l'égalité devant la loi de tous les citoyens sans distinction d'origine, de race ou de religion. Elle respecte toutes les croyances. Son organisation est décentralisée.

France is an indivisible, secular, democratic and social. It ensures equality before the law for all citizens without distinction of origin, race or religion. She respects all beliefs. Its organization is decentralized

.
want to change that, might as well reinstate the monarchy and have a YOLO King deciding everything.

 

[Koren]

when you are constantly marginalized and discriminated against in the media, in public, on the street, in school, at the job, and so forth.

Schools? I can give you a lot of those, but I'd be curious to hear about actual and real examples of this...

Even that shift from religion and royal family is fairly recent.

But quite strong, I'd say... Especially the religion part.

And even the regionalism, France did its best to squash it in the most effective way available (for good reasons I'd add).

I agree, and I'm concerned about the recent attempts to go "back" these recent years.

Also, I'm definitively european, possibly federalist in the long-term, but I suspect the EU thinks helping regionalisms is a clever way to decrease nationalisms, and I think that's dangerous.

You can't remove the citizenship.
Doing that would require shredding the constitution.

Actually, it's not a problem. You can remove citizenship without any issue with the constitution as long as you can remove it to ANY french citizen (dual-citizenship or not).

And since France technically CAN create stateless people, there's not really technical/legal hurdle if they decide to.

Granted, they could, that doesn't mean I think they should, and in any case, if we're talking about terrorists after a terrorism crime, there won't be that many alive terrorists that could be brought to trial anyway...

France is better defined by what it's not : it's not religious, it's not a royal family, it's not a specific hair or skin color, ...

I think that's a pretty strong point now. There's a large belief that religion shouldn't be involved in politics, and especially in the laws.

(In fact, I'd also think there shouldn't be religious schools, even with the current strict control of those.)

The families need to be questioned, as does every single senior figure at the mosque where they prayed at.

Assuming they were praying at a mosque. And even... what about catholic terrorists who attack clinics where you can do abortion? I wouldn't be surprised that they seemed "normal" most of the time should the go to a church...

 

[ElTorro]

Where does this talk about revoking citizenships even come from?

I can only see one instance in this thread where somebody mentioned that. And that was in response to a poster who didn't imply in any way that was talking about citizens with an immigration background.

 

[Mael]

Actually, it's not a problem. You can remove citizenship without any issue with the constitution as long as you can remove it to ANY french citizen (dual-citizenship or not).

And since France technically CAN create stateless people, there's not really technical/legal hurdle if they decide to.

Granted, they could, that doesn't mean I think they should, and in any case, if we're talking about terrorists after a terrorism crime, there won't be that many alive terrorists that could be brought to trial anyway...

It signed the NewYork Convention on that matter.
Experts may disagree but I'll side with Dominique Rousseau over Dider Maus on the matter.
France signed it and have to follow the letter and the spirit of what it signed.
On top of that it's highly likely it's not possible at the EU level (which supercede member state law)

 

[BrassDragon]

Is this the first time the Islamic State has directly attacked the Catholic Church?

It's fairly frequent in IS-occupied territories and many other radical jihadist groups use this MO. Still, this is the first such attack in the west I'm aware of.

The escalation is real.

 

[ClosingADoor]

It's a BS solution that is pointless AND unconstitutional.
You're basically created a double standard between citizen, this is contrary to the 2nd sentence of the very 1rst article of the constitution :

.
want to change that, might as well reinstate the monarchy and have a YOLO King deciding everything.

I think it is bullshit and pointless for a society to keep investing and caring for people that have no interest in repaying that. And if there are options to have those people go somewhere else - taking into account safety and other common sense measures of course - I personally don't see anything wrong with that. If it is constitutional is up to the courts and otherwise politicians to change the law if the people want to.

That is not saying it should be done lightly, but if people don't feel they belong here while given a lot of opportunities - that the majority do use and also contribute to - then maybe they should try their luck somewhere else.

Being a citizen of a country doesn't just come with benefits and rights. It comes with obligations as well.

Btw, I feel the same too about Dutch people here always complaining how bad it is. Maybe appreciate your luck a bit and be constructive instead of blaming society or politics all the time.

 

[Royal_Phalanx]

Don't you see the problem with that last part? You can offer all the help you want, but if someone actively refuses to contribute to society, what is that country supposed to do? Just stand by and keep hoping those people change their minds somehow? Why would they if there is no active punishment for that behavior.

Most European countries have free schooling, pretty much free healthcare for whatever you might need, social housing and other services and much more. It can always be better, but for everyone who wants to, the opportunities to join society are there.

So yes, when someone does not want to make use of those opportunities, there is a line somewhere and progressive and liberal thought has ended and that person is now responsible for his own choices.

And all the talk about taking citizenship away is for people with two passports. If you don't want to join society in Germany, Holland, France or other European countries, maybe you should make the choice and join your other country and see how it is there.

What can you do if they're a citizen already? I don't give them a free pass for not trying their best to be part of society, in fact I think they're morons and imbeciles for throwing away their opportunities like that. My point was that blaming the government 'for not doing enough' is misguided because they ARE doing as much as they can to integrate people. You can bring those horses to water but you can't make them drink. I don't give a shit if career criminals get deported. They can fuck off if they don't like it in a society that values human rights. They should change the law to make it even easier and more efficient. But if they're your citizens, then take responsibility for them and make the judicial system deal with them. There's no other choice. Because a society has a duty to invest in and care for its citizens. In every European country there are requirements to have a job, speak the language, pass tests, have a good character, etc. The system is there and it would be adequate if aspects of it were enforced much more more strictly and efficiently.

 

[Mael]

I think it is bullshit and pointless for a society to keep investing and caring for people that have no interest in repaying that. And if there are options to have those people go somewhere else - taking into account safety and other common sense measures of course - I personally don't see anything wrong with that. If it is constitutional is up to the courts and otherwise politicians to change the law if the people want to.

That is not saying it should be done lightly, but if people don't feel they belong here while given a lot of opportunities - that the majority do use and also contribute to - then maybe they should try their luck somewhere else.

Being a citizen of a country doesn't just come with benefits and rights. It comes with obligations as well.

If you want to shred the constitution every time you feel like some situation requires a bit more pressure, you might as well get rid of it entirely.
It's the foundation of the country legal system that ALL citizens should be treated equally, now why no how.
If you start this way you can justify for other equally important cases and then you have basically killed one of the 3 principles of the French identity.
It will not even solve anything and you've basically destroyed everything that the country stood for.

Btw, I feel the same too about Dutch people here always complaining how bad it is. Maybe appreciate your luck a bit and be constructive instead of blaming society or politics all the time.

France is far from perfect as a country and there are issues that need to be solved but they're absolutely solvable in the framework we have and you won't see me blaming society for such a minor problem on the scale of the country.

 

[Koren]

It signed the NewYork Convention on that matter.
Experts may disagree but I'll side with Dominique Rousseau over Dider Maus on the matter.
France signed it and have to follow the letter and the spirit of what it signed.

I disagree on this... The signature has never been confirmed, and I'd say that the parliament is the only authority that can bind the country to any such treaty.

And even if you think the signature is binding, there was still restriction when France signed that can apply in this kind of situation.

On top of that it's highly likely it's not possible at the EU level (which supercede member state law)

I'm not convinced of this... France never confirmed either the 1991 european declaration on the matter.


And anyway, should they decide they want to do it*, what retaliation could we expect, and from who? Worldwide, probably nothing. EU, that could be a bit different, but I don't believe they would do much more than saying "hey, it's bad".


Again: i don't support it (I mostly find it childish). But I don't think the "we can't do this" has any weight in the matter.

 

[VAD]

France is better defined by what it's not : it's not religious, it's not a royal family, it's not a specific hair or skin color, ...

I really like this sentence, congratulations Alx

I don't see a short term solution to this problem, it's symptomatic to decades of negligence. It will get worse before it gets better (hopefully). After that, we should start over with the integration of foreigners and young generations: closing prisons and opening schools could be a good first step. We should not give people the occasion to get manipulated into terrorism by not letting them being desperate and vulnerable.
I know, what I just wrote sounds like what an electoral candidate would say but I prefer this to the bullshit a lot of people are saying these days.

 

[Koren]

If you want to shred the constitution every time you feel like some situation requires a bit more pressure, you might as well get rid of it entirely.

Well, technically, they've already did this last year for other things, including the emergency state...

It's the foundation of the country legal system that ALL citizens should be treated equally, now why no how.
If you start this way you can justify for other equally important cases and then you have basically killed one of the 3 principles of the French identity.
It will not even solve anything and you've basically destroyed everything that the country stood for.

I agree.

 

[Mael]

I disagree on this... The signature has never been confirmed, and I'd say that the parliament is the only authority that can bind the country to any such treaty.

And even if you think the signature is binding, there was still restriction when France signed that can apply in this kind of situation.

If the EU has a provision making this binding, it's already part of French law.

I'm not convinced of this... France never confirmed either the 1991 european declaration on the matter.


And anyway, should they decide they want to do it*, what retaliation could we expect, and from who? Worldwide, probably nothing. EU, that could be a bit different, but I don't believe they would do much more than saying "hey, it's bad".


Again: i don't support it (I mostly find it childish). But I don't think the "we can't do this" has any weight in the matter.

The EU routinely condemn France for diverse situation, another day another fine if you ask me.
I understand that we're discussing the legality of the matter, it's interesting despite the fact that we agree on the necessity of the matter.

Well, technically, they've already did this last year for other things, including the emergency state...


I agree.

I'm relocated in the US right now, did I miss something that important when I wasn't looking with the state of emergency BS?

 

[BrassDragon]

What's with the stripping citizenship discussion? I honestly don't see the practical use of that measure as a counter-terrorism tool.

It doesn't hold up as a deterrence (we're talking about people who don't care about death and incarceration), it's closes the door on rehabilitation, it's completely unreliable as a preventive measure (because of litigation and deportation issues that could drag on for years) and it hurts the possibility of a suspect's family and support network to intervene in his radicalisation.

We have adequate (and potentially very harsh) punishments already in place in all Western European nations.

I feel this is a purely symbolic gesture, a way to 'brand' these despised citizens who upset our societies and break the social contract. Maybe it'll make us feel better but if we're going to create more effective legislation to deal with the threat of jihadist terrorism, stripping citizenship is nowhere near my list of things we should tackle.

 

[ClosingADoor]

What can you do if they're a citizen already? I don't give them a free pass for not trying their best to be part of society, in fact I think they're morons and imbeciles for throwing away their opportunities like that. My point was that blaming the government 'for not doing enough' is misguided because they ARE doing as much as they can to integrate people. You can bring those horses to water but you can't make them drink. I don't give a shit if career criminals get deported. They can fuck off if they don't like it in a society that values human rights. They should change the law to make it even easier and more efficient. But if they're your citizens, then take responsibility for them and make the judicial system deal with them. There's no other choice. Because a society has a duty to invest in and care for its citizens. In every European country there are requirements to have a job, speak the language, pass tests, have a good character, etc. The system is there and it would be adequate if aspects of it were enforced much more more strictly and efficiently.

I think I agree with you then. But I also think most Western European countries take a lot of responsibility already when it comes to the people living there. There are a ton of social programs to help out and make sure everyone has their basic needs taken care of.

If you want to shred the constitution every time you feel like some situation requires a bit more pressure, you might as well get rid of it entirely.
It's the foundation of the country legal system that ALL citizens should be treated equally, now why no how.
If you start this way you can justify for other equally important cases and then you have basically killed one of the 3 principles of the French identity.
It will not even solve anything and you've basically destroyed everything that the country stood for.


France is far from perfect as a country and there are issues that need to be solved but they're absolutely solvable in the framework we have and you won't see me blaming society for such a minor problem on the scale of the country.

I think citizenship for a country should be earned and if you screw up too much, then if the possibilities are there, it can be taken away. Over here in Holland it is not a constitutional issue as far as I know. I am not that familiar with French law surrounding it.

 

[timetokill]

These people are so fucking vile, I can't stand it.

 

[Mael]

What's with the stripping citizenship discussion? I honestly don't see the practical use of that measure as a counter-terrorism tool.

It doesn't hold up as a deterrence (we're talking about people who don't care about death and incarceration), it's closes the door on rehabilitation, it's completely unreliable as a preventive measure (because of litigation and deportation issues that could drag on for years) and it hurts the possibility of a suspect's family and support network to intervene in his radicalisation.

We have adequate (and potentially very harsh) punishments already in place in all Western European nations.

I feel this is a purely symbolic gesture, a way to 'brand' these despised citizens who upset our societies and break the social contract. Maybe it'll make us feel better but if we're going to create more effective legislation to deal with the threat of jihadist terrorism, stripping citizenship is nowhere near my list of things we should tackle.

It's on the level of reinstating torture and really reminiscent of the crime of lese-majesté where the biggest crime you could do in France was insulting the King or something.
We're better off without this and you know it's going to be abused on other shitty stuffs

I think citizenship for a country should be earned and if you screw up too much, then if the possibilities are there, it can be taken away. Over here in Holland it is not a constitutional issue as far as I know. I am not that familiar with French law surrounding it.

If you screw too much society has a way to try to make you better, through rehabilitation, prison or whatever.
if you screw up a lot you end up in prison a long time till you are let out and ready to be a productive member of society.
Discarding your citizen because they screw up is a revolting idea from a French perspective.
Even death penalty is less vile than just discarding citizens.

 

[tearsintherain]

Poor priest, didn't deserve that. Lived through world war 2 and killed by some fuck wits.

 

[CheDominik]

Granted, they could, that doesn't mean I think they should, and in any case, if we're talking about terrorists after a terrorism crime, there won't be that many alive terrorists that could be brought to trial anyway...

.

The legal discussion in Germany is for dual citizens who go to Sytia or Iraq to join ISIS and want to return. If they had their citizenship revoked you could simply deny them reentrance to the country, The actual usefulness is limited, it would be more or less a symbolic gesture save for a few instances where that would be helpful.

 

[Royal_Phalanx]

Many European countries forbid dual citizenship. Don't know how France does it but it's against all international laws to create stateless people if they aren't dual citizens. So Germany allows dual citizenship? Thought they didn't. I know they don't allow birth citizenship, because I knew a Japanese guy who was born in Germany and only lived there when he was very young but never acquired German citizenship. He moved to the UK almost as quickly because his family moved a lot for work and he acquired that citizenship instead.

 

[NullPointer]

Cowards.

 

[Mael]

Many European countries forbid dual citizenship. Don't know how France does it but it's against all international laws to create stateless people if they aren't dual citizens. So Germany allows dual citizenship? Thought they didn't. I know they don't allow birth citizenship, because I knew a Japanese guy who was born in Germany and only lived there when he was very young but never acquired German citizenship. He moved to the UK almost as quickly because his family moved a lot and he acquired that citizenship instead.

France allow dual citizenship.
You can ask to get rid of it I guess but I'm not even sure that the country recognize it or something.
It's moot though there's culturally not that much difference between dual citizens and the rest of the population.
Heck we have coricans bombing France authority building like no tomorrow and no one really cares (they even killed a prefect).
they're treated like common thugs that need to be jailed, not much difference in this case.

 

[CheDominik]

Many European countries forbid dual citizenship. Don't know how France does it but it's against all international laws to create stateless people if they aren't dual citizens. So Germany allows dual citizenship? Thought they didn't. I know they don't allow birth citizenship, because I knew a Japanese guy who was born in Germany and only lived there when he was very young but never acquired German citizenship. He moved to the UK almost as quickly because his family moved a lot and he acquired that citizenship instead.

Yes and no on both accounts. There is dual citizenship but it's too fucking complicated to explain on GAF; But basically, if you're parents are not German they had to be in Germany legally fot 8 years then you would have the right of German citizenship and before turning 24 you have to decide wihich citizenship(German or your parents' ) to keep. We have a weird mixture of Ius Sanguinis and the citizenship by place of birth.

 

[Koren]

If the EU has a provision making this binding, it's already part of French law.

That's still a "if", I don't remember seeing something clear about this...

The EU routinely condemn France for diverse situation, another day another fine if you ask me.

Indeed.

I understand that we're discussing the legality of the matter, it's interesting despite the fact that we agree on the necessity of the matter.

Yes, we definitively agree. I think that "we shouldn't" is a stronger answer than "we can't".

Especially from a politic point of view: if the political people say they wanted to do this but were prevented to do so by Europe or International treaties, that's stirring even more nationalism. If we say "we can't do this because that's both against our principles, useless inefficient", I think it's better.

I also think that a signature *should* be confirmed by the parliament to be binding. Let's say a french representative sign a trade agreement. I wouldn't want it to be binding (and I don't think it would be) till the parliament confirmed it. Too much risks involved.

I'm relocated in the US right now, did I miss something that important when I wasn't looking with the state of emergency BS?

Well, it's BS to begin with.

I'd like an official enquiry on its efficiency on the matter. It has probably been more useful for the police to fight against drugs, in fact ^_^.

Like Echelon and the like probably work far better for industrial spying than to fight any threats against countries.

I'm really reluctant to leave some important liberties and allowing uncontrolled power to some police forces for a long/unlimited time because the times are difficult. Each governments/institutions will want to increase its power, and they'll use each opportunities to do so.

What's with the stripping citizenship discussion? I honestly don't see the practical use of that measure as a counter-terrorism tool.

It's purely demagogical talks. But in those times, people want to hear this.

For example, I remember the crazy talks about securing the train stations like airports. It's stupid, because terrorists will target subways or supermarkets if trains are too difficult to attack...

It was installed in Gare du nord (towards Belgium). The "it doesn't take longer time" translated in 50 meters lines, and trains late. There's still a couple of stations were there is control... but mostly because the french compagny for trains wanted to decrease the number of people using trains without paying for it...

It doesn't hold up as a deterrence (we're talking about people who don't care about death and incarceration), it's closes the door on rehabilitation, it's completely unreliable as a preventive measure (because of litigation and deportation issues that could drag on for years) and it hurts the possibility of a suspect's family and support network to intervene in his radicalisation.

And most of the time, people that could be sentenced to this are dead, anyway.

I think citizenship for a country should be earned and if you screw up too much, then if the possibilities are there, it can be taken away.

In France, if you're granted the french citizenship, the idea is that you become a french citizen 100%, and there's not going back after. There's no trial period.

And I think that's fine... But that means you shouldn't grant it without some care to people that aren't interested in it...

 

[ClosingADoor]

If you screw too much society has a way to try to make you better, through rehabilitation, prison or whatever.
if you screw up a lot you end up in prison a long time till you are let out and ready to be a productive member of society.
Discarding your citizen because they screw up is a revolting idea from a French perspective.
Even death penalty is less vile than just discarding citizens.

The problem with prisons at the moment seems to be that they are actually contributing to radicalization. Now that is a separate problem from this discussion a bit, but it's not as easy as sending people to prison and they come out having learned their lesson.

I agree that it is a big decision to take someones citizenship away, but I wouldn't put it on the level of the death penalty. Of course the French people are the ones to decide that, not me.

 

[trembli0s]

My beef with such comparisons is that they ignore not only the volume, but the fact that Europe is geographically connected to the Middle East/a short boat ride away from it, which drastically alters the kind of immigrants it receives (read: largely folks from impoverished/war ravaged countries with little to no education).

I can see your argument here but I don't exactly buy it.

The entire Southern US border is porous with respect to folks who are largely impoverished, ravaged by the drug war in Northern Mexico, and typically not well educated.

You could have a million poor Indians streaming into Europe and you would t have these types of incidents. You could have a million Mexicans, Guatemalans, etc. and you still wouldn't have the same type of violent outbursts.

 

[Ragnar Blackmane]

There are ways to remove citzenship for dual citizens in Germany that are constitutional. One of them is to fight for a foreign army(or something comparable) that you have citizenship of. I wouldn't be surprised if that caveat of needing the citizenship of the army you fight for gets removed if the IS problems lingers on and then it would be interesting if the Constitutional court allows it.

I want to note that the whole "fight in a foreign army and loose your German citizenship" thing was heavily revised in 2011. Nowadays you can fight in the army of any NATO member and most democratic/western allies such as Sweden, Japan or South Korea without any issues, in the case of the NATO members you don't even need to inform the German authorities about it anymore. You would have to actually join the military of some dictatorship or Russia if you wanted to get rid of your citizenship now. So it's even less of a precedent for the citizenship-removal thing than some people might believe it to be.

Also gotta say that we got a serious wave of copycats here, bunch of domestic lone wolves going on the Jihad with very few attacks that were actually planned or co-ordinated by ISIS itself. It's also rather obvious that ISIS wants to destabilize the refugee situation now that it stopped making negative headlines (outside the UK that is) after the refugee flood was shut out by fences and the rather shameful deal with Erdogan.

IMO radicalization in prisons is one of the main causes and far too little is done to address it. There should be a moderate Muslim religious counsellor for every prison with even a handful of Muslim inmates.

 

[Royal_Phalanx]

The problem with prisons at the moment seems to be that they are actually contributing to radicalization. Now that is a separate problem from this discussion a bit, but it's not as easy as sending people to prison and they come out having learned their lesson.

I agree that it is a big decision to take someones citizenship away, but I wouldn't put it on the level of the death penalty. Of course the French people are the ones to decide that, not me.

Then separate extremist prisoners from the non extreme ones. Don't allow the two groups to speak to each other.

 

[Koren]

The legal discussion in Germany is for dual citizens who go to Sytia or Iraq to join ISIS and want to return.

That can't be turned in a law in France unless some constitutional changes (on a legal point of view) and some change in the basic french principles about equality among citizen. Doesn't work.

MDon't know how France does it but it's against all international laws to create stateless people

I don't think it's that clear...

Countries that adopted the 1961 law about stateless people are in dark green:

(France is in light green because they signed it but never confirmed it)

 

[ClosingADoor]

Then separate extremist prisoners from the non extreme ones. Don't allow the two groups to speak to each other.

That seems to be a given, but in practice it is probably a lot more difficult to do.

 

[WeAreStarStuff]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...urch-police-normandy-saint-etienne-du-rouvray

Horrific. I have no idea what can be done about this, but I'm so sick of these attacks by Islamic terrorist.

 

[Royal_Phalanx]

That seems to be a given, but in practice it is probably a lot more difficult to do.

I know in the UK we can't do it because prisons are underfunded and overcrowded as fuck. Reoffending is around 50% too, so our prison system is America-level bad in terms of effectiveness. Some Euro countries can do it, though. For example the Netherlands started closing prisons because crime was so low?

 

[Koren]

I know in the UK we can't do it because prisons are underfunded and overcrowded as fuck.

Not that better in France, I think (but at least, we don't rent prisons in other countries to put our inmates ^_^ )