C'mon, Kevin, you don't have to be innumerate.

The reason there is more Muslim terrorism in Europe than in America is because there are more Muslims in Europe.

So here's another lesson from these brief paragraphs: terrorist groups have a hard time prospering unless there's a critical mass of tolerance for their ideology in the surrounding population. In Europe, that critical mass exists — though only barely. In the United States it doesn't, and terrorist attacks are rare.

So let me get this straight: Your theory is that those who want immigration controlled and illegal immigration stopped are evil, and that encouraging huge numbers of uncontrolled and non-assimilated immigrants into the U.S. so they can form this "critical mass" is a good idea?

I'm not a fan of nativist, xenophobic reactions to immigration. But I have to ask: why didn't the 9-11-01 hijackers succumb to our culture? Why didn't the surrounding population turn them into freedom loving, potato chip eating, blue jeans wearing Americans? Alternatively, why weren't they found out and turned in to the authorities?

On another note, why did Timothy McVeigh and company want to commit an act of mass murder/terrorism? He was as immersed in our culture as any American.

"Why didn't the surrounding population turn them into freedom loving, potato chip eating, blue jeans wearing Americans? "

They weren't here long enough, and they came here to attack us.

Kevin's talking about people who migrated for its own sake, or are the children of immigrants, who become terrorists.

Kevin, you do know, don't you, that the late "comprehensive immigration reform" bill you supported contained a big new guest worker program of the old-fashioned European kind that your source criticizes?

Kevin wrote:"The traditional American approach to immigration is the most successful in the world. "

I think that's a different issue.

What helps us is the way immigrants are treated, for the most part, once they get here.

That strikes me as being a separate issue from the question of how many immigrants we allow in in the first place.

Plenty of people immigrate to Europe. The problem is what happens to them once they get there.

Ah, Kevin.

This was already reported last month.

Your theory is that those who want immigration controlled and illegal immigration stopped are evil, and that encouraging huge numbers of uncontrolled and non-assimilated immigrants into the U.S. so they can form this "critical mass" is a good idea?

I think Kevin is saying that our culture discourages hating America quite effectively among people who live here- as a general matter, and in the grand scheme of things- and that discouraging hatred of America is the oft-missed grand goal and finish line in the war on terror (the only finish line that will work).

Even African Americans, in the long run, often end up wanting to be Puff Daddy more than they hate the white man and America. Tons of African Americans who have been shit on and deprived want to be successful and accepted, they don't want to take revenge. There are no African American terrorists, and if you want to count criminals from the ghettoes as motivated by some kind of racial grudge, you have to consider that they have nothing. So it's an additional factor- a social problem- that may be the root of their ill will, not who they are as a culture.

That strikes me as being a separate issue from the question of how many immigrants we allow in in the first place.

I'm not saying all you complainers aren't right that a lot of immigration isn't a good thing, but you aren't saying why it isn't. You're just trying to make it sound like Kevin's point that America turns immigrants into friends isn't valid because it isn't going to work w/ some immigration measure he supported w/o explaining why this is so (except for the program Steve Sailer points out at 2:09).

I mean, all else equal, saying a lot of immigration is bad is just a standard conservative position because they don't like people from foreign lands- racism.

A smart response to 9/11 would have turned many in the mid east against terrorism. Pulling out of Iraq might help, too. Everyone hates terrorism when it happens to them.

"The reason there is more Muslim terrorism in Europe than in America is because there are more Muslims in Europe.
Posted by: Steve Sailer on July 9, 2007"

This is a great parody of yourself.

Atta was radicalized in Germany. The most powerful American member of al-Qaeda, al-Amriki, converted to Islam from evangelical Christianity with a stopover in death metal and Cannibal Corpses. On becoming a Muslim and worshipping at a mosque, he would criticize his imam for being too tolerant of other religions and cultures and would scream at the imam for not being a good, true Muslim.

"In the long run, reducing the tolerance for al-Qaeda and likeminded jihadist groups in the Middle East is the only way we'll ever permanently reduce the threat of Islamic terrorism."

err, you forgot to tell us how.

"This — not military action — should be the single most important guiding principle of our foreign policy. Maybe starting in January 2009 it will be."

Snort. You mean that miserable shower of wimps, drips, shysters and crooks which the dems plan on inflicting upon us? None of them have a clue what to do, and none of them even care.

Last week, Eugene Robinson had a hopeful column agreeing w/ Kevin's point in the WaPo. He said:

The radical, anti-Western, jihadist ideas that inspire would-be suicide bombers in Britain and elsewhere in Europe have a much harder time finding receptive ears here -- even though it's the United States that many Muslims around the world believe is leading a modern-day crusade against Islam. I know there are Muslims here who are bitterly angry about U.S. foreign policy under George W. Bush but who do not respond by killing themselves and others.

I think that's because the United States, for all its faults, is still the most inclusive society on Earth. Our nation has a way of making outsiders into participants, a way of convincing people that they are protagonists, not just pawns. The United States can fall short of its promises, but it has a genius for manufacturing possibility. If people have even a glimpse of a better tomorrow, no matter how unbearable today might be, they are less likely to pack a car with explosives and crash it into an airport.

Swan wrote: "I mean, all else equal, saying a lot of immigration is bad is just a standard conservative position because they don't like people from foreign lands- racism."

I never said 'a lot of immigration is bad', I was saying that the flow rate is not what makes immigrants not hate the US. What makes them not hate the US is what happens when they get here.

Kevin appeared to be saying that Tancredo, by wanting to reduce immigration, is acting contrary to what makes immigrants not hate us. Which is just claiming that immigrants don't hate us because we let people in at the current rate.

I think the ease of entry to the US is irrelevant to the issue.

The right-wing needs to have someone to hate, Kevin. It is their raison d'etre. This analysis is dead-on accurate. If people come to America and see what we have here, suicide bombing doesn't seem so appealing. Since the only legal immigrants are the American Indian, people like Tancredo and Pat Buchanan need to shut the fuck up when it comes to immigration or we should send their sad ass families back to where they came from!

Atta et al.didn't need to rely on the succor of US Muslims in part because they had the means of survival with them. One of Atta's last tasks was to wire the left-over money back home. The anonymity of life in the US helped them immensely. Plus, they took the edge off ogling the strippers. They could have told everybody in those bars what they were going to do. The few that remembered wouldn't have believed them.

America's approach to immigration is probably the most successful in the world, but Herr Kamp's assertion's are a little too far fetched for my taste. I rather think that the old favourites still play a part: geographical distance, oceans and fearsome spending on security all have a deterrent effect. (I don't think terrorists read too deeply about how poorly that security spending is allocated and administered. )

I call bullshit. I don't see any difference in how immigrants are treated in Britain as in America, and yet we're seeing bombings there.

'...why weren't they found out and turned in to the authorities?"
--James Finkelstein

Actually, James, they were "found out". The Phoenix branch of the FBI warned of Muslims taking pilot lessons with no obvious reason for doing so. Had the warnings been heeded, Atta and the others would likely have been fingered. The record is replete with major fuck-ups by these clowns, including walking away from a small-engine plane, still running, on a public runway Florida. A guy named Bush was also warned in August of 2001 that a terrorist attack using planes and he did nothing, absolutely nothing, to prevent it. He could have ordered more air marshalls on planes or tighter security screening that would have taken away the boxcutters.

The 9-11 perps were not criminal masterminds. They got through due to bureaucratic tangles and incompetence in key positions (e.g. the White House) and sucker punched us and got lucky.

We treat immigrants poorly here, we just don't pack them into ghettos, refuse to teach them the native language, and try to ban their religious symbols like they do in Europe. To put it bluntly, the people who hate the most in our country already have long-standing targets to hate: Black people, Gay people, and women. As a result, anger at immigration is generally populist in nature rather than "OMG! Those dirty non-(country ou're in now) are trying to overrun our country!). You get strains of it here, but opposition to immigration is most about wages. Despite the cherry picked studies that Drum likes to post, are almost certainly impacted by wages

To argue otherwise, you have to argue that supply and demand simply have no effect on price. That is not a position that is tenable by the intellectually honest, or by those who aren't simply looking out for their class' interest in cheap labor.

I think it's Hollywood.

In the US potential terrorists are bombarded with unrealistic and unscientific plots on television. After a few years of indoctrination they think they can attack a military base with a few hunting rifles, take down the brooklyn bridge with a torch, detonate a pipeline along it's length with a small bomb, or contaminate a city with a few ounces of medical waste.

The intellectual elite in Europe discourage television and encourage vacations. Potential terrorists spend long periods of time in the real world where they discover physical laws governing the path of projectiles, the tensile strength of steel, and the process of combustion.

In Iraq it's even worse. Power outages and economic isolation dramatically limit exposure to television.

""The traditional American approach to immigration is the most successful in the world. "

Please define this "traditional American approach to immigration" that has been so successful in preventing terrorist attacks.

Would that be the original pre-1790 approach when the majority of immigrants were white, Anglo-Saxon Protestants and the rest were chattel from Africa? This approach favored a homogeneous dominant culture and a marginalized enslaved minority. It also involved a large initial wave of immigration (pre-1700) followed by a 100-year period when immigration was very low. (The foreign born population of the US around 1815 was less than 2%.)

Or would that be the approach taken from aroud 1950 to around 1920 when Catholics from Ireland, Eastern and Southern Europe began immigrating to the US? The US economy boomed as it simultaneously expanded into the frontier and industrialized. This is the iconic period of "Give me your tired, your poor, / Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" During this period, the mostly white, though not -ASP, immigrants who came from many different nations never reached more than 15% of the population, and the approach to immigration involved assimiliation to the culture of the native born British-descendant majority.

Would it be the approach between 1924 and 1965 when annual immigration was capped, low skill immigration was discouraged and the National Origins formula tried to ensure that immigration would not be allowed to change the national character? I think it would be safe to say that in this period no Muslims need apply.

Or perhaps by tradition approach, you mean the post-1965 floodgates-open, multicultural approach in which the decision makers believe simultaneously that defining a dominant culture in the US is bad and expecting assimilation to that dominant culture is racist AND we don't need to worry about high rates of immigration because America is the land of opportunity and immigrants will assimilate to the non-defined dominant culture in a couple generations.

In other words, I disagree that America's traditional approach to immigration can be given credit for the lack of terrorist attacks on US soil. I think we have just been lucky.

American moral exceptionalism, eh? We have fewer Muslims altogether and per capita, and less of the wackiest nationalities like non-Maghreb Arabs among those we do have. Grow up.

No, the US has not been lucky. The Brits, for example, have a lot to learn. They are racist by definition and, more important, unfortunate in their recent (last 40 years) choice of how to deal with immigrant social wackos. I remember reading in the early eighties how a school principal in Bradford, I think, had no support when he had to deal with Muslim parents who wanted every loophole and privilege in the book every day. Also unfortunate is the application of traditional freedom of political speech ("it's just talk") to those who were not by any definition British and who never wanted to be British. They just lived in the UK, which they felt should become Islamic.

The US encourages immigrants to be American by an infinite number of ways. It makes a big difference.

Goodness knows I'm no Republican, but I have to say that I've never heard Tancredo rail against legal immigrants, just illegal ones.

It is unfair to continue to conflate legal and illegal immigration.

Mr. Finklestein poses excellent questions. I'd like to see some actually discussion of his points.

That amnesty-opponents are "immigration-haters" is a disgusting slur that needs to rejected whenever it appears. Virtually all of the opponents (even Tancredo!) of the late, unlamented bill were against Illegal immigration and rewarding Illegal immigrants, not against immigration through legal channels.

No, the US has not been lucky. The Brits, for example, have a lot to learn

I've always felt marriage rates are a good aggregate indicator of:
a. opportunities to meet between groups: shared workplace, schooling...
b. acceptability of relationships across groups

Some percentages (pulled from memory):
African-American women who marry white American men: 1-2%
Black British women who marry white men: 35%

Japanese-Americans who marry out of group: 50%
Japanese-Canadians who marry out of group: 90%

Integration between groups of course does not necessarily corelate with perceptions of opportunity.

To say that amnesty opponents are against illegal immigration only is akin to saying that the Bush administration does send kids to Iraq but not to die.

It's partly nativist/populist fear--scared white men who hear people at the next booth at Denny's talking a whole 'nother language--and the swine who cater to them, like Lou Dobbs.
And it's partly the reasonable fear of whites on the economic margins, who see their jobs disappearing and blame the people taking them, rather than the WalMarts shipping factories to China. But if Lou Dobbs started lambasting WalMart we'd see a Howard Beale "Temporary Difficulties" placard before he finished the sentence.

Yeah, right, Mohammed Atta became absorbed by the welcoming American culture. This is inane analysis by Kevin Drum. If this is the best he can do, perhaps Steve Benen should come back. Permanently.

It's a bit early to go on about how well the children of America's Muslim immigrants are assimilating, seeing as how Muslims have been immigrating to Europe far longer, and they have more immigrants from countries where Wahabists have made inroads.

Kevin's position that he is correct because there are less (thus far) terrorist attacks in America is as ridiculous as the GOP's argument that its anti-terrorist policies are working because there have been no new attacks since 9/11.

I never said 'a lot of immigration is bad', I was saying that the flow rate is not what makes immigrants not hate the US. What makes them not hate the US is what happens when they get here.

Yeah, but then why mention it, unless you hate a lot of immigration. A lost of implicit conservative arguments here, when attacked, become, "I was just saying it was irrelevant!!" Odd that we would have so many commenters here with pedantic complaints that want to criticize Kevin in an at-most borderline-polite way, and those complaints happen to be couched in conservative/racist innuendo. Just a coincidence, I guess, that all these social faux-pas pedantic complaints that are for some reason so important to make all happen to dovetail with some ultra-conservative implict statements.

Yeah, right, Mohammed Atta became absorbed by the welcoming American culture.

You people are pointing out one or two anecdotes like this and you are completely ignoring that we are talking about generalities. It is perfectly sane to talk about immigration while recognizing that no approach is going to brain-wash 100% of all immigrants one way or the other- which is how we're talking about it. What's ridiculous is to expect one approach or the other to have the same effect on every single one of thousands of people, so they all hold the same opinions on everything and live their lives in exactly the same way. That's the conservative way of looking at things.

I wish this could be stapled on the foreheads of Tom Tancredo and every one of his immigration-hating dittoheads in Congress. The traditional American approach to immigration is the most successful in the world. Why anyone would want to dump it in favor of a policy of nativist exclusion is beyond me.

But what you are citing isn't, even if you accept that it is true, an argument against nativist exclusion so much as an argument against the "guest worker" approach. In fact, its an argument for nativist exclusion, since it essentially says that immigrants are the problem, but that the US mitigates that problem by having an immigration system that encourages immigrants to develop attachment to the nation.

If you could successfully slam the door shut on immigration, that would seem to be even better.

Anyhow, though, what position it supports is utterly irrelevant, since the premise of the piece you link to—that the US has experienced less Islamic terrorism than the UK, which "advantage" must be explained by reference to the immigration policy of the respective nations—is manifestly, even laughably, untrue. No one else has suffered a single coordinated attack on the scale of 9/11, and no other nation has so radically altered its policy direction and political landscape as a result of a single terrorist attack. The US has been more effectively terrorized than any other nation on Earth.

The 7/7 attack in the UK was nearly two orders of magnitude less deadly than 9/11, and has been the only successful mass casualty attack there. Authorities have reportedly broken up numerous other planned attacks there, and authorities have reportedly broken up numerous other planned attacks here. There was the recent Glasgow airport attack in the UK -- with no one injured except the attackers. In the US, after 9/11, there were the anthrax attacks and the LAX ticket counter attacks, with several casualties.

The idea that there is some kind of "US advantage" evident from all this that calls out for an explanation is insane.

But I guess immigration reform is yesterday's news. So here's another lesson from these brief paragraphs: terrorist groups have a hard time prospering unless there's a critical mass of tolerance for their ideology in the surrounding population. In Europe, that critical mass exists — though only barely. In the United States it doesn't, and terrorist attacks are rare.

Very well put. The American left is very much in sync with the goals of al Qaeda--the destruction of the American economy, the destruction of the Republican party, and an adherence to telling people what to eat, what to wear and who they can get married to.

Put another bandolier of ammunition and a looser fitting burqaa on your kid, Rosie--you're merely showing common cause with our enemies and preparing the road map for the destruction of the American way of life.

Thanks again, liberals! I was just getting used to living in a free country. Too bad for me, yes? Well, don't look so happy. The terrorists aren't going to let you keep your iPhones. In fact, the terrorists will be taking them away from you once they take over. And it's not like the networks are going to operate for free, anyway.

That is the conundrum of the American left, isn't it? You love your shiny, sexy little gadgets that play your druggy music but you also love the terrorists that will take those toys away from you. What choice to make? My guess is you'll just make the stupidest choice and call it genius.

Norman, it's time to come back for an appointment. We need to increase your medications again...

Snicker-snack, where do you get those figures? 35% of Black British women marry white men! In their dreams!

I can't give the source, but I saw a study a year ago that about 85%, something really high, of white English did not have any ethnic friends. That would seem about right to me.

I'm open to being clued in, but I can't accept the figures without attribution.

Yeah, right, Mohammed Atta became absorbed by the welcoming American culture. This is inane analysis by Kevin Drum. If this is the best he can do, perhaps Steve Benen should come back. Permanently.

Atta and the 9/11 plotters did not move here. They did not live and work here on any kind of permananent basis. They were here solely and specifically for their mission.

The European attacks, on the other hand, are most often carried out by Muslims who either grew up and/or lived in Europe for long periods of time.

They did not live and work here on any kind of permananent basis.

Wrong. They had a great time in San Diego. Too bad the Federal Bureau of Investigation muffed that, too.

Having been investigated myself by the FBI, I can see why most Americans are increasingly wondering what good the FBI actually does. I am all for disbanding them. The State Police in my neck of the woods can replicate their efforts.

Make government smaller! That is my mantra.

It was asked:

I'm open to being clued in, but I can't accept the figures without attribution.

Information for you:

United Kingdom Census 2001
As of 2001, 2% of all UK marriages are inter-ethnic. Despite having a much lower non-white population (9%), mixed marriages are as common as in the United States. For example, Black British men are significantly more likely to have non-white wives than African American men; 18% of UK black African husbands, 29% of UK black Caribbean husbands, and 48% of other Black British husbands have a wife from a different ethnic group. Although the statistics seem the same, Britain is much smaller than America and has a smaller population, so there are many Interracial marriages as it is deemed a less controversial thing in Britain.

Now, given that wikipedia is often the source of corrupted and biased information, I would take this with a grain of salt. My belief is that the average Englishman is more concerned with what class you are from.

As a long-time progressive, I must admit I tend to agree more with those clamping down on illegal immigrants and once again disagree with GW on this question.

I believe in a much more restrictive immigration policy; but certainly that we should continue to allow immigration. With everyone we admit we should have confidence that they can contribute to our society and economy without lowering the wages or benefits of those already here, not unlike Canada to our north.

Otherwise, as our standard of living continues to drop we will do much less good in the rest of the world and see more of our best and brightest emmigrating to other 'more advanced' nations or retiring (and spending their retirement savings/income) elsewhere - which is actually starting to happen.

"The U.S. has a historical advantage; America is still the land of opportunity to the whole world. The people moving there believe the American dream of social mobility," he said. "In Europe, we've historically treated our immigrants as hired help, and waited for them to finish the work they arrived for and go home."
-Karl-Heinz Kamp

Well, that certainly is an excellent argument against implementation of a guest worker program.

"In the long run, reducing the tolerance for al-Qaeda and likeminded jihadist groups in the Middle East is the only way we'll ever permanently reduce the threat of Islamic terrorism. This — not military action — should be the single most important guiding principle of our foreign policy. Maybe starting in January 2009 it will be."
-Kevin Drum

You are going to have to do more than just "reduce the tolerance" for those groups in ME countries. You will need to remove the reason those groups exist-by removing our troops on their soil. It doesn't look like that is going to happen anytime soon. So, better get used to living with those threats here just like those countries "over there" have had to do. Until we decide to become independent of needing their oil and let them run their own affairs without our meddling and our troops to protect their regimes, terrorist activity will continue.

So here's another lesson from these brief paragraphs: terrorist groups have a hard time prospering unless there's a critical mass of tolerance for their ideology in the surrounding population.

Such as, oh, Timothy McVeigh, for example. Angry white republicans have a lot to answer for.

Angry white republicans have a lot to answer for.

You go to hell, sir! Don't blame me if this country is screwed up! Blame the people who want to let terrorists come here and run the show.

Ah, Kevin.

Shorter Kevin Drum: "lets UNDERSTAND the terrorists, not bomb them." Snort.

Bob M: "Snicker-snack, where do you get those figures? 35% of Black British women marry white men! In their dreams!"

Amen, brother! Remember -- tonight's rally starts at 7:00. Don't be late. I'm bringing the cross. You bring the kerosene.

"Europeans encourage immigrants to retain their native cultures"?

Not by banning headscarves they don't.

It's misleading to compare "Europe", a collection of nations, with the United States - one nation. The question of immigration is always a national question.

In Western European countries it's expected that immigrants should become "British" or "French" or whatever as soon as they can, with every prior trace of ethnicity and tradition more or less wiped out. (The term "African-Briton" doesn't exist.)

Strong ethnic pride among immigrants has been a staple of American life since its inception. That's just not as true in European countries.

But the elites in both places treat immigrants like hired help.

This definitely rings true. I've never heard such hatred of foreigners expressed as I've heard here, not even in the Deep South.

Of course, I do live in Toryland, but I expect the rest of Britain is the same.

Great post Kevin.

This argument seems simplistic and illogical.

One of the contributing factors to violence is population density. There is a huge difference in population density between any European country and the U.S. Huge influxes that result in densely populated areas with vast income discrepance has to be a major factor in the differences in assimilation.

To argue that replicating the population density and income discrepancy by massive immigration would somehow reduce the threat of violence just doesn't make sense.

A week ago today, Democratic governor Napolitano of Arizona signed a Republican majority legislated law that allows for the state abolishment of all undocumented immigrant labor. The law allows for the revoking of business licenses, and the local district attorneys and sheriffs are salivating over the public relations windfall it will provide them. This law and others like it will create an immigrant underclass without a chance for social mobility, let alone a chance to work for a living wage. I fear it will hurt the economy and increase the crime rate. Local businesses are not going to replace reliable immigrant labor with skanky White meth addicts. They are going to leave the state and the labor will follow them, taking their economic contributions with them.

Immigrant discrimination is not just for the Republican children of Italian immigrants. Democratic children of Italian immigrants are also happy to bash immigrants for political short term gain. Both Democratic governors Napolitano and Richardson were the first to send the National Guard to their states' Mexican borders. I would hate to think this type of abuse would lead to a domestic insurgency, because the politicians would love to crack down on that.

In Western European countries it's expected that immigrants should become "British" or "French" or whatever as soon as they can, with every prior trace of ethnicity and tradition more or less wiped out. (The term "African-Briton" doesn't exist.)

Well, in some it is, in some it isn't. France goes farthest in expecting immigrants to adopt French culture. In Germany, by contrast, there's not much expectation (or even desire) that immigrants become "German." Britain falls somewhere in between the two extremes.

Muslim immigrants have come to Europe and the United States for very different reasons. Whereas the small but diverse American Muslim community came to the U.S. primarily to pursue economic opportunity and escape political oppression, across the Continent the legacy of European colonialism has helped produce large, monolithic and increasingly restive Islamic populations with a multi-generational sense of grievance. Those different motivations and distinct histories, and not the supposed goodness or badness of America or Europe, explain today's gulf in domestic terror threats on either side of the Atlantic.

For the details, see:
"Homegrown Terrorism in the U.S. and Europe."

"One of the contributing factors to violence is population density. There is a huge difference in population density between any European country and the U.S. Huge influxes that result in densely populated areas with vast income discrepance has to be a major factor in the differences in assimilation."
-Chrissy

Great point. I wouldn't be surprised this could be the number#1 explanation. The population density here is still relatively low. However, I don't think the government is still giving people land to settle are they? Homesteading? Maybe Alaska.

The terrorist attacks in Europe have been in England, not other countries that also have large Moslem immigrant populations. I think England's colonial past and present, along with the daily racial discrimination its immigrants must endure, contributes to its domestic problems with immigrants who act out violence. England also provided its immigrants with a good model for domestic insurgency, the IRA.

England also provided its immigrants with a good model for domestic insurgency, the IRA.

Which is interesting. The IRA and the Basque's used a lot of car and public transit bombs, which is what their Moslem counterparts have also used. In the US, we had a domestic terrorist destroy an office building, which is what the Moslem terrorists also attempted. So perhaps all of this 'Moslem' terrorism is mimicry of domestic terrorism.

cmdicely
The 7/7 attack in the UK was nearly two orders of magnitude less deadly than 9/11, and has been the only successful mass casualty attack there...The idea that there is some kind of "US advantage" evident from all this that calls out for an explanation is insane.

The 9/11 attack was by tourists more than immigrants. None of the perps were citizens, correct? It was an outside attack.

The 7/7 attacks on the other hand were by second generation citizens of the UK, I'm pretty sure. It was an inside job, in that regard the perps had more in common with Timothy McViegh than Mohammed Atta. That is the fundamental difference between the two cases that I think is pertinent to the discussion.

From the Koran :

[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
[9.30] And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

It seem that the problem is Islam not immigration but the immigrants.

"The 7/7 attacks on the other hand were by second generation citizens of the UK.."

RSM, Yes. The danger isn't really the 1st generation immigrants. It is their disaffected and alienated youth-kind of a pathological form of upper middle-class affluenza.

Why does a country of 300 million need moe immigrants?

One would think that at 300 million we have an N large enough to get economies of scale.

Besides, let me point out that America is not really assimulating, we are adopting the culture of the dominant immigrant group, Hispanics.

I don't believe that immigration policy and terrorism are at all related. R's are wrong to try to link them, and Dems shouldn't try either.

Likewise, if there's a difference in terrorism between the U.S. and Europe, I seriously doubt that American culture gets the credit for seeing less here.

Hispanics have adopted the culture of a European nation. Can you guess which one?

Amen, brother! Remember -- tonight's rally starts at 7:00. Don't be late. I'm bringing the cross. You bring the kerosene.

I see I have been smeared as a racist. Hmm. It is always illuminating to being a victim of stereotyping, more so when the stereotyper is a falsely tolerant type. I've been banished from proper company. I guess I have to sit on Norman's bench for this round. :-)

... Blame the people who want to let terrorists come here and run the show. Norman Rogers at 11:33 AM

Here's what are first Muslim-American congressman was saying the other day...geez louis...

On comparing Sept. 11 to the burning of the Reichstag building in Nazi Germany: "It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that. After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it and it put the leader of that country [Hitler] in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted. The fact is that I'm not saying [Sept. 11] was a [U.S.] plan, or anything like that because, you know, that's how they put you in the nut-ball box -- dismiss you."

Uhh-yup.

It is their disaffected and alienated youth-kind of a pathological form of upper middle-class affluenza.
I don't think that's true in the US. According to the State Dept. only 25% of Muslims in the US are Arab and of those, 65% are second generation or later. The limits on immigration (other than through Mexico and to a lesser extent, Canada) still exist. Congress only recently allowed up to 7,000 Iraqi emigres. LBJ's immigration legislation required most immigrants to be related to someone in the country. Still does. That alone reduces the chances of jihadi youth being the culprits.

I think that Kevin is saying that the best approach, that would eliminate those outlier-anecdotes of particular Muslims growing up in American but being really hateful of Americans, would be for us to be MORE assimilationist, and yet still not insultingly require immigrants to give up too much of their traditions. Still watch people who warrant watching, but don't have some asshole form Alabama fuck with the lives of people who haven't proved that they're enemies and dangerous just because he thinks he's a bigshot because he got a job where he watched people on surveillance cameras.

And the thing about the al-Amriki-- too bad about that. Sounds like he just about had a chance of pursuing a hobby- heavy metal- that lots of law abiding, normal people enjoy, but radical extreme religion, a past-time that leads many people to hate and violence, scooped him up.

A lost of implicit conservative arguments here, when attacked, become, "I was just saying it was irrelevant!!"

Here and on other blogs, it is. Gosh, all these irrelvancies marring the blogs that Kevin and all the other bloggers really need their commenters to hunt out for them... Well, maybe if they weren't completely collateral to the main thrust of any of the bloggers' or commenters arguments...

"I don't think that's true in the US."

TJM, I meant that only in the context of the UK and the 7/7 attacks.

The Onion already had this story a few weeks ago:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/after_5_years_in_u_s_terrorist

This argument seems simplistic and illogical.

Perfect for modern conservatarians!

Why does a country of 300 million need moe immigrants?

Because the people already here can't spell?

Resorting to silly insults demeans you and your arguments.

Yes. Why all of the player hating around here? I am, for lack of a better term, a player. I make dope rhymes whilst you commit petty crimes. I tell it straight and all you bring is foolish hate.

Peace out, you all.

"Why do Islamic radicals mount so many terrorist attacks in Europe and so few in the United States?"

What do you mean by many ?

Since Sep 10 2001 the US has had one attack, spain has had 1 attack and the UK has had 3 attacks. Germany has had none, france has had none , italy has had none , portugal has had none, netherlands none etc etc.

Outside of the UK that scarcely suggests that europe is suffering from "so many" attacks.

As for attacking the US , why should they when the US has been kind enough to send 100,000's of targets into their own backyard ?

The Onion already had this story a few weeks ago:

I already posted that link 11 hours ago. :)

Swan wrote:"Yeah, but then why mention it, unless you hate a lot of immigration."

BECAUSE KEVIN FUCKING BROUGHT UP TANCREDO, YOU MORON.

Tancredo hates lots of immigration.

I am just pointing out that volume of immigration is IRRELEVANT.

Jon H:

Oh, come on, you went out of your way to argue against- what you feel is- a call for a large volume of immigration, and then you went on the defensive and started doing this thing about how you're calling stuff irrelevant. You're a loser and a little kid.

Anybody can go back and read the comments to see the tricks this guy is trying to pull. And then your resort to calling me names shows what you really are.

Not sure what your issue is Swan, but in re-reading the comments above, Jon H doesn't say anything even remotely racist.

His comment simply tried to draw a distinction between the way immigrants are treated and the number of immigrants that are allowed. That seems a valid distinction if you are going to have a reasoned debate.

It would seem that Kevin's "Traditional American Approach to Immigration" is far more racist, demanding as it does that immigrants assimilate to the dominant culture if they are to succeed.

In case any of you don't already know, liberals post links to the Onion in order to show that they are hip and cool. The Onion is a satirical newspaper run by a liberal organization loosely affiliated with the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

Everything that is published at the website and by the newspaper called "the Onion" is a blatant fabrication, much of it slanted to make liberals revel in their hipness. It really isn't funny; in fact, the liberal slant to the supposed satire renders it repetitive and uninteresting.

Swan:

I agree with Clive's post at 3:45pm. I don't see any evidence of racism in Jon H's posts.

If anything, I see some fairly strong stereotypical undercurrents in your posting:

Swan at 1:02 pm - ...but don't have some asshole form Alabama fuck with the lives of people ...

"The American left is very much in sync with the goals of al Qaeda"

I see the troll level is about the same quality as usual. Way to contribute to the conversation. What a putz...

Europeans encourage immigrants to retain their native cultures, causing them to be ostracized more readily.

This is now America's policy as well.

More than backing up Jon H, you guys are just outing yourselves. It's simple enough for a reasonable reader to see what all my points were, and it's conspicuous enough that someone woul take the time to go to bat for Jon H when that's the case. Also, it's simple enough for conservatives to have a couple people come and do this, or for Jon H to use a different handle.

some asshole from Alabama

If there's such a thing as a true generality, it's go to be that white people from the south are more likely to be racist or more racist than white people from the north. It's like saying African Americans are more likely to darker skinned than European Americans.

That last bit caught my attention:

"....So here's another lesson from these brief paragraphs: terrorist groups have a hard time prospering unless there's a critical mass of tolerance for their ideology in the surrounding population. In Europe, that critical mass exists — though only barely. In the United States it doesn't, and terrorist attacks are rare."

On the other hand, if you want right wing racist homophobic xenophobic ideology, the U.S. has that and to spare. We have killers stalking doctors who do abortions, people bombing clinics because they think abortions are being done there, people being beaten to death for appearing to have the wrong sexual preferences, people who make violent threats against women - and a whole media empire and political party that feeds all of that because it gets them power and money.

But everyone knows, only Islamists are terrorists - these people are just isolated cases. Nothing to look at here, keep moving. Not in America. Remember, it's not a terrorist attack if there are no turbans in it anywhere.

Outside of the UK that scarcely suggests that europe is suffering from "so many" attacks.

All of Europe has been cowered by the rising threat of growing and increasingly radicalized Islamic populations. Kevin correctly points out the lack of assimilation and the permanent existence of separate cultures with very different values. Demographic trends strongly suggest major regions within Western European countries will have substantially larger minorities and over time, depending on dramatically higher birthrates, substantial political power.

A better example than the UK might be France which has not been victimized by classic Al Qaeda type attacks but rather by countless smaller attacks during extended periods of rioting by Islamic minorities. While it appears Muslims in the UK have been more radicalized and thus more likely to try suicide bombings the French with a much larger Islamic population might have the greater long term risk.

Also, Europe with very little military power, is far more likely to be threatened by a Muslim State, as they have been by Iran, as compared to the USA. GWB went after Saddam 1st and stayed after him as well as his sons. Muslim leaders can smell weakness. The odor is distinct on the Continent. They are not about to tempt George.

Bob M: "Snicker-snack, where do you get those figures? 35% of Black British women marry white men! In their dreams!"

Bob, I believe the original source was the Economist a few years back but here are some others. For the UK:

ï½¥ People from the Mixed ethnic group were the most likely to be married to someone outside their ethnic group (78 per cent)

･ Among people who described their ethnic group as ﾔOtherﾕ (primarily East Asia, middle-east) 56 per cent of women and 34 per cent of men had married outside their ethnic group and most had married a White person.

ï½¥ Almost five in ten Other Black men (48 per cent) and three in ten Black Caribbean men (29 per cent) were married to women outside the Black ethnic group, in most cases White women.

ï½¥ Only 6 per cent of Indians, 4 per cent of Pakistanis, and 3 per cent of Bangladeshis had married someone outside the Asian group.

Goodness knows I'm no Republican, but I have to say that I've never heard Tancredo rail against legal immigrants, just illegal ones.

I don't know if it's accurate to say Tancredo "rails" against legal immigrants. But he certainly is no fan of legal immigration, and wants it slashed radically, after an initial, temporary time out when it is eliminated entirely (that's as in "zero" legal immigration). I think of Tancredo as being the George Wallace of immigration.

Wow, I'm a republican and a racist now because I couldn't find any racial overtones to Jon H's comments.

I had no idea, thankfully Swan knows more about my motivations than I myself do. Guess I'll have to retract those votes for Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Clinton and Dukakis.

Interesting that instead of cutting and pasting Jon H's "racist" comments into a message, thereby proving his point, Swan just called us all racists. Is that what passes for debate with you Swan?

Bob M,

sorry more. If you follow my previously posted link and scroll down to the graph you will see the following figures for the UK for marrying outside of group:

Black Caribbean women: 20%
Black African women: 15%
Other Black (primarily UK born): 35%

The figure I quoted is only correct for the last group. In any case, all these figures are substantially higher than for the U.S. Hence my leeriness to jump to the to my mind exceptional conclusion that the U.S. is somehow more inclusive of immigrants or minority group members (at least as concerns this most central of social contracts, marriage).

snicker-snack:"figures for the UK for marrying outside of group:"

I've seen an estimate that 40% of French Muslims marry Christians. I think the source was "60 Million Frenchmen Can't be Wrong" by Jean-Benoit Nadeau and Julie Barlow. At least anecdotally, the number of mixed race couples and children also appears to be much, much higher than in the US.

Americans--both liberal and conservative--believe that the US is so much more diverse, less racist, more multi-cultural and open than the rest of the world. However, that opinion may reflect our ignorance of the rest of the world more than the unique strengths of our culture.

An excellent essay on French attitudes towards race is this one, by scholar Jennifer Yee. "...a girl chose to speak about racism in the United States. She gave many examples and, along with the rest of the class, expressed suitable horror at the history of past U.S. apartheid and current inequalities. But as a final example of racism she said that even these days people applying for a job in the States had to fill in a form stating what race they were."

PTate, hope you're enjoying things in France... Enjoyed the Yee essay... The whole issue is a difficult one. In some ways, the US does seem to be getting it right (there truly does seem a desire on the part of immigrants to be accepted as Americans; the degree of acceptance another matter) and as such there is something to what both Karl-Heinz Kamp and Bob Ayers say. But the US is not as right as it thinks it is and the potrait by Kamp and Ayers is seems far from the whole picture and may be even a sort of prodding on their part, offering the US as a kind of counter-example. And then, that there actually seems to be far more mixing across lines in France (as you point out) and in the UK.

And then, that there actually seems to be far more mixing across lines in France (as you point out) and in the UK.

If there's so much mixing in France what's with the carbeques? Europe has a tiger by the tail. Inter-marriage means little in the Islamic world. where females do as told. The Islamic culture is separate and distinct. The tiger isn't the majority of peaceful muslims but the minority of radicalized muslims able to force their will in a society embracing multi-culturalism as an ideal. The obvious flaw being each culture has to respect each of the other cultures. Islam hardly fits that profile.

Worse is Europe has followed Russia and other former socialist/atheist countries in becoming atheist with the obvious result being they are breeding themselves out of existence. 20 or so European/Asian nations have replacement rates below 1.4 which spells disaster while most of the rest are near 1.6 to 1.8. Only those nations with larger Muslim populations are higher.

If Kevin is suggesting Islam has barely reached critical mass in Europe he can't be confident on the future knowing his critical mass is rapidly growing, is fairly concentrated around cities and does not appear to be very happy.

Consider further the increasing radicalization of recent generations of Muslims in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and especially Pakistan, Gaza, Southern Lebanon and the West Bank. We have at least two generations of Muslims raised on hatred and the worship of death at the hands of thugs like Arafat.

There's nothing good for Europe here. They supported Arafat and his death cult. These chickens are coming home to roost. It's hard to predict what Europe will look like in 25 years but it will be far more Islamic, more atheistic and very likely more violent and certainly more difficult for those wishing to preserve their native cultures. They will have a far more dramatic reflection of the demographic collapse.

The German guy was quite obviously talking only about Germany, which has had a large (mostly Turkish but some Arab) population of Guest Workers for decades. In the UK and France the situation is quite different. Both countries gave passports to their colonial populations and allowed them to come freely into the "homeland" at the end of the colonial period. The ones who came tended to be (in the UK) landless peasants from Bangladesh and Pakistan with little or no education or even English language skills. They flooded into what became ghettos where they didn't have to learn English and in many cases worked en masse in certain factories (textile mills in the early days). And when they became more confident they demanded that schools allow them to wear their national dress (long skirts for P.E. for example). The situation is similar in France where their immigrants came from the old French possessions in Africa (Arab North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa.) They came with somewhat better language skills, the result of the French imposition of their language on their possessions, but again they were the poor of the countryside and the city slums with little education or job skills; the first group to be out of work in hard times.

The Muslim immigrants to the US had no automatic rights of entry to the US. They had to apply for immigrant visas and I can tell you that is not a process I want to go through twice in any lifetime. They had to be well-educated, fluent in English (and most of them were professional or business people and educated in English in the Indian subcontinent and the Middle East.) They buy houses where they want to live, among people of the same middle-class they belong to. Their children go to school with native-born Americans and don't look or sound any different. They are purely American.

And that is the difference--that and the fact that both France and the UK have a proportionately larger number of Muslims in their populations than this country does. Oh, and one more thing about the UK. Back in the 1940s the government stupidly decided that they would fund religious schools as they did state schools. Mostly this meant that roman Catholic kids were sent to state-runded RC schools and eeryone else went to the non-denominational state schools. If you want to see the result of that, try Northern Ireland. But by the 80s the Muslims were also demanding state-funded Muslim schools. They were opposed on the grounds that they would really be Pakistani-Bangladeshi schools rather than just Muslim schools and that wouldn't help them get along in the UK, but it caused much embarrassment. I don't know what came of that but I know there are some such schools there.

I usually agree with much of what you say, but could not disagree with this comment more. A commenter above got it right when he said how we treat immigrants after they get here is a separate issue from how many we allow to enter. Do you mean that we should allow unlimited numbers in, with the resultant strain on natural resources, social services, infrastructure and cultural harmony? Some of Europe's problems might be an ironic consequence of their attempts to be 'tolerant' of their immigrant communities. They allow them to live in their countries without encouraging them to adopt the values of liberal democracies, see the Netherlands recent history. Maybe we've escaped some problems because we put more pressure on immigrants to adopt American values and behavior.

Scawsby's comments are extremely interesting and informative. When Bush began his push to pour more public tax money into religious coffers, I immediately wondered how soon federal money would be funding home-grown religious terrorists. They could be of any stripe, Muslim, or Christian fundamentalist.

Certain people are angry that the US might protect its own Borders, might make it harder to sneak into this country and, once here, to stay indefinitely. Can you say -- ILLEGAL Alien

Let me see if I correctly understand the thought pocess behind these protests.

For Argument sake, let's say I break into your house. Let's say that when you discover me in your house, you insist that I leave.

But I say, I've done all the things you don't like to do. I do all of your yard work because I am hard-working and honest, except for when I broke into your house.

By the way my wife made all the beds and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors. She also is hard-working and honest (except for that breaking in part).

According to the protesters:

You are required to let me stay in your house, you are required to add me to your family's insurance plan, You are required to educate my kids, you are required to provide other benefits to me and to my family.

If you try to call the police or force me out,
I will call my friends who will picket your house carrying signs that proclaim my RIGHT to be there. It's only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I'm just trying to better myself. I'm a hard-working and honest, person, except for well, you know, I did break into your house.

And what a deal it is for me!!!

I live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of cold, uncaring, selfish, prejudiced, and bigoted behavior.

Oh yeah, I DEMAND that you to learn MY LANGUAGE!!! So you can Communicate with me.

Why can't people see how ridiculous

This is?! Only in America .

Those middle east terrorists are just a bunch of brain-washed losers. In America, do you suppose that if the Baptist Ministers gave everyone in their congregation a gun, and told to kill all Catholics, would that go over? Not here. but over there, it's happening. Those that would kill someone in the name of religion, are the most deluded, brain washed, jobless, homeless sickos on the planet. America in Iraq is just an obstacle in their way to killing each other off, and taking over the country. (Just like Saddam). Iraq needs to grow some BALLS and put up with all that crap.
Anyone who teaches or leads others to kill, should be killed himself. Killing the militants wont work. It's like killing one roach. More will come. STERILIZE the colony. No more roaches.