>problematic neighborhoods.

That's part of the problem right there that people segregate into enclaves and have little contact with each other's communities.

Indeed, but we can't dissolve them overnight. Getting people the support needed to move out of their ghettos is a good step, though.

What are 'deradicalization programs'? I'd say if some people (i.e. some imams) are semi-openly calling for destruction of France, they should just be banished from the country.

Some of them are French citizens with no other nationality - you cannot "banish" them, the only thing you could maybe do is put them in prison, but putting people in prison for speech you don't like is a dangerous avenue.

That's of course debatable, but for me it's more dangerous to have them free disseminating warmongering propaganda.

Wondering why did I get a downvote? Isn't what I said just a valid opinion, on a matter of philosophical (i.e. irresolvable) differences?

Edit: getting more downvotes, without any of the downvoters caring to justify them so far, so I can only speculate as for the reasons behind them.

I'm wondering if the downvoters (I'm guessing from the USA) are aware that my views are already a law in many of the liberal democracies of Europe? There are laws which put you in jail for saying certain things, and they are enforced (there are people who are doing time just for saying things).

>"Of course, implementing such policies takes time and it's much more popular to present the 'easy solutions' (more surveillance, closing borders, etc.)."

Meanwhile, people are dying. That is exactly how some people see it, and exactly how I see it. I'm not emotional, I'm logical, and I expect government to protect us from evil individuals/groups. Arguably, it's not there to foster some sort of "long-term" sustainable co-existence between different cultures.

First, you establish security and root out potential problem groups. And once that's happened, and you have almost non-existent danger to the local populace, then you can start worrying about integration and grey-goals such as "peaceful coexistence" and "de-radicalization". And I don't say that as a means to single-out immigrants, or foreign groups. This reasoning should apply just as much to dangerous elements that are within, and part of society currently.

Here's a weird idea. What about cutting benefits and forcing people to get jobs? Would it prevent terrorism? If everyone is too busy working??

Not feeding the poor has historically a great track record for preventing unrest...

So America has a great prison system and no benefits. Most immigrants work... No real terrorism to speak of outside the lone wolfs. Bad? Good?

The US don't have terrorist groups, but crime rates in general are comparatively high.

Could be worse. Could be a lot better.

Sure, just let me grab a sack full of jobs off my jobs tree.