Community leaders attempt to deflect the stigma of the “angry” and “disorderly” Muslim by participating in local politics. In the wake of urban unrest affecting disadvantaged neighborhoods in France, Muslim leaders of the UOIF have leveraged their community influence to facilitate the integration of migrant-origin populations and keep these neighborhoods quiet. This chapter sheds light on their politics during episodes of social turmoil, such as the 2001 unrest in Lille and the 2005 riots throughout France. Beyond times of crisis, their role as social troubleshooters is reflected in the dissemination of an ethos of responsibility. Through various activities, including charitable assistance, professional insertion, and campaigns against drugs, these Muslim leaders partially converge with public authorities about the need to preserve order in “sensitive neighborhoods.” In ways reminiscent of Black middle-class reformers in the early twentieth-century US, UOIF leaders promote the uplift ideology that values self-reliance, discipline, and hard work. They seek to transform young urban worshippers into moral subjects, committed to avoiding the dishonorable pitfalls of idleness and incivility. However, positioning themselves as social troubleshooters is costly as these leaders unwittingly reproduce the dominant representations of migrants’ neighborhoods as problematic and, consequently, tend to divert attention from the structural causes of marginalization.

Chapter 3 argues that while globalised liberal citizenship norms—including universalised notions of citizenship as a human right—generated a politics of inclusion thus boosting dual citizenship advocacy for Liberia, the transmission in Africa of transnational belonging—dual citizenship diffusion in the continent—has had varied outcomes for the country. It also reveals that the bundle of visceral responses to dual citizenship as a proposed development intervention in Liberia signifies an interface wherein actors negotiate the discontinuities and continuities in their lived experiences of being Liberian, with homeland actors particularly resistant. Viewed as both promise and peril for diasporic and domestic actors, respectively, dual citizenship represents an instrumental tug-of-war in which homelanders prefer to protect their privileges while transnationals wish to expand their rights.