News Dutch in Crisis: Government Expels 20,000 Asylum Seekers

[kat]

Not being there...and only being privy to what I've read...I'm very interested in what others have heard or think about this subject:


Dutch to expel thousands of asylum seekers

The Dutch government was in no mood to back down yesterday after pushing through legislation that provides for the mass expulsion of more than 20,000 failed asylum seekers.

and

A parliamentary report last month concluded that the country's 30-year experiment in tolerant multiculturalism had been a failure, and has resulted in poor schools, violence, and ethnic ghettoes that shun intermarriage with the Dutch.

and

...warning that radical Islam posed a threat to the Netherlands' easygoing liberal values.

I honestly am surprised to see this happening there...Why the big scare? what is happening there that they are finding so frightening as to have to eject all of these families? (****Please read the whole article***)

 

[selfAdjoint]

Haven't you noticed the headscarf issue in France? And similar things that are happening in all the European countries? The fact is that the Moslem immigrants do not want to integrate, to become Dutch or French or whatever; they want to build Islam in this new home. Most of them have no saleable skills and the areas they settle in become slums, if they weren't already. Crime soars.

And the Europeans, who have always been so sniffy about US race relations, can't stand it.

 

[GENIERE]

Actually I’ve been following the growing trend of racism in Europe for several years. Researching retirement investments after 9-11, I wanted to see if Euro companies looked more promising.

During this process, I found many reports concerning the growth of racism in Europe. In particular, much was said about the Leefbaar NL, a supposed conservative group. In the US, it would be considered far right but certainly not conservative. I haven’t followed closely, but apparently a coalition of rightist elements have recently enacted the policy you are referring to.

Years of socialist give away programs in the NL, with the resultant stagnant economic growth, have to be paid for. The bill is due, with no means to pay it except to raise taxes, the very moment when lowering taxes is needed to provide stimulus. Germany and France have already lowered taxes, but not sufficient to turn failed economies around. One needs only to look at the US stock market to see the success of tax reduction.

Zero growth and years of high un-employment leads to looking for scapegoats, in this case the immigrant Muslim. Other Euro countries incl., France Germany, England are also grumbling loudly. The ironic part is that the only by allowing increased immigration, will there be a sufficiently large number of workers to support a negative-growth population’s social programs.

The US will also face a similar dilemma in about 20 years, yet there are those left and right-wingers who decry the president’s immigration policies.

Conservatives know the US has been successful, in no small part, due to our open immigration policies.

Not to pick on Monique, but from her posting in another thread:

Today it was in the news that in the near future the Western European countries are going to face a large influx of workers from the East Block countries preparing to join the EU. People will be completely free to come and work where ever they want! No restrictions applied.

I was very surprised.. (that could seriously destablizize economies)

It has come to the discussion that maybe a permit system should be put in place to protect the foreign workers and to monitor the influx, and possibly to prevent too many people from coming.

A similar quote from a conservative politician in the US would be followed by months of criticism by the liberals.

 

[Nereid]

There's a very good article on this topic (well, the UK and French approaches to integrating minorities) in 7 Feb edition of The Economist (http://www.economist.com/printedition/index.cfm?d=20040207 ). Unfortunately, the online article isn't free ). It includes an absolutely delightful piccie of three English bobbies, in regulation black uniforms, with the distinctive checkerboard borders ... they're all women, and they are all wearing (English bobby regulation) headscarves!

As GENIERE accurately pointed out, the irony is that many European countries have aging populations and economies that won't really get better unless there are big structural changes, especially in the labour force ... and the US will face similar problems before too long.

I can't resist a comment about the large deficit Bush is encouraging; the fall in the USD is a partial consequence, but the really dark side has been masked by the almost insatiable appetite the rest of the world - especially China, Japan, Korea, and south-east Asia - has for US Treasury bills. When (not if) their confidence wanes, the chickens will really come home to roost, bearing something much nastier than avian flu.

 

[Monique]

May I just say that the government is planning to expell asylum seekers who are under no apparent danger in their own country?

It is not like we are just sending back asylum seekers, these people have been in the system for years and have been living in the Netherlands waiting for their verdict, the problem now is that they claim to have integrated and don't want to leave.

What does that have to do with a scare? (I didn't read the whole article though.. yet :P)

 

[Monique]

I'd have to agree with "parliamentary report last month concluded that the country's 30-year experiment in tolerant multiculturalism had been a failure, and has resulted in poor schools, violence, and ethnic ghettoes that shun intermarriage with the Dutch."

But that has nothing to do with asylum seekers in general. But with "Immigrants make up almost 50 percent of the population of Rotterdam." and "Nearly 19 percent of the Dutch population of 16 million is of foreign stock, with sizable contributions from Turkey (340,000), Suriname (320,000) and Morocco (295,000), according to Agence France-Presse."

There are a LOT of problems, mainly stemming from a Turkish and Maroccan teenager subgroup who are simply terrorizing and out of control. They have no respect for governing bodies such as the police and hold pleasure out of intimidating regular people.

I don't see how sending back asylum seekers is going to solve the problem and I don't think it is meant to.

 

[jimmy p]

almost a 1/3 of car crimes in Britain have been caused by immigrants: legal or illegal. The problem is the illegal ones can't be contacted because they don't have any insurance, driving license or home address.

In fact there was a recent case that an illegal (muslim not that it matters) immigrant had been refused entry, but snuck in. Anyway he killed this 10 year old boy while driving a stolen car, with no insurance and no licence. He WAS caught and sentenced to 2 years in jail(!) but now the judge feels its out of his boundaries to sentence that high and it has been reduced. What happens when the guy gets out?? will he be deported? he will probably slip through the net.

I think that illegal immigrants should be deported because they are parasites.

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by jimmy p
I think that illegal immigrants should be deported because they are parasites.

There is something to be said for allowing integration, but only when they can't go back to their own country in fear of being killed or pressing political reasons.

I mean, if someone seeks asylum out of China.. is that valid? I can understand that in China you can't voice your political ideas, since you might be thrown to jail. But principly there is not danger there, or am I blind?

 

[Dissident Dan]

Are they expelling known problem-causers, or are they expelling immigrants or certain ethnicities, in general?

If it's the former, that's OK. If it's the latter, that's sad.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by GENIERE
The US will also face a similar dilemma in about 20 years, yet there are those left and right-wingers who decry the president’s immigration policies.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Being one of the more open and more desirable destinations for immigrants means we've always had a very high rate and accompanying growing pains/tensions.


On illegal immigration:

Personally, I can't see where some of the questions about illegal immigration come from (yeah, ok, I know - votes): its illegal. When there are millions of people waiting years to gain legal entry to the US, why are we giving status to people who'se first act on entering US soil is to commit a crime?

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Are they expelling known problem-causers, or are they expelling immigrants or certain ethnicities, in general?

If it's the former, that's OK. If it's the latter, that's sad.

Funny.. neither.

As I said:

Originally posted by Monique
May I just say that the government is planning to expell asylum seekers who are under no apparent danger in their own country?

It is not like we are just sending back asylum seekers, these people have been in the system for years and have been living in the Netherlands waiting for their verdict, the problem now is that they claim to have integrated and don't want to leave.

People come to Western countries all the time, claiming to be refugees. We have no choice but to let them in and give them asylum. They have to go through the legal system, which then determines whether their claim of being a refugee is valid or not. These people who are now at risk to be expelled are people who have been through the legal system several times and there is no hope that they will attain legal status. Thus they will be deported, it's sad, I know, but you can't just take in every person who applies..

 

[Njorl]

Even in the US we have this policy. Anyone who gets here and claims refugee status is allowed to stay, until their status is shown to be otherwise. It is why there is such a strong effort to intercept "boat people" while still at sea, and why we incarcerate those intercepted at Guantanamo. I believe all UN nations are required to have this policy, though some do not practice it.

Njorl

 

[Dissident Dan]

Well, if they don't fit the qualifications for refugees, it looks like they'll just have to try the regular legal processes. I can't really see how that's different from any other immigration policy. I'm not a big fan of immigration restriction, but this doesn't seem to be anything that stands out.

 

[GENIERE]

Russ –

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Being one of the more open and more desirable destinations for immigrants means we've always had a very high rate and accompanying growing pains/tensions.

On illegal immigration:

Personally, I can't see where some of the questions about illegal immigration come from (yeah, ok, I know - votes): its illegal. When there are millions of people waiting years to gain legal entry to the US, why are we giving status to people who'se first act on entering US soil is to commit a crime?

By dilemma, I mean the US population is also expected to have a negative growth rate, with insufficient worker support for social programs. A young guy like you should have his 401K up and running. I’m not wearing a black guy’s boots, so I can’t perceive the US as he does, to me it seems racism is decreasing. It must be, as I’m about to become a grandfather again, this time to a 9year old black lad via adoption. Not 100% sure yet as several months will be needed to clear everything through. Just in time to get him on the course this summer. Another Tiger?

Your second statement is very true, I couldn’t believe at first. Yet if you take the pragmatic viewpoint, it makes more sense. I do pity those on a waiting list who have tried to do it legally. It seems that 100 years of trying to keep the illegal Mexican out has not worked. This could happen only if the US voters have had no strong feelings about it, else the borders would have been nailed shut long ago. Do I like it? No? Can I abide with it? Yes.

Will the old Europe society prove to be more tolerant than the US now that they are about to be tested? I doubt it; they still have a class system.

 

[Monique]

These 'refugees', how many really go to the US? Only South-Americans, I suppose.. are there really many? And how are they treated? Do they get locked up in refugee camps and wait out their sentencing? How long does it take to get sentenced?

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Monique
These 'refugees', how many really go to the US? Only South-Americans, I suppose.. are there really many? And how are they treated? Do they get locked up in refugee camps and wait out their sentencing? How long does it take to get sentenced?

Well...I think it depends..each case is handled differently and what their actual status is. Many refugees are "pre" accepted, then there are asylum seekers...then there are those caught illegally entering the country. As far as who they are (asylum)..I think that it's basicly mexican, chinese, haitan and columbian as the top nationalities..with Chinese having the greater acceptance rate. There's a lot of information to be found here http://www.refugees.org/WRS2003.cfm.htm but my own personal experience were through two separate families and nationalities..Dutch and Lebanese..the Dutch having come on a student visa and then later applying for permament residency through a spouse and the lebanese coming on a visitors visa and then applying asylum, being denied and then appealing it several times over a decade until finally marrying and having a spousal application submitted for permanent residency.
I think that there are two major issues with the dutch ruling on asylum seekers, the first being the expediency of their rulings (48 hours) not being an amount of time to enable them to actually be able to review the case sufficiently and the other is the expulsion of children..I'm unclear the specifics of that portion of the issue. BUT what struck me with the situaiton there is that historicaly the netherlands have been the most liberal in taking refugees and asylum seekers an in a matter of a few years...they have done a complete turn about and become the MOST restrictive. It would seem to be a complete change in prior ideology.

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by kat
I think that there are two major issues with the dutch ruling on asylum seekers, the first being the expediency of their rulings (48 hours) not being an amount of time to enable them to actually be able to review the case sufficiently

I don't think that is the case. The people being expelled (or at least the ones who the fuss is about) have been in the Netherlands 4-6 yrs. Maybe they have just changed the system, since it was clear that the amount of time that passes is far to great (probably because the amount of people is large), but 48 hours? You have a reference?

and the other is the expulsion of children..I'm unclear the specifics of that portion of the issue.

Well, since people are allowed to stay 4-6 years in wait for their verdict, they get children. These kids grow up in a normal house, a normal neighbourhood and go to normal schools. The argument is that these people are sufficiently integrated that they can't be denied residency.

BUT what struck me with the situaiton there is that historicaly the netherlands have been the most liberal in taking refugees and asylum seekers an in a matter of a few years...they have done a complete turn about and become the MOST restrictive. It would seem to be a complete change in prior ideology.

I agree we've been very liberal in taking refugees and asylum seekers. I too agree that we've become more restrictive. But you have to understand that the population density is probably the 3rd highest in the world. 50% of Rotterdam and maybe 45% of Amsterdam is allochtonous (from other countries). The housing market has an enormous demand, you have to stay on a waiting list for years before you get a house assigned. I myself study in Amsterdam, but there is noway I can find a room there.. maybe in someone's attic, but that is no living.
We are expecting a large influx from eastern European countries, when they join the EU, pressing the unemployment rates. Also, these asylum seekers live off the tax-payer's money. There comes a point where you have to protect your own economy and use tighter regulations.

 

[kat]

Monique-

Here are quotes from the link I gave just above. This is of course in regards to your countries previous tightening of Asylum laws...making them the toughest. The recent introduction of a blanket exportation of asylum seekers who have not been able to attain asylum through the new "accelerated" procedures would of course be removed as well, I would assume.

Accelerated Procedures According to nongovernmental organizations, the accelerated procedure denies many asylum seekers a fair determination of their claims and subjects them to refoulement. Although the accelerated procedure was initially designed for manifestly unfounded cases, by mid-2002 it was applied to at least 60 percent of all cases in the Netherlands: triple the amount in past years. Many of the cases decided under this procedure were complex and unsuited for accelerated procedures, according to Human Rights Watch (HRW). HRW argues the criteria for the cases that should be in this procedure are vague and allow wide discretion to the IND. HRW documented cases where the IND used the accelerated procedure to process claims from elderly persons suffering health problems, mentally ill persons, persons who had survived torture or sexual violence, and other traumatized persons, as well as young children. They concluded that such persons could not reasonably present their claims within 48 hours.

In regards to children, again this is in regards to your accelerated procedures.

Children Around 30 percent of children have their claims determined in the accelerated proceedings. According to HRW, interviews are adversarial in nature and not age-appropriate for young children who may already be traumatized. Although a guardian is appointed for unaccompanied children after the first interview, the guardian is not usually trained in asylum law or policy. The guardian is not normally with the child in the second interview, although the guardian may observe the proceeding by a video monitor.

and from HRW http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/02/12/nether7367.htm (should read entire article)

Human Rights Watch also criticized the Netherlands’ treatment of asylum seekers’ children and unaccompanied minors; plans to attempt to deport stateless people and others unable to access proper documentation, including their possible detention; and proposals to evict and end social assistance for those subject to the deportation scheme, including families with children.

You should also note that asylum seekers who have been refused and are under appeal are no longer given financial assistance, they are working members of society...or at least that is how I understand what I am reading.

 

[Monique]

How about the issue with airplanes taking on passengers claiming to be asylum seekers without a passport or other papers. I can't remember now whether that was in the US or NL, where the country will just refuse them and send them back on the airplane to where they boarded..

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by kat
You should also note that asylum seekers who have been refused and are under appeal are no longer given financial assistance, they are working members of society...or at least that is how I understand what I am reading.

No, that is not the case. It says: "For years, asylum seekers endured an inefficient asylum process—they worked, went to school, raised families, and waited." Meaning the waited and thus went to work because of the inefficient process, not that they had to work because of the process.

And the 48 hours is not right either, not in the right context anyway. If I go for a US visa, I get 48 hours too, actually I go there in the morning and the decision is in at the afternoon at the US embassy. And the process can be appealed, that is probably what is keeping those people in the country for years.

The system is never perfect and mostly always flawed, I agree, but what are we to do? It says: "But sending people back to places where they could be in danger not only jeopardizes their safety, it is illegal."

We can't possibly move every single person out of such countries, can we? Rather paying for an exodus, a plan should be made to better the condition in such countries.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Monique
No, that is not the case. It says: "For years, asylum seekers endured an inefficient asylum process—they worked, went to school, raised families, and waited." Meaning the waited and thus went to work because of the inefficient process, not that they had to work because of the process.

Sorry Monique, I was addressing both the change in your immigration laws a few years ago..that was the percussor to this mass exupulsion and the more recent decision to mass expell those who have not been accepted for asylum. But regardless of the situation, if you read the first link you will see that it clearly states that those who have not been accepted on appeal are not given any financial assistance...so, when you made this statement "Also, these asylum seekers live off the tax-payer's money." It really had no relevance to these people..they are people who are self supporting...

And the 48 hours is not right either, not in the right context anyway. If I go for a US visa, I get 48 hours too, actually I go there in the morning and the decision is in at the afternoon at the US embassy. And the process can be appealed, that is probably what is keeping those people in the country for years.

It was in the correct context when speaking of those seeking asylum...several years ago your country changed the way it processed asylum seekers...supposedly it had been set up so that those who had a legitimate and not frivolous application would be given an appropriate amount of time and assistance to present their case and those few who were making frivolous applications would be put through an accelerated process, ruling them out...or in, within 48 hours. Well..in reality what has happened is that a majority of cases are now being put through the accelerated process..including children and people from countries that have no governments or any method to acquire documentation to prove their cases. I'm sure you can see the difference between your being able to go to your government and get a VISA and a somalian, or any other person who's country is in such upheaval, attempting to get documentation?

The system is never perfect and mostly always flawed, I agree, but what are we to do? It says: "But sending people back to places where they could be in danger not only jeopardizes their safety, it is illegal."

No, the system is never perfect..because humans are not perfect..however, it's interesting, if not frightening to see how Europe is handling their present crisis. It seems a bit reminiscent of an earlier time, no?

We can't possibly move every single person out of such countries, can we? Rather paying for an exodus, a plan should be made to better the condition in such countries.

We're not talking about moving every single person out of such countries...we're talking about forcing them back after they've excaped their own horrors and have been members of your society, some of them for 5 or 6 years.

But...if we were to develop a plan to better the condition in such countries...how do you suggest that be done? particularly when you're speaking of womans rights, sexual freedoms or freedom to practice your religion of choice?...or freedom from practicing any religion? or freedom from tyrants? or freedom from racism? Are you going to force their leaders to be better people? are you going to force the zealous religious leaders to...not be so zealous? ...are you going to call in the marines? [?]

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by kat
No, the system is never perfect..because humans are not perfect..however, it's interesting, if not frightening to see how Europe is handling their present crisis. It seems a bit reminiscent of an earlier time, no?

What earlier time would that be?

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by kat
But...if we were to develop a plan to better the condition in such countries...how do you suggest that be done? particularly when you're speaking of womans rights, sexual freedoms or freedom to practice your religion of choice?...or freedom from practicing any religion? or freedom from tyrants? or freedom from racism? Are you going to force their leaders to be better people? are you going to force the zealous religious leaders to...not be so zealous? ...are you going to call in the marines? [?]

Are you? The Netherlands is 0.4% the landmass of the United States.

size of United States: land: 9,158,960 sq km
size of the Netherlands: land: 33,883 sq km

population 290,342,554 = 31.7 / sq km
population 16,150,511 = 476.7 / sq km

To get the population density of the Netherlands, the US could take up 4,075,737,200 people.

 

[Adam]

The news here claimed that something like HALF of all Middle Easterners living in France had spent time in prison for serious crimes. IF that is true, I'd want them out of my country too. But then, I'd also want to kick out all the other criminals as well. Bring back Banishment!

 

[Nereid]

Yeah, send them all to Botany Bay! Better yet, Port Arthur and Norfolk Island!

 

[Adam]

Yep! :D

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Adam
The news here claimed that something like HALF of all Middle Easterners living in France had spent time in prison for serious crimes.

We're discussing The Netherlands...not France. Those being expelled are not being expelled for criminal behaviour. For many of them their only crime is lack of documentation (impossible to get in many cases) and if it's anything like this country...not having access to the huge sums it takes to afford a good lawyer!

 

[Monique]

Only in the US you need a lawyer.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Monique
Only in the US you need a lawyer.

I'm confused about this. In the link I gave you previously it states:

If the IND intends to deny the asylum request, it gives the applicant its intended decision with reasons, and the applicant has an opportunity, with the support of a legal advisor, to respond. The authorities must take the response into consideration when making a final decision. If the IND denies the claim anyway, the applicant may appeal to a judge and can remain in the Netherlands pending judicial review. However, if the asylum seeker is appealing a decision made in the accelerated procedure, he or she is not entitled to remain in the Netherlands.

In what aspect does the apparently needed "legal advisor" mentioned about differ from our legal counsel or lawyers?

 

[Monique]

Those legal advisors are most probably paid by the government, acting as helpers, not exploiters of the law.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Monique
Those legal advisors are most probably paid by the government,

after I read your response I decided to investigate further. Evidently, you're mistaken and there is quite a need for immigration lawyers (beyond any "counsel" provided by the state), particularly with the changes made in the last few years. http://www.immigration-lawyer.nl/ and according to the lawyer in this article
Gloom falls on Dutch asylum seekers

"For a few years they have been waiting to see what would happen, and the answer now is that they are going to be turned out on to the street, with their children as well," says Mr Kuit.

and again, apparently for children it's even more crucial that they get good legal counsel...http://www.expatica.com/cms/source/site_article.asp?channel_id=1&story_id=1971

Chadbourne points to cases where children as young as four have been interviewed without a lawyer or guardian present. In fact, these children are often not given a lawyer or guardian until after the first interview and information from the first is often used against them in the second. Even in cases where the child is clearly traumatised, the guardian appointed will often only watch the interview through a video from another room.

also, same article:

“I had a lawyer on the telephone in tears,” says Chadbourne. “The IND interviewed a two-and-a-half year old from Somalia. His mother is dead, his father is terminally ill and because the child won’t speak he has now been labelled 'unco-operative'. (Which can be a reason to refuse a permit.) We have all been shocked.”

Originally posted by Monique
For instance you have acting as helpers, not exploiters of the law.

I'm assuming that what you're saying here is that American Lawyers are not helpers by exploiters and that Dutch lawyers do not exploit the law and are only helpers. I can't speak for the Dutch other then to mention that when I visited the expat forum on legal problems for immigrants to the Netherlands there were several threads on where to find and immigration lawyer and the different loopholes they might be able to use to get someone's wife or child into the country to join them. It would seem that just like America, if you can afford your own lawyer your chances of be allowed to stay are greater then if you cannot.
As for American lawyers, I have two uncles that practice law. One is a corporate lawyer the other practices family law. I can assure you that the majority of their time is not spent exploiting anything but often on such mundane things as writing contracts, researching deeds for land and home purchases...writing wills etc..Often my uncle who practices family law must not only give legal advice but counsel families as well. In the case of Immigration lawyers, they often are speaking for people who barely understand the language, have little understanding of the legal system or their rights. The "state", often depending on the economics and public opinion of the time may be more or less concerned with being "fair" to the immigrant, they seldom will enlighten them to rights they aren't already aware of or fully understand. The lawyer allows him to have someone he can trust to look out for HIS best interest.

 

[Monique]

ok, I was just being a little cynical. But don't think the US consulate general is fun to go to either, those were the most grimm people I've ever met :S

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Monique
ok, I was just being a little cynical. But don't think the US consulate general is fun to go to either, those were the most grimm people I've ever met :S

Well, I assure you...U.S. immigration is not a walk in the park, I've had to sit through a few hearings myself. BUT, it appears to me that the Netherlands, having been considered the leaders in human rights and their treatments of Immigrants, by becoming the most difficult of the western europian countries is being looked at as the prescendant the others should follow. I'm not sure this is either fair, or positive for the countries. As was out earlier in this thread, your economies are going to need this influx of unskilled labor.
Wouldn't it be better to adjust your approach to how your immigrants are educated, supported etc? I haven't quite figured out if we should be your example or...your country having as your leaders are saying failed with the great 30 yr. experiment..should be our warning..but I do believe it's very important to take a close, honest and critical look at it.

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by kat
your economies are going to need this influx of unskilled labor.

who needs influx of unskilled labor?? how does that help an economy??

And I am still not convinced that our immigration laws has become the most difficult of Western European countries.

 

[jimmy p]

HEY HEY must defend fellow European. How about what Britain are trying out. Our government are thinking of sending some of our Somalian refugees to Tanzania because Tanzania is a safer country than Somalia, and they will pay aid money for the refugees.

How about that then, trade of immigrants... a little barbaric don't you think. I know this isn't actually in action but the government is speculating...

How bout that for possibly difficult immigration laws?

 

[Monique]

Or how about these politicians thinking about making arranged marriages illegal?

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Monique
who needs influx of unskilled labor?? how does that help an economy??

I'm sorry, that should not have read unskilled. Nonetheless, as has been pointed out earlier in this thread. With an aging society that is not producing children you need an influx of workers to support your social programs, and your aging society.

And I am still not convinced that our immigration laws has become the most difficult of Western European countries.

It's stated repeatedly on many sites that are focused on immigration in Europian countries. You can, access the links I've provided or search on your own but, I think you will see that it's true...

 

[kat]

Originally posted by jimmy p
HEY HEY must defend fellow European. How about what Britain are trying out. Our government are thinking of sending some of our Somalian refugees to Tanzania because Tanzania is a safer country than Somalia, and they will pay aid money for the refugees.

How about that then, trade of immigrants... a little barbaric don't you think. I know this isn't actually in action but the government is speculating...

How bout that for possibly difficult immigration laws?

I think that is also a route that has been suggested by the Dutch. I seem to remember seeing that somewhere in regards to refugees. I think we also need to be careful not to muddle terminology, Refugees cover a lot of catagories. A person seeking asylum would be different then one caught off shore, or one who has come into the country already as a refugee on temporary status...It says nothing about their status as a citizen, their work history, why they are there, how long they have been there. For instance you have mixed marriages where there are children involved and one parent may not come for a country that is "up to par" and that parent's asylum is not accepted and removed! leaving a single parent and child behind!

Anyway, I'll get back to you on whether this is already being done by the dutch. In my experience, in the U.S. if someone is removed from the country...usually it is because of criminal activity and no permanent residency status..they cannot be sent back to a country where there physical wellbeing would be threatened..they can however be given other choices of countries(they choose...) and if that country will accept them they will be sent there. That is, providing they can find a marshall to escort them. Otherwise they may sit in detention indefinately..of course I'm speaking criminal deportation here...

 

[Nereid]

old age -> need for new workers

Originally posted by Monique
who needs influx of unskilled labor?? how does that help an economy??

And I am still not convinced that our immigration laws has become the most difficult of Western European countries.

IIRC we discussed a closely related matter on another thread. Basically, the aging Dutch (and British, and Japanese, and German, and ...) population is an 'old age pension' timebomb - within a decade or two the state will be completely unable to pay anything but pittance old age pensions (unless ...), the folk who will be nearing retirement most likely will have far too little saved to pay for their living costs in their retirement (esp medical, tho that will be a far, far worse problem in the US) (again, unless ...), and companies will have largely given up providing meaningful assistance to their workers re an old age pension (also, unless ...).

The US won't face this social crisis for quite a while - it still has lots of young migrants (almost all of whom work), and its women are giving birth at a 'greater than replacement' rate (much to Natchwolf's horror).

So, some 'unlesses': immigration, esp of young, unskilled workers (they will take the jobs which the long-time residents don't really mind giving up); enforced saving (e.g. higher taxes, much sweeter personal pension plans, ... BTW, this could also cause a nasty recession; America's habit of spending beyond its means is a key part of current global economic growth); halting the incessant rise of medical costs; minimum retirement age increased, for both men and women, to 70 or 75; ...

Hey, no wonder the call economic the 'dismal' science

 

[Nereid]

David, are you suggesting that the Souix, Iroquois, Cree, Shoshone, etc should uproot and expel Israelite 'weeds' such as you?

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Nereid
David, are you suggesting that the Souix, Iroquois, Cree, Shoshone, etc should uproot and expel Israelite 'weeds' such as you?

Nereid, he's not an Israelite...he's a fanatical christian from the North American bible belt. The Israelites were a bit brighter then we on this forum have been...they expelled his racist butt from Israel when he started spewing his venom in their country.

 

[Monique]

Zebulon who? Anyway, why is everyone overlooking the fact that together with planning to return 'uitgeprocudeerde' asylum seekers (the ones who have been through the system and for whom nothing can be done), we have granted a license for many to attain status at the same time?

And NO we are not expelling any weeds.

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by kat
Nereid, he's not an Israelite...he's a fanatical christian from the North American bible belt. The Israelites were a bit brighter then we on this forum have been...they expelled his racist butt from Israel when he started spewing his venom in their country.

Oh, I see. Quite a few of his posts seem to have a rather tenuous connection with reality, and written in such a way that one wonders just where to start in responding to them. Facts that contradict his assertions, and (internal) logical inconsistencies in his comments would normally be a good place to start, but he doesn't seem to be interested in those (a bit like theroyprocess perhaps?).

(BTW, what is an 'Israelite'? )

Anyway, back to Monique:

why is everyone overlooking the fact that together with planning to return 'uitgeprocudeerde' asylum seekers (the ones who have been through the system and for whom nothing can be done), we have granted a license for many to attain status at the same time?

IMHO, a system for assessing and managing those who seek asylum or refuge is essential once a country has taken the honourable step of being willing to accept those who are in danger of persecution or death for their beliefs, ethnicity (etc). Is the Dutch one good? It certainly seems so. Could it be better? Surely! Perhaps though we should be asking pointed questions of governments such as Australia's, or Japan's - why so mean? Also, aren't there many countries which would give those persecuted asylum, or a home for refugees? Maybe it's that they aren't a rich as the Netherlands, or don't have quite as generous a social welfare system. IIRC, around the time that the UK exited Hong Kong, there was much fuss about Vietnamese boat people; a goodly number didn't want to go to third countries (who were willing to have them) because they weren't as rich as the UK!

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by Nereid
Perhaps though we should be asking pointed questions of governments such as Australia's, or Japan's - why so mean?

Exactly right! Does Japan allow ANY immigrants into it's country? What I heard about Japan is that, say, a Chinese immigrant completely integrated after 10 years is still shunned and concieved as a foreigner by the Japanese.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by David Ben-Ariel
I'll wave and blow you a kiss and smile at the camera when I return next year!

I think you should wave goodbye and save the kiss for someone else. You're kidnapping this thread. Please get back OT...and for a refresher..the topic is the change in asylum law in the Netherlands.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Nereid

Anyway, back to Monique: IMHO, a system for assessing and managing those who seek asylum or refuge is essential once a country has taken the honourable step of being willing to accept those who are in danger of persecution or death for their beliefs, ethnicity (etc). Is the Dutch one good? It certainly seems so. Could it be better? Surely! Perhaps though we should be asking pointed questions of governments such as Australia's, or Japan's - why so mean? Also, aren't there many countries which would give those persecuted asylum, or a home for refugees? Maybe it's that they aren't a rich as the Netherlands, or don't have quite as generous a social welfare system. IIRC, around the time that the UK exited Hong Kong, there was much fuss about Vietnamese boat people; a goodly number didn't want to go to third countries (who were willing to have them) because they weren't as rich as the UK!

Neried, it appears that the Netherlands at this point is that which the other europian countries are taking their cues from in regards to refugee/asylum programs. As the Dutch tighten up (so to speak) and become less compassionate (for whatever reasons) the others are following suite. Historicly, during times of economic stress Europe has been less then open to immigration from certain areas of the world..Including the period during the 70's where immigrants were being attacked while working on the docks in the Netherlands and of course denying immigration to refugees in the 30's where they were shipped back to their deaths. So, where we've already discussed that it makes no sense in an economic sense to block the immigration of the very work force you will be needing to be economicly sound...what's the real cause?



*Edit to add this note: I do understand that other countries have their own issues, black spotted records and poor immigration programs but...that's really irrelevant to the thread and the reasons, cause, politics of what's going on in the Netherlands. Why can't we be as brutally frank/open when it's concerning a Europian country as we are with the U.S.? (rhetorical)

 

[Monique]

It was the minister Rita Verdonk, who proprosed the new legislation that forces cities to push out failed asylum seekers.

You must know that there was a upstir among Dutch people. The cities' legislators thought it was cruel to evict these people from their houses, and were threatening not to cooperate. Also with Dutch media, they were inviting families and demanded attention for cases of people who had been without status in this country for 6 yrs. Recently there was a demonstration of people speaking out against the legislation, among them was an Iranian man who went into hunger strike and sewed his mouth and eyes with stiches. He now has been given urgency status and his case is being reviewed again.

Again: seriously, I don't remember now who made the parallele with Hitler in the beginning of this thread, or Daniel by saying that the legislation is meant to clear this country from foreigners. This legislation simply draws a line: if you don't fall under the guidelines that says you should be granted asylum, you can't stay. As I said earlier, the cities have been looking sideways and allowed people to stay for 6-7 years, which are now the cases asked to leave.

As Kat brought up: the guidelines might not be fair that distinguish between someone that should be granted asylum and ones that should not. On the one hand there seems to be the unfairness where people only get a 48 hour window, on the other hand there seems to be the unfairness that people have to wait for several years and risking to get a 'no, sorry, can't stay'.

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by David Ben-Ariel
The Israelite Dutch should expel those who would ultimately undermine them, who are a ticking time bomb, the Islamic insurgents.

David, you are so aggressive. It is people like you who raise anger and intolerancy. I am Dutch and I don't want to expel anyone, let the islam do their prayers here in the Netherlands.

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by David Ben-Ariel
The Israelite Dutch

I have absolutely no clue what you are talking about, the Dutch have no connection whatsoever with Israel. I read your Zebulon link, but I don't believe in legends and myths. I don't even view a second generation Dutch immigrant in the US as Dutch. You are what you are brought up as, so don't claim us as Israelian. Not that I have anything against Israel.

 

[Nereid]

Monique: *SNIP This legislation simply draws a line: if you don't fall under the guidelines that says you should be granted asylum, you can't stay.

*SNIP

the guidelines might not be fair that distinguish between someone that should be granted asylum and ones that should not. On the one hand there seems to be the unfairness where people only get a 48 hour window, on the other hand there seems to be the unfairness that people have to wait for several years and risking to get a 'no, sorry, can't stay'.

As with all policies of advanced economies, there are two aspects (at least) - the intention and the implementation. AFAIK, those who write policy (civil, or public, servants; a.k.a. bureaucrats, a much misused term) - pollies don't; they just set the general idea to music - are all too well aware of what's likely to be workable and what's not, and of the high cost of having an unworkable policy.

In this case, it would seem that the intentions are clear - as Monique says, to set clear guidelines on what the grounds for granting asylum will be, and to implement those guidelines humanely (as is the Dutch way), efficiently, and effectively, while all the time allowing for exceptions.

IMHO, the 48 hours looks like a means to ensure the message is heard loud and clear; in practice it will prove difficult to implement consistently, and will likely be relaxed. However, its value is more in clarifying the intention, after years of ambiguity.

Of course, this could all be pure speculation ... I can't see inside the pollies' heads!