Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Dutch running scared?

  1. Feb 19, 2004 #1

    kat

    User Avatar

    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


    and

    and


    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***)
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 19, 2004 #2

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    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.
     
  4. Feb 19, 2004 #3

    GENIERE

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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:

    A similar quote from a conservative politician in the US would be followed by months of criticism by the liberals.
     
  5. Feb 19, 2004 #4

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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 :frown: ). 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.
     
  6. Feb 19, 2004 #5

    Monique

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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)
     
  7. Feb 19, 2004 #6

    Monique

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  8. Feb 20, 2004 #7

    jimmy p

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    almost a 1/3 of car crimes in Britain have been caused by immigrants: legal or illegal. The problem is the illegal ones cant be contacted because they dont have any insurance, driving licence 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.
     
  9. Feb 20, 2004 #8

    Monique

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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?
     
  10. Feb 20, 2004 #9
    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.
     
  11. Feb 20, 2004 #10

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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?
     
  12. Feb 20, 2004 #11

    Monique

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Funny.. neither.

    As I said:
    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..
     
  13. Feb 20, 2004 #12

    Njorl

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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
     
  14. Feb 20, 2004 #13
    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.
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2004
  15. Feb 20, 2004 #14

    GENIERE

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Russ –

    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.
     
  16. Feb 21, 2004 #15

    Monique

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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?
     
  17. Feb 21, 2004 #16

    kat

    User Avatar

    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 seperate 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.
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2004
  18. Feb 21, 2004 #17

    Monique

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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?

    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.

    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.
     
  19. Feb 22, 2004 #18

    kat

    User Avatar

    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.


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

    and from HRW http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/02/12/nether7367.htm (should read entire article)
    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.
     
  20. Feb 23, 2004 #19

    Monique

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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..
     
  21. Feb 23, 2004 #20

    Monique

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2004
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Dutch running scared?
  1. Run Tisi, Run! (Replies: 36)

  2. Dutch Tax Haven (Replies: 2)

  3. Dutch election day (Replies: 3)

Loading...