Discuss:Government, Politics, Policy:American politics and diversity in Netherlands
From da Vinci Concept
Contents |
American politics and diversity in Netherlands
htruong - Wed Jul 28 16:05:41 2004
The presidential election is coming up! All I can say is that the Dutch and other Europeans are quite interested in this American presidential election. The fate of this election not only effects the American citizens but the whole world. According to the accounts from most of my fellow Dutch collegues and friends, they are very much favor Kerry for president. So, the outcome of the election would likely affect the future of foreign relations, economy, and etc.
The Netherlands is known for their tolerance for diversity and openess to alternative lifestyles. However, the perspective is slowly changing with the growing Muslim immigrants living in the Netherlands. The passing of stricter policies on foreign immigrants is taking place. Such that the fee for my resident permit is 480 euros, which in the past was around 28 euros. This fee hike is a method to discourage foreigners from enteing the country. It is believed or made into a proproganda that crimes are mostly caused by foreign ers. Less foreigners .....Less crimes.....Less problems. In addition, the lack for tolerance is also witnessed in France which either has or going to pass a law to outlaw the wearing of head scarves and any other religious ornaments from public school. By the matter of opinon, this law is seen to target the Muslim community. It is believed that when a foreigner comes to a host country he/she should conform to host country's tradition and custom; if one want to be a citizen of the host country. If you want to be French, one should integrate. Or should I say assimilate. The message here is that....for many years of criticisms from Europe toward American immigration policies, the Europeans are finally having the table turn on them. It is easy to criticize and judge others, when one is not being face with a difficult dilemma.
So, American citizens what do think about that? When it comes to tolerance of diversity, we are pretty decent.
--htruong Wed Jul 28 16:05:41 2004
deanna - Mon Aug 2 23:32:28 2004
I think we see a lot of tolerance in places like the University--toward people of all races and religions. However, I think that is because no matter what religion or race those other people are, they are still like us--university students, educated people, people with a purpose that we can understand. So how hard is it, then, to be tolerant in that setting?
People fight against desegregation even today. I teach at a school with a predominantly poor, Hispanic population. Because of overcrowding, our sixth grade class was moved to another, mostly white, middle class school. I thought this would be a great opportunity for them to have contact with people outside of their 'barrio.' Instead they are resented by the parents, the staff and the students at that school. They feel like outsiders.
I'm guilty. I love my students and I respect most of their families, but I wouldn't send my son to my school because I want him to grow up with friends who have a similar life and interests as he does. I want him to have a challenging education, which he wouldn't have in a class full of second language learners.
--deanna Mon Aug 2 23:32:28 2004
sunny - Fri Nov 12 8:41:47 2004
I think that integration is definitely the right end-state. An immigrant who cannot integrate into a new society will not be as sucessful in living in that society and thus remain an 'alien' to its culture and laws. This has the potential to increase crime rates. It also has the potential to increase the poverty level within a given region. Immigrants need to be pro-active in integrating with their host society. Learning the language, customs, and values of their new homeland is critical.
I would say to a US immigrant: If you don't agree with our culture, don't move here. If you don't have a choice, perhaps you should re-evaluate your world-view.
The US, unlike many nations is amenable to re-evaluating its customs, examining the values of its diverse population and making adjustments. We are tolerant that there are many cultures and customs, but that does not mean that we need to implement or tangibly respect these customs. I will acknoledge that someone is of a given religious denomination, but under no circumstances would I subject myself to their value system. In other words; believe what you will believe, so long as it does not violate my basic rights. This is an objective statement. Basic human rights are unalienable. You may restrict your own, but you may not restrict mine.
Within the process of integration, it is choosing a valid means of integrating foreigners that seems problematic for many nations. In the US we assist in the integration process by initiating primary education programs like ESL, hiring multi-lingual social workers, providing alternative language forms and legal paperwork for high-demand languages. In many areas we even tolerate non-English speaking communities, accepting the formation of non-integrated communities. This may seem problematic, but our grievance should not be that of 'subjective/cultural non-integration', but one of 'objective/constitutional non-integration'.
A reactive approach to non-integration is to shut out other cultures out for fear of 'contamination.' A better approach is to require that individuals entering the country to have already begun the process of integration. A basic understanding of the language, customs, and laws is non-trivial and absolutely necessary. Simply making it more difficult for foreigners to live within a host country as Holland appears to be doing, may cause more harm than good.
Instead of providing anti-incentives for immigration, simply restrict immigration using a set of objective intellectual criteria and provide better integration programs for new immigrants. I don't think that we have an obligation to provide alternative language paperwork at the DMV or an obligation to keep our borders open, but having a successful immigration policy in place is important. By restricting immigration using simple objective criteria, immigrants will prepare themselves for entry and thus be better prepared for integration into the new society. By implementing the right integration programs, a culture can do much to assist in the process of integration.
[ Edited Mon Jan 24 2005, 07:33PM ]
--sunny Fri Nov 12 8:41:47 2004
joryea - Mon Nov 15 16:54:14 2004
The Problem
The inauguration of the president is January 10th. From the current perspective, George W. Bush won. This of course, takes out the consideration of the current battle taking place within the countries leaders, which may in effect, default the incumbent presidency of Bush, and alter the future of this nation from receiving the bad air of four years of furthering our disastrous foreign and domestic policy represented by the current administration. Weíll see what happens soon, as some of us watch and speculate upon the outcome, and others take action upon such possibilities towards a definite intention one direction or the other.
I would most definitely agree with you that your methods of integration far exceed those now put forth from within the United States Justice Department, represented by the now stepping down fanatic fundamentalist, Attorney General John Ashcroft. Of course, the next in line to replace him, Gonzales, had Councilman Addington write the memoís justifying the torture of prisoners in Iraq, Guantanamo, and Afghanistan. Now Gonzales will be integrating the law of the right, for the United States, taking up the position, if Bush is inaugurated, of Attorney General of the Justice Department.
Our policy today, to state it quite bluntly and with no with-held remarks, is as follows: We welcome you into our beloved country, to become a full-time slave of the free trade markets of the controlling Lazard Freresí oligarchical tyranny of globalization pushing to dominate over your countries trade and commerce anyway. These individuals now running our financial monetary system bluntly state they are now an empire that makes their own rules. I won't go into this any further; however, it is well known that if allowed by the American people, as the people of Germany allowed in 1932, we will become a fascist nation escalating the amount of wars, as well as the confrontations now fringing the brink of nuclear warfare, perpetuated by fanatics of such doctrines as our pre-emptive war policy as our Vice President, Dick Cheney and the Secretary of State, Donald Rumsfeld, who wrote these doctrines over twenty years ago.
Policy.
Our policy on integration, from the foundation of this country, has always been one of constant growth of culture and methods of observation of the universe. The very essence of the countries beginnings was built upon revolutionaries who fought for all of humankind, within the idea that all human beings are made equally in the image of the creator. This is the principle of the New Council of Florenceí that Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa brought forth, to unite the religious factions of the entirety of European civilization, as well as many Asian nations, towards the ideals that became actuality in 1648, with the implementation of the Treaty of Westphalia. This principled renaissance of ideas led directly to the scientific revolution and the founding of the roots of this countries existence (the U.S.A.). Today, we are in great need once again, to revive the principles of the Preamble of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Integration is an aspect of unification, as we are all citizens of the world, and members of the largest population of creative beings in the solar system; human civilization. We are now a global culture, and in this way we must act.
It is time to become the future leaders of civilization, as we understand it to be constructed upon. In other words: we must study the minds of those who understood the difference of man in relationship to the universe, as distinct from all other known creatures. We must find the scientist within ourselves, through the study of those scientists of the past, who made the discoveries of universal principles, and learn their method in how they came to that discovery, enabling us to make that discovery ourselves. This is how we will come to understand how we can build a community of principle upon our young existence of human society and culture.
Method.
This is the solution to so-called problems with integration. We are all human. The influence of other languages and cultures gives the creative potentialities of the mind a geometry otherwise unable to form. We should learn the languages of those who come to our country, not have them indoctrinate themselves into our system of life; for all systems will fail unless integrated with new and improved conditions manifestly created as a constance, from which other people from around the world will have a most significant impact.
The world acts as a whole, and so we must as well. The question lies there bluntly for us to gaze upon. Who will take it upon themselves to take this action lumberingly across their shoulders and carry it into actuality? We need leaders, and so we must be leaders.
--joryea Mon Nov 15 16:54:14 2004
charmed_quark - Tue Jan 11 23:40:52 2005
The concepts of 'immigration' and 'integration' derive entirely from antiquated agricultureal basis of borders. Nations have, can and do exist independent of these artificial lines in the sand. To hell with "restricing [sic] immigration using simple objective criteria". I for one welcome anyone to the my community and I have more confidence in the equality of an open global market than any immigration policy.
I am personally not concerned with an immigrant "taking my job" because I have leveraged the advantages given to me by the coincidence of my birth. And the only crimes that are increasing are those dictated by unjust policies (i.e. "the War of Drugs"). A well governed country should have no reason to prohibit open immigration. Limiting immigration is only a way to compensate for poorly thought out policies.
Most of my coworkers are anti-immigration, but after talking with them, all agree that the problems that immigration present are really problems with unrelated policies like health care, education and social security and if these other policies were fixed then immigration would be a non-issue. So I would be really interested if anyone has a specific reason why immigration should be limited.
| we welcome you into our beloved country, to become a full-time slave of the free trade markets of the controlling Lazard Freresí oligarchical tyranny of globalization pushing to dominate over your countries trade and commerce anyway. |
| -- Jorye |
I just wanted to address this specifically. The problem is that the markets are not free in several critical ways. For instance, in a genuine free market access to capital would be fair and universal. Also suppliers and consumers would have all relevant information about each other before a transaction. For too long the US government has been working against a free market, but I have a feeling that things are going to swing the other way. I just don't think a lot of people are going to be comfortable with the inevitable.
--charmed_quark Tue Jan 11 23:40:52 2005
Truc_Ha - Fri Jan 14 21:14:39 2005
| To hell with "restricing [sic] immigration using simple objective criteria". I for one welcome anyone to the my community and I have more confidence in the equality of an open global market than any immigration policy. ...Most of my coworkers are anti-immigration, but after talking with them, all agree that the problems that immigration present are really problems with unrelated policies like health care, education and social security and if these other policies were fixed then immigration would be a non-issue. So I would be really interested if anyone has a specific reason why immigration should be limited. |
| -- charmed_quark |
Given that the government on various levels, with public tax dollars, has invested a lot of capital and resources on building and maintaining infrastructure and crucial services, I think that it is fair to ask from an immigrant a gesture of good faith that they intend to contribute to the community. We currently require sponsorship (so we know that they'll land on their feet when they first get here), some self-education so that they have an idea of what America is trying to be, and a blizzard of paperwork, picky rules, and other requirements I watched my parents sweat through for a decade while trying to get their sibs and parents permission to immigrate. The sponsorship makes sense, but the rules for establishing sponsorship don't always. Self-education and learning the language adds to the immigrant's skills set, and it makes helping them, working with them, healing them much easier. The blizzard is nonsense.
I disagree with arbitrary and convoluted rules. But I also disagree with a person who comes to the US, works under the table, doesn't bother learning anything about the US but stereotypes, uses emergency medical services or police services and roads or bridges or subways or other public works, then goes home no wiser, and leaves our system all the poorer because they did not contribute a penny to the methods that made coming to the US desirable. Look at emergency rooms in Southern California and the rest of the Southwest. They are shutting down because they are being utilized by people who cannot pay, the county can't pay, and no money is forthcoming from the feds either. Should the populations of San Diego, LA, Phoenix, Santa Fe, Las Vegas, etc be deprived of emergency medicine because anyone can come and go regardless of anything? Not fair.
I agree with simple, objective, and transparent avenues for immigration. Let our borders be as open as possible, but not to the detriment of the people living on both sides of the line.
--Truc_Ha Fri Jan 14 21:14:39 2005
charmed_quark - Mon Jan 17 13:46:15 2005
I hope we are not becoming off-topic since the discussion has become US centric when it started about the Netherlands. I'll exacerbate the problem and hope my comments have more universal application.
The implied problem is that undocumented workers do not contribute funding to the system, but that does not have to be the case. Here in the [sarcasm] enlightened [/sarcasm] state of Nevada, a resident pays tax through sales tax and property tax, so an illegal immigrant is supporting the system when they pay rent of buy food. Nevada has some special considerations that allow this, but most government system could be run in a self-sufficient manner.
Here would be one hypothetical system:
Roads, bridges, subways - paid for by gas taxes and fares
Police services - fines and inmate labor contracts, many municipalities already run positive a net balance on law enforcement
Health care - taxes on 'high risk' products alcohol, tobacco, fast food, marijuana. Additional there are many factors that artificially raise the cost of health care that should be dealt with, but that is another discussion.
My point is that a system could be developed that supports open immigration if it planned that way in advance. The largest problem is the dependence on personal income tax, a dubious institution in itself.
The two 'big' reasons why support open immigration are:
1. The US grew into the nation it is because of a relatively open immigration policy. MANY people came here without speaking the language and certainly without sponsorship. Do I really need to quote 'the New Colossus'?
2. There exists an unfilled demand for unskilled low-cost labor, and will take a monumental shift if society before it goes away. Immigration fills that demand. Economics will not be legislated against.
--charmed_quark Mon Jan 17 13:46:15 2005
