The Netherlands to immigrants: Speak Dutch - by Patrick Cox

In Hassnae Bouazza's memory, learning to speak Dutch happened very suddenly.

“I remember very vividly the moment that I realized that I had learned Dutch,” Bouazza said. “I was playing with children at kindergarten. All of sudden realized, I speak Dutch.”

Bouazza, now in her 40s, is the youngest of seven siblings. Her family moved to the Netherlands from Morocco in the 1970s after her father left Morocco to seek work in Europe. In 1977, the rest of the family joined him and settled in a Dutch village — the only immigrants to live there.

This Moroccan family might have been called model immigrants, if the Dutch government had a model in mind. As Dutch speakers, the family was different from the vast majority of immigrants who moved to Dutch cities, but remained largely separated from Dutch society.

“Nothing was done to integrate them in the society,” said Ricky van Oers, an immigration law professor at Radboud University in Nijmegen. “The authorities thought too easily of asking someone to come over to work, stay for 20 years and then go back.”

Large-scale migration from Morocco to the Netherlands started in the 1960s under a guest worker program largely geared toward temporary work for men. But many immigrants decided to stay, and in the 1970s, family reunification law allowed guest laborers to bring their families to join them.

When Dutch officials realized that families from Morocco and elsewhere weren’t returning to their homelands, they tried to get them to learn Dutch. When that only partially worked — it was too late for many — attitudes hardened.

Anti-immigrant sentiment increased around Sept. 11, 2001, when a series of anti-immigrant political parties started winning seats in Dutch elections. Today, the leader of that faction is Geert Wilders.

“There is a lot of Moroccan scum in Holland who make the streets unsafe,” Wilders told reporters during the 2017 election campaign in which his party came in second.

Wilders and his followers have pushed exclusionary language laws for immigrants. That message is gaining popularity: The Dutch government requires people who want long-term work permits to take private Dutch classes and pass a language proficiency exam.

“If they don't pass this exam within three years, they are fined,” Radboud University’s Van Oers said.

“The Netherlands can be perceived as sort of a guiding country. It is very proud to have taken up that role. And you see that different European countries have copied the Dutch model.”

Those efforts are also inspiring the Trump administration. In May 2019, the White House proposed an overhaul of US immigration law that would include language proficiency regulations.

“Future immigrants will be required to learn English and to pass a civics exam prior to admission,” President Donald Trump told reporters at the Rose Garden announcement. Currently, there is no indication that Congress would pass such a measure.

Read more at: The Netherlands to immigrants: Speak Dutch | Public Radio International

EU Parliamentary elections: Eastern southern Europeans dread emigration more than immigration

EU elections: Eastern, southern Europeans dread emigration more than immigration With just seven weeks to go before EU Parliament elections a sweeping study shows that, despite a rise in anti-immigration rhetoric, many Eastern and southern Europeans say they are more worried about emigration.

Read more at:
http://www.france24.com/en/20190402-europe-immigration-eu-elections-eastern-southern-dread-emigration

EU: European experience with migration shows that border walls don't stop migration

Aging Europe needs immigration, but in order to achieve this in an organized and orderly way it needs unity of purpose, better planning, and certainly no border walls

Read more at:
https://www.socialeurope.eu/border-walls-dont-stop-migration

EU: Migration Into Europe: A Long-Term Solution? - by Branko Milanovic

Why has migration become such a big problem? Many reasons can be adduced: the war in Syria, the integration of Eastern Europe, lack of new jobs in many Western countries following the Global Financial Crisis etc. But listing individual reasons is insufficient to understand it and think what to do about it.

The origin of the problem, in most general terms, is twofold: (1) globalization that has made the knowledge of differences in income between countries much better known and has reduced the cost of transportation, and (2) large gaps in real incomes between the European Union (especially its more prosperous North) and the Middle East and Africa.

The first point is well known. Many studies show that the more people know about the rest of the world (especially if that rest of the world is richer than their country) the more they compare their own standard of living with that of presumed peers in the richer countries, and the more likely they are to do something about it: namely, to migrate.

The second point has to do with the fact that the gap in GDP per capita between the original EU-15 and sub-Saharan Africa has risen from seven to one in 1980 to 11 to one today. (This is the gap obtained after factoring in the lower price level in Africa; without it, the gap would be even greater.)

At the same time as real incomes have become so unbalanced, population growth rates have become even more so. In 1980, the EU-15 had more people than sub-Saharan Africa; today, sub-Saharan Africa has twice-and-a-half as many people.

Within the next two generations, sub-Saharan Africa should reach 2.5 billion people, five times more than Western Europe. It is totally unrealistic to think that such large income gaps (in one direction) and population gaps (in the other) can persist without generating a very strong migration pressure.

Thus, Europe faces a long-term issue and the following dilemma. As we just saw, if there is globalization and countries involved in globalization have highly uneven incomes, there must be migration. You can stop migration only if you give up on globalization by closing off national borders, or help emitting countries get as rich as Western Europe. The latter would obviously take, under the best of circumstances, at least a century. So, it is not a feasible solution. What then remains is to shut down globalization, at least when it comes to the movement of people.

Read more: Migration Into Europe: A Long-Term Solution? • Social Europe

Britain: Racism is as British as a cup of tea (Opinion) - Kehinde Andrews

Britain is meant to be celebrating 70 years since the arrival of the steamship Windrush, which brought with it 500 people from the Caribbean and marked the start of mass migration to the UK from the British Empire.

But the festive mood has been broken by the realization that a number of the Windrush generation -- who migrated as children and have spent decades in Britain -- have been classified as illegal immigrants, and are therefore losing jobs, being detained in immigration centers and even facing deportation to countries of which they have no memory.

Public and political pressure has forced Prime Minster Theresa May to apologize. But it was her Conservative Party's policies that created the scandal in the first place.

The Windrush generation was welcomed to help rebuild the nation after World War II -- before Britain imposed restrictions on immigration starting in the '60s.

The problem is that although anyone who migrated before 1973 should have automatic right to remain, they were children at the time and may have no documents to prove their status.

People are now being caught up in the "hostile environment for illegal immigrants" created by May, which strengthened the duty of workplaces to carry out immigration checks. It is through these kind of checks that longstanding residents are being declared illegal.

To understand the crisis and the political context in which it sits, we need to go back to Britain's vote for Brexit in 2016. Even some of the leaders campaigning for Brexit take back our borders" to stop uncontrolled immigration being a vote winner. Public sentiment against immigration before the vote had shifted the politics of all the major parties to the right.

During May's time as home secretary, the UK Home Office instituted some of the most draconian immigration policy in British history, which included sending out vans allowing Africans to drown in the Mediterranean as a deterrent to potential migrants.

In their appeal to minority voters, those pushing for Brexit promised that reducing immigration from Europe would mean that Britain could re-engage with her former empire, now known as the Commonwealth.

Read more: Racism is as British as a cup of tea (Opinion) - CNN

The Netherlands: Local elections 2018: what the parties say about integration

Democracy In Action. Not only Dutch Armenians, but also Dutch Turks, Dutch Moroccans, Dutch Kurds, Dutch from Suriname and Antillean decent and many other nationalities, who immigrated to the Netherlands, will be running in the upcoming Dutch municipal elections on March 21.

In Amsterdam alone there are 28 parties participating in the municipal elections. The Dutch municipal elections of 2018 will be held in 335 municipalities in the Netherlands. This election will determine the composition of the municipal councils for the following four years.

Ahead of the March 21 local elections, Dutch News asked the main parties in the 10 Dutch cities with the biggest international populations to set out their position on three key issues: housing, integration and jobs.

Here are their answers to the question: ‘Local authorities have a key role to play in integrating new arrivals and ensuring they learn Dutch. How is your party planning to encourage the international community to integrate fully into local life?

Click here to read the complete report: Local elections 2018: what the parties say about integration DutchNews.nl

Post Brexit EU Budget: EU agrees budget to focus on defence, security and migration - by Eszter Zalan

EU leaders agreed on Friday (23 February) to spend more on defence, security and "stemming illegal migration" in the next long-term budget, European Council chief Donald Tusk said.

After leaders held their preliminary discussion of the first post-Brexit budget, Tusk told reporters that many European heads of government were ready to contribute more money to the next budget cycle, that runs 2021-27.

"All the leaders approached [the budget] with open minds, rather than red lines," he stated.

Tusk however said that the EU Commission's ambitious deadline for reaching an agreement by the end of this year seemed "really difficult".

The EU executive wants to conclude talks by the next European elections in May 2019, however, haggling over the budget usually takes more than two years.

Germany's Angela Merkel said the debate was "constructive", and said leaders will decide how fast to move with agreeing to the EU budget after the commission's proposal will be published in May.

The German chancellor also warned cuts will have to be made to "bureaucratic" policies, like agriculture.

One of the countries that does not want to pay more after the UK leaves the EU, the Netherlands' PM Mark Rutte, said the bloc needs to modernise and reform existing programs to finds more money.

"We, in any case, do not want our contribution to rise," he said.

EU leaders also discussed the possibility of linking EU funds to migration and respecting the rule of law.

Donald Tusk told reporters the discussion was less toxic than many had speculated in the run up to the summit.

Member states that benefit from cohesion funds earlier warned against using EU money aimed for reducing economic differences across the EU for integrating migrants or for punishing countries that breach EU rules.

After the discussions Tusk said that he had only heard "positive reactions", and that the concept was not questioned by any leader who spoke.

Tusk said that Poland's premier Mateusz Morawiecki also said he was ready to support conditionality, adding that it should be built a very objective criteria.

"The possible conditionality was less controversial than expected," Tusk said - adding that the debate at this point was very general.

France's president Emmanuel Macron had a strong warning to those who infringe EU values, something Poland had been accused of by the commission.

"It would be matter of good sense to halt the payment of some [EU] funds where is there is a breach of our values," Macron said.

Read more: EU agrees budget to focus on defence, security and migration

Immigration turmoil: Blaming Immigrants For Economic Troubles - by Basak Kus

Immigration has always been a prominent issue in American politics. It has become even more salient with the presidency of Donald Trump. A major debate at the moment concerns the economic impact of immigration—low-skilled immigration, in particular. It is argued that immigration has suppressed wages, discouraged unions, and exerted fiscal pressure on the welfare state.

How valid are these arguments? Is immigration really the culprit for these woes?

Let us start with welfare. It is argued immigrants make demands on the welfare state, while not paying enough taxes to cover the cost of the benefits they receive. This is not accurate. America’s welfare system is facing pressure; there is no dispute about that. However, immigration is not the cause. Non-citizens’ use of welfare benefits has declined significantly since the 1996 Welfare Reform no matter where you look: TANF, SSI, food stamps, Medicaid (see here, here and here). At the same time, there is evidence that, in urban areas, immigrant households are paying taxes at nearly the same rate as native households.

If the American welfare system is in distress, that is largely because of the revenue side. The tax revenue the US collects is relatively small, which renders the American welfare state ineffective and unable to meet the needs of the public, as political scientist Sven Steinmo’s work shows. To be specific, in 2015, US’s total tax revenue, at 26 percent of GDP, stood significantly below the OECD average of 34 percent, while in many European countries it exceeded 40 percent. The US’s total corporate tax revenue that year, at 2.2 percent of GDP was also below the OECD average.

Since the 1970s, the highest marginal income tax rate has nearly halved. The bottom line is, it is not the demand on the system caused by immigration that is threatening the welfare state, it is the tax revenue needed to fund it, which is not being collected. Unfortunately, the situation is not likely to improve with the recent passing of the new tax bill.

The truth is, immigrant workers themselves are the victims of the same structural forces that have contributed to the demise of unions: de-industrialization, financialization, and policies, which for decades prioritized market flexibility over wages, employment protection, and unionization rights. Depending on particular political and institutional factors, unions fared better in some countries than others in the face of these global challenges. To make some comparisons with America’s northern neighbor, the percentage of the foreign-born population has been increasing in both countries, and, in fact, it is now higher in Canada than in the US (20% versus 13%). Yet, unions seem to have been faring far better in Canada—both in the private and public sector, despite higher rates of immigration. To be more specific, America’s unionization rates remained very similar to Canada’s until the 1960s, whereas now trade union density in Canada is more than twice that of the United States. Why is this the case? That is a complex question, as Barry Eidlin shows, having to do with these nations’ particular contexts of labor mobilization and party politics.

The worry that immigrants take more than they give, that they would become a “public charge” rather than an “economic contributor” is not new. Cybelle Fox’s work shows, for instance, how deep the economically-based-anti-immigration sentiment ran during the New Deal, how “rumors circulated in the press that there were a million or more aliens on relief,” and how most Americans believed aliens should not receive relief and that those who did should be expelled from the country. These arguments surface time and again, are misguided and simply fuel new nativist attitudes. The overwhelming evidence is that the inflow of immigrants, whether high- or low-skilled, contributes to US economic growth and is not the cause of American workers’ plight.

Read more: Blaming Immigrants For Economic Troubles

Netherlands population getting more diverse; To hit 18 million by 2031 - by Janene Pieters

The Dutch population will continue to grow in the coming decades to over 18.4 million people by 2060, according to the latest prognosis by Statistics Netherlands. The 18 millionth inhabitant is expected in 2031. By 2040 almost a quarter of the Dutch population will be elderly, and by 2060 just over a third will have their roots in the outside world, according to the stats office.

The population of the Netherlands is growing because more people move to the Netherlands than move away, and because of the increasing lifespan. "In the coming years, more children will also be born, but that will not be sufficient in the long run to compensate for the increasing number of deaths", Statistics Netherlands writes. According to the current forecast, from the end of the 2030s more residents will die each year than are born.

Over the past two decades, the Dutch population grew by 1.5 million people. 86 percent of this increase involve people with a migration background. People immigrating to the Netherlands for work or study increased sharply over the past en years. And more recently, the Netherlands also saw a mass increase in asylum migrants. Though immigration from tradition countries of origin like Morocco, Turkey and Suriname decreased.

In the coming decades, the number of Netherlands residents with a migration background will increase, while the residents with a Dutch background will decrease, Statistics Netherlands expects.

This year 23 percent of the population have a migration background, by 2060 this will increase to 34 percent. "Both now and in the future, more than half of those with a migration background were born in the Netherlands, with at least one parent born abroad."

The number of elderly residents will also increase in the coming decades, due to the high birth rates immediately after the Second World War and in the 1950s and '60s. Another factor is that lifespan increased over the paEU-Digestst years and continues to rise. According to the prognosis, the proportion of the population aged 65 and older will increase from 18 percent in 2017 to 24 percent in 2040.

According to Statistics Netherlands, this prognosis has a level of uncertainty. Migration fluctuates from year to year, which means there is great uncertainty in the prognosis of immigration and emigration on the short term. Birth and mortality rates are easier to predict in the short term, but uncertainty increases in the long term. Taking these uncertainties into account, the Dutch population will be between 17.2 million and 19.7 million people in 2060.

Note  EU -Digest: Bottom line: the Netherlands needs more immigrants, obviously this immigration stream needs to be far better controlled and administered than it is presently done. New citizens should also be required to swear their alliance to the Netherlands/EU during a special Public ceremony in presided over by a Judge, when inducted as citizens of the Netherlands/EU and agree not to serve in any other military force, except that of the Netherlands or the common EU defense force.

Read more: Netherlands population getting more diverse; To hit 18 million by 2031 | NL Times

The Netherlands - Migration: Family is the biggest reason for migration to the Netherlands

People joining their families was the biggest reason for migration to the Netherlands in 2015, the Dutch statistics service announced on Monday. The CBS says that a third of the 159,000 people who migrated to the country in 2015 came to join family members already here. In 2003, half came for this reason, although since the number of migrants has increased, this figure was 36,655 compared with 51,920 in 2015. There was a dramatic rise in asylum-related migration in 2015, to almost 27,000, but more people actually moved to the Netherlands for work that year, and almost 20,000 came to study. Most of those joining their families came from Poland, Syria, Germany, India and the UK in 2015. The figures exclude people of Dutch nationality moving to the country.

Read more at DutchNews.nl: Family is the biggest reason for migration to the Netherlands http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2017/07/family-is-the-biggest-reason-for-migration-to-the-netherlands/

People joining their families was the biggest reason for migration to the Netherlands in 2015, the Dutch statistics service announced on Monday. The CBS says that a third of the 159,000 people who migrated to the country in 2015 came to join family members already here.

In 2003, half came for this reason, although since the number of migrants has increased, this figure was 36,655 compared with 51,920 in 2015.

There was a dramatic rise in asylum-related migration in 2015, to almost 27,000, but more people actually moved to the Netherlands for work that year, and almost 20,000 came to study.

Most of those joining their families came from Poland, Syria, Germany, India and the UK in 2015. The figures exclude people of Dutch nationality moving to the country. 

 Read more: Family is the biggest reason for migration to the Netherlands - DutchNews.nl

Crime in trhe EU: The Netherlands Falls Victim to Violent Crime - by Sierra Rayne

With the recent news that the Dutch goverment will be prosecuting Geert Wilders, the leader of the Party for Freedom, for hate speech once again, even a cursory review of what is happening in the Netherlands reveals why Wilders is so concerned. His nation is becoming unrecognizable and deteriorating rapidly.

Over the past 20 years, the violent crime rate has increased an astounding 83 percent in the Netherlands. Almost all of this increase took place before 2005 -- indeed, since 2005 there has been a slight decline in the Dutch violent crime rate, but the levels are still astronomical compared to those seen in the early to mid-1990s.

Between 1993 and 1995, the Dutch unemployment rate increased sharply but the violent crime rate was essentially unaffected. From 1995 to 2011, the unemployment rate fell from 7.1 percent to just 2.5 percent, and the violent crime rate exploded upwards. Since 2008, the jobless rate has increased rapidly, but the violent crime rate has declined modestly -- albeit still at nearly twice 1993 levels.

Real per capita GDP has fallen 5 percent since 2008, and violent crime also declined, whereas from 1993 to 2005 the real per capita GDP increased by almost 30 percent while the violent crime rate also increased 111 percent. 

Attempting to assign causation for an increasing violent crime rate on increased per capita wealth generation would be inconsistent with the general experience among wealthy nations over this time frame (aka, invalid).

Changes in income inequality also won't explain the massive increase in the Dutch violent crime rate during the last two decades. The income shares for the top 10 percent and top 1 percent have hardly changed over this period.

What has changed in a consistent manner with the Dutch violent crime rate is the percentage of population that is classified as "international migrant stock"

Read more: Blog: The Netherlands Falls Victim to Violent Crime

Immigration: EU migration is essential for a healthy economy, says CBI's John Cridland - by John Cridland

As a proud Bostonian, the change in my Lincolnshire home town over the past decade is striking. West Street is now interspersed with vibrant Polski skleps selling an array of Eastern European goods. And while it was unusual to hear so many languages spoken when I was a boy, Slav languages are now being taught in local schools.

I understand that immigration has social and cultural impacts that can’t be ignored. But as head of the UK’s biggest business group, I am concerned about where the debate on immigration is heading. I know business leaders share this unease.

Across the political spectrum, there is a mismatch between rhetoric and reality. Immigration has helped keep the wheels of this recovery turning by plugging skills shortages. This has led to more jobs for British people and driven growth. Without free movement of workers, the recovery would grind to a halt.

Our hospitals and care homes couldn’t function without overseas workers; building sites that we need to deliver more homes and big infrastructure projects, such as the roll-out of broadband, would also stall.

EU migration also has a positive impact on the UK’s fiscal position. Research from University College London shows that over the decade since 2001 EU migrants made a positive net contribution of £2,732 per person per year.

Businesses benefit too, with 63pc of CBI members saying free movement of labour has been beneficial. And that free movement cuts both ways: well over a million Britons live and work in the EU. Of course, there are concerns around immigration.

Note EU-Digest: Regardless what Eurosceptics and Nationalists, Ultra Conservatives are saying the EU needs more not less immigrants.

 Read more: EU migration is essential for a healthy economy, says CBI's John Cridland - Telegraph

Immigration: Cameron gets backing for action on EU immigration 'abuse'

British Prime Minister David Cameron announced Tuesday that he had reached an agreement with his German, Dutch and Swedish counterparts to tackle "abuse of free movement" in the European Union.

"We've agreed that we should work together to address the abuse of free movement," he said at a mini-summit on the European economy near Stockholm with Chancellor Angela Merkel and Prime Ministers Fredrik Reinfeldt and Mark Rutte.

"It is a right that people should be able to move across Europe to work but they should not be able to free ride on the back of welfare systems," he added

Read More: Cameron gets backing for action on EU immigration 'abuse' - Yahoo News

Switzerland votes a narrow 'yes' to cap EU immigration - and shoot themselves in the foot

Switzerland has voted 50.3 percent in favor of limiting annual migration from the EU, thus ending the policy of free movement within the bloc that was established in 2002.

Swiss voters narrowly decided that immigration quotas would be reintroduced, thereby overturning the free movement policy introduced in the European Union 12 years ago. Early results showed the country to be very divided in opinion over the 'Stop mass immigration’ initiative.

‘Stop mass immigration’ was introduced by the nationalist Swiss People's Party (SVP). Its goal is to introduce annual quotas on the number of foreign workers entering the country. The SVP currently has 54 seats in the Federal Assembly, and its vote share of 29% in the 2007 Federal Council election was the highest vote ever recorded for a single party in Switzerland. The SVP opposes governmental measures for environmental protection.. The Chaired by Toni Brunner, but spearheaded by Christoph Blocher. 

The SVP adheres to national conservatism, aiming at the preservation of Switzerland's political sovereignty and a conservative society. Furthermore, the party promotes the principle of individual responsibility and is skeptical toward any expansion of governmental services. This stance is most evident in the rejection of an accession of Switzerland to the European Union, the rejection of military involvement abroad, and the rejection of increases in government spending on social welfare and education.

The emphasis of the party's policies lie in foreign policy, immigration and homeland security policy as well as tax and social welfare policy. Among political opponents, the SVP has gained a reputation as a party that maintains a hard-line stance. Most memorable negative of the party is that it denied to condemn Fascism.

Final count: Yes 50.3%(1,463,954 votes) No 49.7%(1,444,438) Turnout: 56.5% 

The result will likely vex multinational companies based there; Roche, Novartis, UBS, and other industry giants frequently utilize foreign labor.

According to the latest data, 23 percent of the country’s eight million inhabitants are foreigners – the second largest proportion in Europe after Luxembourg.

Many fear the initiative would have a negative impact on the economy, which relies on foreign workers for progress and a competitive edge.

Italians and Germans reportedly comprise the largest contingent of immigrants to Switzerland, most of whom seek work in IT, healthcare, and financial sectors.

Severin Schwan, Austrian CEO of Roche Pharmaceuticals, said about half of the employees at the research and development site in Basel, Switzerland are foreigners.

EU-Digest

EU Immigration Policies: Immigrants Benefit Host Nations' Economies, so Why Is Public Perception Negative? - by Anna Leijonhufvud

Immigrants seeking democracy and better life benefit economy

Almira is one of many millions of immigrants who every year cross borders in search of a better life. A year ago, she left her home village in Croatia to find work in Helsingborg, Sweden, and today she's gone to Arbetsförmedlingen, a Swedish public employment agency, to find a job. "I worked as a cleaner for a hotel, but the work is tiresome," she said. "I would want to work as a receptionist, but I don't think my Swedish is good enough yet."

Immigrants like Almira are often seen as having a negative impact on the host country, such as when they allegedly take jobs from the native-born. But as anti-immigration views have gained traction--even in government  policy in some cases, as in the U.K.--an increasingly large body of work suggests that assumptions that immigrants are harmful to a country's economy are unfounded.

"There is overwhelming evidence that migrants have a positive impact on the economy," said Peter Sutherland, the U.N. secretary-general's special representative for migration and development. Sutherland was on the panel for the World Economic Forum's Open Forum session titled "Immigration: Welcome or Not?"

Also on the panel was former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who agreed with Sutherland that immigrants often bring lots of advantages with them. To make his point, Annan referred to a poster showing Albert Einstein trying to cross the border into a country with a sack of clothes on his back. The caption read: "The sack of clothes is not the only thing that the immigrant brings."

While many of the leaders speaking at the WEF appear convinced, the evidence that immigrants have a positive effect on their host countries' economies has not yet had much impact on public perception.

Editors Note: The question is why European Governments are  not making sure they change this Public perception about the benefits of immigration ? Instead they are letting populist, nationalistic politicians like Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, Marie Le Pen in France and others in Europe control the debate.

EU-Digest