Dutch News, Sept. 22, 2009
There will be no new research into the cost of immigration in the short term, the Volkskrant reports on Tuesday.
Three motions aiming to force integration minister Eberhard van der Laan to carry out the research will be voted down in parliament later today, the paper says.
One motion from the Liberals (VVD) calling for an update of a 2003 report on immigration and the economy was thought to have a small chance of success. But Labour MPs have decided to vote against it as well, the paper says.
Van der Laan said earlier this month the cabinet had met its legal obligations on answering MPs questions. In July Geert Wilders’ anti-immigration party PVV asked a number of government ministers to calculate exactly how much non-western immigrants cost Dutch society.
Refugees
Meanwhile, former prime minister Ruud Lubbers says in an interview with the Nederlands Dagblad that the country needs to be more generous in admitting refugees and highly-skilled migrants. ‘Foreign workers are needed to combat the effect of the aging population, Lubbers said.
‘We need unorthodox policies. Instead of saying ‘no unless’ we should be saying ‘yes, as long’ when we are talking about letting in foreigners,’ Lubbers, the former UN high commissioner on refugees said.
The Netherlands is placing too much emphasis on getting rid of people, he said. ‘Our refugee policy is characterised by its restrictive nature and inefficient implementation. We are wasting a lot of talent,’ he told the paper.
Original article
(Posted on September 23, 2009)
Comments
Head in sand approach to managing a country! We all know that any unbiased study would show that not only are the immigrants a drain on the host nations resources, so are their descendants (in perpetuity). So western governments avoid reality by simply ignoring the facts. Eventually, all western (aka white) countries’ citizens will pay a hefty price for the ignorance of our leaders.
It’s so easy to be a high government official promoting increases in immigration. You can claim to be on the moral high-ground. You can talk about the future interests of the nation; that makes you a statesman. You can talk about economic benefits using fancy technical language. The bad side-effects won’t harm you or your family but other people instead. You can buddy up with similarly positioned officials from other countries. You’ve got the liberal media and professoriat on your side. Any critics have mostly been marginalized. If the common people disagree - well they need educating and over time that problem will die out anyway. It’s all so easy - life is good.
Aging population, indeed! Dutch people have been leaving The Netherlands because of its anti-native policies for decades. I know some of them. The same goes for England.
Discussing “the cost of immigration” is important. But even so, it only tiptoes around the edges of the problem. It is not THE problem. It doesn’t even begin to address what immigration does to a country racially. Of course, with doctrinaire left-wingers THAT topic is totally outside the realm of discussion!
Personally, I don’t care if the immigration of alien races could be shown to be wonderfully productive and profitable. It is still destructive RACIALLY, and therefore I am against it.
Holland is falling apart rapidly. Now they have probably 4 or even 5 civil servants that retired at 52 for every working member of the next generation to support. The moroccans have the welfare system gamed so even if they are actually working they are still collecting benefits. Something is going to cave in very, very soon. Wilders and VVD will get elected try to do changes, fail against still resistance and the Socialists will be back to finish the destruction in the next election.
That’s the way to deal with a problem that affects you, your family, your neighbors, your society, your country, and future generations: just stick your head in the sand like an ostrage and pretend everything’s fine.
Oh Holland.. once at the pinnacle of a Golden Age in which Dutch trade, science, and art were among the most acclaimed in the world.
Now known for its social tolerance and liberal policies toward drugs, prostitution, homosexuality, euthanasia, abortion, and immigration.
The Netherlands was 100% White until at least the end of WW2. It was also a decent country. I wonder what it was that made them take such a wrong turn?
7 — Anonymous wrote at 6:02 PM on September 24:
“The Netherlands was 100% White until at least the end of WW2. It was also a decent country. I wonder what it was that made them take such a wrong turn?”
I spent some time living with Dutch friends in The Netherlands in 1997. I asked them this very question. What they told me was that after the war, the male population was so reduced (all over Europe) that foreigners, Turks, Morrocans, and even blacks from Africa had to be brought in to rebuild. The rebuilding took years. By then, most of the non-European workers had familes, some intermarried with Dutch women, and it became difficult to send them home as they had no real home personally, except for Holland. So they stayed. The other contributing factor was that because of the devastation and the starving condition of the Dutch, social programs had to be put into place in order to feed, clothe, and otherwise get the Dutch back into a “normal” life quick. The Netherlands prospered as the Continent’s largest Northern port. The wealth made them generous, but by the time I was visiting, many resented the habit of Morrocans (mostly) to come there, get a job and then get fired and landed into a social program wherein they could live pretty well as long as they remained in The Netherlands.
It is really sad to see old docmentaries of The Netherlands just before or even after WW2. Compared to today, it was a different place altogether and 90% of the people were blondes.
We can rant about the non-Whites, and with cause, but over-all, this is the fault of the incessant European civil wars, who main cause has been religion and specifically Christianity at war with itself. I could give endless examples of why this is true, but let it suffice to remind ourselves that when the Bosnian Serbs rose up and drove out the Ottoman Turks in 1887, they looked with hope to the Catholic Hapsburgs for support as fellow Christians. But by then, the Austrian ruling house feared the Serbs would become too powerful and troublesome in the south, so they formed an alliance with their enemy of four hundred years, the Ottoman Turks, and sent troops to suppress the Bosnian Serbs. The shock and resentment was tremendous and bitter. This led to the rise of a secret society bent on revenge against the Hapsburgs called The Black Hand. And so member Gravilo Princip shot the Archduke Ferdinand in Serajevo and began the chain reaction that resulted in two world wars that devastated Europe and opened the door to population replacement.
We must strive, above all else, to understand our own selves well enough to not allow such things as religion and useless sub-cultural resentments stand in the way of our collective survival. To an extend, we must unlearn some bad habits of our own. And if that is socialism, then I am for socialism.
