4 comments

Comment from: brett [Visitor] · http://brettmaxwell.com
Thanks for this post. It's easy to focus on lost jobs and damage to the economy (especially as someone from California), but the fact is that jobs aren't lost, they're being taken by someone less fortunate, and the economy may be damaged for "us", but it's remarkably better for "them". It's such an entitlement attitude that somehow I deserve "my" economy and job to be protected just because I was born here.

I have my ideas of a happy medium (easier legal immigration with enforced taxation), but even aside from a solution, isn't this just a way the fortunate can serve the unfortunate?

I would like to see a sincere effort to learn the language though, so that's awesome you've learned Dutch.
03 May 2007 @ 18:22
Comment from: Michael [Visitor]
Applaus! Dit verhaal geeft precies de moeilijkheid van het probleem weer: op individueel niveau en als je mensen in zo'n situatie kent is het heel anders dan wanneer je over het grote geheel en 'de immigranten' en 'de asielzoekers' praat.
Ik hoop voor je dat steeds meer mensen jou (en je familie) ook als 'individu' leren kennen en niet als 'buitenlander' of 'Amerikaan' blijven zien.
03 May 2007 @ 22:30
A question: is there a danger in lax immigration law? I just read a book by an atheist (so I am not saying this in a Christian fundamentalist way) and he said that the influx of Muslim immigration in Europe is so severe that in 25 years, France will be a Muslim-majority nation. He points to this with fear: that a formerly "atheistic" nation is now being populated with those who (he claims, multiply at 3 times the rate of their non-religious counterparts; and...) hold to a violent, eternally-driven conviction and are eradicating a more "live and let live" mentality, all because the "let-live's" don't want to seem intolerant.

Now he would say that it would be just as bed if Christians were taking over, but he seems to think it's a bad idea to allow the rapid spread of Islam in Europe. He seems to fear a coming cultural clash; and with "The Middle East" no longer just in the the Middle East, the whole world could get a lot more volatile.

Thoughts?
06 May 2007 @ 02:40
Comment from: ericasp [Member] Email
Good point, Jay. I'm definitely not saying that immigrants pose no "threat" to the social dynamic of the countries into which they assimilate... But with the issue of Muslims in Europe, I would say that the "damage" is already done from immigration policies 30 years ago -- and attempts to curb incoming immigration are only surface solutions to grasp at the straws that are left. It seems to me that even if the borders were sealed air-tight with no new immigrants being allowed in, the birth rate figures that you mentioned would already do the job of pushing toward a Muslim majority. I've heard that in Amsterdam, the most popular boys' name among newborns in the city is Mohammed... and the second-most popular boys' name is Muhammed. Seriously.

Personally, I think the clash between East and West (Islam versus Christianity, China/Iran/North Korea versus USA/NATO/EU) is more or less inevitable. Even if the West could "ship 'em all back" and reverse the last half-century of immigration patterns, it would still seem that we are set on a collision course, for better or for worse. Reactionary immigration policies and mounting tensions and negative attitudes toward "foreigners" does not seem, to me, to be the solution for our current set of problems.

As a final note, my observation is that the issues between "Muslims" and "Christians" are not so much an issue of religious incongruency but of cultural differences. Most of the Morroccans and Turks that I know in Amsterdam are basically secular Muslims; they wear the head coverings and dress the way they do not so much because of religious convictions but because it's a part of their cultural identity. I wonder if it's actually not all that dissimiliar to American attitudes toward Irish and Italian immigrants in the 19th Century -- with city officials on the East Coast worried about the influence of the Pope in their municipal government. Something to think about, at any rate...

My main point in this post, though, is to point to the person-to-person level of interaction and not so much to the governmental policy level. Hopefully, we can all keep this in mind even in the midst of making our most fervant arguments for a particular position.
06 May 2007 @ 08:30

Leave a comment


Your email address will not be revealed on this site.

Your URL will be displayed.
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Name, email & website)
(Allow users to contact you through a message form (your email will not be revealed.)