Really do.I came to the Netherlands 20 years ago from another country, and while my Dutch is not perfect, I have done my best to integrate here. I lust still not a fries with, fricandel or salted drop, but I am a guest in this country, and I hear me to adapt this country, and not that the Dutchmen belong to me to adapt.
Yes.I think that newcomers must integrate, although I have difficulty with the word ‘ forced ‘ in the question. It must come naturally. If only to make their own life easier. The reason of a lot of racism or discrimination has “my group vs your Group” as the basis and you work it in the hand if you draw up completely as an outsider and do not bother to integrate or otherwise deepen your lives in the country in which you now live or And, where possible, to participate. With this, I do not want to say that racism and discrimination are not retarded and disgusting, I just want to say that once you integrate you are part of the group, with which you take the wind out of the sails of racist demagogues.
Learn the language, go to things like folk festivals oid and show interest in where you live now.When you look around you, you will automatically see that newcomers who actively draw up in society are accepted much quicker and easier than those who stay at home and do nothing outside their own comfort zone. We live together on one small planet, where we must join together. We must therefore make the best of it.
All this does not mean that you must deny your own culture, on the contrary.By using your active draw you can also introduce your own culture and convince people who were not normally convinced of the good of that culture. The knife cuts on two sides.
Compulsion is never good anyway.Integration is useful and often desirable but this should remain a free choice. The fact is that the non-integration does not have to be facilitated either. So no subsidies or benefits for those who by non-integrating their pants can not cease.
Most people generalize . Henk and Ingrid.
Recently had been to the GP.My GP was sick and I was helped by her colleague.
“Fortunately, you have no ear infection, Mrs. Kesselman”-she said. “You feel the pressure on your ears through the nasal colds and that will become less if you often use enough nasal spray.That’s just because Ramadan is over now.
“I’m just Jewish though!”-I said.
“Oh Sorry I didn’t know!”
Yeah right.Even though you do not know if someone is Jewish, Christian, atheist, Muslim, Hindu etc. Is. You see someone named Anna Kesselman and you automatically assume that she is joining Ramadan. Apparently because she has dark curls and accent. And they still mean it well even.
What I’m trying to say?Most Dutch, including the politicians, do not know about who they are talking about when you are talking about (compulsory) integration.
So about which group or groups do we have it?
- Status holders, so the asylum seekers recognised as refugees are granted refugee status.
Usually for three years. After that, the Netherlands actually wants them to pick up the piping once it’s slightly quieter in their country of origin. And if they stay ten years like Lily and Howick. Then it is for the umpteenth time an oops.
Yeah right. The Netherlands really wants to have expats. Expats get for the same work what Dutch people do as much as 30% net paid. Large employers such as Booking and ING even pay the costs of international schools. The Netherlands should therefore remain as attractive as possible for expats. We are as international as what.
By definition not Incivic. Europe is one. Otherwise, the whole idea behind EU is not correct.
This I find a very nice one. When we look into the term integration, we find the following: integration is the socialization process of acculturation where members of a non-dominant group mix with the dominant group, but in addition contact With the other members of their own group.There is therefore a high degree of both Cultural preservation and participation with the own group (Ingroup), as well as of participation with and adaptation to the other group (outgroup).Integration can only be a voluntary process of mutual accommodation. To this end, both groups must recognise the right that each group lives according to its own culture.To this end, the non-dominant group must accept the basic values of the dominant group, while the dominant group must adapt the national organisations to meet the needs of the non-dominant group.When there is unilateral adaptation this is called assimilation.So if I can follow this, for example, the 2nd and 3rd generation of Turkish and Moroccan Dutchmen are integrated and I am assimilated.
Integrating or not integrating as far as the Dutch partner permits. You may want to influence it as a country, but they depend entirely on the home situation. That last group can be done, although this group is very tough to influence. They have no allowance, no surcharges, no application obligation, nothing, nothing, nada. You are allowed to ask for naturalization, as reasonable to control the language and be capable of saving itself within the Dutch society. But if we are very honest, is this THE group that the Netherlands has the most trouble with if not integrated?
Conclusion: The whole integration discussion is not true. The real question is, what we are all struggling with.Crime among migrants? Tackle the crime. As severe and heavy as possible. Sexism? Wife-and LGBTQ-unfriendliness? Do just that. Tax evasion for long-term stays in the country of origin? Fix that just. Just practical and to the point, not dicks but brushing.
In my opinion, you cannot force anyone to integrate.I think it must be done a step earlier. People who would like to come to the Netherlands must first talk. A specialised official should, among other things, make an assessment of his or her ability to integrate. Some cultures are at odds with Western culture and then integrating is not feasible at all. If you find that the sharia, or the loyalty to your country of origin, determines how you are in life, then you are unfit to permanently settle in the Netherlands.
It seems to me that you should not leave such people alone, or only very temporarily.You must also ensure that refugee status is not a disguised way to immigrate to a richer country. In the end, you should only let people who make the country stronger. A country is not a shelter for pathetic cases. Immigrants who do not want or can integrate make the country weaker. They often end up in a subclass that leans heavily on benefits and social housing and that often goes through generations.
When thinking they say 芒 鈧?虄not integrating, but accepting. 芒 鈧劉 that is a recipe for social deprivation and societal misery.It is weird that people of the third generation still speak English, which makes it very difficult to succeed socially. Language mastery is the basis.
Yes and No.I myself am Dutch born of Dutch parents, so this may be a bit too “outsider” for some and too controversial.
What native Dutch often do not have is that many immigrant parents are not involved in integrating, but assimilating.Especially when it comes to relationship in which one parent is allochtone and the other autochtoon. I often see that non-Dutch habits are being put away as less or even indecent. For instance, the language cannot be spoken, some holidays are excluded and often repeated that you have to behave “as a Dutchman”. Therefore, many children receive from home the “we and they” principle. This is reinforced once you consider that the first words that teach indigenous parents are “I, you, he, they, it, the one, we, you, you.” For a child This is plain language: “If I am not like Dutchmen, but I must be as Dutchmen, then I am not a Dutchman.” Just the opposite effect of what we want to achieve in the Dutch. By assimilation people turn away. In addition, there is this “undiscovered” part, where people are logically looking for. In some cases, completely concluding the indigenous culture.
In the course of the years, fortunately much has changed in the Netherlands.This way we are more open to other languages and other cultures. For example, rescuers do not tell parents by default that it is good for the child to know one language and culture. There is room for the child to develop into a full-fledged person.
Incidentally, I do not want to say that all this is the fault of someone, this is probably just the remainder of policy (which at that time had the appearance to be the best).I therefore feel that the policy, as suggested by Mr Blair, has an opposite effect. By increasing the pressure on the immigrant population even higher, you get a we-against-side effect. Now I don’t want to say that you have to let the reins go completely. There must be balance between adequate assistance and self-commitment.
In addition, I find the article misleading.In short, the author of the article simplifies the title so that Blair has almost said that it is all the fault of the immigrant population. That’s good for the clicks on the article, but puts people in a huge way against each other. After all, alt-Right gets a stick to strike with: “If you would integrate better, then we have no reason to hate you.” On the other hand, you have the camp: “You do not accept us how hard we do our best.” This is of course very easy. “The government does nothing, you fight it all but nicely.” The author links two different problems (poor integration and right-wing radicalization) and pretending to link these two problems they both solve. Of course these two problems have a lot to do with each other and they certainly keep each other in mind, but in my view it is the task of the Government to prevent these problems and in part a task of the people themselves.
Incidentally, it might also be interesting to know that Blair is not left and not right. He has done a lot for the social safety net in Britain.He has spent a lot of budget on the minimum wage and devoted much attention to human rights.
“Over a significant period, including when we were in” the office “, politics failed to find the right balance between diversity and integration.”, Blair writes in the report.“On the other hand, the word multicultirealism has been misinterpreted in order to legiple the refusal to integrate, while it should never have been.”
“The government cannot and should not be neutral on this subject.The government must be a passionate advocate and, where necessary, a handoats of duty to integrate, while the government protects the space for diversity. “
So he certainly sees that there are two problems.I therefore strongly feel that he is not talking about how he wants to see the current society, but more about a failure of the government. How he has failed, how governments have failed after him. How they had the plan of a “multicultural” society and how this concept was drawn from the link.
A warning and focus for the future, not a bite-made solution.He warns that the government should not take a passive role, because that goes wrong. He warns of a delicate balance and warns of the importance of good integration. He mentions integration as necessary and a duty, but no obligation. In my opinion, this is something other than: “should migrants be forced to integrate into their new country?”
Yes.Integrating does not necessarily mean that you completely specify your old culture, but that you show a pleasant collaboration with and a piece of appreciation for your host country. You don’t just pick up anything, but you also bring something. You make choices. It’s best to keep your origins, but that’s not at the expense of the appreciation of your new home.
It is clear to migrants, not refugees.I do not find it unreasonable for you to set conditions for a residence permit.
The Netherlands already has many people who have a lot of trouble.It is therefore totally nonsense to allow even more people to enter the country that can never function independently, or do not commit to doing so.
Not every immigrant needs to have a rounded university penny, but some conditionnare not unreasonable.
Nederlanfs is indeed ladtig, but even in a country where almost everyone speaks English, a basic knowledge of the Dutch language is indispensable.
In any case, the history of after 1814. For example, many non-western miggrants still do not understand what impact WW2 has had on the Netherlands.
We do certain things in the Netherlands in a certain way. Freedom of crowds and religion, equal rights for women and for and LGHBT.
If migrants cannot or do not want to embed
- They lead a marginal existence at the bottom of the social ladder.
They will never stand alone and independently. They will be unhappy and frustrated because the 芒 鈧?艙rijkdom芒 鈧?of one of the richest countries in the world are completely unreachable for them.
They will have to share the social safety net with Mest people. The waiting lists for cheap social rental homes will be even longer, and the competition for unskilled vacancies is going to get even bigger. Even among these people you get frustration and misunderstanding.
We already see whole ethnic groups who have a kind of Parralelke world outside the Dutch Mastschapij with their own tangenootschspoen, own shops, own restaurants, own clubs, E. D. No.Why?
Such coercion creates a victim role.It generates a 芒 鈧?艙we-against-side 芒 鈧?feeling, and that always explodes in the face of those who impose it. All the time.
Just treat them as ordinary fellow men and they adapt themselves.
Look at it from your own point of view: Would you adapt if you are FORCED into a straightjacket that yours is not?Or would you like to adapt if you just treat yourself as a human being, with kindness and respect? If you find yourself just a 芒 鈧?艙inwoner芒 鈧? If you feel at home in the group?