Why does the Netherlands not realise that the continued capture of asylum seekers breaks down the welfare state?

In General, you can see that persons with a left-normative pattern tend to adapt the reality to that pattern of values (the feasibility of society and even of the human body, see gender debate).In doing so, one loses realities like the nature of man (opportunistic, striving for power) and economic reality quite often. And I know what I’m talking about because I used to be very left. I am still, I think, but I sometimes do not understand that what is now called links is doing,

A counter-question is in place here: Why does the Netherlands think that a fantastic and prosperous country like the Netherlands cannot absorb a reasonable influx of asylum seekers.

There is a crippling fear trapped in the right that changes-which have always occurred and often enough much bigger than now-make everything worse.

But it is an A-typical attitude for a country that has been growing in every conceivable way for more than five hundred years.And we realise that growth by discovering opportunities and seizing them.

Take the relocation of the low-grade industry to low-wage countries.It would be a disaster-but now that we do not make textiles, we have our hands free for high-quality industry and as a make-economy we are five times as large as forty years ago-and we deserve to make more with boats than when the RDM and the NDSM still existed.

And also the energy transition is mainly a development with opportunities.Whatever you think of the climate, we are going to take advantage of this very fat.

Back to those asylum seekers: if we put them to work quickly and do not commit to stay on their hands, they can start contributing because we need all hands on deck.A lot of other problems disappear by themselves.

But anyway: with discards we’re not going to save it.So right the Netherlands, keep up with huiliehuilie about anything and everything.

The question cites a years old view of the activist journalist Wierd Duk.Furthermore, a few more things are suggested. That is, that the left is a single block that is the same, that asylum seekers are all going to make use of benefits and that the numbers are so large that the welfare state as a whole, with the tens of billions involved in it, is under pressure .

Now there is a lot to say to discourage population growth in our pretty full country.Not so much because of the welfare state but simply because it is full in large parts of the Randstad. Getting (many) children and immigration, both from guest workers and expats, contributes to population growth. A contraction would be better.

Wierd Duk has little to do with population growth as long as the new citizens are only white and Christian/humanistic.Asylum seekers usually have a tan and are often Muslim. It is not so much the pressure on the welfare state but the fear that colored people said to us 芒 鈧?艙homeopathic thinnen芒 鈧?like a politician who stands in terms of Ideas close to Duk. In addition, they actually find all 芒 鈧?艙kartel芒 鈧?parties left.

Because they do not have the secret agenda of the VVD. Soon, if there is another economic crisis, the high number of benefit tractors among these “newcomers”, combined with the number of people of indigenous origin dependent on a benefit, is used as a pretext to cut back on Benefits and other expenditure in the collective sector.

This pattern will return again and again; Most people do not seem to have this through.Every time there are parties (PvDA, D ‘ 66, CDA) who want to implement this neo-liberal agenda, until the soil is reached and there is no longer a social welfare state. Exactly what the VVD wants.

Take the latest crises now.The euro was kept afloat by draconian cuts in the collective sector for countries that could never have been part of the euro-Z么ne. The cuts in the collective sector were also legitimised by the fact that the beacon had to be kept upright. When it went well with the economy, the citizen has not benefited from this; All the advantages were transferred directly to the multinational business community, which, moreover, did not leave itself to the customs officers that the Dutch government gave them. The biggest multinationals that are not already in the Netherlands are paying no or hardly any profit tax. If they did, the public sector that has now completely broken down could benefit from this. What is being given to the citizen at a time of economic prosperity: reduced pensions, even longer work and a labour law with even more uncertainty, entirely appropriate in the neo-liberal agenda of the breakdown of rights for ordinary citizens.

And so it is with the welfare state as well. The high number of assistance payments in a new crisis will soon be used again as an argument to cut back “sharply”, until it is completely gone.Unemployment, sickness, disability, etc. are then entirely borne by the citizen: ‘ own responsibility ‘. When do people see that this unscrupulous VVD ideology leads to nothing, and how long are they willing to believe Rutte’s lying talk? I’m afraid it’s ergste芒 鈧?娄…

Delicious, so鈩?N drama article.That gentleman has calculated it all and what it turns out: it cannot. Because, eg: 芒 鈧?艙those asylum seekers are in the bijstand芒 鈧? Genius! Only: Not the wish of asylum seekers but: policy in the Netherlands. Asylum seekers want to work, but they should not.

But here the monkey is out of the sleeve, literally it says: 芒 鈧?艙We have to introduce very limited refugees: for example, only Christians… 芒 鈧?correct.It really stands. He says it aloud. And does not understand that he is now seen as a failed man. The rest can stretch. That has 芒 鈧?虄ie calculated.

Your speaking time is over Sir.

Funny, the so-called Golden Age is based on immigrants and asylum seekers.The dismantling of the welfare state is caused by tax evasion.

Why does the Netherlands do not understand that the large influx of asylum seekers is a direct result of decades of bad foreign policy, largely set up (but not only by) right?

What gives refugees the right to rely on the Dutch infrastructure?

What gives refugees the right to call for long-term care during the conflict, even if it is reasonably clear that a conflict has come to an end?

What gives refugees the right to receive shelter in the Netherlands, rather than the refugee camps that have been set up abroad?

The simple answer is empathy, we don’t like it when people die of conflict and we want the best for everyone.Not everyone, but the majority of the left-wing politics.

It is clear that it is not good to conceive refugees.Firstly, we must integrate these people into our societies, which takes time and money. For this, for example, we need to build more houses, which again gives riot in local politics. The question is, is it smart to bring a large group of people or a medium-sized group of people into our country, without having to impose stringent requirements on integration (a test is not a strict requirement). The answer is that it causes tensions in society, because they do not want to adapt if this is not necessary. One lives together, because one wants to live near family. Further segregation.

Unfortunately, we cannot impose strict requirements, because that is against the Constitution. We cannot, for a very good reason, decide how our neighbours should behave.Although we want to make sure that the people who come here are adapting to Dutch society. These values do not correspond at all, because this is against the equality of the individual. Why do I have other rights as a refugee, than someone who lives in the Netherlands for a lifetime. That gives a number of options:

  1. Restrict the rights of the foreign individual, so that migrants (even after they have Dutch citizenship) must prove that they are “sufficiently” integrated into society.
  2. The number of individuals coming to the Netherlands, with all the EU diplomacy that causes it.

Countries such as Italy and Greece have a lot more refugees per capita than countries like the Netherlands that they like to see divided over Europe.

  • Compulsory reception in the region, such as shelter camps in Turkey and Libya, where refugees should be accommodated and, if necessary, expelled to their homeland where possible. This option also costs money and moves the problem with refugees with the idea, if they do not enter our country, they can also not rely on the rights that we have.
  • Distributing refugees across Europe, a European solution.
  • That is very difficult diplomatically, because countries like Poland prefer not to absorb additional refugees. In addition, this means that we will eventually get a larger group of refugees in our country.

  • Denying the problem, this is also a possibility, which means that none of the above options need to be chosen in a refugee crisis, this works well in the short term because there is no major diplomatic or constitutional Need to find changes instead.
  • If you’re going to look at politics, then you’ll see a breakdown.On the one hand not populist and on the other side populist, at which the populistic parties are more frequently for a combination of option 1 and 2 and are not populistic parties often for option 3, 4 and 5. Here you see a big difference between the populist and the not populist part of politics for that reason.

    Denying a problem is something that happened at the local level, politics denies that refugees can be problematic for the local environment, think, for example, of a village near a refugee camp, where the infrastructure continues under Pressure comes up.

    Option 3 is a reasonably good solution, because it ensures that fewer refugees come to our country without experiencing long-term problems.It should be said that option 3 is a solution other than option 2, where option 2 does not consider what happens to the refugees, whereas option 3 does not have to be considered, despite the fact that they are both from a less refugee point of view. In the Netherlands.

    The big difference is that the right one offers a solution at the local level, and that links try to offer an option at the international level.Where links in my opinion are too much focused on integration, because this is more diplomatic and of course because of empathy and where the solution of the right is not desirable because it does not take into account the lives of the immigrants and the situation of Neighbouring countries. So you saw that Pim Fortuyn was for the reception of refugees in the region, to ensure that fewer refugees came to the Netherlands. Where, as an anti-immigration party, he had a solution which took account of the refugees, but the real question remains?

    Why is there no normal anti-immigration politicians?

    I think it mainly has to do with a feeling.
    Inclusiveness is considered to be the most correct.
    Other people outside close is seen as wrong.
    I think it stops at the big masses there.They have no sense at all to deepen themselves. In addition, the feeling of scarcity is probably lacking. The Netherlands is seen as a rich country, where everyone is good.Compared to a third world country, we cannot complain. Our government is seen as an inexhaustible source of power.Denying people access to this inexhaustible resource is seen as immoral.

    That feeling of what is right and what is wrong is so strong that one does not want to hear anything else.At least, that’s my idea about it. Of course that can never be said with certainty, I cannot crawl into someone else’s head. Even if it were true, chances are that one would not dare to submit themselves to such a degree of introspection. Who knows what you all come across, isn’t it?

    The whole left hyper focus on green currents and the environment goes hand in hand with the sense of moral correctness.

    That’s what I think about the great mass.What about the elite?Surely they would not abstain from research and analysis?What is their motive?

    Also here, only guesswork.

    Is it a constant search for the way to win as many voters as possible?

    Is it a way to keep our current economy running for as long as possible?

    After the housing market crisis of 2008, We saw how governments were doing virtually everything to keep large banks and businesses afloat.Large companies and banks have invested substantial parts of their capital in real estate.A stagnant number of inhabitants in Western countries has as a result: declining real estate prices.

    Another possibility, which is most widely seized, would be to consciously work towards a fall of the state.So that a new, better world can be built up from ground zero.

    Who knows?

    During the previous economic crash, there has been no real recovery.The economy has been injected with cheap money to stimulate it. Interest rates at the Central European Bank have been at 0% for a number of years, lower cannot (without the risk of hyperinflation). This brings me back to the previously made point, the feeling of an inexhaustible source of power. That illusion comes to an end once. The question is then to whom the finger of blame will be pointed and how the mass then responds to it.

    Leave a Reply