2004 January 20 Tuesday
Imported Spouses Preventing Assimilation Of Dutch Muslims

Multiculturalism has failed in oh so tolerant Holland.

Holland's 30-year experiment in trying to create a tolerant, multicultural society has failed and led to ethnic ghettos and sink schools, according to an official parliamentary report.

If multiculturalism can't succeed in the Netherlands it seems doubtful it can succeed anywhere else.

Between 70 and 80 per cent of Dutch-born members of immigrant families import their spouse from their "home" country, mostly Turkey or Morocco, perpetuating a fast-growing Muslim subculture in large cities.

This calls out for an obvious response: ban the importation of Muslim spouses.

The children of immigrants have been encouraged to learn Arabic, Berber, or Turkish in elementary schools rather than Dutch. The mind reels at the possible rationalization for this policy. Were all these immigrants being trained to be able to speak their parent's language so that they could all return home some day? Probably not. Maybe, in decadent modern Western fashion, Dutch was seen as the language of white European oppressors and not sufficiently natively authentic? Sound like an absurd explanation? What explanation wouldn't be absurd?

The report recommends government housing subsidies for Muslims to move out into the white Dutch suburbs. If the government goes through with this proposal then the costs of immigration are about to go up even higher for the Dutch. They'll have to pay more for immigrant housing and put themselves at greater risk of being victimized by groups that commit crime at higher rates.

The reason the Dutch are fleeing the cities to the suburbs is in part to get away from immigrant caused crime.

But city leaders estimate that Rotterdam receives 60 percent of all new immigrants to the Netherlands, and that it simply cannot cope with the housing expenses and other social-welfare costs of absorbing more. Meanwhile, city leaders say middle-class Dutch residents are leaving the city because of rising crime rates and deteriorating neighborhoods. While crime records are not kept according to ethnicity, Dutch police and government officials have publicly linked a rise in crime to immigrants, particularly youth gangs.

Recent surveys show that 62 percent of Rotterdam residents support limiting immigration. The city's non-European population has risen over the past decade, in part because of the arrival of spouses from the old country - and robust birth rates. A recent government study in Rotterdam showed that the average birth rate for Moroccan women is nearly four times that of the Dutch rate of just over one child.

The Dutch are not going to be able to escape from their immigration problems. The immigrants are breeding more rapidly and the Dutch government may bring the crime problem to the suburbs.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2004 January 20 11:47 AM  Immigration Culture Clash

James Jones said at January 20, 2004 1:33 PM:

How very sad! The Netherlands was a wonderful country to visit in the 1980s. The Dutch people were very friendly and the cities and the countryside were beautiful. On the professional side, the Dutch Army was very pro-American and joint exercises were a lot of fun.

There was some anti-immigrant sentiment at the time, mostly anti-Turkish in my friends and acquaintances, but most of that was driven by the very generous welfare benefits that were paid to any immigrant or any refugee/asylum seeker. The Dutch were (are) an easy-going bunch in many ways. However, they were (are) hard workers and it really irritated them that almost any foreigner could show up and claim full benefits within a few months after arriving in the country.

The situation appears to have gotten much worse. Do you see any politically viable way to reverse these trends?

Kim Fortuyn tried and he was assasinated. Has his movement dissolved?


Randall Parker said at January 20, 2004 1:57 PM:

James, I don't understand the political sentiments of the Dutch well enough to know what is possible there.

I believe Fortuyn's party has greatly shrunk in size.

Wes Ulm said at January 20, 2004 10:57 PM:

Does anyone know-- b/c I'm certainly not privy to the answer-- whether immigration laws in the West European countries with the highest per capita influxes (AFAIK Britain, France, the Netherlands, Denmark) parallel US immigration policy in promoting the family preference/chain migration idea? I remember from a history class a while ago some comment that the Hart-Celler immigration act of 1965 in the US (which removed the National Origins Quotas of the 1920s) had "one of the most far-reaching impacts of any legislation." I then recall reading the text of the law, and the reason for its outsize effects is the *extended family* provision which allows not only spouses and children but brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and grandparents (either directly or indirectly) of a prior immigrant to eventually be admitted, i.e. chain migration. Hart-Celler actually restricted Latin American immigration initially (with that Western Hemisphere ceiling-- 120,000 total immigrants or so), but the full force of the chain migration provision was eventually realized with the 1986 IRCA amnesty during the Reagan Administration and the 1990 Bush immigration law that dramatically raised the ceiling (approx. 1,000,000 or so legally admitted each year IIRC). The 1965 language is probably going to be amplified once again with the Bush II amnesty.

At any rate, the reason I pose the question is that these policies have engendered a wholesale demographic shift in the US Southwest, but the consequences would be even more momentous in European countries which have (a) a smaller baseline population and (b) a preponderance of Muslim immigrants owing to these countries’ colonial histories. For historical, linguistic, and cultural reasons, emigrants from those former colonial domains tend to stream into the borders of their former rulers and Mandate admistrators. The French, Brits, and Dutch at least all had former colonies in nations with large Muslim populations—either majorities or significant minorities (or pluralities). The French with their colonial swath all throughout North Africa on the Mediterranean, as well as Niger, Chad, Mauritania, Senegal, Mali, Guinea, Cote d’Ivoire, Burkina Faso, and Djibouti, not to mention Lebanon and Syria. The British in Nigeria, Egypt, Sudan, Somalia, Ghana, Tanzania, Uganda, Malawi, Gambia, Maldives, Jordan, Iraq, Yemen, Qatar, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Brunei, and Malaysia. The Dutch in Indonesia, of course. (Interestingly, in Africa at least, the Europeans were able to introduce Christianity where only animist or indigenous beliefs had been present before, but were far less able to this when Islam—another monotheistic faith—had already taken hold. The French and British both had globe-straddling empires during their imperial zenith in the 1800s, but for whatever reason they seemed to wind up planting their standard disproportionately in Muslim lands.) Based on youth structure, urbanization, and industrialization patterns, most of these nations will be exporting people into the foreseeable future, and preponderantly to Britain, France, and the Netherlands (as well as to Australia and New Zealand, in the case of Indonesia and Malaysia).

If these three Western European countries have a chain migration provision in their immigration statutes, it seems almost inevitable that they’ll soon have Muslim populations near 20-25% (a “critical mass” where political power coalesces at the national level) and possibly even Muslim majorities not too long after that. This would probably be the most fundamental historical turning point for Europe since the Battle of Tours/Poitiers in 732 or the Spanish Reconquista. The Age of Exploration, Renaissance, Reformation, Thirty Years’ War, Industrial Revolution, Napoleonic Wars, the rise of Communism, and the two World Wars had great impacts but still didn’t change the basic cultural and linguistic map of Europe that had taken shape all the way back in the days of the Roman Empire. The current trends, if they continue, could potentially do just that.

Mastering the Chinese and Japanese script-- a guide for the perplexed

The Spanish Armada Sets Sail Into the Waters of Historical Confusion: Oft-retold myths, allegations, and things left unsaid about history’s most confused and misunderstood battle

Farm animals and the Certified Humane label-- subsidizing Humane Treatment in the grocery store aisle

AMac said at January 21, 2004 7:22 AM:

Re. a minor point raised by Wes Ulm (10:57pm)--The relative success of Islam in attracting Christian converts may have deep historical roots. The Prophet lived (~571-632), and founded his religion, in the animist-dominated backwaters of Arabia. Islam burst on the world-historical scene shortly after Muhammed's death, and its adherents conquered territory and populations on a staggering scale over the next century. These newly-Islamic lands included large parts of what is now Iraq, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Palestine, Israel, Turkey, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, and Spain.

Modern people identify these countries (save Israel and Spain) as integral parts of the Islamic homeland. But the Islam imported by the conquerers was superimposed on the pre-existing religions of those regions' inhabitants. For Persia, that meant Zoroastrianism, but for most of the conquests, most people were adherents of one sect or another of Christianity. Anatolia, the Levant and North Africa were not outliers, but key parts of the Christian heartland.

For Islam to become a force of world-historical proportions, it had to successfully get people to give up their Christian faith and commit to Muhammed's. Otherwise, the ninth and following centuries would have seen solidly-Christian countries ruled by a small number of Muslims, akin perhaps to England after the Norman conquest.

Christianity's survival in those times depended on the remaining Christian world's development of means for resisting foreign ideology and military technology, rather than on finding a way to promote Islamic-to-Christian conversions.

Is the ParaPundit post on the Islamicization of the Netherlands a modern echo of this distant theme?

(BTW, I make no claims to originality here, but don't recall where I read this idea.)

Wes Ulm said at January 21, 2004 2:29 PM:

That's an excellent point, AMac. Shortly after Muhammad first unified the Arab tribes and founded the Muslim state in southern Arabia, Umar ibn al-Khattab's Muslim conquering armies exploded out of the Arabian desert, and it was into the almost uniformly *Christian* Byzantine empire into which they spread and extended their rule to the north and west. And so you're right, the people in this region traded one monotheistic creed for another on a continent-wide scale when they converted to Islam. Some salient points on this (the Cambridge History of Islam is a useful reference for the background): (1) many Christians in the Byzantine lands had become embittered following the Monophysite controversy and frustration at Emperor Justinian's expedient shifts in doctrine (which he undertook in his efforts to reconquer North Africa and Italy in the 500s from the Germanic tribes-- he needed an alliance with the papal authorities). This may explain why so many of them, even though they fought the Muslim invaders, nonetheless were more easily reconciled with the Muslim religion that might have been expected. (2) The lands of Syria, Lebanon, and North Africa retained Christian majorities or pluralities for many centuries following the conquests of Umar and his successors before the majority of the population began to identify with the Islamic faith. This was in part b/c of the relative tolerance of the rulers (at least in some of the regions) but also b/c of a quirky system used to gain revenue in the areas. Namely, the Muslim rulers declared adherents of "scriptural faiths" (chiefly Christianity and Judaism) to be "People of the Book" endowed with a special degree of respect. (Although, for pragmatic reasons, this description was also allowed for Zoroastrianism in Persia and Hinduism in India when Muslim rule took root in those regions.) The People of the Book weren't persecuted, *but* they were charged a surtax. The surtax wasn't too exorbitant but it was collected across a broad geographical base, and ironically, the Islamic states (whose unity was at best erratic) actually benefitted economically from *not* having the population convert en masse to Islam. Religious toleration was practically advantageous since it would avoid fomenting political unrest and dissatisfaction, but in the Muslim lands there was the additional benefit of the financial windfall gained from the surtax defrayed from Christian and Jewish citizens of the territories. Thus the Muslim conversion did occur, though it was quite gradual.

FWIW the most remarkable spread of Islam following the 7th century occurred in sub-Saharan Africa and (especially) in South and East Asia, the latter predominantly in Hindu lands, where a similar phenomenon of gradual conversion seems to have occurred. For any history buffs out there, the whole course of world history (and the cultural make-up of Asia) would have been radically changed by a different outcome in the Battle of Talas in 751, in which an Arab army confronted Chinese T'ang dynasty troops in Central Asia, where the Chinese were hoping to expand. I sometimes consider this to be the single most important battle in history, because it (1) enabled and facilitated the spread of Chinese papermaking technology westward (making paper was extremely high-tech for the time and there wasn't a good substitute for the Chinese stuff; probably no Renaissance, no Gutenberg printing press without that), and (2) enabled the Islamic faith to take root in Central, South, and East Asia. The Chinese were thwarted in their westward expansion for over a thousand years, though eventually under Qian Long and the early Manchus from the 18th century onward, they were finally able to extend their domain widely into Central Asia again. But had the Arabs been defeated by the Chinese in 751, it's doubtful they'd have ever been able to spread further east to any significant extent; they had unusually strong military and political cohesion as well as a lot of momentum (they'd suffer political fragmentation and internecine warfare shortly after Talas), and a Chinese victory at Talas would have probably resulted in the Muslim eastward advance being nipped in the bud; Islam would be a much smaller, more regional (Arab and Persian territory) phenomenon today. But after Talas, the door was opened to move into the Indian subcontinent (including present-day Pakistan and Bangladesh), and for the Muslim merchants to in turn disseminate the faith into Malaysia, the Philippines, and Indonesia, the last in this group being the most populous Muslim country in the world. Talas isn't covered too much (if at all) in most world history texts, but I can't think of another battle (outside of maybe Badr, which-- if the pagan Meccans had won against Muhammad-- would have shut down Islam before it had even progressed outside Medina) that has resulted in such tremendous consequences.

Mastering the Chinese and Japanese script-- a guide for the perplexed

The Spanish Armada Sets Sail Into the Waters of Historical Confusion: Oft-retold myths, allegations, and things left unsaid about history’s most confused and misunderstood battle

Farm animals and the Certified Humane label-- subsidizing Humane Treatment in the grocery store aisle

don van sickle said at May 7, 2004 1:52 PM:

The Dutch are left with few options if their culture snd society are to survive.
The realization that Holland is being invaded is a first step.As with any invasion,
the longer the society is in denial, the sooner the invasion will reach the "tipping"
point.This is when the "Guests" become the "Hosts" and will soon become the masters.
The invaders are Mohammedian. That is, they are the followers of the Arab Merchant/philosopher Mohammed. Regardles of the sect,"Sunni" or "Shi'ite" or "Muslim"
or "Islamic" all are Mohammedian.This is a philosophy which advocates perpetual religious war as a political,social and cultural tool. Similar to Marx and the National
Socialists,with a quisi-religious component.The Dutch should protect themselves by passing laws which recognize the aggressive,violent and toxic effect this philosophy will have on Dutch society and outlaw Mohammedism, close all Mosques, and register the
Mohammedians in the country and put a moritorium on immigration. Harsh,but if the Dutch
have any hope of retaining a national identity, the invasion MUST be stopped. "Multicultureism" will see the Mohammedian laws of Shi'ria in the Hague in 30 years if dramatic steps are not taken.
The Dutch culture and society is far too important to let die with a whimper and the sword of Mohammed over its head.

don van sickle said at July 23, 2004 12:43 PM:

The parsing of Islam into the "Religious" and "Political" components is essential.
The strength of the Islamic belief system is the integration of political and the religious into an Einsteinian "Unified belief theory". This is also the weakest point.
We have every right and even obligation to examine the political agenda of Islam and of the political operatives,Muslims. Muslims have every right to observe the religious
aspects, namely prayer and giving to the poor. All other activities should be seen as an
effort to advance a political agenda. It is this "Gordian knot" which gives pause in how to deal with a political philosophy that calls itself a religion, or a religion that calls itself political. The Western world is well advised to get a handle on this
dicotomy. The Islamics have been having it both ways since Mohammed. That must end.now.

Brian P.T.N. said at September 1, 2004 9:08 PM:

Dude, Holland was never really tolerant. Holland was indulgent, indifferent. As long they weren't bothered, you could do what you wanted. The tolerance came from history, in the Netherlands, people tolerated each other's religions but were strictly segregrated along religious lines. There was a catholic paper, a protestant one (actually two flavours) a non religious and a socialist paper. Until the WWII, this applied to most everything, even the butcher and the bakery.

R.Rob said at December 20, 2004 11:21 AM:

I am so sorry for the Dutch, because you let the immagrants in earlier out of good will, they will now ruin your country.
Look what happened to other wealthy countries in this world. Hard working good people of the world are having less children, while the uneducated, unskilled , tax takers are having children by the loads because they know that welfare will pick up the bill. Immagration needs to cease and the Dutch need to send back all illegals in order to save their country.

Hurry do not wait.

J D said at July 14, 2005 8:50 PM:

Can we imagine? The Netherlands a Muslim state in 75 years. The only way around this are tough, and yes, brutal laws and policies. Deportation of one-half million Muslims or more is required. Civil war may be at hand in our lifetime unless the Dutch act now. I only wish the US where I live had the guts to consider some of the laws being considered in the Dutch society now.

I do think the Dutch should declare a "cold war" against Islam. Deport those that have entered with force if necessary. Brutal force if required.

This will not happen. Much more violence is near I fear. Mostly at the hands of Islamic terrorists.

a berkane said at December 5, 2005 3:10 AM:

After 1944 we all knom what hapened in europe allmost 20% of male population was killed ,that wasnt anythink to do with islam or muslims ,so to rebuild the economical europe we needed man power .so thats how it started we only needed mans of 3rd wold not there weman or children ,how novel of us .now we dont need them because islam is threat to us all ,the fact that we too hepocritical of this situation .only because our economie is better of than 1940's .

sum european guy.. said at February 16, 2007 11:01 PM:

Hi, so what if Islam did invade Holland & Britain & France & Europe..!!? after all, how on earth is Christianity or Catholisism any more western European than Islam???? it couldn't possibly 'invade' anyway, the tremendous cultural hatred of most Europeans towards Islam has such a powerfull underbelly. I know plenty of Muslims & they don't disturb me.. IT'S TRUE, most of them do claim benefits, but how can you blaim them when their chances of being employed are less than halfed?!! (why employ an arab who probably thieves when you can employ a law abiding white person!!)..the other day I saw 2 arab guys get rounded up by about 5 police officers (& for doing absolutely nothing??!) & believe me, they didn't treat them anywhere near the way they would have treated your average white person, or it would have been seen as an outrage!!

Peace 2 everyone, regardless of ur faith or race or social class.. remember, you're not related to someone because you are the same 'race' as them (or drink as much beer), you are related to them by thinkin the same as them.

Post a comment
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
Remember info?

Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©