Immigrant Minorities in the Netherlands

Migration has attracted scholars to understand it from different viewpoints. Various academic works explore different aspects of migration such as on ‘push and pull’ theories on the motives of immigrants, or on how the host country regarded them. In the case of European migration which followed the World War II, some scholars argued that the problem of migration originated from the economic inequality between the advanced countries and the less developed countries; where migrants from less developed countries in Southern Europe and European periphery occupied inferior place in labor market and weaker legal and political positions (Schmitter, 1984).

            As a consequent, the immigrants became minority groups within the host society. In responding to this issue, the government released various policies. To this, it must be noted that the Netherlands initially had introduced multicultural policies to promote tolerance of and respect for cultural difference (Vermeulen and Penninx, 2000). However, there are shifting from multicultural policies to what might be perceived as a coercive and assimilationist policy and public discourse (Vasta, 2007). This chapter will discuss that argument in terms of the dynamic of migration policy in the Netherlands.

 

The Dynamic of Immigration in the Netherlands

The Netherlands is a destination country for immigrants. In the early period after World War II, the first wave of immigrants came from its former colonies namely Indonesia, Suriname, and Antilleans and its neighbor European countries. Some of them even arrived to the Netherlands in pre-war period. Immigrants from Southern European that settled in the Netherlands over the centuries later occupied different social position in the Netherlands. Immigrants from Turkey and Morocco generally came in 1960s as ‘guest workers’. Recently the Netherlands is the destination country for large numbers of refugees and asylum seekers. Some of these asylum seekers came from the former of Soviet Union and former Yugoslavia, but the majority comes from outside of Europe.

Under the issue of globalization, national borders seem declining. The new inventions of transportation and communication have dismantled many traditional barriers among nations and states. Nowadays, peoples, goods, ideas, and images have become interconnected in everywhere. Peoples can flow and find their way all over the world, driven out of their country origin by suppression or in search of a better life (Breettell and Hollifield, 2000)

The Netherlands has an attractive sense for immigrants. With its performance economic development, the Netherlands attracted peoples from differences background. In 2004, around 1, 6 million non-Western migrants lived in the Netherlands. They arrived to the Netherlands into several phases. To some extent, the reason of their arrival can be explained by demand-supply thesis, only it is not enough. Each of three conditions namely decolonization, economical, and political, were push factors of three immigrant’s waves that came into the Netherlands. The first wave was the decolonization immigrants who mostly were Mollucans and Dutch-Indonesian. Later arrived Surinamese and Antilleans. The second wave of immigrants entered the Netherlands as ‘guest workers’, mainly originated from Turkey, Morocco, and Italia. In this phase, it occurred what is called ‘family reunifications’ namely immigrants who have stayed in the Netherlands that brought along their family from the country of origin. At the same time, there was economy crises caused by high oil prices in 1973 which is a turning point in terms of migration policy in the Netherlands. Since then migration problem became more complex and more linked to wider issues.

Recently, the Netherlands has become the destination country for asylum seekers and refugees. The reason of the third wave of immigrants is mostly political, such as war or conflict in their country of origin. The political immigrants or asylum seekers arrived in the Netherlands since mid-1980s. They came from either non-EU countries or EU countries. Asylum seekers and refugees issues emerged at the same time of the Europeanization agenda in terms of the European Union (EU). The EU migrants clearly have the more possibilities to move within the EU states than the others. The European approach towards the immigration and asylum issue eventually has been primarily directed towards reducing the numbers of asylum-seekers and illegal migrants and does not accordingly differ greatly from that of the member states such as the Netherlands (WWR, 2001).

 

Table 1. Immigration flows in the Netherlands by type of migration, 1999*

 

Type of Migration	Absolute	Percentage
Total Of Which: Dutch citizens EU citizens Labor migrants Antilleans Family reunification/formation Refugees/status-holders	119,000   32,000 18,000 20,816 9000 20,492 13,490	100%   27% 15% 18% 8% 17% 11%

 

* The table has been composed from various sources and does not therefore add up to 100%.

1 This category may however also include family reunification/formation migrants.

 Source: WWR (2001)

 

Table 2. Size and growth of non-Western population groups, 1990-2020

(In absolute figures x 1,000 and in percent)

 

	1990	2003	2020 (estimates)	Forecast percentage increase 2003-2020
Turkey	203	341	452	+33
Marocco	164	295	432	+46
Surinam	224	321	375	+17
Netherlands Antilles/Aruba	69	129	189	+47
Other non-Western countries	171	538	978	+82
Total non-Western migrants	831	1623	2425	+49
Of Whom 1st generation	562	1004	1303	+30
Of whom 2nd generation	269	619	1122	+81
%  of total population	8,3	9,7	14,1

Source: CBS 2003a and 2003b

 

 

Table 3. Number of members of ethnic minorities, 1971-1997 (x 1000)

	1971a	1975	1980	1985	1990b	1997
Turks	30	63	120	156	206	280
Moroccans	22	33	72	111	168	233
Southern-Europeansc	62	76	72	65	105	143
Surinamese	38	69	146	181	237	287
Antileans	18	19	36	47	81	95
Moluccansd	26	29	35	35	35	(38)
Third World and Eastern Europee	10	18	33	53	64	435
Ethnic minoritiesf	206	307	514	648	896	1,473
Persentage of population	1,6	2.3	3.7	4.5	6.0	9.4
Non-Dutchg	252	316	473h	559	642	680i
Persentage of population	1.9	2.3	3.4	3.9	4.3	4.3i

 

Source: SCP (1998) in Vermeulen dan Penninx, 2000

Key:

^a by nationality, except for Suriamese and Antilleans (by country of birth): 1997, 1975, 1980, and 1985

^b by country of birth of person or at least one of their parents: 1990 and 1997

^c including (former) Yugoslavians

^d estimates

^e in so far as not included in the categories above

^f sum of proceding categories

^g on the basis of nationality

^h according to the jaarwerk statistics on foreigners, however, the Statistisch Zakboek reported 521 for that year

ⁱ these figures are taken from Muus (1998: 67)

 

 

In the western society like the Netherlands, constructed opinions on foreigners from non western countries, in terms of colonizer-colonized relations like in the past, still persist.  In more traditional terms, there are categorizes refer to the relation between immigrants and the native population: acculturation, accommodation, adaptation, adjustment, assimilation, amalgamation, absorption, fusion and integration, which also served as the terms used. The above mentioned concepts entail different behavior on the part of the host and migrant cultures. Adaptation and adjustment have been often used in a one-sided way, indicating particular behavior of the migrants in order to be accepted in the host society. The term ‘assimilation’ is often used to describe the degree to which a migrant has became part of his new culture and has absorbed its norms and behavior patterns as his own (in Bagley, 1971)

The relation between immigrants and the native, in fact, is more complicated than a categorization. In this regard, Heeren (in Bagley, 1971) has identified the following factors which can influence what he calls the ‘fusion’ process: (1) the number and rate of entry of immigrants; (2) the immigration system and type of immigrants; (3) the composition of immigrants in terms of wealth, economic skills, and ethnic categories; (4) the territorial distribution of the immigrants; (5) the interaction of cultures of migrants and hosts. The dimensions of those aspects of migration, however, are different related to the disequilibrium between outlook and behavior of the host culture, and the migrant individual or group. According to Eisentadt (in Bagley, 1971), this can take several forms:

1. The migrant culture is generally apathetic to the chief values and symbols of the new society and not disposed to maintain any communication with the bearers and transmitters of those values, and there is a consequent ‘enclosure’ within the most private sphere of social life;
2. The migrant culture adopts a rebellious attitude to the host society and does not accept the primary claims to loyalty. As a result, there is inter-group tension;
3. The migrant culture has a ‘verbal identification’ with the new culture without acceptance of the institutional premises of such identification; the individual migrant indulges in a certain ritualistic over-emphasis on certain collective symbols and behavior patterns;
4. The migrant groups accept the formal premises of the host culture and behave accordingly. But despite the formal emphasis on equality and universalism, various discriminatory practiced are employed against the immigrants, which seem permanently to stand in the way of their realizing their aspirations. This is especially conducive to disorganization in the second and third generation of immigrants.

 

To some extent, Eisentadt’s perspective about the migrants reflected the Dutch society opinion toward the migrants. It is interestingly related to the immigrants who came from non-Western countries. In many statistical data, there are different categories between Western and non-Western immigrants. The differences may mean nothing, but if putting it in a discourse, it clearly represented the government paradigm on migration. On the other hand, there is a publicly known issue in the Dutch society, on ‘pillarization’ or ‘verzuilling’. The distinct feature of social institutions reflects the division of many areas of life according to religious line. The nation is divided in blocs, or ‘pillars’, of ideological lines. The pillars are Catholic, Dutch, Reformed, Calvinist, and Secular. The secular bloc has two wings: conservative and socialist.

For immigrants, the Dutch social system has both advantages and disadvantages. The Dutch are careful to accord clearly defined rights to groups with ‘marked’ ideological difference. But at the same time, the Dutch will be more cautious to immigrant that not because he is an immigrant per se, but because he is the member of a strange bloc. It is mean that if the immigrant follow to be a Catholic or a Protestant, as is the case with many of the Indonesian and Surinamese, he will be absorbed into an existing bloc system. Recently there is an interesting change in this sense. The increasing of Muslim migrants has become an impetus to construct a new pillar: Islam. (Shadid, 1991). This ‘pillar’ is an ongoing debate among the Dutch, where attention to Muslim issues is increasing in line with other globalization issues such as radicalism and recently, terrorism.

In European level, according to WWR report (2001), there are at least three approaches to asylum seekers and refugees. First, in 1995 the European Council of Ministers adopted a common position on the definition of refugee status. The definition excluded a large group: according to the Community standpoint, those fleeing civil war, general armed conflict, and persecution by non-state agents, such as militia fall outside the refugee category. Second, the ‘safe countries of origin’ principle According to this principle, an application for asylum status is declared unfounded, if, according to the country processing the application, the country in question is regarded as safe. By ‘safe’ is meant that civil, political, and human rights are sufficiently enshrined in that country. The third guiding principle is that of the ‘third country of reception’ or ‘safe third country principle’. Having been established to counter ‘asylum shopping’, this principle refers to the situation in which an asylum-seeker has entered the country via another (non-EU) country that may be designated as safe. Since this other country is safe, the asylum-seeker should have sought asylum there, and the recipient country is authorized to send the asylum-seeker back to that country.

At the same time, Europe faced racism and discrimination issues in dealing with immigrant development. To that, the EU has played an important rule when released the EU’s Racial Equality Directive (RED) in 2000. This directive relates to many of the issues on migration problems among European countries. In the article of 13 of RED, the European Council allowed to “take appropriate action” on antidiscrimination measures related to race, gender, religion, age, disability, and sexual orientation (Givens, 2007). However, Bill (in Givens, 2007) notes that national level preferences played an important role in the development of antidiscrimination policy at the EU level.

 

            Table 3. Numbers of asylum applications and principal countries of origin,

1980-1999

Year	Asylum Applications	Principal countries of origin
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1988 1990 1991 Former 1992 1994 1995 1996   1997   1998   1999	976 832 842 1,400 2,304 4,522 3,650 13,460 7,486 13,898 21,208 21,615 20,346 35,399 52,576 29,258 22,587   34,443   45,217   42,729	1 Turkey 2 Ethiopia 3 Chile 4 Iran/Pakistan 1 Ethiopia 2 Pakistan 3 Iraq 4 Turkey 1 Pakistan 2 Turkey 3 Iraq 4 Ethiopia 1 Surinam 2 Turkey 3 Pakistan 4 Sri Lanka 1 Sri Lanka 2 Turkey 3 Iran 4 Surinam 1 Sri Lanka 2 Turkey 3 Iran 4 Surinam 1 Turkey 2 India 3 Afghanistan 4 Iran 1 Ghana 2 India 3 Turkey 4 Zaire 1 Ghana 2 Ethiopia 3 Iran 4 India 1 Somalia 2 Libanon 3 Poland 4 Ethiopia 1 Sri Lanka 2 Romania 3 Iran 4 Somalia 1 Yugoslavia 2 Sri Lanka 3 Iran 4 Somalia 1 former Yugoslavia 2 Somalia 3 Iran 4 Sri Lanka 1 former Yugoslavia 2 Somalia 3 Iraq 4 Iran 1 former Yugoslavia 2 Iran 3 Somalia 4 former Soviet Union 1 former Yugoslavia 2 Somalia 3 Iran 4 Iraq 1 Iraq 2 Afghanistan 3 former Yugoslavia 4 former Soviet Union 1 Iraq 2 Afghanistan 3 former Yugoslavia 4 former Soviet Union 1 former Yugoslavia 2 Iraq 3 Afghanistan 4 former Soviet Union 1 former Yugoslavia 2 Afghanistan 3 Iraq 4 Somalia

 

Source: WWR (2001)

 

 

Minority Policy

The issue of minority firstly refers to a group which is numerically inferior to the rest of population of a state. However, this definition can not be accepted universally. There are some concepts to define minority. Francesco Capotorti, an UN Special Reporter suggested the term of minority as,

“a group, numerically inferior to the rest of population of a state, in a non-dominant position, whose members-being nationals of the state-possess ethnic, religious or linguistic characteristics differing from those of the rest of the population and show, if only implicitly, a sense of solidarity, directed towards preserving their culture, traditions or language” (Study on the Right of Persons belonging to Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities UN Document E/CN.4/Sub.2/384/Add.1-7 (1977))(www.minority-rights.org/docs/mn_defs.htm)

 

Furthermore, Jules Deschennes proposed a definition on minority as,

“a group of citizens of a State, constituting a numerical minority and in non-dominant position in that State, endowed with ethnic, religious and linguistic characteristics which differ from those of the majority of population, having a sense of solidarity with one another, motivated, if only implicitly, by a collective will to survive and whose aim is to achieve equality with the majority in fact and in law” (Proposal Concerning a Definition of the term ‘minority’ UN Document E/CN.4/Sub.2/1985/31 (1985))  (www.minority-rights.org/docs/mn_defs.htm)

 

In 1993, Council of Europe also declared a definition of minority as:

 

“a group of persons in a state who: (a) reside on the territory of that state and are citizens thereof; (b) maintain longstanding, firm and lasting ties with that State; (c) display distinctive ethnic, cultural, religions or linguistic characteristics; (d) are sufficiently representative, although smaller in number than the rest of the population of that state or of a region of the state; (e) are motivated by a concern to preserve together that which constitutes their common identity, including their culture, their tradition, their religion or their language” (www.minority-rights.org/docs/mn_defs.htm)

 

In the Netherlands, the term ‘minority’ was officially set up in 1983 as a response to the document of the Ethnic Minority Report and Government Reply memorandum in 1979. The aim of the policy was to emancipate the position of ethnic minorities, and to elevate the ‘ethnicized’ groups to equal social status with the indigenous groups in Dutch society (Dirk Jacobs and Andrea Rea, 2006). The term was used to replace former terms of immigrants such as ‘guest workers’. This change showed a turning point in respect with the state categorized immigrants from economic category to cultural one.

            The minorities’ policy has some elements. The first element is related to the creation of a multicultural society, namely emphasizing communal rather than individual in terms of human rights. The second entails the improvement of the situation of foreigners in legal domain, amongst other measures by facilitating the procedure to obtain Dutch citizenship. The third element of the ‘minorities policy’ entails the improvement of the socioeconomic position of ethnic minorities, which should become equivalent to the position of that segment of the majority group with comparable level of education (Jacobs and Rea, 2006)

Despite of all nations that have minority group issues, the Netherlands has several specific conditions thus the terms ‘minority’ exists. Based on Advisory Commission of Research on Cultural Minorities in 1979 (Campfens, 1979), those conditions are:

1. The majority of its members are in low social position (by objective measure);
2. When they can not participate in regular political decision-making process, because of limited group size and/or lack of judicial status (as in the case with most Mediterranean migrant workers and their families);
3. The host society considers them as a separate group, in which membership in the group has become the dominant characteristic of its members as with the Suriname Dutch and the Moluccans);
4. When several generations are involved;
5. The presence of a separate culture, or clear cultural characteristics that differentiate them from the majority population.

 

The Advisory Commission of Research on Cultural Minorities report also suggests the use of ‘ethnic minority’ rather than ‘cultural minority’ when referring to minority (in the above definition) whose culture—in terms of costumes, norms, values, and language—is of foreign origin. For the Netherlands, this means that group like the Indonesian-Dutch, Jews, and some others, would not fully meet the criteria of this definition, nor would the more established Canadian ethno-cultural groups like the Ukrainians, Poles or Germans be included. In addition, minority rights are related to persons belong in a community to practice their own culture. Politically, it implies to the policy which recognizes the use of cultural and religious identity in public space. Implicit in this sense is a clear rejection on ‘assimilationist’ view and ‘melting-pot’ ideas, which popular in the United States. These views suggest advocating a fusion into one culture (Campfens, 1979)

            The term ‘minority’ has some implications to human rights discourse. Under the heading of the ‘International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’, the ideas of minorities rights was adopted on November 27, 1978 by the General Conference of the UNESCO in Paris. One of these ideas was stated specifically in article 9, 3 that:

“Population groups of foreign origin, particularly migrant workers and their families who contribute to the development of the host country, should benefit from appropriate measure designed to afford them security and respect for their dignity and cultural values; be facilitated in their adaptation to their host environment, and in their professional advancement with a view to their subsequent reintegration in their country of origin (if so desired) and their contribution to its development; and step should be taken to make it possible for their children to be taught their mother tongue.”  

 

In Westerns countries such as the Netherlands, the term ‘minority’ generally refers to immigrants. This issue was raised in 1970s when the numbers of immigrants decreased on the one hand, and domestic sentiments within the Dutch society toward immigrants rose on the other hand. The emergence of minorities issues in terms of migration was responded by the government with the memorandum in 1981 (Vermeulen and Penninx, 2000). Generally the memorandum consist two aspects. First, the government will give a license to immigrants for staying in the Netherlands and provided circumstances toward their larger participation within the Dutch society. Second, the government also will give a help to immigrants if they choose return to their home country.

However, immigrants have rarely returned to their home country, except a lesser numbers of immigrants from Southern Europe. It can be understood if we turn our attention to economic conditions of the country of origin. If economic conditions were increased such as in Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Greek, the chance for immigrants to return to their countries of origin was larger. It was contrasted with the Turks and Moroccans who invited their family to the Netherlands. The role of the so-called family reunification was crucial, because of the politics of the Netherlands citizenship which permitted a double citizen status.

The target of the memorandum of 1981 was clear for decreasing the distance between minorities and majorities. However, the problem of minorities is not only about legal policy, but also about the power relations that became a political arena on minorities-majorities relations. Who is called as ‘indigenous’ or ‘native’ Dutchmen has more access to the political and economic resources than immigrants. The lack of economic capacity and the cultural background of immigrants are the problems in this sense. The research on political participation of ethnic minorities in the Netherlands revealed that ethnic minorities have very limited political influence (Rath, 1983). Interest groups such as trade union, ethnic pressure groups, and advisory committees are also still less functioning adequately.

            The issue of minority initially emerged in 1970s in dealing with economic crises. The labor market and the access to economic resources were limited. On the other side, the numbers of immigrants were decreased, especially among the Turks and Moroccans. Their family was invited to the Netherlands. However, there was the policy which restricted immigrants, because of the temporary assumption on their residence. The openness of the Netherlands was shown previously by the phenomena of ‘guest workers’ in 1960s. In this phase, immigrants from Italia came to fill the labor shortage. Until this, there was no serious issue about migration.

            Related to the changes in economic sector, the formation of immigrants’ identity in terms of culture has been changed. Previously, immigrants were only regarded in economic category, while changes after 1980s shown the recognition toward immigrants in cultural one. They were recognized as social actors with unique cultural habit. The recognition was represented by terms in policies about immigrants. ‘Guest workers’ then called ‘ethnic minorities’, ‘cultural minorities’, or ‘ethnics groups,’ and later as ‘allochtonous’ (Sunier and van Kuijeren, 2000: 148).  

            Allochtones term has two definitions. First, the term refers to the place of birth of the parents. Second, a generic category of allochthones has been created, lumping together foreigners and a large part of the nationals who have a foreign background. Based on the WWR report on Allochtonenbeleid (1989), allochthones were defined as:

 

“Allochthones are, generally speaking, all persons who come from elsewhere and have durably settled in the Netherlands, including their descendants until the third generation; in as far as the latter want to consider themselves as allochthones. Minorities are allochthonous groups which find themselves in a disfavored position: it has to be assessed periodically which groups have to be considered to be minorities” (in Jacobs and Rea, 2006)

 

Recently, since 1999 the CBS defines allochthones as “every person living in the Netherlands of which at least one of the parents was born abroad.” This definition still exists until now. Jacobs and Rea (2006) argue that the definition is not ‘imprecise’, because it also can be referred to children of Dutch expatriates. However, the pressure towards multicultural ideas was reflected in the statistical distinction which the CBS itself introduced in 1999 when distinguishing western allochthones and non-western allochthones. This distinction is mainly used for statistical purposes in the field of education, although it has not limited to that policy domain. This division of categories reflects the paradigm of the state policy on minorities.

 

Table 1. Foreign population and allochthonous population in the Netherlands, 2001-2004

(1st of January)

	2001	2002	2003	2004
Total population	15 987 075	16 105 285	16 192 572	16 258 032
Foreign population	667 802	690 393	699 954	702 185
% of foreigners	4,2	4,3	4,3	4,3
Allochthonous pop	2 870 224	2 964 949	3 038 758	3 088 152
% of allochthones	18,0	18,4	18,8	19,0
Allochthones born outside of the Netherlands	1 488 960	1 547 079	1 585 927	1 602 730
Allochthones born in the Netherlands with two parents born abroad	542 871	566 165	588 451	608 369
Allochthones born in the Netherlands with one parents born abroad	838 393	851 705	864 380	877 053

Source: Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (in Jacobs and Rea, 2006)

 

Table 2: ‘Western’ and ‘non-western allochthones’ of the first and

Second generation in the Netherlands, 2001-2004 according to the CBS

 

	Number of western allochthones	% in total Population	Number of nonwestern Allochtones	% in total population
2001	1 387 036	8,7	1 483 188	9,3
2002	1 406 596	8,7	1 558 353	9,7
2003	1 416 156	8,8	1 622 602	10,0
2004	1 419 855	8,8	1 668 297	10,2

Source: Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (in Jacobs and Rea, 2006)

           

However, by the late 1980s and early 1990s, the policy makers regarded that the ethnic minorities’ policy had not been achieved. Officially since the mid-1990s the Netherlands moved away from multiculturalism. Language tuition and the mainstreaming of services were introduced with a definite ideological shift from support for group needs and identity to promoting individual identity. The government released a new ‘integration policy’ in 1994 based on the idea of ‘mainstreaming’. It was realized to improve the inclusion of immigrants in mainstream services in order to move away from the ethno-specific provision popularly associated with a policy of multiculturalism. The new policy outlined integration as ‘a process leading to the full and equal participation of individuals and groups in society for which mutual respect for identity is seen as a necessary conditions’ (in Vasta, 2007: 717). The new policy gives more emphasis to Dutch language courses, social orientation, and vocational training. It has many sanctions, for example, newcomers might be deprived of their welfare benefits if they failed to take the classes. By April 2004, the Cabinet agreed to a new integration system that “… will only have been met as soon as people have successfully passed their integration examination… The newcomers and the settled immigrants will be in charge of their own integration […] if a newcomer has failed to integrate after five years an administrative fine will be imposed […] (Vasta, 2007: 718).

 

 

Conclusion

In the early phase, minority rights have not attracted attention in the Netherlands migration policy. Nowadays the issues of minority rights is one of the political agenda of many states, since it incorporates a variety of ethnic, religious and other diversities. The problem has become exacerbated in recent decades because of the increased influx of immigrants into the economically developed western states and the movements of refugees. Liberal theorists have provided the framework about minority rights (Kymlicka, 2003). They argue that social pluralism should find its expression in civil society, while equal citizenship and uniformity of laws and neutral procedures should prevail in the public sphere. However, liberal theories on minority rights were challenged. Will Kymlicka (2003) argue that it is needed to recognize identity in terms of minority rights. Kymlicka’ argument challenges the classic liberalist idea that the recognition of human rights is a protection for individual right of expression for the development of individuals as well as the enrichment of social life. The protection of state is not enough only on the individual level but must be applicable on community level.

At the same time, the 9/11 September tragedy occurred. In domestic politics, Fim Portuyn influenced public opinion on how the Dutch faced the foreigner. Since autumn 2001, he mobilized voters for a movement that wanted to ‘go Dutch at all levels’, which intended to make an end to multiculturalism ideology, that did not hesitate to underline that integration should be (almost) equal to assimilation, and that supported most restrictive immigration policies. Nowadays, multiculturalism ideas in term of the migration policy of the Netherlands is opposed and in the turning point position. 

            Integration has been the object of political debate in the Netherlands since 2001 in combination with apparently full paradigm shift in politics and public opinion. The country, which had the image of an open and tolerant society towards immigrant groups and minorities, appeared to have changed within one year into a country where ‘all’ were against multiculturalism, that more restrictive on immigration issues, and that required almost full assimilation of its immigrant groups and minorities. The shifting of integration issues was triggered by the emergence of rightist figure such as the late Pim Fortuyn in the Dutch political arena. Finally; the multiculturalism idea is still being contested. []

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

 

Bagley, Christoper, Immigrant Minorities in the Netherlands: Integration and Assimilation, International Migration Review, Vol. 5, No. 1 (spring, 1971)

Givens, Terri E., “Immigrant Integration in Europe: Empirical Research”, Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 10, 2007

Jacobs, Dick, and Andrea Rea, Construction and Imports of Ethnic Categorization: “Allochtones in the Netherlands and Belgium,” paper presented for the EURODIV conference 26-27 January 2006, Milan

Kymlicka, Will, Kewargaan Multikultural, Jakarta: LP3ES, 2003.

Rath, John, “Political Participation of Ethnic Minorities in the Netherlands”, International Migration Review, Vol. 17, No. 3 (autumn, 1983)

Schmitter, Barbara, “Sending States and Immigrant Minorities-The Case of Italy”, Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 26, No. 2, (Apr., 1984)

Shadid, W.A., “The Integration of Muslim Minorities in the Netherlands,” International Migration Review, Vol. 25, No. 2. (Summer, 1991).

Sunier, Thijl dan Mira an Kuijeren, “Islam in the Netherlands,” in Yvone Yazbeck Haddad (ed.), Muslims in the West: From Sojourners to Citizens, New York: Oxford University Press, 2002

Vasta, Ellie, “From Ethnic Minorities to Ethnic Majority Policy: Multiculturalism and the Shift to Assimilationism in the Netherlands”, Ethnic and Racial Studies Vol. 20, No. 5, September 2007

Vermeulen, Hans, dan Rinus Penninx (ed.), Immigrant Integration: The Dutch Case, Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis, 2000

WRR, the Netherlands as Immigration Society, Reports to the Government No. 60, the Hague: Sdu Uitgevers, 2001.

(www.minority-rights.org/docs/mn_defs.htm), diakses 4 December 2007

 

 

 

 

Advertisement