[QUOTE=Rune]
Actually Pim Fortuyn was shot by a killer whom thus dedicated his life to taking an innocent life and obstructing democracy – much like the killer of Theo van Gogh. Nothing remarkable there, just scum doing as scum do.[p/QUOTE]
After this comment, it’s going to be very, very hard for me to ever take you seriously again.
Whats the point of incorporating immigrants who add no value to the country on a whole, isn’t that the whole point of immigration? To bring people into our country for their expertise. With the exception of asylum seekers.
I couldn’t care less if they took our jobs, as long as they’re contributing, its fine by me.
Bringing them from complete rual backwaters doesn’t have to be the option though.
Oh no, look at me I’m against Muslims because they’re protesting! I don’t care, it was the nature of the protest, a robber who got run over, he’s a symbol of the polarisation of some of the community, which isn’t a good thing.
I’m sure that’s true, it’s a common factor is most industrialized nations. The fact still remains that the Netherlands is overcrowded. I’m not saying there’s a solution. Maybe the country’s going to lose either way. Can’t stay rich forever.
Right, because when immigrants add value, a company’s stock price increases.
Perhaps you want to rethink your premise on the purpose of immigration.
Yes, because immigrants just come to a country because they want too right? Whats the primary purpose of immigrants to any Western country and you’ll find the near same universal answer, to make money.
You are jumping back and forth between the point of view of the immigrant and that of the nation. It is not helpful.
Regardless of why individuals may choose to immigrate, your position that the purpose of immigration is to “add value” and that only skilled immigrants can add value is flawed.
How does one “add value” to a country as a whole? Supposing that one could, what metric could we use to track this value?
A sound premise is a quantifiable one in this context.
The Netherlands is not actually overcrowded. Some people just prefer to live in a place that is less crowded. We are, however, looking into other ways of keeping the economy growing without in fact just increasing the number of people. It should be possible. Last year, we were closest ever to a shrinking populace, but it hasn’t happened yet. It’s not that hard to allow more people in. But it is a very good idea to pay more attention to whether or not people integrate successfully.
You say can’t stay rich forever, but to be honest, these two issues have little to do with each other. We’re still doing pretty well and we’re better off than most other European countries for a while yet. And compared to the US, we’re a poor country - BNP is 21.000 here, 30.000 in the US. It just seems we’re spending it more efficiently, if you ask me, considering the standards of living we have. Currently we’re rightly concerned with issues that are not nearly as bad as the US, but we look to the US to learn how to prevent that from changing. As long as we keep doing that, we’re not likely to be worse of for a while yet.
However, I can’t blame people who like to move away to greener and emptier pastures. Our country is relatively boring and flat. Who knows one day we’ll engineer a few mountains. 
I definitely don’t see the Netherlands as a country that deserves special attention in these matters. I think that if anything, we’ve been so tolerant that is has allowed us to postpone measures that have been taken by other countries long ago, and at the same time so relatively crowded that some issues come to bear relatively sooner.
But if you want to laugh or worry about the Netherlands, consider the ridiculous idea that we have to send a task force / bunch of commando’s to hunt for Al Quaedans. Yeah, that’s a brilliant idea. The commando’s might get bored, otherwise. Or we can consider it an expensive bit of realistic training.
Then look at Australian immigration policy and tell me thats flawed. The purpose of immigration is sustain and enrich the economy first and foremost, everything else is a distant second.
I’m talking in terms of economic and GDP growth, which is solely why countries try and get people come to their countries to work.
I’m sure you’re spending your national income more efficiently than we are. We earn more, but a lot of that gets sucked up by our dependence on cars, and having to deal with living in a spread-out, mostly sparsely populated country.
I like your flat country! When I was there the weather was mostly cloudy/rainy but with bright patches of blue sky; I thought it was beautiful the way the sun would shine through sometimes and light up the farm fields here and there, but leave the rest in relative darkness.
You are evading the issue. Your original claim was that only skilled workers, specially chosen, can add value.
Can you demonstrate that a significant volume of unskilled immigrants has actually suppressed GDP growth?
You are unwilling to justify your seemingly common-sense assertion that only the skilled add value. I suggest that you take this chance to do some digging and perhaps refine your intuition about the world.
I literally don’t understand what you are trying to say.
Instead of heading for the easy option of just allowing immigrants into the country to do the work for us, we should be making a priority for more of the countries population to start working. Skilled workers if having to come into the country contribute more in terms of not having to be trained for their job as much as one without expertise.
Is there a reason not to do all three? Obviously a system that takes in trained workers is a plus. However, wouldn’t a system that also includes giving marketable skills to both unskilled citizens and immigrants be more robust and useful in the future? Surely there is overlap we can exploit for effeciency here.
The purpose of immigration is not just to get people to do the jobs but also to keep population growth at a desireable level. Unskilled immigrants can manage that role just fine. 
Actually, that would be hard to do in the Netherlands. As you can see from this (slightly outdated) document, unemployment rates are very low in the Netherlands. They have increased slightly in the last two years, but they are still very low compared to some other countries in the EU (just look at Germany and France). It is really unfeasible to have more of the Dutch population working than right now. Even in jobs requiring less qualifications and education, there are a lot of Dutch employees. It’s not gotten to the point where every garbage collector and cleaning lady is Morrocan or Turkish.
The issues brought forth in the OP reminds me of a problem they had a few years ago in a North African nation (Tunisia) where they decided to hold free and open elections, but the vast majority party was composed of Islamic fundamentalists who promised that as soon as they were in power, would install an Islamic fundamentalist government which would not be democratric, as God would be in charge via the mullahs.
Apparently, modern Islam and freedom are at odds wherever they butt heads.
Since mosques are organised extremely well in repressive societies, than any dissident political party, it gives them an unfair advantage against any secular or more modern approaching politician from gaining the foothold they rightly deserve.
EC: Apparently, modern Islam and freedom are at odds wherever they butt heads.
Not sure I’m getting you. Aren’t any two entities that are “butting heads” by definition “at odds”?
And in any case, though I agree that modern Islamic fundamentalist extremism tends to be pretty anti-freedom, that’s only one form of “modern Islam”. There are other forms of modern Islam that coexist quite comfortably with freedom.
I think any organised religion is against the tenets of Democracy.
Do you mean official, state religion, or any religion at all? If the latter, I hope you’re prepared to live with it. Some organized religion exists in practically every society, and always has, and I’m sure always will. (Even a decentralized, congregation-based religion like Judaism is very highly organized.) We can’t say the same of democracy.
OK, that may have been overly redundant.
And in any case, though I agree that modern Islamic fundamentalist extremism tends to be pretty anti-freedom, that’s only one form of “modern Islam”. There are other forms of modern Islam that coexist quite comfortably with freedom.
[/QUOTE]
Let’s all hope that it’s one of those forms of Islam that’s dominant in Holland. From the headlines, you have to figure there’s a fair contingent of fundamentalist Islamics about. Or maybe they’re just making noise all out of proportion to their numbers, as fundies tend to.