For the assessment of the immigrant
generations in the Netherlands we have consulted two different sources.[1] The first sources consisted
of all publicly available social indicators and statistics, most of which were produced
on a regular basis by the national statistical office CBS, the national social and
cultural planning office SCP and other national offices since 20 to 30 years. These
are available as series of annual reports, running (web-based) statistical data,
regular publications, etc. The second source consisted of 21 interviews with experts
in the domains of immigrant generation issues, such as labour market participation,
integration and participation in society, education, youth culture, care for the
elderly, etc. In addition to these sources we have surveyed the available research
literature as much as possible, certainly in relation to the interviews and references
as made during the interviews. In principle these sources should be sufficient for
a meta-assessment of the chances and perspectives of the immigrant generations in
the Netherlands, being my intended contribution to the INTGEN project.
There was, however, a major obstacle
for the meta-assessment as intended. The assessment had to take place in a political
context that is not well suited for an objective and impartial assessment. The immigration
and integration issue has been one of the most controversial political issues of
the country since 2001, in combination with an apparently full paradigm shift in
politics and public opinion. The country that had the image and that fostered the
image of an open and tolerant society towards immigrant groups and minorities appeared
to have changed within one year into a country where ëallí were against multiculturalism,
that was most restrictive on immigration issues and that required almost full assimilation
of its immigrant groups and minorities. The change was announced by the writer Paul
Scheffer in his newspaper essay ëthe multicultural dramaí (Scheffer 2001). It was
directly followed by 0911 and Pim Fortuyn, both by his comet-like rise in Dutch politics
in late 2001 and early 2002, as well as his assassination in May 2002, ten days before
the national elections. In May and June 2006, i.e. in the months that I tried to
synthesise the materials from my sources, the controversies had not settled down.
They were even intensified e.g. by the possible ex-patriation of MP Mrs. Ayaan Hirsi
Ali,[2] by the structural and undeniable
labour market and probation place discrimination of young and second generation immigrants,
and by a research publication on the rather undeniable racist, xenophobic and Islamophobic
attitudes among large portions or of the Dutch population (Ligtvoet 2006). In this
context I feel a sincere hesitation with regard to the presentation of my assessment
and conclusions, as they may be biased by personal pre-occupations with regard to
e.g. multiculturalism, assimilation, forced ex-patriation and other sides of restrictive
immigration policies, discrimination and racism, and Islam bashing.[3]
The publicly available social
indicators and Dutch statistics could be sufficient and appropriate for the assessment
of the integration of successive immigrant generations. It is a special characteristic
of the Dutch statistical apparatus that an objectified parameter of ethnicity is
used for each individual, and that the parameter is a combination of the country
of origin and the generation to which an immigrant belongs. Further parameters are
e.g. age, gender and place of living, among others. So, breakdowns are available
of ethnicity, generation, age, gender and neighbourhood characteristics, on the one
side, and integration indicators such as school attendance, school achievement, labour
market participation, criminal involvement and further relevant issues as registered
or surveyed on a regular basis, on the other.
Form the available indicators
and statistics the following conclusions followed:
The latter point was sufficient
reason for the Parliamentary Committee on failed integration and integration policies
(Blok Committee 2004) to conclude that there was not really an integration problem.
For the Committee the major problem regarded the obstacles against effective integration
policies and measures (see also Koopmans 2002). Most immigrants became ëintegratedí
participants in society notwithstanding the ineffective or inconclusive policies
and measures, e.g. in the field of education, language teaching and integration courses.
However, both the interviewed
experts and findings of targeted research have shown many more pitfalls of the indicators
and statistics. I may refer to four points, although some more could be raised, e.g.
with regard to the neglect of the institutional context of blocked school careers
or the non-take-up of care among aging immigrants. The four points are:
The national policy makers, particularly
the representatives of the present government coalition, are apparently convinced
of the ëbackwardnessí and the failed integration of too many immigrants, feeling
confirmed by the objective indicators and statistics in this respect. As said above
their major target is tested proficiency in Dutch as a second language for applicants
of immigration visa and immigrant residents. The integration policies do not include
priority targets with regard to the young and second generations of immigrants, beyond
the aim of counter-acting educational ëbackwardnessí in general, some active employment
programmes, e.g. in the frame of ESF or schedules for the reintegration of excluded
groups such as long-term unemployed people, released detainees, etc.[4]
Most experts, however, focussed
less on the ëproblemsí and ërisksí of the young and second generations, and more
on their chances and perspectives of the young and second generations of immigrants
in society. For most of them these chances and perspectives are undeniable. The chances
and perspectives were to be enhanced, both in the interest of the young people and
of society. In this frame they referred e.g. to role models among young and second
generation immigrants, and to knowledge as derived from other research models and
paradigms such as longitudinal research into time-cracks or qualitative research
of cultural factors in ethnic relations or the analysis of good practices. Even the
experts, who were appointed as high government advisers and commissioners e.g. for
youth care and the employment of young people, Dr. Steven van Eijck and Mr. Hans
de Boer, insisted on the urgent priority of youth policies and targeted attention
for probation place and labour market frictions. For them the aging Dutch society
cannot risk to lose its youngest generations, including the young and second generations
of immigrants that are a serious part of it, certainly in the cities. So, their chances
and perspectives are to be enhanced urgently.
Beyond education and the labour
market further urgent attention is needed for the improved perspectives of Muslims
in the Netherlands 3 the Netherlands being a non-Muslim country where the Islam is
a source of threat for half of the population (Ligtvoet 2006[5]), for cultural diversity and
cultural change as appropriate in relation to the new groups in society, and for
processes of radicalisation and involvement in criminal groups. With regard to the
Muslim perspectives the debate will continue on Islamic institutions in the fields
of education, health care, media, etc., in line with pillarisation as a model for the moderation
of cultural and religious strain in society. Opponents refer to the possible cultural
isolation of Muslims and other groups that could counter-act their integration in
society (e.g. Scheffer 2006), while advocates expect that a process of cultural emancipation
is encouraged under the protection of private cultural and educational institutions
(Goudappel 2005).
With regard to cultural diversity
and cultural change experts referred, among others, to two mechanisms that certainly
deserve attention, both in research and policy. First is the interest of many young
people belonging to a successor generation for the cultural roots of their parents,
grandparents, etc. Opportunities for roots search are to be enhanced, including the
search for dark pages of Dutch history, such as the involvement in slave trade and
exploitation, colonial history etc. (Bijnaar 2002). Second is the development of
new mixed cultures in the cities that appear to reflect a joint culture for a wide
variety of young people of native and immigrant origin. The term for it is the urban
culture.
It is receiving public attention e.g. in the projects of the new cultural institution
in Amsterdam South-East Imagine Identity and Culture, as a positive perspective following
from migration and cultural change. It reflects grass root multiculturalism.
Last point of attention in the
present summary assessment regards the sometimes extreme and extremist action of
young and second generation immigrants against their (new) society and its norms
or values. It is known as Islamist extremism or radicalism, on the one side, and
comparatively high involvement in organised crime and juvenile nuisance, on the other.
Beyond all differences between religious extremism, organised crime and juvenile
nuisance, in actual policy debate since 2001 these three are usually taken together,
with the rejection of integration in the new society as the common denominator[6] as far as immigrant youth is
involved or is assumed to be involved. Immigrant representatives as well as a number
of other experts have made clear objections against the assumption that there is
a clear relation between the age and generation indicators of immigrants, on the
one side, and the alleged involvement in crime or Islamist extremism. Objections
regard, as said above, among others, the judicial factor that may cause more and
higher involvement rates among immigrant youth (Komen en Van Schoten 2006). These
also regard the very small numbers of Islamist extremists and the comparatively small
portions of immigrants groups that are actually involved in hardcore crime and persistent
nuisance. In quantitative terms the knowledge base is restricted. The knowledge base
refers mostly to qualitative research, such as ethnographic interviews and life history
analysis, or on impressions of (privileged) observers. Both a recent publication
on Islamist extremism (Buijs, Demant & Hamdy 2006) as well as one on immigrant
ëloverboysí or young pimps (Bovenkerk and others 2006) had to rely on a very limited
number of ethnographic interviews, as was underlined by the authors. In public debate
these are sufficient proof for further allegations on the extremism of young Muslims
and the criminal involvement of young Moroccans and Antilleans. So, ëtheyí are a
new generation of scapegoats, risks and threats for the decent Dutch citizens.
Blok Committee 3 Tijdelijke Parlmentaire
Onderzoekscommissie. Eindrapport integratiebeleid [Final report on integration policy].
The Hague: SDU; January 2004.
Bovenkerk, Frank et al. Loverboys
of modern pooierschap [Loverboys or today's pimps]; Amsterdam: Augustus; 2006.
Bovenkerk, Frank et al. 'Loverboys'
of modern pooierschap in Amsterdam ['Loverboys' or today's pimps in Amsterdam]. Utrecht:
Willem Pompe Instituut; December 2004.
Buijs, F. J., Demant, F., Hamdy,
A. Strijders van eigen bodem. Radicale en democratische moslims in Nederland [Home-bred
warriors. Radical and democratic Muslims in the Netherlands]. Amsterdam: Spinhuis;
2006.
Bijnaar, A. Op zoek naar de stilte.
Een handleiding voor het inventariseren van cultureel erfgoed Nederlands slavernijverleden
[In search of silence. A manual for inventories of the Dutch slavery cultural heritage].
The Hague: Ministry of OCW; December 2002.
Goudappel, Annerieke. De waarheid
is van ons. Studenten en docenten van de Islamitsche Universiteit Rotterdam [Truth
is ours. Students and teachers of the Islamic University Rotterdam]. NRC Handelblad.
04-12-2005.
Komen, M.; Van Schoten, E. Allochtone
jongeren gemiddeld langer vast [Immigrant young people longer detained on the average].
Nederlands Juristen Blad. 2006; 25.
Koopmans, Ruud. Good intentions
sometimes make bad policy. A comparison of Dutch and german integration policies.
in: Migration, multiculturalism and civil society. : Friedrich Ebert Stiftung; www.wz-berlin.de
Ligtvoet, Floor. Aanpassen of opkrassen
[Adaptation or make your-self away]. BN/De Stem. 03-06-2006.
Rath, Jan; Penninx, Rinus; Groenendijk,
Kees; Meijer, Astrid. Nederland en zijn Islam [The Netherlands and its Islam]. :
Amsterdam: Spinhuis; 1996.
Scheffer, Paul. Diversiteit betekent
helemaal niets [Diversity means absolutely nothing]. NRC Handelsblad. 03-06-2006.
Scheffer, Paul. Het multiculturele
drama [The multicultural drama]. NRC Handelsblad. 19-01-2001.
Severiens, S.; Rezai, S. Succes-
en faalfactoren in het middelbaar beroepsonderwijs 2001-2004 [Success and risk factors
in middle-level vocational training 2001-2004]. Rotterdam: RISBO ; May 2005.
[1] Summary and discussion of: Muskens, George. Integration and generations in the Netherlands, Part I and II. Lepelstraat-EMZ, 2006 June.
[2] Today, i.e. in the early morning of 29 June 2006 one of the three government coalition partners in Parliament has formally ëdisapprovedí the actions of the responsible Minister of Immigration and Integration, Mrs. Rita Verdonk, together with most opposition parties. In the evening of the day the government has resigned, as this partner declared that it had therefore also left the coalition. The ëimmigration and integration dramaí in the Netherlands is to be continued, at least until new elections in early autumn. So, the Minister was also blamed by the national soccer guru Johan Cruijf for the bad Dutch performance against Portugal in Neurenberg on Sunday 25 June 2006, as she refused a Dutch passport to Salomon Kalou, who is a promising young player from Ivory Coast, playing for Rotterdam-Feyenoord during the last years.
[3] I have applied three mechanisms that should keep me on a rather unbiased, impartial and scientific assessment of generation and integration issues. These regarded the survey of relevant policy documents, the selection of the experts and the ëinverted assessmentí. The latter was that I discussed first the most objective issues, i.e. those related to immigration research methodologies, then the ëpositiveí issue of the chances and perspectives of the young and new generation, and last the issue that is most difficult to assess, being the policies and policy shift in the Netherlands since 2001.
[4] In practice, however, most schedules for the counter-action of educational ëbackwardnessí and many local ESF-projects regard predominantly target groups among young and second generation immigrants.
[5] Newspaper publication based upon a Motivaction research project. The report has not yet been published so far. I received a methodological note on the research project via the newspaper editor of BN De Stem. As far as I could assess the research project was reliable and valid with regard to its conclusions.
[6] Occasionally it is observed that it regards young people, who have reached high scores on integration indicators, such as language proficiency (e.g. Bovenkerk and others 2004). Maybe a high level of ëintegrationí is needed for a successful career as a terrorist, criminal, pimp, etc.