User talk:Jaricketts

Demanding an explanation for deleting my contribution
I demand an explanation for deleting the following:

The purpose of this paragraph is to give insight into why Dutch nationality law reforms are seen as illegitimate by some mainstream Dutch political forces (i.e. leftist and liberal, as opposed to libertarian and conservative). Even traditional libertarian and conservative political forces take restrictive immigration measures more as a reaction meant to appease a radical mood of the Dutch demos and for stealing voters from radical parties, than of their own free will.

The moves to restrict dual nationality have been supported by the current government of J.P. Balkenende. This policy has always been justified on the basis of ‘strengthening ties to the Netherlands’ of new passport holders. While Balkenende has said that the rest of Europe would be following the Netherlands’ example, they’re not. More countries are, in fact, allowing dual nationality or liberalizing laws on the basis of including legal residents into local society. While Balkenende wants people to be part of Dutch society with only one passport, immigrants do not seem to share the sentiment. Only 13,000 adults became Dutch in 2004, according to the country's statistics office. This represents a decline of 83% over the total naturalizations in 1997. Those becoming Dutch were predominantly Turkish, Moroccan, Afghan, Surinamese or from the former Yugoslavia. On the other hand, the number of dual nationals in the country has risen from 400,000 in 1997 to nearly one million now. The restrictions on dual nationality have not worked at all, and it seems that those asking for it are largely those who qualify for dual nationality under the current law. And, certainly, having only one passport works contrary to the purpose it is supposed of making true. Cora Kreft, a sociologist working for the General Chamber of Accountants in the Netherlands, the Dutch government agency which controls policy effectiveness and efficiency in the Netherlands, refers to W.I. Thomas' and Znaniecki's book The Polish Peasant in Europe and America, stating that when people are allowed to form ethnic communities and behave therein as their community prescribes, they integrate much better than in the opposite case See also p. 22 of the same issue of Facta, for a short presentation of the conclusions of  This presentation confirms Mrs. Kreft's affirmation. Dr. Willem Schinkel, a prominent Dutch sociologist who is systematically restating (from a liberal viewpoint) Margaret Thatcher's insight that "there is no such thing as society", thinks that speaking of "integration" is misleading since it presumes that there would be in the first place a "society" wherein individuals could "integrate", as organs do integrate in a human body (Zomergasten, August 24, 2008, 20:30, Ned 2., ). He insists that this organicist view, originating in Plato's writings, leads to the nefarious consequence that some people get stygmatized as "foreign bodies" or "foreign to the social body", i.e. lacking in "integration". Dr. Schinkel considers that "national identity" is at best a meaningless combination of words and at worst a dangerous collective delusion. He considers that speaking of "society" inside the social sciences is part of the problem, not part of the solution. He published such thesis under the name (translated here into English) "Thinking in a time of social hypochondry. Provocation to a theory that goes beyond society." -- "hypochondry" means therein that individuals are inventing make-believe illnesses of a make-believe social body, in their vane attempts to construct something which they believe to be a nation-state. Dr. Schinkel provides the scientific proof that words like "national identity", "society" and "integration" are ideas used by bullies in order to oppress their defenceless victims (scapegoats). In the social sciences Thomas' point of view is more or less taken for granted. This means that the rank-and-file Dutch social scientist considers that the Dutch immigration debate is ridiculous and groundless, i.e. cheap and dangerous populism. In fact, the Dutch population "pyramid" has a huge top of old people and a meager basis of young people. Under these conditions, it is straightforward that the Netherlands is in serious need of acquiring a competent and industrious workforce through immigration, cf. [http://www.cpb.nl/nl/news/2003_24.html Centraal Planbureau, Immigratie niet effectievf tegen vergrijzing, persbericht nr. 24/30 juni 2003]. The popular sentiment goes against this idea because they see the Turkish and Moroccan minorities as being a burden for taxpayers' money and lacking in Protestant work ethic (hard work). Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)