in the Netherlands. Unlike the U.S., the Netherlands never was a country of immigration, until the immi- gration waves in the late 1960s and early 1970s. In the 1960s, so-called “guest workers,” mostly from Turkey and Morocco, immigrated to the Netherlands.Although these guest workers were supposed to stay only temporarily, many of them never remigrated and instead had their families reunified in the Netherlands. Besides guest workers and their families, another prominent category consists of immigrants from the former Dutch colonies in the Caribbean. After the independence of Surinam, nearly 300,000 Suri- namese, almost one-third of the Surinamese population, migrated to the Netherlands. A new wave of postcolonial migration began in the late 1980s, when residents of the Netherlands Antilles arrived. Because the Netherlands Antilles are still part of the King- dom of the Netherlands, Antilleans are Dutch nationals (Engbersen, Leerkes, and Snel, 2014). In the 1990s asylum seekers from countries like formerYugoslavia, former Soviet Union, and Iraq, came to the Netherlands, and during recent years, the open borders of the EU brought new immigrant groups from East European countries like Poland and Bulgaria, but these groups are still quite small ( ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2013). Recently a new migration wave is occurring related to refugees, from Syria for example. Over the last 25 years, the attitude towards migrant groups has changed dramati- cally. Although the Netherlands used to have a reputation as a tolerant and multicul- tural country in which migrant groups were supposed to integrate “while maintaining the migrants ‘culture,’” Dutch multiculturalism was in fact not so much a choice for “equal recognition” but a pragmatic pacification strategy instead (▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, 2011). In the 1970s and 1980s, persisting inequalities between ethnic groups gave rise to new policy based on affirmative action, with preferential treatment for migrant groups to improve their level of education, employment, and social integration. From the 1990s on, however, integration policy was gradually linked to social problems of public order and crime, leading to widespread support for anti-immigrant politicians who pointed out the “multicultural drama.”That caused the policy that emphasized preservation of the cultural identity of the minority groups to be replaced by a policy emphasizing assimilation and active citizenship (Engbersen, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, and Snel, 2014). Even though the Netherlands was once seen as the most tolerant of the West European countries, there is now a harsher climate regarding migrants. Nowadays, over 20 percent of the Dutch population is non-native. The immigrant population consists of an almost identical number of first-generation immigrants who are born abroad and second-generation immigrants who are born in the Netherlands but who have at least one parent who is born abroad (StatLine, 2013). And although they often have Dutch or dual citizenship, it is still common practice to label all gen- erations by their country of origin, e.g., Surinamese, Antilleans,Turkish, or Moroccans (Bovenkerk and Fokkema, 2016). These four main migrant groups differ in the extent to which they are integrated in Dutch society. The Caribbean immigrants are better integrated than the Mediter- ranean immigrants, perhaps because Surinamese and Antillean immigrants had been exposed to Dutch culture during the colonial period, being familiar with the Dutch language and often Christians, like the Dutch.An important difference with the Dutch is that colonial immigrants more often have a fatherless family structure. The Medi- terranean immigrants, on the other hand, differ culturally more from the Dutch: they have not yet been exposed to Dutch culture, they did not speak the Dutch language, and they are overwhelmingly Muslim. Furthermore, Turks and Moroccans originated from more disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds: the guest workers that were needed for low-skilled labor were recruited from the lowest socioeconomic strata in their home countries. But despite the similarities among Mediterranean immigrants, Crul and Doomernik (2003) also note a difference between Turks and Moroccans: Moroccans are modern individualists, whereas Turks are old-fashioned collectivists. Hence, the social integration of second-generation Moroccans is proceeding more rapidly than that of the Turks: the Turks adhere more to the norms and values of their own ethnic community (Crul and Doomernik, 2003). The level of integration differs, not only between the four minority groups, but also between the two generations. Classic assimilation theory assumes that every next generation is integrated better in society than prior generations (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and Alba, 2016). But ▇▇▇▇▇ (2014: 2) points out that second-generation migrants are caught between two worlds: “they have the same material aspirations as natives but lack suf- ficient social and personal capital to achieve them easily.” Because of a process of “segmented assimilation,” second-generation immigrants might move on a downward pathway of assimilation, with prejudice and discrimination that stimulate a reactive and defiant assertion of ethnic minority status (Maliepaard and ▇▇▇▇, 2016). Despite the differences in levels of integration, all ethnic minority groups have in common that they generally have lower socioeconomic positions than the native Dutch and that they are overrepresented in crime statistics. In 2013, 1 percent of the native Dutch were officially registered as a suspect of a crime, compared to 3 percent of the Turks, 3 percent of the Surinamese, 5 percent of the Moroccans and 6 percent of the Antilleans (Statistics Netherlands, 2014). With the exception of the Antilleans, second-generation migrants have higher crime rates than the first generation. The overrepresentation of the minority groups in crime statistics can partly be explained by demographic and socioeconomic differences, but a lack of parental supervision and informal control within ethnic communities, specific cultural traits regarding respect and codes of masculinity, street culture in certain urban areas, and selectivity in law enforcement might also be at play (Engbersen, Leerkes, and Snel, 2014), just as selectiv- ity in sentencing outcomes.
Appears in 1 contract
Sources: End User Agreement
in the Netherlands. Unlike the U.S., the Netherlands never was a country of immigration, until the immi- gration waves in the late 1960s and early 1970s. In the 1960s, so-called “guest workers,” mostly from Turkey and Morocco, immigrated to the Netherlands.Although these guest workers were supposed to stay only temporarily, many of them never remigrated and instead had their families reunified in the Netherlands. Besides guest workers and their families, another prominent category consists of immigrants from the former Dutch colonies in the Caribbean. After the independence of Surinam, nearly 300,000 Suri- namese, almost one-third of the Surinamese population, migrated to the Netherlands. A new wave of postcolonial migration began in the late 1980s, when residents of the Netherlands Antilles arrived. Because the Netherlands Antilles are still part of the King- dom of the Netherlands, Antilleans are Dutch nationals (Engbersen, Leerkes, and Snel, 2014). In the 1990s asylum seekers from countries like formerYugoslavia, former Soviet Union, and Iraq, came to the Netherlands, and during recent years, the open borders of the EU brought new immigrant groups from East European countries like Poland and Bulgaria, but these groups are still quite small ( ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2013). Recently a new migration wave is occurring related to refugees, from Syria for example. Over the last 25 years, the attitude towards migrant groups has changed dramati- cally. Although the Netherlands used to have a reputation as a tolerant and multicul- tural country in which migrant groups were supposed to integrate “while maintaining the migrants ‘culture,’” Dutch multiculturalism was in fact not so much a choice for “equal recognition” but a pragmatic pacification strategy instead (▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, 2011). In the 1970s and 1980s, persisting inequalities between ethnic groups gave rise to new policy based on affirmative action, with preferential treatment for migrant groups to improve their level of education, employment, and social integration. From the 1990s on, however, integration policy was gradually linked to social problems of public order and crime, leading to widespread support for anti-immigrant politicians who pointed out the “multicultural drama.”That caused the policy that emphasized preservation of the cultural identity of the minority groups to be replaced by a policy emphasizing assimilation and active citizenship (Engbersen, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇Leerkes, and Snel, 2014). Even though the Netherlands was once seen as the most tolerant of the West European countries, there is now a harsher climate regarding migrants. Nowadays, over 20 percent of the Dutch population is non-native. The immigrant population consists of an almost identical number of first-generation immigrants who are born abroad and second-generation immigrants who are born in the Netherlands but who have at least one parent who is born abroad (StatLine, 2013). And although they often have Dutch or dual citizenship, it is still common practice to label all gen- erations by their country of origin, e.g., Surinamese, Antilleans,Turkish, or Moroccans (Bovenkerk and Fokkema, 2016). These four main migrant groups differ in the extent to which they are integrated in Dutch society. The Caribbean immigrants are better integrated than the Mediter- ranean immigrants, perhaps because Surinamese and Antillean immigrants had been exposed to Dutch culture during the colonial period, being familiar with the Dutch language and often Christians, like the Dutch.An important difference with the Dutch is that colonial immigrants more often have a fatherless family structure. The Medi- terranean immigrants, on the other hand, differ culturally more from the Dutch: they have not yet been exposed to Dutch culture, they did not speak the Dutch language, and they are overwhelmingly Muslim. Furthermore, Turks and Moroccans originated from more disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds: the guest workers that were needed for low-skilled labor were recruited from the lowest socioeconomic strata in their home countries. But despite the similarities among Mediterranean immigrants, Crul and Doomernik (2003) also note a difference between Turks and Moroccans: Moroccans are modern individualists, whereas Turks are old-fashioned collectivists. Hence, the social integration of second-generation Moroccans is proceeding more rapidly than that of the Turks: the Turks adhere more to the norms and values of their own ethnic community (Crul and Doomernik, 2003). The level of integration differs, not only between the four minority groups, but also between the two generations. Classic assimilation theory assumes that every next generation is integrated better in society than prior generations (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Maliepaard and Alba, 2016). But ▇▇▇▇▇ (2014: 2) points out that second-generation migrants are caught between two worlds: “they have the same material aspirations as natives but lack suf- ficient social and personal capital to achieve them easily.” Because of a process of “segmented assimilation,” second-generation immigrants might move on a downward pathway of assimilation, with prejudice and discrimination that stimulate a reactive and defiant assertion of ethnic minority status (Maliepaard and ▇▇▇▇Alba, 2016). Despite the differences in levels of integration, all ethnic minority groups have in common that they generally have lower socioeconomic positions than the native Dutch and that they are overrepresented in crime statistics. In 2013, 1 percent of the native Dutch were officially registered as a suspect of a crime, compared to 3 percent of the Turks, 3 percent of the Surinamese, 5 percent of the Moroccans and 6 percent of the Antilleans (Statistics Netherlands, 2014). With the exception of the Antilleans, second-generation migrants have higher crime rates than the first generation. The overrepresentation of the minority groups in crime statistics can partly be explained by demographic and socioeconomic differences, but a lack of parental supervision and informal control within ethnic communities, specific cultural traits regarding respect and codes of masculinity, street culture in certain urban areas, and selectivity in law enforcement might also be at play (Engbersen, Leerkes, and Snel, 2014), just as selectiv- ity in sentencing outcomes.
Appears in 1 contract
Sources: Article 25fa End User Agreement