Friday, May 30, 2008

Dr. Schilder en de vrijheid van meningsuiting

In de context van de klacht die marrokaanse organisaties ingediend hebben tegen Wilders en waarbij het OM nog steeds niets gedaan heeft vind ik het vrij ongepast dat James Kennedy in zijn Groen van Prinsterer lezing stelt: "Legers gekwetsten gaan hun gelijk halen, en rechter en politiek moeten partij kiezen." James Kennedy stelt hier een klacht als die van deze organisaties gelijk aan zeuren.

Hoe dit ook zij, mijn bezwaar op de inhoud van deze lezing betreft in de kern de aanname van James Kennedy dat er een breekpunt is geweest in de Nederlandse geschiedenis in de jaren 60 en 70 waarbij een evenwicht tussen 'gelovig' en 'seculier' verstoord werd. Dat is een visie die door conservatieven wordt aangehangen, en die ook buiten die kring veel weerklank gevonden heeft, o.a. in christelijk Nederland. Die visie stelt "christelijke" politiek gelijk aan het ijveren voor een aantal concrete "christelijke??" beleidspunten zoals Kennedy er twee noemt in zijn artikel.

De echte verandering in de Nederlandse geschiedenis is naar mijn mening echter opgetreden tijdens de tweede wereldoorlog toen Dr. Schilder afgezet werd als hoogleraar van de Theologische Hogeschool in Kampen. Hij was niet alleen een persoon die maximaal gebruik maakte van zijn recht op vrije meningsuiting door zijn polemiserende verdediging van de gereformeerde belijdenis. Hij zorgd er gedurende de jaren 30 ook voor dat binnen de Gereformeerde Kerken geen ruimte was voor NSB'ers. Hij had namelijk vanaf 1930 tot 1933 in Duitsland een proefschrift geschreven getiteld "Zur Begriffsgeschichte des Paradoxons", waarin hij zijn visie uitéén zet op de theologie van Barth. Was Barth niet de man die vond dat Christelijke politiek niet kon bestaan? Schilder maakte maximaal gebruik van zijn recht op vrije meningsuiting. Dat betekende in de taal van zijn opponent, op zijn terrein, een proefschrift filosifie schrijven dat frontaal de aanval opent op diens(Karl Barth's) ideeën , maar dat betekende dus ook procederen bij de synode zodat NSB'ers daar geen enkele plaats meer hadden. Hij trok de lijnen die Abraham Kuyper getrokken had consequent door en daar was de Gereformeerde elite uiteindelijk OOK !!!! niet van gediend.

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

immigrants treated like dogs in dutch detention centers

read this dutch report by prison guards on the way immigrants are treated in dutch detention centers. Government officials deny it off course. But it's the truth. And the best reaction was by the VVD ex-minister Henk Kamp who said that everything is tidy in a dutch prison because it's a dutch prison. Off course, dutch soil is like the holy ground for this man.

Esther de Lange over een uitspraak EU Hof



Een lid van het Europees parlement prijst Nederland en de manier waarop het omgaat met migranten vanwege het feit dat Nederland een uitspraak van het EU hof voor rechten van de mens uitvoert. Het is bijna grappig, ware het niet dat het hier om een bloed serieuze zaak gaat.

Een uitspraak van dit Hof moet uitgevoerd worden., of Nederland dat nu wil of niet. Of Nederland dat nu leuk of wenselijk vindt doet helemaal niet ter zake. De uitspraak is glashelder, de raad van state is een club oud politici van Pvda, CDA en VVD die alles goed vinden wat de regering op het punt van immigratie besluit. Het liefst omzeilen ze het stellen van prejudiciële vragen. De reden daarvan

Het is ten hemel schreiend dat een europarlementariër van het CDA zo duidelijk probeert om de betekenis van de hieronder afgedrukte uitspraak voor het Nederlandse beleid te verdoezelen. Temeer daar ze als EU parlementariër natuurlijk heel goed weet wat de betekenis is van de uitspraak.



Europese Hof corrigeert Nederlands asielbeleidDoor Sebastiaan Gottlieb

12-01-2007



Het Europese Hof voor de Rechten van de Mens in Straatsburg heeft Nederland op de vingers getikt.
Nederland is flink op de vingers getikt door het Europese Hof voor de Rechten van de Mens. Volgens het Hof in Straatsburg mag Nederland een Somalische asielzoeker niet uitzetten naar zijn eigen land, omdat dat in strijd is met het Europese Verdrag voor de Rechten van de Mens; de man zou in Somalië gevaar lopen. De uitspraak heeft grote gevolgen voor het asielbeleid in Nederland.



De 20-jarige Somalische vluchteling Salan Sheekh vraagt in mei 2003 in Nederland asiel aan. Hij woonde in het noorden van Somalië, waar een rivaliserende clan zijn vader en broer heeft vermoord. De toenmalige minister van Vreemdelingenzaken, Rita Verdonk, wijst zijn asielaanvraag af omdat de man niet kan bewijzen dat hij bij terugkeer persoonlijk gevaar loopt. Volgens Verdonk was er geen directe dreiging tegen de asielzoeker zelf, maar zou hij hoogstens gevaar lopen door de algemene instabiele situatie in het land.

Bescherming
De Immigratie en Naturalisatie Dienst (IND) hanteert als vaste regel dat een asielzoeker moet aantonen dat hij persoonlijk gevaar loopt om niet te worden uitgezet. Volgens het Europese Hof is dat beleid in strijd met het verbod op martelen en onmenselijke straffen. Als er in een land een onveilige situatie heerst voor een bepaalde groep, dan mogen mensen die tot die groep behoren niet worden teruggestuurd. Het Hof concludeert in het geval van de Somaliër dat hij als lid van een minderheidsgroep moeilijk bescherming zou kunnen vinden in zijn eigen land.

Het is bijzonder dat het Hof uitspraak doet over het uitzetten van de Somaliër zonder dat hij daartegen eerst beroep heeft ingesteld bij de Raad van State. Het Hof mag officieel alleen zaken in behandelingen nemen als alle nationale procedures zijn uitgeput. In dit geval heeft het Hof toch uitspraak gedaan, omdat de asielzoeker weinig succes te verwachten heeft bij de Raad van State. Er bestaat al langer kritiek op deze rechtelijke instantie, omdat deze vrijwel altijd het besluit van de minister volgt.

Veiligheid
Opmerkelijk is verder dat het Hof stelt dat Nederland het oordeel over de veiligheid in een bepaald land niet alleen mag baseren op een ambtsbericht van het Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken. Ook informatie van andere organisaties als de UNHCR, Artsen zonder Grenzen, Amnesty International en Vluchtelingenwerk moet meegewogen worden. Door vele instanties in Nederland is daar al jaren voor gepleit, maar tot nog toe zonder succes. De ambtsberichten geven vaak een veel gunstiger beeld over de veiligheid in een land dan andere organisaties doen.

De uitspraak van het Hof heeft ongetwijfeld gunstige gevolgen voor de twaalf andere Somalische asielzoekers die beroep hebben aangetekend tegen hun aanstaande verwijdering uit Nederland. Maar het zou ook wel eens gevolgen kunnen hebben voor asielzoekers uit Noord-Irak, Afghanistan, Burundi en Colombia; de IND erkent dat daar een instabiele situatie heerst, maar stuurt toch asielzoekers naar die landen terug.

Te streng
VluchtelingenWerk Nederland is heel verheugd met de uitspraak omdat die aantoont dat het Nederlandse asielbeleid te streng is. Volgens directeur Edwin Huizing worden er door Nederland mensen uitgezet die daadwerkelijk bescherming nodig hebben. VluchtelingenWerk pleit er dan ook met klem voor het beleid aan te passen.
De Nederlandse staat overweegt beroep aan te tekenen, omdat de uitspraak van het Europees Hof een aantal principiële punten van het Nederlandse uitzettingsbeleid betreft.

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

CAlifornia mobilizes the immigrant vote in 2008


WHO WE ARE

The Mobilize the Immigrant Vote (MIV) California Collaborative was started in 2004 as the first-ever statewide campaign in California to organize a multi-ethnic coalition of community-based organizations working within immigrant communities and building their capacity to register, educate, and mobilize their constituents for electoral participation.

MIV is a non-partisan organization that follows all of the legal guidelines for 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations.

The MIV Campaign is staffed and governed by a Coordinating Committee made up of six coalitions and coalition-conveners: the Bay Area Immigrant Rights Coalition (BAIRC); the California Partnership (CAP); the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA); the Korean Resource Center (KRC); Partnership for Immigrant Leadership and Action (PILA); and Services, Immigrant Rights, and Education Network (SIREN).

The heart and soul of our campaign are the 150-plus community based organizations across California that participate in MIV's annual campaigns. Our 2006 community partners were:
Mobilize the Immigrant Vote 2006 Campaign Organizations

Mobilize the Immigrant Vote 2006 Campaign Organizations
ACORN - San Jose
ACORN - San Bernardino
ACORN - San Diego
Águilas/El Ambiente Program
Alameda Health Consortium
Alexandria House
American Friends Service Committee
Asian Advocacy Project
Asian Health Services
Asian law Alliance
Asian Pacific Islander Youth Promoting Advocacy & Leadership
Bay Area Iranian-American Voter Association
Bay Area Parent Leadership Action Network
California Immigrant Welfare Collaborative
California Parents Association of America
Catholic Charities – San Jose
Catholic Charities – Santa Rosa
Central American Resource Center – LA
Central American Resource Center – SF
Central City Lutheran Mission
Central City Neighborhood Partners
Central Coast Alliance United for Sustainable Economy
Centro Binacional para Desarrollo Indigena
Centro La Familia Advocacy Services
Centro Latino de San Francisco
Cesar E Chavez Foundation
Children’s Services Network – Fresno
Chinatown Community Development Center (SRO)
Chinese for Affirmative action
Chinese Progressive Association
Claretian Missionaries LA Placita
Coalition LA
Collective Space
Comité Cesar Chavez
Comité de Padres Unidos
Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County
contra Costa County Interfaith Support Committee
Center for Community Action & Environmental Justice
East Bay Community Law Center
East Bay Sanctuary Covenant
East Bay Alliance for Sustainable Economy
Escondido Human Rights Committee
Ethiopian American Advocacy Group
Faith & Community
Family Bridges
Filipinos for Affirmative Action
Firebaugh Computer Learning Center
Fresno Center for New American
Gilroy Citizenship & Education Program & Advocacy
Grace Urban Ministries, Inc
Health Access
Hermandad Mexicana Latino Americana
Homeless health Care LA
Hunger Action LA IDEAS at UCLA
Immigrant Legal Resource Center
Independent Living Resource Center
Interfaith Coalition for Immigrant Rights
International Institute of San Francisco
IRIS, Office of Human Relations of Santa Clara County
Josias Aguilar

Justice Overcoming Boundaries
Khmer Girls in Action
Korean American Community Services
Korean Immigrant Workers Alliance
LA Coalition to End Hunger & Homelessness
La Manzana Community Resources
Latina Center
Latino Issues Forum
Latinas y Latinos en Acción
Libreria del Pueblo
Love Sees No Borders
Low Income Self Help Center
MAAC Project
Madera Coalition for Community Justice
Marin Grassroots Leadership Network
Marin Senior Coordination Council (Whistlestop)
Mayfair Improvement Initiative
MECHA Riverside
Mesa de la Comunidad Mountain View
Mujeres Unidas y Activas (MUA)
Narika
National Latino Research Center
Natural Resources Defense Council
Nuestra Casa
Office of Hispanic Affairs, Diocese of San Bernardino
Orange County Congregation Community Organizing
Organización de CA de Líderes Campesinas, Inc
PAN Valley Institute
Parent Voices – Fresno
Parent Voices – San Francisco
Peninsula Interfaith Action
Pilipino Bayanihan Resource Center
PODER
Poverty Matters
POWER
PowerPAC
Progressive Christian Uniting
Proveedoras Latinas Unidas
Proyecto Pastoral
PUEBLO
Quetzal Services, Inc
Relational culture Institute
Riverside Latino Voter Project
Rose Foundation for Community & the Environment
SURGE – Cal Sate LA
Saint Alphonsus – Faith & Community
Saint Anthony – Faith & Community
Salvadoran American Leadership & Educational Fund
Salvadoran American National Association
San Diego Welfare Warriors
Santa Clara Family Health Plan
Say Yes to Children Network
SIEU Local 1877
Self Help for the Elderly
Servicios Comunitarios de San Bernardino
Sonoma Parent Voices
Supportive Parents Information Network (SPIN)
St. Anselm’s Cross Cultural Community
Teatro Visión
Time for Change
URPAVV – Unión de Residentes

Monday, May 26, 2008

dutch embassy and IND trespass european free movement laws

Read this article in dutch about a german who lives in the Netherlands and is married with a Surinam lady and still can't get her overhere. Those dutch government officials say she needs an MVV. What are they doing there???is that just discrimination, racism of people who don't know the law? Or is it a government policy!!!!

If you want to ask them after reading the story below you can allways ask them what school they went to to get to work at the ambassy to produce this kind of crap. EU Law is soo clear, even without going to highschool they could have known that this lady from surinam should receive an entry visa without delay.

More info on how to reach the embassy is found on their website:
http://suriname.nlambassade.org/
You can write or phone them, or email them asking why they refuse entry to the family members of EU citizens. Which version of the European treaty they got under their pillow.

Van Roseveltkade 5
Paramaribo
Tel: 00-597-477211
Fax: 00-597-477792
E-mail: Emailadres prm@minbuza.nl



Ik ben van Duitse nationaliteit en woonachtig sinds 2000 in Dordrecht.
Sinds december 2007 ben ik met mij vrouw getrouwd. Deze huwelijk is naar de M43 procedure in Dordrecht worden geregisterde.

Last vrijdag is mij vrouw op de ambassade in Paramaribo gewest om een Toeristenvisum
Aangevraagde. (dat is de weg die mij de IND heft voorgelegd. Toeristenvisum en dan afsprak bij de IND voor toets op rechtmatige verblijf in de EU.)

Nu heft de medewerker bij de in Paramaribo direct bij de visums aanvrage mij vrouw volgende dingen gevraagd.
Doh
1. Ho zo zij geen Mvv hat aangevragt (volgens IND moet dat niet Ik ben eu onderdan en zij moet een toets rechtmatiege verblijf in de EU anvragen)
2. hoe zij heft leren kennen. (hoezo doet dat zij interesseren dat is in mij zicht een kwestie die door de IND bij de registratie van de trouwakten in Nederland zijn worden gevraagd)
3. Hoe vak ik in Suriname ben gewest. (ook niet bij de registratie gevraagt)
4. Op zij met mij kinderen doet hebben. (ja staat op de trouwakte dat ik een zoon heb erkent.)


Vandaag doet zij de informatie ontvangen dat haar visum is niet goedgekeurd.
Wieder met de opmerking dat zij geen MVV heft gevraagd.
En dat er nog vragen zijn in verbinding met haar verblijf in Nederland.
Dat het op minst 8 weken doet duren bevroor zij een antwoord doet bekom.



Ik heb voor haar voor vandaag een ticket gekocht dat geld is nu weg.
Een bezoek bij mij gezin is nu niet te doen.
Ik werk veel in het buitenland de termijnen zijn ook voor niets worden verschoven.
Met wat zijn die in Paramaribo bezig.


Kunt u mij hier iets uitlegen.
Bij wie kan ik klachtindienend.
Wat kan ik doen.

Met vriendelijke groeten

Sunday, May 25, 2008

Bemba arrest is a joke

It's soo easy to think Bemba is this very bad crimininal. But I am not convinced yet. There has been going on a lot of killing in the Congo and Rwanda in recent years. Fact is Uganda's president Museveni attacked Rwanda with the help of a high officer in his army, now president of Rwanda. An invasion like Sadam's invasion in Kuwait. But nobody ever told Museveni that he should go out.

Saturday, May 24, 2008

Discrimination in the name of integration

Impact on the Rights of Migrants

The overseas integration test is discriminatory. Coupled with the income requirements and cost of applications for family formation and reunification, it infringes the right to family life, affecting the rights of both those seeking to enter the Netherlands as family migrants and Dutch citizens and residents wishing to bring family members to live with them. As noted above, Turkish and Moroccan migrants in the Netherlands are disproportionately affected by these measures.
Prohibition of Discrimination
Human Rights Law

Human rights law prohibits discrimination and unjustified unequal treatment. The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) forbid discrimination on the basis of nationality.82 The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) forbids discrimination on the basis of race.83 The Netherlands is a party to each of these treaties.

Governments have the right to control entry to their borders and have a certain margin of appreciation to justify differential treatment compatible with international human rights law. But the measures must pursue a legitimate aim and need to be proportional to the achievement of this aim.84

The European Court of Human Rights has accepted as compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights differences in treatment between EU nationals and third country nationals.85 But the court has ruled that other differences in treatment solely on the basis of nationality are difficult to justify, requiring “very weighty reasons.”86 The jurisprudence of the court leaves little or no room for justification of distinctions on grounds of “race” or “ethnic origin.”

In a recent case on Russia, the Court held that:

…no difference in treatment which is based exclusively or to a decisive extent on a person’s ethnic origin is capable of being objectively justified in a contemporary democratic society built on the principles of pluralism and respect for different cultures.87

In an important November 2007 judgment on non-discrimination (D.H. and others v. Czech Republic), the court underscored that the European Convention addresses not only specific acts of discrimination, but also systemic practices that deny the enjoyment of rights to racial or ethnic groups. The court re-affirmed that "a difference in treatment may take the form of disproportionately prejudicial effects of a general policy or measure which, though couched in neutral terms, discriminates against a racial or ethnic group."88

Indeed, the court clarified that such a situation may amount to "indirect discrimination," in breach of the convention. A difference in treatment without objective and reasonable justification may violate article 14 even in the absence of discriminatory intent. It is sufficient that the practice or policy resulted in a disproportionate adverse effect on a particular group.

The ICERD does not permit distinctions among non-citizens on racial grounds. The treaty does draw a distinction between citizens and non-citizens (article 1(2)), and permits some exceptions in legal provision relating to nationality, citizenship, or naturalization (article 1(3)).

In its General Recommendation No. 30, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) has stated that states must “ensure that immigration policies do not have the effect of discriminating against persons on the basis of race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin.” 89 The General Recommendation also indicates that the compatibility of differential treatment in immigration matters with ICERD will depend on whether the measures pursue a legitimate aim and are proportional to the achievement of this aim.90

The CERD Committee has also affirmed the principle of non-discrimination in the specific context of family unification. In March 2007 the CERD Committee observed, in relation to Israeli legislation limiting family reunification in cases of marriage between an Israeli citizen and a person residing in the West Bank or Gaza, that states must “ensure that restrictions on family reunification are strictly necessary and limited in scope, and are not applied on the basis of nationality, residency or membership of a particular community.” 91
Overseas integration test discriminatory

The overseas integration test violates the principle of non-discrimination as enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

The exemption granted to persons from “western” countries constitutes discrimination in the sense of Article 14 of the ECHR and under Protocol 12 to the convention.92 The act does not meet the requirement for justification set by the European Court of Human Rights. The integration of the immigrants into the Netherlands, including through the acquisition of Dutch language, history, and culture, may be a legitimate aim. But an integration exam that provides a blanket exemption for some nationalities and not others is not proportionate to that aim. A general exemption for persons from a number of countries is also contrary to the alleged aim of the act, namely that all migrants should have a basic level of integration before arrival.93

When Human Rights Watch asked the minister for housing, communities and integration why citizens of some countries are exempted, her response was that to a certain extent those are similar in socio-economic, social, and political background to European countries. The countries do not generate undesired and unbridled migration flows to the Netherlands nor do their citizens experience essential problems in integration into Dutch society. Nationals of these countries, she said, are also exempted from the MVV requirement because of factors such as Dutch economic interests, foreign relations, national security, and public order.94

As noted above, the argument that the exempted countries are comparable with the Netherlands in social, economic, and political background has no objective justification. The government has not demonstrated that, for example, Japanese family members who are exempted from the overseas integration test tend to integrate more easily than Turkish family members who are required to take it. There is no evidence that the declared social and economic level of a country is a reliable indicator of the capability, inclination, or willingness of a potential individual migrant to integrate.95 The government has not shown, if it believes family members in some countries need to pass this integration test, why others do not.

In assessing the proportionality of the measure, it is important to recall that the government requires most long-term foreign residents (with the exception of EU/EEA citizens) to pass an examination demonstrating greater knowledge of the Dutch language and culture than is assessed by the overseas integration test.96 The Dutch government still argues that the overseas integration test facilitates the process of ongoing integration once the person is present in the Netherlands.97 Yet it fails to justify why for nationals of some countries, the integration program in the Netherlands is deemed sufficient to facilitate the process of integration, and no overseas test is required.

Since the difference in treatment has no relation to the aim of the measure (better integration in the country of destination), it amounts to discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin and nationality. The sanction for not passing the overseas integration test is the refusal of entry into the Netherlands. A reduction in immigration by non-western family migrants was an expected effect of the legislation by the Dutch government.98 The government assumed here that only those who pass the test have satisfactorily manifested their willingness to integrate. But this assessment fails to take sufficiently into account the practical difficulties in preparing and taking the test before entry to the Netherlands. This disproportionate instrument therefore violates the Netherlands’ obligations under the ECHR.

Similarly, the country exemptions for the overseas integration test also constitute an unjustified infringement of the principles of non-discrimination in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD). As the concept of “race” in Article 1(1) of the convention is to be broadly interpreted, including descent, or national or ethnic origin, the persons affected by the act can be considered to fall under the definition of “race.”

The National Bureau against Racial Discrimination, LBR, (now part of “Art. 1,” the national association against discrimination) argues that the act constitutes an unjustified infringement on the principles of non-discrimination as enshrined in ICERD. 99 Its conclusion is based on the exemptions granted to some nationalities and the proportionality of the measure to the aims it seeks to achieve. The organization argues that the comparable socio-economic, social, and political development of a country is an arbitrary justification for the exemption, since it bears no relationship to the capacity or the inclinations of an individual to integrate in the Netherlands or his or her knowledge of the Dutch language.

The exemption for certain nationalities is not covered by the two exceptions in Article 1 of ICERD. The measure is part of the immigration legislation, not of the citizenship legislation. It distinguishes between different groups of non-nationals rather than between nationals and non-nationals. Moreover, the measure in practice directly or indirectly has different effects for migrants related to their ethnic or racial origin. 100 It therefore violates the Netherlands’ obligations under the ICERD.
Indirect discrimination: disproportionate impact on certain migrant communities

In addition to the discriminatory impact on foreign national family migrants from non-western countries, the overseas integration test also indirectly discriminates against individual Dutch citizens and residents from non-western migrant communities, particularly those of Turkish and Moroccan origin. As noted above, members of these communities in the Netherlands are also disproportionately impacted by financial requirements for sponsoring family formation and reunification.

At first glance, the legal rules on the integration exam abroad in the Netherlands are formulated in a general and neutral way, affecting all Dutch citizens and residents who wish to bring family members to the Netherlands. However this disguises the fact that this measure disproportionately affects Dutch citizens and residents of “non-western” origin. Members of “non-western” migrant communities are more likely to bring family members from abroad to the Netherlands than “native” Dutch persons, and far more likely to bring family members from “non-western” countries than migrants from “western” countries living in the Netherlands.

The exemption of Surinamese nationals with a certain level of Dutch education, means that in practice it is members of the other two largest migrant communities in the Netherlands—from Turkey and Morocco—who are most affected. Indeed as noted above, these two groups were uppermost in the mind of policymakers when the overseas integration test legislation was introduced.

According to figures released by Statistics Netherlands (CBS) in January 2008, a large majority of Turkish men who married in 2006 chose a bride of Turkish origin; in 54 percent of the marriages, the wife had previously lived in the Netherlands while 27 percent lived in Turkey before their marriage, but later moved to the Netherlands.101 Among Moroccan men, 83 percent of those who married in 2006 chose a bride of Moroccan origin—60 percent had Moroccan wives who had previously lived in the Netherlands and 23 percent had wives who migrated from Morocco after marriage.

The high cost of the test and financial requirements also disproportionately affect Turkish and Moroccan migrants in the Netherlands. Turkish and Moroccan migrant communities are generally the most disadvantaged in the Netherlands. They suffer high rates of unemployment,102 an over concentration in low wage employment,and low incomes compared to the national average.103 The sustainability requirement to be demonstrated by longer-term employment contracts or profits represents a difficult challenge for newly employed, self-employed persons and in general for persons with a more difficult position on the labor market.

The introduction of stricter sponsorship requirements in 2004 has been put forward as a partial explanation for the decline between 2001 and 2006 in the number of Turkish and Moroccan men in the Netherlands marrying brides from abroad. The proportion of Turkish men in the Netherlands marrying a bride coming from Turkey fell during that period from 56 percent to 27 percent, while among Moroccan men the proportion marrying a woman coming from Morocco fell from 57 percent to 23 percent.104

The financial constraints also affect refugees. Refugees who fail to apply for family reunification within three months of receiving status are subject to the income requirements, as are asylum seekers who receive other forms of status. Access to employment can be difficult for such persons, who have sometimes been absent from the labor market for a long period, making it difficult to comply with the income requirements.
The Right to Family Life

The operation of the overseas integration test has a direct impact on the right to family and private life of migrants resident in the Netherlands and their foreign national family members.
Human Rights Law

The right to family life is protected under international human rights law, including the ECHR and ICCPR.105 But the right is a qualified one, insofar as interference with its enjoyment is legitimate where necessary to protect a greater public interest. In the context of family unification, the public interest in question is immigration control. Whether the restriction constitutes a violation will depend on a number of factors including the length of stay and ties of the individuals to the country where they live and whether it is possible to enjoy family life in another state.

The European Court on Human Rights acknowledges the state’s own interest in controlling immigration and that the ECHR provides no automatic right to family life in a particular country. To assess whether an interference with this right strikes the correct balance between an individual’s right to family life and the state’s interest in controlling immigration, the court takes into account, among other factors, the individual’s ties to the country of residence and the country of nationality, his or her family situation, and the obstacles the individual and his family members would face in the individual’s country of nationality. 106

Article 23 of the ICCPR provides that “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State” and therefore guarantees the protection of family life, including the interest in family reunification. The Human Rights Committee, which monitors compliance with the ICCPR, addressed the issue indirectly in its 1986 General Comment 15 on the “Position of Aliens under the Covenant” noting that although in general states have discretion in relation to admitting non-nationals, “in certain circumstances, an alien may enjoy the protection of the Covenant even in relation to entry or residence,” for example, when considerations of non-discrimination and respect for family life arise.107
Interference with the Right to Family Life

Foreign family members must remain outside the Netherlands until they have met the requirements for family migration to the Netherlands, including passing the overseas integration test, and their MVV application has been approved. This can lead to significant periods of separation for spouses and family members.

Once all the requirements have been met and the application submitted, the MVV procedure generally takes three to six more months. The requirement that applicants pass the overseas integration test (including the involved preparation time) arguably amounts to an informal waiting period.108 Even if an applicant passes the test on the first try, and is able to meet other requirements, the accumulation of these conditions can lead to a considerable waiting period.109

For applicants under the age of 21, the waiting period is even longer. For example, if a 19-year-old Dutch citizen of Turkish or Moroccan origin marries, he or she will have to wait until age 21 before an application for family formation can even be filed. Moreover, the income requirement for family formation is 120 percent of the minimum wage persons aged 23 and up. If the 21 year old earns at or below the average for his age group, he or she may have to wait up to two more years before being able to comply with the income requirement.110

Notwithstanding, the state’s own interest in controlling immigration and the fact that the ECHR provides no right to family life in a particular country, a significant delay in family reunification or formation would be an interference in the right to family life for the family member living in the Netherlands. Whether or not it would amount to a violation (that is a disproportionate interference) of the right to family life of the person resident in the Netherlands would depend on the strength of ties that he or she had established in the Netherlands (the presence of family members, employment, etc), and whether or not he or she could reasonably be expected to give up residence in the Netherlands and move to a third country.

When Human Rights Watch asked the minister for housing, communities and integration if the government has assessed the impact of restrictions on family reunification and formation on the right to family life of Turkish and Moroccan migrants living in the Netherlands, the minister responded that the state secretary of justice will evaluate the impact of the income and age requirements this year. The impact of Integration Abroad Act on the influx of family migrants, including Turkish and Moroccan migrants, will be taken into account in the evaluation of this act, also beginning this year. The minister stated that the number of applications for MVVs, including the applications of family migrants has decreased since 2003. She argued that the evaluation will have to demonstrate whether this decrease in applications can be ascribed to the sharpened restrictions on family formation and reunification.111
The Right to Marry and Found a Family
Human Rights Law

In addition to its obligation not to discriminate on the basis of nationality or ethnic origin, the Netherlands also has a positive obligation under international human rights law to protect the family, including the establishment of families. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the ICCPR, the Convention on the rights of the Child (CRC), and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) all afford special protection to the family as the fundamental unit of society.

Under Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 23 (1) and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), discriminatory limitations of the human right to marry and found a family are prohibited. The family is defined as the natural and fundamental group unit of society and entitled to protection by society and the State.

General Comment 19, Article 23, paragraph 2, of the ICCPR reaffirms the right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family. As the Human Rights Committee argues, “the possibility to live together implies the adoption of appropriate measures … to ensure the unity or reunification of families, particularly when their members are separated for political, economic or similar reasons.”112 Protection of the family and its members is also guaranteed, directly or indirectly, by other provisions of the covenant. Thus, article 17 establishes a prohibition on arbitrary or unlawful interference with the family.113

In addition, Article 5 (d) (iv) of the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) requires states parties to guarantee the right of everyone to equality before the law in the enjoyment of their right to marriage and choice of spouse.

Article 10 of the ICESCR also recognizes that: “The widest possible protection and assistance should be accorded to the family, which is the natural and fundamental group unit of society, particularly for its establishment and while it is responsible for the care and education of dependent children…”

The committee that assesses state compliance with this covenant (CESCR) has expressed concern about Norway’s imposition of financial requirements on migrants seeking family reunification, concluding that “the subsistence requirement imposes an undue constraint on the ability of some foreigners…to be reunited with their closest family members” and encouraged the state “to consider easing restrictions on family reunification in order to ensure the widest possible protection of, and assistance to, the family.”114
Impact on individuals in the Netherlands and their family members

Although the act does not directly forbid a marriage with the spouse of their choice, the overseas integration test, coupled with the financial requirements for family migration to the Netherlands, may make it impossible for a considerable number of spouses to live together for an extended period of time.115 The restrictive conditions required impose constraints that are very difficult for some applicants to fulfill and thereby interfere with the ability of these couples to realize their choice of a spouse. They have a significant impact on marriage migration by poor and less educated women who need more support to integrate into Dutch society.

As FORUM (Institute for Multicultural Development) pointed out in 2003 when overseas integration conditions were first proposed, the lack of facilities to learn the Dutch language in some countries makes it almost impossible for nationals of those countries to join their spouses and family members in the Netherlands. FORUM further challenged why an income requirement of 120 percent was imposed while the legal minimum wage had been based on the fact that a family could support itself on this wage.116

Forced marriage, domestic violence117, and honor-related violence118, issues present in the Dutch public debate on integration policies, are human rights violations and the Dutch authorities have an obligation to take positive effective measures to prevent them. But even if that were the purpose of the law, the introduction of collective blanket restrictions on family formation and reunification for Turkish and Moroccan migrant communities in the Netherlands are not proportionate to that aim.

falend illegalen beleid of ontbrekende burgerschapsvisie?

In een bijzin in een artikel over Zuid Afrika geeft de journalist even haar eigen mening over illegalen (de oplossing is o.a. grenzen te sluiten). Ik vind het stuitend dat in deze context zulke simplistische stellingen betrokken worden met betrekking tot illegalen en dat er geen enkel verband wordt gelegd met democratisering en burgerschap. Er wordt weer de indruk gewekt dat illegalen zielig zijn en dat de kerken zulk fantastisch werk doen. In plaats van te constateren dat miljoenen mensen helemaal niet vertegenwoordigd zijn en dat ze niet gerespecteerd worden in hun identiteit.

De indruk wordt door de journalist gewekt dat het sluiten van grenzen een oplossing is voor .... ja voor wat eigenlijk????????? Ik verwacht van redacties dat zulke bijzinnen (laat ik het euphemistisch uitdrukken) uit de krant geweerd wordt. Over illegalen spreek je niet als problemen die opgelost moeten worden. Dat heeft niets met politieke correctheid te maken. Zulk soort journalistiek houdt er geen rekening mee dat burgerschap een dynamisch en nadrukkelijk niet statisch concept is. Maar burgerschap als leidraad voor het denken heeft de afgelopen jaren volledig afgedaan. Het gaat nu alleen nog maar over normen en waarden. Het gaat alleen nog maar over judeo-christelijke waarden en andere oppervlakkigheden. Politieke partijen zien hun werk meer als slagroom op de taart in plaats van het consistent en voortdurend concretiseren van een burgerschapsvisie.






door Gineke Mons JOHANNESBURG - In de gemeentelijke zaal van Brackendown, een van de zuidelijke buitenwijken van Johannesburg, vangt de plaatselijke methodistenkerk zo'n driehonderd vluchtelingen op. Tegen de muur staan wat tassen, dekens, wateremmers, teilen, twee fietsen, een radio. Het zijn veelal de enige bezittingen die de Zimbabwanen uit de verderop gelegen township Tokoza hebben weten te redden.

Na de geweldsuitbarstingen van een week geleden zochten ze in eerste instantie een veilig heenkomen in het politiebureau. Maandag zijn ze overgebracht naar de zaal. ,,Uit die zee van mensen trekt ineens iemand een tv tevoorschijn, ergens anders komt een antenne vandaan, en zo zaten alle mannen hier maandagavond naar het nieuws te kijken'', vertelt vrijwilligster Anesca Dewit van de methodistenkerk. ,,En op dinsdag hing er ineens allemaal wasgoed over de struiken. Waren de vrouwen toch de was gaan doen.''

Ze maakt zich wel zorgen over het weekeinde. De zaal is morgen geboekt voor een trouwerij en dan moeten de driehonderd vluchtelingen tijdelijk ergens anders naartoe.

Overdag zijn veel Zimbabwanen die werk hebben of zoeken, op pad. In en om de zaal blijven dan nog zo'n honderd mensen achter. Vanochtend wordt er buiten enthousiast gevoetbald. Vrijwilligers hebben net nieuwe ballen gebracht, zodat de mannen hun zorgen even kunnen vergeten.

Binnen zit een groep vrouwen, vele met peuters en baby's op de rug en op schoot. In een rij wachten ze op kleding die wordt uitgedeeld door de vrijwilligsters van de kerk. Schoenen, broeken, topjes en kinderkleertjes vinden gretig aftrek. Dewit zou de vrouwen ook graag schoon ondergoed willen geven, maar dat is lastig. ,,Mensen geven nou eenmaal niet snel oude onderbroeken mee als er om kleding wordt gevraagd'', glimlacht ze.

Desondanks noemt ze het overweldigend wat de zeshonderd leden tellende methodistenkerk sinds zondag bij elkaar heeft weten te brengen. Er liggen stapels warme kleren en schoenen voor de winter. Het aanrecht in de keuken stroomt over van de blikgroenten, soepzakjes, rijst, pasta, maïsmeel, suiker, koffie en babymelkpoeder. Supermarkt Woolworths heeft kant-en-klaarmaaltijden, gedroogde vruchten en vlees afgeleverd. Luiers, toiletpapier, maandverband, van alles is in overvloed gedoneerd.

,,Vandaag hebben we nog dertig broden doorgestuurd naar Tokoza, omdat we geen ruimte meer hadden in de vriezer'', zegt Dewit. ,,Als je overhoudt, moet je uitdelen, want als je het vasthoudt krijg je niets,,, zegt ze, verwijzend naar het manna in de Bijbel.

Kerkdienst
De methodisten en ook de baptisten, die bijspringen, ervaren dagelijks wonderlijke zegeningen. ,,Pas stond hier een man op de stoep met twee pakken gehakt. Hij schaamde zich haast, hij had niet geweten dat er zóveel mensen waren. Maar we hebben er blikgroenten bij gedaan en uiteindelijk konden er driehonderd mensen van eten.''

De vrijwilligers zorgen dagelijks voor ontbijt, lunch en avondeten. Triest genoeg krijgen veel vluchtelingen nu beter te eten dan ze in tijden hebben gehad. Maar het blijft niet bij brood en soep alleen. Woensdagavond is er ook een kerkdienst gehouden. Dewit: ,,Mensen vroegen: jullie helpen ons zo goed met eten en kleding, maar waar blijft het Woord van God?,,

Ook 's avonds, voordat de vrijwilligers naar huis gaan, wordt er gebeden voor de veiligheid van de Zimbabwanen. Tot nu toe bleef het rustig. De immigranten zijn in hun nieuwe toevluchtsoord niet opnieuw aangevallen. ,,Waarschijnlijk doordat deze locatie niet zo bekend is'', verklaart een politieman, die even poolshoogte komt nemen. ,,Zie dat jullie dat zo houden.''

Veel zwarte Zuid-Afrikanen worden gedreven door angst, verklaart methodistendominee Neil Vels de opgelaaide vreemdelingenhaat. ,,Ze zijn bang dat de buitenlanders hun huizen en banen inpikken, ze zijn bang voor vreemdelingen en vooral bang voor de toekomst. Maar'', zegt hij, ,,het is natuurlijk ook makkelijker anderen de schuld te geven van jouw problemen, dan zelf de verantwoordelijkheid te nemen en werk te zoeken.,,

Vlam in de pan
De dieperliggende oorzaak is volgens de dominee dat de Zuid-Afrikaanse overheid de situatie in Zimbabwe veel te lang heeft genegeerd. ,,Zuid-Afrika had daar acht jaar geleden al moeten ingrijpen'', meent hij.

In combinatie met gebrekkige grenscontrole en een volstrekt falend illegalenbeleid, heeft dit ertoe geleid dat er inmiddels tegen de vijf miljoen Afrikaanse immigranten naar Zuid-Afrika zijn gestroomd in de hoop op een beter leven
. De meesten trekken naar Johannesburg, het economisch hart van het land, en komen daar terecht in de sloppenwijken. Daar moeten ze met andere arme zwarten concurreren om baantjes, woonruimte en sociale voorzieningen.

In Tokoza sloeg vrijdagavond de vlam in de pan, vertelt de werkloze Zimbabwaan Alexander Nkomo. Hij had daarvoor acht maanden 'zonder problemen' in Tokoza gewoond. ,,Ze staken onze shacks (krotten) in brand en tv's, radio's, kleding, alles werd gejat.'' De belagers waren Zulu's, afkomstig van de andere kant van Tokoza, weet een van de omstanders met zekerheid te melden.

En nu? ,,We willen hier niet meer blijven, we willen terug naar Zimbabwe'', zegt Norbert Chimukuyu. ,,Hoe slecht het daar ook is, teruggaan is nu beter dan hier blijven.'' Maar dat wordt nog lastig. Een busticket kost 300 tot 350 rand, rond 30 euro. De werkloze mannen zullen dat bedrag eerst bij elkaar moeten zien te vergaren.

Tegen het middaguur komt het bericht dat de bruiloft van zaterdag is verplaatst naar een andere locatie. ,,Gelukkig, ons gebed is verhoord'', verzucht Dewit opgelucht.

--------------------------------------------

Friday, May 23, 2008

Nederland veroordeeld door Hof van Justitie EU

Balkenende en zijn regering hebben de mond vol over Europa, maar begrijpen de normen en waarden van Europa niet.

Door nationale bepalingen te handhaven volgens welke economisch niet-actieve en gepensioneerde onderdanen van de lidstaten van de Europese Unie en van de Europese Economische Ruimte moeten bewijzen dat zij duurzaam over middelen van bestaan beschikken om een verblijfsvergunning te verkrijgen, is het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden de verplichtingen niet nagekomen die op hem rusten krachtens de richtlijnen 68/360/EEG van de Raad van 15 oktober 1968 inzake de opheffing van de beperkingen van de verplaatsing en het verblijf van de werknemers der lidstaten en van hun familie binnen de Gemeenschap, 90/364/EEG van de Raad van 28 juni 1990 betreffende het verblijfsrecht, en 90/365/EEG van de Raad van 28 juni 1990 betreffende het verblijfsrecht van werknemers en zelfstandigen die hun beroepswerkzaamheid hebben beëindigd.

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Balkenende en Europa

For a prime minister that allways says that he knows what Europe is about I allways find it very disappointing that the dutch immigration services still don't understand the implications of the European treaty for their work. Dutch judges have been influences by this crap too. They don't understand the fact that this treaty has far reaching implications and objectives. Disdain and disregard of Article 8 of the European Treaty of fundamental rights and liberties is daily practice for this service. And all dutch courts try to limit the impact of this treaty. Mostly because they believe immigrants have less rights then cultural dutch citizens. I didn't know we had flintstones as judges. And Balkenende as champion of the European idea is the most ridiculous myth I ever heard.

The only objective dutch immigration services seem to have these last ten years is to get people to leave the country, treat family members of immigrants at the embassies in their countries of origin as dogs.

All that we have here due to the fact Jan Peter Balkenende started to govern with his judeo-christian politics, which in fact is just a (not so veiled) way to say muslims aren't welcome in this country.

In my view this political view on judeo-christian "normen en waarden" is at odds with antirevolutionary principles. Antirevolutionary basics allways stayed far away from cultural definitions. Being antirevolutionary has allways been a way to define citizenship in a more consistent and not intuitive way.

Monday, May 19, 2008

Immigrants in South Africa



great political analysis by those killers of immigrants in South Africa saying that immigrants take their jobs. Those killers apparantly don't get it. Zimbabwe's president is chasing those people across his borders and the ANC government of South Africa, so much for multiparty democracy, has not done anything to talk some sense into that man.

Sunday, May 18, 2008

migrants ambassadors for democratic development of Europe

Highly Active Immigrants
A resource for European civil societies
Erscheinungsjahr: 2008
Frankfurt am Main, Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Wien, 2008. 250 pp., num. tables and graphs
ISBN 978-3-631-56203-1 / US-ISBN 978-0-8204-8789-2 pb.

highly active citizens assume responsibility in politics and the civil society; for example, by organising social groups and activities, and lobbying on government policies. Although first-generation immigrant activists are a small minority in European societies, they are of critical importance for the receiving societies' democratic development. The POLITIS project conducted the first study that focused exclusively on this crucial group. This book both provides an overview of theoretical discussions and empirical conditions that frame immigrants' activities and presents the major results of the study based on extensive interviews with more than 170 immigrants active in 24 EU member states. The book's final section offers careful reflections on the study's results and considers implications for social scientists, policy makers, and activists in NGOs and immigrant organisations.

Thursday, May 15, 2008

Dutch immigration policy is discriminatory

A Dutch policy of forcing some would-be immigrants to pass a language and culture test before seeking a visa is discriminatory, Human Rights Watch said Thursday.

The rights group said the test essentially targets families from developing nations - in particular, Turkey and Morocco - because citizens of the United States, Japan and other developed nations are exempt.

"The overseas integration test is discriminatory because it explicitly applies only to relatives from predominantly non-Western countries," said Human Rights Watch's European director Holly Cartner.

"These measures keep families apart and appear to be aimed at keeping certain kinds of people out of the Netherlands."

While international human rights law allows countries to discriminate between citizens and non-citizens, it doesn't allow the targeting of individual nationalities on the basis of race or religion.

"Dutch authorities would need extremely powerful reasons to justify" such discrimination, Human Rights Watch said.

The test, primarily a language exam, must be taken at Dutch embassies abroad and costs $540 per attempt. Immigrants also face visa fees amounting to hundreds of dollars per year, and permanent residency or naturalization fees that cost nearly $1,500.

"The impact ... has fallen primarily on those wanting to join family members from two of the three largest non-Western migrant communities in the Netherlands - Moroccans and Turks," the rights group said.

Immigration from those countries has fallen sharply since the Dutch government began cracking down in 2003 amid heavy anti-Muslim rhetoric from far-right political parties.

Government spokeswoman Gerda de Lange rejected the criticism. The legality of the policy was "debated thoroughly in parliament and by the Council of State before it was passed" in 2006, she said.

Wow, because it passed in parliament it can't be wrong, great logic Gerda

"The law is not discriminatory," she said. "There are indeed exemptions for some countries, but that's true of the whole of immigration law."

All EU citizens, for example, are exempt from the test because European law forbids discrimination between members of EU states. Other countries had pre-existing treaties with the Dutch government on immigration.

She also denied that the policy discriminates against Moroccans and Turks, saying they make up only one-third of applicants.

"The law is intended to ensure that immigrants are better prepared to integrate. They will have more chance of succeeding if they know the basics of Dutch language, history and culture before they arrive," she said.



"If their aim is to build a new life here, they should begin acquiring the knowledge they'll need," she said.

The test made international headlines when it was introduced because preparatory materials include a film with scenes of gay men kissing and a woman walking bare-breasted on the beach - considered an essential introduction to liberal Dutch culture.

If would-be immigrants can't stomach such practice, no need to apply, the film implied.

Don Scoggins, Huckabee supporter votes Obama

hatever this election is or is not, the group of Americans it just has to be affecting the most is black men.

No, no, hang with me.

The first time I actually thought of this was on Sunday morning over coffee, when I opened The New York Times and saw a picture of former Lakers great Ervin "Magic" Johnson embracing Hillary Clinton.

It wasn't because the photograph was taken in Los Angeles by my old running buddy, Todd Heisler, who twice accompanied me with his cameras from Denver to the war zone in Iraq.

No, it was because in Magic's embrace was the former first lady, and not Barack Obama.

This is where it gets complicated for black men.

It should be noted here that I fully understand we are not all alike. Yet being five decades old now, I almost cried when Sen. Obama won the Iowa caucuses.

I am certain it goes back to the stories my folks and others of their age recounted to me, of how if there was a black person on TV for even three seconds back then, well, we just had to watch - I think just to be self-realized in a way. Then came Dr. King and his teachings.

My parents taught us that we could be anything we wanted, of course, but I still find myself thinking: Are you kidding me - are you lying to me - that a black man now has a reasonable shot of becoming the nominee of the Democratic Party for the presidency of this great nation?

This is where it gets complicated for so many reasons.

More friends than I want to count, as one example, would think I'm probably for Barack Obama solely because of the color of his skin. My goodness.

By that standard, I should have wept over the failed presidential aspirations of Alan Keyes.

Still, it is, in my view, a complicated and dicey draw for black men on the Democratic side.

Maybe you will better understand if I tell you of my conversation with Don Scoggins, president of the 1,000-plus-member Republicans for Black Empowerment in Washington, D.C.

Don Scoggins, 62, is a lifelong Republican and now is a Mike Huckabee man, he tells me. In a lot of ways, he said, it goes back to Huckabee's being the only candidate to participate in black National Public Radio host Tavis Smiley's debate in September, in which he debated empty lecterns adorned with the absent Republican candidates' names.

And in his last race for Arkansas Gov. Huckabee received more than 47 percent of the black vote and appointed the state's first black budget director.

"He is inclusive, which in so much of my party is viewed as anti-conservative," Don Scoggins said.

So I had to ask the question:

If Mike Huckabee is not the nominee of his party, who would he vote for?

"I would cross over," Don Scoggins said reluctantly. "And I would only do it solely for historical reasons. To vote for a black man for president is something I never thought I would have an opportunity to do in my lifetime."

Wait, you would vote in the general election for Barack Obama? I asked him.

"He is so much more liberal than I would ever want him to be, but yes. He is a likable guy, one who I hear speak and, afterward, I get g oose bumps. If it were Jesse Jackson, say, or Al Sharpton, I would not vote for them. This guy is different. I am being honest."

As a party activist, Don Scoggins said, "It would be the first time I would vote against my core principles."

Yet imagine, he added, a black president would simply collapse the notion that blacks are perpetually behind the societal 8-ball, that racism is always the reason why they cannot achieve their potential.

"How would such an argument hold up if Barack Obama has gotten that far?"

More to the point, I ask him, how will such remarks play in Washington and within his organization?

"Maybe in years past I would have been reluctant to speak out and expose myself," he said. "(But) I have never gone lock-step with everything the party wants me to do."

OK, I say, how many of the other thousand-or-so in his organization feel the same way?

"I have not taken a poll, but I would say a lot feel the way I do. It would be historic. And the best thing is, he is a great candidate.

"Does that make me a bad Republican? I believe I have the same rights as everyone in my party, that I can let my conscience be my guide."

He has judged a man not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character. My decision, I would want my friends to understand, would be similarly based.

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

Lebron James

Geen pardon zonder vrij verkeer

Het recht op vrij verkeer binnen de Europese Unie mag niet beperkt worden door de pardon regeling. Zo simpel is het. En zo simpel moet het door elke ambtenaar van de IND uitgevoerd worden. Ik hoop dat men spoedig overgaat tot het lezen van het Verdrag. WAAROM moeten de burgers altijd weer gaan procederen omdat de politici en rechters in Nederland beïnvloed worden door wat gezien wordt als de algemeen aanvaarde redeneringen aangaande migranten in plaats van de jurisprudentie en de kern
van het Europese Verdrag op een correcte manier uit te voeren!!!!!

Vrij verkeer is een grondrecht van elke burger, en dat kan door geen enkele regeling ingeperkt worden, ook niet door een pardon regeling.

Een burger van de Unie die geen gebruik maakt of gemaakt heeft van zijn recht op vrij verkeer mag nooit beter behandeld worden dan een burger van de EU die dat wel heeft gedaan.

Als een ambtenaar van de IND dit leest, of een advocaat die geld verdient aan die onzin die men bij veel ambtenaren hoort over het vrije verkeer, daag ik diegene uit om mij hier op dit forum uit te leggen hoe de pardonregeling buiten het vrij verkeer kan worden gehouden.

See also:

http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/free_movement/index_en.htm

Free Movement of Workers and the Principle of Equal Treatment

Every citizen of the EU has the right to work and live in another Member State without being discriminated against on grounds of nationality.

Free movement of workers - what does it mean?

Free movement of persons is one of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by Community law. It is perhaps the most important right under Community law for individuals, and an essential element of European citizenship.

For workers, this freedom has existed since the foundation of the European Community in 1957. It is laid down in article 39 of the EC Treaty and it entails:

* the right to look for a job in another Member State
* the right to work in another Member State
* the right to reside there for that purpose
* the right to remain there
* the right to equal treatment in respect of access to employment, working conditions and all other advantages which could help to facilitate the worker's integration in the host Member State

The concept and implications of this freedom have been interpreted and developed by the case-law of the European Court of Justice, including the concept of worker itself. You can find detailed information on the case-law in the Communication from the Commission: "Free movement of workers - achieving the full benefits and potential" (COM(2002)694).

What about family members?

Certain rights are extended to family members of the worker. They have, in particular, the right to live with the worker in the host Member State and the right to equal treatment as regards for example education and social advantages. Some members of the family have also the right to work there.

Are there any limitations to the exercise of this right?

Yes, there are several. These are:

* limitations on public security, public policy and public health grounds
* some limitations as to employment in the public service of the host Member State.

Saturday, May 10, 2008

Clinton 'heading for the exit'

mobilization and participation of migrant groups in political processes

http://www.imiscoe.org/research/clusters/b3additional.html


Research cluster B3 Migration and citizenship: legal status, mobilisation and political participation

Research in this cluster focuses on processes of legal and political integration. The three main areas of concern are the legal status and attached bundles of rights for foreign nationals, access to and loss of nationality as a consequence of migration, and the mobilization and participation of migrant groups in political processes both in receiving and sending states. Within these areas the cluster addressed the following topics in its first work package:

1) general theories and research perspectives on citizenship and migration,
2) comparative analyses of legal status of foreign nationals and acquisition and loss of nationality,
3) the emerging European citizenship regime, and
4) migrants’ political participation and representation.



Based on the gaps identified in the state of the art report and the expertise available in the cluster, the members of cluster B3 proceeded to work in three separate research streams in the second work package. These focused on:



1) The social capital approach in studying political participation
This research stream dealt with the relation between social capital embedded in immigrant communities and the political integration of immigrants.

2) Migrant political transnationalism
This stream examined political transnationalism linking migrant groups to countries of origin and compared American and European perspectives in this field.



3) Citizenship policies in the new EU member states
Drawing on the results of the EU project NATAC that dealt with nationality regulations in the 15 old EU Member States, this research stream intended to produce country reports for the 10 new Member States and Turkey.



The main task of the third work package is to bring together all of these themes and to prepare the ground for joint research activities and applications for funding.







IMISCOE is a European Commission-funded Network of Excellence within the Sixth Framework

Workshop: Substate, suprastate and national citizenship

University Edinburgh, 15-16 May 2008

Most debates on citizenship centre on the nation state. Yet citizenship in the European Union also includes the European dimension granting citizens of a Member State a set of rights similar to those of citizens when residing in another Member State. At the same time, third country nationals have been granted social and/or political rights at the provincial or the communal level in a number of Member States, thus narrowing the gap between citizens and foreigners on the sub-state level. Furthermore, several Member States of the EU have strengthened intermediate levels of government in the last twenty years by either installing regional parliaments and devolution of competences to regional authorities (e.g. United Kingdom, Spain, Belgium) or by setting up new regional administrative structures (e.g. France, Slovenia, Greece). The focus on the nation-state, which is prevalent in most citizenship literature, does not reflect the function and role of this status in the emerging structures of multi-level governance.

The idea of the workshop is to explore the relationship between the sub-state, the nation-state and the supra-state level from two perspectives – the institutional aspects of membership in a multi-level governance structure and the actor-centred aspect of political mobilisation and agency in a multiple governance system. Specific attention shall be given to the substate dimension of transnational political practices. Indeed, while research has developed (especially with regards to questions of development) on the immigrants' transnational practices in the region, town or village of origin, the political consequences of such practices are still a neglected topic (particularly in Europe). Most studies have also focused on local political participation in immigration contexts, but have neglected substate levels of citizenship and political agency in countries of origin. This conference will therefore put a specific emphasis on transnational local citizenship.

European Union electoral rights and the political participation of migrants in host polities

n 1993 the introduction of the legal framework of European Union citizenship through the Treaty of Maastricht heralded the institution of a range of limited electoral rights for EU citizens resident in other Member States. The origins of these rights lie in impulses towards the democratisation of the EU and its institutions, as well as in the search to enhance the legitimacy of the Union through the development of a concept of citizenship. This paper investigates further the implications of treating this group of EU law rights as a species of migrants' rights, and questions how far they introduce a principle of alien suffrage positing that host polities ought wherever possible to afford political participation rights to (long-term) resident non-nationals, in the interests of promoting democracy and human rights. It questions the consistency and normative effects of these rights, which specifically exclude from participation third-country nationals, who cannot enjoy Union citizenship rights since they lack the nationality of a Member State. The paper concludes by suggesting changes to the framework of EU electoral rights which might be considered in the context of the ongoing process of constitutional and governance reform in the EU. Copyright ­© 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Islam is a part of Europe, says EU's Barroso


Jose Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, said there are millions of Muslims living in Europe, noting that �Islam is already a part of Europe� during a meeting with the leaders of three religions in Brussels yesterday. �Turkey proves that a Muslim state can be both democratic and secular,� Barroso said. He said developments in Turkey were not only important for the country but also the region and the world.

vrij verkeer en generaal pardon

De manier waarop het generaal pardon wordt uitgelegd en uitgevoerd leidt tot belemmering en ontmoediging van het uitoefenen van het recht op vrij verkeer binnen de Europese Unie.

Dat kan nooit de bedoeling zijn. Is dit een bewuste keuze of komt dit voort uit onwetendheid over het dynamische principe dat voortvloeit uit de doelstelling van het Europese Verdrag.

Veel burgers denken nog steeds dat men in een andere lidstaat het verblijfsrecht heeft als burger van een andere lidstaat. Maar dat is niet de reden!!!!! De reden is dat men verplaatsing binnen de EU wil stimuleren en dat daartoe alle obstakels moeten worden opgeruimd.

Voor veel juristen lijken deze twee stellingen zoveel op elkaar dat men het onderscheid daartussen niet meer inziet.

Een partner van een burger van een lidstaat heeft automatisch identiek verblijfsrecht aan dat van zijn partner (die een burger is van 1 van de lidstaten van de Unie) wanneer deze gebruik maakt van zijn recht op vrij verkeer of wanneer hij zou worden ontmoedigd in de uitoefening daarvan als de verblijfsvergunning niet aan de partner zou worden toegekend.

Het overhandigen van een schriftelijke bevestiging hiervan zou dan ook een pure formaliteit moeten zijn. WAAROM is dat dan niet zo? Systematisch blijkt namelijk dat ambtenaren in allerlei landen doen of ze een hele ingewikkelde procedure moeten volgen om uiteindelijk over te kunnen gaan tot erkenning van dit recht.

Free Movement and the 'General Pardon'

It's oftentimes disappointing how slow government officials within the European Union understand the implication of the objective of the European treaty concerning encouraging free movement within the union.

Even some dutch court rulings show this tendency: they seem to think that the principle of free movement is a static principle. And then you get these twisted decisions that compare entitites that aren't comparable. It's not what you are but where you GO!!!

The basic principle of free movement is actually quite dynamic: If a certain Law, decision discourages the free movement of citizens within the Union it goes against the intentions of the treaty.

The implications are clear to me....