Friday, October 16, 2009

Belgium and the Netherlands: Wake Up!

Our Flemish correspondent VH has compiled a report on immigration costs in Belgium and the Netherlands based on translated material from recent news reports.


Immigration costs Belgium 7.67 billion euros annually
by VH


Last week Jean-Marie Dedecker of the Flemish party LDD published a book on the issue of immigration, and concluded that immigration costs are roughly 2.2% of GDP. I did an indicative calculation for a number of countries as an addition to article #2, and added a few minor developments in the Netherlands to it.

1. Filip Dewinter on the new book by Dedecker: “I am very pleased with this late conversion”

The book, in which Dedecker makes an incisive analysis of the rise of Islam in Europe, made the headlines in all media. Filip Dewinter even heard the echoes from Berlin.

“My congratulations to Jean-Marie Dedecker,” Dewinter let it be known. “I do wonder though if he wrote this book out of courage or political opportunism. I also hope he didn’t plagiarize my book, Inch’Allah. But I’m glad I now no longer just have to cry out on my own in the desert.”

Dewinter was surprised by the “late conversion” of Dedecker: “In 2002 he shook the hand of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the leader of Hamas. And last year he dismissed the Koran as just a story book. Since then Jean-Marie Dedecker apparently came very quickly to new insights. Excellent, there is much joy in heaven now for this convert.”

“Dedecker hooked his wagon to the locomotive that I have been pulling for 25 years. I received blows and sometimes had to carry the camels on my back in my lonely journey through the desert,” Dewinter concluded.

2. Immigration costs Belgium 7.67 billion euros annually
- - - - - - - - -
Jean-Marie Dedecker of the Flemish party LDD [List Dedecker] has published his new book Headscarf or blindfold? [“Hoofddoek of blinddoek?”]. In this book the LDD chairman and Senator made matchwood of immigration and Islam’s desire for conquest.

For six months there has already been the book Inch’Allah by Filip Dewinter (Vlaams Belang [Flemish Interest]). By and large Dedecker comes to a similar analysis, but has a different approach to it. Dewinter wants immigrants [who refuse to integrate, or are highly criminal — translator] out, and the border closed [to more immigration from Muslim countries — translator]. Dedecker accepts that they are here and will not go away. They continue to be welcome in his view, if they want to perform, not to exploit [not unlike the standpoint of Dewinter — translator].

In his eyes up until now that was not the case, however. His criticism, substantiated with many figures, comes down to:

  • They are a threat to our separation of church and state.
  • 70 percent of crime is connected with immigrants.
  • 60 percent of social housing in our cities is occupied by immigrants.
  • Nowhere is unemployment as high as it is among immigrants in Belgium. Their unemployment benefits cost 1.2 billion euros a year.
  • Every year immigration costs our country 7.67 billion euros, or 2.2 percent of GDP.

Even the issue with Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde is, according to Dedecker, a spinoff of immigration.[1] Brussels already has 52 percent immigrants. Therefore the French-speaking citizens of Brussels now move en masse to the Flemish fringe of Brussels and beyond. Certainly the LDD chairman wants us to radically change our migration policies. “We must stop pampering the immigrants. Half of the suffering would have been over if we stopped the positive discrimination.” Obviously Dedecker hereby refers to Belgian social security.

Note:

[1] Brussels has almost completely has lost its original Dutch (Flemish) identity since the takeover by the French in 1830, and the identity vacuum has for a few decades being filled up by a Muslim identity. In Brussels this is the result of a deliberate policy; the Socialist mayor of Antwerp said in 2000 that immigrants should be granted citizenship and voting rights on the grounds that “VB is […] over-represented as the immigrants are not allowed to vote”. The Walloon Socialist Moureaux managed to have a law passed in parliament in 2004 that offered voting rights to immigrants.

Philippe Moureaux, the leader of the Brussels PS [Walloon Socialist Party] and the mayor of Molenbeek, a Brussels suburb with one of the largest concentrations of North African immigrants, has been selling out to them ever since he became mayor. Moureaux declared in 2005 that it was “not expedient” for the police to patrol in Muslim quarters and he prohibited police officers from drinking coffee or eating sandwiches on the streets during Ramadan. Moureaux hopes to get the Muslim vote during the municipal elections. This Walloonization and Islamization has made the return of Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde to Flanders a complicated issue. [source: Brussels Journal]

Additional information:

Indicative calculation (not all countries have a percentage of non-Western immigrants comparable to Belgium or The Netherlands) of the 2.2% GDP for a few countries:

GDP (nominal) USD 2008 x 2.2% = USD / EUR (exchange rate 10-10-2009) Also converted to a few other valuta, all numbers in billions.

Country GDP USD Cost USD Cost Euros Other
Austria 414,828 9.1 6.2 
Belgium 506,183 11.1 7.5 
 [EUR 7.67 billion according to Jean-Marie Dedecker]
Czech Rep 216,354 4.7 3.2 82.2 CZK
Denmark 340,029 7.5 5.0 37.9 DKK
Finland 271,867 5.9 4.0 
France 2,866,951 63.0 42.7 
Germany 3,673,105 80.8 55.8 
Greece 357,548 7.8 5.3 
Hungary 154,668 0.7 0.5 134.3 HUF
Ireland 267,579 5.9 4.0 
Italy 2,313,893 50.9 34.6 
Netherlands 876,970 19.3 13.1 
 [EUR 12.7 billion minimum, according to Syp Wynia of Elsevier.nl]
Norway 451,830 9.9 6.7 55.7 NOK
Poland 526,966 11.6 7.9 33.4 PLN
Portugal 242,689 5.3 3.6 
Sweden 478,961 10.5 7.1 73.4 SEK
Switzerland 500,260 11.0 7.4 11.3 CHF
Spain 1,604,174 35.3 24.0 
UK 2,680,000 61.6 41.8 38.9 GBP
USA 14,441,425 317.7 215.7 
EU 8,387,785 184.5 125.3 

According to Dedecker, the book shows that immigration costs much and yields little or nothing. “And I am not just talking about money, but also spiritual values. It’s also about the threat to the separation between Church and State. Furthermore, I prove that 70 percent of our crime has to do with immigrants and that 60 percent of social housing in our cities is occupied by immigrants.”

The debate on the relationship between immigration and crime is studiously avoided, stated Dedecker. Nobody can deny that the immigrant community is proportionally over-represented in crime statistics. “Islamo-Socialism has created social swamps rather than having muffled it. These hotbeds of lawlessness and crime are subject to the Stockholm syndrome of the aid addicts,” he says concerning the Brussels situation. Furthermore, he speaks out against the lax policies on family reunification and fake marriages. The new “amnesty” (regularization) procedure may immediately lead to 109,000 and eventually through family reunification to 381,000 new residents.

In the second part of the book Jean-Marie Dedecker deals with the radicalization of Islam in Europe and the attitude of European society in response to this. He defines the term “dhimmitude” as a bootlicking attitude and capitulation to Islam. It is an intellectual surrender, of sacrificing freedom for a false sense of security. The most dangerous expression of that to him is the limitation of free speech. He also resists pleas to give Sharia a place in Western legal system: “Sharia restricts religious freedom, undermines the position of women, and humiliates all those who are not Muslim.”

Update on The Price Tag on Dutch Multiculturalism: Wilders: a failure to answer questions on the cost of immigration is misconduct

Geert Wilders will not accept that Integration Minister Eberhard van der Laan (PvdA, Socialists) refuses to answer his questions on the costs of immigration. Wilders wants Parliament to investigate whether Van der Laan is committing misconduct. According to Wilders, a minister simply must answer questions from MPs. If a minister intentionally does not do that, he would violate the Constitution and it might be considered misconduct.

Five PVV parliamentarians (Wilders himself, Sietse Fritsma, Fleur Agema, Raymond de Roon and Martin Bosma), have sent a letter to the chairman of the House in which they ask for a study of the matter. Subsequently a majority in parliament should then support the proposal before it will actually be executed.

The PVVers rely on a law dating from 1855, which states that a minister must comply with the Constitution and thus has an obligation to inform. He can be prosecuted if he fails.

Recently, the PVV launched the website: http://www.watkostdemassaimmigratie.nl/:

“The Party for Freedom (PVV) has launched the new website “what-does-mass-immigration-cost” (WKDMI) [as announced in the speech by Wilders in parliament on September 16, 2009 — translator]. The Dutch have a right to know the costs of the mass immigration and what savings could be achieved if immigration were limited. All Dutch are therefore welcome to send a response.”

Just two examples of the numerous interesting and tips added in comments on “what-does-mass-immigration-cost”: the first, also picked up by GeenStijl.nl:

Elderly [Moroccan, Somali and Iraqi] immigrant women in Gouda, recently started being transported with a “customized” van to and from the day care and the care center Korte Akkeren in Gouda. “This is necessary because a number of older immigrant women cannot tell time from a clock and thus usually missed their bus connection. In addition, many women are not allowed to be brought to and from the care centers by a man,” Moustapha El Baroudi said, spokesman for Care Council Middle-Holland that purchased the van. “We believe that anyone can tell time from a clock, but that is not the case. Older immigrant women have always worked in and around the house and did not concern themselves with things like telling time.”

According to spokesman Moustapha El Baroudi, of [the subsidized] Care Discussions Central Holland that purchased the van, the men and the children used to watch the clock for the women. “But now, when the man is deceased and the children have left home, they remain on their own. The woman knows that she will be picked up, but not when it is half past eight. So she’s not ready when the driver arrives at her door. A regular bus then immediately leaves, but a volunteer does not mind waiting.” Furthermore, not every woman can be retrieved by a man. “It’s none of our business whether that is not allowed by her husband or her faith. For us it is a reason to send a female driver. If we do not do that, some women will never come out of their isolation.”

Another example: “Starting from the undeniable fact that over 85 percent of the prisons are filled with immigrants, I present here the equation for solving a crime like a murder (based on a research lasting for only 30 days): 1 x Project leader 8219.20 euro; 1 x Police analyst EUR = 6739.70 euro; 1 x Information detective = 6739.70 euro; 5 x detectives = 28,767.00 euro; 1 x financial analyst = 1008.20 euro; 1 x administrative support = 2466.00 euro; 3 x surveillance officers = euro 22,200 euro. The Dutch Forensic Institute also does a study, on average = 11,500 euro. The trial includes at average = 20,780.00 euro; imprisonment, 6 years [yes, that is what a life sentence is worth on average in the Netherlands — translator], costs the society an average of 1,344,660 euros (179 to 435 per day). The suffering of the families quite often results in a benefit of Victim Help Netherlands and increased drug use. These costs are calculated on a total of 1660 euro.

A murder costs the society in total: 3,091,101.80 euros! This is not to mention the many tens of thousands of other investigations taking place into the “exploiters of our hospitality”! That calculation would then perhaps pass one billion euros. These are the hard figures from a study! Reduce by 85% of the annual total when such persons are expelled, and our hard-working Dutch will no longer need to plod until he is 67! Netherlands, wake up!”

2 comments:

Robert Marchenoir said...

Such calculations are obviously tricky, for lack of an international statistical standard. It's easy to get lost in methodology debates.

However, there's one thing that should be made clear whenever such figures are published : is the 7,67 billion euros per year a net cost, or not ?

Gross figures can carry some political impact, but they are meaningless if one wants to maintain a modicum of intellectual integrity.

In the UK, it's the think-tank Migration Watch, I believe, which made such a calculation. It was a net cost analysis. They took into account both the costs (social allowances, policing...) and benefits (tax revenues, production...) of immigrants.

As far as I remember, the net result was a benefit, but so small that it was an indictment for the pro-immigration lobby : something around a few pence per immigrant per year.

Since most of the cultural and social costs cannot -- and had not -- been taken into account (loss of national identity, culture and sovereignty, living in a hostile country, dumbing down of education, etc), their methodology made it very clear that the real, net effect of immigration is highly negative -- as anyone with half a brain can realise just by opening his eyes.

laine said...

This immigration boondoggle is the soft underbelly of the multicultural project and needs to be exposed. Taxpayers must be brought to revolt.

Under the pretense of replacing workers lost to the West's abortion mania, elites have encouraged immigration by a culture (Islamic/Arabic) not known for its work ethic. They have increased the burden for their remaining native workers.

Through overly generous family reunification and marriage to foreigner policies, for every new "worker" who pays taxes, there is a high cost in social benefits to relatives who have never paid a penny into the pot. How much more ignorant can one be than not be able to tell time! Such a person should have been left in a Muslim backwater where this skill of a 5 year old is not needed...

Do western taxpayers not understand that their do-gooders should be sent to the 3rd world to distribute their largess which goes much farther and helps many more people than bringing the uncivilized into civilization and wasting buckets of money on a single person who will never amount to anything in a stratosphere of development he/she can never attain?

Give someone in Africa $365. and you'll have doubled his annual income. Spend that money in the West and you'll have paid for a week of personal chauffeuring for a woman who can't tell time.

What is so difficult to understand in this? Send the do-gooders to the 3rd world. It's win, win. They will help a lot more people IF THAT IS REALLY THEIR AIM and Westerners can work less to provide a greater quantity of aid.

Whether foreign aid as presently constituted is a help or hindrance is another discussion but under present circumstances, at least less immigration and more foreign aid would help conserve Western civilization and cultures and is preferable to mass immigration from unsuitable cultures.