Anger over Dutch expulsion plans
BBC News:
Dutch integration minister Rita Verdonk says the cabinet has agreed to her policy of expelling jobless immigrants from the Netherlands Antilles.
Under the plan, Antilleans aged 18 to 24 who do not start work or study within three months will be sent home.
Mrs Verdonk said the Netherlands was not a land of milk and honey for those who couldn't make a living elsewhere.
The Netherlands Antilles' Prime Minister, Etienne Ys, has complained that he was not consulted.
He described the proposal as "a restriction of freedom", adding that Antilleans were entitled to freedom of movement within the Kingdom because they carry Dutch passports.
The Dutch centre-right cabinet says the policy is aimed at weeding out the criminal element among youths from the Netherlands Antilles - a federation of five territories including Bonaire, Curacao, Saba, Sint Eustatius, and Sint Maarten (the Dutch part of the island of Saint Martin).
Mrs Verdonk said the harsh measures were directed at "youngsters that think that when they get off the plane scooters and mobile phones will be waiting for them".
"For people who have a job or want to study here there will be no problems," AFP quotes her as saying.
Cabinet agrees on plan to eject Antillean lawbreakers
Ys says no to curbs on Antilleans
Government cracks down on Antillean 'problem'
Row over Dutch proposal to ban Caribbean youngsters
posted by Adam Lawson @ 1:08 PM
4 comments
4 Comments:
"He described the proposal as "a restriction of freedom", adding that Antilleans were entitled to freedom of movement within the Kingdom because they carry Dutch passports."
That's nice. What about the freedom of the working Dutch not to have to support a bunch of freeloaders?
This is the same sort of nonsense that has infected our own Supreme Court, which ruled that California could not write its welfare laws in such a way as to deny benefits to jobless people moving to the state. The reasoning is that the right to travel is a fundamental right and the state would have to show a compelling state interest in order to restrict it. This reasoning is correct, if you can adequately show that the actions of California interfered with someone's right to travel. And this is where the Supreme Court's reasoning is flawed... California's welfare laws had no effect on people's right to travel. Anyone who has the resources may travel to California. What the Supreme Court said in effect is that we the People have to subsidize other people's right to travel, and if we don't, we are somehow interfereing with it. Interestingly, the Supreme Court ruled that higher tuition at state universities for out-of-state students did not interfere with any fundamental rights. (Shhhh... don't tell anyone, though... we are supposed to think that the Supreme Court's rulings are all consistent with each other.)
"because they carry Dutch passports"
Big mistake.
Speaking of odd California court rulings, I believe the courts there also ruled that if someone kills a pregnant woman, and the fetus also dies, the accused can be charged with two counts of murder, even if he had no idea the woman was pregnant. So a woman can go to an abortion clinic, and she and the doctor can knowingly kill the fetus, and this is not only not murder, it is not a crime. Yet in the circumstance I described above, it is murder.
It makes no sense.
"Under the plan, Antilleans aged 18 to 24 who do not start work or study within three months will be sent home."
I just thought of something... this sounds a lot like a 'no loitering' law. But the fact ramains that this law does not restrict these people's freedom of movement. What it does require, though, is that these people provide the means to exercise their freedom of movement from their own resources... not the resources of the People.
Post a Comment
<< Home