AP Interview: Popular Dutch lawmaker urges halt to non-Western immigrants, shutting down radical mosques
One of the most popular politicians in the Netherlands said Friday the country's democracy is under threat and called for a five-year halt to non-Western immigration in the wake of the killing of a Dutch filmmaker by a suspected Muslim radical.
"We are a Dutch democratic society. We have our own norms and values," right-wing lawmaker Geert Wilders told The Associated Press in an interview. "If you chose radical Islam you can leave, and if you don't leave voluntarily then we will send you away. This is the only message possible."
[...]
Wilders said that without swift, bold action, Islamic fundamentalism will topple the country's democratic system.
"The Netherlands has been too tolerant to intolerant people for too long," he said. "We should not import a retarded political Islamic society to our country. There is nothing to be ashamed of to say this. It's not Islam. I speak out against the facts."
In Brussels, Belgium, European Union leaders met Friday to discuss immigration, one of Europe's most pressing and sensitive issues. EU justice and interior ministers agreed to demand that new immigrants learn the language of their adopted countries and adhere to "European values" to guide them toward better integration.
Even as the number of immigrants arriving in Europe falls due to tougher policies, led by a sharp drop in the Netherlands, Wilders said closing the borders isn't enough. Newcomers should be forced to integrate.
"If in a mosque there is recruitment for jihad, it's not a house of prayer, it's a house of war. If it's not a house of prayer, it should be closed down," he said.
Wilders, known for his radical positions and peroxide-blond hair, has been a member of parliament since 1998. He was born and educated in the southern city Venlo, near the German border.
"I'm very tough on radical Islam. I have the toughest ideas on beating this problem and I'm proud of it. I say nothing wrong. I'm no racist, no anti-Islamist," he said.
The problem with societies that claim to be tolerant is that, often, they are not. I've written a bit about Norway on the subject. The Netherlands, previously, had a "don't interfere with what anyone wants to do"-ish policy with immigrants, and allowed Muslim extremist societies to form.
The US, in my opinion, also needs to take a completely different stance on immigration. First off, we need to drop all limits on the number of immigrants the nation will accept. The limits are not only harmful to those who want to immigrate legally, but they are ignored more often than they are followed, resulting in many illegal immigrants who are not welcome in the country. There are many who don't want strict measures against illegal immigrants, because they would harm good people as well as the bad, so I think we need to separate the good people from the bad by allowing unlimited immigration of those who qualify.
Now, the requirements for people to qualify:
1: 8th grade education or higher, or equivalent thereof. The immigrants must be able to read (most illegal immigrants from Mexico can't read anything, much less english). I won't require highschool because I doubt there are many people who went to jr. highschool but not the rest of highschool. Besides, an 8th-grade limit would prevent many people from immigrating.
2: ability to speak some english. Maybe proper use of 2500 words would be fine, but I am guessing at that number. I don't want people to immigrate if they have no idea what any American is saying, but I don't want to require fluent english for all immigrants.
3: fairly good background and crime record. Maybe a few small crimes (theft of a can of coke, for example) can be allowed, but no felonies or violent crimes.
4: drug and medical test. If the person is riddled with disease, they don't get in unless they have a very good reason. If they are packed with illegal drugs (which we can test for a fairly long period of time based on hair samples, I believe), they stay out.
We also need to fix the immigration and border patrol services. Border patrol is too often completely useless because they chase occasional immigrants, rather than prevent most of them from crossing, are too tied by frivolous regulations. From what I hear, the people at immigration services are quite incompetent and give a horrible first impression of the US. If what I hear is true, those programs need major overhauls. Border patrol can get major help with a fence to prevent most from crossing, so that the agents have fewer people to catch and, therefore, fewer people sneak in when the agents catch as many people as they did before. Immigration services are a completely different story, and institutional incompetence has to be fixed from the top down. Time for some purging, maybe?
Those are, I think, some fairly simple and good limitations for whom to let in, or to keep out. The simple truth is that America needs a huge influx of immigrants who can adapt to American culture and participate in the workforce. One of the easiest ways to limit the crippling costs of the retirement of the baby-boomer generation is to get millions of immigrants, age about 25 to 40, who can help fund social security and healthcare. If the US can get 10 million working-age and educated immigrants over the next 4 or 5 years, I'll be overjoyed. Sure, there will be a bit more competition for jobs, but I will have a far smaller burden in paying for the baby-boomers. It's probably an economist's dream to have a large influx of good, educated, working-age immigrants, anyway. Having educated immigrants means that the US gets good labor, without having to pay for the immigrant's school, which is usually quite expensive.
Now, the US will have to start guarding the US-Mexican border. Mexico won't guard it, Mexico's second largest source of income is the money that immigrants to the US send back to their families. If Mexico would stop being incredibly corrupt, it would probably be possible to make a good deal with our neighbor on immigration, tourism, and trade policies; but it's not like such will happen without Mexican reform or the US giving more concessions than it's worth.
Either we need to build a very big wall, and actually guard that wall, or we need to dig a very deep ditch, and make sure no one makes an unwelcome bridge across that ditch. Currently, the only barrier is a large desert. Such deserts would usually be perfect to divide the US and Mexico, but the incredible poverty of Mexico compared the the wealth of the US convinces hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of people to try to cross the desert each year; many get over the border, and many die in the effort. The US doesn't really want either to happen. The easiest solution is to have very open immigration policies, and to have strict border guards to ensure that people can't get in without us knowing.