Europe's Shifting Immigration Dynamic
by Esther
Ben-David
Middle East Quarterly
Spring 2009
http://www.meforum.org/2107/europe-shifting-immigration-dynamic
Western Europe has gone through two major stages in its
recent immigration history. In the first stage, European leaders misjudged
the effects of immigration and, in the second, they miscalculated how hard
it would be to stop an immigration dynamic.
The arrival of families
changed the immigrants' attitudes towards religious and cultural
values, transplanting honor culture, modesty standards, and
attitudes toward women to the West. Veiled women have now become a
common sight on U.S. and European
streets. |
Beginning in the mid-twentieth century, European countries
have changed from net sources of emigration to attractive destinations for
immigration. Today Muslims, many from rural traditional areas, comprise
the bulk of non-European immigrants to Europe. Even those who have settled
in cities retain a village mentality and are seen as backward by the
business and cultural elites in their home countries. Moroccans who
settled in the Netherlands and Belgium, for example, are mostly Berbers
from the Rif mountains, not the Arab cultural elite[1] from Casablanca, Rabat, or Fez. These immigrants
came to Europe in order to build railroads, work in the coal mines, clean
streets, and do the jobs that Europeans did not want to do.[2] Both "push" and "pull" factors affect
immigration. Push factors are those that lead the immigrant to leave his
homeland while pull factors are those which attract him to a different
country. Europe and other Western liberal countries exert a strong pull on
immigrants. However, stopping immigration is not easy, if at all possible,
since the same European liberal laws that attract immigrants also prevent
states from acting to stop them from coming or, later, to deport them.
Background
After World War II, countries such as France, Belgium, and
Germany started to allow and even entice foreign workers to come. The
economic boom in those countries attracted immigrants, first from poor
southern European countries such as Italy and Spain, and then from the far
shores of the Mediterranean, North Africa, and the Middle East. The United
Kingdom attracted immigrants from throughout the British empire: Indians
and Pakistanis came to Britain from the 1950s on, Bangladeshis from the
1970s. France, Germany, and the Netherlands also attracted immigrants from
their former colonies. The host European governments understood these
migrants to be temporary guest workers as did many of the migrants
themselves.
The economic downturn in the early 1970s led European
policymakers to realize that immigration was not always a positive
phenomenon. Many immigrants were suddenly unemployed, but they did not go
back to their home countries. As fears grew that foreign workers sought
permanent residence, between 1973 and 1975, Western European governments
instituted an "immigration stop," introducing restrictive measures to
deter immigration and to put a stop to recruiting foreign labor.
This immigration stop had unforeseen consequences. Migration
of foreign workers dwindled, but the migration dynamic nevertheless
continued. Migrants residing in Europe could continue to sponsor their
extended family's immigration and, indeed, relaxation of restrictions on
family reunification encouraged further immigration. The time between the
first proposals for a halt and their implementation exacerbated the
problem as immigrants hurried to bring over their families, fearful that
the doors to Europe would soon close forever.
Ironically, in the decades that have passed since the halt
to immigration, more immigrants have come to Europe than in preceding
decades. Indeed, by looking at the number of immigrants in various
countries, it would be difficult to determine how far back the block had
been implemented in practice. In the Netherlands, for example, the number
of first- and second-generation Moroccan and Turkish immigrants has
increased almost tenfold (see Table 1) since the 1974 halt.
Researchers have long sought to chart the immigration
dynamic and to predict future trends. When Poland joined the European
Union, forecasts of the number of Polish workers who would immigrate to
the United Kingdom underestimated reality. The British government expected
15,000 immigrants a year from the newly-admitted European Union countries
but instead approved close to 430,000 applications in two years, a figure
that does not include self-employed immigrants who could resettle without
applying for a work permit.[3]
Even when the trend is known, forecasts tend to miscalculate
reality. A Dutch study from 1994, for example, thought marriage
immigration had already peaked.[4]
However, a study from 2005 by a Dutch government agency, Statistics
Netherlands, shows that between 1995 and 2003, marriage immigration of
Turks almost doubled, increasing from slightly less than 2,000 per year to
close to 4,000. Marriage immigration of Moroccans in the same period
tripled, increasing from slightly over 1,000 a year to about 3,000. This
same study expects marriage immigration to peak by the mid 2020s, as
second generation immigrants age.[5]
Table 1: Moroccans and Turks in the Netherlands.
Source: "Ruim
850 duizend islamieten in Nederland," Statistics Netherlands, Oct. 24,
2007; Jorgen S. Nielsen, Muslims in Western Europe: Islamic Surveys
(Columbia University Press, Oct.1992), pp. 60-1.
Table 2: Turks in Germany, 1973-2006
Source: Deutsche
Welle (Bonn), Mar. 1, 2008; Jorgen S. Nielsen, Muslims in
Western Europe: Islamic Surveys (Columbia University Press, Oct.1992),
pp. 25-6.
In Germany, while the Turkish population stabilized briefly
in the 1980s,[6] it later increased
steadily despite the 1973 check on immigration (see Table 2).
Table 3: Muslims in Norway, 1979-2005
Source: "Islam
I Norge," based on data from Knut A. Jacobsen, Dagfinn Rian, Kari
Vogt, Verdensreligioner i Norge (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 2005);
Jorgen S. Nielsen, Muslims in Western Europe: Islamic Surveys (New
York: Columbia University Press, Oct. 1992), pp. 84-6.
And a 1997 study by the Norwegian Statistical Bureau found
that 50 percent of immigrants had arrived since 1989, and that 30 percent
of the total immigrant community had arrived in just the past five
years.[7]
And, according to the lowest available estimates, the number
of North Africans in France tripled since the government started
restricting immigration in 1974 (see Table 4).
Table 4: North Africans in France, 1957-2003
Source: Michele Tribalat, "Counting
France's Numbers—Deflating the Numbers Inflation," The Social
Contract Journal, Winter 2003-04; Jorgen S. Nielsen, Muslims in
Western Europe: Islamic Surveys (Columbia University Press, Oct.1992),
pp. 8-9.
An Immigration Dynamic
While North African and Middle Eastern immigrants to Europe
initially focused on filling the labor market for short periods of time
before returning home after a few years, after the immigration stop the
new immigrants were whole families—husbands, wives, and children—who left
their homeland behind to settle permanently in Europe. The arrival of
families both changed the scale of immigration and the entire character of
the immigrant communities. Immigrants now grew concerned about schooling,
health care, and proper housing.
Families also changed the immigrants' attitudes towards
religious and cultural values. Whereas single workers either isolated
themselves or sought to experience the more liberal lifestyle of Europe,
the arrival of families led immigrants to transport their honor culture
and modesty standards to the West and to put into practice their attitudes
toward women. And while temporary workers accepted basement mosques as a
temporary solution to their communal prayer needs, with increasing numbers
and the presence of families, these were no longer adequate. Immigrant
parents brought their children to the West to give them new opportunities,
but they did not want them to fall prey to Western temptations.
Immigration is a personal decision. However, once many
people make the decision to leave their home country, the flow of
immigrants takes on a life of its own. This immigration dynamic is hard,
if not impossible, to stop. Immigrants choose to go to destinations with
which they are acquainted and about which they have heard from friends and
relatives who immigrated previously. Such destinations provide informal
support structures and social networks. This leads to a situation where
immigrants from a certain home area all congregate in a certain area in
the host country, thereby leading to immigrant ghettoes. In the United
States, for example, Minneapolis-St. Paul has become an unlikely immigrant
ghetto for Somalis, and Los Angeles—"Tehrangeles"—is an immigrant
destination for Iranians.
In Belgium, similarly, immigrants from the Turkish city of
Emirdağ and its vicinity settled in Brussels and Ghent. [8] According to one emigrant from Emirdağ, it is common
knowledge that family and friends live on the same street or neighborhood
in Belgium as they do "back home."[9]
In the Netherlands, many of the Moroccans come from the Rif mountain town
of al-Hoceima; Bangladeshis, mostly coming from the northeastern Sylhet
area, came to the United Kingdom and settled in the East London boroughs,
particularly in Tower Hamlets. Pakistanis, mostly from Kashmir and the
Punjab, settled in Birmingham, with another large concentration in
Bradford. The immigrants who first came to the country set the way for
their compatriots to follow. Pakistanis, Vietnamese, and more recently,
Iraqis, are the largest groups of non-European immigrants in Norway. North
Africans and Albanians make up the largest groups in Italy.
The more people emigrate from a certain town or village, the
more likely it becomes that their neighbors or their neighbors' children
will follow in their path. The immigration dynamic means that entire
generations of children in villages and towns across the Third World grow
up knowing that they are likely to immigrate in the future, either by
marrying a cousin or by other means.
Europe today offers unique possibilities. It is much closer
to North Africa and Turkey than other immigration countries such as the
United States, Canada, or Australia and can be reached without air travel.
Additionally, freedom of travel within Europe enables immigrants to start
in the most accessible country and later make their way to their true
destination. This is especially true with asylum seekers, who may arrive
in Greece or Italy, for example, but then try to make their way to
"easier" countries like Sweden or Norway.[10]
Technological advances have also changed immigration. Travel
accessibility has transformed journeys of months or years into hours or
days. Major European air carriers offer direct flights connecting Europe
to the Middle East and Asia. Even after the immigrant has arrived, he can
keep in constant contact with his home country: by phone and the Internet
or via satellite television.[11] He
can also return for summer vacations. Whereas immigrants of the past had
little choice but to assimilate into their host countries, today, they can
retain their native identities to the exclusion of the national identity
of their new home.
In many cases, the immigrant "sojourns,"[12] living in both countries, setting up two
residences and splitting his time between his new country and his
homeland. Sojourning not only retards integration but also ensures
continuation of the immigration dynamic since the immigrant's countrymen
back home are continuously in touch and reminded of the wealth that
immigration offers.
Immigrants tend to invest back in their home country,
building palatial residences to show their success in Europe. There are
entire neighborhoods in some countries that were built by emigrants who
rarely live there: "Little Norway" in Gujarat, Pakistan,[13] or the "Belgian Neighborhood" in Tangier.[14] These neighborhoods usually only
come to life in the summer when the immigrants return for annual
vacations.
Investing in the home country also means less money to
invest in day-to-day life in their new country. Immigrants might still be
living in squalid conditions in Paris or Amsterdam, but their relatives in
Morocco and Turkey can be satisfied with their success. Among Turkish
immigrants in Belgium, there are those who borrow money to buy an
expensive car for the summer trip to Turkey in order to show that they
have succeeded in Europe. They then sell the car upon their return to
Europe.[15] The "Belgian
neighborhood" in Tangier was supposedly built with the savings and child
benefits of the immigrants. [16]
Current Immigration: Family Reunification
Currently, immigration to Europe is possible through several
channels: through an employment or student permit for skilled workers, by
marriage immigration and family reunification, or asylum and illegal
immigration. Skilled foreign workers and students are considered the ideal
immigrants though this immigration has a negative effect on their home
countries. Third World countries need trained doctors, engineers, and
academics to push their economy forward. The "brain drain" encourages
further immigration and retards progress.
Family reunification is one of the most common ways to
immigrate to Europe today. This means that immigration laws in host
countries have transformed immigrant youth into virtual human visas. The
commonality of cousin marriages to aid the extended family or to keep
resources within the family encourages marriages between immigrants and
family members back in the host country. The Western legal system
reinforces tribal marriage patterns by giving families incentives to use
marriage to work around the European immigration system. In Norway, for
example, the proportion of cousin-marriages within the Pakistani immigrant
community is greater than in Pakistan itself.[17]
Marriage immigration also perpetuates itself. Studies show
that the age at which an immigrant woman first becomes a mother increases
and the number of children decreases the longer her family is in Europe.[18] That is, a first generation
immigrant would exhibit behavior closer to her native country while a
second and third generation immigrant would tend to be more similar to the
local population. Marriage immigration therefore ensures a continued high
level of fertility among the immigrant population.
Many forecasts regarding the Muslim immigration to Europe
expect that immigrant Muslims will eventually integrate into society.
However, marriage immigration ensures that the immigrant population never
progresses past the stage of first and second generation immigrants,
frustrating integration. Also hampering demographic forecasts is the fact
that many second generation immigrants prefer to marry spouses from their
parents' home country. Studies among Moroccan and Turkish youth in Belgium
show that they often prefer to marry spouses from "back home" rather than
marrying a fellow second generation immigrant like themselves.[19] Boys, dissatisfied with what they
see as the Westernization of immigrant women, opt for more traditional
women from the home country. Moroccan immigrant youth visiting their home
country are often accosted with offers of sex and money in exchange for a
visa by local girls desperate to get to the "Promised Land."[20]
Girls, on the other hand, are dissatisfied with what they
see as the lower-class behaviors of many immigrant men and their attitudes
towards marriage and women and, therefore, opt for a more "open,"
gentlemanly, and educated man, also from back home. The market value of
legal immigrant women is especially high.[21] In Norway, marriageable Muslim girls are sometimes
called "gilded paper" or "visa."[22]
Marrying a husband from the home country has the additional benefit that
the wife can be quite sure her new in-laws will not interfere in her
marriage. This is important as it is traditional among immigrants for the
new couple to live in the house of the husband's parents and under their
authority until they have children.
Current Immigration: Asylum Seekers
Traditionally, asylum was reserved for those who fled
persecution. Before the immigration stop, some asylum seekers came as
economic migrants without bothering to go through the official process of
being recognized as refugees. After the immigration stop, the process
changed and many economic migrants started posing as refugees as a
"consciously planned act of subversion."[23] Asylum seekers enter the country as illegal
immigrants, destroying their papers and lying as much as necessary to
achieve their objective—a new life in Europe. Today, those who cannot
immigrate through marriage often choose the asylum process regardless of
their situation back home. Only a minority of asylum seekers are quota
refugees for whom the United Nations has recognized their status during a
stay in refugee camps ahead of their travel to Europe. Most refugees enter
Europe illegally, which requires paying smugglers and sometimes obtaining
fake documents. These refugees make their way to the country most likely
to accept their application. In recent years, Iraqi and Afghan refugees
crossed several European states in order to claim asylum in Sweden and
Norway, countries which have more liberal asylum laws. And many of those
seeking asylum exaggerate or fabricate persecution claims creating an
absurd situation whereby asylum seekers, claiming shelter in Europe, spend
holidays on vacation in their countries of origin.[24]
Still, there are real cases of political persecution.
Beginning in the 1950s, many Muslim students arrived in Germany not only
to take advantage of the technical education in German universities but
also to escape political persecution by secular, military leaders such as
Gamal Abdel Nasser, bent on eradicating Islamist groups back home.[25] One of these exiles was Said
Ramadan, son-in-law of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna, and
father of Tariq Ramadan. Said Ramadan was granted asylum in Switzerland
where he continued working for Muslim Brotherhood interests. The trend has
accelerated into the 1980s and 1990s as Islamist activists fled
intensified domestic crackdowns in Syria, North Africa, and Egypt.
However, unlike many asylum seekers who sought to flee oppression, these
refugees sought to replicate it, plotting the replacement of secular
dictatorships with religious dictatorships. They cared little for the
values of liberal democracy even as they sought to utilize it for their
own purposes. European officials, perhaps for reasons of moral
equivalency, granted such activists asylum without regard to what caused
the persecution against them in the first place. Using their new European
base, many of these Islamist activists continued in their struggle for
regime change in their homelands, creating networks that at times became
the basis for today's European Muslim terrorist networks. As one Egyptian
official said, "European countries like Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland,
England and others, which give sanctuary to these terrorists should now
understand it will come back to haunt them where they live."[26] The idea of "refugee" has
degenerated so much that, during the war in Afghanistan, British officials
granted asylum to Taliban fighters.[27]
Conversely, Islamic countries can also produce refugees who
flee strict application of Islamic law, individuals such as homosexuals,
converts from Islam to other religions, or members of persecuted
minorities, such as the Ahmadiyya in Pakistan, or the Jews in Yemen who
may face capital punishment for their beliefs or actions.[28] However, such a trend can encourage fraud. For
example, after the Norwegian government granted automatic residence
permits to persecuted homosexuals, fifty Iranian asylum seekers claimed to
be persecuted homosexuals. At least one married in Iran and after
receiving asylum proceeded to request family reunification. Several others
reported doubtful stories but were given asylum anyway.[29]
Likewise, the decision to grant automatic residence permits
to converts from Islam—even those who converted after arriving in
Europe—encourages more abuse.[30] In
Norway, one hundred Afghan refugees converted to Christianity after the
rejection of their initial asylum claims.[31]
While European governments do reject the applications of
many asylum seekers, this does not mean the individuals leave or are
deported. Perhaps 80 percent of asylum seekers stay in Europe after the
rejection of their application.[32]
There are many reasons why asylum seekers are not
immediately deported. The West's liberal court systems allow for appeals
and for further review after a decision by the first instance of justice.
Death sentences in the home country, seen as inhumane by the Europeans, or
refusal by the home country to accept its own citizens back can also
prevent deportation. Others simply disappear, continuing to live in the
country as undocumented illegal immigrants. The result is that those
detained in camps for months or years before the completion of court
processes are removed from productivity and learn to live at public
expense.
In the years of legal battles, prospective asylum seekers
are willing to do everything in order to ensure their stays. Children are
kept as virtual hostages without knowing their own family abroad, without
learning their original mother tongue, and without being able to integrate
in their original homelands as a last resort for a residence permit on
grounds of humane consideration should the asylum battle fail.[33]
Those who live illegally do not pay taxes and cannot enjoy
the full benefits of a welfare society. However, as more illegal
immigrants arrive in a country, pressure grows to regularize them by
awarding them amnesty and residence permits. Though regularization deals
with the humanitarian aspects of the illegal immigrant's situation, it
also gives incentives for illegal behavior and further immigration. In
Belgium, for example, illegal immigrants have protested in recent years
for regularization. Such protests have involved squatting in churches and
climbing high-rise cranes. This creates an irony in which state attempts
to stop immigration are thwarted by institutions—such as churches—that are
subsidized by the state itself. The Belgian protests are aided by
pro-immigrant groups, many of which the state also subsidizes.
The Challenge of Stopping Immigration
European governments are aware of the problem. Since the
immigration stop of the 1970s, there have been several attempts to halt or
slow down the immigration flow. Some European governments seek to
discourage emigration by improving the life conditions of the prospective
emigrant in his home country or by trying to scare prospective immigrants
through ad campaigns that show the horrors of life as an illegal
immigrant. In 2007, Spain ran an ad campaign in West Africa warning
Africans not to risk their lives in futile illegal immigration.[34]
Ignorance contributes to immigration. Researchers studying
Turkish marriage immigrants who immigrated to Belgium found that children
and adults growing up in Turkey in an emigration town, that is, a town
where most of the residents either emigrated or wanted to emigrate, were
unaware of the basic facts of European life. They knew about the high
unemployment benefits but were not aware that basic necessities were much
more expensive. One marriage-migrant interviewee admitted frankly that
life in Belgium was not what he had expected. However, when he tried
warning the youth in his hometown of the hardships of immigration, he was
accused of wanting to keep new-found wealth to himself.[35]
The problem with both methods is that a European lifestyle
is based not only on material wealth but also on the rights and privileges
of a liberal democracy. Even if it were easy to try to create jobs and
affluence in countries such as Tunisia—which it is not—it would be harder
to change the fabric of the legal system in a liberalizing direction.
Several countries have also tried unsuccessfully to convince
immigrants to leave their new homes by offering incentives and continued
welfare support for those who return to their native countries. Two such
programs in France, the first in 1977 and the second in 2005, ended in
failure. Creating incentives for departure might also backfire by
encouraging migration for the purpose of collecting the offered benefits
and by convincing those in the home country that Europe is drowning in
cash, ready to be exploited.
As many countries become aware that the long-term effects of
a brain drain outweigh any short-term benefits from remittances, some have
themselves begun to discourage emigration. The Algerian Ministry of
Religious Affairs, for example, issued a fatwa (religious edict)
decreeing that illegal immigrants who die at sea have committed suicide, a
sin in Islam.[36]
Tightening immigration laws is an obvious strategy but one
that is undercut by inconsistent regulations among EU states. Sweden, long
the destination of choice for Iraqi asylum seekers, saw claims drop after
it tightened its regulations although there was an increase in asylum
claims in neighboring Norway during the same period. Tough marriage
immigration laws in the Netherlands likewise encouraged the creation of
the "Belgian Route," in which the non-EU spouse first comes to Belgium,
using that country's laxer marriage-immigration laws. After the couple
stay in the country for the minimum amount of time required by EU law,
they move to the Netherlands. A recent EU Court decision, however,
scrapped the requirement for a minimum stay and rejected any national
restrictions on free movement.[37]
Judicial activism compounds the problem when courts create new legislation
by imposing their own opinions on elected lawmakers.
In two such recent cases, for example, courts struck down
laws intended to prevent immigration. A court in Amsterdam rejected a
requirement for immigrants from certain countries to undergo integration
testing and to prove their knowledge of Dutch language and culture in
their home countries before receiving a visa to the Netherlands for
marriage immigration.[38] The high
court in Belgium struck down a law preventing the children of polygamous
marriages from immigrating to Belgium in order to reunite with their
father and, thereby, opened the option for the polygamous spouse to do the
same.[39]
As these countries are EU members, they also subordinate
national law to European Union directives and to the decisions of the
European Court. For example, in recent years, both Denmark and the
Netherlands have passed laws limiting family reunification. In both cases,
marriage immigration dropped significantly from about 60 to 38 percent in
four years, 2001-05, for Denmark,[40]
and from 56 to 27 percent for Dutch Turks and 57 to 23 percent for Dutch
Moroccans over a five year period beginning in 2001.[41] However, in July 2008, the European Court
prohibited member states from denying residence permits to non-EU spouses
of EU citizens or residents.[42] This
ruling caused a political crisis in Denmark, but it holds for all other
countries as well, and in practice prevents them from stopping marriage
immigration.
Conclusion
It will be far more difficult to stop immigration than it
was to initiate the immigration flow. A unified European approach,
slashing the time to process requests and achieve final adjudication might
help to decrease immigration. Immigration to Europe might have developed
differently with tougher, more restrictive immigration policies, but as
long as Europe offers opportunities for work, education, and personal
safety, and as long as it offers a liberal democracy with the rights and
privileges such a lifestyle entails, it will continue to attract mass
immigration.
The West has always been proud of its moral standard of
protecting human rights and giving refuge to persecuted individuals.
Referral to human rights has catalyzed immigration. For example, the right
to marry is recognized as a fundamental right that in many European
countries brings conveyance of citizenship. However, in a society where
arranged marriages are the norm and forced marriages are common, the right
to marry can easily place the law on the side of the aggressor who coerces
somebody else to marry rather than the victim. Redefining refugee status
by creating so many categories that fulfil it renders that status
meaningless. Not only does it encourage economic immigration, it actually
hurts those who truly need refuge.
Esther Ben-David is an independent researcher of
Islam in Europe. Her blog at islamineurope.blogspot.com offers
translations of news stories and studies from various European
sources.
[1] Anja van Heelsum, "Moroccan
Berbers in Europe, the US and Africa and the Concept of Diaspora,"
Institute for Migration and Ethnic Studies, University of Amsterdam, June
20, 2003.
[2] Ural Manço, "Turks in Europe:
From a Garbled Image to the Complexity of Migrant Social Reality,"
Centre d'Etudes Sociologiques, Facultes Universitaires Saint-Louis,
Brussels, Belgium, accessed Dec. 30, 2008.
[3] BBC News, Aug. 22,
2006.
[4] Hans Van Amersfoort
and Rinus Penninx, "Regulating Migration in Europe: The Dutch Experience,
1960-92," Strategies for Immigration Control: An International
Comparison [Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science] (London: Sage Publications, 1994), pp. 133-46.
[5] Maarten Alders, "Prognose van
gezinsvormende migratie van Turken en Marokkanen,"
Bevolkingstrends, 2nd quarter, 2005, pp. 46-9.
[6] Jorgen S. Nielsen, Muslims in
Western Europe: Islamic Surveys (New York: Columbia University Press,
Oct.1992), pp. 25-6.
[7] Unni Wikan,
Generous Betrayal: Politics of Culture in the New Europe (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 2001), pp. 234, ftnt. 24.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.,
p. 201-2.
[10] The Local
(Stockholm), Nov. 29,
2007.
[11] BBC News, Aug. 16, 2006.
[12] Wikan, Generous Betrayal, p.
194.
[13] Ibid., p. 242, ftnt.
76.
[14] Hind Fraihi,
Undercover in Klein-Marokko, Achter de Gesloten Duren van de Radicale
Islam (Leuven: Uitgeverij Van Halewyck, 2006), p. 78.
[15] Hilâl Yalçin, Ina Lodewyckx, Rudy
Marynissen, and Rut Van Caudenberg, Verliefd
verloofd..gemigreerd. Een onderzoek naar Turkse huwelijksmigratie in
Vlaanderen, (Antwerp: Steunpunt Gelijkekansenbeleid, University of
Antwerp-University of Hasselt, 2006), p. 186-91.
[16] Fraihi, Undercover in Klein-Marokko, p.
78.
[17] Dagens
Medisin (Oslo), Mar.
8, 2007.
[18] Joop Garssen and
Han Nicolaas, "Fertility of Turkish and Moroccan Women in the Netherlands:
Adjustment to native level within one generation," Demographic
Research, July 18, 2008, pp. 1249-80.
[19] Ina Lodewyckx, Johan Geets, and Christiane Timmerman,
reds., Aspecten
van Marokkaanse huwelijksmigratie en Marokkaans familierecht
(Antwerp: Steunpunt Gelijkekansenbeleid, University of Antwerp-University
of Hasselt, 2006); Yalçin, et. al., Verliefd
verloofd..gemigreerd. Een onderzoek naar Turkse huwelijksmigratie in
Vlaanderen, p. 160.
[20]
Fraihi, Undercover in Klein-Marokko, p. 54.
[21] Van Amersfoort and Penninx, "Regulating Migration in
Europe: The Dutch Experience, 1960-92," pp. 133-46.
[22] Wikan, Generous Betrayal, p.
216.
[23] Ibid., pp. 39-41.
[24] Aftenposten (Oslo), May 15,
2007.
[25] Lorenzo Vidino,
"The Muslim
Brotherhood's Conquest of Europe," Middle East Quarterly,
Winter 2005, pp. 25-34.
[26]
The Houston Chronicle, Sept. 24, 1995.
[27] Lorenzo Vidino, Al Qaeda in Europe: The New
Battleground of International Jihad (Amherst: Prometheus Books, 2006),
pp. 46-7.
[28] See, for example,
Andrew Hollin, "Dissident Watch: Mehdi
Kazemi," Middle East Quarterly, Fall 2008, p. 96.
[29] VG Nett (Oslo), June
6, 2006.
[30] Nederlands
Dagblad (Barneveld), July
4, 2008.
[31] Dagbladet
(Oslo), July
18, 2008.
[32] Wikan,
Generous Betrayal, pp. 39-41.
[33] Aftenposten, July 27,
2007.
[34] BBC News, Sept. 20,
2007.
[35] Yalçin, et. al.,
Verliefd
verloofd..gemigreerd. Een onderzoek naar Turkse huwelijksmigratie in
Vlaanderen, pp. 186-91.
[36] Adnkronos International News, Apr.
29, 2008.
[37] Metock
and Others, Case C127/08, The Court of Justice of the European
Communities, July 25, 2008.
[38]
De Telegraaf (Amsterdam), July
15, 2008.
[39] HLN, July
10, 2008.
[40] The
Copenhagen Post, Nov. 7, 2007.
[41] "Minder
migratiehuwelijken Turken en Marokkanen," Netherlands Statistics, The
Hague and Heerlen, Jan. 7, 2008, accessed Jan. 16, 2008.
[42] Metock
and Others, Case C‑127/08.
Related Topics: Immigration, Muslims in Europe Spring 2009
MEQ
To receive the full, printed version of the Middle
East Quarterly, please see details about an affordable subscription. |
Send
RSS
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment