Sayın başkan değerli katılımcılar, değerli göçmen dostlar,

Bu konferansı düzenleyen, katkıda bulunan herkese teşekkür ediyorum.

Böyle bir konferansın bu yüzyılda düzenlenmesi ihtiyacını insanlık tarihi için utanç verici buluyorum. Bu gün 6 Haziran 2013, göçmenler olarak insan haklarımızı tekrar talep ediyoruz.

Hemen belirtmekte yarar var. İnsan haklarını korumak için uluslararsı düzeyde yeterli mevzuat vardır. Aslında göçmenlerin haklarını korumak için ulusal ve uluslararası düzeyde yeterli mevzuat vardır. Evrensel insan hakları enstrümanları (Universal human rights instruments) ve Bölgesel insan hakları enstrümanları (Regional human rights instruments) in   san haklarını tüm detaylarıyla kapsamaktadır. Evrensel ya da bölgesel insan hakları enstrümanlarının tamamı ayrımcılık yapmama ilkesini içerir. Belirtilmesinde yarar görülen önemli bir husus temel insan hakları sözleşmelerinin “asgari” değerleri kapsadığıdır.

Sözleşmelerin taraf ülkelerde uygulanmasını izleyen denetim sistemleri de bulunmaktadır.

Önemli olan bu sözleşmelerin onaylanıp onaylanmadığı, onaylanmış ise uygulanıp uygulanmadığıdır.

Birleşmiş Milletlerin dokuz temel insan hakları sözleşmesi bulunmaktadır. Bu sözleşmelerin sekizi AB ülkelerinin hemen hemen tamamı  tarafından onaylanmıştır. Birleşmiş Milletler temel insan hakları sözleşmelerinden Göçmen İşçiler ve Aile Fertlerinin Haklarına dair Sözleşmeyi hiç bir AB üyesi ülke onaylamamıştır.   Sözleşmenin temel prensibi ayrımcılık yapmamadır. Bu durum AB ülkelerinin göçmenlerin en temel insan haklarını dahi tanımamakta ısrarlı bir tavır sergilediğini göstermektedir.

BM Göçmen İşçiler Sözleşmesi düzensiz konumdaki göçmen işçiler ve aile fertlerine bazı temel hakları sağlamaktadır.  AB üyesi ülkeler bu Sözleşmeyi onaylamama gerekçesi olarak bunu öne sürmektedir. Oysa BM Göçmen İşçiler Komitesi Nisan 2013 tarihindeki oturumunda Kabul ettiği Genel Yorum’da (General Comment) sadece bir iki istisna dışında, Göçmen İşçiler Sözleşmesinde düzensiz göçmenler için sağlanan haklarının tamamının diğer insan hakları sözleşmelerinde de yer aldığını ortaya koymuştur. AB ülkelerini ürküten tek konu bireysel sınırdışı kararlarında göçmen işçinin sınırdışı edilmeden önce bulunduğu ülkedeki mülkiyet, ücret alacakları ve diğer bazı haklarını alabilmesi için usule ilişkin sağlanan güvencedir. Bu Genel Yorum AB ülkeleri için çok iyi bir rehber niteliğindedir.

Avrupa Birliği ve Avrupa Konseyi ırkçılık ve ayrımcılıkla mücadele için mevzuat bakımından oldukça ileri düzeydedir. Bu mevzuatın uygulanmasının denetimini yapan Avrupa Adalet Divanı (Court of Justice of the EU) ve Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi (Euroqean Court of Human Rights) verdikleri kararlarda bu mevzuatı daha da geliştirmişleridir.

Ayrımcılığı tanımlarken başvuracağımız en önemli kaynaklar Avurupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi ve Avrupa Adalet Divanı’nın bu konudaki yaklaşımlarıdır.

Her iki Mahkemeninde yaklaşımları ortaktır. Buna göre ayrımcılığı 3 temel unsurla belirlememiz gerekir.

1. Aynı konumda olan kişi veya kişi gruplarına farklı muamele ayrımcılıktır.

Differential treatment to two persons or group of persons in the same situation is discrimination.

2. Farklı konumda bulunan kişi veya kişi gruplarına aynı muamele ayrımcılıktır.

The ECHR (European Court of Human Rights) recognised that a conduct may be discriminatory if two persons are treated alike while their situations are significantly different.)

3. Makul mazaret. Farklı muamele adil ve ağırlıklı gerekçelere sahipse ayrımcılık olarak değerlendirilmez.

In order to be justified, a differential treatment must have an objective and reasonable justification, pursue a legitimate purpose, as well as satisfy the proportionality test.

Bu ayrımcılık tanımları tabiiki sadece göçmenlere yönelik değildir. Ancak bu tanımların değeri göçmenler için çok daha önemlidir. Dünyanın her bölgesinde olduğu gibi, Avrupa’da da en fazla ayrımcılık göçmenlere yapılmaktadır.

Avrupa Birliği Kurucu Anlaşması’nın 13. maddesinde AB kurumlarına cinsiyet, ırk, etnik köken inanç, engelli, yaş ve cinsi eğilimleri nedeniyle bireylerin ayrımcılığa uğramaması için gerekli tedbirleri alma ve uygulama yükümlülüğü vermiştir. Bu kapsamda Avrupa Konseyi ve Parlamentosu 1978, 2000 ve 2006 yıllarında 4 ayrı cinsiyet eşitliği, kadın ve erkekler arasında sosyal güvenlik alanında ayrımcılık yapılmaması, istihdamda eşitlik Direktifi benimsemiştir.

Bununla birlikte 16 Aralık 2008 tarihli Geri Dönüş Direktifi (DIRECTIVE 2008/115/EC) yasal ikamet statüsü bulunmayan veya kaybeden göçmenlere bir takım güvenceler sağlamaktan uzaktır. Bunun yanına Avrupa Birliğinin Model Geri Kabul Anlaşmasını da koyduğumuzda her iki metnin, temel insan hakları sözleşmelerinde yer alan güvenceleri içermediği görülmektedir. AB’nin üçüncü ülkelere empoze ettiği Geri Kabul Anlaşmasının BM Göçmen İşçiler Sözleşmesine aykırı olduğu Göçmen İşçiler Komitesince çok defa izleme ve denetim raporlarında (Concluding Observations) belirtilmiştir.

Avrupa Konseyine dikkate alındığında Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesinin 14. maddesi sözleşme ile güvence alınan diğer hakların sağlanmasında ayrımcılık yapılmamasını öngörür.

Mevuzatta bu tür çok güçlü ve olumlu hükümler bunmakla birlikte, Bunların göçmenlere karşı ayrımcılığı engellediğini düşünmek mümkün değildir. Göçmenlere karşı yapılan ayrımcılığı ve ırkçılığı sosyal yaşamın hemen hemen her alanında görmek mümkündür. Bunları somutlaştırmadan önce ayrımcılığın ve ırkçılığın kimler tarafından nasıl yapıldığına bakmakta yarar bulunmaktadır.

Hükümetler,

Siyasi Partiler,

Yerel Yönetimler,

İşverenler,

Sosyal Güvenlik Kurumları,

Sendikalar,

Eğitim Kurumları,

Sağlık Kurumları,

Diğer kamu kurum ve kuruluşları,

Değişen biçimlerde ve oranlarda göçmenlere karşı ayrımcılık yapmaktadır. Göçmenlerin istihdam durumu, eğitim durumu, dini, cinsiyeti, yaşı, sağlık durumu, kendilerine yapılan ayrımcılığın boyutlarını etkilemektedir.

Avrupa Birliği ülkelerinde göçmenlere karşı yapılan ayrımcılığın ne boyutta olduğunu anlamak için Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi ve Avrupa Birliği Adalet Divanının kararlarının incelenmesi yeterli olacaktır. Ancak ayrımıcılığı politika uygulamaları ile somut ayrımcılığın ne boBen Hollanda’dan geliyorum. Bu nedenle sizlere Hollanda örneğinde göçmenlere karşı ayrımcılıkla ilgili uygulamaları göstermeye çalışacağım. Bu uygulamaların bir çoğunun göç alan diğer AB ülkelerinde de olduğunu biliyoruz.

İlk grup olarak Hollanda Hükümetlerinin 2000 yılından bu yana göçmenler politikaları ile ilgilidir. Bu politikaların halen Hollanda’da ikamet eden göçmenler, ülkelerine geri dönmüş göçmenler ve Hollandaya yeni gelecek göçmenler üzerindeki etkilerini gösterecektir.

1. İstihdam

Kamu ve özel sektörde göçmenlerin istihdamında sıkıntıların olduğu herkes tarafından bilinmektedir. Bunu vatandaşlarla göçmenlerin işsizlik oranlarına baktığımızda çok açık biçimde görebilmekteyiz.

Bu işsizlik oranları çok farklı şekillerde yorumlanabilmektedir. Göçmenlerin eğitim düzeyinin düşüklüğü, kalifikasyonlarının azlığı, sosyal yardım sistemlerinden daha fazla yararlanma arzusu, kültürel ya da dini faktörlere göre kadınların istihdam piyasasına girmede isteksizliği, bu listeyi daha da uzatabiliriz.

Hollanda’da bir Türk göçmen 2011 yılında hazırladığı CV ile özel sektörde çok sayıda firmaya iş başvurusunda bulunmuştur. Bu firmalardan hiç birisinden yanıt alamamıştır. Aynı kişi CV’de sadece adını Hollanda ismi ile değiştirmiş ve aynı işyerlerine tekrar iş başvurusunda bulunmuştur. İşyerleri bu defa kendisini görüşmeye davet etmiştir. Bu tespit edilmiş bir durumdur.

Kamu ya da özel sektörde istindam edilen göçmenlerin işyerinde yükselmeleri çeşitli yöntemlerle engelenebilmektedir.

2. Aile Birleşimi, aile oluşumu

1998 yılından itibaren aile birleşimi ve oluşumu için ulararsarası sözleşmelerin öngördüğünden çok daha ağır şartlar getirilmiştir.  Aile birleşmi için uyum kurslarını başarı ile bitirmek ön koşul olmuştur. Uyum kurslarının masrafının göçmenin kendisi ya da eşi tarafından yerine getirilmesi gerekmektedir. Aile birleşimi için asgari ücretin % 130’u oranında bir gelire sahip olmak gerekmektedir. Asgari yaş 18’den 21’e çıkarılmıştır. Birden fazla göçmenle evlenme yasağı getirilmiştir. Ve nihayet çok yüksek ikamet izni harçları ödenmesi zorunluluğu getirilmiştir.

Göçmen örgütleri ve göçmenler bireysel olarak bu kısıtlamalara karşı çok etkili bir hukuk mücadelesi vermiştir.

Burada Hollanda mahkemelerine, Avrupa Birliği Adalet Divanına ve Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesine çok teşekkür etmemiz gerekiyoruz. Çünkü göçmenlerin üretimden gelen güçlerinin dışında tek güvencesi bu mahkemelerdir. Bu mahkemeler süreç içerisinde mükeammel kararlar vermiştir.

Aile birleşimi için az önce saydığım kısıtlamaların 21 yaş koşulu dışında kalanların tamamı mahkemelerce hukuka aykırı bulunmuştur. 21 yaş koşulu ile ilgili dava halen devam etmektedir.

14 Ekim 2010 tarihinde göreve başlayan PVV dışardan desteklediği VVD ve CDA Hükümeti hazırladıkları Koalisyon Protokolünde aile birleşimi konusunda sadece tüm kazanımlarımızı geri almayı değil çok daha ağır koşullar getirmeyi öngörmektedir.

Koalisyon Protokolünde aile birleşi için koşullar şu şekilde sıralanmıştır;

ü  Aile birleşimi ve aile oluşumu için katı kurallar getirilecek ve ilgili AB direktifinin değiştirilmesi için teklifte bulunulacaktır.

ü  Aile oluşumu ve birleşimi evli veya kayıtlı partner ve küçük çocuklar ile sınırlı tutulacaktır. (anne baba kapsam dışı kalacak)

ü  Aile birleşimi ve oluşumu kapsamında Hollanda’ya gelebilmek için Hollanda’daki eşin ebevenin en az bir yıldır yasal ikameti bulunmasi şartı getirilecektir. Bu şart yüksek vasıflı göçmenlere uygulanmayacaktır.

ü  Aile birleşimi kapsamında Hollanda’daki kişinin yeni kabul koşullarını yerine getirmesi gerekecektir: kendi kendine yeterli olma (barinma/gelir-independent accommodation) ve sağlik sigortasi.

ü  Aile birleşimi kapsaminda hollandaya gelen kişinin bağimsiz ikamet izni alabilmek için başvuru süresi istisnai durumlar dişinda üç yildan beş yila çikarilacaktir.

ü  Aile birleşimi harçları olabildiğince maliyeti düzeyinde olacaktır.

ü  Sivil entegrasyon yasasındaki sınav koşulları daha sıkılaştırılacaktır (dışarda hazırlanma).

ü  Aile birleşimi hakkı hakkındaki 2003/86 sayılı AB direktifinin değiştirilecek aile birleşimi kapsamında göç için yeni koşullar getirilecektir: bu çerçevede hükümet

• Yaş koşununun herbir partner için 24’e yükseltilmesi
• Her on yıl içinde en fazla bir partner için aile birleşimi
• Asgari ücretin % 120’si düzeyinde gelir koşulu
• Depozito uygulamasinin başlatilmasi
• Hollanda ile olan bağların diğer ülkelerden daha güçlü olduğunu ispat ölçütlerinin geliştirilmesi
• Suça karışmış aile bireylerinin kabul kapsamı dışına çıkarılması
• Eğitim düzeyi

ile ilgili değişikler yapılmasını isteyecektir.

Azınlık Koalisyonu Koalisyon Protokolüne koydukları bu hedeflerin bir kısımını gerçekleştirmiş, diğerleri için ise Hükümet süreleri yetmemiştir.

20 Ekim 2012 tarihinde VVD ve PvdA son Hükümetin Koalisyon Programı üzerinde anlaşmaya varmışlardır. Aile birleşimi konusunda yukarıda belirtilen prensiplerin hemen hemen tamamı yeni Protokolde de yer almaktadır.

Az önce ifade edilenler sadece aile birleşimi için detaylı bir anlatımdır. Ancak burada dikkat etmemiz gereken husus şudur. Uluslararı göçmen hukukuna aykırılığı ulusal mahkemeler, Avrupa Birliği Adalet Divanı ve Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesince sabit görülen düzenlemeler dahi farklı hükümetlerce ısrarla ve daha ağır biçimde tekrar uygulanmak istenmektedir. Daha da ötesinde göçmelerin haklarının ellerinden alınabilinmesi için AB Direktiflerini değiştirmek te dahil her türlü çaba gösterilmektedir.

Bu hak kısıtlamaya dönük ısrarcı tutum ayrımcılığın sistematik ve devamlılık gösteren bir şekilde yapıldığını açıkca ortaya koymaktadır.

3. Sosyal Güvenlik Haklarına İlişkin uygulamalar ve ayrımcılık örnekleri

Sosyal güvenlik hakkı temel insan hakları arasındadır. Bu hak sadece göçmen olarak bulunulan ülkede değil, göçmenin aile fertlerinin kaynak ülkede bulunması halinde de, göçmenlerin ülkelerine gönüllü olarak geri dönmeleri halinde de, belgesiz (irregular migrants) göçmenlerin çalışmaları ve ödediği pirimlerin karşılığı olarak sosyal güvenlik haklarını elde etmeleri bakımndan da çok önemlidir.

Göçmenlerin sosyal güvenlik hakları konusunda Hollanda’da 2000 yılından bu yana yaşanan gelişmeler bir yandan göçmenlere nasıl bir sistematik ayrımcılık yapıldığının çok açık bir kanıtı olduğu kadar göçmenlerin sosyal güvenlik haklarının korunmasına tüm AB genelinde ışık tutmaktadır. Bu süreç üzerine kitapların yazıldığı ve bundan sonra da yazılması gereken bir süreçtir.

Hollanda 2000 yılında sosyal güvenlik ödeneklerinin ihracını kısıtlayan bir yasa kabul etmiştir. Bu süreçten sonra primsiz nitelikteki ek yardımların ülke dışına transferi durdurulmuş, geride kalanlar ödeneği koşulları sigortalı kalmayı imkansız hale getirmiştir. Ülke dışında ikamet eden binlerce kişinin maluliyet aylıkları ya tamamen iptal edilmiş ya da miktarı düşürülmüştür.

Göçmenlerin mücadelesi ub alanda da çok önemli sonuçlar vermiştir. Kesinti kararlarının tamamı ya Hollanda ulusal mahkemelerinden geri dönmüş ya da Avupa Birliği Adalet Divanından geri dönmüştür.

Hollanda göçmenlerin sosyal güvenlik haklarını bu yargı kararlarına rağmen kısıtlayabilmek için Avrupa Sosyal Güvenlik Sözleşmesine çekince koymaktan kaçınmamış ve Uluslararası Çalışma Örgütünün 118 sayılı Sosyal Güvenlikte Vatandaşlarla Vatandaş Olmayanlar Arasında Eşit Muamele Sözleşmesinden geri çekilmiştir.

ILO’nun 118 sayılı Sözleşmesinden göçmenlerin sosyal güvenlik hakkını kısıtlamak amacıyla çekilmenin üzerine bir yorum yapılmasına gerek bulunmamaktadır.

Bunun da ötesinde, Avrupa Birliği Adalet Divanının sosyal güvenlik ödeneklerinde hiç bir kısıtlama yapmasızın ihraç edilmesinin zorunlu olduğu yönünde 2011 Mayısında verdiği bir kararın hemen arkasından Hollanda dışına transfer edilen geride kalanlar ödeneğinin, maluliyet aylıklarının ve aile yardımlarının % 40 ila % 60’nın, yaşlılık aylığına ilave ek yardımların tamamının kesileceğini açıklamıştır.

Bu kesinti kararlarının da göçmenlerin mücadelesiyle durdurulacağına şüphe yoktur. Ancak sosyal güvenlik hakları konusundaki göçmenlere karşı bu ayrımcı tutum, kendilerini insan hakları şampiyonu zanneden ülkelerin tarihlerinde kara bir leke olarak kalacaktır.

4. Ana dili eğitimi

İnsanların kültürel değerlerini koruyabilmeleri için en temel araçlarından birisi ana dilini konuşabilmesidir. Ana dili eğitimi hakkı hem evrensel hem bölgesel insan hakları temel ennstrümanlarında yer almaktadır.

Yine Hollanda örneğinden hareket edecek olursak, ana dili eğitimi 2004 yılından bu yana Hollanda’da ilkokullarda verilmemektedir.

Göçmen kuruluşları olarak bu alanda da mücadelemiz devam etmektedir. Bizler ana dili eğitimi hakkı mücadelemizle entegrasyonu engelleyen değil tam tersine entegrasyon sürecine katkı yapan bir mücadelenin içindeyiz. Ana dili eğitimi hakkını savunan bizler, yaşadığımız ülkenin dilini çok iyi derecede konuşmanın gerekliliğini de savunuyoruz. Yaşadığımız ülkenin dilini çok iyi derece bilmemizin, bulunduğumuz ülkede üretim sürecine her seviyede katılabilmemiz için bir zorunluluk olduğunun farkındayız. Ancak bulunduğumuz ülke makamları da farkında olmalı ki, ana dili eğitimi kültürel değerlerin korunması için vazgeçilemez bir öneme sahiptir.

Hollanda’da ana dili eğitimi için verdiğimiz hukuk mücadelesi diğer AB ülkelerine de örnek olacaktır. Bu mücadelenin sonuçlarını görmek için ne bizler ne de sizler çok beklemeyeceksiniz.

I.   Introduction

There have been considerable restrictions on social rights in the Netherlands for the last fifteen years. At this process which has begun with the Incapability Law (WAO/Waz), legal arrangements have been practicing since 01 January 2000, have caused significant restrictions on social rights. Foreigners have always been chosen as the first group of target in these kinds of arrangements directed towards restricting the rights.

Keeping the foreigners policy continuously at the agenda by the European Union member states, particularly by the Western European countries, and practicing radical changes in this field are not coincidental.

Measures taken and planned concerning the formation and unification of families demonstrate a radical feature which has never been before.

Rights, which have been guaranteed by tens of international conventions regarding immigrants who have solidly contributed to the reconstruction of Europe following the Second World War, are taken back one by one.

This process of the last ten years in the Netherlands is in a characteristic to affect the legal positions and futures of not only the Turks living in Western Europe but also the immigrants from other nations.

The Paper which will be presented at the 46th meeting of the CDMG in Rotterdam, has to be assessed in this context. The expression in the presentation that ‘the Dutch experience in the field of integration may constitute a general guideline on the integration throughout Europe’, states the importance of several policies implemented and planned regarding the immigrants in the Netherlands.

II.   Dutch Integration Policy and Adaptation Courses

       Family Formation – Unification / Adaptation Courses / ‘Marriage Payment’ /     

       Residence Payment / Education in Native Language

 

In the presentation titled as “The New Integration Policies and Adaptation Courses”, the adaptation courses which have been practicing since 1998 and the reorganization of these courses following an assessment of the five year period are discussed. Defining of new integration policies is based on the presumption that the new comers and old comers have responsibilities along with the rights.

In this framework, new proposals foreseeing that the new comers will be subject to adaptation courses in the countries they live before they come to Holland, the persons who do not have required minimum knowledge of Dutch language will not be allowed to enter the Netherlands, and the cease of social benefits for the persons failed in the adaptation courses, are considered as a ‘reform’, and stated that the approaches planned to be implemented can be a guide in the establishment of new integration policies throughout Europe.

The evaluation on ‘reform’ practices will be touched in the following parts. In addition to that, some new practices and proposals which are not mentioned in the presentation but are complementary to these policies, implemented in accordance with these policies and included in the agenda of the Parliament and the Government, will also be discussed.

II. 1   Family Formation / Unification

Adaptation courses are predominantly discussed in the First Part of the Dutch Paper. Besides that, ‘Adaptation Courses’ constitute a subpart of the concept of family formation and unification. Majority of the “new comers” to Holland are coming in the context of family formation. They are followed by persons coming within the framework of family unification, although their number gradually decreases. Number of other new comers is very few and they have very different characteristics.

Family formation / unification constitute the basis of the new Dutch immigration policy. The purpose is, although it is not overtly expressed, to decrease and stop the flow of immigrants to Holland.

Several decisions in this vein have been put into practice, and some new arrangements are at the first lines in the agenda of the Parliament and the Government.

Restrictions on Family Formation:

a)      Adaptation Courses

–     Foreigners can obtain residence permissions following a successful completion of

the Adaptation Course.

–          Tuition fee will be met by the spouse residing in Holland.

–          Adaptation courses / Social aids.

b)      Sufficient income requirement (130% of the minimum wage)

c)      Raising the minimum age from 18 to 21.

d)     Limiting marriage with foreigners more than once.

e)      Residence payments

Restrictions before Family Unification:

a)   Adaptation Capability

(Age limitation is planned to be decreased from 18 to 12)

b)      Delays in judicial decisions

II. 2   Adaptation Courses 

New integration policy of the Netherlands has begun to be designed with the Law of New Comers which had come into effect in 1998. Following this Law, it was foreseen that all foreigners coming to Holland be subject to Adaptation Courses. Old Comers legally residing in Holland have been provided with these courses since 1999, and finally, attendance to those courses is required for religious functionaries since 2002.

New integration policy has an approach considering not only the rights but also the responsibilities of the minorities, contrary to practices in the past. The purpose of these courses is to provide foreigners with the instruments enabling them to integrate in Dutch society. Capability of using the Dutch language both written and orally has the most essential place within these instruments.

Reasons and related personal advantages of adaptation courses are principles that no foreigner oppose/can oppose. According to predictions, more than 500 thousand foreigners can not speak Dutch or do not use this language.

Five year-period following the start of adaptation courses were evaluated, success and failures or defects of the practice tried to be determined. The findings obtained at the end of the process are evaluated under the titles such as waiting period for courses, Dutch language education and participation in the labour market.

The policies / ‘reform’ process mainly shaped by these evaluations and the results of five years practices are very interesting. Some of the suggestions put forth as “reform” are began to be practiced, while some of them are currently at the agenda of the Parliament and the Government. New practices and programs, although it is not openly expressed, are not the continuation of the process started with the adaptation courses or the measures to eliminate the defects in the experience of five years.

New integration policy foresees measures that aim at the prevention of coming of new immigrants and the assimilation of the current immigrants.

II. 3   Minimum Dutch language requirement for coming to Holland

Adaptation of foreigners who will come to Holland and Dutch language courses for foreigners in their home countries have been discussed since the beginning of the year 2002. Two results were deducted from the research carried out by the Dutch Ministry of Justice in the beginning of the summer of 2003. 1) It is not possible to learn Dutch language from courses in a country where this language is not used in practice. 2) These courses will cost more to Holland. Despite the result of this study, the approach to provide adaptation courses before coming to the Netherlands was included in the program of the Government.

The practical implementation of adaptation courses outside Holland has no importance for foreigners. The real problem is whether it brings new impediments to family formation and such a practice is violating the international conventions or not. In the evaluation of the matter, it should be known that persons failed in these courses can not enter in Holland.

Adaptation courses outside Holland are contrary to the Conventions of the Council of Europe as stated below.

Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms    (European Human Rights Convention)

This arrangement is in violation of

–          Article 8,

–          Article 12, and

–          Article 17 of the Convention.

European Social Charter

The arrangement is in violation of

–          Article 16 (Right of Social, Legal and Economic Protection of Family)

–          Article 17 (Right of Social and Economic Protection of Mothers and Children)

–          Article 18 (Right to work in the countries of other Contracting Parties)

–          Paragraph 6 of Article 19 (Right of Protection and Assistance of Working Immigrants and Their Families) of the Charter.

European Convention on the Legal Status of Immigrant Workers

The arrangement is in violation of

–          Paragraph 3 of Article 9 (Residence Permission)

–          Article 12 (Family Unification) and

–          Article 14 (Pre-school education, school education – language education, professional education and re-education) of the Convention.

European Residence Convention

The arrangement is in violation of

–          Article 1 (Entrance-Residence and Deportation)

–          Article 2 (Entrance-Residence and Deportation) and

–          Article 10 (Income Providing Activities) of the Convention.

In addition to the Council of Europe Conventions, this approach is also contrary to the Decision No: 1/80 of the Partnership Council,

Decision No: 1/80 of the Partnership Council

The arrangement is contrary to the Article 13 of the Decision No: 1/80.

ECHR Şen Decision

Zeki Şen, a Turkish citizen residing in the Netherlands, has applied to Dutch authorities on 26 October 1992 for obtaining of residence permission for his daughter Sinem born in 1983 and living in Turkey. Following the rejection of the demand of residence permission, the case was brought before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) after the completion of the required process.

The Court decided on 21.12.2001 that Zeki Şen is right, and the Netherlands had violated Article 8 of the European Human Rights Convention related to the rights on family affairs.

In conclusion, by taking the failure of Holland in maintaining a just balance between the interests of the applicants and national interests to control migration into account, the Court has unanimously decided that Article 8 of the Convention was violated,

The Decision is mainly based on the reasoning that the members of family have to come together to provide the unity of the family and it will be better if Sinem goes to her family than other members of the family return to Turkey.

Mr. Rıza Türmen, one of the judges of the Court, has joined the decision, but not agreed with its interpretations and reasons. The view of Türmen about the decision of the Court in Şen Case, has to be well understood by everyone interested in this matter.

It is known that the Netherlands does not take this ECHR Decision into account in other applications on the same subject. Establishment of new impediments on family unification, is an unacceptable attitude.

II. 4   Reflecting the Cost of Adaptation Courses to the Participants (‘Marriage Payment’)

It is planned that the cost of adaptation courses be paid by the spouses of the participants residing in Holland, with the thinking that the minorities have not only rights but also responsibilities. Cost of adaptation courses, which is called as ‘marriage payment’ by foreigners, is expected to be about 6600 Euro. It is planned to pay a part of that amount back to the participants having completed the courses successfully, Yet this amount has not been clearly determined.

Considering that the spouses of many of the course participants are just joining to the labour market in Holland, the foreseen amount is equal to the half of the annual income of the spouse living in Holland. Therefore, it is not possible to posit that this amount is at a reasonable level.

Providing of adaptation courses at home countries is in contradiction with several Council of Europe Conventions. Receiving the cost of the courses from the participants is against all mentioned Articles of these Conventions.

II. 5   Adaptation Courses / Social Security Allocations

A relation is established between the adaptation courses and social security allocations in the Dutch Paper. Participation to and successful completion of courses is considered as a precondition for old comers to benefit from social security allocations.

The concept of social security is the whole of social insurances and social benefits. Social insurance benefits are not mentioned in the Paper, but it is observed that adaptation courses are tried to be brought as a precondition to deserve social insurance benefits, by Dutch politicians in these discussions.

We assess this concept as threatening the basic human right, the ‘right to live’.

II. 6   Residence Payments

Residence payments are not included in the Dutch Paper on integration. In our view, the arrangement which is valid since 1 January 2003 about residence payments, is directly related to the essence of integration.

Dutch Ministry of Justice declared that the residence payment for residence of a limited time will be increased to 430 Euro, and payment for residence with no time limitation to 890 Euro. National Consultation Councils submit a paper to the Justice Commission of the Parliament to protest these increases, and emphasized that through such an initiative a message is given to foreigners as they are no longer wanted in the country. Consultation Councils stated that payments for passport are 33,35 Euro, for identity cards 18,70 Euro (new regulated payments are 37,96 and 30,56 Euro respectively) and this practice creates an impression that a discrimination is made between native citizens and foreigners before the public services.

Payments for residence permission are stated below.

PAYMENTS FOR RESIDENCE PERMISSION
Older Than Age 12				Younger Than Age 12
	Former	1/5/2002	1/1/2003	Former	1/5/2002	1/1/2003
Temporary residence permission	56,72	258	430	22,69	169	285
Permanent residence permission	226,89	539	890	–	–	–
Amendment in residence permission	0	258	430	0	169	285
Extension of residence permission	0	169	285	0	169	285

Consultation Council for the Turks (IOT) brought a suit for the cancellation of this extraordinary increase in the payments. The case has been based on the Article 13 of the Decision No: 1/80 of the Partnership Council.

The practice about the payments is also contrary to

–          Paragraph 2 of Article 21 of the European Residence Convention

–          Paragraph 2 of Article 18 of the European Social Charter

The matter has been submitted to Lawyer D. Schaap.

II. 7   Family Formation / Income Requirement

Another issue which has been at the agenda of the Government for a time is the precondition that the income of the person living in Holland has to be 130% of the minimum wage for family formation. This matter also has not been included in the Dutch Paper. It may be argued that it has no direct relation with integration or there is a lack of consensus between the Coalition Parties for not taking the issue to the agenda. However, the subject is directly related to integration, and is still at the agenda of the Government.

This approach which can even yield discriminative results such as making distinction between rich and poor in marriage, is also in contradiction with several Council of Europe Conventions.

Convention on Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Human Rights Convention)

The arrangement is contrary to

–          Article 8,

–          Article 12, and

–          Article 17 of the Convention.

European Social Charter

The arrangement is contrary to

–          Article 16 (Social, Legal and Economic Protection Right of Family)

–          Article 19/6 (Protection and Assistance Right of Working Immigrants and Their Families)

European Convention on Legal Status of Immigrant Workers

The arrangement is contrary to

–          Paragraph 3 of Article 9 (Residence permission)

–          Paragraph 1 of Article 12 (Family Unification / only proper residence limitation)

II. 8   Family Formation / Age Limitation 

It is stated that new approaches on integration included in the Dutch Paper may constitute a guideline for future policies throughout Europe.

A partial approval has been obtained in the Netherlands regarding the limitations to be applied to foreigners coming from outside the EU about family formation and unification as decided at the meeting of EU Justice and Interior Ministers in Brussels in the first quarter of 2003. Hence, the Dutch approach was accepted by EU member states to great extent. Dutch proposals constitute mainly a part of the approaches to prevent the foreigners outside the EU to come to Holland.

EU Justice and Interior Ministers have decided that the age limitation can be increased to 21 in marriages with persons residing outside the EU. The decision brings a strange outcome like augmenting the age of majority to 21 in marriages. Such a limitation for marriages from outside the EU is contrary to ;

–          Article 5 (right of freedom and personal security)

–          Article 8 (respect to private and family life)

–          Article 12 (right of marriage and establishing a family)

–          Article 14 (equal treatment) and

–          Article 17 (limitation of rights defined in the Convention)

There is even no need to state other articles of the Conventions of the Council related to the age limitation in marriages.

II. 9   Family Unification / Age Limitation

As a result of the meeting of EU Justice and Interior Ministers in Brussels in the first quarter of 2003, benefiting from family unification for the children older than 12 of foreigners living in home countries, was linked to the condition of their ‘adaptation capability’. That is a very subjective concept. Holland also does not give residence permission to children under 12 within the context of family unification, by using the same reasoning.

The decision of the ECHR in Şen Case is very clear. Putting new restrictions despite this decision is in contradiction with several conventions of the Council of Europe, as well as the decision of the ECHR.

Opportunity of application to the ECHR against the decisions of national courts in the subject of family unification does not always provide the desired justice. In Şen Case, there are 9 years one month and 25 days between the date of application (26 October 1992) for family unification and the decision of the ECHR (21 December 2001). The decision could be implemented at least ten years later.

It is not possible to say that similar cases are resulted within a more reasonable period of time. The matter which should mainly be discussed is the difference between the integration of the child to Dutch society at the time of application (Age 9 for Senem) and at the time of decision.

In this context, it will be useful to discuss the development of new instruments by the Council of Europe for effective implementation of the Conventions.

Equal access, opportunities and expectations for migrants on the Dutch labour market

I.   Demographic Effects

Similar to most of other developed countries, Holland also faces the problem of ageing of her population. The ratio of the population above the age of 65, has reached to 14% in 2000, while it was 8% in 1950. This ratio is expected to reach to 24% in the year 2035.

Hence, important increases are expected in old age payments. Ageing of the population seriously affects the active-passive balance. Another important factor negatively affecting this process is the low participation rate of the population under age 65 to the labour force.

Under these circumstances, foreigners are considered as the first target group in increasing the ratio of participation in the labour force of the population under the age of 65. The reason of that is the three times higher unemployment rate among foreigners compared to native Dutch citizens.

Unemployment problem of foreigners will be discussed later. However, low rate of participation into the labour force of the people under the age of 65, is not a concept to be explained with the unemployment rate of foreigners.

In the 1980s, disability / incapability regime has been a most commonly used method for employers to dismiss non-productive and aged personnel. Employers and workers have inclined towards the disability regime because it has a more advantageous level of allocation regime compared to unemployment allocation regime. Flexible disability criteria have supported this trend, and that was used in decreasing the unemployment rate. In 1990s, economic growth has been another factor in the decrease of unemployment level in the Dutch economy.

Together with that, the decrease in the unemployment rate has not been the indication of an increase in the rate of participation of the population under the age of 65 in labour force, because of the reason mentioned above. Although the legal age of retirement is 65, the ratio of people who retired at 65 is only 2%. This ratio is 5% at 52, 8% at 55, 12% at 57 and 58, 10% at 60.

The ratio of people quitting working is 2% at the age of 65, 3% at 53, 7% at 54, 11 at 56%, 15% at 59. Efforts to raise the age of retirement within the Dutch social security reform does not alter this rate to a great extent.

Disability / incapability criteria have been determined very rigid in contrast with the developments in 1980s. Incapability rates are determined by taking the loss of potential income into account instead of the loss in health, since 1993. The rise of the number of people receiving disability wage was stopped by this practice. However, that practice could not provide a serious increase in the rate of participation of the people under the age of 65 into labour market. This implementation provided the alteration of the type of allocation and relative decrease of the amount of allocation.

The need of the economy for young and dynamic labour force will continue. This fact, although it has periodic differences, makes the need of the Netherlands to foreign labour unavoidable. It is a fact that the ratio of young people is high among foreigners.

II.   White Illegals

It was mentioned that disability / incapability regime was a commonly used method for employers to dismiss non-productive and aged personnel in 1980s. Dutch employers removed the labour shortage by using a different method.

People whose total number is 7000 (exact number is not definite, it is said that 4000 of those are Turkish) who come to Holland as tourists or through other means, were provided with jobs. These people have been enabled to work without legal residence and working permissions. Sofi number was given to these people who are registered in tax offices, local administrations and insurance institutions, and enabled to legally own houses (renting) and establish their own work places. These people have paid their tax, social security premium for years, benefited from social security allocations including children benefits, and their children have been educated in the schools of the Netherlands.

Determination of foreigners who illegally live in Holland and deportations were started with the Law of Connection (Koppelingswet) which came into effect on 1 July 1998, in the Netherlands. Although an amnesty was practiced for these people in 1999, several people were deported as there were very tight conditions for amnesty. Thousands of people applied to the Court while some people make final returns to their home countries.

These people who worked in Holland for years (from 3 to 23 years) within the knowledge of Dutch central and local administrations, have been declared as ‘illegals’ because their entrance to Holland were not legal.

Thousands of ‘white illegals’, for whom deportation was decided, applied to the courts. Their residence in Holland was accepted as ‘legal’ until the final judicial decisions. However, they could not work in any work place legally and benefit from any social security and social benefit since that time.

Judicial process for thousands of ‘white illegals’ is currently underway. Within the judicial process, these persons cannot leave Holland, even for EU countries. In case they leave Holland for any reason, they cannot return again.

Several international conventions, the European Human Rights Convention firstly, related to the right of living, working at an income providing job, family life and travel freedoms have been violated by this practice. Although right to apply to justice against deportation decisions does exist, deportation process is in contradiction with;

–          Article 2 (right to live)

–          Article 5 (right of freedom and personal security)

–          Article 6 (right of fair jurisdiction)

–          Article 8 (protection of family life)

–          Article 17 (limitation of rights and freedoms defined in the Convention)

of the European Human Rights Convention, and

–          Article 4 (mass deportation of foreigners)

of the Annexed Protocol to the European Human Rights Convention (Protocol No: 4)

III.  Participation of Foreigners in Labour Market / Small and medium scale Enterprises

As stated in the Paper presented by the Netherlands, unemployment rate among foreigners is higher than the same rate for native Dutch citizens (three times higher). The Turks are the group among foreigners who have the lowest unemployment rate.

Statistical Comparison of the Turks to other Foreign Workers

(as of 01.01.2001)

	Man	Woman	Total
Turkish	69000	34000	103000
Foreigner	678000	475000	1153000
Total	747000	509000	1256000

(as of 01.01.2000)

	Man	Woman	Total
Turkish	66000	26000	92000
Foreigner	659000	425000	1083000
Total	725000	451000	1175000

Foreigners with dual citizenship and our citizens are included in Foreign Workers.

Source: CBS

Unemployment Rates among Foreigners and the Turks

(as of 01.01.2002)

Unemployed People				Unemployment Rate
	Man	Woman	Total	Man	Woman	Total
Dutch	63000	105000	168000	2,0	4,0	3,0
Foreigners	42000	37000	79000	6,0	7,0	6,0
Turks	6000	3000	9000	8,0	7,0	8,0
Moroccans	5000	3000	8000	8,0	15,0	10,0
Surinamese	6000	3000	9000	8,0	5,0	6,0
Antilleans	3000	2000	5000	9,0	7,0	8,0
Total (1)+(2)	105000	142000	247000	–	–	–

Source: CBS

Data of 2002 include our nationals with dual citizenship.

Several projects are developed to increase the rate of participation of foreigners in labour force and to decrease the unemployment rate.

Small and medium size enterprises owned by foreigners indicate very remarkable results for decreasing the unemployment rate of foreigners. Data on enterprises owned by foreigners based on a research made by using the registrations of the Trade Union, are given below:

Enterprises Owned by Foreigners (born outside Holland)

(as of 01.07.2002)

Country (born in)	Number	Rate
Northern Europe	19202	20,9
Southern Europe	4926	5,4
Eastern Europe	5667	6,2
Morocco	4632	5,0
TURKEY	11704	12,7
Surinam	7952	8,7
Antilles	2361	2,6
North&South America	5093	5,5
Africa	5935	6,5
Middle East	3442	3,7
Indonesia	7205	7,8
Asia	12048	13,1
Other	1719	1,9
Total	91886	100,0

Number of Work Places in Holland Those Owned by the Turks, Moroccans, Surinamese, Antilleans as of the Years

Country	1986	1992	1997	2002
Turks	1895	5385	7453	11704
Moroccans	866	1912	2844	4632
Surinamese	1725	4148	6223	7952
Antilles	405	1003	1629	2361
Total in Holland	460000	560000	660000	860000

 

 

Work Places Owned by the Turks, Moroccans, Surinamese, Antilleans as of Sectors (01.07.2002)

Sector	Number	Rate
Agriculture, fishery	792	3,0
Industry	1386	5,2
Construction	1836	6,9
Wholesale trade	2645	9,9
Retail trade	4991	18,7
Hotel, restaurant	4063	15,2
Transport	1882	7,1
Finance, Accounting	331	1,2
Consulting	1687	6,3
Services	3783	14,2
Self-employed	1949	7,3
Other	1302	4,9
Total	26649	100,0

Statistical data indicate remarkable outcomes. They can be summarized as follows:

1.   There is a rapid increase in the number of work places owned by foreigners in the Netherlands. While an increase of 186,96% for all work places in Holland was observed from 1982 to 2002, this rate has been 617,63% for work places owned by the Turks, 534,87% for those owned by Moroccans and 460,99% for Surinamese.

2.   The biggest increase in the number of work places owned by foreigners has been recorded by the Turks both for the rate and the number.

3.   Work places owned by foreigners are mostly labour intensive works.

4.  Increase in the number of work places owned by foreigners is much higher than the increase of population of foreigners.

5.   Number of personnel employed in work places owned by foreigners has augmented in parallel with the increase of the number of work places.

6.   It is difficult to argue that all personnel employed in work places owned by foreigners are from the same nationality, but it is a fact that the overwhelming majority of employed people are from the same country, especially in small and medium size enterprises.

If it is assumed that five people including the employer are employed in 11704 work places of the Turks, it corresponds to 60000 employed people approximately.

This employment capacity is an important amount among the total Turkish labour force.

35% of 860000 business owners in Holland is in the group of age 50+. Although we have no detailed information on the age groups of foreign employers, it is possible to say that this ratio can be similar for them.

As it is stated in the Dutch Paper, small and medium size enterprises owned by foreigners can not sufficiently benefit from the opportunities provided in the EU for this sector, because of different reasons.

It is clear that, supporting small and medium size enterprises which rapidly developed especially among the foreigners, providing an effective information on the opportunities given within the EU and making it in native languages, will contribute to increasing the rate of participation of foreigners in labour market.

IV.   Local Administrations

Effectiveness of local administrations on the participation of foreigners into the labour market and the Dutch Paper on the ‘Integration and the City’ will be evaluated in this part.

The process of integration is a process mostly occurred in local units. Neighborhood relations, schools, environmental conditions have important influence. Several projects encouraging the foreigners to participate in employment, purposing employment, advanced education, prevention of discrimination are currently carried out by local authorities.

It has to be expected that enhancing the effectiveness, power and responsibilities of local authorities in the forthcoming term will contribute positively to the process of integration. Many elected members of foreign origin at the municipal parliaments will undertake constructive roles both in solving the problems of foreigners at local level and in determination of foreigners policy in their political parties.

There are 129 members of Turkish origin at the municipal parliaments in Holland. Together with 11 Turkish members elected to the district parliaments, significant contributions can be made about the integration problem of foreigners both at local and national levels.

Together with that, the basic condition to be successful in integration is to be able to inject the feeling of being the first class citizen to foreigners. Policies developed on foreigners in Holland, which constitute the subject of these Papers and several arrangements which are currently in force cause the foreigners not to feel themselves ‘the first class citizen’. Debates kept continuously at the agenda together with the policies developed, loose the confidence of foreigners in Dutch society.

There has been a discussion on the distribution of foreigners within the cities for a period of time. In Rotterdam, it is planned to establish conditions of employment, sufficient income and completing the adaptation courses for those who want to reside in Rotterdam, to prevent internal migration. Similar discussions including on the issue of settlement of foreigners in certain parts of the cities have been done for a long time.

V.   Discrimination and Impediments to the Adaptation

Some practices and discussions causing the foreigners not to regard themselves as the first class citizens are given below, only with titles. Most of these are practices and discussions carried out at the level of local administration.

Participation of Foreigners in Employment

It is repeatedly said that the participation of foreigners in employment is very low, the unemployment rates of them are too high. A comprehensive evaluation on the issue is included in the first part of this report.

Social Security Practices

Argument that the ratio of people receiving disability payment among foreigners is high. The matter is not so simple to be explained only by statistical data. The data have to be studied according to the age groups. High disability rates are natural when it is regarded that the first generation of foreigners have worked at the heaviest and most erosive fields.

The situation of disability / incapability is not the preference of the person. That is determined by the doctors and labour experts of the insurance institutions providing the payment.

Vacation with Disability Payment

Additional allocations which constitute a part of disability wages are cut for those who spent their vacation with disability wages outside Holland (the case is different for every person receiving disability wage), for the periods exceeding three months. (The subject is currently in judicial process)

Old Age Wages

 The wage for age 65 is a fixed amount and depends on residence. Persons resided in Holland between the ages of 15 and 65 deserve this wage independent of their working time. Especially the first generation of foreigners can only deserve a part of this wage which is provided as flat-rate, because they have not resided in Holland for 50 years. These wages are completed to the minimum income level by social benefits provided by the municipal authorities. Foreigners retired at the age of 65, have to be allowed by municipal authorities when they go to their home countries for vacation. That is an humiliating application.

Foreigners (Turks) making final return to their countries by an insurance payment

 Criteria for determining the level of disability / incapability have been changed. New criteria have been also applied for foreigners who make final return to their home countries; opportunity to return to Holland was not given to the foreigners who have the capacity to work. Approximately all of the decisions of the courts on the insured persons, who applied to court following their level of disability / incapacity has been lowered, have been in favor of insured people. (The subject is currently in judicial process)

Popular insurances were stopped by 1 January 2000. Resulting from that,

Spouses of insured persons who die after this date cannot deserve the widow wage (The subject is currently under judicial process)

Their accumulations for old age insurance were stopped after this date. (It is currently under judicial process)

Since 1 January 2001,

Additional allocations constituting a part of the disability wages are cancelled. Dutch courts decided in favor of insured persons. The cancellation came into effect on 1 July 2003 in spite of the decision of the court. (The subject is currently under judicial process)

Social benefits

 Attempts for investigating the wealth of people receiving social benefit in their home countries have been intensified. Forms of attorney are requested from foreigners for this purpose.

Social benefits are tried to be linked with the new criteria unique for foreigners like success in adaptation courses.

Practices on Returning to Home Countries

People returning to home countries within the arrangement for age 50+, chose that option because they were informed that they will receive health insurance after the age of 65. Later, these people were deprived of health insurance by using the amendment in the code on health insurance as a ground.

It has been guaranteed to pay 930 Dutch Florin to people returned to their home countries within the context of disability allocation and arrangement for age 50+, however that was not paid to those whose disability allocation was lowered.

People who returned to home countries before, within the arrangement for age 50+, have not been allowed to benefit from the level foreseen at the arrangement for age 45+. (It is currently under judicial process)

There is a draft code at the Parliament to abolish “the return arrangement for age 45+” completely.

Family Formation / Family Unification

Comprehensive information was given on both issues in the first part (Several cases are currently under judicial process).

Adaptation Courses

Comprehensive information was given in the first part.

Residence Payments

Comprehensive information was given in the first part.

Native Language Courses

It is planned to completely cancel the Native Language and Culture education which has been practiced in Holland for more than 30 years, starting from August 2004. Right to learn native language and culture is guaranteed by several international conventions. Beyond the legal aspect of the subject, scientists on education agree on the positive contribution of native language education to the development of self confidence, general growth and Dutch language learning of children. The argument that native language education has negative effect on Dutch learning and integration has no scientific basis. Native language education without the guarantee of state can only constitute an impediment on adaptation and integration.

Crime Rates

It is repeatedly said by Dutch politicians and in Dutch media that crime rates among foreigners are high. There is no concrete statistical data supporting these kinds of arguments and publications. Scientific publications indicating that no direct relation does exist between the cultures and criminality rates cannot be sufficiently influential in Dutch public opinion.

The argument on high crime rates of foreigners reached its extreme point with the claims that politicians of Turkish origin are in connection with criminal organizations. No document proving these claims has been declared and no inquiry has been done about the persons making these allegations.

Foreigners throughout Holland, in Cities and Neighborhoods

Practice of limiting the residence by certain conditions were started to be debated in several municipalities. It is an undisputable fact that the criteria like working, sufficient income, adaptation, numerical density have no legal basis.

Some arguments in recent times that real estate credit is not given for residences in poor neighborhoods particularly in Rotterdam and the Hague, banks apply postal code boycott, indicated another aspect of discriminative practices.

Ghettos are a subject of debate for a long time. They are not an establishment to make the adaptation of foreigners difficult, prevent the solution of the problems of foreigners, opposite to suppositions. It is natural that people from the same culture and origin want to live together. The services provided by local and central administration to these regions should not be kept under the level of services brought to other parts of the country, both for quantity and quality. All public services have to be regarded in this context.

Programs and propaganda of political parties

The mostly emphasized subject during the elections of the last ten years, in political programs and propaganda of all Dutch political parties, has been the foreigners. It has become a race between political parties to show foreigners as the reason of all negativeness. Such explanations which are mostly not based on just reason, place the foreigners in a different position in the Dutch society.

 Discrimination at work places

It has been stated both in the reports published in Holland and by the Council of Europe, that discrimination is practiced at work places in the Netherlands.

Abolishment of the Law of Registration as of 1 January 2004 is an application that negatively affects the employment of foreigners.

It is an established legal rule that application of different laws/regulations for people in equal/comparable position and application of the same laws/regulations for people in unequal/non-comparable positions are discrimination.

This rule has to be taken always into account in developing and discussing integration policies. Planned and practiced policies can only establish the confidence of being first class individual in foreigners, within this context. Adaptation has to be reciprocal. Dutch society needs the foreigners as much as the foreigners residing in Holland need them. Beyond that, foreigners legally residing in the Netherlands will live together with the Dutch society.

CONCLUSION

Measures have to be taken by Holland to sustain the integration of foreigners and their participation in labour, duties of international organizations such as the Council of Europe and the ILO in this process, and measures have to be necessarily taken by Turkey to protect the rights and interests of our citizens, are presented below.

–     Arrangements to provide foreigners with the feeling that they are the first class individuals have to come into effect.