There is a good chance that asylum will become the theme of the election campaign. After all, the RutteVier cabinet has fallen over it. Dilan Yeşilgöz, Mark Rutte’s successor at the VVD, can clearly profile himself on this: he himself came to the Netherlands as a refugee and until a month ago was one of the negotiators in the cabinet on asylum reform. Geert Wilders, still fourth in the polls, will not shy away from the subject either. And he’s not the only one.
But what exactly do the parties want? This summer they are writing their election manifestos. So we have to wait for the final plans. Last time’s party programs, statements in the media and reports of the negotiations in which Yesilgöz took part, do indicate a direction. Roughly speaking: the left focuses on the asylum seeker as a ‘human being’, the right wants to make the Netherlands less attractive to asylum seekers.
‘There is no asylum crisis’
‘This problem is not an asylum crisis, but a reception crisis.’ A statement by D66 MP Anne-Marijke Podt, but one that could have come from the mouth of any MP of BIJ1, ChristenUnie, Denk, GroenLinks, Labor Party, Party for the Animals or Volt. All of them feel little for policy to keep asylum seekers out. ‘It has to do with the way we organize this,’ says Podt. ‘We have to do something about that.’
For a long time, the SP was the only left-wing party that dared to be critical of migration. This still applies to labor migration from Eastern Europe; the SP does not like the fact that Bulgarians and Poles work here in the bulb fields and slaughterhouses. Those who want fewer asylum seekers have not come to the right place at the SP. Even 75,000 asylum applications – twice as many as in 2022 – can be handled by the Netherlands, according to Lilian Marijnissen, ‘provided it is fairly distributed among municipalities according to population and socio-economic capacity.’
The distribution law of VVD State Secretary Eric van der Burg must be adopted for this, and that chance seems small. Even the VVD party in the House of Representatives has indicated that forcing municipalities to designate reception locations is likely to be declared ‘controversial’. This means that it will only return to the agenda when there is a new cabinet.
Meanwhile, 55,000 asylum seekers are waiting for a decision or a home: 30,500 in asylum seekers’ centers and 24,000 in emergency shelters. 16,000 are ‘status holders’: refugees who have been granted asylum, but cannot afford their own home and can therefore only move when social housing becomes available.
A quarter of population growth due to refugees
Lack of shelter is not the only problem. ‘Asylum seekers have to go through an intensive asylum procedure’, explains VVD Member of Parliament Ruben Brekelmans, ‘in which the IND, asylum lawyers and judges are involved. A sudden increase causes this whole system to crash. There are simply not enough lawyers.’
Left-wing parties, including ChristenUnie and D66, like to point out that asylum accounts for ‘only’ 11 to 12 percent of total immigration. JA21 and VVD consider this misleading. ‘You have to look at the migration balance per category over several years,’ says Brekelmans. After all, temporary labor migrants and international students are leaving again. Refugees stay. JA21 has calculated that asylum has accounted for a quarter of the population growth over the past ten years.
Status holders also more often rely on social services, such as social assistance and social rent, and they are entitled to this in the Netherlands as soon as they are granted asylum status. That is why asylum migration in particular costs Dutch society more than it generates financially. Forum for Democracy and PVV think that is a good reason to limit the right to asylum.
Separate status for temporary asylum
CDA and VVD see more in a separate status for refugees who only need temporary asylum, for example because a war is raging in their country.
Almost all countries make a distinction between regular asylum seekers, who are at risk in their own country because of their sexual orientation, religion or political convictions, and displaced persons. The second group receives ‘subsidiary protection’. Often with a shorter residence permit and fewer rights. For example, Sweden works with residence permits of thirteen months. Only when a status holder has an income, a house, and it is considered likely that it will remain unsafe in the country of origin for a longer period of time, may the rest of the family come. Denmark even withdraws residence permits as soon as it is safe in the place of origin, for example cities in Syria where there is no longer any fighting.
That is why the Netherlands is more attractive to asylum seekers
The Netherlands has abandoned the distinction, because many asylum seekers who were rejected in one category applied for a second time in the other. This could, of course, be avoided by allowing only one asylum application; anyway a wish of the VVD and smaller right-wing parties.
Due to the war in Syria and the return of the Taliban to Afghanistan, four times as many asylum seekers have come to the Netherlands in recent years who would have received subsidiary protection in other EU countries. The fact that the Netherlands does not discriminate, and that an asylum status is a step towards Dutch nationality for almost everyone, makes our country more attractive to asylum seekers, according to the VVD.
Restricting family reunification is going too far for ChristenUnie
A separate status for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection could make it possible to limit family members’ travel in connection with family reunification. The cabinet previously suspended family reunification for all refugees by six months. That was not allowed by the Council of State. A restriction on family reunification for only the families of displaced persons would have a better chance.
In Austria, for example, there is a waiting period of three years. VVD Prime Minister Mark Rutte wanted that in the Netherlands tooaccording to a proposal in the hands of EW. In the negotiations with CDA, D66 and ChristenUnie, that became two years. Also, just like in Sweden, status holders would first have to find a job and a home before they could bring their family over. Rutte also wanted family members to integrate on their own. So no more money from the government for an integration course.
The CDA went along with the proposals, but ChristenUnie and D66 thought it was too harsh. ‘Every migrant is a human being,’ said CU leader Mirjam Bikker. ‘I ask the VVD to see that too.’
The two parties also did not like an alternative plan, a maximum number of following the German example. In Germany, five times larger, a quota of 1,000 family members per month applies. For the Netherlands that would be 200. CDA and VVD suggested an increase to 250 per month. The asylum influx would therefore have decreased by only 2,000 to 3,000 per year. CU and D66 could not swallow that either. It was clear to Rutte: it will not work with these parties. He ended the cabinet, which would also mean the end of his premiership.
Treaties out, asylum quota in?
The parties to the right of the VVD do not want a maximum number of following family members, but a maximum of the total number of asylum seekers. They look at Australia and Canada, countries that set a quota every year. (Although those quotas are exceeded almost every year.) BBB aims for 15,000 asylum seekers per year. The number could be adjusted downwards if the facilities cannot cope with the influx.
Coincidentally or not, Halbe Zijlstra, then leader of the VVD in the House of Representatives, also suggested a quota of 15,000 asylum seekers per year in 2016. Sybrand Buma, the then CDA leader, managed to get an investigation into the coalition agreement of RutteDrie. Fellow party member Piet Hein Donner, the former Minister of Justice and former Vice-President of the Council of State, looked into it. His conclusion: international and European treaties do not allow an asylum quota.
Then cancel those treaties, said former VVD minister Henk Kamp in May. ‘These treaties must not stand in the way of solving a very real problem that threatens the quality of Dutch society,’ he told WNL’s Sven Kockelmann.
With this, Kamp takes over the position of the PVV. Whether the rest of the VVD will follow remains to be seen. BBB does not advocate immediate termination of the treaties, but calls them “out of date.”
One way to circumvent the treaties: move the asylum application abroad. As long as it is in a safe country, it is allowed. VVD member Malik Azmani, then member of the House of Representatives, now a member of the European Parliament, argued for it in 2015. His GroenLinks colleague Tineke Strik did in 2020 a similar proposal: registering asylum seekers at the European external border.
Ministers made agreements about this this summer. Migrants without proof of identity or from a safe country, such as Algeria, are detained in southern Europe. If they cannot demonstrate that they are nevertheless entitled to asylum, the intention is that they will be sent back immediately.
GroenLinks is against that. PvdA Member of Parliament Kati Piri also finds it ‘worrying that families with children can get stuck for months at Europe’s external borders.’ BBB, CDA and VVD are in favour.
Distribution of asylum seekers divides left and right
GroenLinks, D66 and PvdA want ‘solidarity’ in Europe, but no money should be involved.
Eastern European member states have been resisting the distribution of asylum seekers across the continent for years. The solution: countries that really do not want to cooperate pay 20,000 euros per asylum seeker that they should have taken over from Greece or Italy, for example, according to a distribution key that has yet to be determined.
Left-wing parties call this the ‘buying off’ of solidarity. The BBB wants to use it to stay below 15,000 asylum seekers per year. D66 is happy, because the agreements bring one European asylum system closer. PVV leader Geert Wilders thinks it’s a ‘dredging deal’ that doesn’t come close to ‘what really needs to happen: closing our national borders to fortune seekers and criminals’.
Another European agreement: putting pressure on countries that refuse to take back rejected asylum seekers. If a migrant is refused asylum in the Netherlands, he or she is given 28 days to leave the country. However, if their home country refuses to take them back, the IND issues a ‘no-fault permit’ and they can still stay in the Netherlands.
Only one in three rejected asylum seekers leave. In the rest of Europe it is even less: 21 percent of rejected asylum seekers go back. Many remain in the EU illegally.
The VVD advocated sanctions for countries that refused to take back their citizens: less trade, less development aid, fewer visas for business travelers and tourists. ChristenUnie and D66 wanted to reward countries that do cooperate: more trade and more opportunities for legal migration. Both lines have been adopted by the European asylum ministers, with the Tunisia deal as the first concrete outcome. The EU is giving 900 million euros in aid to the country, which in return should prevent so many migrants from crossing the Mediterranean.
Make agreements with all North African countries
PvdA member Piri finds it ‘painful’ that the EU has not immediately made agreements about human rights in Tunisia. Brekelmans reacts Leaving that aside: ‘I prefer to only close deals with Scandinavian countries, but you also have to be realistic.’
Derk Jan Eppink of JA21 fears a temporary revival: ‘If you say: the gate will close, many people will still want to try it,’ he said last month at good morning Netherlands. The member of parliament is also counting on people smugglers moving to Libya: a country where the state has even less control. Ultimately, he believes, the EU will have to make agreements with all North African countries.
Wynia’s Weekis independent and unattached. Contributions from readers, viewers and listeners are therefore vital. Would you also like to support Wynia’s Week with a one-time or regular contribution?Love!
2023-07-29 04:56:22
#political #parties #influx #asylum #seekers #Wynias #Week
