The way in which the Netherlands deals with migrants and asylum seekers is in line with the treatment of the victims of the childcare allowance affair. That is what migration law experts say. Migrants and asylum seekers are also victims of government mistrust and rigid measures, lawyers and researchers say in a joint appeal today.
They present a study and fifty bundled negative experiences with the title Unheard of injustice in immigration law, referring to the final report Unprecedented injustice from the parliamentary interrogation committee to the childcare allowance. It has been drawn up by scientists from the Center for Migration Law of Radboud University in Nijmegen and the professional associations of migration and asylum lawyers.
Distrust
The migration experts mainly focus on the IND implementing body, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, but also on the administrative law department of the Council of State. As the highest court, he must give a final judgment on the decisions of the IND. And, say the experts, that happens far too little with the human scale.
There are many similarities between those involved in the benefits affair and the group they are referring to, the experts note. As in the benefits affair, these people often have a low income. They usually do not have the Dutch nationality and access to justice is difficult for them. The government’s distrust in these people is far too great and has far-reaching consequences, say the authors of the report.
“From entry into the Netherlands up to and including naturalization, the government distrusts the migrant and there is only limited judicial control over that suspicious government. In immigration cases this leads to injustice that is insufficiently seen”, according to the experts.
Labeled as a fraudster
They accuse the IND that migrants with a residence permit are treated as fraudsters when they submit incorrect or incomplete information. The judges agree far too much, they say. Special circumstances are only taken into account in the weighing up of interests in exceptional cases.
For example, living with someone who is illegally staying in the Netherlands has major financial consequences. Such a person then loses the right to benefits for care and rent, for example.
The Ombudsman for Children already drew attention to this earlier. She expressed her concerns about the position of the hundreds of (Dutch) children, one of the parents of whom is not legally resident. In such a case, the whole family is no longer entitled to benefits and the child-related budget. According to the Ombudsman for Children, this leads to dire situations of poverty.
Then divorce
As an example she gave the Dutch Isra who got into financial problems because her benefits were stopped because her partner is not allowed to live in the Netherlands. Her job, with which she took care of her four children and her partner, did not leave enough room to solve the problems, let alone to fund legal aid for these problems. To prevent deportation, a divorce seemed to her the only solution.
It is just one of the examples identified by migration law experts. The rigid attitude when deporting asylum seekers, who are already registered in another country, is also a thorn in their side. Hardly any account is taken of the family of the asylum applicant already present in the Netherlands. They then have to return at all costs to the country where they first entered Europe.
Learning lessons
The report will be presented today to four former lawyers who have now been elected to the Lower House and to Bart Jan van Ettekoven of the Council of State. After the hard conclusions of the Parliamentary Committee, the chairman of the administrative law department said that he wanted to draw lessons from the affair in the benefits affair – also about the actions of the council.
He then announced a ‘scan’ of previous rulings, which also involved hard legislation. “We are going to review our entire cabinet with cases and rulings. We want to see whether there are disproportionate consequences for citizens in other areas, even if the law requires the judge to take strict action.” .
–
