Working title: Wisdom comes with ages? A research about the Dutch asylum policy over the last twenty years and the effects on the lower levels of administration.
Name: Kirsten van Adrichem Student number: 11064854 Supervisor: Doomernik Course: Politics of International Migration and Asylum Date: 24-06-2016 Preface
What can change in twenty years? This research answers this question with: a lot. In the last twenty years the Dutch asylum policy made some big changes. Not only because of the influence of Europe but also from the influence of lower levels of administration. On the different level there was a restriction of the policy, while on the other level there was an opening up of the policy. Central in this research is the effect of these changes on the lower levels of administration (provinces and municipalities: did they got more tasks? Or did they lose some? This effect is being researched with a liberal paradox: is there more Europeanization or decentralization? Another theory used in this research is a paradox between the restriction of the asylum policy and an opening up of the policy. With a timeline from 2006 till 2015 the author describes the changes of the asylum policy on three four levels: the European level, the national (Dutch) level, the level of the Dutch provinces and the level of the Dutch municipalities. The choice has been made to research the asylum policy in the Netherlands because these lower levels of administration. This research concludes that Europeanization actually only happens on a national level. Europe has (almost) no effect on the lower levels of administration. The role and influence of the lowest level of administration, the municipalities, has become bigger in the last twenty years. And that while the province has a minimal task in the Dutch asylum policy. The opening up of the asylum policy can mostly be found on a European level, while the national level restricted the asylum policy.
2
Table of contents
1. Introduction 7 1.1 Definition of the problem 7 2. Literature review 9 3. Theory 10 3.1 Europeanization versus decentralization 11 3.2 Restriction versus opening up 12 4. Methodology 15 4.1 Conceptualization 15 5. 1996 – 2000 18 5.1 Europe 18 5.2 National level 25 5.3 Province 29 5.4 Municipalities 30 5.5 Conclusion 32 6. 2001 – 2005 33 6.1 Europe 33 6.2 National level 37 6.3 Province 46 6.4 Municipalities 47 6.5 Conclusion 52 7. 2006 – 2010 52 7.1 Europe 53 7.2 National level 56 7.3 Province 61 7.4 Municipalities 62 7.5 Conclusion 63 8. 2011 – 2015 64 8.1 Europe 64 8.2 National level 66 8.3 Province 80 8.4. Municipalities 81 8.5 Conclusion 85
3
9. Concluding remarks 86 9.1 The future? 87 10. References 89 11. Appendix 91
4
Abbreviations
Ama Alleenstaande minderjarige asielzoekers – single minor asylum seekers CD Centrumdemocraten – Extreme right party CDA Christen Democratisch Appèl – Christian Democratic Party CEAS Common European Asylum System CFSP Common Foreign and Security Policy COA Centraal Orgaan opvang Asielzoekers – Central organ for the reception of asylum seekers CU ChristenUnie – Christian Union, Christian party CRvB Centrale Raad van Beroep – The Administrative High Court D66 Democraten ’66 – Democrats ’66, social liberal party ECJ European Court of Justice ECSR European Committee of Social Rights EP European Parliament ESF European Social Fund ERF European Refugee Fund EU European Union FNV Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging – Federation of Dutch unions, largest labour union in the Netherlands GL GroenLinks – GreenLeft, progressive environmental party IMA Informatie- en Meldpunt Asiel – Information and Hotline for Asylum IND Immigratie- en Naturalisatiedienst – Immigration and Naturalization Service INLIA Internationaal Netwerk van Lokale Initatieven voor Asielzoekers – International Network of Local Initiatives for Asylum seekers IpO Interprovinciaal Overleg – Interprovincial Council JHA Department of Justice and Home Affairs HLWG High level working group LPF Lijst Pim Fortuyn – List Pim Fortuyn MP Member of the Dutch Parliament MEP Member of the European Parliament PvdA Partij van de Arbeid – Dutch Labour Party, socialist party PvdD Partij voor de Dieren – Party for the Animals PVV Partij voor de Vrijheid – Party for the Freedom, populist party RPF Reformatische Politieke Federatie – Reformed Political Federation, protestant-Christian party RvS Raad van State – The Council of State SGP Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij – Reformed Political Party, reformist and Christian party SP Socialistische Partij – Socialist Party, socialist (and Eurosceptic) party UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees UvW Unie van Waterschappen – Union of Water authorities VDG Vereniging Drentse Gemeenten – Cooperation of Drents Municipalities
5
VFG Vereniging Friese Gemeenten – Cooperation of Fries Municipalities VNG Verenigde Nederlandse Gemeenten – Cooperation of Dutch Municipalities VROM Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer – Ministery of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment. VVD Volkspartij voor de Vrijheid en Democratie – Party for the Freedom and Democracy, liberal party VWN VluchtelingenWerk Nederland – Refugee Help Netherlands VZG Vereniging van Zeeuwse Gemeenten – Cooperation of Zeeland Municipalities WODC Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek- en Documentatiecentrum – Scientific Research and Documentation Centre QMV Qualified Majority Voting
6
1. Introduction
Currently Europe is facing a large stream of migrants from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Eritrea. According to FRONTEX, the EU external border control agency, approximately 1.8 million refugees crossed the European borders, often in danger of their own life1. Since the previous big stream of migrants there were made a lot of changes in (asylum) policy on the European mainland. This last big stream of migrants lasted from approximately 1988 till 1997. In this period there were almost 2.3 million asylum applications in France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom alone (Schuster, 2000: 122). This stream finds its origin in the Bosnian conflict, the Kosovo crisis and the war in Afghanistan (Thielemann, 2004: 49). Since that time there were a lot of changes in laws and policy to contain the numbers of migrants that were travelling to Europe. These changes occurred as well on the European level, as the national level of the European states. In this thesis one European state will be researched: the Netherlands. The reason for this choice is that the Dutch asylum policy can be one of the strictest asylum policies in the EU.2 In this particular case I will look at the reason why the asylum policy has changed in one European state: the Netherlands. Currently in the Netherlands (and actually whole of Europe) the inflow of asylum seekers is a big issue, not only in politics but also in society. Lower levels of administration are getting more and more tasks in the Netherlands in different areas due to decentralisation. But on the other hand there is Europeanization, tasks are being transferred from a national level to an European level. For this thesis I have chosen to research the lower levels of administration because they not only have to deal with the national policy, but also with the European policy.
1.1 Definition of the problem There is a huge gap in the literature when we are looking at the current stream of migrants. A lot literature focuses on the stream of migrants between 1988 and 1997, which led to a huge number of publications from 2000 till 2006. The current gap can be partly explained with the facts that the current stream is still ongoing and there isn’t a very good overview of exact numbers and data on the stream of migrants traveling to Europe. But still, a comparison can
1 BBC, 18-02-2016. Available at
“Why has the asylum policy changed in the Netherlands in the last twenty years and what was the effect of these changes on the different levels of administration?”
Through the use of secondary data, such as news articles from Dutch newspapers and information from different institutions, this research question will be answered. Next to that I will conduct interviews for extra information. This thesis will follow the next planning. In
8 chapter 2 there will be a literature review that focuses on the way different authors see restrictive measures taken in the field of asylum. In chapter 3 the theory will be presented. The used theory will be two paradoxes. The first paradox is the one between Europeanization and decentralisation. The second paradox is the one of the restriction and opening up of the asylum policy. In chapter 3 the first five years, from 1996 till 2000 will be researched. In chapter 4 the next five years will be researched, from 2001 till 2005. In chapter 5 the years 2006 till 2010 will be researched. In chapter 6 the last five years will be research, from 2011 till 2015. In chapter 6 I will place my concluding remarks on the research question and how I and others are seeing the future of the asylum policy of Europe, the Netherlands, and the lower levels of administration.
2. Literature review
In the last twenty years there were a lot of different measures in the asylum, immigration, and integration policy. For most parts, these measures can be found in three areas: (1) the area of access control policy; (2) the area of determination procedures; and (3) the field of integration policy. The access control policy refers to the rules and procedures that are governing the admission of foreign nationals. Measures in this field are the tightening of visa policies, regulations for carriers and safe third country provisions (Thielemann, 2004: 54). The rules of the determination procedures have also been made more restrictive. Measures in the area included the operation of countries’ refugee recognition system, appeal rights, and rules concerning subsidiary protection. The integration policy has been tightened to toughen up the asylum regimes in the European states (Thielemann, 2004: 54). This meant that rules concerning the rights and benefits given to asylum seekers inside a country of destination have been made restrictive. Examples of this rights and benefits are work and housing conditions, rules on freedom of movements, welfare provisions and educational opportunities (Thielemann, 2004: 54). These policy responses have their own effect on the European states and lower administrative levels. Koser (2001) makes another distinction in the restrictive measures taken. First of all, a distinction can be made between policies that impact indirectly upon the migration of asylum seekers (Koser, 2001: 90). According to Koser there is a range of policies aimed at preventing the arrival of asylum seekers, like the demanding of a visa, the promotion of “safe-havens”; and carrier sanctions. But, at the same time, other policies have resulted in increasing
9 restriction upon asylum seekers once they have arrived in Europe, for example, concerning access to the refugee procedure, or access to state welfare. The aim of these measures is to make the receiving countries less attractive (Koser, 2001: 90-91). A second distinction can be made between policies that are aimed to affect the scale of asylum migration and other policies aimed at changing the spatial distribution of asylum migration. For example, the shifting responsibility for dealing with asylum applications to other countries, or the closure of channels for resettlement (Koser, 2001: 91). Hatton uses three dimensions for the tightening of the asylum policy. The first was the tightening of border controls through measures such as carrier sanctions, border patrols, and the introduction of special airport zones (Hatton, 2012: 7). These measures were backed by the escalation of visa requirements. The second dimension was in the procedures that were used to determine whether or not an applicant would gain refugee status. Third, there was a toughening in de conditions asylum seeker faced during the process of their application (Hatton, 2012: 7-8) While there were restrictions of the asylum policy in Europe and Members States, there was also an opening up of the European asylum policy. To achieve a more stable and equal distribution of asylum seekers, European policy makers have turned to policy- harmonisation to achieve these objectives (Thielemann, 2004: 47). The sources of possible gains to cooperation between states are reducing costs and uncertainty, minimising the deflection of asylum applicants, and honouring international obligations (Hatton, 2012: 3) Because of the European integration most European countries have lost the significance of their territorial borders. Mobility in the Schengen area (the European Union’s Member States minus the United Kingdom, Bulgaria, Romania and Ireland and plus Norway and Switzerland) had practically no bound (Doomernik, 2014, 259). Moving in and between European countries has been made easier (RMO, 2011: 15). The locus of asylum policy has shifted away from national governments and towards the EU as the Common European Asylum Policy has developed (Hatton, 2012: 1)
3. Theory
In this theory part two important paradoxes will be treated. The first one is a paradox between Europeanization and decentralisation, Europe is becoming one of the biggest policy players, but lower levels of administration also got more tasks from the central governance. The other
10 paradox is the one of the restriction and opening up of the asylum policy, which fits in the liberal paradox. The first paradox can be seen on a vertical line, the second paradox on a horizontal line. The idea of the Europeanization versus decentralization focuses on the why part of the research question: has the policy changed because the EU got more power in the field of asylum? Or did the policy change because many roles and tasks went to the lower levels of administration? Or is this Europeanization or decentralization one of the effects of the change policy? The restriction or opening up of the policy can be seen as the changes that are made on the different levels and how this affects the European level or the lower levels of administration.
3.1 Europeanization versus decentralisation The policy of lower levels of administration is becoming more and more influenced by European policy and laws. It is become more Europe, and less national level, that influences policies on the level on the province and municipalities, on different policy terrains like environment, nature, and immigration (ROB, 2013: 7). The Association of Dutch Municipalities (Vereniging van Nederlandse Gemeenten, VNG), the Interprovincial Council (Interprovinciaal Overleg, IPO), and the Union of Water authorities (Unie van Waterschappen, UvW) stated that: ‘Europe has become interior for lower levels of administration, the arena of The Hague has been extended with the arena of Brussels’ (ROB, 2013: 9; VNG, IPO & UvW, 2013: 6). An important concept for these lower levels of administration is Europeanisation. The political scientist Peter John defines Europeanization as ‘a more fundamental transformation that goes beyond short-term instrumental behaviour, whereby local policy-making becomes an aspect of the EU, and European ideas and practices become transferred to the core of local decision-making’ (John, 2001: 73; ROB, 2013: 22). John makes a distinction between minimal, financially orientated, networking and fully Europeanized (figure 1). Activities from A to C are minimal, this are activities such as responding to compulsory regulations (John, 2001: 72). The lower levels of administration don’t follow what is happening in Europe, the idea these levels of administration have is that they are ‘too small’ to be actively in European developments (ROB, 2013: 23). Steps A to E are associated with a search for European funding. According to John, money is one of the most important reasons for lower levels of administration to engage themselves with Europe (John, 2001: 72; ROB, 2013: 23). The stage of networking (steps A to G), is closely associated with the stage of the financially orientated one, but involves more exchanges of ideas (John, 2001: 72). The different levels of administration find contact with others and
11 participate in international networks and projects (ROB, 2013: 23). When councils start to incorporate European ideas in their own policy they are completely Europeanized (step A to I) (John, 2001: 72). However this idea of ‘Europeanization’ is an older one, it is still applicable to this moment. While the Europeanization idea is a more centralized version of the effects of policy, or the opening up of policy, decentralisation goes the other way Figure 1, The European Function (John, 2001: 72) around. In this way it is more of a top- down approach. An important part in the flow of policy is decentralization: the distribution of tasks and duties. There are two forms of decentralization: territorial and functional decentralisation (Raijmakers, 2014: 18). With functional decentralization there is a transfer of duties to an institutional organ that is responsible for a certain function, like the Dutch waterschappen. Territorial decentralization happens when tasks are being transferred to a political or administrative organ that is responsible for a territory, like provinces or municipalities (Raijmakers, 2014: 18). One of these decentralized policies is the asylum policy, this decentralization fits in the territorial decentralization. Municipalities are seen as a ‘chain- partner’ and ‘cooperation partner’ when they provide space or land for e.g. asylum centres detention centres or expulsion centres that are owned by the state. The municipalities also have to ‘corporate’ when it comes to other aspects of policy implementation for which they take nog formal responsibility (Kos et al., 2015: 9).
3.2 Restriction versus opening up The asylum policy has been restricted on a national level, especially in the Netherlands, but on the European level there is an opening up of the asylum policy, like the organization of a common European asylum policy. This paradox fits perfectly in the theory of liberalism. Liberalism is used to describe a broad political, economic or philosophic outlook. Liberalism is often described as a dominant or ‘hegemonic’ ideology. A ‘liberal democracy’ is particular used to describe the states in the modern western world (Leach, 2008: 68). The liberal
12 democracy has three key features: (1) the right to rule is gained through success in regular and competitive elections, based on universal adult suffrage; (2) constraints on government imposed by a constitution, checks and balances and protections of individual rights; and (3) a vigorous civil society (Heywood, 2011: 185). The most essential principle of liberalism is the importance of the freedom of the individual. In this way there is a belief in the importance of the moral freedom – the right to be treated and a duty to treat others as ethical subjects (Doyle, 2012: 55). Gibney states that over the last twenty years, till the publication of his book The Ethics and Politics of Asylum: Liberal Democracy and the Response to Refugees in 2004, asylum has become one of the central issues in the political arena of liberal democratic states (Gibney, 2004: 1). In his book he shows the conflict between two liberal concepts: partiality and impartiality.
Partiality In the view of partialism the states see themselves as a distinct cultural community which possesses a right to self-determination which justifies the priority for the interests of their own citizens over those of refugees (Gibney, 2004: 23). Gibney defines partialism as ‘the right states have to distribute membership as they please because without this right people could not protect and reproduce their cultural identity, and therefore would be unable to express an aspect of themselves that is essential to their sense of who they are’ (Gibney, 2004: 21). The approach, largely defended by communitarians, conservatives and nationalists justifies the right of states to decide admissions according to their own criteria. This is by appealing to the importance of political and cultural autonomy for communities (Gibney, 2004: 19). For partialists, the right of states to self-determination grows out of a claim about the entitlements of men and women give to public expression to their shared culture. There is a strong link between identity and culture, the consequence of this link is that people’s self-regard is usually bound up with the esteem of their national community. New members of this community can profound changes in the character and internal environment of a state (Gibney, 1999: 172). The question Gibney asks is: ‘Where do foreigners fit into the partialist picture of the state?’. Foreigners, such as refugees, are not a part of the bond that unites members in a culture, but partialists are not ignorant of the fact that all states has been shaped over the course of history by immigrants and refugees. New members are not only changed by the cultural community, but change the community in turn through their presence and
13 contribution (Gibney, 2004: 27). Foreigners can disturb the state’s current way of life and the commitment that the citizens share. A large flow of entrants can and would lead to racial violence and tension, undermine the liberal democratic institutions and jeopardise law and order (Gibney, 2004: 28). These foreigners might threaten the ‘functional’ requirements of liberal democratic societies: the ability of this state to fulfil their responsibility to meet the basic needs and security requirements of their citizens. Partialists are conscious about the way refugees and immigrants might change the cultural environment of their political community (Gibney, 2004: 28). When the focus lays on partialists and refugees, the partialists share the belief that in order to be legitimate, a refugee policy must reflect the value and interests of the state’s members. Partialists differ on the way how these values and interests are to be interpreted (Gibney, 2004: 32).
Impartiality The view of impartialism works with an ideal of states as moral agents, and argues that the only legitimate admissions policy is the one and only policy that takes into equal account the interests and rights of foreigners (refugees and asylum seekers) and citizens (Gibney, 2004: 23). Impartiality is the idea that all humans matter and that they matter equally (Gibney, 2000: 316) The impartialism view characterises global liberal and utilitarian approaches and argues that states are obliged to listen to the interests or rights of the human community in its entirety in decisions on entry (Gibney, 2004: 20). The view of impartialism is often linked to the idea of universalisability – the belief that if a particular action or policy is genuinely impartial it must be a moral appropriate choice for anyone to make who faces the same set of circumstances (Gibney, 2004: 59-60). But impartialists do not fully believe in open borders at all costs. The global liberals do see states as justified in restricting entrance if additional entrants (like refugees) would jeopardize public order, national security, of the maintenance of liberal institutions. The utilitarian approach sees constraints on entry legitimate when the costs to the state of admitting one more individual would be greater than the benefit to this concerned individual (Gibney, 1999: 171).
14
4 Methodology
This research composes the use of secondary data and embraces a qualitative approach. The secondary date used consists of two parts. The first one is the use of scientific literature in the field of asylum, Europeanization and decentralisation. Next to that the information of institutions, like provinces, municipalities and European institutions has been used. The second part of the secondary data consists of the analysis of news articles of almost primarily Dutch newspapers. For this research a number of 940 news articles have been researched between 1996 until 2015. These news articles were retrieved from Lexis Nexis with research terms like Europe, the Netherlands, province, municipalities and asylum. There is much known about the changes of the asylum policy on the European level, and in less ways, on the changes of the asylum policy on the national level of the Netherlands. There will also be a qualitative approach through interviews. For this research two interviews have been conducted, one with a former Dutch minister of Asylum and Integration and a member of chosen board in the province. These interviews were conducted to support the current data, or due a lack of literature (in the case of the province). Through the use of different research methods there can be triangulation, which can help to underline the conclusions of the research in this thesis.
4.1 Conceptualization For this thesis there are some concepts that need some explanation.
Policy Colebatch (2009) sees policy as ‘an idea that we use in both the analysis and the practice of the way we are governed. It gives both observers and participants a handle on the process, a way of making sense of the process of governing’ (Colebatch, 2009: 1). According to Colebatch the definition of policy is unambiguous: (1) ‘policy’ may be used to mean a broad orientation; (2) it can be an indication of a normal practice; (3) it can be a specific commitment; of (4) a statement of values. For this thesis the definition of Colebatch is being used: ‘it is part of a framework of ideas through which we make sense of the way in which, in different dimensions of our lives, we are governed. Governing does not happen: it is constructed out of an array of shared ideas categories practices and organizational forms. Policy is a way of labelling thoughts about the way is and the way it might be, and of justifying practices and organization arrangements, and the participants in the governmental
15 process seek to have their concerns and activities expressed as policy’ (Colebatch, 2009: 7-8). In this thesis the Dutch asylum policy is the central object. Unit of analysis. The unit of analysis here is the Dutch asylum policy. The policy will be researched on a national level. The most important issue here is the effect of the policy on the lower levels of administration and how the policy changes. This will be researched through the use of news articles and evaluations of different acts.
Levels of administration In the Netherlands there are different levels of administration: the national level, the province, the municipalities and the waterschappen. The last level of administration won’t be used because this level doesn’t have a role in the current research. The national level is the level where the Dutch policy has been made for all the levels of administration. The biggest actors on this level are the government, the cabinet and the parliament. The level below the national level is the province. According to the IpO the twelve provinces have seven tasks3: 1. Sustainable spatial development. 2. Environment, energy and climate. 3. Countryside and nature. 4. Regional accessibility and regional public transport. 5. The regional economy. 6. Cultural infrastructure and monuments 7. Quality of the public administration. The last levels of administration are the municipalities. The municipalities implement national policy, but also their own policy. The 390 municipalities have a huge range of tasks, such as providing official documents (like passports and driving licences), roads and who lives where. Unit of analysis. In this thesis the units of analysis for the levels of administration are the national level, the province and municipalities. Through secondary data the effects of the Dutch asylum policy are being measured on these levels. With this data the opinions of members of the parliament, members of the province, mayors and alderman can be measured. The expectation is that the policy will have a large effect on the level of the municipalities and in a lesser way on the level of the province. The national level is the level where the policy is being made so will only affect the other levels of administration.
3 IpO. De zeven kerntaken van de provincies. Available at
Asylum seekers Asylum seekers are people who have crossed an international border in search of protection, but whose claims for a refugee status have not been decided yet (Castles et al., 2013: 222). The asylum seeker category is in one respect narrower than the category of the refugees (see below). Asylum seekers include only those refugees who arrive at its own borders (Gibney, 2004: 9). Unit of analysis. The unit of analysis in this thesis are the asylum seekers who arrive in the Netherlands. This will be measured through the number of applications for asylum (see also appendix 1). Within this group there is a distinction between accepted and denied asylum seekers. Accepted asylum seekers are those who get a permit because they are being prosecuted because of his or her race of social group, religion, nationality or political beliefs.4 Denied asylum seekers are those who don’t get a permit because they don’t comply with the rules of the asylum procedure. When an asylum seeker is denied he or she has to return to their country of origin.
Refugees According to the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees a refugee is Article 1: “[Any person who] … owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence … is unable, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it …” (Hatton, 2004: 38). Another important Article 33, the prohibition of expulsion or return (‘refoulement’): “No contracting state shall expel or return (‘refouler’) a refugee in any matter whatsoever to the frontiers of the territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership or a particular social group or political opinion …” (Hatton, 2004: 38). Refugees aren’t a central part in this thesis, but you can’t have asylum seekers without refugees. Often the newspapers use both concepts in their news articles, and sometimes only refugees when they mean asylum seekers – or the other way around.
4 Rijksoverheid. Wanneer krijgt iemand asiel in Nederland? Available at
5. 1996-2000
From 1996 the number of asylum seekers started to rise in Europe and the Netherlands. On European level huge steps were done in the field of asylum and migration between 1996 and 2000. The first was the implementation of the Dublin Convention. The second one was the ratification of the Amsterdam Treaty in 1999 under presidency of the Netherlands. This agreement between the European Member States secured that the field of asylum and migration moved from the Third Pillar to the First Pillar. The third step was made with the agreement in Tampere, Finland. In the Netherlands there was a cabinet for the first time without the party CDA, leaded by PvdA MP Kok (from 1994 till 2002). One of the biggest problems the cabinet faced was the large inflow of asylum seekers and connected with that, the reception of these people. This often led to a clash not only between the coalition parties PvdA, VVD and D66 but also between government and the lower levels of administration, and in particular the municipalities.
5.1 Europe Dublin Convention In 1997 the Dublin convention came into force. This came together with the implementation of the Schengen Implementation Convention. The refugee section in this convention was superseded by the Dublin Convention (Guild, 2006: 636). These two treaties provided for three principles as regards asylum applicants (Guild, 2006: 636-7): 1. Member States are entitled to pool their responsibility towards the asylum applicants as regards their rejection. This means that if one Member States considers the asylum application of an asylum seeker and rejects it, that rejection is valid for all the Member States. 2. Member States have to determine in which of their number as asylum seeker is entitled to have their application for asylum determined. The fact that an asylum seeker might have family links or job prospects in one Member State but not in another and thus want to apply for asylum in that Member States is irrelevant to the allocation of responsibility among the Member States. 3. The responsibility for determining asylum application and the body that goes with the application is treated as a burden and punishment for the Member State which permitted the individual to arrive in the European Union.
18
Right after the Dublin Convention there was a meeting of EU immigration ministers that was empowered under the Maastricht Treaty to develop an EU wide asylum policy. This meeting produces three key, but non-binding, principles that are known as the London resolutions (Guild, 2006: 638-9): 1. ‘Manifestly unfounded’ asylum claims could be rejected without right of appeal. 2. The creation of a common definition of a safe third country: a country that is not the country of origin but though which the asylum seeker has passed on to his or her way to the Member State. 3. The creation of a definition of a safe country of origin of an asylum seeker. An asylum seeker coming from a country that fulfils the requirements to be safe would have his or her allocation for asylum dealt with in a summary produce.
Amsterdam Treaty At the end of March 1997 the Netherlands presented her plans for the Treaty of Amsterdam5: - The Schengen Convention should count for every country in the EU. - The Schengen Convention should be a part of a new European Treaty - The field of immigration, asylum and cooperation between police and customs should be an integral part of the EU. - More unanimity in the field of Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. - A clause against discrimination. On 2 October 1997 the Treaty of Amsterdam was singed and came into force on 1 May 19996. The underlying idea of the Amsterdam Treaty was the incoherence of measures regarding the borders, the movement of third country nationals, immigration and asylum at the European level (Guild, 2006: 640). The Amsterdam Treaty inserted the asylum policy into EU law by removing it from the Third Pillar to the First Pillar. This marked a shift towards more centralised decision-making (Hatton, 2008: 15). The objective of the Treaty of Amsterdam was attached to the internal market as one European area without controls on movement but through the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice (Guild, 2006: 640). This area required the adoption of a series of measures on asylum, according to article 63 of the treaty. Article 63(1) says that all the measures must by ‘in accordance with the Geneva Convention
5 ANP, 21-03-1997. “Nederland wil dezelfde visa voor heel de Europese Unie”. 6 Europa-nu: Verdrag van Amsterdam. Available at: http://www.europa- nu.nl/id/vh7douqsttzm/verdrag_van_amsterdam
19 of 28 July 1951 and the Protocol of 31 January 1967 relating to the status of refugees and other relevant treaties’ (Guild 2006: 640). The action plan for implementing the Amsterdam Treaty derived a number of implications from the treaty on the ‘external aspect’ of the JHA. The first implication was the potential for a stronger international role for the EU. The treaty expanded the competence in the field of JHA. This can be found in the shift from the Third Pillar to the First Pillar (Boswell, 2003: 627). Second, under a list of ‘measures to be taken within two years’, the action plan included an ‘assessment of countries of origin in order to formulate a country specific approach’. This plan was adopted at a meeting of the European Council in Vienna, Austria in December 1998 as part of the programme for implementing the treaty (Boswell, 2003: 627). Within the JHA the Member States had to agree with each other on the different directives. They were also looking for solutions to solve dilemmas that were caused by conflicting interests of the Member States. On the one hand the Member States wanted to stop illegal immigration from outside the EU, but had to accept migrants (refugees and asylum seekers) on ground of international duties or national interests. According to Strik (2011) the other dilemma was that the EU wanted less family migrants, but agreed on an EU level to strengthen the rights on migrants, like family reunion (Strik, 2011: 1). The Council also agreed that in five years, there will be rules concerned with freedom, safety and justice. One of those rules was a directive with minimum norms for the asylum procedure and family reunification (Strik, 2011: 41). With the Treaty of Amsterdam the European Commission got a bigger role in the area of asylum and migration. The Commission can now consult the Member States, NGOs and other experts in the draft phase of a proposal (Strik, 2011: 44). Before the ratification of the treaty the Commission was often dissatisfied with the progress made by Member States with asylum and migration. This enlarged role of the Commission can also been seen in the growth of the part of the organisation: in 1998 there were 46 working at a task force, four years later, in 2002, there were 283 placed in the newly formed DG Justice, Freedom and Safety (Strik, 2011: 44).
Tampere Programme In October 1999 the European Council came together in Tampere, Finland, to set out two principles to motivate the drafting and adoption of secondary legislation in the area of freedom, security and justice. These two principles were: the harmonisation of asylum law at a minimum standard level, and the principle of mutual recognition of acts of states (Guild,
20
2006: 642). The European Council meeting reaffirmed that the common EU policies would be based on a ‘full and inclusive’ application of the Refugee Convention whereby the principle of non-refoulement would be honoured (Hatton, 2008: 15). The European Council states within paragraph 13 of the Conclusions: “The European Council reaffirms the importance of the Union and Member States attach to absolute respect to the right to seek asylum. It has agreed to work towards establishing a Common European Asylum System, based on full and inclusive application of the Geneva Convention, thus ensuring that nobody is sent back to persecution, i.e. maintaining the principle of non-refoulement (Morrison & Crosland, 2000: 32)”. In the Tampere conclusions there was also an clear signal of the extension of the European Union visa regime: “A common active policy on visas and false documents should be further developed, including closer co-operation between EU consulates in third countries and, the establishment of common EU visa issuing officers” (Morrison & Crosland, 2000: 37). The Tampere Programme can be seen as the first stage of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) (Hatton, 2012: 8) Until Tampere the so-called ‘external dimension’ of the European immigration and asylum policy was not formally embraced by the European Council. The conclusions of this Special European Council of JHA stated that justice and home affairs concerns should be “integrated in the definition and implementation of other Union policies and activities”, including external relations (Boswell, 2003: 620).
Other policies In October 1996 the European Union adapted a rule in extra-territorial border enforcement – that of Airline Liaison Officers (ALOs). These officers are immigration staff posted to embassies and consulates of participating Member States to advise airline staff. They advise this staff about the authenticity of specific travel documents (Morrison & Crosland, 2000: 42). This rule focuses on border controls against irregular migration and information-gathering to support anti-trafficking measures. Such activities can prevent refugees from leaving their country or a neighbouring state in which they are still unsafe (Morrison & Crosland, 2000: 42). In January 1998 the Council adopted an action plan on the ‘influx of migrants from Iraq and the neighbouring region’. This plan was a response to the increase in the arrivals of Kurdish and other Iraqi asylum-seekers into the European Union (Morrison & Crosland, 2000: 44). Even by the standards set by the Member States many of these asylum-seekers were Convention status refugees. But the thrust of this plan was not to ensure reception in the
21
EU but rather to bolster effort to keep as many Iraqi refugees within ‘the region’, also called as regional containment (Morrison & Crosland, 2000: 44). The Netherlands in Europe In the end of February 1996 VVD MP Rijpstra said that the Netherlands should make a list of third safe countries, but that this should be done on a European level. According to Rijpstra consistency is needed because the European countries don’t agree about the part which country is safe or unsafe.7 In April State Secretary Patijn (European Affairs) presented his plans to his European colleagues about the future of the EU. His aim was to strengthen the European cooperation in the field of JHA, which finds much support with the European partners. The Netherlands was to have a visa, asylum and migration policy on a European level. 8 On January 1, 1997 the Netherlands became the one to lead the European presidency. In March different Dutch MEPs had critique on the way the Netherlands is hosting the presidency of the EU. CDA MEP Pronk said the way the Netherlands presides the presidency is much “too timid”. He saw “much critique” in the EP on the Netherlands and their presidency. Keywords Pronk used were “a lack of leadership” and “not energetic” to underline his ideas about the Dutch presidency. PvdA leader d’Ancona reacted that the initiatives done by the Netherlands are “lean”.9 In September 1998 the EU proposed a plan under the presidency of Austria. The plan said that refugees should only come to the EU when they are invited by one of the Member States. The individual right to asylum should be abandoned with this plan. PvdA MP Van Oven reacted that State Secretary Cohen should take a stand against this proposal. CDA MP Verhagen said that with this proposal “many people will fall outside the proposal, while they need help”. GL believes that the proposal isn’t tolerable: “when the individual right to asylum is abandoned the refugees will be surrendered to the politics in the Member States”.10 A week later State Secretary Cohen reacted that there won’t be a common European asylum policy on the short term. He also reacted on the proposal presented by Austria a week before, he said that he “was happy that Austria came with the plan”.11 In the winter of 1998 the Netherlands came with a proposal to organize a special division – a HLWG – that should promote an unanimous European asylum policy to “prepare cross-pillar Action Plans for
7 ANP, 29-02-2996. “Rijpstra: ‘veilige landen’ Europees bepalen”. 8 ANP, 02-04-1996. “Nederland krijgt steun in Europees toekomstdebat”. 9 De Volkskrant, 08-03-1997. “Nederland krijgt forse kritiek in Europarlement’. 10 Het Parool, 04-09-1998. “Nederland wijst EU-asielplan af”. 11 ANP, 08-09-1998. “Cohen verwacht op korte termijn geen Europees asielbeleid”. 22 selected countries of origin and transit of asylum seekers and migrants”. This proposal got support from all European partners in the Council of Ministers. The plan was that the EU, in cooperation with embassies and the UNHCR, maps the political and human rights situation in different countries that are home to many refugees and asylum seekers. On base of that the EU members could respond better through the use of emergency aid, reception in the region and plans to stop the inflow of refugees and asylum seekers. With this the Netherlands hoped to stop the deadlock in the organization of a common European asylum and migration policy.12 This proposal was adopted in December 1998 by the General Affairs Council, which agreed to prepare action plans on six countries: Afghanistan, Albania, Iraq, Morocco, Somalia and Sri Lanka (Boswell, 2003: 628). In March 2000 State Secretary Cohen said that he hopes the EU can accomplish all the action points in the field of asylum policy. These action points were set during the meeting in Tampere. Cohen reacted that he “worries about some points, but I hope that they will make it”.13 In January 1999 VVD MEP Wiebenga said that the Netherlands should get money from the ESF for the reception of asylum seekers. According to Wiebenga this idea was justified because the Netherlands was spending more money on the reception of asylum seekers than other European countries. He also said that the Netherlands wasn’t getting enough money from European funds, and not only from the ESF.14 A month later Wiebenga reacted that the VVD wanted to abolish the veto on asylum policy on an European level. According to Wiebenga this was the key to organize a common European asylum policy.15 Two weeks later Prime Minister Kok insisted on an European asylum and migration policy. He said that “the problems are urgent and we have to solve it together”.16 In April different MEPs reacted to the lack of a common European asylum policy. VVD MEP Wiebenga said that he “hated the many years of deadlock” and PvdA MEP D’Ancona reacted that he hated the ‘inability’ of the Ministers of Justice and Home Affairs to make a deal.17 In May Prime Minister Kok said he wanted a special European Commissioner for the field of asylum and migration. This person would be responsible for an European asylum and migration policy: “from the causes of migration, to reception in the region, to the return policy”. Kok reacted
12 ANP, 04-12-1998. “Brede steun voor Nederlands initiatief Europese vluchtelingenaanpak”. 13 ANP, 27-03-2000. “Cohen betwijfelt of Europa asielafspraken snel kan nakomen”. 14 ANP, 23-01-1999. “VVD wil Europees geld voor opvang asielzoekers”. 15 ANP, 14-02-1999. “VVD wil afschaffing vetorecht asielbeleid EU. “ 16 ANP, 26-02-1999. “Kok dringt aan op Europees asielbeleid”. 17 Het Financiële Dagblad, 14-04-1999. “Europarlementariërs hekelen ontbreken EU-asielbeleid”. 23 that asylum policy isn’t only a task of the JHA anymore. Asylum policy also touched the “political and economic relations of the EU with third countries. The appointment of such a commissioner is also needed to ‘stop the negative causes of the disappearance of European borders”.18 In September was made clear that the Netherlands puts much pressure on the other European member states to organize a common European asylum policy quickly. The Netherlands argued that Member States should close deals with other countries (in and outside the EU) and that asylum seekers should be treated equally everywhere. The Netherlands said – in the words of State Secretary Cohen – that the EU should do more than coordination: “separately the Member States don’t have enough measures to influence the developments in this field”. Cohen made a plea for a common European asylum procedure. There should be clear rules on reception, the duration of the asylum procedure and legal assistance. Next to that the EU should decide who is a refugee and who isn’t.19 At the end of the month this plan was also underlined by State Secretary Benschop (Foreign Affairs). He said that when the EU doesn’t organize a common asylum policy, the field of asylum is a ‘race to the bottom’.20 In October the coalition parties in the Dutch parliament reacted on the deals made in Tampere. PvdA MP Middel said that the deals were a good start. Middel agreed that there should be common agreements about the reception of asylum seekers: “only then the pull-effect of North European Member States will disappear”. The VVD saw “some points for improvement”. The VVD concluded that there were some steps in the rights direction. According to the liberals the European deal about minimum reception of asylum seekers meant that the norms of Netherlands about the reception of asylum seekers should be lowered. VVD MP Niederer reacted that “when there is consensus, the Netherlands should be prepared to lower their reception to a lower standard”. The VVD also said that it is unfortunately there wasn’t a deal about a quota of asylum seekers.21 State Secretary Benschop (Foreign Affairs) reacted after Tampere that he “wasn’t convinced” that there will be proposals on a stricter asylum policy in Europe.22 Prime Minister Kok wanted to see some proposes within a year for a more harmonized European asylum policy because “the adjustment of procedures and rules to one other is needed. There has to be policy in Europe that protects asylum seekers”.23
18 ANP, 11-05-1999. “Kok wil Europees Commissaris voor asielbeleid”. 19 De Volkskrant, 08-09-1999. “Cohen maakt zich sterk voor een Europese asielprocedure”. 20 ANP, 27-09-1999. “Tampere moet ‘race to the bottom’ asielbeleid stoppen.” 21 ANP, 17-10-1999. “Regeringspartijen gematigd positief over resultaten asieltop”. 22 ANP, 15-10-1999. “Benschop twijfelt aan haalbaarheid strakkere EU-afspraken asielbeleid”. 23 ANP, 15-10-1999. “Kok wil binnen jaar plan harmonisatie asielbeleid”. 24
In March 2000 State Secretary Cohen said that the ERF should be established quickly. He reacted that a common European asylum fund is “a common responsibility of all Member States, even when there isn’t much money in the fund”.24 In November Minister Korthals of Justice called out to the Dutch parliament to agree with a European system for finger prints of asylum seekers. The so called EuroDac-system keeps track of the finger prints of asylum seekers. Every time an asylum seeker wants to start a procedure for a permit their finger print is copied.25 In December the national parliament accepted the EuroDac.26
5.2 National level In June 1996 the CDA came with a resolution to change the period of validity of a temporarily permit. The CDA wanted to change this period from three to five years. State Secretary Schmitz was a large opponent of the idea. Opponents of the motion, next to the CDA, were the VVD, the Ouderenunie, the CD and some smaller Christian parties.27 In September the cabinet presented her plans for a right to appeal for denied asylum seekers. Not only opposition parties, like the RPF and CDA, disagreed with the presented plans, also coalition partner VVD disagreed. The plan of the cabinet was based on an advice of the High Court. The VVD and CDA were afraid that this plan extended the duration of the asylum procedure. Coalition partners PvdA and D66, and opposition parties GL and Groep Nijpels were proponents of the plan.28 In February 1997 the VVD called for a revision of the Aliens Act. According to VVD MP Rijpstra the recent problems with the refusals of municipalities to evict denied asylum seekers showed that the act needed to change. In the new law there also needed to be a possibility for a right to appeal for asylum seekers when they are denied. State Secretary Schmitz said she hopes that coalition partner D66 and VVD agree with the creation of a higher appeal. PvdA and D66 were supporters of this higher appeal, VVD said they would accept the higher appeal, but under some circumstances.29 In the same month the parliament accepted the implementation of a work obligation for accepted asylum seekers. Asylum seekers with a temporarily permit will get the change to follow an education in the first six to nine months to familiarize them with the Dutch culture. In the second period there is a
24 ANP, 27-03-2000. “Nederland loopt voorzichtig warm voor Europees vluchtelingenfonds”. 25 ANP,30-11-2000. “Korthals roept PvdA op tot snel akkoord vingerafdrukken asielzoekers”. 26 ANP, 07-12-2000. “Korthals drukt Europees vingerafdruksysteem door Kamer”. 27 De Volkskrant, 25-06-25. “Kamer houdt vast aan verlenging asiel 28 Trouw, 12-09-1996. “Vorm van hoger beroep voor asielzoeker vindt geen genade bij CDA en VVD”. 29 ANP, 03-02-1997. “VVD wil herziening Vreemdelingenwet”. 25 possibility to follow a professional education and after two years the asylum seeker gets access to the labour market.30 In May 1997 the cabinet said she wanted a more active return policy. This will be done through special ‘return teams’. The intention was that the team actively works and don’t awaits problems. This return team should lower the number of tasks for municipalities. This plan was introduced in the Return policy paper of State Secretary of Justice Schmitz. Starting point for this notice was an integral approach for the return of denied asylum seekers.31 In June the parties VVD and CDA agreed with each other that they are against a new temporary permit for denied asylum seekers. Both parties were also unsatisfied with the policy for forced return of denied asylum seekers. This plan was part of the Return policy paper. Schmitz wanted that denied asylum seekers who cooperate in their return to their home country, but can’t return because they can’t get papers or identification, can have a special, temporary permit to stay in the Netherlands. VVD MP Rijpstra says “it is a typical Schmitz policy paper that breathes the personal philosophy of the State Secretary”. D66 was also one of the parties that wasn't happy with the policy paper of Schmitz. D66 MP Dittrich concluded that “there are a lot of words on paper, but there is not a word said about non- voluntary return”. Only the PvdA agreed with the plan of Schmitz.32 In that same month VVD MP Rijpstra said he wanted to see that airline companies make a scans of the identity papers of asylum seekers when these asylum seekers wants to flee to the Netherlands.33 In October 1997 a majority of the representatives agreed that they don’t want that the cabinet puts milder actions on denied asylum seekers who don’t want to return. According to D66, PvdA, CDA and VVD these asylum seekers don’t earn any reception when they don’t want to return.34 Next to that, the parties were also concerned about the increase of asylum seekers that come to the Netherlands. State Secretary Schmitz thinks that the total of asylum seekers in 1997 will be between 32.000 and 35.000.35 A month later the parties in the parliament agreed on a plan to immediately return asylum seekers who lost their documents on purpose.36 The cabinet stands for a big problem in April 1998: the large inflow of asylum seekers and the concerns about the reception of this people. Minister Dijkstal of Home Affairs said that “we are at the maximum reception capacity”. Together with State Secretaries Schmitz
30 ANP, 26-02-1997. “Kamer eens met arbeidsplicht asielzoekers”. 31 ANP, 30-05-1997. “Kabinet wil actiever terugkeerbeleid afgewezen asielzoekers”. 32 ANP, 03-06-1997. “VVD en CDA tegen nieuwe verblijfsvergunning”. 33 ANP, 03-06-1997. “VVD en CDA tegen nieuwe verblijfsvergunning”. 34 ANP, 07-10-1997. “Meerderheid Kamer tegen opvang afgewezen asielzoekers”. 35 ANP, 07-10-1997.”Kamer maakt zich zorgen over stijging aantal asielzoekers”. 36 De Volkskrant, 14-11-1997. “Kamer: asielzoekers zonder pas uitwijzen”. 26 and Tommel he tried to find ‘creative’ solutions for the short term.37 Two months earlier, in February, State Secretary Schmitz of Justice said she was positive about the idea of permanent reception centres spread across different municipalities. She thought this will end the moving of asylum seekers within the Netherlands. This idea originally came from VVD MP Rijpstra, with the support of other parties.38 In April 1998 D66 presented a policy paper with the name ‘A decent asylum policy’. This policy paper stated that the asylum procedure should not take more than three and a half years. When it takes longer, the asylum seeker should get a permit. With this policy paper D66 wanted to maintain the strict asylum policy because asylum seekers won’t get a chance to go to court for a second or third time and those who are denied should leave the country. According to D66 MP Dittrich the asylum policy is very fragmented and thus needed to change.39 In June the coalition parties made a temporary agreement about the asylum policy. The PvdA, VVD and D66 agreed that asylum seekers can make an appeal when their permit is denied, but in a more limited way. A week later the VVD reacted that she strongly disagrees with the plan for this appeal, because it was already decided in 1994 to abolish the appeal for denied asylum seekers. Next to that the VVD also had problems with maintaining of two statuses for asylum seekers, a temporary one and a permanent one. The party also came with a plan to set a quota on the number of asylum seekers.40 In the summer of 1998 the second cabinet Kok took office. A large part of the coalition agreement on international affairs and defence was about the Dutch migration and asylum policy. The coalition wanted to maintain the restrictive policy on entering The Netherlands, but there was a need for a better and faster procedure for asylum seekers. The coalition wanted to make changes in the Aliens Act, the reception of asylum seekers, the return of asylum seekers to their home country and international cooperation41. When we focus on the reception of asylum seekers in the coalition agreement it becomes clear that the cabinet wanted that the asylum seeker takes care of his own: some groups have to find their own place to sleep; when an asylum seeker fills in a second or third request for a permit he or she isn’t allowed to stay in a reception centre; and temporarily reception centres will be more gloomy than permanent reception centres. In the coalition agreement there was also a part about Europe and the asylum policy. The coalition wanted a more extensive and good harmonisation of a common European asylum and immigration policy, but also wanted to focus more on the protection of
37 ANP, 03-04-1998. “Toestroom asielzoekers blijft voor opvangproblemen zorgen”. 38 ANP, 12-02-1998. “Schmitz positief over permanente opvang asielzoekers”. 39 Het Parool, 02-04-1998. “D66 wil besluit asiel in 3,5 jaar afronden”. 40 Het Parool, 30-06-1998. “VVD wil toch weer morrelen aan ‘deal’ over asiel”. 41 Tweede Kamer, vergaderjaar 1997-1998, 26024, nr. 10 27 human rights through European treaties. The coalition agreement stated: “the Dutch policy will focus on a better use of the possibilities made by the Amsterdam Treaty to better cooperation in the areas of CFSP and JHA. Important thing here is the fighting of crimes and the development of a common European migration and asylum policy”.42 Within this cabinet PvdA MP Cohen got control over the Dutch asylum policy as State Secretary of Justice. In January 2001 he was succeeded by PvdA MP Kalsbeek as state secretary. On the first day of October State Secretary Cohen said that he wanted a temporary stop on asylum seekers. This meant that new requests won’t be taken in consideration. Asylum seekers were put on a waiting list and should provide for their own shelter. Cohen reacted that the ‘straightforward’ asylum policy only can exist when we act ‘strict and restrictive’ to unwanted asylum seekers.43 In that same month the cabinet made clear it needed one billon gulden extra for the reception of asylum seekers in 1999. This one billion came on top of the already reserved 1,6 billion. This extra money was needed to place extra tents and to extend the IND with six hundred employees. According to Cohen the IND had too much work, whereby there is not enough time to check the asylum applications in a short matter of time. This resulted into positive decision, which caused full reception centres. To stop the inflow of asylum seekers Cohen needed more information about the political situation in Iraq, Iran, Bosnia, Afghanistan and Somalia. He said: “who can return safely, doesn’t get reception in the Netherlands”.44 The use of these tents caused some criticism from the coalition parties. Coalition partners PvdA and D66 were having great objection against these tents. According to PvdA MP Middel the reception in tents was inhumane: “I agree that the reception has to be sober, but you can’t let children sleep in a tent without anything on the floor and with pools of water in the ground for a few weeks.” D66 MP Dittrich called the reception very minimal. PvdA MP Middel and Duivesteijn submitted a plan to make the reception in tents costly, to stop this way of reception. They saw a bigger role for housing corporations to provide reception for asylum seekers. Coalition partner VVD and opposition party CDA didn’t had much trouble with the use of tents as emergency reception. They insisted on more structural measures to stop the inflow of asylum seekers.45 In November 1998 Cohen said he wanted to intensify the ‘removal policy’. He focused especially on Dublin claimants, because these asylum seekers don’t have a right on reception and are designed on the humanity of organisations and
42 Tweede Kamer, vergaderjaar 1997-1998, 26024, nr. 10 43 De Volkskrant, 01-10-1998. “Cohen wil met wachtlijsten asielzoekers afstoppen”. 44 De Volkskrant, 19-10-1998. “Asielopvang vergt een miljard extra”. 45 ANP, 13-10-1998. “Cohen zoekt naar andere opvang voor asielzoekers op wachtlijst”. 28 individuals. Fifteen organisations, which include VWN and the Red Cross, thought this plan of Cohen is inhumane and socially unacceptable.46 In September State Secretary Cohen got some comments from different parties in the parliament. A majority of the parliament wanted that Cohen inquires them more often about the implementation of the new Aliens Act.47 In October 2000 the PvdA and D66 said that smaller municipalities can’t organize ‘large’ reception centres (minimal four hundred asylum seekers). Earlier, in March 2000, State Secretary Cohen said he didn’t want to follow this plan, but in October he agreed with the PvdA and D66. He also said that the return policy will not work better on a short term. Almost all parties were concerned about the return policy. The Department of Justice couldn’t get al rejected asylum seekers out of the country. Cohen said that “the next time the number won’t be any better”. VVD MP Kamp reacted furious, because the VVD plans to toughen the asylum policy were being denied every time, and when a plan is accepted, the plans weren’t made practical and workable.48 In November the parties VVD, CDA and D66 reacted dissatisfied with the results of the asylum policy of State Secretary Cohen in his first half year. The VVD said that the efforts made by the cabinet were inadequate. VVD MP Nicolai reacted that “during this period the inflow of asylum seekers hasn’t lowered and the occupied places in reception centres had been doubled”. The CDA concluded that the cabinet presented much plans, but that the implementation of this plans lags.49
3.3 Provinces In January 1999 the Commissioner of the Queen Houben (Noord-Brabant) said that provinces should play a bigger role in the reception of asylum seekers, especially in the organisation of this reception. Houben wanted a more ‘directing’ role for provinces in the asylum policy.50 This call for a bigger role also came from the parties PvdA and VVD. PvdA MP Middel and VVD MP Rijpstra thought it was time to coordinate the reception of asylum seekers on a provincial level. According to the PvdA and VVD there was a need for a regional agreement on the replacement of asylum seeker centres with provinces, municipalities and the COA.51 The mayor of Groningen, Wallage, also agreed with this plan.52 In April 1999 the province of
46 ANP, 12-11-1998. “Gemeenten zorgen voor huisvesting asielzoekers zonder status”. 47 Trouw, 30-09-2000. “Kamer zet Cohen onder zware druk”. 48 ANP, 12-10-2000. “Cohen wil toch kleinere asielcentra”. 49 ANP, 07-11-2000. “Kamer ontevreden over resultaten asielbeleid”. 50 ANP, 17-01-1999. “Pleidooi om provincies meer te betrekken bij opvang asielzoekers”. 51 ANP, 31-01-1999. “PvdA en VVD willen asielzoekerscentra provinciaal regelen”. 52 ANP, 01-02-1999, “Wallage: spreiding asielzoekers goed idee”. 29
Gelderland sent a letter to all her municipalities. This letter was sent because Gelderland needed to house 18.000 asylum seekers, instead of 11.000. The province stated that the reception of asylum seekers is a matter between municipalities and government, but that they want mediate between these two institutions.53 Some few months earlier the Commissioner of the Queen Alders (Groningen) did the same request. In a letter he sent to municipalities who didn’t have a reception centre, he asked for places, such as buildings, to organize a reception centre. He said: “maybe there are empty buildings or terrains where we can place temporarily reception centres”.54
3.4 Municipalities In January 1997 four large municipalities (Apeldoorn, Amsterdam, Rotterdam and The Hague) denied to put rejected asylum seekers on the street. Later the municipalities of Leiden and Enschede also followed. According to these municipalities the instructions of State Secretary of Justice Schmitz to evict these people were impracticable and inhumane. The VNG wrote that “municipalities don’t want to play the role of a scapegoat”. The municipalities believed that with this policy denied asylum seekers can become illegal. Another problem was that municipalities had to decide of a country is safe to return for an asylum seeker. According to the municipalities they weren’t capable to make this decision.55 56 In October of that same year some large municipalities from Noord-Brabant asked for money from the state to house rejected asylum seekers who can’t return to their home country. The municipalities wanted this money because they often pay this reception on their own because of humanitarian reasons. These municipalities suggested that the government is accountable for the return policy and therefore the costs. This request for money was made because the COA needed more reception centres.57 In August 1998 the VNG spoke out. The VNG had some comments on the plan that asylum seekers can house themselves at family or friends. A policy adviser of the VNG said that “with this plan a municipality doesn’t have a clue who settles themselves in the municipality”.58 In October 1998 PvdA-leader Melkert did an appeal to municipalities to create reception centres for asylum seekers. According to Melkert there were too many
53 ANP, 22-04-1999, “Actie provincie levert 3450 plaatsen asielzoekers op”. 54 ANP, 14-10-1998. “Alders zoekt mee naar ruimte voor asielzoekers”. 55 Brabants Dagblad, 28-01-1997. “4 grote gemeenten leggen bom onder asielbeleid”. 56 NRC Handelsblad, 28-01-1997. “Asielproblematiek van instroom naar uitzetten”. 57 ANP, 16-10-1997, “Gemeenten willen geld voor opvang uitgeprocedeerde asielzoekers”. 58 ANP, 04-08-1998. “VNG verliest zicht op asielzoekers”. 30 municipalities who didn’t have a reception centre or other forms of shelter.59 State Secretary of Justice Cohen asked the same thing to the municipalities.60 In November the municipalities agreed with extra reception centres for asylum seekers without a permit. The municipalities had their hesitations at first, but agreed that there was an emergency situation because of the raise of the number of asylum seekers. The only thing the municipalities wanted was that the Minister of Justice returned asylum seekers when he or she is denied. According to Mayor Bandell of Alkmaar “it can’t be that denied asylum seekers are on the streets, because the cost of public safety is one of the costs the municipality has to pay”.61 This extra reception centres were a result of a deliberation between the government and the VNG. The goal was to have a bigger capacity in the reception of asylum seekers.62 In February 1999 there was an appeal made by sixty municipalities: they wanted to play a bigger role in the reception of asylum seekers. They wanted to take care of housing and education outside the reception centres. They also wanted to provide some job experience for asylum seekers. According to the municipalities this minimizes the pressure on the reception centres. Next to that asylum seekers make better use of their capacities though the use of education. The COA had her doubts about this plan: “you can ask yourself: if it is possible in a financial and a logistic way?”.63 64 65 Two months later 45 more municipalities endorsed with the appeal made in February.66 In reaction to the appeal the COA said they wanted to talk with the municipalities about smaller reception centres. According to the municipalities reception centres of more than hundred asylum seekers gave to many problems. The municipalities wanted to enlarge their scope in the contribution they make, if they get more influence in housing and education.67 Another appeal made in February was the appeal of mayor Patijn of Amsterdam. His opinion was that mayors should have more influence in the decision of permits for asylum seekers. He wanted that mayors can gave a binding advice to the minister or state secretary about the acceptation of deny of asylum seekers. According to Patijn the institutions in municipalities have much more information about individuals than in The Hague.68 At the end of the year the VNG spoke out her concerns with the new plans that
59 Leeuwarder Courant, 12-10-1998. “Twijfels van politici basis asielprobleem”. 60 De Volkskrant, 19-10-1998. “Asielopvang vergt een miljard extra”. 61 ANP, 12-11-1998. “Gemeenten zorgen voor huisvesting asielzoekers zonder status”. 62 ANP, 23-10-1998. “Kabinet overlegt met gemeenten over opvang asielzoekers”. 63 ANP, 10-02-1999. “Gemeenten willen meer doen aan opvang asielzoekers”. 64 Brabants Dagblad, 11-02-1999. “Gemeenten: grotere rol asielbeleid”. 65 ANP, 10-02-1999. “Mogelijk meer geld voor scholing asielzoekers”. 66 ANP, 27-04-1999. “Steeds meer gemeenten willen grotere rol opvang asielzoekers”. 67 De Gelderlander, 13-02-1999. “Nieuw asielplan gemeenten Brabant”. 68 ANP, 06-02-1999. “Patijn wil meer invloed op verblijfsvergunning”. 31 accepted asylum seekers can choose their own place to live. The VNG was afraid that asylum seekers will choose the big cities. The VNG agreed that measures were needed to spread the reception centres and thus the asylum seekers. The VNG also said that not the municipalities, but the government, must be accountable for the return of denied asylum seekers. According to the VNG it is hard for municipalities to return an asylum seeker when he or she is living in the municipality for a few years.69 In the beginning of February 2000 many municipalities had their criticism on a new act: the Koppelingswet. The act said that rejected asylum seekers are no longer entitled to assistance and reception. Especially the municipality of Nijmegen was deeply concerned about the new act. Nijmegen is afraid that a lot of asylum seekers go into criminality, which can lead to huge local problems. According to Nijmegen the municipalities have a duty to take care of everybody.70 In October the municipalities got the chance from State Secretary Cohen to organize smaller reception centres. The only thing is that these reception centres will be open longer, because the COA can’t play break-even.71
5.5. Conclusion When we first look at the Europeanization of the Dutch asylum policy in these five years we can see that there isn’t any of influence of Europe on the lower levels of administrations. The Europeanization plays more of a role on the national level, and not only on the national level of the Netherlands, but on the national level of every (then) Member State. This especially can be found in the establishment of the Amsterdam Treaty and the first step of the CEAS, the Tampere Program, the first step to a common European asylum policy. But, when we look down to the other way, to the decentralization of tasks, there happens a lot more. The province has the task of a watchdog, and the municipalities have the task to organize reception, to house the accepted asylum seekers and the integration of these people. In this five year period both levels of administration asked for more tasks or a bigger role in the policy. The provinces wanted a bigger role, a more ‘directing’ in the housing of asylum seekers. And this call for a bigger role did not only came from the province, but also from politics. The municipalities showed multiple times that they are a big player in the field of asylum. They often disagreed with the policy of the government and sometimes rejected to fulfil this policy. The
69 ANP, 06-12-1999. “VNG vreest sterke toename erkende asielzoekers in grote steden”. 70 ANP, 16-02-2000. “Koppelingswet leid tot inhumaan beleid gemeenten”. 71 ANP, 12-10-2000. “Cohen wil toch kleinere asielcentra”. 32 municipalities wanted a bigger role in the reception of asylum seekers. They wanted to take care of housing and education for these people outside the reception centres. When we look to the restrictions and opening up of the asylum policy a lot has happened in these five years. The opening up of the policy can be found in the huge changes made with the Schengen Convention and the proposed changes to the Schengen Convention, which made it a lot easier for not only European inhabitants, but also for asylum seekers. On the Dutch level there were many proposals to restrict the asylum policy. This can be found in the introduction of the new Aliens Act, border controls, and the intensification of the so-called ‘removal policy’
4. 2001-2005 Between 2001 and 2005 a lot happened in the (Dutch) asylum policy. In Europe different, important Directives were implemented: The Reception Conditions Directive, the Asylum Qualification Directive and the Asylum Procedures Directive. Next to that the second stage of the CEAS started under the Dutch presidency, The Hague Programme. On the national level one of the most important subjects between 2001 and 2005 was the implementation of the Aliens Act and the political debate about the Eenmalige Regeling. Next to that, a new party rose, the LPF, which had much critique on the policy by the cabinets Kok. With the rise of the LPF the political standards changed and the debate became harsher.
6.1 Europe In 2003 the Reception Conditions Directive72 has been adopted by the Member States, the transitional period of this directive ended in February 2005. The Reception Conditions Directive is the first element of three linked legislative initiatives in the European asylum policy: the Asylum Qualification Directive, the Reception Conditions Directive, and the Asylum Procedures Directive (Kaunert, 2009: 152). The Reception Conditions Directive requires all Member States to accord with asylum seekers as a set of rights which include material reception conditions but also identity documents (Guild, 2006: 641). The directive laid down terms for access to employment, housing, and health and education services for asylum seekers while their claims are being assessed (Hatton, 2008: 16). This directive is an important one because differences in reception condition in the various Member States can be seen as a factor for migratory movement of refugees and asylum seekers within the EU
72 Council Directive 2003/9/EC 33
(Kaunert, 2009: 152). Underlying issues in this directive were also financial considerations. One of the arguments against Member States was that their asylum procedures are long and expensive. The extra territorial processing can be seen as a way of reducing the costs (Guild, 2006: 641). In 2004 there was another directive adopted, called the Asylum Qualification Directive73 (Hatton, 2008: 16). The directive addressed three important elements of asylum: (1) the content of refugee status; (2) the approximation of rules; and (3) the recognition of refugees (Kaunert, 2009: 153). This directive withholds the minimum standards on the qualification of persons as refugees which provides the European interpretation of the Geneva Convention definition of a refugee and persons entitled to protection (Guild, 2006: 641). Whereas the Geneva Convention gave protection to refugees from conflicts until a “fundamental and lasting change has occurred in conditions in their country of origin and state protection has been restored”, the new Qualification Directive stated that protection can not only be provided by the state, but “also by parties or organisations, including international organisations … which control a region or a larger area within the territory of the State” (Fekete, 2005: 68). The Asylum Procedures Directive focuses on the minimum standards for procedures. This directive covered issues such as the designation of unfounded claims of asylum seekers, and rights to interviews, to legal assistance and to appeals as well as rules for subsidiary protection (Hatton, 2008: 16; Kaunert, 2009: 154). Two other regulations include the Temporary Protection Directive and the Family Reunion Directive, but are generally considered to be of lesser importance. According to Hatton these rules do not cover every aspect of asylum policy and that this rules only lay down minimum standards, the harmonisation was partial and incomplete. Because of this reason there is shortage of complete harmonisation of policy (Hatton, 2008: 16; Hatton, 2012: 9).
The Hague Programme After the Tampere Programme the Hague Programme was published by the EU institutions in November 2004 under Dutch presidency, and can be seen as the second stage of the CEAS. The Hague Programme involved deeper cooperation in a number of areas. One of this was the establishment of the FRONTEX agency in 2005. A second initiative was the further
73 Council Directive 2004/83/EC 34 harmonisation of rules and procedures for status determination and appeals for refugees (Hatton, 2012: 9). A third initiative was the extending reception standards in areas such as rights to social security, education and health. A fourth was the promotion of integration programmes for recognised refugees, this with increased financial support from the in 2000 established ERF (Hatton, 2012: 9). A last initiative was the promulgating of new regulations on employer sanctions and the return of illegal immigrants. The Hague Programme called for the adoption of the directive on asylum procedures. This directive has been criticised by the UNHCR and others. They expressed their concerns that there is a risk that the directive may lead to breaches of international law (Guild, 2006: 645). The Programme also calls for the joint processing of claims within and outside EU territory. Another issue the Programme is raising is the call for a European Asylum Offices to coordinate among Member States’ asylum authorities (Guild, 2006: 646). The goal of the Hague Programme was to stop or move asylum seekers beyond the common external border to the territory of third states. These states must be held responsible for their human rights obligations and that they should take charge of asylum applicants (Guild, 2006: 646).
The Netherlands in Europe In February 2001 newspaper Leeuwarder Courant looks back to the implementation of the deals made in Tampere. They concluded that the implementation is stagnating, because every Member State holds on to their own asylum and migration law. Minister Korthals of Justice reacted optimistic, because the emergency of a common European asylum policy becomes clearer and clearer. He said that “the lack of progress begins to avenge. Member States who didn’t do anything for a long time, like Great Britain or Belgium, are getting in a hurry because their problems are getting bigger”.74 A month later Prime Minister Kok agreed with his European colleagues Verhofstadt of Belgium and Juncker of Luxembourg to work more closely on the establishment of a common European justice policy. The emphasis will be on a common asylum and immigration policy and human smuggling.75 In December there was a meeting between the Ministers (and State Secretaries) of Justice in Laken, Belgium. The Netherlands wasn’t pleased that the European agreements in the area of asylum and migration doesn’t hurry. State Secretary Benschop made a complaint about this during the meeting, he said that “the Ministers of Justice should complete their work in 2002 or 2003”.76
74 Leeuwarder Courant, 09-02-2001. “Asielbeleid EU stagneert door politieke onwil”. 75 ANP, 19-03-2001. “Benelux wil vaart achter EU-justitiebeleid”. 76 ANP, 14-12-2001. “Nederland wil vaart houden in Europese asielwetgeving”. 35
In February 2002 the Dutch parliament reacted on the implementation of a common European asylum and migration policy. The parliament wasn’t happy about the speed of the implementation of the policy. D66 MP Dittrich said that “the progress is minimal” and CDA MP Wijn said that it is “extremely disappointing”. Wijn proposed cooperation with Member States who agree with each other on a common asylum policy like Sweden and Finland, but, State Secretary Kalsbeek said, that we will enlarge the distance with important neighbours like Germany. The cabinet and parliament agreed that the Netherlands can benefits from a common European admission policy and a share of the burden of asylum seekers in Europe.77 In June there was an European summit in Sevilla, Spain. In Sevilla the Member States agreed on a common European visa information system. One of the plans that didn’t make it was the protection of the European borders by a policy force. The Member States also spoke about setting up a list of third countries who doesn’t cooperate with the return of denied asylum seekers to their home country.78 Prime Minister Kok was a great proponent of this list. He said that Europe should use trading agreements to oblige third countries to take back their people. When they don’t take back enough people, they will get less benefits from the trading agreement with the EU.79 In June 2003 the coalition parties on the national level came with a plan that stated that European centres for asylum should be within the borders of the EU. This plan was a reaction on the plan of Great Britain to place these centres outside the EU. According to the cabinet reception centres within the EU improves the continuity and quality of the asylum policy and procedures. Next to that it improves the unity within Europa about the asylum system.80 But, two weeks later, the cabinet turns around and is suddenly a proponent of centres outside the EU. State Secretary Nicolai of European Affairs underlined that these plans will be researched with experiments first.81 The Netherlands was one of the countries, next to Great Britain, Austria, Denmark and Ireland, to start with these experiments.82 In October the Member States agreed that they will make a list of third safe countries. The UNHCR was a big opponent of this list because it leads to automatically return of deny of asylum. Minister Verdonk reacted that there is always space for an individual review. She said that “this
77 Trouw, 01-02-2002. “Tweede Kamer moppert over migratiebeleid van de EU”. 78 ANP, 21-06-2002. “Geen vast Europees politiekorps voor grensbewaking”. 79 ANP, 21-06-2002. “Kok: handelsakkoorden drukmiddel EU-asielbeleid”. 80 ANP, 03-06-2003. “Kabinet wil toch aanmeldcentra binnen EU”. 81 ANP, 19-06-2003. “Nederland wil toch asielkampen buiten EU”. 82 ANP, 20-06-2003. “Nederland mag proefopvang asielzoekers buiten EU starten”. 36 condition [the individual review] is in the plan under pressure of the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries”.83 In April 2004 the European Minister of Justice agreed on the criteria for the list of safe countries. Minister Donner reacted that “for the Netherlands the system doesn’t change that much. Only know we don’t decide on our own if a country is safe to return an asylum seeker. Now that happens on a European level”.84 In the second half of 2004 the Netherlands had the European presidency again. The goal of the Netherlands was to organize a common European asylum system. The Netherlands wanted a system for the application and processing of asylum requests for all Member States.85
6.2 National level In October 2000 Cohen promised there will be smaller reception centres, but a few months later, in February 2001 these smaller reception centres still weren’t there. PvdA MP Middel said that Kalsbeek, the successor of Cohen, failed to fulfil her commitment. Kalsbeek said that the organization of the smaller reception centres takes some time and that the COA has a lack of space.86 A few days earlier Prime Minister Kok said that he foresees trouble with the reception of asylum seekers: “we are not in the danger zone, but the capacity of the reception is starting to have its problems”.87 A month later, in March, Kalsbeek said that this smaller reception centres has to be there for at least twenty years. Many municipalities had the hope that ten years would have been enough. According to Kalsbeek it was hard to play break-even with a reception centre when there are less asylum seekers.88 On the same day she said she finally begun with looking for space and possibilities within municipalities to establish smaller reception centres.89 In the beginning of April Kalsbeek had a meeting with different municipalities. Municipalities and different political parties were afraid that, when an asylum seeker is denied, he or she will roam on the street.90 The municipalities wanted follow the policy of Kalsbeek, but agreed that there has to be some form of reception for these asylum seekers.91 92 In June of that same year the VNG and Kalsbeek agreed that denied asylum
83 ANP, 02-10-2003. “Europa komt met lijst veilige landen”. 84 ANP, 29-04-2004. “EU-landen eens over uitwerking lijst veilige land”. 85 ANP, 16-07-2004. “Nederland streeft naar een asielsysteem in Europa”. 86 ANP, 13-02-2001. “Kalsbeek moet haast maken met kleinere asielcentra”. 87 ANP, 09-02-2001. “Kok voorziet problemen met opvang asielzoekers”. 88 Leeuwarder Courant, 23-03-2001. “Kleins asiel moet twintig jaar blijven”. 89 ANP, 23-03-2001. “Kalsbeek start zoektocht naar ruimte kleinere opvangcentra”. 90 ANP, 03-04-2001. “Kalsbeek praat woensdag met gemeenten over uitgeprocedeerden”. 91 ANP, 04-04-2001. “Gemeenten zullen uitgeprocedeerden in principe niet opvangen’. 92 Dagblad van het Noorden, 05-04-2001. “Gemeenten willen niet opdraaien voor gevolgen rijks-asielbeleid”. 37 seekers (like Dublin claimants) had a right to reception again.93 The parliament agreed with this change of policy, only the VVD was against the reception of Dublin claimants.94 In October 2001 the first signs of Pim Fortuyn were there. In October he was chosen as leader of the party Leefbaar Nederland. One of his big plans was that there should be a quota on the number of asylum seekers: 10.000 asylum seekers per year in the Netherlands.95 According to the Ministry of Justice this quota was impracticable because it is conflict with the right to protecting vulnerable people. Leefbaar Nederland wanted to make arrangements on a European level about the acceptance of asylum seekers in the EU. Every Member State had to contribute equally to the reception of asylum seekers in their own country.96 In January 2002 the VVD had her party congress. Because of the rise of Leefbaar Nederland and Pim Fortuyn the VVD made to choice to toughen her idea on the asylum policy. The following points were accepted: an asylum seeker can only request for a permit in the region of origin, where there also has to be reception; the asylum policy has to be harmonized in the EU; no permit for asylum seekers who can’t identify themselves; and asylum seekers can’t get a permit automatically when their procedure takes longer than three years. According to the VVD this plan could be realised within in Aliens Act.97 In February the cabinet announced that it wants to do more to return denied asylum seekers to their home country. “The current return policy isn’t affective” said prime-minister Kok. In the current policy denied asylum seekers had 28 days to leave a reception centre and return to their country of origin. According to Kok this toughening was necessary to hold up “a healthy support base” for the reception of ‘real’ asylum seekers.98 In March there was a large debate in the parliament between the parties PvdA, VVD and CDA about the asylum policy. PvdA MP Middel attacked VVD MP Kamp that the theme of asylum seekers was taken over by Fortuyn and his party, Middel said: “I can’t imagine that the Dutch society chooses for the lock up of women and children who did not do a thing than to apply for a permit”. In his reaction to Middel Kamp said to check out what the PvdA “did too late, or didn’t do”.99 Just three days before his dead (on May 6) Pim Fortuyn spoke himself out for a generaal pardon. Fortuyn wanted to give denied asylum seekers, who are longer than five years in the
93 Dagblad van het Noorden, 29-06-2001. “Rijk vangt uitgeprocedeerde asielzoekers op”. 94 Het Parool, 29-06-2001. “Afspraken gemeenten over asiel”. 95 ANP, 25-10-2001. “Leefbaar Nederland wil asielzoekers maximeren”. 96 Leeuwarder Courant, 26-10-2001. “Quotum voor asielzoekers mag niet”. 97 NRC Handelsblad, 26-01-2002. “Congres VVD scherper in asielkwestie; Onder druk van Fortuyn”. 98 ANP, 01-02-2002. “Kabinet wil af van uitgeprocedeerde asielzoekers”. 99 Trouw, 21-04-2002. “Asieldebat ontaardt in verkiezingsstrijd”. 38
Netherlands, a permit. One day earlier Minister Van Boxtel of Integration also made a plea for a generaal pardon.100 In the summer of 2002 the first cabinet Balkenende came into office. This coalition was formed by the CDA, VVD and de big newcomer, the populist party LPF. The coalition agreement stated that “the procedure of the Dutch asylum policy will be sharpened”. Asylum seekers (who are often economic migrants according to the coalition agreement) register themselves without the right documentation to slow down their asylum request. The plan the coalition had, was that the asylum seeker need some form of identification to enter the asylum procedure. With this identification they have to state that there was no possibility to make a request somewhere else. The coalition also wanted to get rid of the rule that when the procedure takes longer than three years the asylum seeker gets a permit. 101 Only after a few weeks the cabinet came into office there was a lot to do about the new Minister of Alien policy and Integration Nawijn (LPF). In the end of August he said in an interview with newspapers Volkskrant and Trouw that he wanted to stop subsidized project with allochtonen (those people who aren’t from the Netherlands). He also demanded that municipalities have to cooperate with the return of denied asylum seekers and illegals. When a municipality fails to do this, the government will return this people. The CDA wanted that Minister Nawijn stopped with the launch of his plans in the media. The VVD reacted astonished on the plans of Minister Nawijn and waited until Nawijn came with plans that were practical to work with.102 On 5 September there was a debate between Minister Nawijn and the parliament, which led to a huge clash between Nawijn and the opposition. Minister Nawijn was said he was the ‘minister of Irritation and Intimidation’. SP MP Kant said that minister Nawijn was “talking nonsense”.103 A week later it was Prinsjesdag (the day the government presents her ideas for the next year, but also looks back on last year). On this day the government presented a huge pack of measurements to limit immigration, and promotes integration. Prime-minister Balkenende reacted that there was a “lack of commitment within the integration and immigration policy”. Minister Nawijn said “we were to nice”.104 A few weeks after the summer of 2002, to be precise, 86 days, the first cabinet Balkenende resigned. According to the Volkskrant minister Nawijn accomplished four things in the field of asylum and integration: a huge part of the Afghan asylum seekers can return to
100 Het Parool, 03-05-2002. “Pim Fortuyn is plotseling aardig voor de illegalen”. 101 Tweede Kamer, vergaderjaar 2001-2002, 28375, nr. 5 102 ANP, 28-08-2002. “Tweede Kamer hekelt uitspraken Nawijn”. 103 Het Parool, 06-09-2002.”Kamer boos: lulpraat Nawijn”. 104 ANP, 14-09-2002. “Nawijn: We zijn te lief geweest”. 39
Afghanistan; Dublin claimants can get reception; municipalities got money for the integration of migrations; and he gave two asylum seekers a permit, while his civil servants didn’t want to give a permit.105 In the end of October the government had to end the current asylum procedure for asylum seekers in reception centres. This was decided by the Court of Justice in The Hague. According to the court the asylum seekers in the procedure were being robbed of their freedom, which is in conflict with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.106 In the beginning of December the leader of the CDA, Verhagen, came with a new plan for the reception of denied asylum seekers. He said that asylum seekers that don’t have a right to reception in an asylum seeking centre but can stay in the Netherlands for a period of time should get a right to sober reception, instead of no reception at all. According to Verhagen it can’t be that municipalities are sharing the burden of homeless asylum seekers. His plan was to place these asylum seekers in, for instance, barracks. GL reacted surprised to the new plan of Verhagen. GL leader Halsema said “it looks like he is committing himself to the position of asylum seekers that live on the streets. In the first place this wasn’t a thing for the CDA”.107 The parties LPF and VVD were against this form of reception because of the extra costs.108 In February 2003 there was a huge debate between the parliament and minister Nawijn. Almost every party, except for his own party, the LPF, said that Nawijn acted “irresponsible and ill” when he said that specific groups of asylum seekers can get a permit. The different supporters and opponents of this plan reacted that he “gave false hope to a big group of vulnerable and insecure people”. Supporters of this regulation were the PvdA, SP, GL, LPF, D66 and CU. CDA, VVD and the SGP were rejecting any form of criteria for a group of asylum seekers.109 In May there was, again, a debate between minister Nawijn and the parliament. Many parties wanted some answers and solutions to problems that were still playing with the asylum policy and in the reception centres. Next to that the PvdA, GL and SP almost ‘exploded’ because Nawijn said he prepared the motion-Valera, but didn’t do anything with it, because he “read in the papers it wasn’t necessary anymore”.110 The second cabinet Balkenende came into office in May 2003 (CDA, VVD, and D66). In the coalition agreement the focus in the asylum policy was more on the Dutch language and the return of the asylum
105 De Volkskrant, 19-10-2002. “De erfenis van het kabinet-Balkenende”. 106 ANP, 31-10-2002. “Staat moet asielaanvraagprocedure aanpassen’. 107 ANP, 02-12-2002. “CDA wil noodopvang voor dakloze asielzoekers”. 108 ANP, 03-12-2002. “Kamermeerderheid wil noodopvang asielzoekers”. 109 ANP, 18-02-2003. ‘Tweede Kamer noemt handelswijze Nawijn onverantwoord’. 110 ANP, 14-05-2003. “Tweede Kamer kapittelt lakse Nawjin”. 40 seekers. An asylum seeker only will only get a permit when he or she has enough knowledge and understanding of the Dutch language and society. This was part of the so called inburgeringscursus (naturalization course). To ensure the return of rejected asylum seekers the coalition wanted to create a special organization, because “an effective return policy for rejected asylum seekers is an essential part of the asylum policy”. The coalition agreement also withholds a plan to hand out a permit to a group of asylum seekers because of “the inactivity of the government”. This plan focused on asylum seekers that are in procedure for longer than five years111. Next to that the coalition also proposed a drawback of a million euros on the budget for asylum, immigration and integration policy.112 VVD MP Rita Verdonk became the new Minister of Integration and Immigration in this cabinet. In an interview with the author of this thesis she said that “there were many changes needed. There was much confusion about the implementation of the new law [the Aliens Act]. Next to that, the return policy also needed a revision”. In September different organizations and institutions (including the VNG, VWN and INLIA) called out to minister Verdonk for a better return regulation for denied asylum seekers. The organizations agreed that the regulation should count for every asylum seeker that is in the Netherlands for longer than five years (instead of asylum seekers who are in their first procedure).113 In October the cabinet came with plans to fasten the return of denied asylum seekers. Asylum seekers who were denied and wanted to return voluntarily could get money with them. Minister Verdonk also said that carriers, like airport carriers, had to take back refugees and asylum seekers who were forbidden to enter the country. This carrier then has to pay a part of the costs of the return of this person.114 In December D66 gets support from the CDA for the emergency reception for denied asylum seekers. Municipalities who wanted to give reception to this denied asylum seekers, can give this under special circumstances. The CDA will allow it until minister Verdonk will come with a new return policy. With the agreement of this plan the CDA and D66 are lining up against minister Verdonk, only the VVD fully supports her.115 In the end of January 2004 minister Verdonk came with a new plan for the return of 26.000 asylum seekers that were in the Netherlands for a few years and started the procedure before the new Aliens Act. The coalition wanted that within three years this ‘older’ group of asylum seekers will return to their home country, when they are denied. Minister Verdonk
111 Tweede Kamer, vergaderjaar 2002-2003, 28637, nr. 19. 112 ANP, 16-05-2003. “Hoofdpunten uit het regeerakkoord”. 113 ANP, 08-09-2003. “Asielorganisaties willen actief uitzetbeleid”. 114 ANP, 10-10-2003. “Verdonk wil snel af van afgewezen asielzoekers’. 115 ANP, 17-12-2003. ‘Ook CDA wil asielzoekers niet op straat zetten”. 41 said that the “new return policy is ambitious, but I think many people in the Netherlands will be happy with this clear policy”. Many social organizations, citizens, schools and action committees were worried about this group of people. The PvdA, GL and SP foresaw great agitation in the society. The CDA, VVD and LPF were happy that there will be an active return policy. The PvdA also supported the plan, but was anxious about the implementation. According to the CDA the return of these asylum seekers isn’t the responsibility of the minister alone, CDA MP Haersma Buma said that “everybody should cooperate in the return of this people, like municipalities, churches and mentors of these asylum seekers”. Next to the new return plan the coalition also agreed for a generaal pardon for 2334 asylum seekers. GL and SP were against this new plan and tried to broaden the generaal pardon. 116 117 118 A research done by TNS NIPO had shown that two thirds (64%) of the Dutch citizens advocated a broader generaal pardon.119 Even one of the biggest labour unions, FNV, wanted to broaden the generaal pardon. Chairman De Waal of the FNV said that employees of municipalities, the policy, the justice department, the IND, and the COA can have moral objections. He said: “suppose that you have to evict a family, whose children are in school together you’re your own children, it is agreeable that you can’t do that”. According to the FNV the new policy doesn’t have enough support in the society. The FNV also wanted a more humanitarian generaal pardon for these asylum seekers.120 In the beginning of February there was a clash between coalition parties CDA, VVD and D66 and opposition party PvdA because the leaders of the PvdA said that locals (such as mayors and alderman) should resist against the return policy of Minister Verdonk. Party chairman Koole had sent a letter to all PvdA mayors and alderman that stated they had to spread and support activities to “show the inhumane effects of this policy”. VVD MP Verhagen said that the letter “goes beyond all bounds” and that the PvdA was in the coalition for eight years and didn’t do a thing for asylum seekers. 121 In the same week opposition parties GL and CU (and some prominent members of the CDA) did an appeal on Prime Minister Balkenende and minister Verdonk to give more than 2300 asylum seekers a permit. Prime Minister Balkenende reacted that the cabinet won’t change its position on this issue and that the cabinet has to execute a thoroughly, credible and honest policy.122 Two days later the majority of the parliament believed that there was room to give a
116 ANP, 23-01-2004. “Steun en kritiek op terugkeerplan asielzoekers” 117 ANP, 23-01-2004. “Kamermeerderheid achter plannen Verdonk”. 118 De Volkskrant, 24-10-2004: “Bijna 26.000 asielzoekers moeten weg”. 119 ANP, 30-01-2004. “Steun Nederlanders voor ruimer pardon blijft groot”. 120 ANP, 02-02-2004. “FNV: asielbeleid brengt werknemers in gewetensnood”. 121 ANP, 04-02-2004. “Harde kritiek op PvdA-oproep tot verzet’. 122 ANP, 06-02-2004. “Oproep voor ruimer pardon blijft groot”. 42 permit to 220 asylum seekers because of their special situation, only the VVD didn’t agree. The left wing parties were trying to do anything to label the case of asylum seekers as special because of many problems.123 After a few days there was a debate between minister Verdonk and the parliament. Coalition parties CDA, VVD and D66 supported minister Verdonk, with a backup from the parties LPF and SGP. PvdA, SP, GL and CU asked for more social leniency, without success. According to experts the implementation of the return of denied asylum seekers will be hard to complete. Next to that there were some municipalities that were afraid that, at the end of the asylum procedure, many asylum seekers will wonder around in the streets.124 In the end of July minister Verdonk made clear that denied asylum seekers who can’t return, can find temporary reception in Groningen. The different political parties supported this measure by minister Verdonk, her own party, the VVD, spoke of a “good approach”.125 In March 2005 there was news that almost one third of the denied ‘old’ asylum seekers, that were in the Netherlands before 2001, didn’t wait for a forced return to their home country. Since the new return policy came into force in 2004, 3450 denied asylum seekers have left without known destination, whereby it is not clear if they left the Netherlands or returned home. Of those who left without known destination, 35 percent already left when they just started the return procedure. Minister Verdonk said that “when they don’t cooperate, I can’t be sure they returned to their home country. The locking up of these people can prevent their disappearance”.126 127 Three years after the death of Pim Fortuyn, on the sixth of May in 2002, the newspaper De Stentor comes with an overview of the ideas and plans of Pim Fortuyn under the name ‘Pim Fortuyn is dead and still alive’. In his book Pim Fortuyn hated the laid back integration and asylum policy. He came with ideas such as: impede family reunion, allow less migrant to enter, mandatory integration and closed facilities for denied asylum seekers. De Stentor concluded that, three years later, this all became reality.128 In September the VVD came with a proposal that involved the reception of asylum seekers that were starting a second procedure. The initiator of this proposal, VVD MP Visser, said it was a test for two years. Minister Verdonk reacted that it isn’t a bad plan and that she will come with new plans in the end of the year. The left opposition reacted exited on this new proposal.
123 ANP, 08-02-2004. “Tweede Kamer zet in op schrijnende gevallen”. 124 NRC Handelsblad, 10-02-2004. “Kabinet beschermt tegen kritiek”. 125 Brabants Dagblad, 31-07-2004. ‘Afgewezen asielzoeker in opvang”. 126 ANP, 31-03-2005. “Een derde van ‘oude’ groep asielzoekers verdwijnt”. 127 Het Parool, 01-04-2005. “Ruim 3400 aanvragers van asiel verdwenen”. 128 De Stentor/Veluws Dagblad, 06-05-2005. “Pim Fortuyn is dood en nog springlevend”. 43
GL MP Vos called it “a breakthrough” and also the CDA reacted positive. The VVD launched this proposal because of the emergency reception centres that were a thorn in the side of the VVD and minister Verdonk. VVD MP Visser said that, when this proposal is accepted, municipalities will have to stop with the emergency reception centres. He wanted that the COA takes care of sober reception centres for asylum seekers that arrived here after 2001.129 Aliens Act The Aliens Act of 2000 (Vreemdelingenwet 2000) (came into force on April 1 2001) restricted the scope of subsidiary protection and limited the right to appeal. This was followed by a reorganisation of the administration of asylum applications under a new Ministry with a commitment to speeding up the processing and enforcing deportation procedures (Hatton, 2008: 17). The Aliens Act replaced the existing three categories of asylum status with one, providing temporary residence permits only, and reduced the scope for appeals. An asylum seeker can have an A-status (the asylum seeker is accepted as refugee) or a C-status (a permit to stay in the country on humanitarian grounds). To lower the number of procedures the cabinet wanted to use only the A-status, but with a temporary status for others than the A- status. (Brequetas-Callejo et al., 2011: 139). The act also demanded that denied asylum seekers have to leave the Netherlands within 28 days. In this way it is impossible for Dublin claimants and asylum seekers who live on the streets to await their court case.130 A new Ministry of Immigration and Integration was established in 2002, committed to processing applications within 48 hours. From February 2003 deportation efforts were stepped up and failed asylum seekers were detained prior to expulsion. In 2003 and 2004 a number of minor amendments were made to the Aliens Act (Hatton, 2008: 36). This Aliens Act had a history of few years. In the summer of 1998 the cabinet Kok II announced that the Aliens Act needed changes. According to the coalition agreement the asylum procure needed some improvement and has to be shortened. This shorter asylum procedure was needed to treat the asylum requests faster and was needed to give the asylum seekers more information on their stay in the Netherlands. The announcement of the change of the Aliens Act was in a year when there was a lot of pressure on the asylum procedure. In 1996 there were 22.879 asylum requests, in 1997 34.475, and in 1998 45.215. In the parliament there were a lot of questions about the Aliens Act. These questions focused on changes in the asylum procedure and the status of asylum seekers, but also how asylum seekers should be treated under the old Aliens Act (Wijkhuijs et al., 2011: 25).
129 ANP, 08-09-2005. “Kans groeit voor opvang van asielzoekers in beroep”. 130 Leeuwarder Courant, 02-04-2001. “Vreemdelingenwet blijft verzet oproepen”. 44
Eenmalige Regeling 2003 In August 2003 the Eenmalige Regeling 2003 131 was presented by the coalition. The coalition parties CDA, VVD and D66 agreed on the regulation. The LPF was also one of the supporters. This regulation offered 2200 asylum seekers, who were already waiting for five years in the procedure, a permit. These asylum seekers couldn’t have a criminal record and had to be in their first procedure. The permit will be valid for five years with a chance of renewal. Minister Verdonk said she “tried to find a partial solution to a social problem”. According to her the regulation was broader than the one made in the coalition agreement, because this regulation only gave a permit to 800 asylum seekers. Verdonk reacted: “after some signals from the society I broadened the regulation with objective criteria”. VWN wanted a regulation whereby a group of 6000 asylum seekers got a permit. This group included asylum seekers who were from states that still have huge problems and are longer than five years in the Netherlands. A majority of the parties in the parliament agreed with the regulation set by the cabinet (CDA, VVD, D66 and LPF). But, LPF MP Varela said, the government had let this people stand in the cold. The plan of Varela was accepted in the beginning of 2003 with almost the same criteria. His idea was that these asylum seekers could have known earlier something about their future in the Netherlands. The left-wing parties were disappointed, they more followed the line of VWN. The plan was that asylum seekers who didn’t fulfill the criteria had to leave the Netherlands on their own.132 The VNG also disagreed with the regulation set by the cabinet. The municipalities said the regulation was too limited and wanted that almost 6000 asylum seekers will get a permit, instead of 2200.133 The mayors of Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague and Utrecht (the so-called G4) also opposed against the new regulation. De four cities were afraid that more denied asylum seekers will get out on the streets without any reception. This mayors also wanted to give the almost 6000 a permit because “the biggest problem is that the return policy isn’t regulated very well”. The VNG and the four cities were going to try convincing the political parties to extend the regulation.134 At the end of September minister Verdonk responded to some parties to say that denied asylum seekers will also be checked when their situation is poignant. When this is the case minister Verdonk can use her discretionary right, of which she said she didn’t want to
131 Tweede Kamer, vergaderjaar 2002-2003, 19637, nr. 754. 132 ANP, 29-08-2003. “Steun voor pardonregeling asielzoekers”. 133 ANP, 01-09-2003. “Weerstand gemeenten tegen beperkt ‘pardon’ blijft”. 134 ANP, 09-09-2003. “Weerstand grote steden tegen pardon regeling”. 45 use when it is about denied asylum seekers. But, in an interview of the author, she said she used this right a number of times. Again, the PvdA did make a call for a broader regulation. Other parties that were in favor of this broader regulation were SP, LPF, GL, CU and the SGP. According to PvdA MP De Vries the CDA didn’t listen to what the people had to say.135 Still, on 30 September 2003 the Eenmalige Regeling was accepted in the parliament. Every other plan that focused on the broadening of the regulation was denied. Next to the acceptance of the Eenmalige Regeling the political parties, except CDA and VVD, agreed that the cases of refugees that are from Srebrenica should be reassessed.136
6.3 Provinces In May 2001 the Commissioner of the Queen Nijpels of Friesland helped the COA to find more reception centres in the province. The COA was very happy with his help: ‘the shortage of capacity is pretty worse’.137 In October 2003 there was a plan that could change the biggest role of the province in the asylum policy: the housing of asylum seekers. The ministry of VROM wanted to appoint houses to asylum seekers with a permit that are now in a reception centre. The municipalities and provinces have this responsibility, but because of the stagnation of the flow of asylum seekers minister Dekker (Housing) said he wanted to this by himself (or the ministry). The costs for the appointment of houses are for the provinces. The minister only wanted to use her opportunity to appoint houses when the province forbears to intervene in municipalities.138 In January 2004, after minister Verdonk told about their plans of the return of 26.000 denied asylum seekers, the province of Groningen is afraid that there will be agitation in neighbourhoods were asylum seekers have lived for many years.139 In February the province of Drenthe called out to the cabinet and parliament to broaden the generaal pardon. In Drenthe the VVD didn’t cast a vote because “the asylum seekers problem isn’t a task of the province”.140 In April the province of Gelderland said they were more focussing themselves on their watchdog function. The province was placing extra controls on municipalities who haven’t housed enough accepted asylum seekers. The province said it is ‘unacceptable’ that some municipalities don’t have enough houses, while other municipalities have housed more
135 ANP, 23-09-2003. “Excuus Verdonk over fout bij advies landsadvocaat”. 136 ANP, 30-09-2003. “Tweede Kamer stemt voor beperkte pardonregeling”. 137 ANP, 15-05-2001. “Nijpels en COA praten met burgermeesters over opvang asielzoekers”. 138 ANP, 17-10-2003. “VROM gaat zelf huizen voor asielzoekers zoeken”. 139 ANP, 23-01-2004. “Staten Groningen vrezen onrust”. 140 ANP, 04-02-2004. ‘CDA steunt Drentse motie voor ruimere pardonregeling. 46 than their quota. According to the province the municipalities have their own responsibility and should the asylum seekers be divided in the province.141 In July the Commissioner of the Queen Alders of Groningen had send a letter to all mayors in the province that they don’t have to cooperate with the eviction of denied asylum seekers. He said that eviction isn’t desirable because there isn’t enough capacity to accommodate these people.142 A year and a half later the province of Groningen again spoke out against minister Verdonk and her policy. Deputy Calon focused especially on the housing of accepted asylum seeker. He said: “I am dealing with this for two years, Ministers Verdonk and Dekker don’t want to hear that their housing policy isn’t working. The only thing Verdonk says is that we won’t accomplish our quota.” 143
6.4 Municipalities The COA wanted that municipalities were being obligated to organize a reception centre for asylum seekers. The CEO of the COA said that in February 2001. This obligation should end a never-ending search for places for reception centres. The CEO said that “with such an obligation you don’t have to ask a municipality to organize a reception centre, in that case they have to do their duty”. The parliament reacted reserved to this plan. VVD MP Kamp was afraid that the number of asylum seekers only will rise when there is more reception. The PvdA said that the ‘moral obligation’ municipalities had at that time was enough.144 145 According to mayor Wallage of Groningen, municipalities should provide permanent reception instead of temporary reception. He said the asylum policy assumes that reception centres are temporarily, but the Netherlands has to accept that the asylum seekers problem isn’t a temporary problem anymore. Mayor Wallage supported the plan of minister Kalsbeek for smaller reception centres.146 In May there was some criticism on the plan [to evict denied asylum seekers] of Minister Kalsbeek, while at first municipalities agreed with the plan that denied asylum seekers can’t have reception anymore. The VDG said it is “irresponsible” that asylum seekers who want to leave the country, but can’t, are deprived of services and are wondering in the municipalities. The VDG said that minister Kalsbeek displaces the problems from the government to the municipalities.147 A month later mayor Deetman of The Hague
141 ANP, 20-04-2004. “Gelderland wil meer woningen voor statushouders” 142 ANP, 29-07-2004. “Alders: werk niet mee aan uitzetting asielzoekers”. 143 AD/Rivierenland, 02-12-2005. “Provinciebestuurder – ‘Daar wordt ik dus echt doodziek van”. 144 ANP, 22-02-2001. “COA wil gemeenten verplichten tot opvang asielzoekers”. 145 ANP, 23-02-2001. “VVD maakt plan COA met grond gelijk”. 146 ANP, 31-03-2001. “Wallage: Tijdelijke opvang asielzoekers moet permanent worden.” 147 ANP, 11-05-2011. “Drentse gemeenten luiden noodklok over uitgeprocedeerde asielzoekers”. 47 said that municipalities have the moral duty to provide services to denied asylum seekers when these people don’t have a right to reception anymore because of the new Aliens Act. With this mayor Deetman supported a group of sixty municipalities who thought it was irresponsible to let denied asylum seekers wonder on the streets.148 In June the VNG and State Secretary Kalsbeek agreed on the reception of Dublin claimants by the municipalities. Kalsbeek underlined that these people can find shelter for a few days or a week, but they have to leave the Netherlands within 28 days. According to the VNG the goal was reached: municipalities don’t have to provide reception anymore for denied asylum seekers.149 In September the COA took over houses from municipalities for the reception of asylum seekers. Municipalities wanted to lose this responsibility and the COA wanted to take over the role of the municipalities because ‘they have the expertise’. 150 In August the VNG lashed out to Minister Nawijn. A few days earlier the minister said that when municipalities don’t cooperate in the return of denied asylum seekers, the government will return these people. The reaction of the VNG was that not the municipalities, but the government failed with the fulfilment of the Aliens Act and thus the return of this group of people.151 In September 2002 this organization spoke out again. The VNG said they weren’t cooperating anymore with the reception of asylum seekers when the government doesn’t act more active in the return policy of denied asylum seekers. The government is responsible for an effective return policy, but isn’t doing a thing, according to the VNG.152 A month later 64 municipalities (including Utrecht, Den Bosch and Maastricht) wrote a letter to (resigned) minister Nawijn. The municipalities agreed it was unacceptable that asylum seekers have to wonder in the streets.153 In November there was news that almost 170 municipalities have helped denied asylum seekers with reception, while they don’t have a right to reception. About 150 municipalities provided shelter and food for this group and almost sixty municipalities provided subsidies for institutions that cared for the denied asylum seekers. This help was against the rules and minister Nawijn was thinking about actions against these municipalities.154 In the beginning of 2003 there was a clash between the COA and different municipalities. The COA was blaming the problems they had with the closing of temporary
148 ANP, 13-06-2001. “VNG: gemeenten moreel verplicht tot opvang asielzoekers”. 149 Het Parool, 29-06-2001. “Afspraken gemeenten over asiel”. 150 ANP, 03-09-2001. “COA neemt huizen voor asielzoekers over van gemeenten”. 151 ANP, 28-08-2002. “VNG haalt hard uit naar Nawijn.” 152 ANP, 21-09-2002. “VNG: rijksoverheid schiet tekort in terugkeerbeleid”. 153 ANP, 31-10-2002. “Gemeenten op de bres voor asielzoekers” 154 ANP, 14-11-2002. “Veel gemeenten steunen uitgeprocedeerde asielzoekers”. 48 reception centres to the municipalities. This reaction from the COA emerged when 58 asylum seekers didn’t want to leave Ameland. The COA said that Ameland and other municipalities, in the past didn’t react, or reacted too late, to the question of the COA for a possibility for a permanent reception centre.155 A month later there was another clash between the COA and municipalities. In the province Groningen five asylum seeker centres were closed by the COA in different municipalities (Stadskanaal, Siddeburen, Veendam, Grootegast and Uithuizen). According to these municipalities this decision came as a surprise to them. The earlier closing of these asylum seeker centres can lead to higher costs, because many of this reception centres were expected to stay there for five years, instead of two.156 Interesting to see is that a month later, the COA and municipalities seems to be like the best friends. Municipalities in the north of the Netherlands were very eager to have an asylum reception centre within their borders157 In April the VNG made a call for a generaal pardon for 6.100 asylum seekers. According to chairman Deetman of the VNG municipalities “suffer from frayed ends” of the national asylum policy. If this group will get a permit a lot of problems will be tackled, said Deetman.158 In December coalition parties CDA and D66 asked to the parliament if they agreed with the plan that municipalities should have the freedom to not end the reception of a denied asylum seekers, until there is a new return policy. According to minister Verdonk this plan was impractical because it is not the task of a municipality to see if a case is special.159 In the beginning of the new year 2004 the G4 and minister Verdonk agreed on the eviction of denied asylum seekers. In anticipation of their return to their home countries denied asylum seekers will be housed in a departure centre.160 The VNG was satisfied with the agreement between the G4 and minister Verdonk. Mayor Bandell of Dordrecht, and chairman of the working group Asylum within the VNG, was happy to see that the government took the responsibility for reception for denied asylum seekers before they return to their home country. According to Bandell the agreement was humane. SP MP De Wit said it is a victory for the municipalities now that they don’t have the responsibility of the reception of denied asylum seekers anymore.161 In the end of the same month the G4 said they want to speak with Minister Verdonk again about the new return policy. De four largest cities wanted that Minister Verdonk took care of better reception for denied asylum seekers who
155 ANP, 16-01-2003. “COA: gemeenten medeschuldig aan weigerende asielzoekers’. 156 ANP, 11-02-2003. “Groningse gemeenten dienen claim in tegen COA”. 157 ANP, 13-03-2003. “Gemeenten kloppen aan bij COA voor AZC”. 158 NRC Handelsblad, 24-04-2003. “VNG: Generaal pardon voor asielzoekers; Oproep tot kabinet”. 159 ANP, 23-12-2003. ‘Verdonk stelt Kamer gerust over asielzoekers”. 160 ANP, 09-01-2004. “Akkoord uitzetten uitgeprocedeerde asielzoekers”. 161 ANP, 10-01-2004. “VNG tevreden met akkoord uitgeprocedeerden”. 49 can’t return immediately to their home country, and therefore become homeless. The municipalities wanted to give this group some form of reception.162 On the same day 31 Friesian municipalities agreed that Minister Verdonk can’t evict denied asylum seekers while there are no return reception centres. The municipalities also said that Minister Verdonk wanted to evict too many denied asylum seekers. A spokesperson of the municipalities said that “there is already social agitation and resistance in the society and that will only worsen when asylum seekers will have to life on the streets”.163 The municipalities of Groningen and Haarlem were also one of the municipalities who didn’t what to cooperate with the plan to evict denied asylum seekers. Mayor Wallage of Groningen said that “it isn’t responsible to corporate with the eviction because of public order”.164 165 In the beginning of February the VNG and minister Verdonk agreed on the eviction of denied asylum seekers. In first instance the VNG said that the policy of minister Verdonk wasn’t very clear, but in a meeting she explained what she meant with her plan. Minister Verdonk said that denied asylum seekers won’t be evicted, but will be transported to a return reception centre, and when this people haven’t left within sixteen weeks, they will end in custody.166 In April the municipality of Eindhoven refused to establish a return centre for denied asylum seekers. The mayor and alderman were refusing because they were great opponents of the return policy of Minister Verdonk. As example mayor Sakkers used the eviction of a handicapped Iranian man. Mayor Sakkers didn’t evict the man because this man could disappear in illegality. In a reaction a spokesperson of Minister Verdonk said that these return centres will avoid that people will wonder in the streets and disappear in the illegal circuit.167 In July the G4 was summoned by minister Verdonk. A week earlier the G4 had send a letter to Minister Verdonk which stated that the municipalities will not use police forces when the return of a denied asylum seekers isn’t arranged by the government. The municipalities were afraid that these people will become illegal, because they will end up in the streets. Minister Verdonk demanded cooperation from the four municipalities. According to a spokesperson of Minister Verdonk municipalities are promoting illegality when they don’t evict denied asylum seekers.168 At the end of July the VNG asked her members if they want to cooperate with the establishment of return centres for denied asylum seekers. The VNG thought her members wanted to cooperate
162 ANP, 29-01-2004. “Grote vier willen overleg met minister”. 163 ANP, 29-01-2004. “Friese gemeenten: geen asielzoekers op straat”. 164 ANP, 29-01-2004. “Groningen zet geen asielzoekers op straat”. 165 ANP, 29-01-2004. “Haarlem in verzet tegen asielbeleid kabinet’. 166 ANP, 06-02-2004. “Oproep voor ruimer pardon blijft” 167 ANP, 01-04-2004. “Eindhoven weigert vertrekcentrum asielzoekers”. 168 ANP, 14-07-2004. “Verdonk ontbiedt burgemeester grote steden”. 50 because the municipalities don’t want that these people are on the streets.169 Half December Minister Verdonk said she wanted to be tough against municipalities that still have an emergency reception centre for denied asylum seekers. As from 1 January 2005 municipalities should have ended their emergency reception centres. Minister Verdonk emphasized that she made strict agreements with the VNG about the emergency reception centres.170 A week later a spokesperson of Minister Verdonk said that emergency reception centres don’t have to close after 1 January 2005. The statement of Minister Verdonk that she will be tough against municipalities was a misunderstanding. According to the spokesperson this statement only focused on special groups of asylum seekers, namely asylum seekers who arrived here after 2001 and who have been denied twice.171 The first months of 2005 were some quiet months for municipalities. In April the mayor and alderman from the municipality of Schouwen-Duivenland had sent a letter to minister Verdonk and the VNG. According to alderman Houtekamer (SGP) municipalities with asylum reception centres are being confronted with “failing governance policy”. The alderman can’t understand that denied asylum seekers are being evicted without any support such as clothes and food.172 In June different municipalities from Friesland disagreed with Minister Verdonk and her asylum policy. Chairman Krol of the VFG said that her asylum policy is “disappointing” and “inadequate in policy as in implementation”. The municipalities in Friesland wanted to take care of emergency reception again. 173 Two weeks later the VFG got support from the VZG. The municipalities in Zeeland also want to organize emergency reception centres again. According to the VGZ Minister Verdonk does not comply with a ‘comprehensive approach’.174 In August the VNG installed a complaints commission, led by the old mayor Patijn of Amsterdam, for the discontent with the asylum policy of Minister Verdonk. The VNG said that municipalities were dealing with asylum seekers that were living on the streets. The commission researched the complaints of the municipalities and proposed improvements to the change the policy. In this way the VNG hoped that they can convince the parliament to change the asylum policy.175 176 In December almost eighty municipalities made a threat through a letter that stated they will suspend their cooperation with the asylum policy
169 ANP, 26-07-2004. “VNG: werk mee aan terugkeercentra” 170 ANP, 16-12-2004. “Verdonk treedt op tegen gemeenten met noodopvang”. 171 ANP, 23-12-2004. ‘Noodopvang asielzoekers blijft toch open’. 172 Provinciale Zeeuwse Courant, 19-04-2005. “Wethouder woest om rijksbeleid”. 173 Leeuwarder Courant, 25-06-2005. “Gemeenten verliezen vertrouwen in Verdonk”. 174 ANP, 07-08-2005. “Zeeuwse gemeenten willen toch opvang asielzoekers”. 175 ANP, 12-08-2005. “VNG stelt klachtencommissie asielbeleid in”. 176 ANP, 17-08-2005. “Patijn voorzitter klachtencommissie asielbeleid”. 51 if denied asylum seekers were being evicted, and left homeless.177 According to alderman Hassink from Enschede this letter stated: “minister, this cannot continue”.178
6.5 Conclusions First of all, Europeanization. Again, just like the previous chapter, this can only be found on the national level, especially in the half year the Netherlands had the presidency in their hands. This presidency leads to the second phase of the CEAS, The Hague Programme. Between 2001 and 2005 there were some signs of decentralization, but more in a negative way. Municipalities made complaints that the government displaces the problems from the government to the municipalities, while different mayors said the municipalities have enough tasks in the asylum policy. But, in 2001 the COA took over a task from the municipalities. The COA took over some houses from municipalities because the municipalities didn’t want this responsibility anymore, and the COA wanted to houses because “they have more expertise”. Next to that, the government took over de responsibility of the municipalities with the reception of denied asylum seekers. The Ministry of VROM came with the plan to take the only task of the province away because the stagnation of the inflow of asylum seekers: the housing of these people. For this level of administration it was more centralization instead of decentralization. Between 2001 and 2005 the asylum policy in the Netherlands was a bit of both worlds, restriction and opening up. The restriction of the policy can be found in the Aliens Act that came into force in 2001. The Aliens Act restricted the number of appeals an asylum seeker can do to be accepted and the scope of subsidiary protection. The opening up of the asylum policy can be found in the Eenmalige Regeling. After much debate and critique from the society the cabinet agreed on the Eenmalige Regeling, which gave 2000 asylum seekers a permit.
5. 2006-2010
In 2010 the third phase of the CEAS came into force: the Stockholm Programme. This programme focused on the further harmonization of a common European asylum policy. A month earlier the Treaty of Lisbon came into force. On the national level there was one of the
177 NRC Handelsblad, 2005-12-10. “Uitzetten vreemdelingen moet zorgvuldiger gaan; Een meerderheid uitgeprocedeerden vertrekt volgens de regels’ 178 Dagblad Tubantia/Twentsche Courant. “Bijdrage onderhoud minderjarige asielzoekers”. 52 most important decisions made of the last few years: a generaal pardon. This generaal pardon gave a permit to 25.000 – 30.000 asylum seekers who filled in their request for a permit before 1 April 2001, the day the Aliens Act came into force.
7.1 Europe Treaty of Lisbon On 1 December 2009 the Treaty of Lisbon came into force. The Treaty has granted the EU new competences in the area of asylum that goes beyond the competence of the Treaty of Amsterdam to legislate on minimum standards with respect to different aspects of asylum. The Treaty of Lisbon enables the EU to adopt measures on (Kaunert & Léonard, 2012: 15-6): - A uniform status of asylum valid throughout the Union. - A uniform status of subsidiary protection. - A common system of temporary protection. - Common procedures for granting and withdrawing asylum and subsidiary protection. - Criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for assessing an application for protection. - Standards on reception conditions of applicants. - Partnership and co-operation with third countries for the purpose of managing inflows of people. Next to that, the Treaty of Lisbon also altered the institutional arrangement over the development of the EU asylum policy. All asylum legal instruments should be adopted in accordance with ordinary legislative procedure. This means that the EP now has acquired joined decision making the field of asylum (Kaunert & Léonard, 2012: 16).
Stockholm Programme In 2009 The Hague Programme ended and was succeeded by the Stockholm Programme. One of the most important parts of this programme was the establishment of a common asylum and migration policy. This policy was focused on the further harmonization, coordination and solidarity of the European asylum policy. One of the goals of the programme was to help South European countries with the inflow of asylum seekers and refugees.179 The programme
179 Europa-Nu: Stockholm-programma. Available at
The Netherlands in Europe In January 2006 the EU started with the experiment to help refugees outside the EU. The experiment started in Tanzania. Minister Verdonk reacted that she supports the help outside the EU “so people don’t have the need to come to the EU”.180 On 10 October the deadline ended to set a common European asylum policy. The Netherlands didn’t make it because “some aspects faced some difficulties, especially in the way we treat war criminal”.181 In March 2006 the Council of Europe determined that minister Verdonk doesn’t work in line with human rights treaties. Minister Verdonk said (in a meeting with the Council of Europa on 26 January) that “our policy is entirely based on and in accordance with international norms and treaties (like the Treaty of Genève and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms)’. According to the Council of Europe the Netherlands has gone too far in its attempts to scare asylum seekers: locking children up to let them return, returning asylum seekers to unsafe countries, returning children to their home country that all fully integrated, evicting denied asylum seekers on the street without any services.182 In June 2007 there still wasn’t a common European asylum and refugee policy. South European countries wanted that when refugees can’t return, they have to be divided over the countries in Europe. These countries then should provide shelter to these people. State Secretary Albayrak reacted that Netherlands was already doing this but that “it is now up to others to also do something”. Next to that there still wasn’t a common European reception
180 ANP, 13-01-2006. “EU helpt vluchtelingen buiten de grenzen”. 181 NRC Handelsblad, 11-10-2006. “Harmonisatie asiel in Europa vertraagd”. 182 De Volkskrant, 16-03-2006. “Mensenrechten à la Verdonk”. 54 policy, which was much needed for the inflow of Iraqi. On the problem Albayrak reacted that the Netherlands did her thing and other countries didn’t. She made clear that the Netherlands provided night vision equipment and other technical equipment to FRONTEX. Later the Netherlands also provided a frigate to FRONTEX. 183 184 A week later some parties of the Dutch parliament had some criticism on the European policy by Prime Minister Balkenende. The SP, PVV and SGP were critical on the change of QMV in the field of asylum and migration policy. SP MP Van Bommel said that “when countries go home and say: actually we don’t want it, but we have to because of Europe; that is undermining for the EU”.185 Next to that he said that the Netherlands can be forced to “take in a certain quantity of immigrants” because of the abandoning of the veto. PVV MP De Roon reacted that that “this is good news for the Turkish people and other freeloaders”.186 In September the cabinet said that they still aim for a common European asylum policy in 2010. According to the cabinet the common European asylum policy was needed to streamline the practical implementation of the asylum policy in Europe. Next to that the cabinet thought that the executive services should work together more and better on a European level.187 Two weeks later the cabinet underlined that the European cooperation should be intensified in the field of asylum, migration and border controls.188 In June 2008 State Secretary Albayrak said that the Netherlands will help Turkey with the organization of six reception centres for asylum seekers with 1.2 million Euros coming from European funds.189 In July the Member States made a new step in the direction of a common European policy for immigration and asylum. In Cannes, France the Member States agreed on the principles of a ‘European Pact for immigration and immigration’. A plan within the pact was that the Member States should consult the others when they want to give amnesty to a big group of asylum seekers. According to State Secretary Albayrak the general pardon the Dutch cabinet gave to 26.000 asylum seekers in 2007 would be possible under the new European rules. Next to that Albayrak said that “the idea of Fort Europe is behind us” in reaction on the stricter watch on the European border. She said that “we should not only keep people away, but we also should offer opportunities”.190
183 Leeuwarder Courant, 13-06-2007. “EU práát vooral over asielbeleid”. 184 Spits, 26-09-2008. “EU-pact over asielbeleid; Nederland merkt ‘koudwatervrees’ bij andere landen”. 185 NRC Handelsblad, 21-06-2007. “Kamer steunt Europese inzet van kabinet”. 186 NRC Handelsblad, 28-06-2007. “Tweede Kamer tevreden over uitkomst top; Verdrag geen grondwet”. 187 ANP, 07-09-2007. “Nederland wil in 2010 één asielprocedure EU”. 188 NRC.NEXT, 19-09-2007. “Soms meer en soms minder EU; Drie thema’s staan centraal”. 189 ANP, 13-06-2008. “Nederland helptbij opzetten Turkse asielzoekerscentra”. 190 ANP, 07-06-2008. “EU sluit rijen over pact voor immigratie en asiel”. 55
In February 2009 the ECJ decided that asylum seekers who come to Europe because of ‘random violence’ should get a temporarily permit in an EU country. The VVD and PVV in the Dutch parliament were concerned by the decision of the ECJ. VVD MP De Krom reacted that “the Court should have built the walls of Fort Europe higher, and should not lower the drawbridge. It is absolutely necessary to stop immigrants who don’t have a chance here”. The PVV is afraid for “a new kind of categorical asylum policy”.191 In March the SP and GL in the EP reacted on the organization of a common European asylum policy. GL MEP and leader De Jong said that “Europe is doing more than her task. The Netherlands isn’t Greece. Every country is different”. He reacted on the plan to align the asylum policy in the EU. When this happens asylum seekers will get an equal change in every Member State. He also said that “this does not lead to dividing asylum seekers in Europa. Asylum seekers will go to countries where their family members are”. On the other hand, GL MEP and leader Buitenweg was positive about the common European asylum policy, she said that “the EU countries differ to much in their asylum policy” and thus needed to change.192 In April State Secretary Albayrak said she will cooperate with countries eastern of the EU to stop the abuse of the asylum policy. She made some deals with Ukraine, which was a transition land for many Somali asylum seekers. She said that “it is of uttermost important that we establish cooperation with countries outside the EU that are labelled as transition countries”.193 In February 2010 the Netherlands said it wanted a fully established European asylum and migration policy in 2012. By that time it should be clear who the real refugees are, and who are here to work. This plan was presented by State Secretary Timmermans.194 In October Prime Minister Rutter repeated this plan and said the Netherlands will come with new plans to achieve this.195 In March 2010 the Netherlands was call to account on the European level because the eviction of an Armenian family. The ECSR decided that the Netherland can’t evict denied asylum seekers with children. With this the Netherlands acted contrary to the European Social Charter.196 In July Minister Hirsch Balling reacted that he won’t change its policy because the Netherlands is “doing everything” to prevent a humanitarian and undesirable situation. When children end up in the streets it is mostly because the parents didn’t cooperate with their return to their home country.197
191 De Volkskrant, 18-02-2009. “Europese uitspraak over ‘tijdelijk asiel’ verdeelt politiek”. 192 ANP, 09-03-2009. “SP tegen Europees asielbeleid”. 193 ANP, 28-04-2009. “Albayrak: misbruik asiel via oostgrens aanpakken”. 194 ANP, 11-02-2010. “Nederland wil één migratiebeleid EU in 2012”. 195 Reformatorisch Dagblad, 29-10-2010. “Rutte: snel asielbeleid wijzigen”. 196 Dagblad De Limburger, 16-03-2010. “Kinderen niet meer op straat”. 197 De Volkskrant, 20-07-2010. “Europese kritiek”. 56
7.2. National level
In August there was an evaluation of the new Aliens Acts. Goal of the new act was to lower the number of asylum seeker through speeding up the asylum procedure and lowering the number of times a case can go to court. Chairman of the Evaluation Commission Aliens Act 2001 said the commission wasn’t unhappy: “the Netherlands is becoming less and less popular within Europe to start a procedure for asylum. The number of asylum seekers is lower than previous years”. The commission had some comments on the asylum procedure: “chain partners (like municipalities or VWN) are insufficiently involved in the procedure”.198 In December Minister Verdonk said that is impossible to stop the return of denied asylum seekers who have a right to a generaal pardon.199 In February 2007 the fourth cabinet Balkenende (CDA, PvdA and CU) came into office. Between July 2006 and February 2007 the third cabinet Balkenende was in office, which was seen as a transition cabinet between de second and fourth cabinets Balkenende. The name of the coalition agreement of the fourth cabinet Balkenende was called ‘Work Together, Live Together’. The agreement stated that there has to be more cooperation on a European level for asylum and migration policy. Interesting to see in this coalition agreement, in comparison with the ones before, is that there was nothing said about restricting the asylum policy or the procedure for a permit. This coalition agreement focused more on language, participation, and freedom of asylum seekers. The agreement stated that “the starting point is a just and humanitarian asylum policy and an effective execution of the Aliens Act 2000”. They focused on the Aliens Act on different ways: the procedure to be accepted has to be changed and fastened, and there has to be an arrangement for asylum seekers who comply with some rules (e.g. no criminal record, request for a permit before April 1th 2001) (also known as the generaal pardon). Also for the first time the municipalities were named in the coalition agreement when we look at asylum and migration. The coalition agreement stated that they wanted consensus with the VNG about the housing and integration for asylum seekers that has been accepted for a permit, but also wanted the help of the VNG to return asylum seekers who didn’t get a permit. Next to that the coalition wanted to agree with the
198 NRC Handelsblad, 31-08-2006. “Als het niet heel snel kan, duurt het vaak veel te lang; Commissie levert kritiek op procedure nieuwe asielwet” 199 Eindhovens Dagblad, 03-12-2006. “Verdonk drijft haar zin door; Mensen zullen toch moeten bewijzen dat ze eerder asiel hebben aangevraagd”. 57
VNG that the VNG doesn’t give any service (like reception) to asylum seekers that didn’t get a permit. 200 201 202 In September 2008 the cabinet agreed to spend 50 million euros more on the asylum policy. This extra money is needed to react properly on the larger inflow of asylum seekers.203 A day earlier different political parties reacted on the larger inflow. VVD MP Kamp said that “the inflow of asylum seekers will get out of control”. The VVD and PVV were blaming the larger inflow on the so-called categorical policy for Iraq and Somalia. With this policy asylum seekers from these countries will be automatically accepted. VVD and PVV agreed that Albayrak should abandon this policy.204 In June 2009 there was – again – a debate about the reception of asylum seekers in tents (just like ten years earlier). The COA was placing these people in tents because of a shortage of places in reception centres. Albayrak said in a debate with the parliament that “we are not speaking about tents but pavilions, just like the ones that we know of big events. This is an acceptable and decent form of reception”. GL MP Heemelaar indicated that the division between the tent cabinets is “only a thin gauze and that is why I call this a tent, not a pavilion.205 As a solution the COA sometimes used vacation and attraction parks for the reception of asylum seekers, such as Duinrell in Wassenaar.206 In October 2010 the first cabinet Rutte (VVD, CDA & PVV) came into office. This cabinet was a special one, the VVD and CDA made a coalition agreement, but next to that, they made a gedoogakkoord with the PVV. So there were two agreements: one between the VVD and the CDA, and one between VVD, CDA, and the PVV. In both the coalition agreement and the gedoogakkoord immigration and asylum played a huge part (in both agreements the chapter about immigration is the same). Interesting: in the coalition agreement immigration is the sixth chapter, in the gedoogakkoord the first one (before safety, elderly, and finance). The agreements stated that the asylum and migration policy the coalition wanted was ‘firm but fair’. The policy was fair because human rights were a basis for this cabinet’s coalition agreement. According to the coalition agreement asylum seekers should be categorized quickly to check who can stay and who cannot, because some asylum seekers are
200 Tweede Kamer, vergaderjaar 2006-2007, 30 891, nr. 4 201 De Volkskrant, 05-02-2007. “Ruim generaal pardon voor asielzoekers; Alle criteria van PvdA-leider Bos zijn in concept –regeerakkoord overgenomen”. 202 Elsevier, 10-02-2007. “Politiek; kabinet van de stilstand’. 203 ANP, 01-09-2008. “Kabinet trekt extra geld uit oor asielbeleid”. 204 ANP, 31-08-2008. “Vraagtekens VVD en PVV bij asielbeleid”. 205 NRC Next, 03-06-2009. “Een ‘paviljoen’ voor vluchtelingen; Toestroom asielzoekers en sluiting azc’s noopt Gilze tot noodopvang in tent”. 206 AD, 21-10-2009. “Weer 600 asielzoekers in Duinrell”. 58 economic migrants. The agreements underlined that reception of asylum seekers preferably takes place in the country or region of origin. The cabinet wanted a good execution of the Dublin Treaty, the Dublin regulation and other rules where the asylum requests are being treated by the countries that are responsible for these requests. Also the processing applications had to be as effective, efficient and thoroughly as possible through: - Faster procedures and no more legal assistance with the second or third request. - Making objections about the lack of identification of undocumented asylum seekers. - No more fraud through the exchange of information and documents - A change in the Qualification Directive. Another plan was that family members of accepted asylum seekers who came to the Netherlands do not get an asylum status automatically, but are seen as family migrants. 207 In this new cabinet Gerd Leers of the CDA became the new Minister of Immigration, Integration and Asylum. His task was to “lower the inflow of immigrants substantially”.208 In 2010 the PvdA presented a new plan that children of asylum seekers can’t live on the streets anymore because it is unacceptable. According to PvdA MP Spekman children living on the streets were “one of the biggest drawbacks” of the asylum policy. The plan withhold that municipalities, with cooperation of the government, can organize emergency reception centres.209
Generaal pardon In 2006 and 2007 the call for a generaal pardon became larger and larger. With this generaal pardon asylum seekers that filled in for asylum under the old Aliens Act (and were waiting for five year) and haven’t heard if they can stay or not will get a permit. A precondition was that the asylum seeker is not guilty of a crime. In October 2006 a research was done by TNS NIPO about a generaal pardon. The result was that two thirds of the Dutch citizens wanted a generaal pardon.210 In February 2007 the new cabinet launched the plans for a generaal pardon. In April there was news that the Ministry of Justice and the VNG disagreed about the generaal pardon. The VNG did not say about which part there was a disagreement and that they will only agree when they are absolutely sure that none of the asylum seekers will end up in the streets.211 But at the end of April there was an agreement between State Secretary
207 Vrijheid en verantwoordelijkheid. Regeerakkoord VVD-CDA; Gedoogakkoord VVD-PVV-CDA. 208 NRC Handelsblad. 11-10-2010. “Immigratie en Asiel: Gerd Leers (59)”. 209 Provinciale Zeeuwse Courant, 30-11-2010. “PvdA: ‘kind van illegaal niet laten verkommeren”. 210 Reformatorisch Dagblad, 26-10-2006. “Schoon schip maken met generaal pardon”. 211 Trouw, 04-04-2007. “Generaal pardon laat nog wel even op zich wachten”. 59
Albayrak and the VNG. Municipalities will have to take care, as soon as possible but before 2009, for ‘adequate housing facilities’. The VNG also promised to stop with the emergency reception centres of denied asylum seekers that are not covered by the generaal pardon.212 To do this the municipalities will got a budget of 55 million euros. These 55 million euros were intended for income support for these asylum seekers, and for the decoration of future houses for this group.213 In reaction some municipalities, such as Groningen, Amsterdam, Apeldoorn and Eindhoven, said they didn’t want to stop with the emergency reception centres.214 215 According to State Secretary Albayrak the generaal pardon will cover between 25.000 and 30.000 asylum seekers. This group was based on numbers in the hands of the Ministry of Justice.216 In June there was a debate about the generaal pardon in the parliament. The PvdA, GL and SP wanted to broaden the generaal pardon. PvdA MP Spekman had his doubts about the asylum seekers who left from 2001 to another EU Member State, filled in a request for asylum over there, and came back to the Netherlands. According to the rules of the generaal pardon these Dublin claimants couldn’t get a permit because they were not in the Netherlands for all those years. According to PvdA MP Spekman the Netherlands is responsible for these people and thus should these people be covered by the generaal pardon. Also GL and SP supported the idea of the PvdA. The CDA warned about a broadening of the generaal pardon. CDA MP Van de Camp said that “the regulation knows clear criteria’s to decide who can get a permit. As for instance if Dublin claimants can get a permit, why not all the people who came here between 1 January and 13 December 2006? Or when someone does not meet the requirements on a small part of the regulation? Let’s just start with the implementation and stop the discussions on how the plan is or could be”. VVD, PVV and SGP were very critical about the generaal pardon. According to the SGP a generaal pardon loses sight of the individual asylum seekers. The leader of the SGP, Van der Vlies, said that “in a good asylum policy mercy and justice live together. A generaal pardon only knows the concept of mercy, when it is actually a form of injustice”.217 State Secretary Albayrak reacted that it is undesirable and impartible to broaden the generaal pardon. She said that she made a choice to exclude asylum seekers who left the Netherlands: “when asylum seekers take the risk to go
212 Trouw, 28-04-2007. “identiteitsfraude staat pardon niet in de weg”. 213 De Volkskrant, 28-04-2007. “Akkoord over pardon asielzoekers; Gemeenten krijgen 55 miljoen euro voor uitvoering regeling; zij moeten afzien van noodopvang uitgeprocedeerden”. 214 NRC handelsblad, 23-05-2007. “Pardonregeling krijgt steun van gemeenten; Voorbehoud zorgplicht”. 215 De Stentor/Apeldoornse Courant, 24-05-2007. “Asielzoeker op straat”. 216 ANP, 25-05-2007. “Pardonregeling voor pakweg 30.000 asielzoekers”. 217 Reformatorisch Dagblad, 07-06-2007. “CDA tegen verruiming pardon”. 60 asylum shopping in other countries, they left the Netherlands.’218 In August State Secretary Albayrak said that until the end of August 12.600 denied asylum seekers heard that they can stay in the Netherlands. Of these 12.600 asylum seekers 6900 people accepted this offer.219 In September the Ministry of Justice presented her budget for the next year, which stated that the ministry pays almost 360 million euros for the generaal pardon. Almost 138 million euros is reserved for the COA in 2008 and 43 million euros for 2009. 55 million euros is reserved for the VNG.220 In December 2008 State Secretary Albayrak decided that the generaal pardon will end on 1 January 2009. The first plan was that the generaal pardon should end on 1 January 2008, but it lasted a year longer at the request of the municipalities. She said that “it was never the purpose that the generaal pardon lasted forever”. 221 In April 2012 there was an evaluation of the generaal pardon. The WODC concluded that the generaal pardon was executed well, but not had to be repeated. According to Minister Leers the generaal pardon was an ‘emergency measure’ to get rid of the many and long asylum procedures. He said that when this problem occurs again it is better to fasten the asylum procedure. In this way the denied asylum seekers are staying here not longer than is necessary.222
7.3 Provinces In March 2006 the province of Groningen helped the institution IMA that gives information about the asylum policy. The province gives this institution 30.000 euros. The IMA gives answers to citizens and institutions about the asylum policy. According to the province the ‘asylum policy of minister Verdonk is still a hot item’.223 In April the IPO send a letter to Minister Verdonk about the housing of accepted asylum seekers. The letter states that in the second half of 2005 the provinces payed mush effort to realize the quota and the arrear of the municipalities with the housing of accepted asylum seekers... The letter treats four problems (IPO, 2015): 1. Denying of houses. Often asylum seekers deny a house because these people found a house in other municipalities. This is especially the problem in smaller municipalities.
218 ANP, 07-06-2007. “Geen ruimere pardonregeling”. 219 Reformatorisch Dagblad, 30-08-2007. “Duizenden mogen door pardon toch blijven”. 220 ANP, 18-09-2007. “Pardonregeling kost Justitie 360 miljoen euro”. 221 ANP, 09-12-2008. “Albayrak zet punt achter pardon voor asielzoekers”. 222 ANP, 17-04-2012. “Leers: generaal pardon was noodgreep”. 223 Dagblad van het Noorden, 15-03-2006, “Vraagbaak asielbeleid blijft nog een jaar” 61
2. Problems with identification. Accepted asylum seekers only can get a house when they have the right papers. 3. Singles. At the moment almost 90% of the people in reception centers are singles. 4. The reorganization of the COA. In March there was a reorganization of the COA which led to a lower number of regional project leaders who focused on housing. The ministry want the redistribute these people, but the provinces disagree because every municipalities should satisfy their quota and because of financial effects. In November the province of Gelderland comes with a plan to use one million euros for the reception of homeless, denied asylum seekers. With this plan the province wants to show it is against the policy of Verdonk, who doesn’t accept that lower levels of administration take action to soften the return policy.224
7.4. Municipalities In March 2006 the municipality of Wageningen gave reception to denied asylum seekers because it was expected that this group of people will get a generaal pardon after the elections. This measure wasn’t well received in the parliament. CDA MP Van Fessem said that “in this way you will rear false hope with asylum seekers that are denied”. The LPF said that disobedient municipalities should be cut in their fund for municipalities.225 In June the VNG called out to minister Verdonk to give a generaal pardon to denied asylum seekers who filled in a request for a permit before April 2001.226 In December about forty municipalities made a demand for 4.9 million euros at the address of minster Verdonk. This number was presented as contribution for the reception of asylum seekers. The joint claim was expected to rise because there were other municipalities that wanted money from minister Verdonk. The municipalities, including Utrecht, Groningen, Eindhoven and Heerlen, demanded a compensation for the costs they made for the asylum seekers who yet got a permit and asylum seekers who were put on the streets unfairly. The municipalities also claimed the costs for the reception of children of asylum seekers who could wait for their procedure in the Netherlands. In 2002 the Ministry of Justice and municipalities agreed that they can declare fifteen euros per day per asylum seeker.227 In December more than ninety municipalities made a plea for new policy that should prevent the eviction of denied asylum seekers. The municipalities also
224 De Gelderlander, 02-11-2006. “1 miljoen ‘asielgeld’ ligt al op de plank’. 225 De Telegraaf, 23-03-2006. “Afgewezen asielzoekers welkom in Wageningen”. 226 Trouw, 19-06-2006. “En weer is er de roep om een generaal pardon; uitgeprocedeerde asielzoekers” 227 BN/DeStem, 01-12-2006. “Tholen claimt 20.000 euro bij Rita Verdonk”. 62 made a plea for a generaal pardon for asylum seekers that started the procedure before 2001 in the Netherlands and are still in the Netherlands.228 In June 2007 State Secretary Albayrak obligated the municipalities to give the names of illegal asylum seekers who fall outside the generaal pardon. On basis of this list these asylum seekers can be found and returned to their home country.229 Many municipalities refused to give these lists to the state secretary.230 Mayor Bakker of Hilversum spoke of ‘treason’. In July the VNG and state secretary Albayrak agreed that the municipalities don’t have to make list of illegal asylum seekers. They agreed that the Ministry of Justice can gain insight in the information about illegal asylum seekers. 231 A week later Albayrak said she will address municipalities who won’t give any information about illegals because of the legal duty to give this information which was needed to implement the Aliens Act.232 The parties VVD and PVV said that Albayrak had to use every juridical means to oblige municipalities to give the list of illegal asylum seekers.233 At the end of the year it became clear that almost none of the 25 largest municipalities didn’t want cooperate with the return of illegal asylum seekers. Only Zwolle had delivered the information about illegals, others say they didn’t had the information, or weren’t willing to give the information.234 In October 2008 there was a new clash between municipalities and State Secretary Albayrak. The State Secretary wanted that municipalities stopped their help to asylum seekers. Many municipalities denied this because the State Secretary didn’t hold her word: a limitation of the number of asylum seekers that is evicted. Of the ninety reception centres in different municipalities the Netherlands, forty wanted to stay open, 21 still doubted.235 In April 2009 Amsterdam said that she wanted to precede with the emergency reception centres. A week earlier State Secretary Albayrak said that she was counting on the municipalities that they will stop with the emergency reception centres at the end of 2009.236 In January 2010 the municipalities had to stop their emergency reception centres for asylum seekers. In the end of March Minister Hirsch Ballin of Justice wrote that the number of emergency reception centre is going down. Many municipalities were saying that the
228 ANP, 07-12-2006. “Gemeenten willen nieuw beleid asielzoekers”. 229 Brabants Dagblad, 27-06-2007. “Albayrak eist illegalenlijst”. 230 De Gooi- en Eemlander, 04-07-2007. “Albayrak: geen zoekmachine voor illegalen”. 231 Trouw, 10-07-2007. “Albayrak en VNG smoren discussie illegalenlijsten”. 232 ANP, 17-07-2007. “Albayrak al onwillige pardongemeenten vermanen”. 233 Reformatorisch Dagblad, 19-07-2007. “Deel Kamer: Actie tegen gemeenten; weer discussie over illegalen”. 234 Reformatorisch Dagblad, 28-12-2007. “Gemeenten weigeren illegalen door the geven; Alleen Zwolle werkt mee met het Rjik”. 235 Leeuwarder Courant, 21-10-2008. “Gemeenten: geen stop noodopvang”. 236 ANP, 15-04-2006.”Amsterdam gaat door met opvang illegalen”. 63 government didn’t do her job or responsibility with the housing and evicting of denied asylum seekers.237
7.5. Conclusions Also here there can be seen more of Europeanization on the national level than on the lower levels of administration. This can be found in the further harmonization of the asylum policy on the European level. When we look to this five year period there are almost no signs of further decentralisation of tasks in the field of asylum to the lower levels of administration. The only sign can be found in the coalition agreement of the fourth cabinet Balkenende that they want more input from the VNG, which actually even can’t be seen as a task, but more of a supporting role. When we look to the restriction and opening we can see similar issues with the previous chapter. The opening up of giving a group of people a permit, only to a much large group than in the previous chapter. But restriction also played a huge role in these five year, partially also because of the coalition agreement between VVD, CDA and PVV, while in the cabinet before the cabinet Rutte the coalition parties don’t say a thing about the restriction of the asylum policy in the Netherlands.
6. 2011-2015
In the last five years the inflow of asylum seekers started to rise again because of war in the Middle East and problems in Africa. In these five year the Nether leads tried to change the European asylum policy, under pressure of the PVV. The then Minister of Asylum, Leers faced a hard time in parliament with a special measure for children, the kinderpardon, and in Europe. In 2012 the second cabinet Rutte (VVD and PvdA) came into force. It often occurred that these two parties disagreed on the asylum policy. On a European level the Member States talked about solutions to lower or stop the inflow of asylum seekers, such as a burden sharing and reception in the region.
8.1 Europe
237 Trouw, 06-04-2010. “Het is elke dag opnieuw duimen voor een slaapplekje; Utrecht wil uitgeprocedeerde moeders en kinderen niet in de kou zetten”. 64
In 2011 the European institutions adopted a number of measures further developing the European legislative framework for immigration and asylum. This particularly regarded asylum, legal migration and border controls (Peers, 2012: 199). In the area of asylum the most important development was the agreement and adoption of the Directive recasting the qualification Directive (Peers, 2012: 201). The title of the Directive – changed from Qualification Directive to Recast Qualification Directive – referred to a ‘uniform status’ of advantages of international protection and to ‘standards’ instead of ‘minimum standards’ on a qualification for status. The new Directive retains the power for Member States to set higher standards, except when these standers would violate the mandatory provisions of the Geneva Convention on refugee status (Peers, 2012: 204-5).
The Netherlands in Europe In March 2011 Minister Leers presented the Dutch plans for the European asylum policy: the change of five European directives. He spoke of “a hard and slow process”. Minister Leers tried to find support on stricter family migration rules in the European Union. These stricter family migration rules were insisted by the PVV in the agreement between CDA, VVD and PVV. Leers also wanted to increase the income requirements for foreign partners and want to increase the age of this people to 24 to be accepted for migration.238 In January 2012 Minister Leers asked for support from Italy for a stricter European policy on family reunification. He said that Italy reacted positively on the proposal from Leers. In reaction he provided help from the Netherlands to Italy. Leers reacted that “the pressure on the borders of Europe should be tackled together. When you see that 90 percent of all asylum seekers found reception in only ten European states, including the Netherlands and Italy, it is clear that the rest isn’t doing much. The burden should be equally divided”.239 According to the RTL Nieuws almost half of the European countries didn’t want stricter family migration rules. In the Dutch parliament D66 and GL said they agreed that the mission of Leers has failed to change the European asylum policy. 240 241 In August 2015 State Secretary Dijkhoff said that Europe has to make a new deal about the problems with the huge inflow of asylum seekers and refugees. According to Dijkhoff the current system – that asylum seekers have to start a procedure in the first country
238 De Volkskrant, 17-03-2011. “Asielbeleid dwingt Leers tot lange weg door Europa”. 239 ANP, 18-01-2012. “Leers vraagt Italië steun voor strengere EU”. 240 Nederlands Dagblad, 17-03-2012. “Leers kansloos in Europa met strengere migratieregels”. 241 ANP, 15-03-2012. “Te weinig steun voor Leers in Europa”. 65 of arrival – doesn’t work in practice. He said that people travelled to other countries within the EU. He believed that Europe had to follow the Dublin Convention, which means asylum seekers have to be registered immediately when they enter the EU. He wanted a different and broader approach of the reception of these people with measures to lower the inflow in the EU.242 On that same day Prime Minister Rutte said the European asylum policy had failed and that some measures weren’t working well. According to Rutte the rules in the Dublin Convention don’t work, just like the registration. He said that the distribution of refugees and asylum seekers is an ‘evident’ one, because the burdens end up with three countries: The Netherlands, Germany and Sweden.243 In September Minister Koenders (Foreign Affairs) said that the inflow of asylum seekers and refugees in Europe is a “test for Europe” and that this “most tragic and urgent” problem of this moment should get “every political priority”. Next to that he said that the EU should hurry with the implementation of some plans within the field of asylum.244 In that same month the Member States came with a plan to share the burden of the refugees in the EU. The coalition parties in the Dutch parliament agreed with this plan. The burden sharing was based on a quota that keeps in account the ‘capacity’ of a land, and what a country can handle. A condition was that every migrant who enters the EU is being registered. The cabinet wanted to add another condition. They wanted to close a deal between the Member States that there will also be an agreement for the long term, like the reception of refugees in their own region.245 The opposition parties in the Dutch parliament didn’t agreed with the cabinet about the sharing of refugees. SP, D66, GL, Groep Kuzu/Özturk and PvdD reacted negative. They agreed that the Netherlands should shelter more asylum seekers and refugees anyway. The CU wanted more money for reception in the region. The PVV and Groep Klaveren/Bontes didn’t want extra asylum seekers and want to close the borders. The CDA wanted that people just get a temporary permit.246 In October State Secretary Dijkhoff had a meeting with his European colleagues. He made a plea that countries who deny to take back their citizens should count on serious measures. He said the “we have be harsh against these country and minimize the cooperation. The time of asking nicely is over. Europe should approach these counties as one. Trade is fine, but you also have to take back your own people. Some countries cooperate, some sometimes, but there are also countries who deny every time.
242 Reformatorisch Dagblad, 28-08-2015. “Nieuwe afspraken nodig voor opvang”. 243 ANP, 28-08-2015. “Rutte: asielbeleid Europa hapert”. 244 ANP, 03-09-2015. “Koenders: vluchtelingen test voor Europa”. 245 ANP, 08-09-2015. “Kabinet steunt verdeelsleutel vluchtelingen”. 246 ANP, 10-09-2015. “Coalitie onder vuur om vluchtelingenplan”. 66
We need to be harsher against these countries”. Next to economic sanctions the European countries also talked about the withdrawing or reducing of help programs as measure.247
8.2 National level In January 2011 the court in The Hague decided that families that exist of denied asylum seekers have to get reception as long as they don’t and can’t return to their home country. According to the court a family can’t be separated, because the interest of the children to stay with their mother or father is higher than the interest of the state to execute their policy. Minister Leers disagreed with this decision and went to the highest court to don’t organize reception for these people. PvdA MP Spekman reacted that “Leers is stubborn. He has to go all the way to continue his inhuman practices. We have to respect the rights of children in the Netherlands and the decision of the court is very clear”. The VVD supported the decision of the court, but the family have to return. VVD MP De Boer said that “the judge decided that this family is denied, so they have to return to their home country. It is the responsibility of the minister to take care of their return”. The PvdA said the decision of the court is “understandable and just”. The CDA encouraged the minister to shorten the procedure. CDA MP Knops reacted: “it isn’t a just asylum policy when denied asylum seekers can find a way to stay here”. Earlier Minister Leers said that there was coming a special reception for families who have to leave the Netherlands.248 249 In the beginning of February SP MP Janssen requested clarification from Minister Leers about the declining position of asylum seekers. According to Janssen “the situation has worsened in the last fifteen years”.250 One of the plans of the cabinet was to illegalize denied asylum seekers. This plan stated that when asylum seekers are denied for a permit they are illegal, and therefore punishable. According to Minister Leers this has to prevent and stop illegal immigration and stay in the Netherlands.251 In May Minister Leers said that he will start a test with a new housing procedure. Asylum seekers who can stay in the Netherlands will get a house from the municipalities which they can’t deny – instead of choosing a house they want. With this procedure the minister hoped that these asylum seekers will get an accommodation faster, what will fasten up their integration. Next to that the costs will be lowered with 65 million euros when these asylum
247 ANP, 09-10-2015. “Dijkhoff: vuist op tafel bij terugkeerbeleid”. 248 ANP, 18-01-2011. “Leers in cassatie in zaak afgewezen gezinnen”. 249 De Pers, 12-01-2011. “Illegale kinderen splijten asielbeleid; Rechtspraak Hof voorkomt scheiding en uitzetting gezin”. 250 Nederlands Dagblad, 03-02-2011. “Kerken bezorgt over behandeling asielzoekers”. 251 Reformatorisch Dagblad, 08-03-2011. ‘Breed protest tegen nieuwe illegalenwet”. 67 seekers will get a house faster because they don’t need reception anymore. 252 In the summer of 2011 Minister Leers announced that he will stop with a program for young denied asylum seekers. The government wanted to stop all support and reception for single and minor asylum seekers (also called ama’s) on their 18th birthday, after that they are being evicted and are supposed to live on the streets. PvdA MP Spekman said that this stop of support is unfair: “when this stops young girls and boys will get into prostitution, illegality and destruction”. Different municipalities reacted furious on the plan of the minister. The bigger municipalities, such as Utrecht, Amsterdam, The Hague, Eindhoven, Groningen and Leeuwarden, could pay this reception their own, but others can’t.253 In September it was Prinsjesdag again. The Ministry of Immigration and Asylum presented the following plans254: 1. Stop the inflow of migrants do doesn’t have a chance for a permit. Real refugees are welcome. 2. Penalize illegal stay. 3. Improvement of the border controls. 4. Faster return of alien convicts. 5. Deprivation of the Dutch nationality when this person commits a crime with a punishment of twelve years detention. In March 2012 the opposition reacted furious on the plans of Minister Leers and Minister Opstelten (Justice) to set a quota of illegal asylum seekers that has to be arrested and evicted to their home country. The plan was to arrest and evict 4.800 illegal asylum seekers.255 The municipalities didn’t agree with the eviction of these asylum seekers and didn’t want to cooperate. Mayor Van der Laan of Amsterdam said that “in this cabinet they were worried about a quota for driving with broken rear lights. If you are worried about that, how can you imagine to set a quota on this sensitive subject?”.256 In the end of August newspaper Trouw did and interview with Minister Leers – just a few weeks before the new elections. He concluded that his job as a minister had failed. His mission was to bring back the ratio in the asylum and migration debate, which had failed because of the polarized political landscape. His European tour to make the family migration stricter also failed. But he wasn’t negative after all, because under his control the pressure on the asylum system has decreased.257 In
252 ANP, 05-05-2011. “Sneller woning voor asielzoeker”. 253 Trouw, 16-08-2011. “Leers jaagt jongeren de illegaliteit in”. 254 ANP, 15-09-2011. “Overzicht voornemens BZK” 255 NRC Handelsblad, 20-03-2012. “Oppakken lukt wel, uitzetten is lastiger; Vier vragen over het ‘illegalenquotum”. 256 ANP, 23-03-2012. “Meer steden met kritiek op illegalenbeleid”. 257 Trouw, 24-08-2012. “Bij mij werd alles opeens discutabel”. 68
September Minister Leers send a letter to the parliament which stated that there are fewer places needed for the reception asylum seekers. According to different organizations the minister could use his savings – of a hundred million euros – to solve the problem that many denied asylum seekers without any papers who can’t solve their problems doesn’t have a place to stay.258 On the third Tuesday in September the ministries presented their plans for the next year(s). Some plans in the field of the asylum and migration policy were to shorten the reception of asylum seekers from five to three and a half months, to lower the budget from 764 million euros in 2012 to 622 million euros in 2017 because of the lower inflow of asylum seekers, that it becomes harder to start the asylum procedure for the second and third time, a stricter return policy, a sharpening of the Aliens Act and immigrants have to pay their own integration exam259 In October there was a discussion between municipalities and parliament. In the beginning of 2010 municipalities had to close their emergency reception centres because of the new return policy, which didn’t work in the end. Municipalities were confronted with a “new group of homeless people” and were mad at Minister Leers when judges decided that these municipalities have to help the denied asylum seekers. Asylum seekers created attention for their problem with protests and camps with tents. SP MP Gesthuizen reacted that “we expect spokespersons of the municipalities, interest groups, and residents of the tents. We want to hear them speak about the history of the case and the possible solutions”. Minister Leers referred to the own responsibility of these denied asylum seekers. According to the ministry these people had three choices: “return, return and return”.260 In the end of 2012 the second cabinet Rutte (VVD & PvdA) came into office. The coalition agreement states that “our immigration policy is restrictive, just and focused on integration”. In this cabinet VVD MPs Opstelten and Teeven became Minister of Safety and Justice and State Secretary. In March 2015 these tasks were taken over by VVD MPs Van der Steur (as Minister of Justice) and Dijkhoff (as State Secretary).261 This were some proposals in the coalition agreement262: - The use of a DNA-test against identity fraud.
258 Nederlands Dagblad, 13-09-2013. “Gebruik besparingen Leers voor hulp aan asielzoekers”. 259 De Gooi- en Eemlander, 19-09-2012. “De belangrijkste maatregel van de Miljoenennota op een rij” 260 Trouw, 23-10-2012. “Gemeenten en parlement in gesprek over asielbeleid”. 261 Parlement.com, Kabinet-Rutte II (2012-heden). Available at http://www.parlement.com/id/vj47glycfix9/kabinet_rutte_ii_2012_heden (checked on 09-06-2016). 262 Bruggen slaan. Regeerakkoord VVD – PvdA. 29 oktober 2012. 69
- An asylum seeker can’t get a permit when he or she was illegal in the Netherlands or is convicted of a fraud. - A change of the procedure, like further shortening of the procedure. - A fiercer return policy. In November 2013 there was a debate between State Secretary Teeven and the parliament. Different parties wanted a reaction of Teeven on the decision of the ECSR that denied asylum seekers can’t be evicted anymore without some resources, such as clothes or food. The CDA wanted clarification on the scope and effects of this decision. The CU wanted that Teeven hurries with a more just asylum policy. CU MP Voordewind asked, together with GL, SP and D66, if there was a letter about the decision of the ECSR. Teeven reacted that the decision of the ECSR was extremely undesirable because it can have a pull effect on asylum seekers but further he didn’t want to talk about the decision already.263 In the same month CDA MP Van Hijum said that vulnerable denied asylum seekers do have a right to reception. Van Hijum annoyed himself to the question who is responsible for the reception of these people: the government or municipalities. A few years earlier the CDA was against the emergency reception, but because of the failing return policy this reception was necessary again. A lot more people came to municipalities to ask help, while it has been forbidden by the state secretary.264 The VVD came with a plan that asylum seekers had to wait the decision of their appeal in their home country. VVD MP Azmani presented this plan because the time appeals takes can take up 64 weeks and with such terms people create expectations.265 In April 2014 there was a clash between coalition parties VVD and PvdA. The parties were debating about the stay of hundred denied asylum seekers who were temporarily staying in a former jail in Amsterdam. The PvdA wanted that these denied asylum seekers didn’t end up in the streets, but find reception in municipalities. The VVD was against the reception of these people. VVD MP Azmani reacted that “when you have to leave the country means that you have to leave the country”.266 In May the PVV filled in a motion of distrust – which wasn’t support by any other party in the parliament – against State Secretary Teeven. The reason of this motion was the suddenly inflow of asylum seekers from Eritrea. The PVV spoke of an ‘asylum crisis’ which was caused by Teeven himself because he bowed to the demands of coalition partner PvdA. The PVV wanted to close the national borders for this group of people. Teeven reacted that this is impossible in a juridical way and that people on
263 Reformatorisch Dagblad, 01-11-2013. “Partijen eisen reactie op oordeel over asiel” 264 Trouw, 18-11-2013. “CDA wil opvang voor kwetsbare vreemdeling”. 265 NRC Handelsblad, 19-11-2013. “Na drie, vier asielaanvragen houdt het gewoon op”. 266 Limburgs Dagblad, 03-04-2014. “Opvang illegalen verdeelt coalitie”. 70 the border always have the right to start an asylum procedure. But, he said, the supervision of denied asylum seekers has been strengthened and there has been started a research to human smugglers.267 A few days later other parties followed in the criticism on Teeven. CDA MP Van Huijm said that Teeven wasn’t doing enough to stop the huge inflow of asylum seekers. D66 also agreed that the cabinet should do something about the inflow, and fast. D66 MP Schouw said it is ‘destabilizing’ for the Dutch society.268 In July opposition parties SP, D66, GL and CU sent a letter to Teeven that the cabinet should not wait with the organisation of reception for illegal asylum seekers. According to the ECSR these people have the right to shelter, food and clothes. CU MP Voordewind referred to a group of denied asylum seekers that will be on the streets – again – in Amsterdam. SP MP Gesthuizen said there has to be action quickly: “imagine that we wait four months with measures, against that time the weather is much worser than now”. Next to that she also wanted more clarification for municipalities.269 In September the budget for the Ministry of Justice was presented. It became clear that the cabinet wanted to use 375 million euros for the reception of asylum seekers, but only once. According to State Secretary Teeven “the asylum system in the Netherlands jams because of the huge inflow of asylum seekers from Syria and Eritrea”.270 At the end of the month D66 wanted to have a debate with Minister Hennis-Plasschaert (Defence) and State Secretary Teeven about the return of an Afghan interpreter, but VVD and PvdA blocked this request. PvdA MP Eijsink reacted that she “doesn’t want to talk about individual cases”. VVD MP Bosman said it was “a matter of principle that we don’t promote the parliament to an institution for individual asylum cases”.271 In October the decision of the ECSR became public. According to the ECSR every denied asylum seeker had a right to bed, bath and bread (also known as the bed-, bad- en broodregeling). State Secretary Teeven was against this rule. He was afraid that the duty to give every denied asylum seeker a right to emergency reception and the selective asylum policy becomes blunt. He said he awaits the reaction of the ministers of the 24 Member States of the Council of Europe about this decision. The VNG supported the decision of the ECSR. According to chairman Wienen of the Committee of Asylum within the VNG municipalities wanted to start with sober reception centres for these people. 272 273 In November it became clear that municipalities who organize
267 ANP, 15-05-2014. “Teeven houdt vertrouwen Kamer, niet van PVV”. 268 ANP, 20-05-2014. “Teeven doet te weinig tegen asielztroom”. 269 ANP, 15-07-2014. “Oppositie wil actie Teeven voor illegalen”. 270 Nederlands Dagblad, 16-09-2014. “Zonnetje breekt door in begroting”. 271 NRC Handelsblad, 25-09-2014. “Coalitie blokkeert debat over uitgewezen tolk”. 272 NRC Handelsblad, 10-11-2014. “Uitspraak Straatsburg dwingt Den Haag tot opschalen opvang”. 273 De Volkskrant, 10-11-2014. “Alsnog opvang voor afwezen asielzoekers”. 71 reception centres for illegals don’t get any money from the government. The coalition parties agreed with the cabinet to talk about a compensation in February. Opposition parties demanded that the government fills in a cheque of 13 million euros for the reception of illegal asylum seekers. State Secretary Teeven reacted, again, that he awaits on the reaction of the other European Ministers in January or February, until that.274 In January 2015 State Secretary Teeven said he will support municipalities financially with the costs of the reception for denied asylum seekers. He promised this in a meeting with the VNG. He still wasn’t a proponent for the rule of the bed, bath and bread, but the CRvB decided that the government should organize temporarily night shelters, a shower, breakfast and an evening meal. The PvdA and CU agreed with the compensation of Teeven. GL MP Ellemeet of GL reacted: “this is a success for the opposition. But it shouldn’t be at the expense of the reception of the regular asylum seekers”.275 In March there was a clash between coalition partners VVD and PvdA. This clash found its cause in a policy paper presented by the VVD. The VVD wanted to close the European borders for asylum seekers. These people should find shelter in the own region. The PvdA was a huge opponent of closing the borders.276 In April the coalition partners PvdA and VVD had a meeting about the discussion about the bed, bath and bread discussion. The PvdA was a proponent of the rule, they say that illegals have a right on shelter, food and clothes. But the VVD was a big opponent because they were afraid of a pull-effect. According to the PvdA the Netherlands had to follow the decision of the ECSR. The VVD referred to the decision of the European members of the ECSR that decision weren’t mandatory to implement, so the VVD wanted to stop the financing of the bed, bath and bread rule.277 A week later the two parties decided that there will be temporary and sober reception for illegals in the five biggest cities (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Utrecht, The Hague and Eindhoven) and one in the return centre in Ter Apel. These reception centres will be paid by the governance for the first few weeks.278 Prime- Minister Rutte said that the agreement between the parties isn’t “the egg of Columbus” but it fulfils its task.279 Next to that de cabinet decided that municipalities that will hold on their reception centres for denied asylum seekers will be shortened on their budget for the
274 Dagblad de Limburger, 21-11-2014. “Kabinet betaalt niet voor opvang illegalen”. 275 ANP, 20-01-2015. “Teeven komt met geld voor bed, brood en bad”. 276 Provinciale Zeeuwse Courant, 23-03-2015. “Clash in coalitie om asielzoekers”. 277 Eindhovens Dagblad, 16-04-2015. “VVD en PvdA zoeken naar oplossing in bed-, bad- en brooddiscussie – Opvang illegalen splijtzwam”. 278 ANP, 22-04-2015. “Tijdelijke opvang illegalen in vijf steden”. 279 ANP, 24-04-2015. “Rutte: illegalenakkoord geen ei van Columbus”. 72 integration of accepted asylum seekers.280 Chairman Wienen of the Committee Asylum of the VNG put some hard judgements on the ‘political deal’, which stands far away from the municipal reality. He said the penalty in the agreement was “incomprehensible” and is a “very unwilling containment of the municipal autonomy”.281 In reaction of the critique from the municipalities State Secretary Dijkhoff wanted to close an agreement between the government and the municipalities. The deadline for this agreement was set on 1 November. When there wasn’t an agreement by that time the municipalities will be shortened on their budget. VVD MP Azmani reacted on the critique of the municipalities: “it is an automatic reflex to react critically. Municipalities have to realise that we can’t shelter people forever. I think it is inhumane to hold people het who doesn’t have a future in the Netherlands’.282 A week later there was a debate about the agreement between the PvdA and the VVD. The opposition criticized the agreement because it was unclear. The problem was that there was a lot of resistance from municipalities and that the coalition parties both explained the agreement in a different way. SP leader Roemer spoke about an “embarrassing compromise” that bails out the government, but not the problems. According to Roemer humane reception wasn’t the leading point in the agreement and disagrees with the penalty for municipalities. He said the PvdA was ‘the loser’ of this agreement. D66 leader Pechtold named the presentation of the agreement a “surrealistic show”. Leader of the CDA, Buma, spoke about an “embarrassing performance” and said that the second cabinet Rutte became a fighting cabinet. Next to that he also said that the Netherlands are being fooled with this agreement. According to PVV MP Fritsma the VVD is ‘the loser’ of this agreement instead of the PvdA. He said that VVD leader Zijlstra had been ‘played’ by the PvdA because he agreed with the “most soft asylum policy ever”. CU leader Slob said he wanted to throw the agreement in shredder. According to Slob the coalition had to talk again and listen to the majority of the parliament that wanted a humane reception.283 During Prinsjesdag in September the Ministry of Justice presented her plans for the next few years. The first plan was that the cabinet wanted to use 539 million euros more for the reception of the asylum seekers. This money is expected to being used for new reception centres and employees for the asylum procedure. The second plan was that family members of accepted asylum seekers can become a Dutchman within seven years, instead of five. The third plan was that denied asylum seekers don’t come into detention anymore. The cabinet wanted to use a bail and hailing as alternative. Those who are in
280 Dagblad van het Noorden, 23-04-2015. “Kabinet dreigt onwillige gemeenten”. 281 De Gooi- en Eemlander, 24-04-2015. “Beboeten gemeenten is ‘onbegrijpelijk”. 282 Brabants Dagblad, 24-04-2015. “Mensen niet eeuwig opvangen”. 283 ANP, 30-04-2014. “Oppositie hekelt akkoord en verdeelde coalitie”. 73 detention should get the change to do more things outside their cell, like following a class.284 A day later there was a debate about the new plans of the cabinet, with as main player, PVV leader Geert Wilders. Wilders accused the cabinet that they forgot the interests of the Netherlands “because you don’t stop the asylum tsunami and don’t close the borders for this Islamic migration”.285 The other opposition parties reacted more moderately on the plans of the cabinet in the field of asylum. None of the opposition parties agreed with the cabinet about the fact that it will become impossible to start an asylum procedure. The CDA wanted to start a ground war in the Middel East to create safe zones in Syria. GL came with the idea to fern asylum seekers to Europe. Leader of D66 Pechtold proposed a plan to accept those asylum seekers who are coming to the Netherlands and that we should “have the decency to shelter these people”. Slob, leader of CU, held a plea for more money for refugee camps near the war zones in Syria.286 A few days later Minister Blok (Housing), State Secretary Dijkhoff, the VNG, IPO and housing corporation Aedes had a meeting about the reception of asylum seekers. There were almost 10.000 asylum seekers who got a permit, but who were still living in reception centres instead of homes. Minister Blok reacted that “they will look for creative solutions to house these people”.287 288 In October State Secretary Dijkhoff said that he will force municipalities to open a reception centre. He said that he “gets it that people are scared of this idea. It is not the way I want it, but there is a time you have to make a decision. Or you let people sleep in the streets, or I have to force municipalities”.289 PvdA leader Samson reacted that Dijkhoff planned a ‘raid’ and that it shouldn’t work like that. CDA leader Buma was afraid that Dijkhoff will be seen as untrustworthy.290 The VNG reacted that such a decision ‘without deliberation’ breaks down the support and goodwill.291 Two days later the cabinet presented a package of emergency measures to cope with the huge inflow of asylum seekers after a meeting with Prime Minister Rutte, Deputy Prime Minister Asscher, Minister Plasterk and State Secretary Dijkhoff. One of the plans was that ten thousand accepted asylum seekers will be transferred from reception centres to alternative housing facilities in municipalities in the next six months. Next to that every province has to organize a huge emergency reception centre for new refugees and asylum seekers. The third plan was that the
284 Trouw, 16-09-2015. “Meer geld voor onderwijs, asiel en Koninklijk Huis”. 285 De Volkskrant, 17-09-2015. “Wilders’ oproep tot verzet brengt Kamer in rep en roer”. 286 De Volkskrant, 17-09-2015. “Oppositie trekt maar één keer samen op”. 287 Leeuwarder Courant, 19-09-2015. “Blok: kantoren als vluchtelingwoning”. 288 AD/Rotterdams Dagblad, 19-09-2015. “Opvang in lege kantoren”. 289 De Gelderlander, 08-10-2015. “Vaker verplichting bij opvang asielzoekers”. 290 De Limburger, 08-10-2015. “Draagvlak versus dwang”. 291 BN/De Stem, 08-10-2015. “Kritiek op ‘overval’ Dijkhoff”. 74 housing stock will be extended with ‘semi-permanent’ houses. For the first plan the municipalities themselves got the freedom to use this plan in their own way. For the second plan it was the idea to find a location where large groups of asylum seekers can find shelter “so we don’t have to move these people from hall to hall”, reacted State Secretary Dijkhoff. 292 293 Some days later VVD leader Zijlstra came with a plan to sober the reception of asylum seekers, which led to much discussion. PvdA leader Samson reacted that it will become a ‘rat race’ in Europe when the VVD plan is accepted. Samson didn’t believe that the inflow could stop through giving accepted asylum seekers less rights. Zijlstra’s plan was that these people can’t benefit from social assistance, a social rental house, or an extended health care package. Samson reacted that “people don’t come her because they want a blepharoplasty, people come here because they need help”. Samson also believed that this plan was in conflict with the European deal to divide asylum seekers across Europe. He reacted that “this system emerged under leadership of the Netherlands and is being undermined by this kind of plans”. Other opposition parties also reacted furious to the plans of Zijlstra. SP leader Roemer send out a message on the social network site Twitter that stated: “do people risk their lives for a denture?. The VVD blew up the support for reception and made the people ridiculous who flee for war”. D66 blamed Zijlstra of an “irresponsible way to play politics” and GL thought that Prime Minister Rutte should take distance of the plan Zijlstra. Zijlstra was only supported by the CDA, which were longer opponents of a more temporarily and sober reception. But, said the CDA, the VVD presented her plans to late and the cabinet failed with the approach of the asylum problem. PVV leader Wilders reacted that sober reception won’t stop refugees and asylum seekers to come the Netherlands. He pointed out that “when the borders are open, they will come. So close the borders now”.294 Halfway October the cabinet came with a new ‘asylum agreement’ between the two parties. The content of this agreement was that there will be extra container houses and social aid for asylum seekers in exchange for services and no more priority for houses. Asylum seekers will get less money for their social aid, but they don’t have to pay their rent and health insurance. 295 In November court decided that the bed, bath and bread agreement between the VVD and PvdA can be accepted. This meant that denied asylum seekers don’t have a right to shelter if they don’t cooperate with their return and that the government can set conditions. State Secretary Dijkhoff reacted positive: “it is great that others share the analysis of this cabinet. Else we should have started all over
292 De Volkskrant, 10-10-2015. “Rutte neemt leiding in asielzaak”. 293 ANP, 07-10-2015. “Kabinet overlegt vrijdag met VNG en IPO”. 294 AD/Rotterdams Dagblad, 12-10-2015. “Asielzoeker komt niet voor ooglidcorrectie”. 295 NRC Handelsblad, 17-10-2015. “Als de PvdA mag, mag de VVD ook”. 75 again”.296 Next to that the cabinet invested 350 million euro more in 2015 in the asylum policy. In 2016 the cabinet is planning to invest 400 million euros. The cabinet was investing more because of the agreements the cabinet made with provinces and municipalities. Earlier in the year Minister Dijsselbloem (Finance) raised the budget for asylum seekers to 835 million euros.297
Kinderpardon In July 2011 PvdA MP Spekman presented his first ideas on his new plan: he wanted that children of asylum seekers, who are here for over eight years, will not be returned to their home country. In a reaction he said that “eight years is such a long period. In such a period children are very good integrated, they belong here. It would be inhuman to send them back to a country that isn’t in their hearts, because they are practically Dutch.”298A few months later CU MP Voordewind followed Spekman with his idea. But Minister Leers reacted he didn’t like the plan because it can develop itself as a pull factor. 299 Since the fuss about the return of an Angolan boy named Mauro the call for a kinderpardon had become bigger. Mauro, who came to the Netherlands at age of ten, lived with a foster family since he arrived in the Netherlands all by himself. Mauro was one of the children that had the label ama. When he became eighteen, he became illegal and faced deportation to his home country, Angola. He made a plea in October 2011 to stay, but the parliament decided that he has to return. Different newspapers called this debate one of the biggest problems within the cabinet. A week later the Dutch parliament granted Mauro a temporary permit to study in the Netherlands. In April 2012 Minister Leers said that Mauro has to return when he finished his study because he lied about his name and birthday. Different opposition parties reacted astonished on what Minister Leers had said. GL MP Dibi asked of the minister was a liar and reacted that he “drags Mauro into a political battle”. SP MP Gersthuizen said that “he [Leers] should realize that he is tearing down this boy and that he makes it impossible for him to live in the Netherlands”. PvdA MP Van Dam reacted that “the insulation with Mauro is still happening. And with him dozens of other young asylum
296 BN/De Stem, 27-11-2015. “Rechter geeft kabinet gelijk”. 297 ANP, 27-11-2015. “350 miljoen voor opvang vluchtelingen”. 298 NRC Handelsblad, 06-07-2011. “Je moet kijken hoe en kind geworteld is’; PvdA’er Spekman over zijn voorstel om kinderen van asielzoekers na acht jaar te laten blijven.” 299 De Pers, 15-11-2011. “Leers mag weer de ring in”. 76 seekers”. This is the reason the kinderpardon is also know under the name Maurowet. 300 301 302 303 304 At the end of January 2012 mayors of six municipalities (including Enschede, Eindhoven, Spijkenisse and Oostzaan) made a plea that fully integrated asylum children can stay in the Netherlands. GL MP Dibi started a petition on the internet to stop the return of young asylum seekers to their home country. At the end of January this petition was already signed by more than a hundred thousand citizens. 305 At the beginning of February 25 municipalities supported the initiative for the kinderpardon. 306 In February the PvdA and CU presented their policy paper to the parliament that stated that families with children who are in the Netherlands legally for eight years and are ‘rooted’ in the society, have the chance to get a permit. A requirement was that the families didn’t thwart their asylum procure. A few days later Dibi presented a motion to call a hold on the return of these families. Minister Leers disagreed with the plans of Dibi, he said that it only causes expectations that can lead to disappointment. On that day it also became clear that there were more than 85 municipalities that supported the kinderpardon, which raised a week later to 105 municipalities.307 308 In April the CDA said that they disagreed with the kinderpardon because it “is inconsistent with the Dutch asylum procedure”. The asylum seekers can appeal to their negative decision in the procedure but, the CDA said, it “is their own responsibility when this leads to a long stay in the Netherlands and thus leads to the integration of their children in the society”. The CDA was a proponent of other alternatives like local advice committees. 309 In May organizations UNICEF and Defence for Children declared that not more than 500 children will be covered by the kinderpardon. These organizations said that Minister Leers shouldn’t return those children who will fall under the new act. The minister reacted that he will not stop with the return of these children: “stopping the return creates expectations. The rules have to be followed, because when you don’t, it will become a mess. I stand for the integrity of our
300 De Limburger, 11-11-2011. “Opnieuw ruziet Kamer met Leers over ex-minderjarige asielzoekers”. 301 The Guardian, 01-11-2011. “Angolan teenager Mauro Manuel loses fight to stay in the Netherlands”. Available at
310 ANP, 22-05-2012. “Maximaal 500 kinderen vallen onder Maurowet 311 ANP, 03-07-2012. “Hoofdelijke stemming asielkinderen de mist in”. 312 ANP, 05-07-2012. “Gewoon uitzetting tot kinderpardon’. 313 Trouw, 14-07-2012. “Dibi: Zet voorlopig geen kinderen uit”. 314 ANP, 06-09-2012. “Leers blijft nee zeggen tegen kinderpardon”. 315 ANP, 21-09-2012. “Slob wil Leers én Rutte naar Kamer”. 316 BN/De Stem, 22-09-2012. “Kinderpardon ChristenUnie boos – Leers en Rutte op het matje”. 78 of asylum seekers are integrated after eight years, ama’s are being integrated after five years”.317 318 On 1 February 2012 the kinderpardon came into force, while a month later there was a debate about the kinderpardon. CU MP Voordewind reacted that he was very happy that the kinderpardon was accepted. But with the acceptation of this bill, there will be cases that are on the edge of the rule. Voordewind said he hoped that State Secretary Teeven will look seriously to these cases. Most opposition parties, and some organizations, didn’t think that the criteria in the kinderpardon will stop arbitrariness. They agreed it was unacceptable that some youngsters will fall outside this group. The age limit for the kinderpardon was 21. Voordewind reacted “while somebody of 22 or 23 is just as integrated as the younger ones. They are a victim of the fact that we [politics] talked too long about this subject – when The Hague settled this problem earlier they would also got a permit”. GL was also one of the parties that wanted that Teeven looks at the age limit. 319 320 In November 2013 there was a debate about the budget of the Ministry of Justice which was largely about the kinderpardon. A week earlier State Secretary Teeven had sent a letter to the parliament that almost three hundred children will not fall under the kinderpardon because they weren’t under control by the government. According to different opposition parties, the ombudsman for children and the VNG this group of children is too big. These parties called for a more generous use of the rules. Coalition partner PvdA wasn’t planning to broaden the criteria. PvdA MP Maij said: “yes, it is sad, but there will always be cases that are doubtful”.321 In May 2014 coalition party PvdA demanded that State Secretary Teeven broadens the kinderpardon under pressure of the members of the PvdA. The motion, introduced by the members of the municipality of Ede, reached out the ministers and members of the PvdA in the parliament to give illegal children who are under the supervision of municipalities a permit. A rule was that the kinderpardon only takes care of children who were under supervision by the government for the last five years. PvdA leader Samson said that the rules of the kinderpardon can’t be changed, but that he will ask to State Secretary Teeven if he will use his discretionary competence. Municipalities were also critical about the implementation
317 Trouw, 04-03-2012. “Wet voor asielkinderen rammelt aan alle kanten”. 318 Tweede Kamer, vergaderjaar 2011-2012, 33068, nr. 5. 319 Elsevier, 12-03-2013. “Vandaag stemt Tweede Kamer in met kinderpardon. Een onzalige regeling die jokken beloont”. 320 NRC.NEXT, 12-03-2013. “Strikt pardon voor asielkind doet ook pijn”. 321 Nederlands Dagblad, 21-11-2013. “Asielbeleid is hete aardappel in de begroting van Justitie”. 79 of the kinderpardon. 171 mayors, including those of Rotterdam, Utrecht and Groningen, signed a petition that calls out to Teeven to look again at denied procedures. Alderman Eerdmans of Rotterdam reacted: “the difference between children who fall under the supervision of the government or municipality, I can’t explain”.322
Agreement between cabinet, provinces and municipalities At the end of November the cabinet and the lower levels of administration made a deal to solve the problems of reception and housing, schooling and integration because of the higher inflow of asylum seekers. The agreement states that these problems play on a local level, but that there is a collective responsibility to solve these problems. The agreement makes a division between short term measures and long term measures. The first plan on the list for the short term measures focuses on the reception for asylum seekers (Rijksoverheid, 2015): - The extension of (emergency) reception centres. This means at least 500 places per region and 2500 extra places per province. - The reduction of the numbers of crisis reception centres and the building of emergency reception centres. - The establishment of an emergency scenario. - A faster procure and a new list of third safe countries. - Small reception centres for ama’s. - Extra housing capacity for accepted asylum seekers.
8.3 Provinces In September 2011 the province of Zuid-Holland decided that they will take over the housing of asylum seekers of the municipality of Comstrijen. The province took over control and responsibility because Comstrijen is far behind with the housing of asylum seekers that can stay in the Netherlands.323 On October 1 2012 the Wet revitalisering generiek toezicht came into force. This law made some changes to the Province and Municipality Act. It also made changes to the Housing Act (Huisvestingswet), which is about the housing of asylum seekers. An important part in this act is the strengthening of horizontal accountability. The mayor and alderman of a municipality are accountable towards the council of the municipality and the province (Provincie Groningen, 2013: 2). In practice there is the following procedure:
322 NRC Handelsblad, 09-05-2014. “PvdA vraagt Teeven kinderpardon ruimhartiger toe te passen”. 323 AD/Rotterdams Dagblad, 29-09-2011. “Besluit opvang asielzoekers valt verkeerd”. 80
- The province checks that the quota is reached within six months. - When this quota isn’t reached, the province sets a deadline (often six months) to accomplish the deadline. - When the deadline isn’t reached the province has to house the asylum seekers, instead of the municipalities. In October 2015 provinces received a letter from Minister Plasterk of Home Affairs which contained an appeal for more reception places for asylum seekers, in particular for large emergency reception centres. Plasterk wrote that “bigger locations have the preference because it leads to less movements of these people and is easier to organize”. Every province should create 2000 to 2500 places for emergency reception centres till the end of 2016.324 Different provinces (including Noord-Brabant and Limburg) said to Minister Plasterk that they don’t want to organize large reception centres because there are getting signals from municipalities that they want to organize small reception centres.325 In an interview with a member (of the PvdA) of the chosen board of the province South-Holland it became clear that province isn’t playing a big role in the Dutch asylum policy. Until last year she was the first spokesperson for her party about the asylum policy on the level of the province. She told that the province works in two areas in the asylum policy: Spatial Planning and Management and Resources. The first area focuses on the housing of asylum seekers. When a municipalities wants to build a building for asylum seekers they have to ask permission to the province, but when they want to house these asylum seekers in buildings that are already there they don’t need permission. The second area focuses on the watchdog function of the province. The province is monitoring the municipalities on the quota set in the housing of accepted asylum seekers. The Commissioner of the King is the biggest actor in the province. He or she organizes meeting with mayors and alderman to support them in the asylum policy, just like the Commissioner of the King of South-Holland did on 29 September 2015.326 As Commissioner of the King he or she isn’t responsible for the asylum policy on the level of the province, but her or she can be politically involved.
8.4 Municipalities
324 ANP, 17-10-2015. “Plasterk vraagt provincies om opvangplekken”. 325 AD/Rotterdams Dagblad, 24-10-2015. “Provincies tegen al te grote azc’s”. 326 Brief van het Statenlid mw. Matil e.a. over Vluchtelingen en de rol van de provincie. Available at
In the end of February 2011 Minister Leers presented a plan – in a talk show – that mayors should have a veto about the stay of denied asylum seekers. At that moment only the minister has this veto. With this authority mayors can stop the return of denied, but integrated asylum seekers. Mayor Jorritsma of Almere, and chairman of the VNG, reacted that “this authority belongs with the minister because he has a say in this exceptions. This keeps the unity in the policy”. The mayors of the Bildt and Leeuwarden reacted more positive. Mayor Krol of the Bildt said the “if I get this authority, I will use it, but with some guaranties”. Mayor Crone of Leeuwarden shared this opinion: “there has to be a legal framework. If I only have to tell the message of the minister, it doesn’t work for me. I am not an executor of his policy”.327 A month later Minister Leers retreated his plan. Leers said the he wanted to talk about ‘a larger responsibility’ for municipalities, when a permit is given.328 In December the Advisory Committee for Aliens came with an advice: let the mayor help with the decision if a denied asylum seeker can stay.329 In May Minister Leers presented his new housing procedure. Within this new procedure the municipality will get appointed a family of a person. The municipality has to find an accommodation within ten weeks. The VFG reacted positive on the faster procedure, but was sceptic about the implementation. Their reaction was that “people have to wait too long before they can start with their integration and work. It is good when this procedure goes faster. But it is a problem to house people on the countryside. A family can stay here, but you can’t place a single asylum seeker in a small village”.330 In July it became clear that the Ministry of Justice and the VNG were changing ideas about this plan. The coalition parties, and coalition partner PVV, disagreed with this plan.331 In September there was a clash between Minister Leers and municipalities. Municipalities disagreed with the money they received to support ‘invited’ asylum seekers and to organize reception. They felt like they were getting ‘tip money’. The available budget of 250.000 euros for 500 asylum seekers was “inadequate to show this people a good perspective in the future in the Netherlands” according to the VNG. This ‘invited’ asylum seekers are people who are living in camps in Europe for years and can’t return to their home country. The municipalities said they have the impression that de reception and care of these people shifts to them, while the
327 Trouw, 24-02-2011. “Leers komt met proefballon over asielzoekers; Burgemeester: Als ik die bevoegdheid krijg, zal ik hem gebruiken ook”. 328 ANP, 31-03-2011. “Asielbesluit blijft bij minister”. 329 Trouw, 07-12-2011. “Of de asielzoeker geworteld is mag zeker een rol spelen, maar dan wel in nieuw beleid”. 330 Leeuwarder Courant, 10-05-2011. “Vluchteling mag huis niet wijzigen”. 331 De Volkskrant, 22-07-2011. “Burgemeester staan vaker pal voor ‘hun’ asielzoekers; vier vragen over bestuurlijke ongehoorzaamheid”. 82 government is saving money and have to take care of these people.332 At the end of the month different municipalities (Schinnen, Beek, Stein and Sittard-Geleen) from the province of Limburg send a letter to Minister Leers to not close the asylum reception centre in Sweikhuizen. Mayor Link of Schinnen reacted surprised because the year before the COA was very positive about this centre. He said that “it isn’t logical to close a good centre”.333 A few days later 26 municipalities reacted furious when Minister Leers said that the return of Afghan asylum seekers that are suspected of war crimes continues. A day later there was news that this Afghan asylum seekers with a so-called 1-F status will not return on a short notice under pressure of this 26 municipalities. According to mayor Boot of Giessenlanden this men are separated from their families on the base of ‘very doubtful suspicions’.334 In December there was a research done by a radio show, which showed that municipalities are still providing emergency reception centres for denied asylum seekers, while the government has forbidden these reception centres. Almost fourteen municipalities were supporting these reception centres for 3,5 million euros. VVD MP Van Nieuwenhuizen was shocked about the size and money invested in these reception centres and said she will ask Minister Leers to stop these emergency reception centres.335 Ten days later the municipality of Utrecht came with the plan to organize reception centres for illegal asylum seekers. According to the spokesman of Minister Leers municipalities can’t organize structural reception centres for illegals, he said “it is against the rules”. PVV MP Fritsma reacted furious on the plan of Utrecht and planned to ask Minister Leers to shorten the municipality on the municipal fund when Utrecht doesn’t follow the lines of the policy.336 In March 2012 different municipalities sent a letter to Minister Leers because more and more asylum seekers, some with severe psychological and medical problems, disappeared in the illegal circuit. Alderman Visscher of Groningen asked herself what the minister was going to do: “in 2007 we agreed with the closure of emergency reception centres for denied asylum seekers. The government would arrange a decent return for these people. But in the first half of 2011 almost five thousand asylum seekers have left ‘with unknown destination”. The letter stated that the recent policy changes didn’t do a good job.337 In April forty mayors disagreed with Minister Leers about the eviction of asylum seekers because this can lead to
332 Trouw, 08-09-2011. “VNG: budget voor asielzoekers is fooi”. 333 Dagblad De Limburger, 23-09-2011. “Brandbrief naar minister”. 334 Brabants Dagblad, 26-09-2011. “Burgermeesters botsen met minister Gerd Leers na ‘misverstand”. 335 Nederlands Dagblad, 07-12-2011. “Gemeenten betalen ‘verboden’ noodopvang”. 336 AD/Utrechts Nieuwsblad, 17-12-2011. “Leers niet blij met illegalenplan”. 337 Dagblad van het Noorden, 22-03-2012. “Noodklok over asielzoekers”. 83 social problems. In a reaction Minister Leers said that this is not the responsibility of the mayors, but of the Aliens police and they can’t veto the decision.338 In June the CRvB decided that municipalities have to organize reception for vulnerable and denied asylum seekers on ground of the WMO. This decision clashed with the demand of Minister Leers to close the emergency reception centres. A spokesperson of the Ministry of Home Affairs said that Minister Leers believes that permanent emergency reception centres are “undesirable and unnecessary”.339 In the summer of 2012 forty mayors said the new cabinet has to end the status quo of 150 Afghan asylum seekers with a 1-F status. Mayor Boot said that “it becomes time we work together to stop this embarrassing problem”. The mayors hoped that after the new elections there is support for their plan, because Minister Leers disagreed with them. In reaction Minister Leers said that this appeal is “totally inappropriate and undesirable”. According to him the initiative of the municipalities gave a wrong signal to those Syrian militaries who are orientating on where they want to flee: “The Netherlands don’t want to be a safe haven for them”.340 341 On 29 October Ministers Leers, Minister Spies (Home Affairs) and Minister Opstelten (Safety and Justice) decided that a mayor can’t intervene in the return of a denied asylum seekers. When an asylum seekers has to return the police falls under the responsibility of the Minister of Asylum. A mayor can’t intervene with an appeal to the task of the police or because of the disturbance of the public order.342 In November different mayors reacted to put a penalty on illegals. None of the bigger municipalities (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague and Utrecht) and different smaller municipalities said they will cooperate. They were feared that it pushes people further into illegality and they were afraid it has negative side effects. Alderman Van der Burg of Amsterdam said that he “is not a proponent of penalizing illegality. It doesn’t help with the return of these people. In Amsterdam we aren’t going to look for illegals, but when we encounter him or her, we got to do what we got to do”. Alderman Vedelaar of Zwolle reacted that penalizing illegality isn’t a solution for her: “how do we have to find this people? Through a hotline? Knock on everybody’s door?”. According to alderman Everhardt of Zwolle this idea is an idea of a symbolic measure with negative effects.343
338 ANP, 01-04-2012. “Leers: uitzetting is voor Vreemdelingenpolitie”. 339 Trouw, 14-06-2012. “Gemeenten moeten asielzoekers opvangen”. 340 Trouw, 17-08-2012. “Gemeenten eisen snel regeling voor Afghanen”. 341 Trouw, 18-08-2012. “Leers: Oproep burgermeesters volstrekt misplaatst en ongewenst”. 342 Leeuwarder Courant, 13-11-2012. “Betrek burgemeester bij uitzettingszakken”. 343 NRC.NEXT, 22-11-2012. “Geen trek in heksenjacht op illegalen”. 84
In November 2013 the municipality of Utrecht came with the result of an experiment done in and by this municipality. Utrecht started an experiment with the reception for (sick) denied asylum seekers. They concluded that it is the duty of the government to provide shelter, clothes and food, but doesn’t succeed. In this way the problem shifts from government to municipality. According to Utrecht 610 sick asylum seekers tried to get reception from the government, but only ten succeeded because “the route is boarded up bureaucratically”.344 In September 2014 it became clear that different large municipalities were having issues with groups of denied asylum seekers. In Amsterdam and The Hague asylum seekers found shelter in empty buildings, without any prospect of their return. The problem was that these shelters were temporarily and that these groups of people have to move from time to time for several years’.345 That same month State Secretary Teeven said he wanted that municipalities hurry with the housing of asylum seekers who have a permit. Between six and seven thousand asylum seekers were waiting for a house.346 The four largest municipalities were afraid that they have to organize reception for large groups of asylum seekers. A collaboration of churches made a complaint about the asylum policy together with the ECSR. The churches said that asylum seekers, also when they have no papers, can’t be wondering on the streets. Mayor Wienen of Katwijk reacted that in utter emergency there has to be more accepted asylum seekers in one house.347 In April 2015 different local VVD members disagreed with the decision of the party to not support the bed, bath and bread. Mayor Van Aartsen of The Hague said that “instead of looking sober and rational, it has more become of battle in the coalition who will win the public opinion”. He sees “huge humanitarian problem” of people who “just say they can’t return to their home country”. Mayor Van Zanen of Utrecht was also a supporter of the rule, he said that illegals “have the right to a meaningful existence”.348 In October it became clear that municipalities will get more support with the reception of asylum seekers and the improvement of their own safety. Teams of the Ministry of Home Affairs will advise municipalities about the organization of meeting about the reception of asylum seekers.349
8.5 Conclusion
344 ANP, 14-11-2013. “Kwetsbare asielzoekers horen niet op straat”. 345 ANP, 01-09-2014. “Steden zitten met asielzoekers in hun maag”. 346 NRC Handelsblad, 16-09-2014. “Syriërs? Gemeenten helpen liever mensen die er al zijn?” 347 Reformatorisch Dagblad, 17-09-2014. “Steden vrezen aanklacht om asielzoekers”. 348 NRC.NEXT, 21-04-2015. “Lokale VVD’ers willen wél bed-bad-brood.” 349 ANP, 09-11-2015. “Extra steun voor lokale bestuurders”. 85
When we look to Europeanization the Netherlands actually only had to comply with the new established Directives. On European level it was more about: how to stop the massive inflow of asylum seekers? For the decentralisation part somethings changed for the provinces with the implementation of the Wet revitalisering generiek toezicht, which led to changes of the Housing Act and thus the reception of asylum seekers. But it isn’t that the role of the province has become bigger or smaller with the implantation of this act. There were plans to change the role of the municipalities in the asylum policy. Minister Leers proposed a veto for mayors, and the municipalities should do more for denied asylum seekers, such as reception. The restriction of the asylum policy is very clear in this chapter. Said in the introduction the fourth cabinet Balkenende states that they don’t want to restrict the asylum policy, to a coalition agreement in the first cabinet Rutte that wants to limit the asylum policy on European and national level. But, within these five years, there was again an opening up of the policy through a generaal pardon, but this time for children.
9. Concluding remarks
So, what happened over the last twenty years in the Dutch asylum policy and why? And what were the effects of the lower levels of administration, the province and the municipalities? The research question in this thesis was:
“Why has the asylum policy changed in the Netherlands in the last twenty years and what was the effect of these changes on the different levels of administration?”
First of all, the reason why. One of the most important reasons of why the policy changed on an European level and national level is the reaction to the inflow of asylum seekers, especially when this inflow starts to rise. The reactions on this inflow of asylum seekers indirectly changed the policy about the reception of the asylum seekers and the return policy. Most of the time the policy changed because of the influence of the national politics. Coalition agreements were leading in the policy changes. In all the researched coalition agreements there was something written about the asylum policy and restrictions in this policy. So it is defiantly the case the policy has become more restrictive. In this case the Netherlands fit in the partialist view of Gibney. Their own interests are more important than those of others. At the other hand, the level of Europe fits more in the impartialist view. Every policy should be
86 taken into equal account when we look to the interest and rights of others. The EU tried (and is still trying) to establish a common European asylum system, not only to ease Member States, but also asylum seeker. But more Europeanization didn’t change the way the Dutch asylum policy works – only the decision of the European Court made some changes. In the data I found nothing had been said about a policy change on the European level with an effect on the national level. Of course the Netherlands should comply with the Directives set by the EU, but there weren’t any signs of these Directions on a nation level. When we look to the effects of Europe on the lower levels of administration in combination with The European Function of John there are minimal effects (step A and B). Indirectly municipalities and provinces have to comply with the set of Directives which were agreed by the Member States. Then, the second part of the research question: what was the effect of these changes on the different levels of administration? The effect of the national policy on the municipalities is huge, while the level of the province isn’t influenced by the national policy. I expected the first, but the second? No. For my idea the role of the province was much bigger in the Dutch asylum policy so I was surprised when this wasn’t the case. I think I expected a role of the province because of the decentralization of the recent years in the Netherlands. But, back to the municipalities, their role is huge, maybe too large. Municipalities have to organize the reception for asylum seekers, have to house these people, have to provide education for the children of asylum seekers, and have to help these people integrate. The municipalities have to do all this – and even more – when the province only has the task of a watchdog. The municipalities can be seen as the executors of the Dutch asylum policy, while the provinces and the national government watches their back. During the research it was interesting to see that there was much fluctuation in the number of news articles. The question is: is this an effect that the asylum policy has become more interesting or in the number of measurements? I think the asylum policy clearly has become more and more interesting, but I think it is also an effect of politics. For the first five years I almost found 90 relevant news articles, for the years 2001-2005 I found almost 200 news articles and for the years 2011-2015 I found almost 300 relevant news articles. Especially in the last five years you can see the influence of politics with the PVV having criticism on everything the cabinets does with the asylum policy. There is also a trend that society is becoming more visible in the asylum policy, like the recent riots in Steenbergen and Geldermalsen. But there weren’t only trends on a national level, there was also a trend on the European level. For the first three time periods (from 1996 till 2010) LexisNexis said there
87 were around 2000 news articles, while for the last time period this were already over 3000 news articles.
9.1 The future? Big question is of course, what is happening next? How does the future looks like? For the short term: in the Dutch politics different political parties (especially the PvdA) are trying to get a new kinderpardon.350 But overall? Time will know. In both interviews I asked how these people see the Dutch (and European) asylum policy in the future and if they see a bigger role for the lower levels of administration. The PvdA member of the province really had no idea, but Rita Verdonk was very clear. She said that she is concerned of what the future will bring, especially on an European level. As an example she called the recent deal between the EU and Turkey about the exchange of refugees and asylum seekers. With this deal the Netherlands is giving up her responsibility. Her ideal plan is to select people ‘at the gates’ in Greece, when they don’t have a passport they have to return immediately. Personally, I also have no idea how it will look, but I have an idea. At first instance I hope many refugees and asylum seekers can return to their homes peacefully and be happy with their family and friends, but that just an utopia. But I think the policy will only become stricter, on the Dutch level, and the European level. In Europe there are more and more populist and (extreme) right political parties that are getting more influence in the policy in their own country. In the Netherlands this is the same, the influence of the PVV is visible and is playing a part in the toughening of the asylum policy. Next to that the society is playing a huge part in the asylum policy, like the recent riots in Steenbergen and Geldermalsen. When society doesn’t change, the policy won’t change.
350 Nu.nl, 20-06-2016. “PvdA dringt aan op rechtvaardige uitvoering kinderpardon”. Available at http://www.nu.nl/politiek/4280571/pvda-dringt-rechtvaardige-uitvoering-kinderpardon.html (checked on 20- 06-2016 88
10. References
Barrot, J. (2010). The EU’s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: Successes of the last ten years and the challenges ahead. In E. Guild, S. Carrera & A. Eggenschwiler (eds.) The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice Ten Years on. Successes and Future Challenges Under the Stockholm Programme (Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies). Boswell, C. (2003). The ‘external dimension’ of EU immigration and asylum policy. In International Affairs, 79(3). P.p. 619-638. Bruquetas-Callejo, M., B. Garcés-Mascareñas, R. Penninx & P. Scholten (2011). The case of the Netherlands. In G. Zincone, R. Penninx & M. Borkert (eds.) Migration Policymaking in Europe: The Dynamics of Actors and Contexts in Past and Present (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press). Castles, S., H. de Haas & M. Miller (2013). The Age of Migration: International Population Movements in the Modern World (New York: Palgrave Macmillan). Colebatch (2009) Policy (Berkshire: Open University Press). Doomernik, J. (2014). Beyond Dutch Borders: A Nation in Times of Europeanization. In Urban People, 16(2). P.p. 257-272. Doyle, M. (2012). Liberalism and foreign policy. In S. Smith, A. Hadfield and T. Dunne (eds.) Foreign Policy. Theories, Actors, Cases (Oxford: Oxford University Press). P.p. 53-77. Fekete, L. (2005). The deportation machine: Europe, asylum and human rights. In Race & Class, 47(1). P.p. 64-91. Gibney, M. (1999). Liberal Democratic States and Responsibilities to Refugees. In The American Political Science Review, 93(1). P.p. 169-181. Gibney, M. (2000). Caring at a Distance: (Im)partiality, Moral Motivation and the Ethics of Representation – Asylum and the Principle of Proximity. In Ethics, Place & Environment, 3(3). P.p. 313-317. Gibney, M. (2004). The Ethics of Politics and Asylum. Liberal Democracy and the Response to Refugees(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Guild, E. (2006). The Europeanisation of Europe’s Asylum Policy. In International Journal of Refugee Law,18. Pp. 630-631 Hatton, T. (2004). Seeking Asylum in Europe. In Economic Policy, 19(28). P.p. 5-62. Hatton, T. (2008). The Rise and Fall of Asylum: What Happened and Why? Centre for Economic Policy Research, Discussion Paper No. 577, March 2008. Hatton, T. (2012). Asylum Policy in the EU: The Case for Deeper Integration. Centre for Economic Policy Research, Discussion Paper No. 660, March 2012. Heywood, A. (2011). Global Politics (New York: Palgrave Macmillan). Hulst, J. (2000). De bestuurlijke vormgeving van regionale beleidsvoering. Een vergelijkende studie op het terrein van de volkshuisvesting (Delft: Eburon). IPO (2006). IPO schrijft Verdonk over problemen huisvesting toegelaten asielzoekers. Available at: http://www.ipo.nl/files/4513/5722/8635/brf_min-vihuisvesting.pdf (checked at 13-06-2016). John, P. (2001). Local governance in Western Europe (London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: Sage). Kaunert, C. (2009). Liberty versus Security? EU Asylum Policy and the European Commission. In Journal of Contemporary European Research, 5(2). P.p. 148-170. Kaunert, C. & S. Léonard (2012). The European Union Asylum Policy After the Treaty of Lisbon and the Stockholm Programme: Towards Supranational Governance in a Common Area of Protection. In Refugee Survey Quarterly, 31(4). P.p. 1-20.
89
Kos, S., M. Maussen & J. Doomernik (2015). Policies of Exclusion and Practices of Inclusion: How Municipal Governments Negotiate Asylum Policies in the Netherlands. In Territory, Politics, Governance. Koser, K. (2001). New Approaches to Asylum? In International Migration, 39(6). P.p. 87- 101. Leach, R. (2008). The Politics Companion (New York: Palgrave Macmillan). Metselaar, S. (2005). When Neighbours Become Numbers. Levinas and the Inhospitality of Dutch Asylum Policy. In parallax, 11(1). P.p. 61-69. Meloni, A. (2006). Visa Policy within the European Union Structure (Berlin: Springer). Morrison, J. & B. Crosland (2000)(pre-publication edition). The trafficking and smuggling of refugees: the end game in European asylum policy. Available at:
90
11. Appendix
90.000
80.000
70.000
60.000
50.000
40.000
30.000
20.000
10.000
0
Bezetting asielopvang (COA > https://www.coa.nl/nl/over-coa/cijfers-en- jaarverslagen/historisch-overzicht-bezetting (26-05-2016)
Year Number of asylum requests in the Netherlands 1995 30.166 1996 29.800 1997 37.720 1998 54.070 1999 64.771 2000 78.246 2001 83.801 2002 69.752 2003 52.714 2004 40.761 2005 38.730 2006 23.232
91
2007 21.698 2008 20.122 2009 21.764 2010 21.358 2011 16.114 2012 14.604 2013 15.394 2014 24.929 2015 27.764
92