‘Fortune-Hunter’ or ‘Future Citizen’? Bottom-up attempts for alternative asylum reception policy by the local governments of Boxtel, Heusden and Utrecht Tom Kieft Master Political Science. Track Management and Policy Supervisor: Jeroen Doomernik Second reader: Sander van Haperen Student number: 10003799 Email address: [email protected] Submission date: June 24th, 2016 Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 4 The differences between an asylum seeker and a refugee .................................................................... 6 Literature review on immigration policy in multi-level settings ............................................................. 7 Relevance of this thesis ........................................................................................................................... 8 Methods .................................................................................................................................................. 9 Case selection: Boxtel and Heusden, and Utrecht ............................................................................ 11 1. Theoretic framework: agenda setting, intractable controversies and multi-level settings.......... 12 Intractable policy controversies ........................................................................................................ 12 Agenda setting .................................................................................................................................. 12 The problem agenda ..................................................................................................................... 13 The political agenda ...................................................................................................................... 13 The policy agenda ......................................................................................................................... 14 Agenda setting in Multi-level perspective ........................................................................................ 14 Policy entrepreneurs and new paths of coordination ...................................................................... 16 2. Dutch national policy frame on asylum reception ........................................................................ 18 The national asylum policy legacies and political trends .................................................................. 18 Creating the national policy legacy: centralizing and tightening up ............................................. 18 The exclusionist character of asylum policy frames ..................................................................... 19 Discouragement polices and political agenda .............................................................................. 20 Political agenda: tough immigration policy ...................................................................................... 20 The national government and asylum problem framing .................................................................. 21 Because they can .......................................................................................................................... 22 Because they want to ................................................................................................................... 23 Different visions on asylum reception policy .................................................................................... 23 An imminent need for new reception centers.................................................................................. 24 Oranje: public unrest and political agenda changes ..................................................................... 25 Political agenda and agenda setting for new policy ......................................................................... 26 The national policy: two administrative agreements ....................................................................... 27 Policy agenda: the vertical coordination mechanism ................................................................... 27 The administrative agreement: types of asylum reception centers ............................................. 29 National ‘sober’ policy frame in practice: large sober reception ..................................................... 30 National ‘sober’ policy frame in practice: asylum seeker integration .............................................. 31 1 Sober, no integration and emphasizing temporariness ................................................................ 31 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 33 3. Boxtel and Heusden: Local policy frame of societal harmony ...................................................... 35 Political agenda ................................................................................................................................. 35 Problem indication regarding scale: unrest in other cities ............................................................... 36 New policy alternatives through experience .................................................................................... 36 Policy alternative: small scale centers for small communities ......................................................... 37 Local policy frame: societal harmony ............................................................................................... 38 Diverting policy frames and agenda setting ..................................................................................... 40 Policy alignment, although frames still partially conflict .................................................................. 40 4. Utrecht: framing asylum seekers as ‘Future Citizens’ ................................................................... 42 Local problems: fear for testosterone bombs in Overvecht ............................................................. 42 The city’s political agenda ................................................................................................................. 43 Pragmatic and humanitarian political agenda .................................................................................. 44 Framing asylum seekers as ‘Future Citizens’ .................................................................................... 45 Alternative Policy frame: Inclusive policy ......................................................................................... 46 Policy entrepreneurialism and policy plans on language and work ................................................. 46 Strategic interaction and vertical venue-shopping ........................................................................... 48 COA’s approval; Dijkhoff is benevolent too ...................................................................................... 49 5. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 51 6. Limitations..................................................................................................................................... 55 References ............................................................................................................................................ 56 Appendix: Translations of quotes ......................................................................................................... 66 Fotocredit cover photo: Bart Maat (ANP) 9 oktober 2015. https://www.anpfoto.nl/search.pp?page=1&ShowPicture=34463684&pos=998 2 Abstract This thesis analyses the agenda setting of asylum reception policy on the national and local level in The Netherlands, and how these settings create a need for vertical interaction in multi-level settings. The Dutch asylum reception policy has been a centrally controlled policy field since the 1990s. Through agenda setting, which is formed by constellations of problem frames, policy alternatives and the political agenda, the national policy frame for a sober asylum reception has emerged. This sober policy frame comes from the notion that asylum seekers are nationally framed as possible ‘fortune-hunters’, and thus investment in the integration of these people is deemed to be undesirable as long as the asylum procedure has not yet decided if this person is a legitimate refugee. This sober reception policy and postponing integration of asylum seekers has been challenged on the local level. The municipalities of Boxtel and Heusden together, and the city of Utrecht faced local specific problems regarding asylum reception policy, out of which alternative policy frames emerged which included immediate integration of asylum seekers. The conflicting policy frame of Boxtel and Heusden finally even aligned with the national frame through top-down coordination. Utrecht set its agenda differently. By framing asylum seekers as ‘future citizens’, instead of ‘fortune-hunters’ an new policy frame is founded in the city of Utrecht, namely: a policy frame in which immediate investment in integration is deemed appropriate, disregarding if a person will stay in the Netherlands, or not. The government of Utrecht pursued its