The spiritual mother of a stack of new asylum laws, Marjolein Faber, has since left the cabinet with her PVV. But her two most important proposals – the asylum measures law and the two -state system – have since been arrested by other hands. Outgoing ministers David van Weel (VVD) and Mona Keijzer (BBB) still want to guide the legislative proposals through the Lower House on Thursday. And they seem to be able to count on a majority.
What exactly changes if the laws are adopted? And what are the expected consequences for asylum seekers, the IND, and the case law? Four main points in a row.
Read also
Suddenly there is still a scope of law on ‘asylum measures’
1. Stricter rules for family reunification
What will change?
A quarter of the Dutch asylum intake consists of asylum seekers who travel after their family members. At the beginning of this year, 42,800 narizers were still waiting abroad for permission to join family in the Netherlands. To lower this number, the outgoing cabinet wants to introduce a ‘two -state system’. Refugees are thus divided into two groups: people who are being prosecuted for their race, faith, sexual orientation or political activities, receive A status. Those who are fleeing war violence will receive a B status.
The latter group receives considerably fewer rights in the two -state system. Their family members may only happen to if the asylum seeker in the Netherlands meets a number of strict conditions. For example, they must have their own income and a home that is large enough for the whole family. In addition, it is limited to which family members fall under the Naareis arrangement: unmarried partners, foster children and adult brothers or sisters are no longer welcome.
What are the effects?
Few asylum seekers are expected to meet these conditions for bringing family members to the Netherlands. According to research has 80 percent of the status holders two and a half years after getting a residence permit still no job – many are busy with their integration course in the first time. It would mean that in practice war refugees have hardly any chance of family reunification.
That is why it is expected that many ‘B refugees’ will try to become ‘A’. The IND counts on three -quarters of the asylum seekers to litigate for better status. That is thousands of extra lawsuits. The IND expects that it will cost much more work and tens of millions of euros extra. Judiciary also sees a cart free of new asylum procedures coming in, and thinks it needs almost 50 million euros extra.
Then there is a detour to escape the strict conditions for family reunification: the European Human Rights Convention. According to Article 8 from that treaty, everyone has the right to a ‘family and family life’. Experts expect that many refugees by invoking this treaty can still let their families come across. Partly for this reason, the effect of the intake law should not be overestimated, the Council of State writes in its advice“If there will already be an actual reduction.”
2. Asylum permit is temporary
What will change?
A residence permit is currently valid for five years. Anyone who passes their integration exams within that time and is still eligible for asylum will receive a permit for an indefinite period. In principle, the refugee can stay in the Netherlands forever, unless he commits a serious crime, for example. Permits for an indefinite period of time are abolished in the asylum measures law. A status holder must request an extension every three years. If the situation in the country of origin improves, the permit can be withdrawn.
What are the effects?
From a legal point of view, the permit can be abolished indefinitely. It means that every three years the IND looks at whether there are indications to no longer extend the permit. There is a good chance that a war zone from which someone once fled was safe at a certain moment is safe again, and that the refugee who built up a lifetime in the Netherlands would have to go back.
Implementing organizations warn for the downside. It does not benefit the integration of refugees, warns COA reception body in an adviceif they remain in uncertainty about whether their future is in the Netherlands. This will lead to “reduced motivation and passivity.” Nidos, youth protector of asylum children, also fears that the measure means that children “are constantly uncertain about where their future lies”, which stands in the way of their development. “Many courses and jobs require stability, which is difficult to achieve if a residence status is constantly reassessed.”
Vluchtelingenwerk, which supervises most status holders in the Netherlands, also foresees practical problems. If a status holder is too late to extend his temporary residence permit, or the IND is overflowing by all applications, the consequences can be disastrous. Status holders can lose their residence permit, lose facilities or allowances and end up in financial problems.
Read also
Concerned and shocked lawyers: the bills of Minister Faber mainly encounter resistance
3. No more reply on rejection
What will happen?
If the IND has heard an asylum seeker and has checked the story, it will be decided whether a permit will be granted. But this is first submitted to the asylum seeker as an intention, a kind of draft decision, so that it still gets the chance to respond to it. In 11 percent of the cases, an asylum lawyer manages to convince the IND that the intention is incorrect, and an asylum seeker still receives a residence permit. This procedure is deleted in the asylum measurement measures law. The IND must soon immediately make a decision. If the asylum seeker does not agree, he or she can appeal to the court.
What are the effects?
By shortening the procedure, a decision is made about the application faster. That saves the IND initially time and capacity. But that time savings will probably be canceled again at a later stage. With the abolition of the intentions, a ‘filter’ also disappears, which ensured that poorly substantiated rejections were already corrected by the IND itself. “An important guarantee for the quality of decisions will be canceled,” wrote officials from the Ministry of Asylum and Migration in a memorandum on the proposal.
As a result, courts will get more things and whistle the IND more often due to a poorly substantiated decision, after which the immigration service must again consider the application. A thousand extra lawsuits are expected per year. Courts predict that the costs due to this measure will increase by 3.5 million euros per year and that waiting times will also increase. It now sometimes takes seven months before a case arrives at the hearing.
4. Repeated applications more difficult
What will change?
Every year, around fifteen hundred asylum seekers who have already been rejected again request asylum in the Netherlands. With new evidence, or a new asylum motif, they make a new attempt to get residence papers. It can lead to a stacking of applications and years of procedures, which hinders return services when returning rejected asylum seekers. The outgoing cabinet therefore wants to introduce a stricter test for these applications. Only when an asylum seeker arrives with groundbreaking new information will a repeated application be processed.
In addition, the law makes it more difficult to come up with a new asylum motif. For example, anyone who said to flee for war violence at the first application, and a second time says he is fleeing really because he is not homosexually safe in his country, the IND can be accused of having to tell the first time. In the bill it becomes a reason to reject the application.
What are the effects?
The IND thinks it is helped with these measures, writes it in its advice about the bill. It becomes easier to refer a repeated request to the trash. However, the question remains whether it will not be possible to submit the application through the courts. In its advice, the Council of State notes that the European Court of Justice offers a lot of room for asylum seekers to make a subsequent application if new facts or circumstances arise. Rejected asylum seekers can still appeal to it, regardless of whether the new law will be introduced.