Minister Marjolein Faber (asylum and migration, PVV) has been awarded a way out. Her asylum laws can be “in the current form” but should not be submitted to the Lower House, according to this Monday published emergency advice from the Council of State. And so Faber gets a thick pile of homework.
But anyone who accurately spit the advice on the ‘asylum measurement measures’ law and the bill on a two -state system must find that the conclusion could also have been that Minister Faber should completely abandon the laws.
It is unlikely that the minister will take the serious criticism of her laws. “Maybe a point and a comma, but That’s it“Said Faber last Friday. The advice was already at her ministry for two days, but she hadn’t read it yet. PVV leader Geert Wilders repeated on Monday on X that “these strict asylum laws […] Fast and unchanged ”must be entered.
You play with fire. No more changes after giving up Emergency Act
Urgent has been the motto within the coalition for months. The PVV in particular is keen that the laws are adopted and imported as quickly as possible. Last fall, the party had to give up the desired state emergency law, because NSC found this constitutional law not to explain. The compromise was a speedy treatment of the ‘asylum measurement measures’.
But this “political wish” is no reason to “skip important steps in the legislative preparation or to take too little time for this,” the council writes. In short, that preparation can be called ‘careless.’ At the end of last year, Faber had given a limited number of organizations the opportunity to respond, but within one week. Too little time to accurately and fully map the consequences for implementation, various authorities complained.
Read also
Minister Faber cuts millions on legal supervision of asylum seekers
Spearhead
Normally a consultation round lasts at least four weeks, whereby the opinion of citizens and social organizations is also involved. In that light, the Government Advisor reminds the Cabinet Schoof of a spearhead from the government program: “That the input of citizens, implementing organizations and legal practice is of great importance to achieve good legislation.”
According to the Council, the carelessness also appears from the meager explanation of the supposed effects of both laws. They aim to significantly reduce the arrival of asylum seekers and to relieve the asylum chain (especially the IND and case law) ‘sustainable’. Nowhere from the law chair shows that Faber has “a supporting reasons” for the measures, the Council states several times. For example, Faber does not mention scientific research that would show that her proposals will indeed lead to fewer asylum applications and a more efficient asylum procedure.
For example, the question is what the usefulness of a shorter validity of asylum permits (from five to three years) and the abolition of the permanent asylum permit. It is already possible to withdraw permits ‘interim’, for example because the country of origin has become safe. And on the basis of European rules, status holders retain the option to submit an application for a permanent residence status.
And where Faber wants to get rid of the right to live for adult children and unmarried partners, status holders can still rely on European law for family life.
Ind
The asylum minister knows that these detours exist. In her explanation of the laws, she therefore acknowledges that these adverse consequences can have, because they make the IND have to make more complex decisions.
In this way, the Council warns the cabinet to make the asylum procedure more complicated. The Council also fears the violation of fundamental rights, for example the right to equal treatment and the right to family life (both in the case of the right to live for homosexuals that cannot get married in the country of origin).
The Council also fears the violation of fundamental rights – for example the right to equal treatment and the right to family life
Where in the European law there is still room for sharpening rules, Faber should not overestimate ‘the effect’ of some measures, according to the council. Here too, European rules play a decisive role, for example when it comes to stricter conditions for submitting a repeated asylum application or not showing up at an interview with the IND. According to the Council, these kinds of ‘procedural rules’ must ‘not lead’ that someone ‘is sent back to a country where he is at risk of inhumane treatment’.
In the advice attention is drawn to the European asylum and migration pact, which will be applicable next summer. The Council for the Judiciary and the IND previously advised not to introduce the asylum laws before the EU pact has been cast in Dutch laws and rules. The Council of State agrees with this. The House of Representatives will soon handle these so -called implementation laws.
Faber does not explain how her laws relate to the new European rules. That is “necessary,” the Council says, because it is almost certain that measures from Fabers laws “have to be adjusted or deleted again very quickly. It is unclear which measures the council alludes to.
Wilders
Now that the most important government advisor has spoken, it is up to politics how to continue with the asylum laws. In exchange for non -exclamations of the asylum crisis (with which the state emergency law could be used), it was agreed at the end of October that NSC would agree with Fabers asylum laws without too much murmur and complaining.
But the question is whether the young party, which is based on ‘good governance’ with an eye for the implementation and the rule of law, can adhere to this agreement. “You play with fire,” Wilders threatened on X on Monday on X. “After giving up Emergency Act, no more changes. Otherwise the voter may express himself. “
Read also
Faber refuses to explain room about austerity on the refugee work
