In the first week after the summer recess, the opposition in the House of Representatives immediately seizes the opportunity to question the cabinet about the asylum agreement that was presented less than two weeks ago. Chamber chairman Vera Bergkamp has cleared the entire agenda for this Thursday, from which it can be concluded that the ministers Eric van der Burg (Asylum and Migration, VVD) and Hugo de Jonge (Public Housing, CDA) are waiting for a big roast. But the question is whether that will lead to anything.
From the way in which the debate was requested on Tuesday, it is already possible to deduce in broad terms how it will proceed in terms of content. While the coalition parties struggle with grumbling constituencies, albeit to a manageable degree so far, criticism from the opposition has come from all quarters. While the coalition is moderately divided, the opposition is extremely divided into outspoken flanks on the left and right. That weakens its effectiveness.
Member of parliament Wybren van Haga (Group Van Haga) felt that the debate should be about ‘introducing an asylum ban, canceling the Refugee Convention and receiving people in the region’. He received support from Joost Eerdmans (JA21) and Gidi Markuszower. This PVV spokesperson said: ‘We would like to talk about the problems for the Netherlands that asylum causes.’
Worrying Messages
But other opposition parties such as SP, PvdA, GroenLinks and Denk did not agree. In the end SP MP Jasper van Dijk formulated the application as a debate about all the ‘worrying messages’ from last summer, summarized by MPs Ruben Brekelmans (VVD) and Anne Kuik (CDA) as ‘one big asylum debate’. Everyone could find themselves in that.
In the ‘decision-making reception crisis’, as the coalition’s asylum agreement is called on 26 August, the passage on family reunification is particularly controversial. As a temporary measure, the cabinet wants to impose a restriction on beneficiaries who want to allow their family to travel afterward. Due to the housing shortage, former asylum seekers who have received a residence permit often stay in an asylum seekers center (azc) for a long time afterwards. They are then reunited with their families in the asylum seekers’ center, while those places are actually intended for other asylum seekers. Among the 15,400 status holders in the shelter are 7,200 family members.
The cabinet wants to extend the decision period for family reunification cases, six months in the Netherlands, to nine months. According to the letter of 26 August, the EU family reunification directive, which the Netherlands must adhere to, offers scope for this. However, a change in the law is required. After the decision on family reunification, a visa procedure will follow. The Netherlands only plans to issue a visa if the municipality to which a status holder is linked has an ‘appropriate home’ available.
Legal basis
MPs Suzanne Kröger (GL) and Kati Piri (PvdA) want more clarity about the legal basis for these measures. They themselves have serious doubts about this and will submit a motion in the debate that asks for an urgent advice from the Council of State. Until then, the measure should not be in effect. Van der Burg has now also been summoned by a committee of the European Parliament to come and explain.
At the traditional opening of the parliamentary year, PvdA leader Attje Kuiken answered with a firm ‘no’ on Tuesday morning to the question whether this asylum deal could have been concluded with her party. ‘This is not an asylum crisis, this is a created reception crisis. Linking family reunification to housing makes it very vulnerable and very cynical.’ Her position is relevant, because measures that require a change in the law also have to pass the Senate. The coalition does not have a majority there.
On the same occasion, D66 party leader Jan Paternotte announced that his party will defend the deal. ‘Am I happy with it? No. This is a very difficult message. But there is simply no place in the shelter right now and letting people sleep outside is not a solution.’ He downplayed the absence of a majority in the Senate. ‘So far it’s going well. I have every confidence in that.’
He can also have that because for ‘difficult messages’ there is always the other oppositional flank to poke. Asylum policy thus remains a compromise that always ends up in the middle.