After party leader Mark Rutte’s reassurance that the cabinet will take new measures to reduce the influx of asylum seekers, the VVD faction was finally able to agree on Tuesday with the ‘coercive law’ of its own state secretary, Eric van der Burg (Asylum and Migration). . But what measures Rutte is thinking about exactly, the prime minister left open. He limited himself to saying that he saw ‘opportunities’.
Quick solutions for a lower influx are not up for grabs. The equine resources that the parties to the right of the VVD suggest – close borders, stop asylum – are immediately dropped. Van der Burg has repeatedly said that anyone who invokes the asylum system is entitled to a reception place as long as the asylum procedure is ongoing. The only way to get out of this is by denouncing international treaties. That’s a no go for this coalition. But what’s left then?
Keep border controls
According to VVD MP Ruben Brekelmans, during an asylum debate on Monday evening, the Netherlands can intensify border control of its own accord and carry out random checks behind the border, i.e. on Dutch soil. No European agreement stands in the way of that. In this way, coaches, which are now driving directly to Ter Apel, could be stopped with the message that they must turn around. After all, if asylum seekers have traveled through other European countries, they should have applied for asylum there. Good agreements are needed with Belgium and Germany for this, in order to avoid diplomatic frictions. Those countries will not be thrilled.
Adhere to Dublin agreements
The above is related to the fact that many countries have not complied with the agreements made in Dublin in 1990 for some time now. This European Regulation stipulates that an asylum seeker must be received in the first country he or she enters within the Schengen zone. That country is responsible for the application for protection (asylum). A country can also be responsible because family members or relatives already have a residence permit there, as has been laid down in regulations.
In order for the agreements to work, the country that is obliged to honor a so-called Dublin claim from the Netherlands should actually do so more often. This is subject to the condition that the asylum seeker must have the guarantee that he will not be sent straight back to the country of origin by that other country. In practice, the Dublin agreements often don’t work out. Commonly used ‘countries of arrival’, such as Italy, Spain and Greece, do not cooperate.
Decrease acceptance rates
Reception in the Netherlands may have been a drama in recent months, as witnessed by the nighttime scenes in Ter Apel, but the Netherlands is currently known for its high percentages of asylum applications being granted. Higher than in neighboring countries, also higher than before in the Netherlands. In a voluminous study from 2019, former top civil servant Richard van Zwol speaks of a compliance rate of 21 percent (of first applications).
Since then, there has been a rapid increase. In last Friday’s letter, Van der Burg wrote: ‘A national trend can be observed in which more and more applications have been granted since 2018, and in 2020 the point was reached that across the board (of nationalities) more first applications were granted than rejected.’ People smugglers will not miss the fact that the Netherlands is now complying much more often. In politics this is called ‘attractive effect’ and the cabinet will certainly look into it: Van der Burg announces further investigation.
Reconsider unsafe countries
The main reason that the Netherlands grants requests much more often lies in the origin of the asylum seekers. These come more often than before from countries that the Netherlands itself has labeled as unsafe. This is increasingly fodder for political debate. For example, is Algeria an unsafe country? According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, yes. This means that the Netherlands may not send Algerians back to their country of origin. The neighboring countries of Morocco and Tunisia are safe, but it is difficult to return failed asylum seekers there. They often do not get the necessary laissez-passer to return. Although the relationship with Morocco seems to be improving lately.
Is Turkey a safe country? Not at all, according to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. With Syria, Afghanistan and Yemen, Turkey supplies the largest groups of asylum seekers, almost all of whom receive a residence permit. This while Turkey is a candidate EU member. And for Syria, Denmark, for example, makes a different decision: the Scandinavian country considers the Damascus region safe, so Syrians can return to it, according to the Danes.
Evict those who have exhausted all legal remedies faster
The Ministry of Justice and Security has a Repatriation and Departure Service, there is the IOM, the international organization that guides migrants back home – but many prefer to stay here. It gives the impression that even if you are rejected as an asylum seeker, you do not have to leave the Netherlands. Doing something about this has been the heart’s desire of the entire right-hand section of the House, including the VVD and CDA, all this century. But it requires agreements with the countries of origin and the Netherlands has only been successful in making these for years to a very limited extent.