During a recent asylum debate in the House of Representatives, Joost Eerdmans (JA21) wanted to know whether The asylum lottery on the bedside table of State Secretary Eric van der Burg (Asylum, VVD). Eerdmans is a fan of the new book by the Dutch sociologist Ruud Koopmans (62), because it is a mainstay for his ideas about asylum. The book appears to be popular with more right-wing parties: during the debate it was also praised by VVD member Ruben Brekelmans.
The theme of the book is very topical this week in The Hague. Before the summer recess, under great pressure from dissatisfied VVD supporters, the cabinet wants to present a package of national measures to reform asylum and migration policy. The aim is to present an agreement on Friday, but it is still uncertain whether that will succeed.
Ruud Koopmans lives and works in Berlin, where, in addition to his professorship, he also heads the migration department of the WZB research institute. In his work he balances between science and polemic. He did so four years ago in a book about the Islamic world in crisis (The dilapidated house of Islam), this time he aims his arrows at the European asylum system.
Koopmans is not very positive about the current EU immigration policy. In his book he writes that Europe has lost sight of the original goal of refugee protection, as stated in the 1951 UN Refugee Convention. According to him, asylum law now mainly helps people who do not need acute protection at all.
Read also: Unrest in Rutte IV is growing about asylum and migration: time is running out for the cabinet
Only the most vulnerable refugees
The sociologist wants only the most vulnerable refugees to be helped, with a “proactive refugee policy” in which the Netherlands invites refugees recognized by the United Nations to come here. People who reach Europe via illegal routes and ask for asylum have to wait for the answer from him outside the EU.
Koopmans’ analysis reveals weaknesses in current asylum policy. The EU could have foreseen the Syrian exodus from 2015 years in advance, he believes, and could have received it in a controlled way through resettlement. Making migration deals with a country like Turkey paves the way for blackmail by autocratic leaders. How vulnerable the EU asylum policy has become to this, he says, became clear in 2021 when the Belarusian dictator Aleksandr Lukashenko lured asylum seekers to the border with Poland, after which the country closed its border.
His analysis is also sometimes debatable. He is firm about the pull of the German Wilkommenskultur of 2015 and 2016, while other experts still say that pull effect on refugees has never been demonstrated.
The chapter on criminality among asylum seekers is the longest. “Because I know that that chapter receives the most criticism,” he says in a conversation during a visit to the Netherlands. Koopmans takes a detailed look at crimes that were largely committed by rejected asylum seekers from safe countries and nuances extreme right-wing violence against asylum seekers and refugees. A hate crime that uses racist texts and symbols is “no violence, no assault or attack on life and limb,” he writes.
Koopmans believes that European refugee policy is hardly focused on the security of the member states. He writes extensively about the terrorists of the 2015 Bataclan attacks, all born and raised in Europe. Koopmans explains: “However, they did pass themselves off as refugees and were able to return under the radar from Syria, where they had fought for IS. Real refugees are the victims of this.”
What do you think is a real refugee?
“Of course there is a purely legal definition, namely someone who is eventually recognized as a refugee in the asylum procedure. Today, many asylum seekers come to Europe from West African countries such as Nigeria, Ghana or Senegal, where there is no mass political persecution or civil war. From the perspective of those people, it is completely understandable that they are looking for a better life in Europe, but that is not what the Refugee Convention is for.”
Do you think that these people will get refugee status?
“No, but these people do stay in Europe while they have no right to it at all. They can apply for asylum and then spend many years in the procedure because they have different options for appeal. And when they have exhausted all legal remedies, the next problem arises. We cannot send these people back because they often throw away their documents. So they are really abusing the asylum system.
“Within the group of genuine refugees, I distinguish between people who come directly from a country where they are politically persecuted or have been exposed to war violence, and who flee directly from there across the border into the European Union – such as the Ukrainians. Then there are people who appear at the European border via other countries, such as Turkey or Tunisia, for whom the Refugee Convention is not actually intended.”
In his book, Koopmans argues for more money for the UNHCR resettlement program, in which the refugee organization identifies the most vulnerable refugees and transfers them to countries that want to protect them. In 2021, countries worldwide ‘re-settled’ only 4 percent of the number of refugees they promised.
The Netherlands invites five hundred people every year.
You write that giving more money to UNHCR is a ‘humanitarian responsibility’. But you also think that Europe should tighten up its refugee policy. How do you rhyme that?
“Well, I think it is pragmatic to support reception in the region through the UNHCR. The pragmatic way is also the most humane solution at the end of the story. The basic idea behind the Refugee Convention was that we should do as much as possible to help people in need.
“Now we are asking people to do a Darwinian obstacle course across deserts and seas. They risk their lives, sacrifice entire fortunes to get to Europe. There is very, very little humaneness about the system as we have it now.”
How should Europe take responsibility?
“When it comes to refugees from countries that do not border Europe, the best and most humane solution is to take in a fixed number of those people. And to give more support to the UNHCR and the countries of first reception.
“The greatest humanitarian catastrophe at the moment is taking place in Yemen. Millions of refugees are trapped in a country where war and hunger reign. A terrible situation, where should those people go? To Saudi Arabia, the country they’re attacking? Also in the case of the Rohingya, who are persecuted in Myanmar, people have no chance of getting away.”
Also read this opinion article by Ruud Koopmans: Macron is right, Islam is in crisis
Would you mind if Yemenis and Rohingyas were brought to Europe?
“No, why should I have a problem with that?”
Because they are Muslims. In your book you write about integration and problems associated with the patriarchal Islamic culture, for example dealing with women.
“Certainly, that is true. I run into that in the public debate. If I say that cultural distance is an obstacle to integration, then I am immediately a racist. I’m not saying we shouldn’t let Muslims in anymore, or that we should send them all away. I just conclude that we have to take problems into account.”
The WODC [kennisinstituut van het ministerie van Justitie en Veiligheid] writes that there is not much more crime among asylum seekers from largely Islamic countries.
“From this I conclude that although it seems to be less serious in the Netherlands than in Germany, there is indeed a clear over-representation, which is strongly related to the chance that an asylum seeker will receive a residence permit. The higher the chance, the lower the crime load.”
According to the WODC, three percent of all asylum seekers are or have been suspects of a crime, compared to 1 percent of the rest of the population. Zoomed in on young men, this is 8 percent compared to 12 percent.
“You can explain crime away by demographic variables, level of education and unemployment. But the fact remains that society is unsafe, and crime does not suddenly decrease.”
At the beginning of June, EU migration ministers agreed on new asylum rules. It will soon be assessed at the EU’s external borders how promising an asylum seeker is. Those who come from a country with few opportunities will receive a faster assessment. Rejected asylum seekers must then return to their country of origin or a safe third country within six months.
Do the new rules give you hope?
“Not if it stays with these rules alone. Take the promise that rejected asylum seekers will be quickly returned to their country of origin. How are we going to do that? We’ve known for decades that this doesn’t work, right? Without effective return agreements with countries of origin, nothing will change.
“Then you have the promise that agreements will be made with transit countries. As long as those agreements are not made, the new rules will not work.”
Is there nothing positive at all about the new agreements?
“The only positive thing is that biometric data is taken from everyone who comes to the border. In this way, it is easier to check whether people who are on search lists arrive, and you also prevent people from applying for multiple asylum applications with different identities. This is a good business.”
Suppose the EU will soon implement your proposal. What is an acceptable withdrawal rate?
“That is a matter of politics. But a rule of thumb could be: as much as in the past, but in a different, safer, predictable and regular way. And when the Ukraine conflict is resolved, we can take in people from outside Europe again.”
A version of this article also appeared in the July 6, 2023 newspaper.