‘This does not solve problems’, says Job Cohen about the plan to distinguish between refugees

No, Job Cohen is not talking about 2023. But what he found in 1998 when he started as State Secretary of Justice looks suspiciously like the asylum problems the cabinet is now facing, he thinks. Refugees from the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq cracked the system at the seams. The IND implementing organization was faced with major backlogs in asylum applications. Reception centers could not cope with the influx. “Is there, apart from the countries of origin, one letter different from the situation now?”

Just like then, the government now has great difficulty with the reception of asylum seekers who come to the Netherlands. In the cabinet’s consultations to limit the number of asylum applications, a proposal from the CDA is on the table: the reintroduction of a two-status system.

Cohen thought it strange when he first heard it. He abolished a similar system at the beginning of this century precisely to give the implementing bodies more breathing space. “This is not going to solve the problems. The cabinet must be more honest and think of the long term.”

Thanks to the PvdA State Secretary, all refugees were given the same status with the introduction of the Aliens Act 2000. The CDA wants to reverse this and give permanent A status to refugees who have to fear persecution in their home country. They will be given more rights and may, for example, bring their family over. Refugees from countries where it can be safe again after a while will be given a B status and fewer rights.

Read also: If it doesn’t work today, it will work tomorrow, cheerful pragmatist Eric van der Burg often thinks

How do you look back on your time as State Secretary of Justice?

“It weighs on you day and night, because you are responsible for all those people who have come here. I think it’s the worst position there is in the cabinet. I was on hunger strikes. Then you feel extremely lonely as a secretary of state. Also in the cabinet. Then you come to the Council of Ministers on Friday and ask others: how are you? Well, we’re on that hunger strike, I’d say. Then it was: oh, good luck! No one dared to burn themselves.”

How did that turn out?

“Eventually, but much later, a general pardon came for that. It comes once in a while. Always for the very last time.”

Why was the multi-status system abolished?

“Because you have more rights with the A status, asylum seekers who received a B status appealed. That only led to more burden on the implementing organizations and the judiciary and therefore to additional delays. So we decided: we will give everyone a temporary status of three years and after three years that can become a permanent status, if necessary. Then the litigation stops. The congestion due to further litigation is also the risk if you now enter two statuses again.”

One of the reasons for introducing this is because it can limit family members’ travel in this way, say the parties in favor.

“It will make a difference, but I can’t imagine it matters very much.

“What I also hear the parties who are in favor of this measure say is that it would have a deterrent effect. But you don’t just run away. Those people are at their wit’s end, don’t think first: where are my best opportunities? They just want to get to safety.”

Why then does the system crash again, despite the abolition of the two-state system?

“The abolition did help for a while. How exactly I don’t know. After the introduction, I quickly became mayor of Amsterdam.”

The current problems have been created by the past cabinets themselves

And why do problems and solutions in asylum policy seem to come back in a circle?

“The current problems have been created by the past cabinets themselves. Things went wrong when a period came in which the number of asylum seekers decreased. The cabinets at the time then acted like hell to scale down both the IND and the COA. And the judiciary, for that matter. These are important organizations for the system. When the numbers started to increase again, it got stuck.”

Where does that problem come from?

“Politicians think too much in the short term, so that they can say to their supporters: see, I have done something. Politicians should be more honest and say that we have a hell of a problem that we cannot solve overnight. In fact, it will only get worse in the near future. If you look at the wars, the climate.”

How do you convince people who are critical of a generous asylum policy and want to close the borders?

“In that respect, it is definitely more complicated than in my time as State Secretary. Polarization has increased. Still, it is necessary to be clear and honest about the principles within which we have leeway. When politicians promise things they cannot keep, distrust only grows.

“Look at the VVD. He had to bring in Rutte to get the MPs behind the asylum policy. Rutte left there with the promise that he would work to limit the influx. He could also have said: I can promise anything, but that makes no sense, the honest story is that more asylum seekers will come.”

Read also: Van der Burg is ‘pained’ by the ever-deteriorating asylum crisis

What can the government do to gain more control?

“Three areas are important. Development cooperation, to ensure that things are a little better in the places where things are going badly. I know, we can hardly do anything about that alone. But whatever you can to contribute to the improvement, you should do. I understand that the government uses money that is available for this purpose for the asylum problem in the Netherlands. That is such a short term solution.

“The second is also damn complicated: European policy. It would be very good if we had the same policy in Europe. More solidarity with Greece and Italy. Especially when the problem gets bigger. I know how difficult that is; Even in my day that was barely possible. The third: put the IND in order, put the COA in order, put the judiciary in order. No firing people when there is a smaller influx.”

Doesn’t a solution seem close?

“We will never solve this completely. That’s why you have to say that clearly.”

ttn-32