He would be the last to discuss the block of ‘followers’, said State Secretary Eric van der Burg (Asylum and Migration, VVD) in the House of Representatives on Thursday. The second term of the asylum debate had only just begun. Soon a number of indignant MPs stood at the interruption microphones. Whether the State Secretary could please discuss that block not the last, but the first. Here was precisely the sore point; there were so many questions about this. “I am indeed a servant of the crown, chairman, but of course I like to listen to the Chamber,” said Van der Burg cheerfully.
The questions were about the family reunification measure from the asylum plan that the cabinet presented at the end of August to relieve the application center in Ter Apel. That month, about seven hundred asylum seekers slept outside on the ground for several nights, because the asylum reception in the Netherlands is overcrowded. According to the new (temporary) measure, status holders may only be reunited with their families if they have a home. In recent weeks, legal experts have criticized the measure. According to them, it is not allowed to deliberately postpone family reunification. That would be in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Family Reunification Directive.
Van der Burg received a barrage of critical questions from the opposition, although he – or the asylum deal – did not really get into trouble. A significant part of the debate, which was requested by the SP because of the many questions about the asylum plan, was therefore about this controversial measure. “How can it be justified to keep children separated from their father and mother any longer?” asked Kati Piri (PvdA).
Critical motion of leftist factions
In the first term, Suzanne Kröger (GroenLinks) announced a motion, together with Piri, that calls on the cabinet to ask the Council of State for advice about the measure. She first wanted to give Van der Burg the chance to promise that without a motion.
That was not his intention, said the state secretary. “Before you make a law, you ask the Council of State for advice. If you are already implementing policy, you do not go to the Council to ask whether you are implementing the policy properly.” According to Van der Burg, the asylum plan is about the latter; after all, no law has been amended. He acknowledged that officials from his ministry had warned that the measure may not hold up in court, as was apparent on Wednesday evening from policy documents that Van der Burg had sent to the House. “But practice shows that you can never say with certainty that measures will hold up in court.”
It was striking that D66, which is seen as progressive in the field of asylum, never interrupted the State Secretary when it came to the ‘followers’. When the cabinet presented the new asylum plan, the coalition party received criticism from its supporters. During the debate, Anne-Marijke Podt, asylum spokesperson for D66, said about the family reunification measure that it “would not have been our measure” if only D66 had been in charge. But in return, according to Podt, there are measures in the plan that D66 is happy with, such as the accelerated construction of homes for 20,000 status holders. She said she thinks the family reunification measure is legally in order. “I have faith in the preparation of the ministry, but I think advice from the Council of State is very logical.”
Family reunification measure would not be our measure
Anne-Marijke Podt D66
Don Ceder of the ChristenUnie, who had also received criticism from the supporters for the ‘hard’ part of the asylum plan, did ask the State Secretary about the measure. Although he continued to support the asylum plan during the debate, he asked Van der Burg: “Do you not want or can you not ask the Council of State for advice?”
Right-wing parties want asylum stop
The right-wing parties preferred to talk about an asylum stop than about the asylum plan. JA21 and Groep Van Haga in particular tried to stand out. The PVV – often emphatically present in asylum debates – remained somewhat in the background this time. Wybren van Haga read part of the VVD election program to Ruben Brekelmans (VVD): “Suspension of the right of asylum in the Netherlands, cancel the refugee treaty.”
“That is an ambition for the coming years,” said Brekelmans.
Van Haga: “Ridiculous! Apparently PVV chores have to be done every now and then.” PVV-corvee is the (mocking) name for VVD members who proclaim hard positions to take the wind out of the sails of the radical right.
According to Brekelmans, the refugee treaty cannot be canceled now, because “there is no agreement about this in Europe”. “Joost Eerdmans (JA21): “It is very special that the VVD pulls each other on big pants and says that we have to slow down asylum. But once in the cabinet they say: ‘It can’t just happen.’”
During the second term there were hardly any interruptions from the right. Van der Burg had a hard time especially with left-wing MPs. The State Secretary always answered patiently, but after an interruption by Sylvana Simons (BIJ1) he became fierce. She had said, among other things, that she “couldn’t imagine that Mr Van der Burg is looking forward to the parliamentary inquiry into this asylum deal.” Van der Burg said with some fervor: “What I am doing here is to ensure that we will soon have a robust system in which we can receive those people who must be taken care of here.”
Next Tuesday, the House of Representatives will vote on the motions submitted, including those by Kröger and Piri.
A version of this article also appeared in the newspaper of September 9, 2022