It is inevitable that all municipalities will have to contribute to the reception of asylum seekers. The situation in Ter Apel, where people have been sleeping outside for months, is unworthy of the Netherlands. Inhumane.
Making up excuses is of no use to anyone. Not with the mythical and virtually impossible asylum stop demanded by some MPs – refugees will always come, the asylum procedure is quickly compared to neighboring countries. The ‘not in my backyard’ attitude of some local administrators, who expect resistance from local residents in advance, is of no use to anyone. Nor the reproaches on both sides: it is by no means the case that asylum seekers are only received in small rural municipalities.
Autumn is coming, and hundreds of people are sleeping outside. Others are towed from emergency shelter to emergency shelter. Sports have to be resumed in gymnasiums, networking again in convention halls. It is therefore wise that State Secretary for Asylum Affairs Eric van der Burg (VVD) is now resorting to an administrative means of coercion because a number of municipalities refuse to contribute to the reception.
This is a crisis that has caused national politics. The policy of upscaling and downscaling reception places, which has been common for decades, ignores reality. Centers are demolished with every drop in the number of asylum seekers. With each new peak, the COA, which is paid per bed, has to beg for space again – now in a real estate market that is drying up, from local administrators who are overburdened by countless other government tasks for which they are underfunded.
Moreover, the asylum chain has come to a standstill: the COA is struggling with a staff shortage, and so is the IND. Status holders who could leave the asylum seekers’ center cannot do so because there is a shortage of housing. Earlier this week it turned out that almost two thirds of the security regions have not arranged the agreed number of reception places. Last week, the cabinet asked for another 5,600 extra reception places.
Three hundred asylum seekers in a community of 3,500 inhabitants, as will be the case in Albergen, understandably raises questions. Naturally, residents are concerned about their village. It is up to the State Secretary to answer those questions and allay concerns. His letter to the House of Representatives ends with the words that „investing in the support base and the dialogue with the municipality is the full commitment [blijft]”. He calls it “of the utmost importance to properly involve and inform the municipal council and the local residents”.
That failed in Tubbergen. The mayor was informed an hour before Van der Burg sent his letter to the House. The city council is surprised. The neighbors feel attacked. It is also unclear why this means of coercion is apparently the only way to get an asylum seekers’ center in Tubbergen. If the State Secretary wants to use it more often, this was not a good test case. And certainly not a good example of how support can be created among ‘refusing municipalities’ and distrustful residents.
Municipalities have rightly been asking for a structural solution for years. There is one for the housing of status holders – each municipality must make a number of homes available in proportion. The reception of asylum seekers could also be divided in this way. Shared load is half load.