Additional pressure on the system
‘Rather than relieving pressure on the system, these measures exacerbate it,’ Terlouw explains. ‘By abolishing permanent residency permits, cases must be reassessed repeatedly. This results in an increased workload for the Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND), heightened pressure on the courts, and a worsening of the shelter problems.’ According to Terlouw, this measure also leads to much additional uncertainty among asylum seekers, while their country of origin is often still unsafe. This subsequently obstructs the integration process.
The same thing is likely to happen as a result of the abolition of the Spreading Act (spreidingswet), the downgrading of shelter locations and the reception of status holders outside cities, Terlouw said. ‘It is likely that refugees face greater difficulties integrating when living in inhumane conditions in ghettos on the outskirts of cities.’
Netherlands as strictest in Europe
‘With these proposals, the minister is deliberately testing the limits of the law’ Terlouw continues. According to her, these measures mainly show how far the coalition is willing to go to present itself as the strictest in Europe. Terlouw: ‘You can see almost everywhere in Europe nowadays a drive to be the strictest when it comes to asylum, but all countries within the European Union have to abide by the common European asylum legislation. It is suggested that this ‘decisiveness’ would discourage asylum seekers from applying for asylum in the Netherlands, yet there is no evidence to support the deterrent effect of such strict measures.
The question is whether asylum seekers, but also human traffickers, care about the current attitude of European countries like the Netherlands towards asylum seekers. Moreover, the Netherlands is still a prosperous country with an attractive labour market. In contrast to these pull factors, push factors such as war, poverty and climate change, which force people to leave their countries, are much more important. It is therefore remarkable that the Schoof administration is actually cutting development aid.’
Don't just look at legal feasibility
Most measures stay narrowly within the margins of legal permissibility. However, this does not make them justifiable, Terlouw argues. Seeking the outer limits of the law violates the principle of solidarity within the EU: the objectives and effectiveness of Union law must not be undermined.
‘A minimalist interpretation of the law undermines its intent. It is equally important to consider the impact of these measures on individuals and question whether they create inhumane conditions. If they do, as a state you are acting in violation of fundamental rights and human dignity as guaranteed by Article 1 of the European Union's Charter of Fundamental Rights.’
The ‘problem’ of asylum
According to Terlouw, the current problem of asylum is rooted more in the approach than in the number of people seeking asylum. ‘It seems as though the system is being deliberately overloaded to fabricate a crisis—not due to incoming refugees, but as a result of shortages at the Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND), the Central Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers (COA), and the courts.’
In addition, the government seems to forget that refugees make up only 11% of total migration and that only a small proportion of these apply for asylum without legitimate reasons. If every municipality contributes to reception, as was arranged within the Spreading Act, there is hardly a problem, let alone a crisis. The vast majority of migration still consists of migrant workers who keep our economy going. This also deserves much greater attention.’