The new Dutch government is under pressure to act. It must deliver on limiting migration. This is the key theme of Geert Wilders, the strong man in the shadow of the cabinet; it brought his freedom party PVV the sensational election victory last year. The country is suffering badly from immigration, says the national populist, urgent action must be taken, and the non-party Prime Minister Dick Schoof seconds: “We can no longer tolerate the large influx of migrants.” Both send the same message: only tough action can save us . And it has to be lightning fast.
But it’s not that easy to turn things around. In fact, it is so complicated that there is already speculation that the coalition that came into power in July will fail. In addition to the PVV, it consists of two center-right parties and another right-wing party.
The Netherlands wants to get an exception from Brussels like Denmark
First of all, we also know in The Hague that asylum policy is primarily controlled by the EU. That’s why the government in Brussels has requested a so-called opt-out, as Denmark also has (and Hungary now also wants). But the exception to decisions in this policy area would only come into effect after a change to the European treaties, which all member states would have to agree to. It is highly uncertain whether and when this will happen. Until then, the Netherlands would be required to implement the recently agreed asylum reform.
Domestic politics remains. The government emphasizes that it wants to adhere to EU and other regulations. At the same time, it is striving for “the strictest asylum regime that has ever existed.” as the government program says. “The Netherlands must be one of the member states with the strictest admission rules in the EU.” In a first step, state subsidies to municipalities for the living expenses of rejected asylum seekers were cut off. The cities have no choice but to maintain the bed-bath-bread benefits, but now they have to finance them themselves.
Otherwise, the main aim is to abolish or restrict rules with which the Netherlands has so far been comparatively generous. The aim is to limit family reunification for people who only receive subsidiary protection and are therefore not persecuted themselves – a plan that brought down the previous government. Asylum should only be granted for a limited period of time, so that Afghans and Syrians could also be repatriated at some point.
Border controls are also being discussed
Overall, asylum procedures should be accelerated and legal remedies limited; Applicants who do not show up for appointments should be rejected. In addition, the cabinet does not want to process new asylum applications for the time being and worsen the reception conditions. A law that came into force in February that enables a fair distribution of applicants across the country is to be overturned. Border controls are also being discussed.
Migration Minister Marjolein Faber (PVV) plays a key role. Wilders’ politically far-right confidant would like to implement some of the tightening measures through emergency law. Not only is this the fastest way, it would also avoid the difficulties of regular legislation, such as the fact that the coalition does not have a majority in the First Chamber, the upper house.
However, this bypassing of Parliament is only possible if an “asylum crisis” is declared. This is the term that has been the subject of discussion for weeks. It is a political term, not a legal one. Specifically, this would mean activating Article 111 of the Aliens Act by royal decree, which allows deviations from the normal procedure in “exceptional circumstances”.
The opposition wants to vigorously oppose the plans
But what are “extraordinary circumstances”? Lawyers cite threats to territorial, physical, economic, ecological security, or to social and political stability. A dike breach, of course. But an average of 40,000 asylum seekers every year? And aren’t the problems with accommodation, for example in the chronically overcrowded reception center in Ter Apel, actually self-inflicted?
In any case, the opposition wants to vigorously oppose the cabinet plans. Not necessarily for reasons of content; the Greens and Social Democrats, for example, would like to discuss accelerated legislation on individual aspects. You have fundamental objections. Your group agrees with many experts in the country: the conditions for declaring an “asylum crisis” do not exist.
What is fatal for the government is that its own experts also see it that way. They say this clearly in reports from several ministries and warn against disregarding the fundamental rights of asylum seekers. During the annual general debate, Prime Minister Schoof was forced to publish the documents under embarrassing circumstances.
The cabinet decision on the “asylum crisis” has not yet been made. Faber is working on a solid justification that will then be presented to the State Council, a government advisory body. What happens if serious objections arise is unclear. The coalition itself is divided. The New Social Contract party, which sees itself as the protector of the rule of law, rejects the crisis idea.
Schoof and Faber, however, are stubbornly sticking to it, cheered on by Geert Wilders, who defiantly says his PVV has “no backbone like a banana”.