![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
There is a major gap in Dutch refugee and immigration control policies between its ambitions and outcomes. It results in considerable numbers of rejected asylum seekers who, while they cannot be expelled from the country, are excluded from government support and from opportunities to work in the belief this should encourage voluntary departure. Destitution and homelessness can often be the result, an outcome which poses problems in cities, creates a challenge for local government and triggers calls for political change from non-governmental actors. This article analyses the ways Dutch municipalities have developed practices to cushion and counteract aspects of such exclusionary national asylum policies, how these municipal actors justify these actions and how they thereby question the legitimacy of national policies and their execution. The analysis reveals the tensions that exist in the governance of migration through national policies and local practices. While not discounting the possibility that these actions and argumentations provide fuel to national political sentiments favouring the further exclusion of ‘irregular’ migrants, in this study we argue that at times they may also strengthen democratic policy-making and drive policy change.
Extracto
Existe una laguna importante entre las ambiciones y los resultados de las políticas de control de refugiados y de inmigración en los Países Bajos. Esto lleva a que un gran número de solicitantes de asilo rechazados no pueden ser expulsados del país pero a la vez son excluidos del apoyo gubernamental y de las oportunidades de trabajo con la idea de que así se estimulará su salida voluntaria. Lo que muchas veces ocurre es que se quedan sin hogar y acaban viviendo en la indigencia, lo que plantea problemas en las ciudades, supone un reto para los Gobiernos locales y lleva a que organizaciones no gubernamentales demanden un cambio político. En este artículo se analiza cómo los municipios neerlandeses han desarrollado métodos para amortiguar y contrarrestar los aspectos de tales políticas de asilo nacionales de exclusión, el modo en que estos organismos municipales justifican estas medidas y cómo de esta manera cuestionan la legitimidad de las políticas nacionales y su ejecución. En este análisis se muestran las tensiones que existen en la regulación de la migración mediante políticas nacionales y prácticas locales. Si bien no se descarta la posibilidad de que estas acciones y argumentos alimenten sentimientos políticos nacionalistas a favor de excluir aún más a los emigrantes ‘irregulares’, en este estudio defendemos que a veces también podrían reforzar la elaboración de políticas democráticas e impulsar cambios políticos.
Resume
De toute évidence, il y a une lacune majeure dans les politiques aux Pays-Bas concernant le contrôle des réfugiées et des immigrés quant aux ambitions et aux résultats. Il finit par un nombre non-négligeable de demandeurs d'asile refusés qui, alors que l'on ne peut pas les expulser d'un territoire, ils n'ont ni aucun droit à l'aide de l’État, ni aucun accès aux possibilités d'emploi, en croyant que cela devrait inciter à un départ volontaire. Souvent la misère et le sans-abrisme peuvent en résulter, ce qui pose une question dans les villes, constitue un défi pour l'administration locale, et suscite des appels au changement politique de la part des acteurs non gouvernementaux. Ce présent article analyse les façons dont les administrations municipales néerlandaises ont élaboré des procédés dans une tentative d'amortir et de contrecarrer certains aspects des politiques d'asile nationales qui alimentent l'exclusion, comment ces acteurs municipaux justifient de telles actions et, par conséquent, comment ils remettent en question la légitimité des politiques nationales et leur mise en oeuvre. L'analyse laisse voir les tensions qui existent dans la gouvernance de l'immigration par moyen des politiques nationales et des pratiques locales. Alors que la possibilité que ces actions et ces arguments puissent renforcer les sentiments politiques nationales en faveur d'une augmentation de l'exclusion des migrations ‘clandestines’ n'est pas à écarter, on affirme ici que, de temps en temps, ils peuvent aussi renforcer l’élaboration démocratique des politiques et piloter le changement de politique.
摘要
荷兰的难民及移民控制政策中，政策企图与结果之间，存在着显着的落差，并导致为数众多的寻求庇护受拒者，在无法被驱逐出境的同时，被排除于政府支持、以及相信可鼓励自愿离境的工作机会之外。贫困与无家可归，经常是上述问题的后果，此一后果在城市中造成问题，为地方政府带来挑战，并引发非政府组织呼吁进行政治变革。本文分析荷兰市政层级的政府，建立缓冲与抵抗此般排除性国家难民政策面向的实践方式、这些市政层级的行动者如何合理化上述行动，以及他们如何从而质问国家政策及政策执行的正当性。研究分析，揭露了透过国家政策与透过地方实践的移民管理之间存在的紧张关係。儘管我们并非漠视这些行动与主张将刺激拥护进一步排除‘非正规’移民的国族政治情绪之可能性，但我们亦于本研究中主张，它们有时也可能会强化民主政策制定，并驱动政策变革。
Acknowledgements
This article draws on empirical research carried out by Sanne Kos (as part of her MA thesis entitled Policies of exclusion and the municipal government (University of Amsterdam, 2012)) and by Inge Versteegt and Marcel Maussen published as Contested Policies of exclusion: Resistance and protest against asylum policy in the Netherlands (2012). Coordinator: Prof. Dr Anna Triandafyllidou, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, European University Institute. This article has greatly benefitted from the constructive comments of three anonymous referees as well as from copyediting comments by Marc Welsh and Polly Pallister-Wilkins.
Notes
1. In this article, the term ‘failed asylum seeker’ is used to refer to all people who have demanded asylum in the Netherlands (or the EU), and whose asylum request has been turned down, either permanently (after an appeal) or after the ‘28 days procedure’ (in which case they can still appeal but no longer have a right to government-provided housing and assistance (see below)). ‘Failed asylum seekers’ can, in some cases, have a legal residence status for a limited period, for example for individual humanitarian reasons or when there is a danger of ‘refoulement’. The prospects of obtaining the right to stay in the Netherlands will vary within this broad category of ‘failed asylum seekers', as will, obviously, the degree of ‘precariousness' of the lives of individuals, families and children involved. Finally, one should notice that ’failed asylum seekers’ without a legal residence are an important part of a broader group of ‘undocumented migrants'.
2. National Reception Centres, such as the one in Ter Apel, are so-called Central Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers (COA) locations. COA is responsible for the reception, supervision and departure (from the reception location) of asylum seekers coming to the Netherlands. These include asylum reception centres, family centres and detention centres.
3. NOS Journaal, 21 November 2012.
4. The ‘what I am about’ note on the home page of State Secretary Teeven read, for example: ‘I aim to give asylum seekers clarity as soon as possible, allowing them to focus on their future. That also implies an active and consistent repatriation policy’ (available at: http://www.government.nl/government/members-of-cabinet/fred-teeven) (accessed on 30 September 2014).
5. See, for example, the ‘Lampedusa in Hamburg’ group in Hamburg which has been very active since March 2013. See: http://lampedusa-hamburg.info/ (accessed on 14 December 2014). Or the protest around an occupied school in Berlin (Kreuzberg) in the Summer of 2014 (Der Tagesspiegel, 8 August Citation2014; SpiegelOnline, 2 July Citation2014).
6. The National Platform Organization of Municipalities for Shelter (and Return) (LOGO organization) signalled in March 2012 that a great number of failed asylum seekers in actual fact continued to sojourn in Dutch municipalities, often on the streets (LOGO, Citation2012).
7. ‘Local forums’ are but one among several ‘accountability forums’. With regard to constitutional legitimacy, for example, international organizations and courts also oblige the Dutch government to provide further justifications for its policies and measures. The Dutch government has been criticized for regularly transgressing or looking for the limits of internationally agreed legal standards; notably rules set by the European Convention on Human Rights and EU Law. The government received a slap on the wrist from the European Court of Human Rights for ignoring article 3 (protection against inhuman treatment and torture) when returning a rejected asylum seeker to Somalia (NRC-Handelsblad, 11 January Citation2007). In its formulation of rules pertaining to family migration the government made explicit that it sought to stretch the European norms (Bonjour, Citation2010, p. 317). And in 2011, the European Commission expressed serious doubts about the legality (and feasibility) of Dutch plans to criminalize irregular residence. Amnesty International, among others, time and again points out the disproportionate use made by the Dutch authorities of aliens' detention (De Hart et al., Citation2012).
8. It should be noted that some municipalities continue to provide emergency reception, but do not always mention this explicitly in their budgets (WODC, Citation2011, pp. 144–147).
9. This observation by the municipalities that continue providing reception, namely that the strict application of the linking principle and regulations included in the New Aliens Act is causing humanitarian problems and negative effects for society, is confirmed in a recent report by the Advisory Committee on Migration Affairs (ACVZ) entitled Right to protection of human dignity (Citation2012). Municipalities argue that the current situation has not improved sufficiently so as to justify closing the emergency facilities. The ACVZ observed in its report that this cannot but cause friction between administration levels and might well be at odds with European and International human rights agreements (ACVZ, Citation2012, p. 116).
10. Interviews were conducted with representatives of the following NGOs: Church in Action, the Foundation Accommodation Homeless Aliens in Utrecht and the Foundation National Support for the Undocumented (LOS).
11. The position paper Repatriation and Departure (Leidraad Terugkeer en Vertrek) of the Repatriation and Departure Service (DT&V) states that the municipalities should have the intention to terminate all facilities to undocumented migrants as it is the responsibility of the migrant to leave the country on his or her own behalf (DT&V, Citation2013, p. 13).
12. For a more complete overview of NGOs that are involved in asylum policies and their consequences see Versteegt and Maussen (Citation2012, pp. 98–101).
13. Interview municipal official in Utrecht, 2012.
14. One of the amnesty's conditions was that the asylum seeker had permanently been on the national authorities' radar. Those who were under the care of local authorities often were confronted with the claim that they had not officially been residing in the country.
15. Interview municipal official, June 2012 (our emphasis, SK, MM and JD).
16. Interview with representative of Church in Action February 2012.
17. Interview municipal official May 2012.
18. This program started in 2003 in Utrecht and was in 2011 adopted by 20 other municipalities.
19. Interview municipal official April 2012.
20. In itself this letter was connected to a decision of the European Committee of Social Rights of 10 November 2014 with regard to a complaint submitted by the Conference of European Churches concerning respect for ‘the right of undocumented adult migrants to food, clothing and shelter’. Complaint number 90/2013.
21. See ‘Uitspraak Centrale Raad van Beroep verplicht centrumgemeenten tot bieden BBB’ [Verdict of Central appeals Tribunal obliges central municipalities to offer BBB]. Website LOGO (available at: http://www.logogemeenten.nl/nieuws/item/161/uitspraak-centrale-raad-van-beroep-verplicht-centrumgemeenten-tot-bieden-bbb) (accessed on 20 December 2014).