We of course still remember how a commotion arose in the VVD in August 2022 about asylum policy. Local departments demanded that the VVD House of Representatives faction no longer cooperate in the so-called dispersal law. Furthermore, Prime Minister Mark Rutte in the EU should ensure that the Netherlands could temporarily apply a different asylum scheme.
The VVD parliamentarians only wanted to support the dispersal law if the influx of asylum seekers would be limited. It appears that Rutte made promises about this during a faction meeting in November 2022. Party leader Sophie Hermans then explained that the VVD had sufficient confidence that Rutte would fulfill those commitments. But what did the VVD ministers do next?
Let’s start with the most involved minister. That is Eric van der Burg, State Secretary for Asylum and Migration. He has done nothing at all to limit the influx. Van der Burg was mainly in tears when the cabinet fell and ‘his’ distribution law was in danger of being killed. The VVD has always been good at preaching about a stricter asylum policy, but then always came up with a ‘soft’ minister. Van der Burg already said it in 2017, when he was still an alderman in Amsterdam: ‘The more asylum seekers, the better.’
Rutte was helped by Eerdmans
It is almost a tradition that the VVD has no idea what to do with the influx of asylum seekers. This was also evident, for example, from the policy of former VVD State Secretary Klaas Dijkhoff. During the 2015 refugee crisis, he could think of nothing better than to distribute the large numbers of Syrian refugees among Dutch municipalities with some coercion.
Of course, that still leaves the prime minister who ultimately made the promise to limit the influx of asylum seekers. Did he keep that promise? He was helped by a motion from Joost Eerdmans, Member of Parliament for JA21. This motion – adopted by the House on February 9, 2023 – asked the government, together with the Danish government, to promote the transfer of asylum reception and asylum procedures to partner countries outside the EU.
Denmark has long been a guide country for the right – but sometimes also for the left – in the field of asylum policy. The Danes have succeeded in limiting the influx of asylum seekers. The approach has been such a success that the Danish Refugee Council, through Charlotte Slente, almost begged other countries not to apply the Danish ‘model’ for asylum policy. The Danish Refugee Council is an NGO that would like to receive as many asylum seekers as possible. If it is no longer possible in Denmark, then it should be done in the Netherlands, the Refugee Council apparently thinks.
Has Eerdman’s motion prompted missionary Prime Minister Rutte to take action? Yes, but not by traveling to Denmark, but the other way, to Italy. After all, the Prime Minister of Italy, Giorgia Meloni, was also in favor of moving asylum reception to a country outside the EU. That country had to be Tunisia. There were immediately many questions about a so-called Tunisia deal. Not the least pressing question was whether it was wise to make a deal with a dictator. That dictator also turned out to be completely unwilling to meet the conditions and returned the money received.
When the Tunisia deal was concluded in July 2023, Rutte had already resigned. His last idea to slow down asylum migration had failed in his cabinet. The idea was not to allow family reunification of asylum migrants who did not qualify for permanent residence status. However, that was beyond the not entirely straight red line of the Christian Union. According to the CU, children should be able to grow up with both their parents. Therefore, keeping families separated cannot be a method to limit the influx of asylum seekers.
After that, Rutte ran out of ideas about limiting the influx of asylum seekers. That in itself was surprising.
The Netherlands is generous to asylum seekers
We know that asylum law is not an open-ended scheme. Asylum policy, as defined by the EU, refers to the 1951 Refugee Convention. However, the EU gives a broader definition of the right to asylum. According to the EU, the aim is ‘to grant appropriate status to every third-country national in need of international protection in one of the Member States’. This definition does not explain when someone needs ‘international protection’ or what ‘appropriate status’ means. National governments therefore have a freedom of interpretation. They are quite free to determine under what conditions an asylum seeker can or cannot become a status holder. An EU member state can therefore assess asylum applications strictly or less strictly.
It therefore appears that there is great variation across the EU in the extent to which asylum applications are honored. The Netherlands is one of the EU countries that grant asylum status more than average. There is no other way or that has an attractive effect.
If the reliance on a public scheme threatens to get out of hand, there is only one thing you can do: draw up stricter criteria. This also applies to asylum policy: selection will have to be stricter. This is possible because the right of asylum (see above) is not set in stone. If necessary, the government can draw up quantitative standards for the right to asylum. In addition, the Netherlands does not even have to stoop as low as Hungary (1.8 percent), Slovenia (9.8 percent) or Croatia (10.4 percent) in granting asylum to receive a manageable influx.
But Rutte did not think of that, unfortunately. His last attempt in the cabinet (‘limit family reunification’) had failed. This also ended his role as prime minister. Apart from the failed Tunisia deal, no measures had been taken to limit the asylum influx. Under those circumstances, it was obvious that the dispersal law would not go ahead either. After all, Rutte could not keep his promise to the VVD faction in the House of Representatives.
As is known, new liberal party leader Dilan Yeşilgöz therefore submitted a motion to cancel the discussion of the dispersal law in the Senate. It is equally well known that Rutte was in favor of that. According to him, the Senate was concerned with its own agenda. That was of course also true. It was equally true that Rutte had not promised the VVD faction in the Senate about the influx of asylum seekers. So he would not first limit the influx of asylum seekers before submitting the dispersal law.
The VVD faction in the Senate could therefore make its own decisions. We knew that. Marian Kaljouw, the spokesperson for the VVD, thought the distribution law was a repair at the back. Of course, repairs were also needed at the front. She mentioned stricter admission requirements and a restriction on family reunification. On the other hand, provinces and municipalities that already receive many asylum seekers should be relieved. “All things considered,” Kaljouw said, the VVD faction would still support the law.
Let Rutte stay at home
Apparently it was not necessary to ‘fix’ the front of the asylum policy first. Edith Schippers, the VVD faction leader in the Senate, tried to explain it in a letter to VVD members. She wrote that a majority in the House of Representatives is in favor of inflow restrictive measures, suggesting that those measures will actually be introduced. We’ll just have to wait and see about that; As mentioned, no steps have been taken for the time being.
Prime Minister Rutte has managed to split the VVD through half-hearted and unfulfilled promises about limiting the influx of asylum seekers. The VVD faction in the House of Representatives is against the dispersal law, while in the Senate the VVD is in favor. That could become interesting at Saturday’s party conference. I am curious whether Kaljouw and Schippers will dare to brave the VVD storm there. I would advise Rutte to stay at home.
Harry Verbonwas professor of public finance at Tilburg University. Seeherehis blog.
The donors form the foundation van Wynia’s Week. As a donor, you make it possible for our online magazine to appear 104 times a year. You can donate in different wayslookHERE. Thank you in advance!
