VVD politician Paul Slettenhaar is highly critical of the law and calls it a “Frankenstein’s monster”, even now that more than 70,000 asylum seekers appear to be arriving in the Netherlands. ‘The forced asylum law as we call it is not the solution to the problem’, he is convinced. “Too many people come to the Netherlands, and if you bring too many people for whom accommodation or other facilities cannot be arranged, then a form of social disintegration occurs.”
‘Too many people come to Holland’
According to Slettenhaar, the law has not been given enough thought, and cites the VVD party congress in which Prime Minister Mark Rutte was allegedly “personally engaged” as a condition of the distribution law. “It hasn’t happened, so the question is how it’s going to happen.”
Motions
According to Slettenhaar, VVD MP Ruben Brekelmans did a good job adequately anticipating a number of motions, which were then adopted by VVD members. As for Slettenhaar, stopping prioritizing social housing, among other things, has the effect that asylum seekers will find traveling to the Netherlands less attractive. The implementation was also supposed to be temporary, “but we haven’t seen anything about it,” he continues. “I call the law Frankenstein’s monster because it’s been heavily negotiated, everyone has contributed, but ultimately it’s dysfunctional.”
disperse
While Slettenhaar is against any form of distribution, associate professor of legal theory and citizenship Tamar de Waal advocates a form of distribution. “I think some form of legal basis is needed, through which municipalities can be forced to take care,” he says. De Waal thinks shelter on a voluntary basis doesn’t work, “so I think a legal basis is good.”
He agrees with Slettenhaar that the current diffusion law is not ideal. Especially since the Council of State has also concluded that the plan is unnecessarily complex. “Many things are not constrained, the roles of the province and the AOC are not clear, as is the bonus structure,” he continues. “And that’s because it’s a compromise.”
Common problem
According to De Waal, such a compromise is a common problem for asylum seekers. “People talk about it so much that ultimately people don’t want to choose the right solution,” he says. ‘They just want to reduce the influx.’ De Waal calls it a legitimate discussion, but he also thinks it’s absurd to say that since the influx is smaller, it’s not possible to disperse with the people present.
He calls it “crazy” to tear down the policy that ensures that reception is properly organised, because another issue needs to be discussed. “We also see it in the integration and healthcare of asylum seekers,” he concludes. “We don’t organize it properly because we just want to talk about the influx, and this leads to emergency solutions and nasty situations where human dignity is violated.”