The Refugee Crisis

Danique Albronda, Elise van Dun,

Joëlle de Nooijer & Maurits van Woercom
PV4C
13/03/2020
Ms. Haverkate-Emmerson (ers)
Contents:
1. Introduction – Elise
2. Topics
2.1. The Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1951) – Maurits ....... 4
2.2. The policy of the European Union on asylum – Joëlle ……………………. 7
2.3. The asylum policy of the Netherlands – Joëlle …………………………… 11
2.4. The refugee crisis 2015/2016/2017/2018/2019/2020 – Danique ………. 15
2.5. How Europe, the European Union reacted – Elise ………………………. 19
2.6. Reaction of Dutch Politics – Maurits ………………………………………. 22
3. Opinions & conclusions ………………………………………………………….
4. Sources………………………………………………………………………………

(Danique was responsible for the layout and checked the overall grammar, with a
little help of Elise)

2
1. Introduction

Recently it has been all over the news: refugees and the refugee crisis. For example
with Turkey opening its borders on the 28th of February 2020.

The European migrant crisis, which may also be known as the refugee crisis, is a
period beginning in 2015 where high numbers of people arrive in Europe from Africa
or the Middle East. They travelled across the Mediterranean Sea or over land
through southeast Europe via Turkey. These high numbers of people arriving in
Europe are called migrant flows or asylum flows.

Those asylum flows are not constant, nor are they evenly distributed across the EU.
They have, for example, varied from a peak of 425,000 applications for EU member
states in 2001 and down to under 200,000 in 2006.

Definition refugee UN: A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee his or her
country because of persecution, war or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear
of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or
membership in a particular social group. Most likely, they cannot return home or are
afraid to do so. War and ethnic, tribal and religious violence are leading causes of
refugees fleeing their countries.
Two-thirds of all refugees worldwide come from just five countries: Syria,
Afghanistan, South Sudan, Myanmar and Somalia.

In this paper we are going to discuss some points of the refugee crisis and the
solutions to it and if they are useful and used or not.

All sources are listed in consecutive order on the last page.

By Elise van Dun

3
2.1. The Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees
The Refugee Convention, approved upon in July 1951, is the basis on which almost
all countries build their policy concerning the way refugees are coped with and
therefore the quintessence thereof. The convention entered into force on April 22,
1954. It was ratified by 145 states and
is hence the most multilateral of all
agreements on this subject.

The convention itself is built on the 14th

Article of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, approved on 10
December 1948 by the General
Assembly, which affirms “the principle
that human beings shall enjoy
fundamental rights and freedoms
without discrimination,”1 as we can read
in the preamble. Article 14 recognises
the right to seek asylum for those who
are persecuted in their own country.

The treaty starts by defining the term refugee. This definition is held as the main
principle in determining who is assigned the status of refugee and who is not. After
the definition of the term “refugee” circumstances wherefore people might not qualify
as refugees are listed. War criminals, for example, do not qualify as refugees2.
According to article 1 of the Convention, a refugee is a person who:

“As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing to well-
founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality,
membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the
country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to
avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality
and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of
such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.” 3

As we can see, this definition only applies to

people who fled their country as a result of
events occurring before 1 January 1951.
However, as time went by, it was found
necessary to make the provisions for those
refugees applicable to later emerged
refugee situations, too. That is why, in
1967, the Protocol Relating to the Status of
Refugees was added as an amendment to
the Convention. In this protocol the words

1 Preamble of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, Geneva, 28-07-1951

2 Article 1F of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, Geneva, 28-07-1951
3 Article 1A (2) the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, Geneva, 28-07-1951

4
“As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and” were omitted from the
definition in Article 1A (2).

Apart from the definition, the most important part of the Convention is most probably
article 33, the Prohibition of Expulsion or Return. This article forbids countries to
send refugees or asylum seekers back to their country of origin if they risk being
persecuted again there (refouler). The principle constituted here is also called “the
principle of non-refoulement.”

The treaty lists a number of other

general rights, such as the right of
refugees to enjoy the provisions of
the Convention without
discrimination (Article 3) and the
right of refugees to enjoy the
freedom to practice their religion
and educate their children
religiously at least as well as the
nationals in the concerned state do (Article 4). The next chapter includes rights and
stipulations which constitute the juridical status of a refugee and chapter three
encompasses refugees’ rights relating to employment. In the fourth chapter, certain
rights relating to welfare are listed, like the right of refugees to receive the same
treatment as nationals in countries where a rationing system exists (Article 20), the
right of refugees to be (in so far as the country concerned has laws or regulations on
this matter) accorded the regulations concerning housing lawfully and at least as well
as to other aliens (Article 21), and the duty of the “receiving country” to provide the
refugees with the same treatment as is accorded to nationals regarding elementary
education and to do their best to let refugees enjoy other means of education, too
(Article 22). In all these clauses, the phrase “The Contracting States shall accord to
refugee (lawfully) within their territories treatment as favourable as possible / as that
accorded to their nationals (and, in any event, not less favourable than that accorded
to aliens generally in the same circumstances)” catches the eye. This stipulation is
also reinforced in Article 7, clause 1, and Article 5, which state that if the rights and
benefits granted apart from the Convention are more favourable than the provisions
of the Convention, the Convention is not to detract therefrom. Apparently this is very
important, as it is mentioned twice and as the previously mentioned phrase is
included in so many clauses. In chapter five, the administrative measures, such as a
refugee’s Freedom of Movement (Article 26), the duties of the Contracting States to
issue identity papers and travel documents and the conditions under which they are
exempted of doing so are stipulated. The next chapter contains a few provisions
relating to the execution of the stipulations in the Convention and where necessary,
remarks for the transition from old regulations, to new ones, pursuant to the
Convention. The treaty concludes by stating that disputes concerning the
interpretation and application of the Convention, should be settled at the
International Court of Justice and a few regulations relating to the signing and the
ratification of the Convention, to states wanting to make reservations on certain
articles, to Contracting Federal, or non-unitary States, to the entry into force, the
denunciation and the revision of the Convention.

5
It is important to mention that apart from listing the rights and freedoms of refugees,
and the duties the Contracting States have to protect them, the Convention also says
that refugees staying in a certain country, “have to conform to the laws and
regulations of that country, as well as to measures taken for the maintenance of
public order” and have certain duties to that country. However, it has not been further
specified what these duties and measures can be, and there is a lot of space left
open for countries to decide what these must be.

In total the Convention has 7 chapters and 46 articles and several appendices. It is a
binding treaty, meaning that the Contracting States are legally obliged to comply with
its stipulations. In the Netherlands, it’s included in the law. The European Union
doesn’t have their own variant of the treaty, but they do have their own precepts on
the topic. The fact that the Convention is binding, is quite difficult to understand, as it
is not that clear who should look after the way refugees are treated across the world.
The treaty is an agreement between each Contracting State, and not an agreement
between a State and a higher governing body. De jure, states could charge other
states with not complying with the Convention, but in practice, this never happens.
The UNHCR, the organisation of the United Nation that takes to heart the conditions
of refugees around the world, plays a large role in executing the regulations of the
Convention, but as it is not legally a party to the Convention, it has no such rights.

Today, almost seventy years after the creation of the 1951 Refugee Convention, we
are in the midst of the largest refugee crisis ever since. There is a lot of debate about
whether the Convention is or isn’t outdated, and whether it should be revised. The
prime minister of Denmark, the first country to sign the Convention in 1951, and the
Dutch political parties VVD and CDA argue in favour of such a revision. One of the
arguments in favour of such a revision, is that at the time the Convention was
written, the Cold War, it was a natural thing to do for Europe to help the people trying
to flee from Eastern Europe (“the communist enemies”), and that now the refugees
come from different parts of the world and the relationships between those parts of
the world are different, the old “game rules” are not applicable anymore. However,
many people think the definition of the term “refugee” as “someone leaving their
country because of well-founded fear of being persecuted” is still very relevant and
so – they say – are the rights and provisions given to refugees in the Convention.
Also, many people reckon, the principle of non-refoulement still has a place in
western norms and values. Others might argue that the definition given in the
Protocol is too broad. They are afraid that economic migrants, criminals and
terrorists can use the Protocol to “get in”. At the same time, some think that the
definition should be made even broader, also including migrants fleeing from
extreme drought, for example. And people who think that terrorists can be granted
the status of refugee are simply wrong: it is explicitly stated in Article 1F, that
criminals do not qualify as refugees.
Other arguments in favour of such change are that with all the sub-treaties and
protocols it all has become rather unclear and that the Convention and the Protocol
do not mention how the burden should be divided among countries receiving
refugees. Anyhow, many people agree that now, under the current political
circumstances in Europe, is not the time to make changes. We shall see whether
that will be different in the future.

By Maurits van Woercom

6
2.2. The policy of the European Union on asylum

The current European policy on refugees and asylum, the Common European
Asylum System, is based on multiple treaties and regulations including the 1951
Geneva Convention on the Protection of Refugees. This convention mentioned
granting asylum to people fleeing persecution or serious harm in their own country is
an international obligation. Asylum is seen as a fundamental right. Furthermore, the
asylum policy finds its legal basis in the Treaty on the functioning of the European
Union (articles 67.2, 78 and 80) and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (article
18).

The Dublin Regulations

One of the most important legislative pieces on the asylum policy is the Dublin
Regulation, which has evolved into the Dublin III Regulation. Every time someone
applies for asylum within the EU borders, it needs to be examined. The purpose of
the regulation is to determine the Member State responsible for the examination of
the asylum application. Together with the EURODAC Regulation, which establishes
an EU asylum fingerprint database, it is the cornerstone for the Dublin System.
The Dublin System concerns criteria and mechanisms for the examination of asylum
applications in the EU territory.

The first convention was signed in Dublin on the 15th of June 1990 and it entered into
force on 1997, but only member states of the European Communities could access
it. Two non-member states, Iceland and Norway, came to an agreement regarding
the use of the convention in their territories with the EC. This first version of the
convention lasted for nine years.
The Dublin II Regulation was soon adopted, but this one, too, did not last long. The
third regulation, Dublin III, entered into force in July 2013 and is still ongoing. This
one is meant to contain reliable procedures for the protection of asylum applicants
and it should improve the system’s efficiency.
The European Commission said the following concerning the policy:

“Asylum must not be a lottery. EU Member States have a shared responsibility to

welcome asylum seekers in a dignified manner, ensuring they are treated fairly
and that their case is examined to uniform standards so that, no matter where an
applicant applies, the outcome will be similar.”

– European Commission

However, according to the European Council on Refugees and Exiles and the
UNHCR the current system fails in providing fair, efficient and effective protection for
refugees. Around 2008, those who moved under the Dublin System were not always
able to access an asylum procedure.

A new system
Meanwhile, a new system had been set up. In 1999, the Treaty of Amsterdam
granted the EU institutions new powers to draw up legislation in the area of asylum.
This was possible due to a specific institutional mechanism: a five-year transitional
period with a shared right of initiative between the Commission and the Member

7
States and decision by unanimity in the Council after consultation with Parliament
and even the Court of Justice of the European Union, the CJEU, was able to get
some jurisdiction in specific situations. Before this mechanism, the CJEU had no
jurisdiction on asylum matters at all. In fact, before 1999, the Council was to assign
the right jobs to the Commission and inform Parliament about its asylum initiatives.

The new system, called the Common European Asylum System, is meant to improve
the current legislative framework. It has two phases. The first one was the phase
from 1999 to 2004. The transition period. If this system would prove to work within
the five-year trial period, the Council could decide to use it from that point on. During
this phase, several legislative measures were adopted about harmonising common
minimum standards for asylum. Moreover, Member States needed to define the
criteria and mechanisms for determining a State’s responsibility for asylum
procedures to all States, the minimum standards on the reception of asylum seekers
and the criteria of when an asylum seeker would be seen as a refugee in the EU
more accurately. This sounds familiar, because it’s the same as the Dublin II
Regulation. Actually, the Dublin System, and thus the Regulation, became a part of
the CEAS.

After the first phase, a period of reflection came which involved further thinking about
the future of the Common European Asylum System. A 2007 Green Paper was
written which was the basis for a large public consultation. Together with the
responses of this consultation, an evaluation about the implementation of the
existing policies and instruments, were the basis for the European Commission’s
Policy Plan on Asylum, created in 2008. It stated that the second phase would go on
about “the establishment of a common asylum procedure and a uniform status for
those who are granted asylum or subsidiary protection, as well as strengthening
practical cooperation between national asylum administrations and the external
dimension of asylum.” Furthermore it made some statements about thriving to
increase solidarity and sense of responsibility among EU States, and between the
EU and non-EU countries. The second phase lasted from 2004 to 2010.

This was also the phase in which the Dublin II Regulation was upgraded into the
Dublin III Regulation: our current Regulation. It establishes criteria for allocation of
responsibility upon Member States when it comes to examining asylum applications.
The most important aspect of this version is the “first-entry rule”. It means that the
country which the irregular immigrant first entered, is responsible for a fair and swift
examination. Unfortunately, this would mean that there will be a lot more pressure on
countries at the external borders of the EU.

A problem has occurred

The burden has become more and more obvious with the large migratory influx of
2015 which made the EU aware of the insufficiency of the CEAS.
An example of this are the events on the 23rd of June 2015, during the European
refugee and migrant crisis, Hungary considered itself overburdened with asylum
applications after receiving 60,000 "illegal immigrants" and announced to no longer
receive applicants who had crossed the borders to other EU countries. This clashed
with the Dublin Regulation and therefore Hungary practically withdrew from the
Regulation due to unspecified "technical reasons".

8
To fix this problem, new rules have been agreed on setting out common high
standards and even stronger co-operation to ensure that asylum seekers are treated
equally in an open and fair system. This means that with the reform of the CEAS, a
Dublin IV Regulation has been proposed in May 2016. The new Dublin System will
be transparent and enhance its effectiveness, whilst providing a mechanism to deal
with situations of disproportionate pressure on Member States' asylum systems. It is
aimed at unburdening the countries on the borders.
The European Commission has written a brief summary on the revised Common
System:

- The revised Asylum Procedures Directive aims at fairer, quicker and better
quality asylum decisions. Asylum seekers with special needs will receive the
necessary support to explain their claim and in particular there will be greater
protection of unaccompanied minors and victims of torture.
- The revised Reception Conditions Directive ensures that there are humane
material reception conditions (such as housing) for asylum seekers across the
EU and that the fundamental rights of the concerned persons are fully
respected. It also ensures that detention is only applied as a measure of last
resort.
- The revised Qualification Directive clarifies the grounds for granting
international protection and therefore will make asylum decisions more robust.
It will also improve the access to rights and integration measures for
beneficiaries of international protection.
- The revised Dublin Regulation enhances the protection of asylum seekers
during the process of establishing the State responsible for examining the
application, and clarifies the rules governing the relations between states. It
creates a system to detect early problems in national asylum or reception
systems, and address their root causes before they develop into fully fledged
crises.
- The revised EURODAC Regulation will allow law enforcement access to the
EU database of the fingerprints of asylum seekers under strictly limited
circumstances in order to prevent, detect or investigate the most serious
crimes, such as murder, and terrorism.

The present
De European Union will spend about 15 billion
euros on asylum and migration within the period
of 2014 until 2020. Their goal is to limit irregular
migration, to prevent the deaths of migrants at
sea and to draw talented people into the
countries.

Unfortunately, certain Member States on the

EU’s external borders, such as Greece, Italy and
Malta, are still overburdened by the numbers of
asylum-seekers. This has led to both poor conditions
for asylum-seekers (unjustified detentions, mistreatment, etc.) and to lower rates of
asylum being granted. As a consequence, the refugees move to other countries like
Germany and Sweden. Those two countries have the highest rates on asylum
seekers.

9
Summary
What is the exact aim of the asylum policy? In short, the official site of the European
Parliament says the following:
“The aim of the EU’s asylum policy is to offer appropriate status to any third-
country national requiring international protection in one of the Member States
and ensure compliance with the principle of non-refoulement*.”

– European Parliament

*Non-refoulement is a fundamental principle of international refugee law. It is the

right for asylum seekers not to be returned to a place of persecution, as outlined in
the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. This right differs from the
right to asylum because to respect the right to asylum, states must not deport
legitimate refugees. In contrast, the right to non-refoulement allows states to transfer
genuine refugees to third party countries with respectable human rights records.

Numbers

This graph shows the migration trends since 1998. In 2015, the number of migrants
doubled compared to previous years.

By Joëlle de Nooijer

10
2.3. The asylum policy of the Netherlands

As stated in the 1951 Geneva Convention on the Protection of Refugees and the
European Convention of Human Rights, asylum is a fundamental right and granting it
to people fleeing persecution or serious harm in their own country is an international
obligation. The Netherlands, too, has to obey the rules agreed on in the Common
European Asylum System.
When someone applies for asylum, he or she is officially asking the Dutch
government for a residence permit. This permit is needed to be allowed to live in the
Netherlands.

Basics
The Dutch system may grant asylum to those who would be in danger if they were to
return to their own country. For instance, they can be persecuted on religious or
ethnic grounds. However, there are many asylum claims each year. In 2019, the
Netherlands received 22,533 claims from asylum seekers who hadn’t requested it
before in our country. Due to these large numbers, it is only logical that not every
claimant can be accepted into the Dutch system. The Immigration and Naturalisation
Service, IND, assesses whether an asylum seeker genuinely needs protection.
There have been special rules set up to unaccompanied foreign nationals under the
age of 18. People who are granted asylum get help from the municipality in finding a
place to live.

The first steps

There are two scenarios when entering the Netherlands as an asylum seeker. Some
people arrive here by land and will receive the standard asylum procedure. The
foreign national must report his/her arrival to the Immigration and Naturalisation
Service at the application centre in Ter Apel. Here, he or she can submit the asylum
application. The Identification and People Trafficking Department, AVIM, formerly
known as the Alien Police and also located at the application centre in Ter Apel, will
record the asylum seeker’s personal data, including name, date of birth and
nationality to check their identity. Moreover, the staff will search their clothing and
luggage. In addition takes the police fingerprints and photographs of all new arrivals
in the Netherlands. This corresponds with the EURODAC Regulation.
After identification and registration, the asylum seekers are transferred to a reception
centre.

Some asylum seekers enter the Netherlands by plane or by boat. When these
people apply for asylum, they will receive a different asylum procedure: the border
procedure. The maximum duration of the Border Procedure is 28 days. The
foreigners will have to report to the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee at Schiphol
Airport. Their officers will register the personal details, examine the clothing and
luggage, take photos, record the applicants’ fingerprints and bring him or her to the
Schiphol Registration Centre. Asylum seekers are not allowed to leave this centre on
their own initiative and are obligated to stay there during the entire Border
Procedure.

In both cases, the asylum seekers can be asked questions about their journey,
previous asylum applications and family members. This is important because of
many reasons. Most important, if an individual has already applied for asylum in

11
another EU Member State, the IND will send this person back to the first country in
question with a special asylum procedure: the Dublin procedure. When the applicant
is from one of the countries on the list of safe countries of origin, a sped-up, or
simplified, asylum procedure is applied.
AVIM will investigate whether there are any original documents concerning the
identity, travel route or asylum story. Experts from the Royal Netherlands
Marechaussee examine important documents to see if they are authentic.

People suspected of having tuberculosis will undergo a full TB examination, since it

can spread easily by coughing and sneezing. If the outcome of the test is positive,
the person will receive medical treatment.
After registering, everyone will receive shelter, meals and further medical care.

During the registration procedure, the individuals will be able to sign their asylum
application. The IND has a reporting interview and will ask questions about the
origin, education and life history of the person in question.
If the UNHCR has accepted the asylum seeker as a refugee, this must immediately
be mentioned to the IND. However, documentation to prove this is a must.

The asylum procedure

Prior to the asylum procedure, the asylum seekers are given at least 6 days to
recover from their journey and prepare themselves for the next round of interviews
with the IND. They will also be medically examined. During the examination, a nurse
checks the physical and mental health of the individuals. Applicants will also obtain
information about the asylum procedure and get help from a lawyer.
The Central Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers, COA, is responsible for
the reception, supervision and departure from the reception centre of asylum
seekers.

After this period of rest and preparation, the general asylum procedure starts. This
part takes about 4 to 8 days in which the asylum seeker has multiple interviews with
the Immigration and Naturalisation Service. He or she will receive advice from
his/her appointed lawyer about what to say or the assistance of a representative of
the Dutch Refugee Council can be called upon. During the interview, asylum seekers
have the chance to explain what they experienced in their country of origin and why
they had to leave. The IND will arrange an interpreter for this interview and is
allowed to ask critical questions.
Afterwards, the asylum seeker is sent a report of the interview. Together with their
lawyer, they may send the IND corrections or additions.
In some special cases, this period can last up until 28 days. This is a so-called
extended asylum procedure. Sometimes more research is needed towards, for
example, the country of origin or certain later submitted documents that need to be
checked.

After the interviews, the IND will make a decision on whether you will get a permit to
stay in the Netherlands or not. It assesses asylum applications based on the asylum
seeker’s facts and credibility and the security situation in the asylum seeker’s country
of origin.

12
After the asylum procedure
If the IND confirms that an asylum seeker needs protection, they will be given an
asylum residence permit. With this permit, they are allowed to work and depending
their personal situation, they can bring over family members. And family members
will be able to enter the country more easily. The Central Agency for the Reception
of Asylum Seekers will consult with the asylum seeker about the municipality he or
she wishes to live in, but in the end, a house will be appointed to them. The Dutch
Council for Refugees will help with arranging important matters, like finding work or
studying.

Asylum seekers who do not require protection must return to their country of origin.
They have to arrange their journey back home by themselves within 28 days.
Furthermore, if the application is declared “manifestly unfounded” or “inadmissible”
the asylum seeker must leave the Netherlands immediately.
Those whose application is denied may apply to the district court for a review of the
IND's decision. They are often allowed to carry on living in the Netherlands while
their case is being reconsidered.

Other procedures
Besides the normal asylum procedure, there’s a fast one, as slightly mentioned
before. This so-called accelerated asylum procedure is applied when an asylum
seeker comes from a country on the list of safe countries of origin* or when he or she
is already receiving protection from another European Member State.
In such cases the asylum seeker is not given time for rest and preparation and is
interviewed immediately. At this interview the asylum seeker can explain why they
would not be safe in their country of origin. The most important part however, is that
their arguments must be more convincing than those of asylum seekers from
countries that are not on the list.
Another thing is that the interview usually takes place without a lawyer present. After
the interview the asylum seeker is allowed to consult a lawyer and send the IND
additions or corrections to the report.

There is also the Dublin procedure which has also been mentioned before. As
explained in chapter 2.3 of this paper, the Dublin Convention is about determining
the Member State responsible for the examination of an asylum application.
Therefore, maybe you can guess that the Dublin procedure concerns asylum
seekers who have already applied for asylum in another EU Member State. Those
concerned with this issue will be sent back to the first European Member State they
registered in.

* The list of safe countries consists out of countries where, according to the Dutch
government, there is no persecution, torture and/or inhuman treatment.

Follow-up
After a specific individual has had a residence permit for 5 years, he or she can
apply for a permanent residence permit or even for Dutch citizenship. Those who are
18+ must learn Dutch and must learn about the functioning of our society works as
soon as they are acknowledged as refugees and are allowed to stay in the
Netherlands. Asylum seekers are also able to follow free lessons on the Dutch
language.

13
Children
Unaccompanied minor aliens, AMV’s, are aliens, also known as foreign nationals,
under the age of 18 who were not accompanied by a parent or other relative by
blood or marriage aged 18+ when arriving in the Netherlands. AMV’s under the age
of twelve do not have a reporting interview. According to the site of the Government
of the Netherlands, a few special measures apply to AMV’s:

- AMV’s are assigned a guardian until their 18th birthday.

- AMVs under the age of 15 are placed with foster families by the Nidos
Foundation. AMV’s aged 15 and over, and those under 15 who cannot be
placed with foster families, are given accommodation by the COA. They are
housed in small-scale reception centres with 24-hour supervision.
- This supervision takes account of AMVs’ possible outcomes: civic integration
if they are granted a residence permit or return if their application is denied.
AMV’s in COA reception centres who are granted a residence permit are
placed in foster families by the Nidos Foundation, to help them integrate in
society.
- The IND has special interview rooms for children under 12 (for example with
toys). Certain staff members are specially trained to interview children and
question them in a manner appropriate to their age.
- AMV’s in the Netherlands have the right to shelter, education, health care and
support, just like other children.

Besides these minors, there are also children who have lived in the Netherlands for
more than five years without a residence permit. They may be qualified for the Dutch
government program for long-term resident children under the age of 19, known as
the Kinderpardon. This enables them to stay in the Netherlands.

By Joëlle de Nooijer

14
2.4. The refugee crisis 2015/2016/2017/2018/2019/2020

Why is the refugee crisis a problem?

It is a problem because: countries have no space (housing) left for the overflow of
people coming from the conflict areas. Therefore they sometimes refuse to let more
people in what can lead to large amounts of -illegal- people in a country. These
people have to survive to first; stay alive and arrive safe in a different country, and
secondly; try as hard as they can not to get thrown out by that country.

In the Netherlands, the amount of refugees entered and entering has since 2015
doubled. This is a really big amount of people, and because of the growing need, the
Netherlands and other EU countries have agreed to divide 120,000 refugees across
the various member states. Over the space of two years, the Netherlands will have
received 7,000 of those 120,000 people. Previously we also committed to receiving
2,000 asylum seekers coming from Italy and Greece.
As you may be able to see, these numbers aren’t exactly small. These people
however, often can’t stay in or come back to their home countries, because of war,
or other horrible circumstances. This causes a lot of stress, not only for them, but
also for the people who make the hard decisions regarding the asylum seekers. That
is why it is a big problem, especially since 2015, but more on that in the next part:

Overview of the years (since 2015)

In this part, there will be an overview on the refugee crisis, giving a clear view on
what has happened. This will be done from 2015, because of the big numbers of
migrants coming to the EU.

In 2015 this period of the refugee crisis began. They say it has begun in 2015
because of a big flow of refugees arriving in the European Union from across the
Mediterranean Sea or overland through the Southeast of Europe. This amount (as
earlier mentioned) has in 2015 more than doubled from the numbers of 2014. These
people came from across the Mediterranean Sea or overland through Southeast
Europe, following Turkey’s migrant crisis.
IOM and UNHCR had estimated that around the 1,005,504 migrants and refugees
had arrived in Europe from 1 January to 21 of December. Of this amount only 3%
came over land to Bulgaria and Greece, the rest came by sea to Greece, Italy,
Spain, Cyprus, and Malta. Half of the people coming by sea came from Syria, 20%
from Afghanistan and 7 percent from Iraq. An estimated amount of 3,692 had lost
their lives in the Mediterranean.

The next year, 2016, around the 123,000 refugees landed in Greece. This was only
during the first two months, January and February. Compared to the numbers of the
year before during the same period, when there were around 4.600 migrants in
Greece. But in March that number decreased to 26,460. Still, the Syrians, Afghans
and Iraqis continued to account for the largest share of refugees in Greece. Then in
April it dropped even more, only 2,700 migrants arrived in Greece. At the same time
(mostly) African migrants doubled between February and March, reaching almost
9,600 in March. On the contrary, in April the number of migrants arriving in Italy
dropped by 13% (of the 8,370) compared to the previous month. Italy exceeds the
totals of Greece for the first time since June 2015.

15
In many European countries,
the mass influx of migrants
coming into the EU was not
seen favourably. 94% of the
Greek inhabitant and 88% of the
Swedes disapproved of the
EU’s handling this refugee
crisis. Other countries also had
these rates when saying that they disapproved of the EU handling the crisis. This
resulted in the creation and implementation of the ‘EU-Turkey Refugee Agreement’
(see the graph in the picture right-above). This agreement was signed in March
2016. From that point, the rates of migrants entering Greece decreased.

To give an example: in February

2016, a full month before this
agreement, 57,066 refugees
entered Greece (see picture with
graph on the right), but after March,
the highest numbers of refugees
entering Greece was 3,650 (This
was in April, and these are the
numbers for migrants arriving over
sea). In this same period the numbers in Italy also decreased, as was it overall in the
EU. Still, after the ‘EU-Turkey Refugee Agreement’ was signed and the number of
refugees in Greece, Italy and other parts of Europe decreased, the EU (tried) to form
agencies and make plans to mitigate the crisis.

In addition (in 2017), the next year there was (again) a big decrease of migrants
entering the EU. In the 3rd quarter of 2017, the amount of migrants in total in Europe
was recorded to 146,287. This is less than half of the amount recorded in 2016 (by
the end of September). Despite the 86, percent drop of refugee and migrant arrivals
in the end of September 2017, compared to the end of September 2016 (in the
whole of the EU), Greece has seen a steady increase in these numbers since
September 2016, till date. But while Italy also noted a lower number of refugee
arrivals in 2017, there was a significant jump in the amount of migrants entering
Spain, with over 16,000 having arrived in the country. And so, just like Spain, Cyprus
has seen an 8-fold increase in the number of refugees arriving there last year and
this year.

The cause for this big decrease is partly because of the closure of some certain
heavy-traffic routes such as the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. But this is only
the decrease of refugees coming from the Middle East. The number of illegal
immigrants coming from Africa, had been growing due to the fact that the Western
Mediterranean Route was still full in use. Nigerians topped the list of illegal
immigrants into Italy in 2017 forming 16 percent of arrivals there.
In February 2017 the Italian government accepted o fund the Libyan coast guard, to
try and decrease the number of migrants coming from Libya. Since then, many
migrants were forced to go back to Libya.

16
Also, in 2017 approximately 825 thousand persons acquired citizenship of a member
of the European Union, this amount is less than in 2016, when around the 99
thousand persons acquired European citizenship.

In 2018, there have been a couple of deaths amongst migrants. There are believed
to have died at least 10 migrants on October the 7th off the coast of Morocco. Helena
Maleno (founder of the group ‘Walking Borders’), told the reporters that the people
on the boat constantly appealed for help from Spain and Morocco before they died.

Then the next year, August 2019, more than 270 Europe-bound migrants were
rescued by the Libyan coastguard, from Tripoli’s Mediterranean coast. This included
18 women and two children and the entire group travelling was split on 4 different
boats. In total, there is said by a UN report that there are more than 45,000
immigrants that had reached the EU by August. Of this group 859 have reportedly
died on the way.

Then once again, in September 2019, Libya’s coastguard intercepted another group
of 108 Europe-bound migrants, amongst which were 13 women and seven children.
After that the Italian authorities had rescued another group of 22 Europe-bound
migrants from a boat that was carrying around 50 people. At the same time of this
rescue, 13 bodies were reportedly found, and later it emerged that the others were
still missing. This happened on the 8th of October, 2019. On the 16th of October,
Italian authorities again found bodies, this time of at 12 people who had died in the
incident of the 8th of October.

After this, in November after a boat capsized, the people on it were rescued by
Italian coastguards. These people counted 149, and they were all headed to Europe.
Later they found five dead bodies and confirmed that the death toll of this incident
was at least 18.

This year, in 2020, there have also been some things that have happened. Turkey
for example, had ‘closed’ its doors for refugees since July 2018. This led to unlawful
deportations, coerced returns to Syria and the denial of health care and education.
By recently, they have opened their doors again to refugees, claiming to have
already obtained/welcomed approximately 80,000 refugees into their country.

17
As a conclusion as to what has happened the last
5 years, we can say that the numbers have been
getting really big. Especially in 2015, with the flow
of migrants entering the European Union being
more than twice the amount of the last year(s). On
the right there is a picture, which shows the
numbers of asylum applicants, over the years
2008 till 2018 and shows it per country in the EU.
This chart shows how many migrants have
applied in a country per year.

We can also say that by far the biggest group of

migrants came from Syria, the second largest
group was from Afghanistan and the third biggest
group from Iraq. These are (almost) all refugees
coming from conflict areas: think about the
ongoing civil war in Syria, where in total there
have been made 3.8 million refugees. These
people often fled to Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey or Iraq; or the violence in Afghanistan.
People who were able to come back recently, or a while ago, are probably forced to
flee again due to the ongoing violence in Afghanistan. The guardian says:

“The research found 72% of those who have returned to Afghanistan after living
as refugees abroad have been displaced at least twice.”

-The Guardian, 25 Jan 2018-

What we can also say is that at first (in 2015), the numbers of refugees has really
increased a lot, as said before, but that after some measures had been taken, those
numbers seem to have decreased more and more. This also had to do with the ‘EU-
Turkey Refugee Agreement’.
The most used routes by refugees that were Europe-bound were mostly the Central
Mediterranean route, but these refugees were mostly illegal, since it was closed,
along with the Eastern Mediterranean route. There has been said that this route is
the most dangerous route, the New York Times Magazine says:

“This migration route is not only the most trafficked in the world; it is also the
deadliest, with more than 15,000 deaths recorded since 2014. In 2018, more than
550 people have already died or are missing trying to cross the sea.”

-The New York Times Magazine, April 26th 2018-

Overall, the European migrant crisis is still going on until this day; the numbers just
keep getting bigger and bigger.

By Danique Albronda

18
2.5. How Europe, the European Union reacted

Libya and Niger

Even though it has been four years since the peak of the migration crisis in Europe,
the member states of the EU still have not found a useful solution to tackle the
consequences of migration and migrants.
Since populist and anti-migration governments succeeded in entering European
politics, the EU made deals with various countries, like Libya, Turkey and Niger, to
keep asylum seekers away from the shores of European countries. And to provide
them with a safe procedure and safe housing.

In February 2017, EU leaders made an agreement with Libya to increase the

cooperation to reduce irregular immigration.
When deadly airstrikes hit detention centres nearby the capital of Libya, Tripoli, the
EU started following plans, which were made by the African Union, to evacuate the
unprotected migrants and refugees to another country: Rwanda.

In 2017, the EU set up new asylum centres in Niger, in addition to the asylum
centres which were already there in Libya. Those asylum centres are designed for
the processing of refugees’ status and, at the end, for their resettlement to Europa or
other countries.
Since the built of those asylum centre, Niger has already accepted over 2,900
migrants.
But, as Niger heads into a presidential election in 2021, the country says that their
"willingness to cooperate with Libya and the EU seems to have reached its limit.”

The deal with Turkey and the EU

On the 18th of March 2016, the EU and Turkey signed a migration agreement, which
has as an aim to control the flow of migrants coming from Turkey into Europe, and
especially coming to the Greek islands. And in return for this control, Turkey would
get some financial support from the EU, because the country has some financial
issues.
According to a spokeswoman, the EU will continue to carry out their commitments
under the EU-Turkey agreement as promised. This agreement has already provided
“a safe and legal path for over 23,000 Syrian refugees. We trust that we can
continue with this deal in good faith with our Turkish partners,” the spokeswoman
said.

According to the EU commission, Turkey provided a place for almost four million
registered refugees (there might be more, but they are not registered). Out of those
four million registered refugees, nearly 3.6 million are from Syria.
In 2018, a total number of 50,789 arrivals were registered from Turkey into the EU.
This was a 22 percent increase compared to 2017, when 41,720 arrivals were
registered.

19
Recently, the Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan threatened the EU with
reopening the routes to Europe if Turkey does not receive more economic support
for a resettlement plan.
And he did, he reopened the routes for the migrants on the 28th of February 2020.
The exact numbers of how many people are leaving Turkey for Europe are difficult to
locate. But the president Erdogan said that at the weekend, which was 2/3 days
later, the number would reach 25,000/30,000, because Turkey will not close the
gates.

Italy
More than any other country in the EU, Italy invested during recent years significant
resources to try to keep away the flow of migrants coming to the Italian costs, mostly
from Libya.
Italy took the lead in providing material and technical help to the Libyan Coast
Guard, whose aim is to intercept migrants and asylum seekers in the Mediterranean
Sea and return them to Libyan arbitrary detention centres.

The Dublin regulation

The Dublin regulation is a European Union law that determines which EU member
state is responsible for the examination of an application for asylum.
According to the ECRE (the European Council on Refugees and Exiles), this current
system fails in providing fair, efficient and effective protection. The ECRE claims that
the Dublin regulation impedes the legal rights and personal welfare of the asylum
seekers, including the right to a fair examination of their asylum claim, and
sometimes even the right to effective protection. Also, the amount of asylum claims
is not distributed fairly among the member states of the EU.
If the Dublin regulation is used, there can occur a serious delay in the presentation of
the asylum claims, or some claims will be never heard of. The Dublin regulation also
increases pressures on the external border regions of Europe, where the most
asylum seekers enter Europa, those border countries are often the least able to
provide support and protection to the asylum seekers,
Therefore this regulation is strongly criticised.

Disagreements
Of course, next to all the agreements and deals on the refugee crisis there are also
some disagreements about what to do with this crisis or what to do with the migrants
coming to your country. An example of some disagreement may be that in some
countries there is already not much space for houses and people to live, because
they think their country is relatively full, and then the refugees come and get a place
in the ‘full’ country. And then the migrants want to work if they go live in that country,
so less jobs will be available for the original inhabitants of the country.
Also, some parties are against hosting refugees and some might be pro, so then it is
hard to find an agreement so that all the parties are happy with the voting.
Next to those disagreements, some of the agreements on the refugee crisis are also
criticised, like the Dublin regulation, because they violate some of the human rights
for protection or might put pressure on a country to take in even more migrants than
they are able to.

20
Human rights
Human rights
organisations also
disagree with some of
the refugee crisis
policies.
Some human rights do
not apply or do not
completely apply to
refugees, for example,
the right to seek a safe
place to live, the right to
social security and the
right to food and shelter for
all. The first one, the right to seek a safe place to live, is what refugees try to do, but
this can be hard if the borders of a country they want to enter are closed and so they
are forced to stay in the unsafe country instead of crossing the border and entering
the safe country.
The second human right, the right to social security, this is a right which says you
have to have a right to affordable housing, medicine, education and childcare, and
also enough money to live on. This human right is violated because refugees don’t
always have (enough) money, so they can’t afford housing, educations etc. But
luckily, there are human rights organisations which help people in need and provide
them with all that is needed.
And the last one, the right to food and shelter for all, this one refers back to the
previous one, because if you don’t have (enough) money you can’t buy enough food
or afford housing.

By Elise van Dun

21
 The Refugee Crisis – How Dutch Politics Reacted
Now that we have had a look at the foundations of the idea of having the term
“refugee” to refer to people who have more, or more specific rights then regular
migrants, now that we have contemplated the history, the size and the impact of the
refugee crisis of the last couple of years, and seen how the European Union reacted,
it is time to look closer to home. How did our politicians react on the refugee crisis of
2015 up until now? What are the different opinions of the parties currently in our
government? What is in the coalition agreement about asylum seekers?
Fortunately, we live in a democracy where every opinion has a right to exist. Those
opinions range from welcoming all refugees whose country-of-choice is the
Netherlands, just like during the Great War, when the
Netherlands had a population of only six million, but welcomed
one million Belgian refugees, to the isolationist point of view
stating that we should not help migrants fleeing from war or
violence, and close our borders, but for practicality’s sake, I will
only focus on the policies of the political parties that currently
partake in our cabinet (Rutte-III). Those parties are: VVD, CDA,
D66 and the ChristenUnie, in order of the number of seats they
acquired during the last election.
According to their website, the VVD, the largest party in our parliament, which has
delivered us our current Prime Minister, has as a starting point, that all refugees
have a right to safety. However, this safety should be offered in the neighbouring
countries, and not in Europe. By investing in regional shelter and limiting the
residence permits granted in the Netherlands, they want to prevent expressions of
xenophobia and discourage people to take dangerous sea voyages. They want to
stop the business of people smugglers. “Clarity is for everyone’s benefit” is one of
their other pillars. They want it to be clear very quickly whether someone can be
qualified as a refugee, and if not, they want clarity for the asylum seekers that have
been refused the status of refugee, too. This they
want to achieve by not offering any sheltering
initiated by municipalities to rejected asylum seekers.
Another thing that catches the eye, is the rather high
expectations the VVD have for immigrants on
naturalisation. However, they also say that it is a
refugee’s “own responsibility”. “That migrants lose
their residence permit or allowance if they don’t show
This the VVD want to prevent… sufficient commitment to integrate” only makes
sense, according to the VVD. “Marriage migration”
should only be allowed for partners who intend to really participate in society and
later proof this by doing so. A Dutch passport is something one has to deserve, and
they want to issue Dutch passports only after ten years.
It was interesting to see that certain sources frame the policy of the VVD very
differently. An article on nu.nl that is supposed to be an overview of the positions of

22
Dutch political parties on the subject of refugees and integration says the following
about the VVD4:
“The VVD thinks that people fleeing from war and violence should find a refuge.
These refugees are searching safety, but already found this safety in safe European
countries at the borders of the EU.
According to the VVD, refugees travel across Europe because they can and of the
generous social facilities that our country offers. That makes them economic
refugees, of which the VVD wants ‘as little as possible’.”
I did not list this source at the end of the document, since I did not really use it as a
source, but I do think that this illustrates very well how certain sites and media like to
change the wording, cutting corners and making it much more simplistic and blunt.
The national CDA doesn’t really give lots of
information on their own opinions relating to
the refugee crisis. However, they do have a
very elaborate disquisition on their contribution
with respect to this topic to the coalition
agreement. In the first place, those fleeing
from war or violence have a right to be
protected. However, just like the VVD does,
they stress the importance of shelter in the region. They want to achieve more and
better shelter there by making agreements with safe third-world countries nearby and
by cooperation with international organisations like with the IOM and the UNHCR.
The way, uncontrolled migration waves are to be prevented and the business model
op people smugglers is to be breached. Those who could find refuge in a
neighbouring country but choose differently are not accorded protection in their
country-of-choice. If we have everything under control, the CDA wants to take some
of the weight off the shoulders of the neighbouring countries. For this, they want to
see obligatory regulations on a European level. For now, the cabinet wants to
research the necessity of amending the 1951 Refugee Convention and support the
EU-borders more. The CDA wants more capacity for the IND (Immigratie- en
Naturalisatiedienst) and shorter asylum procedures with priority for families with
children, in order to make it clear as quickly as possible whether someone can stay
or not and to avoid poignant situations. For clarity’s sake, they do not want to give
rejected asylum seekers false hope or to have rejected asylum seekers staying in
our country. On these grounds, they oppose the maintaining of shelter to these
people by certain municipalities. “With this policy,” the cabinet states, “more people
will stay in the Netherlands, but, conversely, the voluntary resettlement set by the UN
is to be reduced from 750 to 500, to make for a more balanced policy.” The CDA is
the only one of the parties in our coalition that had such detailed ideas with respect
to the shape of asylum in the Netherlands on their site. Their opinion is, that “shelter,
asylum procedures and integration should all take place under one roof.” Those with
little to no change of being granted a residence permit, should stay in medium-sized

4 https://www.nu.nl/politiek/4146863/vluchtelingen-standpunten-van-politieke-partijen.html (translated)

23
accommodations, and those who have a high change of being granted residence
permits should be moved to smaller accommodations. Here, they should
immediately start learning the Dutch language, according to the website of the CDA.
When you have a look at the site of D66, they haven’t written much on the topic of
immigration and asylum. They have a few spearheads, and then, they give a lot
more examples of specific cases and personal stories then the other parties do.
They clearly have a different approach; maybe not so much to the content, but rather
to the way the show what their opinions are. Contrary to the VVD and the CDA, D66
starts not by stating that everyone fleeing on grounds of well-founded fear for unjust
persecution has a right to be protected, but by making clear that “only real refugees
can come.” They argue in favour of good shelter but say that this has to be in
accordance with the public support among the local population. D66 wants to be
honest and does not want to raise false expectations. Given that 95% of all Syrian
refugees already finds their refuge in neighbouring countries, they say that a
combination of those countries and European countries offering protection is
necessary. They are in favour of investing in better selection at the borders of the
European Union. As for rejected asylum seekers in the Netherlands, D66 says that
“arrangements made with municipalities about shelter should not be violated. They
want direct integration, lessons in the Dutch language offered at the
accommodations, the quick acknowledgement of foreign certificates, and the
abrogation of any impediments for newcomers to find a job.
Looking at the policy of the ChristenUnie, we see
one word occurring again and again:
“compassion,” or, in Dutch “barmhartigheid.”
Pondering this term, it makes sense, for a party
with clear Christian roots, to use such a biblical
word. Considering the word they use in Dutch, it
evokes associations with the Good Samaritan, for
me. Apart from occurring repeatedly throughout
their policy with respect to immigration and
asylum, it also summarises its content. The don’t
want to move refugees to much. This might have caused some dissension with the
CDA, considering their ideas about how asylum in the Netherlands should be given
form. Also, the ChristenUnie wants to leave more space of initiatives of volunteers. In
their own words: “from a regime of ‘controlling and managing’ to a regime of ‘contact
and integration’.” One of their other spearheads is the protection of minorities like
Christians and members of the LHBTQ+ -community. According to the site of the
ChristenUnie, the think that misbehaviour should have consequences for obtaining a
residence permit. They want more effective asylum procedures and better selection
at EU-borders. They want more clarity towards asylum seekers on what their
perspectives are. The ChristenUnie argues in favour of an obligatory study-work
program and monetary help to integrate for those who are granted a residence
permit. Like the VVD and the CDA, the ChristenUnie wants to invest in better shelter
in neighbouring countries. However, they want the government to “invite vulnerable

24
refugees cordially,” too. They are, like all other coalition parties, in favour of good,
solid European arrangements about the distribution of refugees.
Although each party in our government stresses a different aspect of the problem, I
found out that most parties have largely similar ideas. They all want proper
integration, better selection at EU-borders, quicker and more efficient asylum
procedures, clarity for asylum seekers and better shelter in neighbouring countries.
Because they all stress different things, I think the parties in our coalition can
complement each other on the issue of immigration and asylum, and in my opinion,
together make for a healthy equilibrium.

25
3. Opinions & conclusions

Joëlle’s opinion and conclusion

Personally, I believe it is our duty as humans to help each other. This being said, the
refugee crisis has been a very tough subject for years. As noted in the 1951 Geneva
Convention on the Protection of Refugees, granting asylum to people fleeing
persecution or serious harm in their own country is an international obligation. The
European Member States have to open their borders. As a result, lots of refugees
and asylum seekers are coming to Europe, but due to these large numbers, in
particular the ones in 2015 and the ones right now, countries are not able to provide
full, fair, efficient and effective protection for the refugees.
The part I dislike most about the whole refugee crisis, is knowing that people like me
are living in poor conditions. As mentioned before in this paper, many refugees do
not get the (medical) treatment they need, get unjustified detentions and are treated
in inhumanly ways.
To be honest, I don’t exactly know what the European Union can do about this
regarding to treaties, regulations and policies. They sound fine to me, but apparently
there are still many complaints and problems. These problems are mainly linked to
the incredibly large number of refugees. By comparing the theoretical ideas and the
actual situations and outcomes, we know something isn’t working the way it should.
The asylum policy in the Netherlands sounds very organised and effective, but I
have spoken to some asylum seekers and they told me they live in insecurity. They
don’t know whether they will be permitted to stay here or if they have to leave the
country and the children are not able to fully develop and still be children.
The amount of refugees has increased again in this period of time relating to the
whole Turkey situation with the Syrian asylum seekers. Especially with the virus
Covid-19, new measures need to be taken by government officials taking the
unhygienic living conditions into consideration. We need to do something fast.
Refugees will keep on coming and this won’t stop unless we actively do something
about the dangerous situations they are escaping from. I think it would be best to
sent special units to the problem areas and give advice to governments that are
trying to rebuilt their country. By fighting the actual problem areas, refugees will be
able to return to their country of origin after some time. If they can rebuilt their lives
there, there will be less and less refugees coming to Europe. In the meantime, we
can produce cooperation agreements with the countries that receive our help. These
countries may be able to help us out in the future. As long as there is a partnership
based on mutual respect and the same point of view concerning human rights.

After all, we are all humans and we should stand up for each other.

26
4. Sources

Introduction:
https://www.unrefugees.org/refugee-facts/what-is-a-refugee/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee_crisis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_migrant_crisis
https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/asylum_en

Topic 1:

Topic 2:
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/151/asylum-policy
https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/asylum_en
http://www.europa-nu.nl/id/vh1aly4653wh/asiel_en_migratiebeleid
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/asylum/index_en.htm
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/atyourservice/nl/displayFtu.html?ftuId=FTU_5.12.2.ht
ml
https://www.thenewfederalist.eu/eu-asylum-policy-the-past-the-present-and-the-
future?lang=fr
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Regulation
https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0360:FIN:EN:PDF
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee#Right_to_non-refoulement
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/infographics/migration/public/index.html?p
age=asylum

Topic 3:
http://www.vluchtelingenwerk.nl/feiten-cijfers/procedures-wetten-beleid
https://www.government.nl/topics/asylum-policy
https://www.government.nl/topics/asylum-policy/asylum-procedure
https://www.vluchtelingenwerk.nl/feiten-cijfers/cijfers/bescherming-nederland
https://ind.nl/Documents/Asylum_procedure_in_the_Netherlands.pdf
https://www.government.nl/topics/asylum-policy/unaccompanied-minor-foreign-
nationals-umfns
https://www.government.nl/topics/asylum-policy/question-and-answer/list-safe-
countries-of-origin
https://www.vluchtelingenwerk.nl/feiten-cijfers/procedures-wetten-beleid/inburgering

Topic 4:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_migrant_crisis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee_crisis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war#Refugees
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34131911
https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/refugees/
https://www.theguradian.com/global-development/2018/jan/25/violence-forces-
refugees-to-flee-afghanistan-again
https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/07/16/turkey-stops-registering-syrian-asylum-
seekers

27
https://www.volkskrant.nl/columns-opinie/vluchtelingencrisis-is-schandvlek-voor-
eu~be41867f/

Topic 5:
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/02/europe/turkey-migrant-crisis-european-union-
intl/index.html
https://euobserver.com/migration/145872
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34131911
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/25/migration-eu-rejects-proposals-for-
turkey-style-deal-for-libya
https://www.youthforhumanrights.org/what-are-human-rights/universal-declaration-
of-human-rights/articles-16-30.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Regulation

Topic 6:
https://www.vvd.nl/pijlers/immigratie/
https://www.vvd.nl/standpunten/asielbeleid/
https://www.vvd.nl/standpunten/bootvluchtelingen/
https://www.vvd.nl/standpunten/asielprocedure/
https://www.vvd.nl/standpunten/opvang/
https://www.vvd.nl/standpunten/huwelijksmigratie/
https://www.vvd.nl/standpunten/integratie/
https://www.vvd.nl/standpunten/inburgering/
https://www.cda.nl/standpunten/themas/sterke-samenleving/
https://d66.nl/standpunt-over/vluchtelingenstroom/
https://www.christenunie.nl/standpunt/vluchtelingen

28