After a chaotic day, NSC and SGP will still agree to the much-discussed asylum emergency measures law. The criminalization of illegal stay, added on Tuesday, made NSC and SGP hesitate, but the parties agreed under conditions.
This creates a majority in the House of Representatives for both asylum laws drafted by the now-departed Minister Marjolein Faber. The House will officially vote on the plans around 11:30 PM.
It had been uncertain for some time whether the two laws, the so-called asylum emergency measures law and the two-status system, would pass in the House of Representatives. But last week, it became even more uncertain for the asylum emergency measures law; a suddenly adopted amendment by the PVV caused a shift from several parties.
That amendment includes in the law that illegal stay is punishable. The idea is that assistance with illegal stay is also punishable, although it is still unclear in which cases that will apply exactly.
That uncertainty caused chaotic scenes on the last day of the House of Representatives before the recess. Not only NSC doubted, but SGP also made a shift after what the party considered an unclear explanation from outgoing Minister David van Weel (Justice and Security).
Van Weel wrote to the House on Thursday afternoon that he can imagine that “enforcement of providing assistance by, for example, a church or the Salvation Army is not likely to be relevant soon.”
But he could not rule out that, for example, people who offer a bowl of soup to a person residing illegally in the Netherlands would be prosecuted. Although that seemed very unlikely to him.
The laws in brief
SGP wanted postponement
Van Weel wrote his explanation at the request of NSC. The coalition party is in favor of the strict asylum laws but was very concerned about the PVV amendment. The party found it difficult to accept that assistance could lead to punishment. NSC, therefore, voted against that PVV plan earlier.
After Van Weel’s explanation, SGP also began to doubt. SGP is in favor of a stricter asylum policy and initially voted in favor of the PVV plan, but doubted because, according to the party, the minister “seemed to state without substantiation that all assistance is punishable.”
There must and cannot be any ambiguity about that, the party found, and so it wanted to request advice from the Council of State in addition to postponing the vote.
Van Weel then announced that he is willing to have the punishability of illegal stay take effect only after advice from the Council of State. That was reason enough for the parties to agree after all.
Support in the Senate will be difficult
The laws will end up in the Senate after the recess. But it remains to be seen whether the law will gain a majority there.
The former coalition parties PVV, VVD, NSC, and BBB do not have a majority there. To get that, the focus was mainly on the CDA.
The CDA already indicated on Wednesday that it could no longer agree to the asylum emergency measures law because of the PVV amendment. The party also continues to have major objections to the two-status system, which are mainly related to the timing of implementation.
CDA leader Henri Bontenbal wanted to implement this simultaneously with the new European migration rules that will take effect next year anyway. That was also the explicit wish of, among others, the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
To still get a majority for the laws, the former coalition parties must get all parties on the right and some center parties on board. It is still uncertain whether that will succeed.