Lawyers raise alarms over asylum minister's rush to push out new legislation

The Netherlands Dutch Association (NOvA) has strongly criticized the rapid pace at which Minister Marjolein Faber (Asylum and Migration) is pushing new asylum laws. The NOvA warns that the speed, limited consultation process, and confidentiality surrounding the proposed legislation could severely compromise the quality of the country’s legal framework.

The proposed measures include the introduction of a two-tier asylum system and stricter rules for family reunification. NOvA was given just one week to review the proposals under conditions of confidentiality—a highly unusual practice, the organization said.

“Due to this rushed approach, the Bar Association and other key stakeholders in the asylum process are effectievely sidelined,” said NOvA chair Sanne van Oers. “We fear this situation may become more common, with significant consequences for our democratic rule of law.”

Van Oers also highlighted a lack of justification for the urgency. “The ministry has not provided any explanation for this extreme haste. As a result, we strongly discourage both proposals, particularly due to the potentially discriminatory nature of these regulations.”

Minister Faber aims to submit the legislation for review by the Council of State by the end of the year. Reducing the number of incoming migrants remains a top priority for the cabinet. This week, PVV leader Geert Wilders, a member of the same party as Faber, urged her to expedite the asylum law revisions.

The Ministry of Asylum and Migration has stated it will review the feedback and incorporate adjustments into the legislative draft where possible.

The Volkskrant reported that Faber has significantly restricted public input during the legislative process. Advocacy groups and legal advisors, including NOvA, were asked to maintain confidentiality and were given minimal time to respond to the draft proposals.

Van Oers reiterated NOvA’s concerns about the implications of this process. “The rushed timetable and lack of consultation place enormous pressure on the legal integrity of these proposals. This could set a dangerous precedent for future policymaking.”