Council of State strongly opposes plan to scrap asylum distribution law

The Dutch Council of State has issued its most negative judgment on a proposal to repeal the two-year-old asylum seeker distribution law. The advisory body called it undesirable to repeatedly put the measure up for debate, urging the lawmakers to reject the initiative outright.

The law requires municipalities to provide shelter for asylum seekers. Five conservative-right parties—JA21, Mona Keijzer, Forum for Democracy, Groep Markuszower, and BoerBurgerBeweging (BBB)—introduced the repeal bill. They argue that the law shifts too much political focus to housing asylum seekers instead of preventing their arrival.

The Council of State sharply rejected that reasoning. It said the way asylum seekers are received has nothing to do with the number arriving in the country. Repealing the law would only worsen problems in the asylum reception system, the council warned. It described the parties’ linkage between distribution obligations and influx numbers as “problematic.”

The law has been in force for only two years. That is too short a period to properly assess its effects, the council said. “From the legislators—government and parliament — it may be expected to create calm and space for the implementation practice to learn to work with the new system,” the advisory body stated.

The parties behind the proposal said they want to “restore municipal autonomy” by scrapping the law. The Council of State responded that it is “certainly not exceptional” for the national government to assign tasks to municipalities.

In its overall assessment, the Council of State expressed “serious objections” to the bill. It advised against taking the proposal up for consideration.

JA21 lawmaker Simon Ceulemans said the party will press ahead regardless. “The Council of State simply does not agree with us on the substance politically,” he told the ANP news agency.

Ceulemans argued that the connection between reception capacity and the arrival of asylum seekers is “very logical.” The distribution law removes an incentive for the national government to limit asylum inflows, he said. It guarantees sufficient shelter places will be available. He noted that parties in the political center have continued pursuing plans to restrict asylum arrivals even after the law took effect.

Ceulemans dismissed concerns that ongoing debate deprives municipalities of the calm needed to implement the law. “That is a bit of a strange reasoning,” he said. “That is precisely what the House of Representatives is meant for. Parties that oppose the distribution law have every right to use democratic means to get the distribution law off the table.”