Banning ‘failed asylum seekers’, as proposed by President Huberts Bruls of the Security Council, is not a solution to the shortage of asylum seekers. So said asylum lawyer Wil Eikelboom.

“This is a municipality that doesn’t offer enough housing,” Eikelboom’s lawyer said. “It is therefore up to Mr Bruls and his colleagues to find a solution.”

Not safe for everyone

‘Failed asylum seeker’ were the words Bruls used. Eikelboom chose not to talk about it. “I mean an asylum seeker from a safe country. But that doesn’t mean someone from a ‘safe country’ is completely safe there.”

“The list also includes countries like Morocco and Albania. This is also where the asylum seekers are granted,” he explained. “Two weeks ago there was a grant from a Moroccan who is a political activist. He will end up in prison when he returns.”

Quick procedure

Not that the whole group has a chance, says Eikelboom. “That’s why you shouldn’t exclude them. Everyone has the right to asylum procedures.” According to him, the procedure went much faster than people expected. “The procedure was accelerated a few years ago, so it really doesn’t cause traffic jams today,” he said.

“If you arrive and it is confirmed that you are from a safe country, you will be questioned immediately. In most cases, you will be told that you are not allowed to stay.” If there’s a reason they think you’re entitled to asylum, it’s going to take longer, explains Eikelboom.

The good suffer from the bad

According to Eikelboom, the safelanders are also not helping the asylum crisis by appealing. “This is a small group that is appealing the decision that they are not allowed to stay. But it is a legal right and only lasts a few weeks.”

Lawyers do not deny that there are safelanders causing the disturbance. “No one needs that. They have to go through the procedure quickly and leave the country when they are safe. But giving the whole group less access to the procedure is wrong. Then the good will suffer the bad consequences.”