An Ineffective Instrument of Integration
Integration can be a positive objective. Giving newcomers the opportunity to acquire a basic command of the language and some idea of the society they will be joining may be in their interest, as well as that of society. The Dutch government has a legitimate interest in the integration of its migrant population, which can bring benefits in terms of social cohesion. Migrant representatives interviewed by Human Rights Watch generally agreed that migrants should prepare as well as they can for their future country.119 The real question is whether the overseas integration test contributes to the process of integration for family migrants to the Netherlands. As noted above, the government says that such an evaluation of effectiveness has not been conducted yet, but announced that it will be assessed in the forthcoming review of the Integration Abroad Act.120 Our research indicates that it does not contribute, and instead may alienate migrant communities in the Netherlands, making integration more difficult, as well as impeding integration in a practical sense. The operation of the test, coupled with the income requirements, high costs, and long waiting periods, create a strong impression, also expressed by the majority of migrant representatives interviewed by Human Rights Watch, that the measures are not about integration but rather about keeping people out of the Netherlands—in the words of one, “to close the door.”121 As one integration policy expert put it: the “message [is you are] not welcome.”122 This is underscored by the fact that when the Dutch government introduced the bill it explicitly linked integration requirements to immigration, together with the fact that all non-EU/EEA migrants in the Netherlands seeking long-term residence are required to pass an integration test.123 The language used by the government to justify the exemption of certain nationalities considered as western from having to take the overseas integration test suggests that immigration control, to prevent an increase in numbers of certain communities in the Netherlands, is an element of the intent of the legislation. The introduction of the integration exam requirement in its current form sends negative messages both to immigrants and the majority of the population: “Immigrants do not want to learn the language; we have to force them to do so.”124 One representative of a national migrant organization pointed out that “not learning the language, but showing motivation to try to learn the language under hard circumstances [seems to be] the aim.”125 The Dutch government argued when introducing the bill that this new integration requirement also would select only those aliens who are sufficiently motivated to integration. They have to demonstrate the willingness and ability to make the necessary efforts. Thus, any “failure to integrate” is blamed on the potential migrants. The overseas integration test and other entry requirements may also impede integration in a direct sense, by delaying the process of integration. Experts and migrant representatives have pointed out to Human Rights Watch that the usual effect of new restrictions is that family members postpone reunification.126 Hence, they will arrive in the country and actually start the integration process later and older.127 It is unclear how this enhances integration—one integration policy expert even indicated as a result “that it hinders the integration of the partner in the Netherlands.”128 An integration, citizenship, and migration expert told Human Rights Watch that the overseas integration test is unlikely to enhance integration for the individual migrant because integration before entry is “difficult and inefficient.” “The input is far bigger than the output. One could better use this input once the migrant arrived in the Netherlands.”129 “How can someone integrate if you are not experiencing anything of Dutch society?” as one migrant representative put it.130 In the words of another, “integration abroad is useless indeed. … integration after arrival is much more efficient, [but] the argument was turned around.”131 In practical terms, it is likely to prove difficult to learn a foreign language “when there is no real possibility to practice the language in daily life” and where there are a limited number of Dutch language courses on offer.132 As one migrant representative points out: “Taking the integration exam abroad is not just costly, for many it is impossible as well, because facilities to prepare for this exam are lacking.”133 By contrast, reunification of families would arguably enhance integration. As the Dutch government has pointed out, family life can contribute to the stimulation of socio-cultural stability and, consequently, the integration of migrants into Dutch society. There are, therefore, not only benefits to individual migrants, but also to Dutch society as a whole.134 The Council of Europe, which dealt with the issue of family reunification in the Recommendation (2002) 4 of the Committee of Ministers “on the legal status of persons admitted for family reunification” recognized that the residence status and other rights granted to the admitted family members are important elements assisting the integration of new migrants in the host society.135 There is similar language in the preamble to the EU family reunification directive:
Facilitating family reunification could also send a positive message to migrant communities about the Netherlands, and may thereby enhance their integration into society. “A healthy base to start from is necessary … people are discouraged to bring their foreign partner in … People have become suspicious of the Dutch government and the new policy … If we want to encourage a healthy integration then we also have to change the overall (negative) view on the Netherlands.”137 119 Human Rights Watch interviews in October-November 2007 with several migrant representatives interviewed in the course of the research for this briefing paper. 120 Letter from minister for housing, communities and integration, March 19, 2008, responding to Human Rights Watch letter, January 23, 2008. The results are expected around spring 2009 and the evaluation will include an investigation into the effect of the overseas integration test on the integration programme and language level of newcomers. The minister furthermore argues that since the Civic Integration Act was just introduced two years ago, the effectiveness as an instrument of integration and participation can only be determined to a small extent and this evaluation will therefore give a first indication. 121 Human Rights Watch interview with migrant representative cooperating with Platform Buitenlanders Rijnmond (PBR), an umbrella organization of migrant self-organizations, November 6, 2007. Similar views were expressed during a Human Rights Watch interview with two PBR board members, Rotterdam, November 6, 2007, and a Human Rights Watch interview with Leo Euser, coordinator, and Ahmed Charifi, secretary, from the national Moroccan consultation body, Samenwerkingsverband van Marokkanen in Nederland (SMN), Utrecht, November 8, 2007. 122 Human Rights Watch email correspondence with Erna Lensink, policy officer on “inburgering” (integration programs and tests), Dutch Council for Refugees (VluchtelingenWerk Nederland), February 5, 2008. This view was echoed during a Human Rights Watch interview with several migrant representatives and members of SPIOR (Stichting Platform Islamitische Organisaties Rijnmond/foundation platform Islamic organizations Rijnmond), umbrella organization for Muslim organizations in and around Rotterdam, November 7, 2007, Rotterdam. 123 Parliamentary Document, Second Chamber, Wet inburgering in het buitenland, KST 2003-2004, 29700, no. 3, (memorie van toelichting). 124 See Kees Groenendijk, “Integration Tests Abroad as a Condition for Family Reunification in the EU?” in Immigration Law Practioners’ Association (ILPA) European Update, June 2007 and Human Rights Watch email correspondence with Kees Groenendijk, professor of sociology of law, Centre for Migration Law, University of Nijmegen, chairman of the Standing Committee of Experts on international immigration, refugee and criminal law (Meijers Committee ) in October 2007. A similar view was expressed by Erna Lensink, policy officer on “inburgering” (integration programs and tests) from the Dutch Council for Refugees (VluchtelingenWerk Nederland), in email correspondence with Human Rights Watch on February 5, 2008. 125 Human Rights Watch email correspondence with Harm van Zuthen from the IOT, “The alliance of Turkish immigrants in Holland” (Stichting Inspraakorgaan Turken in Nederland), the national Turkish consultation body (part of the National Consultation on Minorities established under the Minority Policy Consultation Act), February 12 , 2008 and Human Rights Watch interview in Utrecht, November 8, 2007. 126 Kees Groenendijk in the June 2006 issue of the ILPA European Update and Human Rights Watch email correspondence with Kees Groenendijk, Professor of Sociology of Law, Centre for Migration Law, University of Nijmegen, chairman of the Standing Committee of Experts on international immigration, refugee and criminal law (Meijers Committee ) in October 2007, confirmed by Human Rights Watch email correspondence on February 5, 2008 with Erna Lensink, policy officer on “inburgering” (integration programs and tests) from the Dutch Council for Refugees (VluchtelingenWerk Nederland), and Human Rights Watch interview with a representative from a national Turkish cooperation organization IOT (Stichting Inspraakorgaan Turken in Nederland), November 8, 2007 127 Kees Groenendijk in the June 2006 issue of the ILPA European Update and also confirmed by Human Rights Watch email correspondence, February 5, 2008, with Erna Lensink, policy officer on “inburgering” (integration programs and tests) from the Dutch Council for Refugees (VluchtelingenWerk Nederland); and Human Rights Watch email correspondence with Harm van Zuthen from the IOT, “The alliance of Turkish immigrants in Holland” (Stichting Inspraakorgaan Turken in Nederland), February 12, 2008. 128 Human Rights Watch email correspondence with Erna Lensink, policy officer on “inburgering” (integration programs and tests) from the Dutch Council for Refugees (VluchtelingenWerk Nederland), March 11, 2008. 129 Human Rights Watch email correspondence with Joëlle de Poorte, programme manager at FORUM, Institute for Multicultural Development, February 6, 2008. 130 One migrant representative during Human Rights Watch interview with several migrant representative and members of SPIOR (Stichting Platform Islamitische Organisaties Rijnmond/foundation platform Islamic organizations Rijnmond), umbrella organization for Muslim organizations in and around Rotterdam, November 7, 2007, Rotterdam. 131 Human Rights Watch email correspondence with Harm van Zuthen from the IOT, “The alliance of Turkish immigrants in Holland” (Stichting Inspraakorgaan Turken in Nederland), February 12, 2008 and Human Rights Watch interview in Utrecht, November 8, 2007. 132 Kees Groenendijk, “Integration Tests Abroad as a Condition for Family Reunification in the EU?” in Immigration Law Practionners’ Association (ILPA) European Update, June 2007. 133 Human Rights Watch email correspondence with Harm van Zuthen from the IOT, “The alliance of Turkish immigrants in Holland” (Stichting Inspraakorgaan Turken in Nederland), February 12, 2008 and Human Rights Watch interview in Utrecht, November 8, 2007. 134 Ministry of Justice, “Towards a modern Migration Policy, Memorandum on the review of the policy on managed migration to the Netherlands,” June 2006, http://english.justitie.nl/images/612778%20Migratie-binnenENG-de_tcm35-76782.pdf. 135 Recommendation (2002) 4 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the legal status of persons admitted for family reunification (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 March 2002 at the 790th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies). 136 EU Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification, OJ L 251, October 3, 2003, p.12-18, Preamble no. 4. 137 One migrant representative during a Human Rights Watch interview with several migrant representatives and members of SPIOR (Stichting Platform Islamitische Organisaties Rijnmond/foundation platform Islamic organizations Rijnmond), umbrella organization for Muslim organizations in and around Rotterdam, November 7, 2007, Rotterdam. |