Patience and Perseverance. The Asylum Procedure of Tamils and Iranians in the Netherlands in the Mid-1980s

Abstract

The asylum procedure of Tamils and Iranians in the Netherlands in the mid-1980s Patience and perseverance. The asylum procedure of Tamils and Iranians in the Netherlands in the mid-1980s Authors frequently refer to the mid-1980s as a watershed in West European asylum policies. Suddenly, large numbers of asylum seekers appeared from unfamiliar countries of origin. In response, the Dutch government, and that of other European countries, introduced restrictive measures. The general belief is that prior to this period it was easy to obtain refugee status, but now it became virtually impossible. When we look at case files of the Ministry of Justice on Tamils from Sri Lanka and Iranians, we see that few of them were rejected, although many cases did involve endless procedures. This article seeks to explain this apparent contradiction. One thing was clear: patience and perseverance were needed from those who wanted to stay. Many authors have argued that in the mid-1980s the West experienced a 'refugee crisis' because of the arrival of 'New Refugees' and 'New Asylum Seekers'. 1 The refugees were new because they fled from different countries and presented different flight motives than those who came before. Their arrival in unprecedented numbers caused a crisis in many European countries, including the Netherlands, and resulted in drastic policy changes. 2 As a consequence, fewer asylum seekers navigated successfully through the asylum procedure. 3 In the 1980s asylum seekers and refugees lost the positive image

From Iran to the Netherlands, and everywhere in between

“…Due to the unsafe situation in Iran for returned refugees, the Netherlands adopted a tolerating status (gedoogdenstatus) according to which rejected Iranians could not be repatriated. 123 Iranian migrants furthermore enjoyed a positive reputation in Europe, as they fled a regime despised by Western European powers. They were known as highly educated, English-speaking, middle-class citizens who would not burden Dutch society.…”

“…Inconsistencies are often cited as a main reason for asylum being refused. 193 Köser, for instance, noticed an explicit distinction in the post-1994 Dutch policy between "sincere" and "bogus" asylum applications based on the credibility of the flight story. 194 A critical reading of the sources reveals the emergence of similar narratives across the majority of the files.…”

Dutch Migration History. Looking Back and Moving Forward

“…Walaardt showed how the gap between policy and practice was the result of strategic manoeuvring by low-level bureaucrats, because it allowed them to solve difffijicult cases. 101 Gaps continued to exist because they were to the benefijit of lobbyists and policymakers alike. With regard to the re-shifting and re-labelling of goals, C. van Eijl's study on the process of 'illegalisation' is important.…”