/s3/static.nrc.nl/images/gn4/stripped/data110488953-e8f61f.jpg?w=1200&resize=1200,627&ssl=1 "Where refugees are hosted, many people have no problems")
The dispersal law to further spread out the reception of asylum seekers was called a “big problem” for cabinet formation in The Hague this week by PVV leader Geert Wilders. But would people in the country, who may soon have asylum seekers housed nearby because of this bill, also have such a big problem?
Perhaps earlier, given the protests against the arrival of asylum centers and crisis shelters in recent years. Like the resistance in Heesch in Brabant in 2016 against the arrival of an asylum center with 500 asylum seekers: with a dead pig tied up, a mountain of sand on the mayor’s driveway and a noticeboard in front of the town hall. In the end, no asylum center existed.
Less radical right
According to research by Tilburg (2022), where refugees are welcomed, many people have no problems. The researchers compared the experiences of residents of asylum centers and crisis shelters with a control group during the period 2011-2016, the years characterized by the severe refugee crisis. People close to an asylum center became more positive towards ethnic diversity. And their preference for voting for the radical right, such as for the PVV or FvD, fell by almost 5 percentage points compared to people who had no asylum seekers in their area.
“A rather large and statistically significant difference,” says behavioral economics professor Sigrid Suetens, one of the Tilburg researchers. “You also see in other studies that there is some sort of commonality it turned out that something like empathy arises.”
The research confirmed psychology’s well-known “contact hypothesis”: Direct contact between minority and majority groups can reduce prejudice.
And that’s important, according to the state Commission on Demographic Development 2050, which this week released a substantial report on population growth. “The polarization of society regarding migration makes society vulnerable,” he says. And the rigidification of society fuels “radicalization and extremism from many sides”.
The State Commission’s message: The Netherlands must slow population growth by limiting migration, but migration will remain necessary in the future. For the knowledge economy and “the most painful shortages of the labor market in vital sectors”, such as healthcare. And for economic growth, necessary to keep public facilities accessible.
“Regardless of the scale of migration, Dutch society will have to deal with migrants and, vice versa, this also applies to the newcomers themselves,” the state commission said. In different demographic scenarios, in 2050 the percentage of people with a migratory background varies between 26 and 45% of the population.
Read also
Will every municipality now have a center for asylum seekers?
Opposition to immigration
How great is the support in the Netherlands for permanent migration? Right now, in 2024, attitudes towards migration appear to be changing more and more people are openly negative. The PVV has become the largest party for the first time and organizing the reception of asylum seekers is proving so difficult that a law on dispersal is needed to force the municipalities. Almost 59% of the Netherlands are concerned about how migration changes the composition of the population, research by Clingendael for the State Commission has shown.
But studies also show that people don’t think clearly about “migration.” Firstly, younger generations are slightly less concerned about multicultural society, as also emerges from the Clingendael study. In the age group between 18 and 24 years, 39% are worried about this aspect, between 25 and 34 years old, 43%.
Young people less worried about multiculturalism
This appears to be a structural and permanent change, writes sociology professor and migration researcher Hein de Haas How migration really works (2023). Perhaps precisely because of the increase in migration, he suggests. Or why younger generations are likely to see more of a connection between racism and the history of colonialism and slavery.
Opposition to immigration is greatest among “older white social conservatives with lower incomes and education levels,” De Haas writes. These groups often feel abandoned by political elites: inflation and housing shortages hit them hardest, and technical developments threaten their jobs the most. City dwellers with a high level of education and a good income are on average more positive about diversity.
People also think differently about different migrant groups. Nearly two-thirds of participants in the Clingendael study found limited labor migration acceptable. There is also understanding for limited migration for asylum, for study migration and for family reunification; only the arrival of illegal immigrants in the Netherlands is massively rejected (86%).
“Many people are not simply for or against migration, but combine considerations,” says Professor Jaco Dagevos, Special Professor of Integration and Migration and SCP Researcher. “You can be in favor of welcoming real refugees, but also be very concerned about integration and the possibilities of reception.”
SCP researcher Jaco Dagevos In a center for asylum seekers the residents think: then here we will have an overcrowded Ter Apel
Registration centers and centers for asylum seekers
Racism, xenophobia and discrimination exist and are real problems, De Haas writes in his book. But according to him it is above all “the provocative rhetoric of opinion makers, politicians and the media” that has a negative impact on the image of immigration, not the increase in immigration itself.
The influence of politics and the media is “enormous”, Dagevos also thinks. “Let’s take the discussion about local shelters. In a center for asylum seekers, residents and municipalities think: then we will get the same thing here as in the overcrowded Ter Apel. But that is a registration centre, while the hassle surrounding centers for asylum seekers is often not that serious.”
A relatively small group of asylum seekers (350 per month out of 27,500 asylum seekers) in AOC locations cause persistent nuisance due to anti-social and criminal behaviour, the Justice and Security Inspectorate said in a 2021 report. These were mainly young people from “safe countries”, such as Morocco, Algeria, Libya and Tunisia, often suffering from addiction or psychiatric illnesses.
But in general, reception in asylum centers does not pose major problems, researchers from the University of Groningen concluded in 2019. People who lived near an asylum center were more positive towards asylum seekers than those who lived far away – comparable to the Tilburg study. Resistance towards asylum seekers therefore appears to be linked to broader “dissatisfaction” with the state of the country, the researchers concluded. “Protests against asylum centers or, as is the case today, against the housing shortage or the nitrogen policy, are actually aimed at the failure of politics, administration and the media,” says social psychology professor Tom Postmes, one of the Groningen researchers.
One way to increase acceptance of migrants is to improve reception, thinks professor of migration and diversity policy Peter Scholten. “An overcrowded Ter Apel gives the impression that a prosperous country like the Netherlands cannot handle all this. In this sense, the law on dispersal seems to be a necessary intervention, which can normalize asylum migration in the long term, especially in the case of small-scale reception. But the local community must be involved and reception must be followed by housing, education and employment. The climate of crisis must be abolished.”
Share Email the editor
2024-01-19 20:11:46
#refugees #hosted #people #problems