Dutch Integration Policy and the Act on Integration Abroad

Dutch Integration Policy and
the Act on Integration Abroad

THIS CHAPTER PROVIDES a brief historical account of Dutch integration policy, as well as a description of the Act on Integration Abroad (AIA). Its aim is to serve as background information for the examination conducted in the rest of this study. Sections II to V present an outline of the main developments in Dutch integration policy since the Second World War, with special attention being paid to measures and events paving the way for the introduction of the integration exam abroad, in particular measures relating to language teaching and the reception of new immigrants.

The historical description of the integration policy is divided into different time periods, corresponding to the developments that took place. Until 1979 the only integration policy in the Netherlands was the assimilation policy for Indonesian-Dutch repatriates (section II). Subsequently, in the 1980s, an integration policy was devised for a number of immigrant groups, the so-called ‘ethnic minorities’ (section III). After a while various language courses and other educational programmes designed specifically for immigrants were developed. Once these programmes were in place, the idea of making them compulsory began to gain ground. This occurred against the background of a new vision, outlined in 1994, on the integration of ethnic minorities, in which citizenship became a central theme (section IV). Eventually, the policy of compulsory ‘civic integration’ (inburgering) for immigrants led to the enactment of the Newcomers Integration Act (Wet inburgering nieuwkomers) in 1998 and the Act on Integration Abroad (Wet inburgering buitenland) in 2006 (section V).

Following this description of Dutch integration policy, section VI addresses the Act on Integration Abroad, with attention being paid to the target group and the integration exam, as well as to the effects identified thus far. An analysis of the objectives of the Act and the concepts of integration and citizenship in the Dutch context is not included in this chapter, but can be found in chapter 3.

In the period immediately following the Second World War, the Netherlands was primarily an emigration country. Between 1945 and 1961 many Dutch nationals left the Netherlands, actively supported by the government, to try their luck overseas in countries such as Australia, Canada and the United States. Nevertheless some immigrants also came to the Netherlands¹ as post-colonial migration brought in new residents from the former Dutch East Indies (today’s Indonesia), followed by immigrants from Suriname and the Netherlands Antilles. Immigration from ‘the West’ initially occurred only on a small scale, but became more substantial in the 1970s (Suriname) and 1980s (Netherlands Antilles).²

Apart from post-colonial immigration, the Netherlands also received people coming for political or economic reasons. Refugees arrived primarily from Eastern Europe, but only in small numbers.³ Numerically more important was the arrival of guest workers, who were recruited to compensate for shortages of Dutch labour, firstly from Spain and Italy and later from other countries including Turkey and Morocco. Such recruitment ended in 1973 because of the oil crisis, but was followed by the immigration of guest workers’ family members, mostly from Turkey and Morocco, which reached its peak in 1980.⁴ Lastly, there were also noticeable influxes of immigrants from other Member States of the European Economic Community (EEC), as well as from the United States, Canada and Japan.⁵

The assimilation policy stood in stark contrast to the approach taken towards the Moluccan immigrants, who were housed in camps separated from the Dutch population. The segregation policy adopted towards them was founded on the belief, both on the part of the government and of the Moluccans themselves, that their stay would be temporary.⁸ This presumption of temporariness also existed with regard to guest workers and immigrants from the Netherlands Antilles and Suriname.⁹ As it was expected that these immigrants would eventually return home, the government limited its involvement to providing certain reception facilities, such as housing and social work services. Meanwhile, immigrants from the EEC and non-European industrialised countries were not subject to any policy on reception or integration.¹⁰

In 1970, the Dutch government still took the view that the Netherlands was not an immigration country.¹¹ In the years to come, however, it became more and more clear that many immigrants were in fact there to stay. This led the government to pursue a two-track policy: facilitating participation in Dutch society, while at the same time encouraging return migration.¹² The objective of this policy was to integrate immigrants, while at the same time helping them to maintain their (assumed) ethnic or cultural identity. A typical policy measure in this respect was the introduction of ‘Native Language and Culture’ courses (Onderwijs in eigen taal en cultuur or OETC) as part of the school curriculum for immigrant children. Such measures were primarily perceived as a means to facilitate the immigrants’ return to their countries of origin.¹³ However, they could also be construed as supporting their integration into Dutch society through collective emancipation. This ambiguity blurred the direction of the government’s policy on immigrant integration towards the end of the 1970s and allowed the presumption of return migration to co-exist alongside the growing awareness that most immigrants would stay.¹⁴

In 1979, the Dutch government abandoned the assumption that the presence of many immigrants in the Netherlands was merely temporary and decided to adopt a policy which, though still mindful of the cultural identities of immigrants, was univocally geared towards integration and no longer towards return.¹⁶ This policy became known as the Ethnic Minorities policy (Etnische Minderhedenbeleid) and was coordinated by the Home Affairs Minister.¹⁷ The policy comprised a number of measures and programmes designed to ensure equal access to different segments of Dutch society, including health care, housing, education and the labour market.¹⁸

One concrete proposal made by the WRR in 1979 was to offer Dutch language courses to foreign workers and their families. The WRR considered the existing courses on offer to be too non-committal and not suited to the situation of the guest workers, who often worked in shifts and performed heavy labour. It was suggested to follow the example of Sweden, where foreign workers were granted paid leave in order to learn the language. Another proposal was to provide ‘orientation courses’ for new immigrants upon their arrival so as to ‘acquaint them with the elementary characteristics of the receiving society’. Educational facilities were also deemed necessary for the wives of foreign workers who did not have jobs and, according to the WRR, risked becoming socially isolated.²⁴

The WRR’s suggestion to organise language courses was not followed, however.²⁶ Instead, during the first half of the 1980s, the provision of adult education to members of ethnic minority groups was mainly characterised by a lack of structure and infrastructure. The extensive array of courses existing at the time has been described as a ‘patchwork’ or even an ‘inextricable jumble’.²⁷ Most of these courses included Dutch lessons (in some form) and/or some kind of social orientation. Many differences existed however, including with regard to content, objectives, duration and educational methods. Some projects also received government funding, whereas others depended on private financing. Examples of projects run in the 1980s included literacy training and educational activities targeted specifically towards ethnic minorities,²⁸ as well as the ‘Dutch on the work floor’ (Nederlands op de werkvloer) project, where in-company language courses were provided for foreign workers. Melkunie, for example, a large Dutch dairy company, provided language classes for its foreign employees between 1982 and 1984.²⁹ Yet, despite the variety, the availability of the language courses on offer was insufficient to meet the demand.³⁰ This problem persisted into the 1990s and became a major bottleneck in Dutch integration policy.

In 1986, the system for basic adult education became more streamlined due to the adoption of the Regulation concerning Basic Education (Rijksregeling Basiseducatie).³¹ Under this regulation, municipalities could obtain contributions from the central government for implementing and supporting basic adult education.³² Although the regulation was not directed specifically at ethnic minorities, they constituted an important target group. Literacy courses and educational activities for ethnic minorities were continued on the basis of this regulation. The introduction of this regulation furthered the professionalisation of this type of education: henceforth courses could only be given by or under the supervision of licensed instructors.³³

In addition to the courses and educational facilities described above, integration courses were also offered as part of the measures for receiving refugees and other protected persons.³⁴ In the early 1980s the Department of Welfare developed a special programme, the ‘in-house model’ (in-huis-model), for receiving resettled refugees.³⁵ Under this programme refugees were hosted at a central reception centre for a maximum of three months, during which time they had to follow an introduction programme consisting of Dutch lessons and social orientation.

The aim of the programme was to help the refugees to become self-reliant. An educational programme (‘Zeg nu zelf’) was developed specifically for this purpose: topics covered included ‘introducing oneself’, ‘the market’, ‘shopping’, ‘the post office’, ‘the bank’, ‘public transport’ and ‘health care’. Information was also provided on social security legislation, the educational system, cultural differences, contacts with various agencies and other topics suggested by the refugees themselves. The programme entailed 25 hours of tuition a week, over a period of six weeks. Normally refugees would leave the reception centre after this period and move into permanent, independent accommodation. However, if no such accommodation was available, the refugee would continue the introduction programme at the reception centre. A second module would then be started, covering the topics of ‘living’, ‘the weather’, ‘budgeting’, ‘education’, ‘employment’, ‘recreation’ and ‘traffic’.³⁶

Lastly, integration courses were not made available to asylum seekers. The number of asylum applications in the Netherlands rose sharply throughout the 1980s, from 832 in 1981 to 13,898 in 1989. Asylum seekers came from many different countries around the world, including Suriname, Pakistan, Turkey, Ghana, Somalia, Romania and Sri Lanka.⁴¹ Their exclusion from the reception programmes was motivated by the argument that participation in integration activities would create false expectations concerning their chances of being allowed to stay in the Netherlands and thus interfere with the immigration policy.⁴²

In 1989 the WRR reported that the Netherlands had 623,537 foreign nationals, of whom 160,448 were from other Member States of the European Community (EC). The largest group of aliens consisted of Turkish nationals (177,297), followed by Moroccans (139,749). The report also mentioned the presence of 210,000 Surinamese (including 194,189 with Dutch nationality), 66,000 persons from the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba and 40,000 Moluccans.⁴³ Ten years after the introduction of the Ethnic Minorities policy, the WRR observed not only that those who had arrived in the 1960s and 1970s were still there, but also that the immigrant population would continue to grow in the future, despite a restrictive admission policy.⁴⁴

In view of the above developments, the need for an effective approach to immigrant integration was felt to remain high. For several years after publication of the 1989 WRR report, the integration policy was subject to debate both in and outside parliament.⁴⁷ In retrospect, the years 1989 to 1994 can be seen as a transitional period, during which the government moved away from the Ethnic Minorities policy of the 1980s towards the so-called ‘Integration policy’,⁴⁸ the outlines of which were formulated in 1994.⁴⁹ Compared to the Ethnic Minorities policy, the new approach put a stronger emphasis on achieving active participation in society and individual self-reliance (see section III.A. of chapter 3). Henceforth the principal focus was on achieving socio-economic integration, with enhanced efforts being made primarily in the fields of (adult) education and employment.⁵⁰ Meanwhile policy measures actively supporting cultural expressions of ethnic minorities were no longer foreseen. This change in focus was based on the presumption that successful socio-economic integration would allow ethnic minority groups to express their cultural identities on an equal basis with the majority population.⁵¹

With regard to the target group of the integration policy, the WRR had recommended adopting a policy addressing not only designated ethnic minorities, but all ‘foreign born persons’ (allochtonen).⁵² The Dutch government chose not to follow this suggestion. Instead the policy continued to be directed towards specific ethnic minority groups ‘for the admission of which the Dutch government bore a particular responsibility, or who were tied to the Netherlands by our colonial past’. Nationals of other EC Member States, however, were no longer targeted by the integration policy because they were not in a disadvantaged position.⁵³ In other words, guest workers from Italy, Greece, Portugal and Spain were no longer deemed to be in need of special consideration.

Lastly, it was decided to maintain a restrictive policy on immigration, particularly with regard to labour migrants.⁵⁴ In respect of family reunification the WRR had stated that additional limitations on this form of migration could substantially lower the number of immigrants to the Netherlands. However, introduction of such restrictions was opposed on the grounds that this would negatively affect the integration process (see also section II.A of chapter 3). For the same reason it was also considered undesirable to impose admission criteria relating to new immigrants’ ability to integrate. Instead, unskilled spouses or children who were not ready to participate in the Dutch labour market would have to be allowed to benefit from reception facilities in the Netherlands.⁵⁵

The Dutch government recognised that education and language training in particular were important for improving the position of ethnic minorities, also on the labour market.⁵⁸ Meanwhile members of ethnic minority groups continued to participate increasingly in both basic and secondary adult education.⁵⁹ Throughout the 1990s various efforts were made to increase the adult education on offer and to eliminate the waiting lists for Dutch language courses.⁶⁰ Additional financial means were provided to municipalities for this purpose, on the condition that they created a differentiated range of language courses to suit participants’ varying needs. It was also suggested introducing contracts in which participants would undertake to take part in the courses, while the municipalities would guarantee their availability.⁶¹

The first NT2 certificates were issued in July 1992.⁶⁴ As of 1 January 1996 NT2 courses were provided by so-called ‘Regional Education Centres’ (Regionale Opleidingen Centra) under the Act on Adult and Vocational Education (Wet educatie en beroepsonderwijs).⁶⁵

Despite these efforts, the Dutch government rejected the WRR’s proposal to make basic education obligatory for certain groups of immigrants. It argued that no obligation could be imposed as long as the availability of language courses was insufficient to meet the demand.⁶⁶ The then Home Affairs Minister, Ien Dales, also believed that most members of ethnic minority groups were eager to learn Dutch and that it was unnecessary to create an obligation.⁶⁷ Finally, the government declared that the existing legislation provided enough sanctions for those refusing to participate in the labour market or in activation programmes and that directing such coercion towards one specific section of the population (ethnic minorities, KV) would be unacceptable.⁶⁸

Notwithstanding these arguments the idea of obligatory Dutch language education for adult immigrants steadily gained support. It became commonly accepted among the various factions in the Dutch Parliament that members of ethnic minorities had a personal responsibility to obtain the necessary skills and qualifications to participate in Dutch society.⁶⁹ The primary target group in this respect was that identified earlier by the WRR: unemployed people in receipt of social security benefits and lacking basic education.⁷⁰ For the time being, however, the government declined to introduce new measures on the grounds that the proposed obligations could already be imposed under existing social security legislation.⁷¹

In the late 1980s, several proposals were made to set up a reception programme for newly arrived immigrants (other than refugees or other protected persons).⁷² These proposals were inspired by concerns about the integration of those expected to come to the Netherlands in the coming years for family reunification purposes, especially from Turkey and Morocco. It was suggested setting up an introductory programme for immigrants, including a Dutch language course. The WRR again proposed making the programme obligatory for those who had become dependent on the state in any way and who had not received the equivalent of Dutch basic education. Such an obligation was felt to be justified by the fact that many immigrants had not received the 12 years of compulsory education that they would have received in the Netherlands and had arrived without the necessary skills and knowledge to find employment. For immigrants who were not dependent on the state, the WRR suggested making introduction programmes available on a voluntary basis.⁷³

As mentioned above, one of the main functions of the reception programmes was to redirect newly arrived immigrants to other service providers in the fields of adult education, labour market orientation and welfare.⁷⁸ After their arrival newcomers were contacted and invited for an intake interview, during which their needs and capabilities were assessed. If necessary, a personal reception plan was drawn up and individual coaching (trajectbegeleiding) provided. Coaches were expected to motivate newcomers, to arrange social support (through, for example, voluntary organisations) and to signal problems (in, for example, the domestic sphere) that could cause newcomers to quit the programmes.⁷⁹

Once their reception plans had been completed, newcomers started their introduction programme with a social orientation course in their own language. This course could include an introduction into ‘Western concepts and ways of thinking’, as well as information on topics such as child support, social security, education, health care and the labour market. Next came a Dutch language course (NT2), combined with social and labour market orientation. The average duration of the introduction programmes was initially set at 400 course hours and later increased to 500 hours.⁸⁰ The level to be achieved within this time depended on newcomers’ starting levels and their personal objectives. Three final levels were distinguished: educational self-reliance (for those wishing to pursue some form of additional education), professional self-reliance (for those seeking employment) and social self-reliance (for elderly newcomers or those caring for a family). Newcomers pursuing social self-reliance had to learn Dutch to at least level CITO-2, whereas educational or professional self-reliance required level CITO-3 as a minimum.⁸¹ For those opting for educational or professional self-reliance, the final phase of the reception programme involved transferring to an educational institute or to the labour market. The entire programme took an average of two years to complete,⁸² although implementation of the reception projects varied considerably from one municipality to another.⁸³

The reception policy continued being further developed and improved in the second half of the 1990s.⁸⁴ As was the case with regard to adult education (section IV.C), the question of whether participation in the reception programmes should be made obligatory for newcomers (or some groups of them) was widely discussed. Again, it was argued that no obligations should be imposed as long as the availability of language courses was insufficient to meet the demand.⁸⁵ Although it had been announced in 1996 that the length of the waiting lists had declined and that the problem was ‘under control’, some 11,000 people were then still waiting for a course.⁸⁶ Waiting lists thus remained a concern, and the government was continuously being pushed to make more financial resources available.⁸⁷ At the end of 1997 the battle against the waiting lists was integrated into the reception policy, which had by then become known as the policy on ‘civic integration’ (inburgering).⁸⁸

Despite the waiting lists, the idea of making reception programmes obligatory gained widespread support.⁸⁹ In May 1994 the Home Affairs Minister commissioned an advisory report by two experts, professors Entzinger and Van der Zwan.⁹⁰ This report contained a proposal for an integration programme (inburgeringstraject) for new immigrants, including mandatory integration contracts. Although the government did not adopt the proposal in its entirety, integration contracts were eventually introduced on 1 January 1996. In these contracts, municipalities undertook to offer integration programmes including social orientation, Dutch as a second language, labour orientation and counselling. In return, newcomers committed themselves to participating in the integration programmes. The contracts were expected to provide more clarity, ensure an adequate range of courses on the part of the municipalities and prevent participants from dropping out halfway through the programme.⁹¹

In 1997 the reception policy – by then known as the civic integration policy – was evaluated. An important outcome of this evaluation was that the introduction of mandatory integration contracts could not be established to have positively influenced the participation of newcomers. Most municipalities did not actively enforce the contracts, on the grounds that most newcomers who dropped out of the programme had a legitimate reason for doing so, such as illness, pregnancy, moving to a different municipality or finding a job. Only 15 out of 120 ‘drop-outs’ indicated that they were simply not interested in following the programme.⁹³ The evaluation also showed that the effects of the civic integration policy had thus far been limited: it was estimated that only 45 to 60 per cent of the target group finished the entire integration programme, with most participants not reaching the minimum level of language proficiency required for professional self-reliance (see section IV.D.i).⁹⁴

The results of the evaluation did not, however, preclude the adoption of an Act providing a legal basis for making the integration programme compulsory for all newcomers, including those not covered by the Social Assistance Act. In November 1996 a legislative proposal for the Newcomers Integration Act (Wet inburgering nieuwkomers or ‘Win’) was submitted to parliament.⁹⁵ Under this Act, integration contracts would be replaced by administrative decisions taken by municipalities.

By the time the Newcomers Integration Act was discussed in parliament, there was barely any opposition to the idea that participation in the integration programmes should be obligatory and subject to sanctions.⁹⁶ The Newcomers Integration Act allowed an administrative fine to be imposed on newcomers who did not report to the municipal administration or did not participate in the integration programme.⁹⁷ The option to impose sanctions on residence rights or naturalisation was nevertheless rejected⁹⁸ as it was argued that such sanctions would be difficult to enforce and that a clear distinction had to be maintained between immigration and integration.⁹⁹ Residence-related sanctions were also considered unsuitable because they would not affect all newcomers in the same way.¹⁰⁰

The Newcomers Integration Act was eventually adopted in April 1998 and entered into force on 30 September that year.¹⁰¹

The reception programmes set up in the first half of the 1990s initially targeted newcomers aged 18 or older and legally staying in the Netherlands. Immigrants were designated as ‘newcomers’ if they had been in the Netherlands for less than one year and were expected to stay permanently.¹⁰² A memorandum issued in late 1992 specified that the reception projects were primarily meant for people without a high level of education and unable to find their way in the Netherlands by themselves.¹⁰³ The number of newcomers considered to be in need of reception was estimated at 12,000 in 1991 and 20,000 in 1993.¹⁰⁴

When the Newcomers Integration Act was subsequently enacted the delineation of the target group gave rise to debate. These discussions specifically concerned the inclusion or exclusion of immigrants from the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba (who are Dutch nationals) and citizens of other EU states. In the end, the definition of ‘newcomers’ was made to include all aliens and Dutch nationals who had reached the age of 18 and were first-time residents of the Netherlands. An exemption applied to aliens whose residence purpose was defined as temporary (such as students and labour migrants). EU citizens were also exempted, on the grounds that the obligation to participate in an integration programme would be contrary to EU law and because most of these individuals were not in disadvantaged positions.¹⁰⁷ Lastly, with regard to Antilleans and Arubans, it was decided that highly educated immigrants would be exempted from the integration programme because they, too, were not at risk of marginalisation.¹⁰⁸ In practice, the target group consisted mostly of family migrants from outside Europe and Dutch citizens from the Antilles or Aruba.

Given the many similarities existing between them, the Department of Welfare encouraged municipalities to merge the reception facilities for refugees and protected persons with those for other newcomers.¹¹² The integration contracts introduced in 1996 could also be entered into with refugees and protected persons. Refugees and protected persons were subsequently included in the target group of the Newcomers Integration Act in 1998.

In addition to the policy measures described above, one idea that arose in the period under discussion was that immigrants had to be informed about the Netherlands before they were admitted. In 1991, the Dutch government issued a brochure containing information to be distributed to (potential) immigrants in Turkey and later also Morocco.¹¹⁸ It was explained that the brochure was designed to provide ‘a realistic picture of the possibilities and impossibilities that existed in the Netherlands in the fields of education, employment, living and welfare’. Immigrants who decided to come ‘despite this information’ would be encouraged to learn Dutch as soon as possible and become familiar with Dutch society.¹¹⁹

Immigration to the Netherlands continued after 1998 and immigrant integration remained an issue of concern. Between 2000 and 2007, the total number of immigrants in the Netherlands (including the second generation) rose from 2,775,302 to 3,170,406, while the number of ‘non-Western allochthones’ (niet-westerse allochtonen) increased from around 1,260,000 in 1998 to 1,738,452 in 2007.¹²⁵ Although the traditional ethnic minority groups (Turks, Moroccans, Surinamese and Antilleans) remained the largest groups, the population had become increasingly diverse. New minority groups included Iraqis, Afghans and people from the former Yugoslavia. In 2004 Statistics Netherlands observed that the influx of labour and asylum migrants had decreased in recent years and family migration had become the largest immigration category. The majority of these family migrants came to the Netherlands to form new families (gezinsvorming) rather than for family reunification (gezinshereniging).

While there were signs that the second generation of immigrants was doing better than the first, the socio-economic position of those designated as non-Western allochthones continued to be perceived as problematic. Compared to Western allochthones and to the majority population, non-Western allochthones continued to suffer high levels of unemployment and low levels of labour market participation and to be overrepresented in the lower segments of the education system (vbo/mavo/vmbo). Non-Western allochthones belonging to the first generation moreover made relatively high use of social assistance and disability benefits.¹²⁶

During the period discussed here, immigrant integration became one of the main topics on the Dutch political agenda and the integration policy continued to be subject to new developments.¹²⁸ In 1998 the second coalition government under Prime Minister Kok (Paars II) outlined the integration policy for the period 1999–2002.¹²⁹ Throughout those years, achieving active participation of members of ethnic minority groups remained a primary objective.¹³⁰ However, the government did not want to focus solely on economic participation. In this respect it deviated from the recommendations made by the WRR in 2001.¹³¹

In 2002 the government announced that integration policy would no longer be directed towards designated ethnic minorities. Instead the target groups of particular policy measures would be determined according to the issue at stake, and immigrant minorities would only be specifically targeted if their migration background was deemed a relevant factor in relation to the problem to be addressed.¹³⁴ In this respect, it was assumed that processes of identification and socio-cultural integration would take more time in the case of immigrants ‘at a greater distance from the Western culture’.¹³⁵

Lastly, the government agreed with the WRR that immigration and integration policy could not be formulated separately from each other. It was therefore proposed that integration policies would henceforth need to take account of the continuing influx of new immigrants, while the immigration policy should be designed so as to keep the integration process manageable.¹³⁶

Meanwhile, Dutch language education continued to represent an important priority. As far as immigrants were concerned, a command of the Dutch language was not seen only as an instrument for socio-economic integration, but also as a crucial condition for communication and mutual acceptance between different groups in the population.¹³⁷ Between 1998 and 2002, therefore, much effort was devoted to consolidating the civic integration policy and implementing the Newcomers Integration Act 1998. In addition, the increased attention for religion as a factor of integration resulted in the compulsory integration programmes being extended to religious servants.

Despite this emphasis on individual responsibility, the ‘New Style’ Integration policy imposed additional obligations and conditions on immigrants in and to the Netherlands. This included a complete overhaul of the structure for civic integration, which had become the main instrument of overall integration policy. A proposal was made for a new Integration Act (Wet inburgering), which eventually replaced the Newcomers Integration Act of 1998. In 2006 the obligation to pass a basic integration exam was also integrated into Dutch immigration law as a condition for the admission of certain categories of aliens. This condition, which was enacted through the Act on Integration Abroad (Wet inburgering in het buitenland), forms the main object of this study and is therefore described in more detail in section VI.

In order to address these problems and support the implementation of the civic integration policy, a taskforce was instituted in 2000 (Taskforce inburgering