Democratic Party D66 (D66) and the Christian Union (CU) are not in support of the law initiative of Member of the Second Chamber of the Dutch Parliament André Bosman of the liberal democratic VVD party, writes The Daily Herald.
The CU thinks that it creates inequality among the citizens of the Dutch Kingdom, while D66 doubts the proportionality and effectiveness of the law proposal. Parties in the Second Chamber of Dutch Parliament submitted on Thursday their views, remarks and questions on this law proposal that seeks to regulate the permanent residency of people from Aruba, Curacao and St. Maarten in the Netherlands. The CU concluded that the law initiative differentiates between Dutch citizens based on ethnicity and just like D66 is questioning the points of departure, the proportionality and the effectiveness of Bosman’s proposal. “The CU considers the equality of all citizens in the Kingdom an important point of departure. The CU fails to see the objective and reasonable justification of differentiating between Dutch citizens. Differentiation based on ethnic grounds is in violation of the Kingdom Charter, the Dutch Constitution and various international treaties.”
D66 was worried about the adverse effects of this law on the relations within the Kingdom. “From the reactions from the overseas countries in the Kingdom, it is clear that they don’t agree with this proposal. We want to know what consequences this proposal, if it were to become law, will have on the relations between the countries and the cooperation in the area of promoting good governance and the combating of poverty, crime and unemployment,” the D66 members stated.
The CU wondered how Bosman envisioned a solid cooperation between the countries in the Kingdom if this law proposal were to become effective. The party reminded Bosman of the advice of the Council of State, which pointed out that the solution of the problems with criminal and unemployed people from the islands in the Netherlands was not possible without good cooperation between the governments of the Netherlands, Aruba, Curacao and St. Maarten.
D66 remarked that the law proposal differentiates between Dutch citizens based on ethnicity. As such, the D66 members asked whether this proposal should strictly be a Dutch affair and regulated by Dutch law. “Why wasn’t a Kingdom law considered?” D66 asked Bosman whether he had looked at alternatives that are less of an infringement of the fundamental rights of Dutch citizens.
The CU also wanted to know whether he had looked at alternatives before opting for a Dutch national law instead of drafting a Kingdom Law with the input of the overseas countries. According to the CU, the fact that Aruba, Curacao and St. Maarten have a regulation in place to restrict the permanent residency of Dutch nationals doesn’t justify implementing similar legislation in the Netherlands for people from the islands. The size of the population and limited size of the islands merit having an admittance regulation in place for Dutch nationals. “The countries solely do this to maintain their character,” the CU members stated.
D66 asked Bosman to provide more information on the admittance regulations of the overseas countries and how he justified residency requirements for the Netherlands. Both D66 and CU wanted specifics on the scope of the migration of people from the islands to the Netherlands. The CU wanted more details on the size of the problem of criminal behaviour and unemployment among this group that the VVD Member of Parliament mentioned in his law proposal. According to the CU, Bosman doesn’t make clear why the permanent residency of people from the islands leads to problems.
Bosman will be answering the questions and remarks by the various parties in the Second Chamber in the coming days. Bosman said he would answer as meticulous and fast as he could so the Committee can continue the handling of his law proposal. If the Committee has no further remarks and questions, the law proposal will be placed on the agenda for a plenary debate. The Committee may also decide to have a second round of questions and remarks if the members find the answers unsatisfactory.