Monday , November 28 2022

Paternity law instead of residence demands

The Daily Herald writes that residence requirements cause more problems, while a paternity law prevents problems. The Consultation Body Caribbean Netherlands Ocan tried to convince members of the Second Chamber of Dutch Parliament Roelof van Laar (PvdA) and Madeleine van Toorenburg (CDA) of this.

A paternity law will not allow mentioning “father unknown” on a birth certificate. Ocan expects that fathers will become more involved with the upbringing of their children, while the latter needn’t wonder who their father is; the so-called ancestry unrest. The organisation that promotes the interests of people with roots on the islands in the Netherlands pointed out that problem youngsters often come from a family without a father. “A healthy (upbringing) environment leads to stability, rest and a safe bonding. A residence law will produce the opposite,” Ocan wrote in a press release.

In 2009, a majority of the Second Chamber supported a motion from ChristenUnie to look into the compulsory registration of fathers. VVD, PvdA, D66 and the Partij van de Dieren had voted negatively, but constituted a minority in the Lower Chamber at the time. However, a concrete study remains forthcoming. The paternity regulation for all countries of the Kingdom was raised again a year ago during the Inter-parliamentary Kingdoms Consultation IPKO in The Hague. Aruba parliamentarian Marisol Lopez- Tromp emphasised the need for concrete steps.

Second Chamber member André Bosman (VVD) and the late PS-leader Helmin Wiels of Curacao warned that the different cultures between the countries would impede such legislation in the Kingdom. Second Chamber member Van Toorenburg (CDA) subsequently suggested studying the consequences of this legislation for parents. Van Toorenburg and Van Laar indicated they would consider the possibilities for a paternity law once again, according to Ocan.

Ocan also got a second opinion on the residence law following the criticism from the Meijer Committee. Dr. Peter Rodriguez, professor of immigration with the University of Leiden also described the enactment from Bosman as racial. According to Lodewijk Rogier LL.M, professor Constitutional Law and Administrative Law, Bosman’s enactment cannot be compared to the National Ordinance Admittance and Expulsion LTU with residence requirements applicable for European Dutch citizens wishing to settle in the Caribbean part of the Kingdom. “The LTU protects the economic circumstances on Aruba, Curaçao and St. Maarten against large groups of European Dutch citizens wishing to settle in these countries with a small labour market and financially limited social services. For that reason with the annexation of Bonaire, St. Eustatius and Saba on 10-10-’10, the Netherlands maintained the limited entry of European Dutch citizens”, Rogier said.

“Regarding gravity and extent alone these circumstances are not comparable to the reasons given in the enactment for limited entry of Dutch citizens from Aruba, Curaçao and St. Maarten.” The handling of the Bosman- law in the Second Camber has been postponed until March.
vader-met-kind

Council of State mentions priorities for 2015 evaluation
Brahma Kumaris Centre gives workshops