In the migration debate in parliament, Minister Van der Laan made his position crystal clear: migrants must “choose for the Netherlands and have the moral obligation to adapt themselves”. It’s expected of newcomers that they make an extra effort to obtain a place in Dutch society. But for some migrants it’s better that they don’t become naturalised citizens, but remain temporary migrants.

Restrictive migration policy

History teaches us that for countries with a restrictive migration policy one solid rule applies: once in, there’s no way out. Also migrant workers who really want to return home after a time should think carefully before leaving about what would happen if they ever wanted to come back.

“The more restrictive the policy, the more permanent the migration”, says Hein de Haas, researcher on international migration at Oxford University. “I stand up for the existence of temporary migration, and the possibility for migrants to come back to the country later. If you don’t allow that, then you practically force migrants to settle. The higher the obstacles, the higher the investment, the less people will want to go back.”

Temporary migration

After decades, there is finally serious discussion again in the Netherlands about a concrete policy on temporary migration. Last year, the policy document Migration and Development was published, and this spring the Advisory Committee on Migration Affairs published its advice on temporary labour migration. In the period 2015-2035 a structural shortage is expected in the Dutch labour maket. Temporary migration can be useful as a “supplementary instrument” according to the Committee. But this advice hardly figures in the minister’s policy.

Illegality

The objections to temporary migration are partly fed by concerns that the temporary migrants won’t go home and will disappear from view as illegal immigrants. But the experience with temporary migration in other countries suggests otherwise. Melissa Siegel, researcher on migration at the University of Maastricht, cites Spain and Canada as two countries which have experimented with temporary labour migration. The possibility of being able to come back to the host country for a further term after the end of a contract is the key to success. In other words, the option of re-immigration.

A policy that makes labour migration possible and attractive also lessens the enforced choice for illegality. Melissa Siegel is positive about that:

“We see it more and more; the more you try to control people, the more problems you have. The best way of keeping people illegally in the country is to close the door to migrants. So long as you give people the right to go in and out of the country legally, people will go of their own accord.”

False picture

For decades the Netherlands experienced an immigration trauma that had its roots in an unsuccessful experiment with the temporary migration of guest workers in the 1960s and 1970s. The picture was painted that a great deal of the guest workers settled permanently in the Netherlands following the oil crisis of 1973.

Rinus Penninx, Professor of Ethnic Studies at the University of Amsterdam, modifies that picture. Until 1973, many temporary guest workers shuttled between the Netherlands and their country of origin. After 1973, nine out of ten migrants went back. Of those who remained, many were indeed Turks and Moroccans: they chose the protection of a prosperous country above going home.

Motivation

Many migrants, especially the young, motivated males who crowd around the gates of Europe, want to earn money here in order to later on build a life in their country of origin, emphasizes Melissa Siegel.

Minister Van der Laan’s tough immigration policy, and the obligation for migrants to "choose" the Netherlands, therefore hinders an effective policy for temporary migration. That will do nothing to help Dutch society as it faces the prospect of a serious shortage of labour in the near future.