Enab Baladi – Yamen Moghrabi
The Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Dutch Council of State in the Hague, the highest administrative court in the Netherlands, rejected an asylum claim submitted by a Syrian woman, considering that she “does not face serious danger if she returns to Syria.”
The Dutch court’s decision was based on visits the woman made to Syria before submitting her asylum application, where she stayed for more than three months.
This Dutch decision, which coincided — though separately — with the European Union’s moves to limit the reception of refugees and migrants, also came amid repeated debates among Syrians on social media regarding visits made by refugees who obtained European citizenship to Syria, specifically to regime-controlled areas.
The Netherlands is not necessarily the only country that may issue laws or judicial rulings regarding the withdrawal of residencies on the pretext of safety in the home country. Other countries may follow suit, especially with Denmark’s moves in this regard years ago.
In April, the Czech Republic and Cyprus decided to send a “mission to identify safe areas in Syria,” paving the way for the potential return of refugees under “strict conditions.”
On Facebook or YouTube, comments from Syrians continually appear on posts or videos published by Syrians documenting their visits to Syria after years of absence, with accusations quickly exchanged between different parties, whether pro-regime or opposition.
The debate revolves around the reasons for returning and the lack of logic behind it. While some defend the right of refugees to visit their home country, especially for pressing or necessary reasons, others see these visits as harmful to other refugees who have applied for asylum and are still awaiting decisions or wish to leave Syria.
Thus, these visits are exploited by European far-right parties to reject refugees, aligning with this trend.
Defies logic
“Asylum acceptance comes for humanitarian or political reasons, and those who visit the country they fled from for these reasons contradict the idea that Syria is unsafe, thus affecting other Syrians as well,” said Khaled, a Syrian residing in the Netherlands, to Enab Baladi.
Khaled (50) arrived in the Netherlands in 2022 after his wife submitted a family reunification request. He told Enab Baladi that logic dictates that asylum seekers should not visit their original country even after obtaining residency.
If the main reason for seeking asylum is avoiding danger and the lack of safety in the home country, it is unreasonable to do so except in extremely rare and necessary cases, such as the death of a parent, in his opinion.
There are no statistics available on the number of Syrians who have visited Syria, specifically regime-controlled areas, after obtaining residencies or citizenship in the asylum country. However, these visits are exploited by the far-right, which gained significant seats in the recent European Parliament elections in June, to oppose the presence and reception of refugees.
While Khaled acknowledged in his conversation that visits might be possible for pressing reasons, the prevalent debate shows that other opinions oppose even these types of visits.
Issam (32), who also holds Dutch citizenship, told Enab Baladi that he visited Syria twice after obtaining Dutch citizenship, both times to check on his family.
“The primary reason that encouraged me to return was the absence of a security barrier. I am not wanted by security branches or for mandatory military service,” he added.
Issam obtained a plane ticket from Amsterdam to Beirut, then took a private taxi to Syria to be by his family’s side during his father’s cardiac catheterization surgery.
“My father was ill, having undergone open-heart surgery in 2007. In 2022, he had to undergo catheterization, which was risky due to his health condition, and I couldn’t not be by his and my mother’s side. This was the main reason for the visit,” he told Enab Baladi.
He added that had it not been for this reason, he wouldn’t have considered visiting Syria at all, as leaving was final for a generation that left early and did not see much of the country, not even pleasant memories, but rather bombing, killing, and battles, in his opinion.
The young Syrian, who works as a cook, paid nearly 10,000 euros to reach Syria, most of the money going to pay for “mandatory service exemption,” amounting to about 7,000 euros, in addition to fines worth 600 euros, not to mention the cost of air tickets and other expenses.
During his teenage years, Issam visited Beirut on a short family trip, and upon his return, he felt homesick for his city and his daily routine, but this time it was different. “I didn’t feel any emotional attachment to Syria during the two visits; on the contrary, I felt even more alienated,” he told Enab Baladi.
The sums paid by Syrians to the Syrian regime in exchange for obtaining legal documents and papers constitute an important economic source for the latter, as well as a source of foreign currency. This fact did not escape Issam’s mind, who told Enab Baladi that the regime besieges Syrians through this gate and exploits them.
He had to pay the military service fee under the threat that if he reached the age of 40 without performing it or paying, his assets in the country would be seized. There is no other solution for him to meet his family given the difficulty of them obtaining a visa to Europe.
The right-wing exploits the visits politically
“These visits lead to asylum requests being rejected,” Khaled said, citing the cases of two women who visited the country while their asylum applications were pending, resulting in the rejection of both requests.
Upon an asylum seeker’s arrival and the submission of their application, as part of the legal procedures, the relevant authorities conduct an interview to inquire about their nationality, how they arrived, the reasons that led them to leave their country, and seek asylum. The final decision on the application acceptance or rejection is then issued by the relevant authorities.
During the asylum application process, the seeker undergoes these questions, and upon acceptance, refugees receive financial and housing assistance, learn the language, and obtain health insurance and free education for their children. Some even continue their university education if they manage to get scholarships from supporting organizations.
Khaled questioned the logic of visiting the country a person left after securing residency in the host country, as it directly affects the status of refugees and those who wish to leave Syria as well, he told Enab Baladi.
He added that the impact has become evident with the recent moves by the Dutch government. Previously, it was limited to political debates and tussles between parties, but these visits undermine the idea that Syria is unsafe, thus affecting everyone, according to his perspective.
In May, the Party for Freedom, the National Security Council, and the Farmers’ Party succeeded in agreeing to form a coalition government after securing 88 out of 150 seats in the Dutch parliament.
Geert Wilders, known as one of the most prominent opponents of refugees and immigration and the leader of the Party for Freedom, is at the forefront of right-wing politicians in the Netherlands.
A December 4, 2023, analysis by the Migration, Policy and Society Center at Oxford University stated that the likelihood of implementing Wilders’ proposed immigration policies depends directly on the formation of the ruling coalition, thus achieving parts of his agenda.
The agenda includes opposing Islamic influence within the Netherlands, banning Islamic schools and mosques, and issuing work permits exclusively to European Union citizens.
The Dutch News website sees that the upcoming government could restrict immigration of non-asylum seekers from EU countries, preventing people from coming to work in the country.
Central to Wilders’ electoral program was closing borders to refugees and changing the immigration policy adopted by successive governments.
This issue is not confined to the Netherlands alone but also includes several European countries taking the same path, albeit with different steps.
For Issam, having his family in Syria and the severe loneliness he feels in the Netherlands were the sole reasons for visiting the country. This visit does not mean he supports the Syrian regime, and he rejects being classified as “neutral” (i.e., not having a clear stance regarding the Syrian regime).
He told Enab Baladi, “I am not neutral; I have a stance on what happened. The regime destroyed the country and people are starving. Those who took up the banner of the opposition and claimed they would seek justice for the people did nothing, and the people didn’t benefit.”
With moves by Syrian human rights organizations in Europe, reports indicate the presence of security personnel affiliated with the regime or members of militias that have committed violations against Syrians who have obtained asylum and are being prosecuted in European countries.
Who is allowed to visit?
European laws generally distinguish between types of permits for residents inside the EU, and according to the classification, it is legally clarified who is allowed to visit their home country without legal accountability and who is not allowed.
Rita Katoola, an official in the Refugees and Higher Education association in France, explained to Enab Baladi that asylum seekers in EU countries face two types of residence permits.
They either fall under international protection or subsidiary protection, depending on the reasons for asylum and the duration of the permit granted for each type of protection, and neither case allows visiting the home country.
Family reunification cases are divided into two categories as well. The first is linked to the asylum applicant, and after the asylum request is approved, they apply for family reunification, usually coming under few conditions.
The second category is linked to those who obtained asylum, entered the labor market, then decided to marry in a third country, after which they apply for family reunification under conditions related to having housing, a good salary, or other income. These two cases are allowed to visit the home country.
The Dublin Regulation, signed by EU countries, does not clearly state that visiting the home country is prohibited for refugees, leaving it to local laws and national governments within the union. However, this may affect the refugee’s legal status.
Local authorities might consider that the refugee no longer needs the granted protection since they visited their country again, thus negating this need.
According to Katoola, some European countries issue travel documents to their refugees, but this does not mean the ability to visit their home country considering they are under protection.
The Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, in Article 28, stipulates that states issue travel documents to refugees residing regularly in their territories to enable them to travel outside their regions unless there are compelling reasons.
Article 32 of the convention states, “A refugee lawfully in the territory of a contracting state shall not be expelled except on grounds of national security or public order.”
Article 33 indicates that under no circumstance should any contracting state expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where their life or freedom would be threatened on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
This right shall not be held by any refugee for whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security of the country where they are or who, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that country.