Enab Baladi – Yamen Mograbi
The Netherlands' highest administrative court, the Administrative Division of the Dutch Council of State in The Hague, has rejected an asylum application by a Syrian woman, finding that she would not face “serious danger if she were to return to Syria.”
The Dutch court's decision was based on the fact that the woman had visited Syria and stayed there for more than three months before submitting her asylum application.
The Dutch decision coincides with (though separate from) moves by the European Union to restrict the admission of refugees and migrants, and comes amid growing debate among Syrians on social media about refugees who have obtained European citizenship being able to visit Syria, especially regime-controlled areas.
The Netherlands is not necessarily the only country that can issue laws or judicial decisions to revoke residency rights on grounds of national security, and other countries may follow the example of Denmark, which took this case several years ago.
In April, the Czech Republic and Cyprus decided to send “missions to identify safe areas inside Syria” and opened the door to the possibility of refugees returning under “strict conditions”.
On Facebook and YouTube, comments from Syrians constantly appear on posts and videos documenting their first visits to Syria in years, with frequent exchanges of accusations between different factions, supporters and opponents of the regime.
The debate revolves around the reasons for the return and the lack of logic behind it: while some defend the right of refugees to visit their home countries, especially if there are urgent or necessary reasons, others believe that such visits are harmful to other refugees who have applied for asylum and are still waiting for a decision or who want to leave Syria.
These visits are therefore being used by far-right parties in Europe to reject refugees, in line with this trend.
Defying logic
“Asylum requests are made for humanitarian or political reasons. When people come to the countries they fled for these reasons it goes against the idea that Syria is not safe and it has an impact on other Syrians,” Khaled, a Syrian living in the Netherlands, told Enab Baladi.
Khaled, 50, arrived in the Netherlands in 2022 after his wife submitted an application for family reunification. Khaled told Enab Baladi that the logic was that asylum seekers should not visit their home country even after receiving residency.
If the primary reason for seeking asylum is to escape danger and lack of safety in one's home country, he believes it is irrational to seek asylum except in extremely rare and necessary cases, such as the death of a parent.
There are no statistics on how many Syrians have traveled to Syria, especially to regime-controlled areas, after gaining residency or citizenship in their refugee countries, but far-right forces, who won significant seats in June's European Parliament elections, have used such visits to protest against the presence and acceptance of refugees.
During the conversation, Khaled acknowledged that a visit might be possible if there were urgent reasons, but the wider debate suggests that there is some opposition to even these kinds of visits.
Issam, 32, who is also a Dutch citizen, told Enab Baladi that he had visited Syria twice since receiving his Dutch citizenship, both times to check on his family.
“The main reason I decided to return was because there were no security barriers. I am not wanted by the security forces and I have no military service obligations,” he added.
Issam got a plane ticket from Amsterdam to Beirut, then traveled by private taxi to Syria to be near his family during his father's cardiac catheterization surgery.
“My father was sick and had an open-heart operation in 2007. He had to undergo a catheterization procedure in 2022 but given his health condition there were risks and I could not be with my father and mother. This is the main reason for the visit,” he told Enab Baladi.
He added that without this reason he would never have considered visiting Syria, because he believes that leaving would have been decisive for a generation that left the country early, saw very little of it, and did not even have happy memories, but rather saw only bombings, killings and fighting.
The young Syrian, who works as a cook, paid around 10,000 euros to cross into Syria, most of which went towards his “compulsory military service exemption” fee, which came to around 7,000 euros, a 600 euro fine, as well as airfare and other expenses.
As a teenager, Issam had visited Beirut on short trips with his family. Upon returning, he felt homesick for his city and daily life, but this time was different. “During both visits, I did not feel any emotional attachment to Syria. On the contrary, I felt even more alienated,” he told Enab Baladi.
The amounts that Syrians pay the Syrian regime in exchange for obtaining legal documents and papers are a major economic and hard currency source for the Syrian regime. This fact is not lost on Issam, who told Enab Baladi that the regime is besieging and exploiting Syrians through this gate.
He was forced to pay the military service fee under the threat of having his assets seized in the country if he turns 40 without fulfilling his military service obligation and paying the fee. With visas to Europe difficult to obtain, he has no other way to see his family.
The right wing is using the visit for political purposes.
“Such visits lead to the rejection of asylum applications,” Khaled said, citing the cases of two women who visited the country while their asylum applications were pending, and that both applications were rejected as a result.
When an asylum seeker arrives and submits their application, as part of the legal process, the appropriate authorities will interview them and ask questions about their nationality, how they arrived, why they left the country and why they decided to seek asylum, etc. The appropriate authorities will then make the final decision to accept or reject the application.
Applicants are asked these questions during the asylum process, and if accepted, refugees can receive financial and housing assistance, learn the language, get health insurance and a free education for their children. Some even continue their university education if they can secure scholarships from donor organizations.
Khaled questioned the logic of visiting the country of departure after securing residency in a host country, telling Enab Baladi that it directly affects the status of refugees and those seeking to leave Syria.
He added that the impact was made clear by the Dutch government's recent actions: in his view, while previously it was limited to political debates and party fights, this visit weakens the notion that Syria is not safe and affects everyone.
In May, the Party for Liberal Arts, the Council for National Security and the Farmers' Party won 88 of the 150 seats in the Dutch parliament and agreed to form a coalition government.
Geert Wilders, one of the most prominent opponents of refugees and immigration and known as leader of the Party for Freedom, is at the forefront of right-wing Dutch politics.
According to an analysis published on December 4, 2023 by the Centre for Migration, Policy and Society at the University of Oxford, the likelihood of Wilders' proposed immigration policies being implemented depends directly on the formation of a ruling coalition, which would result in some of Wilders' policies being achieved.
Topics on the agenda include opposing Islamic influence in the Netherlands, banning Islamic schools and mosques, and issuing work permits only to nationals of European Union member states.
The Dutch news website believes the next government could restrict immigration of non-asylum seekers from EU countries and prevent people from working in the country.
A central part of Wilders' election platform was closing the border to refugees and changing the immigration policies adopted by previous governments.
This issue is not unique to the Netherlands, but also applies to several European countries that are on the same path, albeit with different procedures.
For Issam, having family in Syria and the extreme isolation he feels in the Netherlands were the only reasons for visiting the country. The visit does not mean that he supports the Syrian regime and he refuses to be categorised as “neutral” (i.e. not having a clear position on the Syrian regime).
He told Enab Baladi: “I am not neutral. I have a position on what happened. The regime has destroyed the country and the people are starving. Those who raised the flag of the opposition and claimed to seek justice for the people have done nothing and the people have not benefited.”
Syrian human rights groups in Europe have reported that regime-affiliated security personnel and militia members have committed acts of violence against Syrians facing exile in European countries.
Who can visit?
European law generally distinguishes between different types of authorization for residents within the EU, and depending on the classification, it is legally clear who can visit their home country without legal consequences and who cannot.
Rita Catourat, executive director of the French Association for Refugees and Higher Education, explained to Enab Baladi that asylum seekers in EU countries face two types of residence permit:
Depending on the grounds for asylum and the validity of the authorization granted for each type of protection, they may be entitled to either international protection or subsidiary protection, in either case without being allowed to visit their home country.
Family reunification cases are also divided into two categories: the first concerns asylum seekers, who, after their asylum application has been approved, apply for family reunification, usually with some conditions.
The second category are people who gain asylum status, enter the labour market, then decide to marry in a third country, and then apply for family reunification, provided they have housing, a high salary or other income. Both of these cases are allowed to visit their home country.
The Dublin Regulation, signed by EU countries, does not explicitly ban refugees from visiting their home countries, leaving this to local laws and national governments within the EU, but this can have implications on refugees' legal status.
Local authorities may deny this, deeming the protection granted no longer necessary because the refugee has revisited their home country.
Kattura said some European countries were issuing travel documents to refugees, but this did not mean they could visit their home countries given that they were under their protection.
Article 28 of the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees stipulates that States must issue travel documents to refugees settled in their territory enabling them to travel outside their territory, unless there are compelling reasons for doing so.
Article 32 of the Convention provides that “a refugee lawfully present in the territory of a Contracting State shall not be expelled except for reasons of national security or public order.”
Article 33 provides that under no circumstances shall a Contracting State Party expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to its frontiers in an area where his or her life or freedom would be threatened on grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.
This right shall not be extended to persons who may reasonably be considered to pose a threat to the security of the country in which they reside, or to persons who have been convicted of a particularly serious crime and pose a danger to the community of that country.
