Doorgaan naar hoofdcontent

Aanbevolen post

Inreisverbod voor studenten en kennismigranten opgeheven

Als de grenzen van een land open zijn voor Nederlandse toeristen en er gelden geen quarantainemaatregelen bij binnenkomst in dat land dan kan het reisadvies van ‘oranje’ (niet-noodzakelijk reizen) naar ‘geel’ (let op veiligheidsrisico’s) veranderen. Op dat moment geldt dan het advies dat reizen ook voor toeristische doeleinden weer tot de mogelijkheden behoort.Landen die al op oranje of rood stonden op basis van de veiligheidssituatie worden uiteraard niet afgeschaald als aan bovenstaande voorwaarden is voldaan.
Daarnaast zijn de uitzonderingscategorieën waarvoor het inreisverbod nu geldt uitgebreid met personen uit derde landen die naar Nederland komen om te studeren of als kennismigrant waarbij het niet mogelijk is het werk van afstand te vervullen of dit uit te stellen. Ook zal voor personen die naar EU+ gebied reizen met EU/Schengen-nationaliteit of verblijfsrecht niet langer gelden dat deze reis als doel huiswaarts keren moet hebben.
Zie Kamerbrief met o.a. een lijst "veilige …

Great speech on human rights by Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs on the international youth conference of the Anne Frank Trust

"On 6 and 7 June 1943 two trains left Vught station. On board were 1,269 Jewish children who had been imprisoned in the concentration camp in Vught. Among them was an eight-year-old boy named David Jacob Zak. Everyone called him Deddie. On 11 June he and his parents, Simon and Judith, were killed in the gas chambers of Sobibor.

Two months ago I accompanied the King and Queen on their State visit to Poland. The programme included a visit to the museum dedicated to the Warsaw Uprising which began 70 years ago this month. There we were told about the preparations being made for a memorial at the site of Sobibor extermination camp, the place where over 30,000 Dutch people died.

The Germans completely destroyed Sobibor before the end of the war. In excavations carried out later, someone found a name tag of a Dutch boy that read: Deddie Zak, Uiterwaardenstraat 17 III, Amsterdam. That tag is on exhibit at the museum, with a photograph of an eight-year-old lad.

Seeing that name tag and picture would make a deep impression on any father. For me, it was as if I were looking at my own son. I recognised aspects of my own parenting, too. When my kids were small I had them wear tags just like that one – with their name, address and phone number – so that if they got lost they could be brought back home.

An ordinary boy, with ordinary parents, victims of murder on an industrial scale. Victims who were no different from anyone else in their everyday habits, their love for their children and their desire for a peaceful life. They were murdered because they belonged to a group that was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Deddie wasn’t just an eight-year-old lad with loving parents. He was a Jew living in the Netherlands during the war.

For me, Deddie has come to embody the fundamental human rights question. What happens in the human brain to cause someone to resent another’s humanity so much that they feel justified in locking them up, murdering them and wiping them off the face of the earth?

When people project hatred onto groups, that hatred can be expressed in the form of exclusion, criticism or discrimination. But often this is a slippery slope. It leads to the legitimation of an assumed right to murder people. This mechanism is still – or perhaps I should say: increasingly – the greatest human rights challenge that the international community faces.

Fundamentalists have always declared their own personal ideology to be absolute truth. They believe that it gives them the right to deny a normal life to anyone who doesn’t share their views. Or even any life at all.

The belief that one has a monopoly on the truth and the desire to spread it, goes beyond religion. National socialism, fascism and communism: examples of ideologies that had nothing to do with religion. They ultimately drove people to the same insanity and the same exclusionary mechanism. The scale, grounds and methods were different, but the mechanism was the same.

In his brilliant BBC series “The Story of the Jews” Simon Schama describes how this mechanism was applied to Jews in centuries of European history. The motivation was often religious, but especially after the emergence of the nation-state and nationalism, the motivation changed. Now Jews were often depicted as a ‘fifth column’, people who act traitorously and subversively out of a secret sympathy with an enemy of their country. Jews were supposedly only loyal to other Jews, to a worldwide conspiracy of cosmopolitans who wanted to cripple nations by controlling the banking system, the media and law making. To this day, this myth is kept alive by the radical right and fundamentalists alike. A quick tour of the worldwide web will show you that this dangerous nonsense is still alive and kicking.

Clearly this is universal: it happens or happened all over the world. In Europe, Asia, the Americas and Africa. And anyone can fall victim to it: Jews and Muslims, Christians and Yazidis. Hindus and Bahá’ís. Atheists and gay people. Farmers and intellectuals. Anyone.

The question we should be focusing on is this: what can we do to stop this mechanism, stop this way of thinking and acting, and change people’s minds?

I look to you, as Anne Frank ambassadors. I look to myself, as a member of this government.

I would like to share with you three sets of guidelines. I hope they will help us in our fight.

But first and foremost I want to express my admiration and whole-hearted support for your contribution, for what the Anne Frank Foundation and its ambassadors, are doing. Because it isn’t governments and parliaments that should be leading the fight against this mechanism. It is ordinary people who form the first line of defence. And at times, they may have to oppose their own government, their own representatives, and stop them from drafting and enacting legislation that leads to exclusion, discrimination, exile and outright murder.
It takes ordinary people stepping up as soon as fundamentalism rears its head. And young people have an essential role to play. You are less inhibited by tradition and better educated than your parents. You are more curious about other customs and cultures and more open-minded about ethnic and cultural differences. And while everyone, young and old, has an interest in building a better future, it is even more important for you. Because you still have your whole lives ahead of you.

I am eager to hear your stories and learn about your activities. I know for sure that they will be instructive. Your actions contribute to better government action, better law-making and better parliamentary and judiciary oversight.

And this is badly needed. In Europe, anti-Semitism is on the rise once again. Criticism of Roma and Sinti is growing harsher. The Muslim faith is being portrayed as the root of all evil. Crises elsewhere in the world have magnified social divisions. Conflict in the Middle East – be it violence between Israelis and Palestinians in and around Gaza or between Sunnis and Shiites in Syria and Iraq – is provoking tensions in the streets of the Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe.

This is unacceptable. Jewish people in the Netherlands are not accountable for what happens in Gaza. Dutch Muslims are not responsible for how Christians are treated in Iraq. People should be judged by their own behaviour. Nobody should be made a scapegoat for the conduct of others. The key is to focus on the humanity of the other and see people as individuals. This would be my first guideline.

Taking action in an individual case is one way of weakening the mechanism of exclusion and dehumanisation. For example, if you can show that a situation is about a mother and her children, who want only to live an ordinary life and mean no harm to anyone or anything.

Think about the story of the Sudanese mother, Meriam Ibrahim, who was put on death row for marrying a Christian, who was imprisoned with her two babies. The law may be abstract, her story makes it personal. It’s about an individual person, about turning a ‘case’ into a person. Counteracting the process of dehumanisation can do a lot to undermine the mechanism of exclusion and worse.

Secondly: ‘Practise what you preach’ and be ready to be called to account. Don’t just concentrate on your adversaries’ conduct. Examine your friends’ behaviour and your own, too. On my Facebook timeline I am sometimes accused of being selective in my indignation. I’m criticised for getting agitated about ISIS but not about Egypt’s President Sisi. About Hamas but not about Israel.

I hear the same at other levels, from representatives of other countries. Here’s a concrete example: my Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov is the champion of ‘whataboutism’. Whenever anyone criticises the Russian legal system, he responds with: ‘What about the death penalty in the United States?’ The minute I start talking about gay rights, he brings up the rights of Dutch children: ‘What about the paedophile party in your country?’ he asks .

This is my answer: we’re against those things too. In fact, we support a programme aimed at encouraging public debate about the death penalty. We support the people who oppose the death penalty in the United States. The European Union refuses to supply the toxin used to carry out death sentences to the US. And an independent court in the Netherlands has ruled that the paedophile party must be banned.

We apply this principle to our policy on Israel. Another country with which we have strong economic and cultural ties. Israel is home to thousands of people of Dutch origin. It is an OECD country like we are. If we criticise what the Palestinians or Arabs do and they say: ‘what about Israel?’, then we can say: we are critical of them too. We support a human rights programme in Israel. I think the best response to whataboutism is: ‘we’re doing that too’.

If you want to achieve progress in human rights in a general sense, I believe the most vital task for the years ahead is to appeal for understanding for the other, and respect for the different choices that people make. But, again, your appeal won’t work unless you yourself are open to criticism and able to put yourself in someone else’s shoes.

And thirdly: It’s important to see human rights as a film rather than a snapshot. You need to take a longer view. When you consider the current situation, also look at where you’ve been and where you want to go, step by step.

The universality of human rights is one of the greatest revolutions in human history, and also one of the newest. The French Revolution didn’t bring democracy to France overnight. You may find yourself taking one step back for every two steps forward. Human rights require patience.

The experiences of countries like Poland and Spain are good examples to use in this debate. Something miraculous happened in those countries. In a fairly short time – not even a generation – their societies have become much more open to diversity. The same has happened in a number of African countries.

I think it is also important to set a good example and resist the urge to judge others, for example for being homophobic. This attitude helps nurture dialogue. If I had said to my grandparents that in the new millennium men would be able to marry men in the Netherlands, they’d have looked at me as if I were mad. Gay marriage simply wasn’t part of their life experience. But now it’s perfectly normal to more than three-quarters of the Dutch population.

Changes like that don’t happen overnight. It’s a gradual process. I won’t comment on whether that’s a good thing or not: that’s something everyone has to decide for themselves. All I am saying is: developments like these can only take place when there is respect for where people are coming from.

Summing up, I believe there are three sets of guidelines that should govern our behaviour:

1. Judge people by their own behaviour, focus on the humanity of the other and see people as individuals.
2. Practise what you preach and be ready to be called to account.
3. Take the long view into account, see human rights as a film and show respect for where people are coming from.

Let me conclude.

Some say that there are no more ideological confrontations in the world. I have come to believe that this is not entirely true, and it may actually be entirely untrue. There are forces in the world that are hostile to our way of life and are trying to oppose it.

Why? Because they know that they have power over others. Power that comes from manipulation, indoctrination and unmitigated violence, supported by weapons. They can only maintain their power if they avoid a relationship with their people like the one we have.

President Putin’s anxiety about Ukraine is not based on a fear of blue flags with yellow stars on Maidan Square, but a fear of blue flags with yellow stars Red Square. Our way of life strikes fear in the hearts of ISIS leaders.

The last thing they want is for their people to seek what we take for granted: equal treatment, equal justice and religious freedom. Because then they would lose their power. The appeal of our way of life is so powerful that it incites formidable opposition, fuelled by fundamentalism and ultranationalism.

When we fight for human rights, we are fighting for our way of life, fighting to preserve our society and our values. Promoting human rights in the rest of the world is a way of securing and reinforcing our way of life in our own society and protecting what we hold dear.

This is why I believe that human rights policy is a cornerstone of foreign policy. There is more to it than simply wanting for others what we take for granted. We need to secure our way of life for the future, for our children and grandchildren. We need to arm ourselves against attacks from outside and from within by those who want to take it away from us.

For me, this is why we fight for human rights. The efforts of the Anne Frank Foundation and of its ambassadors are essential in that fight. In the words of Edmund Burke: ‘When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one.’

We mustn’t let that happen."


Recente berichten

en meer

Populaire posts van de afgelopen 30 dagen

Coronavirus: Commission recommends partial and gradual lifting of travel restrictions to the EU after 30 June, based on common coordinated approach

Today the Commission recommends to Schengen Member States and Schengen Associated States to lift internal border controls by 15 June 2020 and to prolong the temporary restriction on non-essential travel into the EU until 30 June 2020; and sets out an approach to progressively lifting the restriction afterwards. Given that the health situation in certain third countries remains critical, the Commission does not propose a general lifting of the travel restriction at this stage. The restriction should be lifted for countries selected together by Member States, based on a set of principles and objective criteria including the health situation, the ability to apply containment measures during travel, and reciprocity considerations, taking into account data from relevant sources such as ECDC and WHO. For countries towards which the restriction remains in place, the Commission proposes to enlarge the categories of permitted travellers to include, for instance, international st…

"Hand out for migrants with a zoekjaar." by lawyer mr Kleijweg

A few weeks ago mr Kleijweg and I hosted a webinar for people who were here with a Searchyear permit. During the meeting it became clear that those former students were not always well informed about the benefits for them. A former student who has a Zoekjaar verblijfsvergunning (Seachyear permit) does not need those high salary amounts a normal highly qualifies migrant does AND the employer does not need a workpermit for the employee. So mr Kleijweg made a handout for those foreign students.
The basis of the migrationlaw in The Netherlands is the national interest. Only if there is a national interest, a residencepermit will be granted. For that reason there is the “High skilled migrants permit”. When you are granted the “zoekjaar” there is a special arrangement in place. During this “zoekjaar” you are allowed to do any job without salary threshold. See If you want to continue working after yo…

VACATURE: (Senior) Adviseur De Immigratie- en Naturalisatiedienst

De Immigratie- en Naturalisatiedienst heeft bij directie Strategie en Uitvoeringsadvies, afdeling Integraal Advies Regulier Verblijf en Nederlanderschap één vacature voor de functie van (Senior) Adviseur (schaal 11). Het betreft hier een arbeidsovereenkomst voor bepaalde tijd van ongeveer 10 maanden.
Je draagt bij aan de beantwoording van (beleids)vraagstukken op een deelterrein of bepaald aandachtsgebied van het vreemdelingenbeleid. Daartoe ontwikkel je, op basis van eigen analyse en onderzoek, adviesproducten voor jouw opdrachtgever. De adviesproducten hebben een integraal karakter. Dat wil zeggen dat je bij jouw advies aspecten hebt betrokken van aanpalende beleidsterreinen, dienstverlening, handhaving, IV en bedrijfsvoering. Jouw taak eindigt niet met het geven van advies. Je draagt bij aan de implementatie en uitvoering van het advies en monitort de effectiviteit van het advies en het adviesproces. Je stelt deze, waar nodig, bij indien dat leidt tot een verbetering v…

VACATURE: International HR & Payroll Operations Associate Netherlands

Would you like to continue your career in a versatile Human Resource role?Would you be a perfect fit for a young, vibrant pan-European team?Do you want to work in a monumental office building (close to public transport) in Breda,?

The Parakar Group is an employment services organisation offering a wide spectrum of solutions in the domain of globally outsourced HR- and payroll management. We offer solutions to companies and individuals to compliantly engage in employment relationships that not only cross geographical borders and cultures but also help bridge statutory and employment-legal context. Our services range from outsourced employment management, including International HR- and payroll accounting, work permit process management to relocation services, among others.
Our clients, based on all continents, want to employ staff in the Netherlands or another EU country. For these clients we provide ‘Employer of Record’ (EOR)-services, making sure that their e…

UITSPRAAK: De rechtbank vindt dat de IND Corona als smoes gebruikt

De rechtbank overweegt als volgt. Verweerder had al ruim voor de Coronacrisis intrad gevolg moeten geven aan de uitspraak van de rechtbank van 26 september 2019. De uitspraak laat geen ruimte aan verweerder om anders dan binnen de in die uitspraak gestelde termijn op de asielaanvragen te beslissen. Verweerder wordt geacht er alles aan te doen de uitspraak van de rechtbank na te leven. De mededeling van verweerder dat het niet mogelijk is toezeggingen te doen omtrent de termijn waarbinnen in de voorliggende zaak kan worden beslist, vindt de rechtbank in het licht van de opdracht in de uitspraak van 26 september 2019 ongepast. Echter nu verweerder heeft aangegeven een aanvullend gehoor te willen houden draagt de rechtbank verweerder op uiterlijk binnen vier weken na verzending van deze uitspraak besluiten te nemen op de aanvragen.
Procesverloop Bij besluiten van 3 maart 2017 (de bestreden besluiten) heeft verweerder de aanvragen van
eisers tot het verlenen va…

Uitspraak: Is plaatsing in een "Hufter-proof" AZC vrijheidsontneming?

Artikel 56 Vw-maatregel gekoppeld aan plaatsing in de nieuw geopende Handhavings- en toezichtlocatie in Hoogeveen. Vrijheidsbeperking of vrijheidsontneming?

Instantie Rechtbank Den HaagDatum uitspraak 25-05-2020Datum publicatie 25-05-2020 Zaaknummer NL20.10089
Rechtsgebieden Vreemdelingenrecht
Bijzondere kenmerken Eerste aanleg - enkelvoudig

Het EHRM heeft in een aantal zaken het toetsingskader voor de beoordeling van deze rechtsvraag uiteengezet.

De rechtbank overweegt dat de uiterst beperkte oppervlakte van zone I en II, het fysiek afgesloten zijn van de buitenwereld, de mate en intensiteit van toezicht en het ontbreken van een bij wet bepaalde maximale duur van de maatregel ex artikel 56 Vw op zichzelf en zeker in onderlinge samenhang bezien zeer sterke aanwijzingen vormen dat de maatregel ex artikel 56 Vw, voor zover deze is gekoppeld aan plaatsing in de HTL, gekwalificeerd moet worden als vrijheidsontneming zoals bedoeld in artik…

Na bijna 50 jaar legaal verblijf wordt grote boef uitgezet! Raad van State uitspraak over toetsing 8 EVRM

Datum uitspraak: 1 juli 2020
Uitspraak op de hoger beroepen van:
1.    de staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid,
2.    [de vreemdeling],
tegen de uitspraak van de rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Groningen, van 15 november 2019 in zaak nr. 19/1051 in het geding tussen:
de vreemdeling
de staatssecretaris.
Bij besluit van 14 juli 2017 heeft de staatssecretaris de aan de vreemdeling verleende verblijfsvergunning regulier voor onbepaalde tijd ingetrokken, de vreemdeling opgedragen de Europese Unie onmiddellijk te verlaten en een inreisverbod tegen hem uitgevaardigd.
Bij besluit van 11 februari 2019 heeft de staatssecretaris het daartegen door de vreemdeling gemaakte bezwaar opnieuw ongegrond verklaard.
Bij uitspraak van 15 november 2019 heeft de rechtbank het daartegen door de vreemdeling ingestelde beroep gegrond verklaard,…

Hoe kan je de IND overtuigen een visumzaak aan te houden? (Kant en klare brief)

Een advocaat deed mij een geanonimiseerde beslissing toekomen in een zaak van hem waarin de IND stelde dat voor de pandemiesituatie geen aanhoudingsbeleid is binnen de Visumcode. Dat de Visumcode kort cyclisch is en dat niet zonder meer kan worden uitgegaan van ongewijzigde omstandigheden in de situatie van aanvrager. Voorts zou er geen grondslag zijn voor termijnverlenging voor onderzoek en dergelijke. Dit alles maakte dat zijn verzoek om aanhouding werd afgewezen.

Ik heb een artikel geschreven van 10 pagina's in Word waar ik op deze punten inga. Wellicht scheelt dat u een berg werk.

Klik op deze link: Visum bezwaar tijdens Corona

Heeft u geen Paypal maar wilt u voor een bijdrage van 2 euro toch graag dit document ontvangen mail mij even op wytzia@

Ik doe met plezier bezwaarprocedures in visumzaken.

Interessant artikel? Deel het eens met uw netwerk en help mee met het verspreiden van de bekendheid van dit blog. Er staan wellicht nog meer artikelen op dit weblog die u…

Nu het stof is neergedaald, blijkt geen enkele asielzoeker zich schuldig gemaakt aan moord of doodslag

Nu het stof is neergedaald, blijkt geen enkele asielzoeker zich schuldig gemaakt aan moord of doodslag, maar dat zal de voorpagina's niet halen. — Leo Lucassen (@Leolucassen) January 18, 2020

2/Hier de nadere uitsplitsing van de categorie 'overig', waar discussie over was omdat er naar gevraagd moest worden, inclusief 31 opgevoerde incidenten in de categorie moord/doodslag. Uiteindelijk bleek geen enkele asielaanvrager aan moord/ doodslag schuldig te zijn geweest. — Ruben van Gaalen (@rubenivangaalen) January 17, 2020

Interessant artikel? Deel het eens met uw netwerk en help mee met het verspreiden van de bekendheid van dit blog. Er staan wellicht nog meer artikelen op dit weblog die u zullen boeien. Kijk gerust eens rond. Zelf graag wat willen plaatsen? Mail dan In verband met geldwolven die denken geld te kunnen claimen op krantenartikelen die op een blog als deze worden geplaatst ma…

Wat als je vergeten bent je verblijfsvergunning te verlengen?

Iemand stuurde deze week in paniek een mailtje want ze was er achter gekomen dat haar verblijfsvergunning was verlopen. Wat dan te doen?

Het is van belang om eerst na te gaan waarom u te laat was. Bent u het domweg vergeten of was u bijvoorbeeld in het ziekenhuis opgenomen? De regelgeving maakt namelijk een onderscheid tussen een verwijtbare en een niet-verwijtbare te late verlenging.

Wat het belang van het verschil is? Bij niet-verwijtbaar wordt met terugwerkende kracht verlengd en bij verwijtbaar per moment van de aanvraag. Zo kan er dus een verblijfsgat ontstaan waardoor u weer opnieuw moet gaan sparen voor de 5 jaar om een verblijfsvergunning voor onbepaalde tijd te kunnen aanvragen.

Stelt u vindt dat doordat u bijvoorbeeld gedwongen was opgenomen in een psychiatrisch ziekenhuis en daarom niet-verwijtbaar te laat was: Zorg dan dat u daar bewijzen van hebt en schrijf een toelichting voor bij uw aanvraagformulier waarin u aangeeft en voeg kopieen van bijvoorbeeld opnamekaarten etc b…