nrc.nl
Dutch Border Control Experiment Yields Mixed Results
A Dutch experiment with stricter border controls from December 2024 to June 2025 showed increased rejections of passengers without proper identification but fewer arrests for cross-border crime and fewer detected asylum seekers compared to previous mobile checks, challenging the effectiveness of the approach.
- What were the immediate impacts of the Netherlands' six-month experiment with stricter border controls on irregular migration and cross-border crime?
- A six-month experiment in the Netherlands with stricter border controls resulted in more rejected passengers lacking proper identification (320 vs. an average of 170 during previous mobile checks) but fewer arrests for cross-border crime (216 vs. 285) and fewer asylum seekers detected (70 vs. 160). The increased rejections suggest a potential impact on irregular migration, while the decrease in crime suggests limited effectiveness against cross-border crime.
- How did the results of the Dutch border control experiment compare to previous mobile border checks, and what conclusions can be drawn from this comparison?
- The Dutch experiment, while increasing the number of people turned away at the border for lacking proper identification, saw a decrease in arrests for cross-border crimes such as human trafficking, and fewer asylum seekers were detected compared to previous mobile checks. This suggests that stricter border controls may not be as effective against crime as previously believed, and their impact on asylum seekers is also questionable. The results contrast with the stated goals of the experiment.
- What are the potential long-term consequences of the Dutch border control experiment's findings for national security policy and public perceptions of border security?
- The findings challenge the narrative surrounding stricter border controls. While seemingly effective in deterring irregular migrants lacking identification, the simultaneous decrease in crime-related arrests raises doubts about their effectiveness in tackling cross-border crime. This highlights the complexities involved in border security and raises questions about alternative strategies and their potential impact.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article's framing subtly favors a critical perspective on the effectiveness of border controls. While presenting data from the General Accounting Office, the emphasis is on the limited success of the experiment, particularly in reducing cross-border crime. The headline (if any) and introduction likely emphasized the negative findings, framing the policy as less effective than alternatives. The inclusion of quotes from political figures like Geert Wilders, who supports stricter controls, adds another layer of framing that implicitly questions the effectiveness of current approaches.
Language Bias
The language used is largely neutral, with some instances of potentially loaded terms. Phrases such as "rottigheid ertussenuit" (trying to get rid of the bad stuff) when referring to asylum seekers could be considered loaded, implying a negative connotation. The use of terms like "rechts-extremistische AfD" (right-wing extremist AfD) could also be considered loaded language. More neutral alternatives such as "asylum seekers who may not meet all requirements" and "the AfD, a party with right-wing positions", respectively, would improve neutrality.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the effects and political implications of border controls, particularly in the Netherlands and Germany. However, it omits discussion of the broader economic consequences of these controls, such as potential impacts on cross-border trade and tourism. The article also doesn't explore alternative solutions to managing immigration and border security, such as improved international cooperation or investments in integrated border management systems. While acknowledging space constraints is important, the absence of these perspectives limits a complete understanding of the issue.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplistic eitheor framing regarding border control effectiveness. While presenting data on increased refusals of entry and decreased arrests, it doesn't fully explore the complexities of measuring the impact of border controls on crime and irregular migration. The narrative implies a direct causal link between border controls and reduced crime/irregular migration, neglecting potential confounding factors.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the reintroduction of border controls, impacting the free movement of people and potentially infringing upon international agreements on asylum rights. The German government's actions, specifically rejecting asylum seekers at the border, are a direct violation of European treaties, as ruled by a Berlin court. This undermines international cooperation and the rule of law, negatively affecting SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).