A huge budget increase for asylum reception is irresponsible

25 November 2020
Lancement du corps européen de garde-frontières et de garde-côtes

“This huge budget increase cannot be justified by the asylum figures.” One of the most striking trends in the federal budget for 2021 is the huge budget increase for the reception of asylum seekers. At EUR 427 million, the initial operating budget is no less than EUR 138 million higher than in 2018. This is an increase of 48%. “As if that huge amount was not yet high enough, an additional EUR 80 million will be set aside for asylum reception via the so-called “interdepartmental provision”, a grab bag that the Court of Audit describes as a budgetary technique meant to disguise actual costs,” the N -VA says.

Irresponsible budget increase

All in all, the purple-green coalition will allocate more than half a billion euros for asylum reception next year. “That is an absolute record for an initial budget,” the N-VA says. At the time of the European migration crisis of 2015-2016, one and a half million people crossed the open European border in Greece unhindered. In order to provide the influx of asylum seekers at that time with their basic needs, the initial budget was increased to EUR 308 million in 2016. This is what the federal government is now doing with EUR 119 million. “This huge budget increase cannot be justified by the asylum figures,” the N-VA says.

The coronavirus pandemic caused much difficulty and suffering, both human and economic, but also had an unintended advantage: historically low numbers of asylum seekers. The asylum services in Brussels registered only 172 new first-time asylum applications in April and just 225 in May. These are thus extremely low figures, which resulted in a welcome reduction in the pressure on the reception network.

Why then increase the flow of funds to such an extent?

Immediate referral to a reception location

First and foremost, Secretary of State Sammy Mahdi made a point of guaranteeing completely open access to asylum reception for any illegal migrant who comes to Brussels to register as an asylum seeker. Gone are digital registration and reservation; instead, there are direct registration and immediate referral to a reception location. As a result, the asylum applications immediately shot up again. In October alone, 1,437 first-time asylum applications were registered. “So it seems that the purple-green coalition is anticipating a continuing and sharp increase in the number of asylum applications in Brussels,” the N-VA says.

State Secretary Sammy Mahdi brings asylum seekers to Belgium himself

On top of that, State Secretary Sammy Mahdi is bringing a large number of asylum seekers to Belgium himself. As soon as possible, 150 illegal boat migrants are to be picked up from the reception camps on Lesbos, the first group of many more to follow. An unknown number of asylum seekers are also flown in from reception camps in Africa and the Middle East. All those people need shelter, which makes the budget increase necessary.

“Strategic structural buffer” and a more luxurious reception model

The purple-green coalition also made some controversial policy choices that further inflated the costs. For example, the government will install a “strategic structural buffer” of many thousands of reception places. A real waste of money, because keeping empty beds available costs a fortune.

Moreover, the government has opted for a more luxurious reception model. The criteria for giving asylum seekers their own house or apartment with their own living allowance during their asylum procedure, instead of just the basic needs of bed, bath and bread in collective reception structures, will be expanded. According to State Secretary Sammy Mahdi’s policy memorandum, all asylum seekers with a minor child will be assigned their own house or apartment, regardless of their nationality, and therefore regardless of their chances of recognition as refugees.

Policy choice leads to a pull effect

In our neighbouring countries, austere reception in collective structures is the norm. The government’s policy choice therefore inevitably leads to a pull effect, resulting in an even greater demand for reception. The path taken by the purple-green coalition in the asylum issue is not constructive but destructive. It is the path of more asylum reception, without regard to the cost price, let alone the influx. Our country will become more accessible and, at the same time, more luxurious as an asylum destination.

How valuable did you find this article?

Enter your personal score here
The average score is