(NETHERLANDS) — The Netherlands is pushing ahead with a stricter asylum-and-return policy, including a request to opt out of EU asylum rules if the bloc’s treaties are amended and an effort to examine whether rejected asylum seekers can be sent to countries outside the European Union.

The Dutch government has paired that push with a harder line on residence and removal. Foreign citizens who have no legal right to remain are expected to leave, and those who do not leave voluntarily may be deported. Authorities may also offer return assistance to support voluntary departure.

Marjolein Faber, the minister for asylum and migration, told the European Commission that the Dutch government would seek an opt-out from the EU asylum and migration acquis if the EU treaties were amended. She also pledged that the Netherlands would have the “strictest asylum regime ever.”

That request does not amount to an approved exemption. Any real opt-out would require a treaty amendment and the consent of other member states, and the European Commission quickly rejected the idea that an imminent treaty change was likely.

Faber also acknowledged the dispute around the Dutch position while saying the country would continue to implement the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum. Under that pact, member states still have to show “mandatory solidarity.”

The result is a two-track position that is likely to shape Dutch migration policy for some time. The government is pressing for a tougher national approach while remaining bound by the current EU framework unless that framework changes.

That framework matters because the Netherlands cannot suspend its EU obligations on its own. The opt-out remains theoretical unless treaties change, and the pact’s rules continue to apply in the meantime.

The broader policy direction set out by the Dutch government reaches beyond one legal request. It includes tougher border surveillance, tighter asylum rules, and a stronger focus on return and deportation.

Those measures fit a wider political message from The Hague that asylum policy should become harder at multiple stages, from entry and processing to removal after a rejected claim. The stress on deportation also aligns with the government’s position that people who do not qualify to stay should leave the country.

That emphasis has extended beyond the borders of the bloc. Reporting in September 2024 said the government was exploring a plan to send rejected asylum seekers to Uganda, a proposal that reflected a wider EU discussion about “return hubs” outside the union.

The Uganda idea has drawn attention because it sits at the intersection of Dutch domestic politics and a wider European argument over how to handle rejected asylum seekers. Sending people outside the EU after their claims fail would mark a harder version of return policy than the one usually discussed inside the bloc’s normal asylum system.

At the same time, the legal obstacle remains the same as it is for the opt-out request: the present rules still stand. The Netherlands remains bound by the Pact on Migration and Asylum unless and until the EU changes those rules, and that leaves the Dutch government arguing for a stricter course inside a framework it still has to follow.

Political pressure around that gap is likely to continue. A government that promises a tougher asylum system faces the limits of EU law, while other member states would have to agree before any treaty change could clear the way for a Dutch exemption.

The Commission’s rejection of the idea that treaty change is close narrows the immediate path forward. Without such a change, the Netherlands cannot convert its request into an operative opt-out, regardless of how strongly ministers argue that national policy should move in a tougher direction.

That leaves implementation of the pact on one side and Dutch demands for more room on the other. Faber’s statement to Brussels made clear that the government wants both: continued participation under current law and a future opening that could let it step away from parts of the EU asylum regime if the treaties are rewritten.

The pact’s solidarity rules add another layer to the dispute. Because member states must still show “mandatory solidarity,” the Netherlands remains part of a system built around shared obligations even as its government presses for a policy built around tighter national control.

Arguments over that balance are not confined to the Netherlands. The discussion over return hubs and non-EU deportation pathways has surfaced more broadly across Europe, and the Dutch exploration of Uganda in September 2024 placed the country inside that larger debate.

Any movement on a treaty amendment would become a decisive test for the Dutch request. Unless other member states agree to reopen the treaties and then consent to an exemption, the Netherlands will continue operating under the current asylum acquis and the existing Pact on Migration and Asylum.

For now, the government’s position is clear in practical terms. People with no right of residence are expected to leave, voluntary return can be supported with assistance, and deportation remains available for those who do not depart on their own.

Its broader ambition is also clear. The Netherlands wants a stricter asylum-and-return policy, wants the option to opt out if EU treaties are amended, and is examining whether rejected asylum seekers can be sent beyond the bloc, even as the law it seeks to loosen still governs what it can do today.