Family in Dutch migration policy 1945–2005

Abstract

This article looks at how and why the concept of 'family' was used in Dutch migration policy in the period between 1945 and 2005. Throughout this period differences were made between migrant women and migrant men. Whereas the migration of men was associated with labour migration, the migration of women was equated with family migration. Migrant women were constructed as wives and mothers (and not as workers). This construction of women was combined with a victimhood discourse in which women were presented as victims of repressive religion (usually Islam), domestic violence, trafficking and prostitution, and discriminatory government policy. The victimhood discourse was successfully used to acquire rights for migrant women (mostly the right to stay), but as a result all migrant women came to be seen as vulnerable and in need of protection. In this article, I show how this combined family and victimhood discourse was used by governments, by (migrant) organizations and, to a lesser extent, in court cases to create differences between migrant men and women. The 'success' of the victimhood discourse is not only explained by the fact that it fitted (Western) ideas on femininity. It was also used to give a humanitarian face -albeit beneficial to women only -to an essentially restrictive immigration policy.

Introduction: Making a Difference

“…It further created differences between men and women in how policies were applied: religion surfaced more frequently in women's cases. Here, there are also clear similarities to later decades: bending the rules in cases involving women proved easier than changing the rules (Schrover 2009b). In the fourth place, civil servants and others were afraid of publicity.…”

“…Migrant families also found that leaving their biological children behind in the care of others for long periods of time led to debates about so-called 'broken bonds' . In some cases the idea that ties had ceased to exist after years of being apart resulted in the loss of the rights for children to join their families (Benhabib & Resnik 2009: 235;Schrover 2009b).…”

“…In the 1980s and 1990s, several Strasbourg international court cases revolved around the right to family life (Schrover 2009b). Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (adopted by the Council of Europe in 1950) states that children have the right to grow up with their families.…”

Romantic relationships across boundaries: global and comparative perspectives

“…Several cases at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) at Strasbourg ruled in favor of the right to family life, which had a direct impact on border-crossing couples. For example, the ECHR ruled that a Turkish father could not be deported after his divorce and the subsequent loss of his residence rights in the Netherlands if his child continued to reside in the Netherlands without him (Schrover, 2009; see also Schrover & Moloney, 2013, p. 32-33). These debates about binationalism and relationships seemed to be encapsulated in the story of Betty Mahmoody, which was recounted in the 1987 memoir and film Not without my Daughter.…”

Unutulan bir Göç ve Yurttaşlık Deneyimi İlk Kuşak Göçmen Kadınlar ve Hollanda Türkiyeli Kadınlar Birliği

“…İstihdam alanlarının özellikleri yanı sıra Hollanda, daha başından kadın işçilerin bekâr ve çocuksuz olmaları koşulunu aramakta, ilk dönemlerde yapılan göçmen işçilik sözleşmelerinde Almanya'dakinin aksine gelecek kişilerin ailesi veya yakınlarını getirmesi yasaklanmaktaydı. 28 Oysa Almanya'da göçmen işçi statüsü ile bağımsız olarak gelen kadınların yanı sıra, eşleri ile birlikte veya takiben Almanya'ya gelen kadınlar da, Alman iş pazarına erken bir tarihte dahil olmaya başlamışlardı. Örneğin Almanya'da Türkiye kökenli göçmen işçiler içinde evli kadınların oranı % 29'du.…”