A case of categorical fetishism within the Dutch parliament? : an analysis into the use of categorical dichotomies within the Dutch parliamentary debate

(1)

A Case of Categorical Fetishism within the Dutch parliament?

An analysis into the use of categorical dichotomies within the Dutch parliamentary debate

Sam Bulthuis, 10561536

Master thesis Politcal Science – International Relations University of Amsterdam

Supervisor: Dr. Beste İşleyen Second reader: Dr. Dimitris Bouris 21-06-2019

(2)

2

(3)

3

Sam Bulthuis – Master thesis Political Science International Relations - University of Amsterdam

Foreword

Migration has always been a topic of interest to me. As the topic of my bachelors’ thesis was about migration, it is now the case for my master thesis. We live in a rapidly changing world, wherein migration has become a significant part of this world. The number of refugees in the world has reached a new record, with their number rising to 70.8 million (NOS, 2019). This proofs the need to get a better understanding of migration and its consequences.

While starting with this master thesis, the approach and subject were totally different from the final outcome. At the start, I intended to focus on the renewed increase of migration at the Greek-Turkish border. In this renewed increase, the greater part of the people migrating is not Syrian, but Turkish. I wondered to which extent these new migrants are treated

differently, and, subsequently, if they were categorised differently. After my proposal was approved for this matter, I quickly realised that it was not possible to collect enough relevant data in the available timeframe, and therefore, it was not feasible to continue this path. The start of the project made me realise the importance of categorisation and did inspire and led me to the concept of the categorical fetishism and dichotomous categorisation. How people who migrate are categorised can make a significant difference, and I wanted to have a more systematic look at it. An important place where that categorisation takes place is the Dutch Parliament. Unpacking how it exactly has happened was an interesting puzzle. Without a number of people this result would not have been possible. Firstly, I would like to thank my tutor and teacher Beste. After the realisation that my first concept was not feasible, she guided me in an excellent way in transforming my plan into adapted concept and subject. Secondly, how cliché whatsoever, I would like to thank my mother for her unsolicited support. For always being there. Subsequently, I would like to thank my sister. Who, despite living and working in Mali, was still able and willing to proof-read my thesis. Your feedback is always much appreciated. Finally, I would like to thank my girlfriend. Together we started our theses, and together we finished.

(4)

4

Abstract

This qualitative case study explores if, and to what extent, the parliamentary debate surrounding the ‘refugee crisis’ takes place within the categorical dichotomy of refugee versus migrant. This dichotomy is divided into four different categorical dichotomies which lay underneath the refugee/migrant dichotomy: voluntary/involuntary, origin/destination, legal/illegal and permanent/temporary. By analysing five parliamentary debates, this study sought to find out if the parliamentary debate takes places along these binary lines.

Subsequently, the categorisations found are critically interrogated by the element’s partiality, functionality, immutability, conflation and self-conformation of Polzer. This study concludes that all analysed parties in the House of Representatives, in one way or another, are debating within the refugee versus migrant dichotomy. However, the extent to which highly varies per party. Subsequently, the elements of Polzer expose that the categorical basis behind the dichotomies is led by its functionality for the party in question.

(5)

5

List of abbreviations

CDA Christen-Democratisch Appèl

D66 Democraten 66

EU European Union

PvdA Partij van de Arbeid

PVV Partij voor de Vrijheid

SGP Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij

SP Socialistische Partij

(7)

7

1. Introduction

In the summer of 2015, the Netherlands saw a rising number of displaced people arrive due to the Syrian conflict, and the associated ‘refugee crisis’. Despite early warning signs of this potential increase, the Dutch government was not prepared for this number of irregular persons (Lucassen, 2018). Since then, many discussions have been going on in the House of Representatives of the Dutch parliament about the reception of the Syrian refugees.

Migration is not an unfamiliar appearance; migration has always been there, just like the discussions about migration. “Migration is just as much a part of life as birth, marriage or mortality” (Obdeijn & Schrover, 2008, p. 14). However, there was and is one crucial

difference; the different categorisation of refugee and migrant. The distinction between

refugees and migrants is that refugees form a category of migrants that the state acknowledges as refugees (Obdeijn & Schrover, 2008). However, apart from this definition, the distinction between the two is turbid, and the terms ‘migrant’ and ‘refugee’ are often used intertwined. The distinction between ‘refugee’ and ‘migrant’ is something relatively new. The distinction follows from the 1951 refugee convention, where the term ‘refugee’ is first defined (Obdeijn & Schrover, 2008). Afterwards, an increase in legalisation can be observed, where national and international law increasingly define how to deal with refugees. (Böcker and Havinga, 2011). Despite the expanding rights of refugees, no increase in the willingness to receive refugees can be observed (Böcker and Havinga, 2011).

Dichotomous categorisations based on time/space, location/direction have been primarily applied to understand migration and migrants, which refers to categorising

according to binary variables (Robertson, 2018). Irregular persons are categorised alongside different dichotomies like voluntary versus involuntary and temporary versus permanent. However, to people on the move, these categorisations are of vital importance. The way in which categorisations are applied may result in vastly different responses to these people (Meyer & Boll, 2018). Categorisation can be used as a mechanism to distinguish, divide, and discriminate (Crawley & Skleparis, 2018).

“The dominant categories fail to capture adequately the complex relationship between political, social and economic drivers of migration or their shifting significance for

individuals over time and space” (Crawley & Skleparis, 2018, p. 48). The dichotomy of refugee versus migrant is by some dubbed as a form of ‘categorical fetishism’ (Crawley & Skleparis, 2018). Crawley and Skleparis argue that politicians make use of this ‘categorical fetishism’, by ignoring the complexities of migration on the one hand, and taking full

(8)

8

advantage of this complexity when it suits their political interests on the other hand (Crawley & Skleparis, 2018).

Before continuing, some essential remarks must be made. As by now, it should be clear that this thesis will be looking deeper into the dichotomy of refugee versus migrant. This thesis should, therefore, treat the terminology of both refugee and migrant carefully. To keep the distinction between the two evident, and because this thesis does not want to award any value to these terms directly, throughout this thesis, the general terminology of irregular persons will be used. Subsequently, sometimes terms as ‘refugee crisis’ or ‘migrant crisis’ are used. It should be stated that this thesis is aware of the consequence such terminology can entail, and subsequently, that these terms do not portray the view of this thesis. However, in order to discuss the matter presented in this thesis, it is sometimes unavoidable to use these terms.

When looking deeper into irregular persons in the Netherlands, a controversy can be found. Since the 1980s, there has been a controversy between protecting refugees on the one hand and controlling migration, on the other hand. Because of this controversy, multiple kinds of literature have been published about immigration in the Netherlands. The literature is strongly varying. Some are providing a broad historical overview like Obdeijn and Schrover (2008) in their book ‘Komen en gaan: Immigratie en emigratie in Nederland vanaf 1550’ and Böcker and Havinga their article (2011) ‘Een eeuw opvang van Europese

oorlogsvluchtelingen in Nederland’. The main argument that follows from these broad historical overviews is that migration is an all-time phenomenon. Although these articles are useful, they do not give much guidance due to their lack of profundity.

Factors that play a role in ultimately granting asylum have been extensively researched though. Leenders (2003) describes the differences between supporters and opponents of granting asylum. Herein, she argues that member of parliament in 1938, 1951, and 1999 mainly focus on the fate of individual refugees when looking at granting asylum. She furthermore argues that the main reason behind this is to influence the public opinion and perception of themselves. She argues that the vision of the members of parliament is at odds with the vision of the ministry of justice who paid particular attention to the total size of a group. Walaardt (2012) reinforces the argumentation of Leenders. He argues that the

government is particularly aware of the size of the entire group, while advocates mainly focus on individual cases (Walaardt, 2012). Walaardt (2012) expands his argument by stating that it is an illusion that firm boundaries could be drawn between refugees who need protection

(9)

9

based on the Geneva Convention and other asylum seekers.

Furthermore, a lot of research has focussed on the integration of migrants and refugees in the Netherlands. Klaver (2015) argues that the Dutch integration policy creates obstacles for the integration of refugees rather than strengthening the integration. Especially linking integration requirements for obtaining permanent residence rights and the lack of specific support for refugees in integration by the government impede the current integration process (Klaver, 2015). The argument of Klaver is enforced by Besselsen and de Hart (2015), who specifically argue that the changes in the new ‘inburgeringswet’ of 2016 have a strong negative effect on the integration of migrants. Integration is a hot topic, and the article of Huijnk, Dagevos and Miltenburg (2017) showcases this. In their article, they visualise the current research into the integration in the Netherlands. By doing so, they deduce the three needed resources for good integration: language, health, and education. Furthermore, the arrearage of irregular persons in the labour market is visualised. Subsequently, the socio-cultural position is discussed and deduced into three factors: contacts, identification, socio-cultural differences. Finally, they showcase the discrimination and exclusion associated with

integration. Overall, however, it shows that integration is a nearly saturated topic.

Subsequently, a lot of research has been done about the framing of irregular persons, and the consequences of this framing. Haenens and de Lange (2001) looked deeper into the framing of asylum seekers in various Dutch regional newspapers. They argue that newspapers in particular report on refugees from a human-interest perspective. “In the human-interest frame, the emphasis is placed on the personal, emotional side of an event, issue or problem” (Haenens & de Lange, 2001, p.850). They argue that the personal experiences of refugees, but also demonstrators, were central to the news coverage of local newspapers. Furthermore, the attitude of the local inhabitants towards refugees seemed to have no influences on the

reporting of the regional newspapers. Roggeband and Vliegenthart (2007) look even deeper intro framing by not only looking into the media but extending their scope to also include the Dutch parliament in their article 'Divergent framing: The public debate on migration in the Dutch parliament and media’. In their article, they argue that there is little to no correlation between framing in the media and the parliament (Roggeband & Vliegenthart, 2017). In the political realm, there is more diversity in the frames used, and different frames dominated over time. In contrast to their expectations, it is the media framing that is highly selective and not the Dutch parliament (Roggeband & Vliegenthart, 2017).

(10)

10

the categorical dichotomy within framing is missing in the academic debate. Lee and Nerghes (2018) do discuss the topic in their article: ‘Refugee or Migrant Crisis? Labels, Perceived Agency, and Sentiment Polarity in Online Discussions’. In their article, they research label use like the contradicting dichotomy of ‘European migrant crisis’ versus ‘European refugee crisis’ in social media. By doing so, they argue that labels as a framing instrument have become an integral part of social media (Lee & Nerghes, 2018). They argue that labels such as ‘refugee’ and ‘migrant’ have become social categorisation devices. The use of these labels is: “not only demarcating ‘the population’ from the ‘other’, but also distinguishing between those who are deserving from those who are considered less deserving and potentially a threat to be rejected” (Lee & Nerghes, 2018, p. 12).

As showcased above, an extensive amount of research has been done around the topic of migration. Nonetheless, a gap can be found in the current literature; a direct focus on the categorisation of irregular persons within the Dutch parliament is absent. Crawley and Skleparis (2018) argue that if we want to challenge the exclusion categorisation entails, a more critical engagement with policy categories is needed; specifically, the categories used by politicians and policymakers. Even though some of the literature is focussing on the

parliament, the direct introduction of the concept of categorisation, and the associated refugee versus migrant dichotomy, within the Dutch parliament is non-existent. So even though there is existing literature about categorisation on the one hand and literature surrounding irregular persons within in the Netherlands and the Dutch parliament, on the other hand, research, where the two are combined, is non-existing, despite it being a topic of relevance.

This thesis aims to fill this gap and ultimately aims to create insights into the possible use of categorical dichotomies within the Dutch parliament when discussing irregular persons. It is therefore not the aim of this thesis to unravel the consequences of categorisation within dichotomies, but merely to determine if the debate surrounding the ‘refugee crisis’ within the Dutch parliament is taking place along the static lines of these categorical dichotomies. It is therefore that this thesis set out to find an answer to the following research question: whether, and if yes to which extent, does the debate around the ‘refugee crisis’ within the Dutch parliament takes place within in the categorical dichotomies?

By researching if the debates in the Dutch parliament surrounding the ‘refugee crisis’ takes place within categorical dichotomies, this thesis will try to fill a gap in the current literature as described above. In doing so, a knowledge gap will be filled, and therefore, this thesis will be highly scientifically relevant. In doing so, this thesis will participate in the

(11)

11

debate surrounding the categorisation of migrants and aims to enrich the knowledge enclosing it. Subsequentially, the way in which the debate takes place can have far-reaching

implications for the refugee/migrants’ perception, reception and the decisions taken by the Dutch parliament (Lee & Nerghes, 2018). The use of the terminology ‘refugee’ versus ‘migrant’ can shape the narrative in which citizens perceive the matter. The insights created by investigating how the debate takes place around the refugee/migrant dichotomy by the Dutch parliament can ensure that the debate is conducted differently and more profound, in doing so this thesis is also socially relevant.

This thesis is built up as follows: firstly, the conceptual framework needed to analyse the question at hand will be created. Inhere, the different dichotomies which are concealed within the refugee/migrant dichotomy will be discussed. Subsequently, the model of Polzer (2008) to interrogate categories critically will be discussed. Afterwards, the problem

definition and research questions are further elaborated. Thirdly, the used method and strategy to conduct the research of this thesis will be discussed. Afterwards, the results of the analysis will be discussed. In the end, the conclusion and answer to the research question will be portrayed.

(12)

12

2. Conceptual framework

In the following chapter, the conceptual framework of this thesis will be described. The purpose of this conceptual framework is to provide this thesis with the tools to analyse the empirical data. Firstly, a brief overview of the concept of categorisation will be given. Secondly, the migrant versus refugee dichotomy will be discussed. Herein, multiple dichotomies will be distinguished, which lay at the basis of the migrant versus refugee dichotomy. Lastly, the framework surrounding the categorisation will be discussed. Herein, the six elements to categorisation will be demonstrated.

2.1 Categorisation

Meyer and Boll (2018) argue that it has become increasingly more complex to categorise and that categorising itself defies the classificatory logic; the current fluid nature of migratory experiences has become incompatible with static categorisations. Furthermore, Meyer and Boll (2018) argue that the increasing scale of migration has uncovered the shortcomings in the current global legal framework for migration. They argue that: “in the absence of

comprehensive, integrated legislation, applicable standards provide for partial and

overlapping categorisations of people on the move, often designed to afford protection to specific sub-groups” (Meyer & Boll, 2018, p. 3).

Robertson (2018) follows the line of Meyer and Boll. In her article: ‘Status-making: Rethinking irregular person categorisation’. She looks closely into the Australian migration sociology and critiques this migration sociology. She shows that irregular persons are categorised according to their either ethnicity, country of origin or visa status (Robertson, 2018). Such classifications of irregular persons obscure how irregular persons are more than static sets of rights, entitlements, and fixed social categories. According to Robertson (2018), the shortcomings in static classification have the consequence that an irregular person can enter the room as a child and leave as an adult or arrive as a desired irregular person only to become a problematic settler. To counter this, she challenges researchers and sociological studies in specific “to no longer look at taken-for-granted ‘types’ of migrants in isolation, and to begin to approach the classification of research subjects in ways that can take into account the contested and dynamic nature of their status(es)” (Robertson, 2018, p. 230).

According to Bakewell (2008), a differentiation can be made between categories. On the one hand, policy categories, and on the other hand, analytical categories (Bakewell, 2008). Policy categories are used to define “those groups of people who are assumed to share

(13)

13

particular qualities that make it reasonable to subject them to the same outcomes of policy” (Bakewell, 2008, p. 436). Analytical categories are assigned to people who are perceived to have ‘unequivocally shared features’ (Bakewell, 2008). The observations linked to these categories can be used for the aggregation and to analyse the individuals within the categories (Bakewell, 2011). The most significant contrast between the two is that policy categories are invariant over time, while analytical categories can be hugely variant over time (Bakewell, 2008). According to Bakewell (2008), these two categories have become mixed up and intertwined coming forth out of a search for policy relevance. This mix up has encouraged researchers in adapting the policy categories and priorities of policymakers and practitioners (Bakewell, 20098, p. 432). This is limiting and narrowing the focus of the research done into the different categories associated with migration. Moreover, according to Bakewell (2008), this leaves large groups of irregular persons invisible in not only research but also the policy following the research. Furthermore, Bakewell (2011) argues that these policy categories may become self-perpetuating. While, over time, the relationship between a person’s condition and the applied category to this person might change (Bakewell, 2011). This is making it even more contra-productive for research to use policy categories instead of analytical categories. Crawley and Skleparis clearly state the current trend within in the academic field: “our call is not for an end to the use of categories as a way of making sense of our social and political worlds, but for explicit recognition and engagement with the idea that categories do not simply represent or reflect the world but simultaneously create and limit it” (Crawley & Skleparis, 2018, p. 60).

2.2 Migrant refugee dichotomies

To be able to look at the ‘categorical fetishism’, first, a deeper understanding of the

dichotomy itself will be created. The Oxford dictionary defines a dichotomy as follows: “a division or contrast between two things that are or are represented as being opposed or entirely different” (www.lexico.com). Throughout the world, refugee law has traditionally differentiated between economic migrants on the one hand, and refugees on the other (Bhimji, 2018). Where there is an association that refugees are victim of involuntary forced migration, while migrants are associated with voluntary economic motives (Bhimji, 2018; Crawley & Skleparis, 2018; Colleyer & de Haas, 2012; Klinck, 2009). According to Klinck (2009), this assumption is precisely where the dichotomy is based on. Economic migrants are not seen as refugees, because their decision to migrate is ‘set up’ by themselves, whereas the decision of

(14)

14

refugees to migrate is forced (Klinck, 2009). The dichotomy portrayed within the dichotomy of migrant versus refugee is rather a dichotomy of voluntary versus involuntary. The problem herein, however, is that the dichotomy can be stretched. What the one sees as voluntary is someone else’s eyes involuntary.

The UN definition is extremely narrow, “The 1951 Convention is centered on the notion that someone has a “well-founded fear of being persecuted” on specified grounds—and has therefore left his/her country of nationality and is unable/unwilling to rely on its

protection” (Bartram, 2015, p. 442). In principle, the 1951 convention’s definition is based around a notion of violence. Present-day, however, it is argued that there are many more legit involuntary reasons. The main argument states that violence is not the only reasons for forced migration, but the lack of possibility to fulfil one’s fundamental human rights should also be seen as involuntary/forced migration. “When one’s local options for gaining subsistence entail violations of basic human rights, migration is sometimes forced by one’s reasonable

insistence on finding elsewhere a means for subsistence that preserves a basic level of human dignity” (Bartram, 2015, p. 453)

Despite arguments being made for a broader perception of the voluntary and

involuntary migration, it is often portrayed as fraudulent economic migrants on the one hand and genuine humanitarian refugees on the other. This distinction is sometimes practically used to justify the denying of refugee status to an irregular person because a focus is placed on the also present socio-economic motives of the irregular person (Klinck, 2009). Exactly this distinction is where the crux lays. Where refugee protection is a matter of international human rights law, economic migration is not. Economic migration is subject to national migration laws, and in these laws, the state has their sovereign rights; which are often used to promote their national interests (Klinck, 2009). By moving the debate along the lines of the dichotomy, it is easier to look at national rather than international legislation, and thereby, there is a possibility to exclude and refuse.

The widely adopted dichotomy of voluntary versus involuntary is not the only

dichotomous categorisation. Colleyer and de Haas (2012) distinguish three other criteria from which multiple dichotomies follow: time-space, location – direction and state perspective.

(15)

15

Figure 1 showcases these categories and the dichotomies that follow. In the following paragraphs, these dichotomous categorisations will be further discussed.

From the time-space criteria, two dichotomies follow: permanent versus temporary and internal versus international. According to the United Nations definition, temporary is defined as less than one year, and permanent for more than one year (Collyer & de Haas, 2012). Although the distinction within these two dichotomies is apparent, they are both a poor measure of the significance of migration (Collyer & de Haas, 2012). Because this thesis is focussing on international migration only, the internal versus international dichotomy is unnecessary and will therefore not be used.

From the location - direction criteria three dichotomies follow: immigration versus emigration, origin versus destination and home versus host. Although three dichotomies follow, they are all rooted in the same dichotomous understanding: “of migration as a direct movement between two countries or places, that is, the ‘origin’ or ‘home’ country and the ‘destination’ or the particularly popular term ‘host’ country” (Collyer & de Haas, 2012, p. 471). They are all particular static categorisations, as all of the dichotomies preclude that ‘home’ cannot change, while the opposite is exact. Furthermore, in the dichotomy, an

assumption is hidden, the assumption that irregular persons move between two fixed locations (Collyer & de Haas, 2012). This thesis will melt the three dichotomies from Collyer and de Haas into one because they all come from similar roots and are in some way or form overlapping each other. The dichotomy used by this thesis will, therefore, be origin versus destination. Irregular persons are classified according to their origin and destination and based Figure 2: the dichotomous categorisations (Collyer & de Haas, 2012, p. 470)

(16)

16

on this classification, the label migrant or refugee is created.

From the state perspective criteria, two dichotomies follow: legal versus illegal and regular versus irregular.

“

Individuals who choose to travel with no documentation are separated from their documented counterparts at every stage of the journey and often for many years afterwards

”

(Collyer & de Haas, 2012, p. 471). The legal versus illegal dichotomy is rejected by many migrant originations, arguing that no one is, or should be, illegal (Collyer & de Haas, 2012). By defining individuals as illegal, it tends to define illegality as a fixed characteristic to certain populations. Some argue that this is done by the state to distinguish migrants from refugees to which states have significant legally defined obligations (Collyer, Düvell & de Haas, 2012). Because of the rejection of the terminology of illegal and legal alternative terms like irregular and undocumented are used. Because the meaning between the two dichotomies is practically the same, this thesis will use the dichotomy illegal versus legal.

Based on the above, when looking at the dichotomies which follow from the ‘categorical fetishism’, this thesis will look at the following four dichotomies: voluntary versus involuntary, permanent versus temporary, origin versus destination and illegal versus legal. In the method section of this thesis, the four dichotomies will be further operationalised.

2.3 The six elements of categorisation

“Humans have spent generations categorising history into eras, dirt into soil types, plants and animals into phyla and species, and people into classes, ethnicities, nations and races” (Jones, 2009, p.185). Not only history is categorised, but also the now and the future. The

categorisation process is deeply embedded in both policy and social sciences, wherein these categories provide the means through which the social world is constructed (Crawley & Sleparis, 2018). Grouping different individuals into different categories is one of the most basic social processes. It is not possible to think or act socially without social groups; the same applies to institutions who cannot function without them (Polzer, 2008). This does not, however, mean that this process is neutral and fair-minded. It is rather a subjective process in which people fit different spaces in the social order and construct the terminology with which the society should engage in varying contexts (Crawley & Sleparis, 2018). So, although, the categories may seem fixed and objective, they are constantly challenged and changed across different levels; by politicians, lawyers, and advocates (Crawley & Sleparis, 2018).

As earlier mentioned, the process of categorisation is nothing new. Bourdieu (1977; 1991) argues that the power of categorisation comes from the ability to “impose the legitimate

(17)

17

definition of the divisions of the social world and, thereby, to make and unmake groups” (Bourdieu, 1991, p.221). Categories play a critical role in all knowledge; categories are the units through which we experience and make sense of the world (Jones, 2009). Moreover, herein, lays the paradox of categories: “we need to know about the categories being deployed in order to appreciate the society we are studying, and we need to deploy our own categories in order to undertake that study” (Jones, 2009, p.176).

There are many ways of thinking about and using categorisation. Polzer (2008) argues that there are six elements to categorisation. She draws the roots of these six elements from different theorists. Firstly, from Barth’s (1969) work, which presents different reasons and contexts to construct social categories as opponents, instead of inherent descriptions. Subsequently, Polzer takes lessons from the discussion around the different sociological approaches to social divisions from Anthias (1998). In this discussion, Anthias accentuates that categories are social realities. In doing so, she argues that it is of importance to take their experiential, intersubjective, organisational, and representational forms into account (Anthias, 1998). By looking at categories as social realities, and thereby taking into account the forms mentioned above, it avoids binarisation, and, furthermore, it rejects the dichotomy between structure and agency (Anthias, 1998). Thirdly, Polzer finds inspiration in the work of Scott (1998). Scott (1998) argues that modern states construct strongly simplified and standardised categories with the goal to control their territory and inhabitants. These simplified and standardised categories have significant institutional purposefulness, according to Scott (1998). Finally, Polzer draws inspiration from Zetter (1991). Zetter argues that there are five characteristics of bureaucratic labelling: stereotyping, conformity, designation, identity disaggregation, and political/power relationships (Zetter, 1991). Based on these theorists, Polzer argues that there are six elements to categorisation: partiality, functionality, conflation, immutability, self-confirmation and negotiability (Polzer, 2008). In the following paragraphs, these six elements will be extensively discussed.

The first element of categorisation is partiality. “Partiality means that all categories have a source: an actor or actors who construct the category” (Polzer, 2008, p. 478). Categorisations must always be analysed through a particular and partial perspective. Different actors categorise differently, a category is connected to the actor enforcing it.

Therefore, the characteristics of the actors and their intentions are of influence on the category itself (Polzer, 2008).

(18)

18

The second element to categorisation is functionality. “Functionality refers to the fact that categories are functional for the institutions or social collectives which create and use them” (Polzer, 2008, p. 479). According to Zetter, this way of labelling is a process of stereotyping, which involves disaggregation and standardisation (Zetter, 1991). In this process, functionality is what defines the characteristics of the category. Because the functionality is ‘leading’ the categorisation, the categorisation is susceptible to misuse. Furthermore, putting functionality first makes the category prone to a hierarchy in which some members take precedence over the others (Polzer, 2008). Subsequently, this makes the categorisation viable for securitisation. Securitisation can be defined as: “shifting an issue out of the realm of ‘normal’ political debate into the realm of emergency politics by presenting it as an existential threat” (Peoples & Vaughan-Williams, 2010, p. 76). Through the process of securitisation, authorities claim powers that they would otherwise not have. It gives them the ability to take extraordinary measures, rights, and liberties (Peoples & Vaughan-Williams, 2010). When the functionality of categories is put first, misuse of these categories for securitisation is probable — the category than functions as the gateway for securitisation. The third element of Categorisation is conflation. “Conflation is an aspect of how the hierarchical, functional characteristics of a category become implemented” (Polzer, 2008, p. 479). Polzer (2008) argues that categories are based on high-priority characteristics. This can entail that people who share lower-order characteristics with the category, but not the high-priority characteristics are overlooked, or made invisible. This can be specifically useful when looking back at the second element functionality. By focussing on only the high-priority characteristics, it is possible to exclude or securitise. Furthermore, this can allocate

differential value and even produce hierarchies (Anthias, 1998). Conflation, however, goes even further. It does not only homogenise members of a category but is also assumes that different other characteristics correlate with the high-priority characteristics (Polzer, 2008). This creates a bundle of characteristics, and everyone who does not conform to this bundle is left out even though they may share the high-priority characteristics (Polzer, 2008).

The fourth element of categorisation is immutability. “Immutability refers to the relationship which categorisation has with change over time” (Polzer, 2008, p. 479). A category’s functionality is often set within a particular point in time where the category facilitates the intended action or relationship (Polzer, 2008). So, although categories are often set within a particular point in time, at the same time, they claim a timelessness for the future. When the category is set, it is no longer able to ‘evolve’ with time. The identities and different

(19)

19

trajectories a member of the category can take are rarely incorporated in the category. Subsequently, the categories do not allow the member to take a different future trajectory (Polzer, 2008). Once one is categorised in a specific category, it can become stuck in that specific category.

The fifth element of categorisation is self-confirmation. “Self-confirmation refers to the process through which the impression of immutability is self-reinforcing through the creation of ‘knowledge’, data and an archive about a group using the defined characteristics and boundaries” (Polzer, 2008, p. 479). According to Polzer, categories are often constructed through endogenous information sources (2018). Looking deeper into the sources that

produce the categories is, therefore, of utter importance to create a deeper understanding of the categories themselves. It is of frequent occurrence that institutional interventions define a category on the intervention itself (Polzer, 2008). This can, once again, be tight to

securitisation. When a category is implicated from within a vision of securitisation, the securitisation is setting the category instead of vice versa. “By uttering security, a state-representative moves a particular development into a specific area […]” (Peoples & Vaughan-Williams, 2010, p. 77).

The sixth and final element to categorisation is negotiability. “Negotiability, finally, is the process through which categorisation is always an engagement between groups of actors” (Polzer, 2008, p. 479). The last element contradicts Zetter’s (1991) argument that labelling is a process without the participation of those being labelled. Polzer argues the opposite and states that people in the categorised group are able to take part and respond to the

categorisation of their group in multiple ways (Polzer, 2018). According to Polzer, the person categorised can either embrace, internalise, or instrumentalise the categorisation, or the opposite and resist or subvert the categorisation (Polzer, 2018). Although this thesis does not oppose to the interpretation of Polzer, it will use Zetter’s (1991) view that labelling is a process without the participation of those being labelled. This thesis will do, especially so because of the difference in the research field compared to Polzer. Where Polzer focusses her research on the invisibility and visibility of refugees in South-Africa, this thesis is looking at the categorisation process within the Dutch parliament. Herein, the adoption of Zetter’s view of negotiability is more fitting. Furthermore, although the case of this thesis is not the same, Polzer (2008) states: “These six processes apply broadly to many different contexts and kinds of categorisation” (Polzer, 2008, p. 480). Therefore, the analytic model, based on the elements proposed by Polzer, is still valuable for the research of this thesis. Even more, because Polzer

(20)

20

only focuses on the bureaucratic, academic, and social, this thesis will contribute and aim to strengthen the model of Polzer.

Based on the six elements, Polzer suggests five questions which enable research to interrogate the categories which we and others use practically. Because this thesis uses Zetter’s view on negotiability, the corresponding question to this element — “What reasons and opportunities are there for the individuals who are targeted for categorisation to remain invisible” (Polzer, 2008, p. 480) — is no longer of relevance and will, therefore, be omitted. The final four questions that this thesis will use to practically interrogate the categories which are held within the Dutch parliament is shown below in figure 2.

Element(s) Corresponding question

Partiality Who is defining the category?

Functionality and Immutability What is the purpose of defining the category at a particular point in time?

Conflation What characteristics of the category are

emphasised over others?

Self-Confirmation What sources of information are used or

created to confirm the existence of the category?

(21)

21

3. Problem definition

This thesis will explore the use of the dichotomous migrant/refugee categorisation within in the Dutch parliament. As discussed above, this dichotomous categorisation fails to adequately capture the political, social and economic drivers for migration. If the debate surrounding the ‘refugee crisis’ takes places along these dominant categories and dichotomies, it will have an impact on how the eventual policies regarding the situation are determined; as the parliament informs the policy decisions made. As the parliament is the enforcer of the policy made by the state, e.g. who is granted asylum and who is not, the eventual possible consequences from debating within dichotomous categorisation are more severe than, for example, the media. Therefore, it is of importance to determine if, and to what extent the debate is taking place within dichotomies.

Although this thesis does not strive to unravel how the categorisation of irregular persons within the parliament informs policies and practices; the consequences of

dichotomous categorisation are of utter relevance. The argumentation herein is that the if the parliament is indeed debating within in the categorical fetishism, the logical consequence is that the policies and practices are erroneous and misguided. The problem, then, this thesis address is that of incorrectly categorising irregular persons because the debate takes place within dichotomies. The purpose of this thesis is, therefore, to discover to what extent the debate takes place alongside dichotomies

3.1 Research questions

As discussed above, this thesis sets out to find out if the debate surrounding the ‘Refugee crisis’ within the Dutch parliament takes places along static lines. To be more precise, within in the dichotomous category of migrant versus refugee. The main research question of this thesis will, therefore, be as follows: whether, and if yes to which extent, does the debate around the ‘refugee crisis’ within the Dutch parliament takes place within in categorical dichotomies?

As mentioned in the conceptual framework, four different dichotomies can be distinguished when looking at the dichotomy of migrant versus refugee. Because the

refugee/migrant dichotomy is built up out of four dichotomies, as discussed in the conceptual framework, all four should be taken into account. The sub-questions of this thesis should, therefore, adequately address these different dichotomies precisely. The first sub-question will be looking into the ‘voluntary versus involuntary’ dichotomy and will be as follows: whether, and if yes to which extent, does the debate around the ‘refugee crisis’ within the Dutch

(22)

22

parliament takes place within the ‘voluntary versus involuntary’ dichotomy? The second sub-question will be looking into the ‘origin versus destination dichotomy’ and will be as follows: whether, and if yes to which extent, does the debate around the ‘refugee crisis’ within the Dutch parliament takes place within the ‘origin versus destination’ dichotomy? The third sub-question will be looking into the ‘illegal versus legal dichotomy’ and will be as follows: whether, and if yes to which extent, does the debate around the ‘refugee crisis’ within the Dutch parliament takes place within the ‘illegal versus legal’ dichotomy? The fourth and final sub-question will be looking into the ‘permanent versus temporary dichotomy’ and will be as follows: whether, and if yes to which extent, does the debate around the ‘refugee crisis’ within the Dutch parliament takes place within the ‘permanent versus temporary’ dichotomy? By answering these sub-questions, ultimately an answer to the main research question will be found.

(23)

23

4. Methodology

4.1 Strategy

For this thesis, a qualitative strategy is used. A qualitative design is chosen because it lends itself better for the exploratory questions and allows to go more into depth. Furthermore, an interpretive epistemology and constructionist ontology are used (Bryman, 2012). An

interpretive epistemology means that: “in contrast to the adoption of a natural scientific model in quantitative research, the stress is on the understanding of the social world through an examination of the interpretation of that world by its participants” (Bryman, 2012, p.380). An interpretive epistemology will be used because the thesis is aimed at explaining social

behaviour in a specific timeframe and location. The goal of this thesis is not to generalise findings; this thesis will be a case study focusing on the Dutch Parliament.

A constructionist ontology: “implies that social properties are outcomes of the interactions between individuals, rather than phenomena ‘out there’ and separate from those involved in its construction” (Bryman, 2012, p.380). A constructionist ontology will be used because the situation, the categorisation of irregular persons in the parliament, can be seen as a social reality, a situation which is not definitive.

Finally, a qualitative case-study design is chosen for this research, or the intensive examination of a specific case, this entails that the detailed an intensive analysis of a single case (Bryman, 2012). This design provides tools for the thesis to study the complex

phenomena within the context. This thesis will focus on a single event; the categorisation of irregular persons by the Dutch parliament, therefore, because it focusses on a specific group and location a case study design lends itself right for this thesis.

4.2 Method & Data analysis

The Dutch parliamentary debates are analysed through thematic data analysis. Thematic analysis is a unique analytical approach, as it offers a method which is inbound by theoretical commitments, it is a theoretically informed, and confined, framework for research (Clarke & Braun, 2017). This does not entail that the method is atheatrical, realist or essentialist; it can be applied across a range of theoretical frameworks (Clarke & Braun, 2017). “The aim of thematic analysis is not simply to summarise the data content, but to identify, and interpret, key, but not necessarily all, features of the data, guided by the research question” (Clarke & Braun, 2017, p. 297).

(24)

24

Through thematic coding or indexing, the content of the debates has been examined to extract the core themes that could be distinguished between and within the transcripts

(Bryman, 2012). The analysis is done on the basis of a framework, which is used for ordering and synthesising the data (Bryman, 2012). Through this framework, a link is made between the data, the research questions and theoretical ideas that illuminate the issue. The framework consists of themes and subthemes, which are recurring throughout the data. The labels, or codes, used for this framework are based on the operationalisation, which can be found in the upcoming chapter. Subsequently, an overview of the used framework can be found in

Appendix I.

Because the framework was based on the conceptual framework of this thesis, the research approach is partly deductive. However, whenever the data analysis revealed any new ‘themes’, these were included in the framework. In doing so, this process of adding new themes within the framework supports an inductive and open approach.

Subsequently, the five elements and corresponding questions of Polzer, as discussed in the conceptual framework, are used to critically interrogate the dichotomies and

corresponding categories which are found through the qualitative data analysis. The questions used can be found in figure 2 above. Subsequently, the elements of the model are also

operationalised and included in the framework for the thematic analysis.

4.3 Data scope

This thesis focuses on the parliament of 2013-2017 and analyses the debates taking place in the same time frame. This time frame is chosen because in 2013 the Syrian Civil war broke out, as a result in 2015 the European Union (EU) had an all-time high of irregular persons, 1.3 million, in the EU (Lucassen, 2018). The sudden increase of irregular person in the

Netherlands was the greatest in 2015 (Lucassen, 2018). That is why this thesis analysed the debates surrounding the ‘refugee crisis’ from 2015 and onwards, and in this timeframe, five debates focussing on the ‘refugee crisis’ are chosen and analysed. The number of five debates has been chosen because after the analysis of these five debates data saturation was achieved, which means that no additional information would have been found when analysing

additional debates. The chosen debates can be found in figure 3 below.

The reason to analyse debate one on the 22nd of April 2019 is because the debate was about the extra EU summit on Thursday 23 April 2015. This summit is about the ‘problem’ of boat refugees in the Mediterranean. Therefore, debate number one was focused on the

(25)

25

of October 2015 has also been chosen because the European summit of 15 and 16 October was the occasion for the debate on the ‘refugee problems. Therefore, also this debate is viable and valuable to analyse. For the same reason the third debate on the 15th_{of December 2015}

was chosen. The reason for this debate was the European summit of 17 and 18 December, which once again was in the theme of the ‘refugee problems. Therefore, the third debate has likewise been deemed viable and valuable to analyse.

The fourth debate on the 11th of February 2019 has been chosen to analyse because the debate focused on the question: how does the influx and reception of asylum seekers remain manageable? That also makes this debate viable and valuable to analyse. Finally, the fifth debate chosen is the debate on the 15th of March 2016. This debate took place after the European agreements with Turkey to reduce the number of refugees. Therefore, also this debate is viable and valuable to analyse. As mentioned above, after analysing these five debates, this thesis achieved saturation of the data. An overview of the analysed debates is shown in figure four below.

The Dutch parliament consists out of the Senate and the House of Representatives, which are further divided into multiple parties; therefore, it cannot be seen as one entity, and will the analysis take this into account. As the Senate mainly has a controlling function, this thesis will focus on the House of Representatives or the Second Chamber. The House of Representatives in the analysed period consisted out of 11 parties in total: de Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie (VVD), de Partij voor de Vrijheid (PVV), Christen-Democratisch Appèl (CDA), Democraten 66 (D66), Groenlinks, Socialistische Partij (SP), Partij van de Arbeid (PvdA), ChristenUnie, Partij voor de Dieren, 50PLUS and the Staatkundige Figure 3: overview of the dates of the analysed parliamentary debates

(26)

26

Gereformeerde Partij (SGP). Figure 3.1 shows the distribution of the second chamber of the Dutch parliament.

All these parties portray a different political spectrum. The political spectrum can be divided roughly into four parts: confessional, non-confessional parties, left-wing parties and right-wing parties (prodemos.nl). As this thesis does not deem it possible to look at all parties, a selection has been made of the 11 parties with equal distribution to the political spectrum. Subsequently, the two largest parties in the relevant spectrum have been chosen, because the bigger parties are more representative for the parliament than their smaller counterparts. As non-confessional parties are every party except the confessional parties, non-confessional parties are not explicitly divided. Based on this selection, the parties that are looked at during the analysis are shown in figure 3.2 below.

All the parties have views and opinions regarding migration. In the following paragraph, these views will be discussed briefly to get an indication of the views of these political parties. These views are based on the party’s own published positions regarding migration. The PvdA states: “The Netherlands must be a safe haven for people fleeing war Figure 3. 1: distribution of the second chamber of the Dutch parliament in 2013

Figure 3.2: distribution of the analysed parties in the second chamber of the Dutch parliament according to their political spectrum

(27)

27

and violence. Asylum seekers who seek protection in our country for this deserve a fair and fast procedure and decent reception” (pvda.nl). Subsequently, they state in their party programme that economic migrants should be deported, in a customised approach (pvda.nl). The SP states: “In its asylum policy, the Netherlands must implement the treaties to which we are bound. The asylum procedure must be fast, careful, honest and clear” (sp.nl). Also, the SP states labour, and or economic, migration must be better regulated (sp.nl).

The CDA states that those who flee war or violence are entitled to protection, at the same time they state that asylum seekers who have exhausted all legal remedies must leave the Netherlands themselves as quickly as possible (cda.nl). The ChristenUnie “wants to continue to uphold the values of human dignity and justice laid down in refugee and human rights treaties” (christenunie.nl). Simultaneously, they argue that economic migrants who do not need protection are sent back (christenunie.nl).

The VVD states that the current asylum policy can no longer be sustained and that European societies can no longer cope with the large number of migrants (vvd.nl).

Furthermore, they state: “For us, it is clear that refugees are entitled to safety. But that does not have to be in Europe” (vvd.nl). Finally, the PVV, the view of the PVV regarding

migration is the most clear-cut: “zero asylum seekers and no more immigrants from Islamic countries: borders closed” (pvv.nl). Although the parties' views have not been addressed in depth, it does create a clear picture of the analysed party’s viewpoints regarding migration in general.

(28)

28

4.4 Operationalisation

“In order to provide a measure of a concept […], it is necessary to have an indicator or indicators that will stand for the concept” (Bryman, 2012, p. 164). In the following paragraphs, the main concepts of this thesis will be operationalised into operational definitions. In doing so, the indicators that derive from the operationalisation enable this thesis to find an answer to the main question. Firstly, the refugee migrant dichotomy can be divided into four different dichotomies, as discussed in the literature. Figure 4 showcases this division.

Figure 4: operationalisation of the refugee migrant dichotomy

Secondly, the voluntary versus involuntary dichotomy can be further operationalised. The dichotomy can be dived into the ‘older’ UN definition, which is centred around a notion of violence and the more ‘modern’ definition that is centred around fundamental human rights. Wherein the ‘modern’ one is perceived as less dichotomous. Figure 4.1 presents this division.

Figure 4. 1: operationalisation of the voluntary versus involuntary dichotomy

R efug ee mi g ra nt dichotomy Voluntary versus involuntary Permanent versus temporary Origin versus destination

Legal versus Illegal

voluntary versus involuntary Voluntary Involuntary Notion of violence Fundamental human rights

(29)

29

Thirdly, the permanent versus temporary dichotomy can be further operationalised. According to the UN definition, temporary is less than one year, and permanent is longer than one year. Figure 4.2 presents this division.

Fourthly, the origin versus destination dichotomy can be further operationalised. Based on this dichotomy irregular persons are either categorised based on their origin or their destination. This distinction influences the distinction that is eventually made between

migrant or refugee. Figure 4.3 shows this division.

Finally, the legal versus illegal dichotomy can be further operationalised. Irregular persons are either deemed legal or illegal. Based on this distinction, the obligations for the state follow. Whereas the state has maar obligations towards legal irregular persons than illegal. Figure 4.4 shows this division.

Figure 4. 4: operationalisation of the illegal versus legal dichotomy Illegal versus

legal

Illegal Fewer obligations

legal More obligations

Permanent versus temporary

Permanent More than one

year

Temporary Les than one year

Origin versus destination Classified on their origin Classified on their destination Figure 4.2: operationalisation of the voluntary versus involuntary dichotomy

(30)

30

The full figure of the refugee/migrant dichotomy operationalisation is shown below in figure 4.5.

Subsequently, Polzer her model, as discussed in the conceptual framework, can be operationalised. This model can be dived into five elements, in which functionality and immutability are connected into one, as discussed in the conceptual framework. Figure 5 below shows this division.

Refugee migrant dichotomy Voluntary versus involuntary Notion of violence Fundamental human rights Permanent versus temporary

Permanent More than one

year

Temporary Less than one

year Origin versus destination Classified on their origin Classified on their destination Legal versus Illegal

Legal More obligations

Illegal Fewer

obligations

(31)

31

Figure 5 operationalisation of the elements to categorisation

Firstly, partiality can be further operationalised. The overarching question of this element is — who is defining the category? To answer this question, there should be looked at two parts; the characterises and the intentions of the actor enforcing them. Together these two parts form the element partiality. Figure 5.1 shows this operationalisation.

Figure 5.1: operationalisation of the element partiality

Secondly, the element functionality and immutability can be further operationalised. The overarching question of this element is — what is the purpose of defining the category at a particular point in time? Inhere, functionality defines the characteristics of the category, instead of visa versa. Subsequently, the functionality takes place in a point in time where the category facilitates the intended action or relationship. Therefore, functionality and the particular point in time create the category. Figure 5.2 shows this process.

Figure 5.2: operationalisation of the element’s immutability and functionality

Ele ments t o c ateg orisa ti on Partiality Functionality and Immutability Conflation Self-Confirmation Category Partiality Intentions of the actor enforcing the

5. Results

In the following chapter, the results of the analysis will be discussed. The results will be discussed based on the four dichotomies of the sub-questions: voluntary versus involuntary, origin versus destination, legal versus illegal and permanent versus temporary.

Simultaneously, while discussing the four different dichotomies, the model of Polzer will be discussed and intertwined where possible. In the end, the dichotomy of refugee versus migrant will be discussed.

5.1 Voluntary versus Involuntary

After analysing the debates, it can be stated that the categorical dichotomy of voluntary versus involuntary is clearly visible in the parliamentary debates — the extent to which differs per party. In general, all parties debate in one way or form within the dichotomy. The most extreme party herein is the PVV. In the eyes of the PVV, every irregular person comes here voluntarily and therefore, they are all migrants and no refugees. The PVV, and Geert Wilders in particular, argues this because every irregular person must come via multiple safe countries to arrive in the Netherlands. In doing so, the PVV argues that people come here voluntary and not involuntary. The following quote of Geert Wilders from the debate shows this clearly.

“They pass through six safe countries before they knock at the door in the Netherlands. Then we can say: you were already safe, so leave because you are not a refugee but a migrant.” 1

(Geert Wilders, PVV, debate 2)

By emphasising on the element of passing through safe countries, the PVV evades the actual question if irregular persons are coming here voluntary or involuntary. In this process, the different elements of Polzer are visible. Wilders is defining the category in this way with a clear purpose. By emphasising on the point that the irregular persons have travelled through different safe countries, it categorises the irregular persons as migrants, and therefore should not be granted asylum in the Netherlands. The elements of partiality, conflation, functionality and immutability are distinguishable. The following quote, once again, shows how the

emphasis is placed on the fact that they have travelled through different safe countries, and how this emphasis ultimately functions in categorising the irregular persons as a migrant.

1_{“Zij komen dan door zes veilige landen voordat zij in Nederland aan de deur kloppen. Dan kunnen wij toch}

zeggen: u was al veilig, dus ga weg want u bent geen vluchteling maar een migrant.” (Geert Wilders, PVV, debate 2)

(35)

35

Sam Bulthuis – Master thesis Political Science International Relations - University of Amsterdam “[…] they are not refugees. If they were already refugees, they have passed through six safe countries,

and you must treat them as migrants”2_{(Geert Wilders, PVV, debate 2)}

The PVV is not the only party who categorises along this path; the VVD has a similar approach. The following quote from Zijlstra shows this.

“We see that many people who come to the Netherlands - although they come from a war zone and in that sense are refugees - have sometimes been in a safe country for some time. They, therefore,

travelled on for a reason other than primary safety.”3 (Zijlstra, VVD, debate 2)

However, where the PVV uses this categorisation to define every irregular person that comes to the Netherlands a migrant, the VVD is more reserved. Although they still categorise within the dichotomy, they do confirm that some irregular person coming to the Netherlands should be categorised as refugees. People who are indeed leaving the country involuntary due to violence are still categorised as refugees. The following quote of Rutte endorses this.

“But even then, the Netherlands will be open to refugees, to people who are really fleeing bombs, grenades and the most terrible acts of war.” 4

(Rutte, VVD, debate 4)

The dichotomy of voluntary versus involuntary becomes perfectly visible when looking at the following quote of Zijlstra. In this quote, a clear division is visible between involuntary and voluntary.

“Let us be honest with each other: the people who come here in large numbers do not do that because there is no safe place for them in their own region. They do that because there is a better economic perspective for them and their children in Europe and in the Netherlands.”5

(Zijlstra, VVD, debate 4) In this quote, the dichotomy is fully exposed. On the one hand, there is an irregular person fleeing due to safety, and on the other hand, there is a voluntary ‘economic’ irregular person. Once again, in the categorisation by the VVD, the elements of Polzer can be

distinguished. Just like the PVV, the VVD emphasises the fact that irregular persons travelled

2_{“[…] het zijn geen vluchtelingen. Als ze al vluchteling waren, zijn ze door zes veilige landen gekomen en moet}

je ze als migranten behandelen” (Geert Wilders, PVV, debate 2)

3_{“Wij zien dat veel mensen die naar Nederland komen — ze komen weliswaar uit een oorlogsgebied en zijn in}

die zin dus vluchteling — soms al geruime tijd in een veilig land hebben vertoefd. Zij zijn dus om een andere reden dan de primaire veiligheid doorgereisd.” (Zijlstra, VVD, debate 2)

4_{“Maar ook dan zal Nederland openstaan voor vluchtelingen, voor mensen die echt vluchten voor bommen,}

granaten en de meest vreselijke oorlogshandelingen.” (Rutte, VVD, debate 4)

5_{“Laten we eerlijk tegen elkaar zijn: de mensen die hier in grote aantallen naartoe komen, doen dat niet omdat er}

in de eigen regio geen veilige plek voor hen is. Ze doen dat, omdat er in Europa en in Nederland een beter economisch perspectief voor hen en hun kinderen is” (Rutte, VVD, debate 4)

A case of categorical fetishism within the Dutch parliament? : an analysis into the use of categorical dichotomies within the Dutch parliamentary debate