In this contribution we investigated:

1. What changes in the handling of immigration law suits has the corona pandemic led to?

2. What influence have these changes had on the role of first-line migra­tion judges?

   1. Has their working method been adjusted as a result of the corona measures? If so, does this still fit in their view and that of the parties to the proceedings within the requirements of a fair trial and the professional standards that apply to judges?

   2. Do the changes in working ­methods require different skills from migration judges?

   3. Are the changes in the handling of cases and the way of working, temporary or permanent?

This contribution reports on an ongoing study into the impact of the COVID pandemic on the rights of vulnerable litigants in the handling of court cases concerning supervision orders and custodial placements of juveniles. The research is based on interviews with judges, lawyers and other professionals in the youth protection chain and a survey among litigants. The central question is whether the handling of these cases should be considered acceptable from the perspective of procedural and fundamental rights. In addition, the procedural justice experienced by litigants is examined. The preliminary results, based on desk research and interviews, is that of varyingly successful improvisations with telephone and digital hearings, in which procedural and fundamental rights could not be fully realized. This is mainly due to technical problems and the complexity of judicial case management under these circumstances. The interviewees differed about whether the bottom of what is acceptable was reached and how often this was the case. The final report will take stock of this and draw lessons for the future.

Regulering van winstuitkering is een politiek discussiepunt. Het kan dan ook voorkomen dat regulering van winstuitkering tot een lappendeken aan wetgeving leidt. Dit artikel gaat na welke ruimte het Europees Verdrag voor de Rechten van de Mens (EVRM) en het Unierecht laten om politieke compromissen te sluiten op het gebied van winstuitkering door zorgaanbieders.

Living in a multicultural environment may be accompanied with an increased fear of crime. Residents may become alienated in a very diverse environment and withdraw themselves in their own social world. This ‘hunkering down’ may ensue feelings of unsafety. However, social scientists have done hardly any research on whether citizens who live in a multicultural environment in Western Europe actually feel more unsafe. This study seeks to contribute to fill in this knowledge gap. The authors’ research reveals that residents are more likely to feel unsafe in neighborhoods with a high degree of ethnic diversity. The aforementioned correlation is the most noticeable in neighborhoods consisting of people on medium incomes.

Contemporary cities are increasingly characterised by ‘super diversity’. As Putnam’s thesis about the negative social consequences of ethnic diversity is correct, we may assume that growing diversity also negatively affects crime and fear of crime in cities. After all: the more diversity, the less social cohesion and the less collective efficacy, ultimately resulting in higher crime rates. More diversity also implies less (public) familiarity in neighbourhoods and more fear of crime. On the other hand, some qualitative studies show that particularly residents of relatively homogeneous districts perceive migrants as threatening. Migrants are seen as less threatening when neighbourhood residents are familiarized with ‘the other’ and when there are more interethnic contacts. Various foreign and Dutch studies show an independent effect of ethnic diversity in the neighbourhood on fear of crime. However, this effect disappears when other resident characteristics are included into the analysis. Residents of ethnically diverse and deprived districts are generally less satisfied with their neighbourhood, have less trust in the government and are more often victimized. Precisely these perceptions and experiences explain why they more often feel unsafe in their own neighbourhood.

The attitude towards ‘the immigrant’ is changing. Where they used to be seen as a necessity, they are now looked upon with distrust. A consequence of this new attitude is the ‘merging’ of immigration law policy and criminal law. Examples of this in the Netherlands are a law proposal to criminalize illegal stay and a mandatory quorum of illegals that have to be deported each year. In our research we have compared the ‘crimmigration’ discourse in both Arizona and the Netherlands.
Arizona’s law SB1070 has been the main legal focus in the research. The enactment of the law has been cause of many protests. The public’s fear was focused mainly on civil rights violations; the legal discussion was focused on the federalism issue, brought to Courts by the Obama administration. However, with the Supreme Court handing down its landmark decision in Arizona vs. United States, the legal focus will shift towards the civil rights spectrum.
In the most recent elections in the Netherlands, the immigration question seems to have been pushed to the background. However, it remains a vital issue when placed in the context of ‘Euro-skepticism’, which has played a major role , as much of the immigration policy making is done by the supra national European legislator.
We have seen that in the American context the federal government has been a ‘mitigating factor’ in the crimmigration debate to counterbalance draconian immigration policy. We hope that despite recent Euro-skepticism the EU will have a similar mitigating effect.