In the Netherlands, the penalization of human smuggling has become broader and more severe. This development is part of a crimmigration trend that describes an increase of immigration-related criminal offenses. Currently, the provision does not include a financial component, nor does it exclude acts with a humanitarian motive. The validity of such severe prohibitions, especially those including acts that are not morally reprehensible, is questioned through the concept of ‘humanitarian smuggling’. Moral reprehensibility is one of the criteria for criminalization that provide a framework for the reflection on the Dutch prohibition of human smuggling that is conducted in this article.

Since 2007, a statute has been in force in the Netherlands (the Wet inburgering or Act on Civic Integration) that provides for a system of fines that can be imposed on certain classes of immigrants for not passing the ‘civic integration exam’, testing knowledge of Dutch language and culture, by a certain deadline. However, the way in which the statute defines the precise obligations on immigrants, which classes of immigrants have those obligations, what the exact deadline is and when it can be extended leaves much to be desired in terms of legal certainty, especially considering the frequent changes that the legislature of the Netherlands makes to the statute. Morever, since a fine is imposed as a penalty for what is effectively a ‘criminal charge’ (in the sense of article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights), what role does the establishment in a fair trial of the immigrant’s culpability play in the imposition of such a fine? For a completely different perspective on integration policy, the author discusses the 2015 decision P. and S. of the Court of Justice of the European Union, in which he was the legal representative of the plaintiffs. When an immigrant is a beneficiary of an EU directive providing for immigration rights for third-country nationals, the Court holds that it is permissible to impose fines in order to stimulate the immigrant’s integration in the society of the host member state, but that such a penalty may not go so far as to actively endanger the goal of aiding integration. In general, the Court is highly sceptical of the effectiveness and fairness of the system of fines provided for by the Act on Civic Integration. The author concludes that the Act, with its clear emphasis on punishment rather than promotion of civic integration, ultimately has the effect of criminalising entire classes of immigrants to the Netherlands.

This article deals with the criminal offence of recruiting persons for armed struggle (art. 205 of the Dutch Criminal Code), a provision that nowadays mainly arises in terrorism cases. It revolves around the dilemmas and interpretative questions that this criminal offence has yielded so far – especially since the amendments in 2004 – and examines how the courts have dealt with it.

At first sight there seems to be a strong relationship between crimmigration and the criminology of administrative law enforcement. However, a further analysis shows that crimmigration fits more in the concept of the so-called integrated science of criminal justice. Crimmigration can be identified as an interdisciplinary concept, while the criminology of the administrative law enforcement should be classified as an empirical discipline. Nevertheless, both concepts complement each other with regard to the socio-scientific study of the practice of immigration law.

Ever since the 2015 start of what is now often referred to as the European ‘migration crisis’, European member states have been struggling with one of the key fundaments of the European Union and in particular the Schengen Agreement: the principle of free movement. Whereas this principle entails that people should be able to move freely within the Schengen Area, as a result of the ongoing securitization and politicization of migration, Member States are exploring the different opportunities the Schengen Border Code allows them to monitor intra-Schengen cross-border mobility. In doing so, countries seem to have two options: either to temporarily reintroduce border controls or to – permanently – carry out police or immigration controls in an area around the border. In this article we explore and critically assess the choices various countries have made and what seems to be the position of the European Commission in all this.

In its efforts in making effective counter terrorism legislation the Dutch government has introduced the possibility to deprive its own nationals of their Dutch nationality. The competence to revoke Dutch citizenship may arise in case of conducting behaviour abroad that can be labelled as terrorism or facilitating terrorism. Dutch citizenship can only be rescinded by the immigration authorities when such acts are performed outside the Dutch borders in certain appointed areas for certain appointed organisations. This is currently the case for the area of Syria and the organisations IS and Al-Nusra. However given the obligations within the Convention on the reduction of statelessness only Dutch nationals with dual citizenship fall within the scope of this newly introduced legislation. This article focusses on the question whether in EU-law perspective the distinction made between Dutch with dual citizenship and Dutch without a second foreign nationality is against the principle of equal treatment. By discussing the Council Directive 2000/43/EC, case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the preparatory documents of the convention on the reduction of statelessness the argument is developed that the convention serves as a trump card to enhance and justify the newly introduced legislation. Given CJEU case law the question of loyalty towards the member state of origin may lead to deprivation of EU-nationality. The aforementioned distinction made in Dutch nationality law would only be justified if it can be successfully be proven that dual citizenship raises an ipso facto loyalty issue toward member states by dual nationality holders. Since evidence of that nature is non existent it is concluded that the newly introduced counter terrorism provisions on deprivation of Dutch citizenship are discriminatory and advances second class nationality in The Netherlands.