Ethnic and Racial Studies

ISSN: 0141-9870 (Print) 1466-4356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rers20

From heroes to vulnerable victims: labelling

Christian Turks as genuine refugees in the 1970s

Tycho Walaardt

To cite this article: Tycho Walaardt (2013) From heroes to vulnerable victims: labelling Christian
Turks as genuine refugees in the 1970s, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 36:7, 1199-1218, DOI:
10.1080/01419870.2013.783706

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2013.783706

Published online: 13 Apr 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 254

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rers20

Download by: [Universidad Alberto Hurtado] Date: 27 September 2017, At: 15:20
 Ethnic and Racial Studies, 2013
Vol. 36, No. 7, 1199
1218, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2013.783706

From heroes to vulnerable victims: labelling

Christian Turks as genuine refugees
in the 1970s
Downloaded by [Universidad Alberto Hurtado] at 15:20 27 September 2017

Tycho Walaardt

(First submission October 2010; First published April 2013)

Abstract
In 1975, the first Christian Turks applied for asylum in the Netherlands.
They were at first denied, and only in the early 1980s did they finally begin to
win refugee status from the Dutch government. In the meantime, they faced
years of uncertainty. Campaigns of lobbyists in the years between 1977 and
1983 contributed to end their waiting. Their campaigns caused a drastic
change of the image of the ‘deserving refugee’ in the Netherlands. This article
explores the arguments that lobbyists used to influence decision-makers. It
shows how and why the public and political image of the ‘deserving refugee’
had to change in order to successfully claim refugee status.

Keywords: refugees; asylum procedure; the Netherlands; Christian Turks;

Suryoye; lobbyists.

Until the 1970s, the dominant image of a refugee in the Netherlands

was that of an Eastern European intellectual man, who actively
opposed and criticized communism. In the late 1970s, after 3,000
Christian Turks sought asylum in the Netherlands, the characteristics
of the ‘deserving refugee’ changed. The Secretary of State argued in
1975 that there were deserving refugees and persons who sought
asylum for unjust reasons.1 Deserving refugees like the Christian Turks
were grateful, behaved well and wanted to integrate, while non-
deserving refugees lied and came to the Netherlands profit.2 This
article focuses on the successful campaigns of the lobbyists of the
Christian Turks. At first instance most Christian Turks were all
rejected, but after years of waiting, civil servants of the Ministry of
Justice allowed them to stay on humanitarian grounds. The main

# 2013 Taylor & Francis

 1200 Tycho Walaardt
question is how was this accomplished, and with which arguments did
the lobbyists managed to change prevailing ideas. In order to succeed,
the advocates chose to highlight selected elements of their pre- and
post-flight experiences. Civil servants yielded to the pressure from the
lobbyists
after they had been swamped by countless and often heart-
breaking stories.
In the late 1970s, the Christians Turks formed the largest group of
asylum seekers in the Netherlands. They consisted of two separate groups:
Syrian Orthodox Christians (75 per cent), who now refer to themselves as
Suryoye; and Armenians (25 per cent) (Bronkhorst 1990, p. 48). In Dutch
public and political debate, no distinction was made between the groups
Downloaded by [Universidad Alberto Hurtado] at 15:20 27 September 2017

and both were referred to as ‘Christian Turks’. In this article, the term
Christian Turks is used in line with Dutch practice at the time.
The asylum seekers of the 1970s have attracted little attention in
academic literature. When authors take a historical perspective, these
asylum seekers are included in descriptions of the Cold War refugee
regime (Stewart 2004, p. 29). Likewise, the asylum procedures of the
Christian Turks have not been studied much. In the Netherlands,
Bronkhorst (1990), Ten Doesschate (1993) and Schukkink (2003)
described the arrival of the Christian Turks in their studies of asylum
seekers, but largely ignored the decisive role that their lobbyists played.
At the time of arrival of the Christian Turks, there were still tensions
between East and West, but the battlefield was shifting. Much of the Cold
War was now being fought in the former colonies. Relevant for purposes
of this article was the protest culture of the 1970s. Dutch youth protested
against the war in Vietnam, nuclear energy and undemocratic leadership
at the universities. The influential refugee support groups of the 1970s
logically evolved out of this era of action. Furthermore, this period was
characterized by the ending of the recruitment of Mediterranean labour
migrants and the subsequent arrival of the migrants’ families. In
addition, the extreme right got involved in the debate, and blamed the
newcomers for increased unemployment and housing shortage.
This article begins with a description of my sources and my
methodology, followed by a characterization of the Dutch asylum
procedure as it stood when the Christian Turks arrived in the late
1970s. After that, the refugee claims and the lengthy asylum procedure
undergone by the Christian Turks are described. The article concludes
with a discussion of the five groups of arguments made by the
lobbyists: persecution; criticizing the Dutch asylum procedure; cred-
ibility; morality; and threats and positive additions to Dutch society.

Sources and frame analysis

This article is based on policy files and sixty-three individual case files
of Christian Turks of the Dutch Ministry of Justice. Scholars seldom
 From heroes to vulnerable victims 1201
have access to case files of asylum seekers, since individual files are
either not available, or researchers are not allowed to use them for
privacy reasons. Case files contain jurisprudence; correspondence
between ministries; and letters from refugee support groups, friends,
relatives, doctors, employers, churches, schools, professors, jurists,
politicians, journalists and concerned Dutch citizens. Such files make
it possible to study the pleas of the lobbyists.
In addition, 557 letters from lobbyists were traced in the archives of
the Ministry of Justice. In total, 474 individuals and groups pleaded in
favour of admitting the Christian Turks, while eighty-three opposed
their admission.3 Table 1 shows a breakdown of who sent the letters.
Downloaded by [Universidad Alberto Hurtado] at 15:20 27 September 2017

Those who pleaded against admission often lived in the larger Dutch
towns and preferred to stay anonymous. They most commonly spoke
about the ever-increasing number of asylum seekers and immigrants
and the fear of the loss of Dutch identity.
Table 1 makes clear that few letters were written by Christian Turks
themselves. Archival material shows that they had searched for help
from Dutch Christians via church groups and asked their co-
religionists to swamp the Dutch authorities with letters.4 Their call
did not fall on deaf ears: Table 1 shows that many volunteers and
churchgoers sent letters. The number of letters increased dramatically
when, in 1979 and 1981, the Christian Turks were faced with imminent
deportation. Their advocates argued that they were capable of judging
the character and situation of the Christian Turks, because after
months of singing and praying together they had got to know them
very well.5 The thirty-one family doctors who had written letters
frequently claimed that the long waiting for a definitive decision from

Table 1 Origins of 557 lobbyists, by type

Letter writer n

Dutch men 112

Dutch women 104
Children 2
Families 11
Unknown (including anonymous) 33
Christian Turks and Muslims from Turkey 31
Churches 121
Medical specialists (mainly family doctors) 31
Political parties 21
Letters sent by individuals from abroad 19
Schools 27
UNHCR 5
Volunteers and action groups 51
Other groups 13
Total 557
 1202 Tycho Walaardt
the Dutch government was causing significant emotional stress. They
concluded that the Christian Turks deserved permission to stay
because they had endured suffering in Turkey and in the Netherlands.6
The letter writers lived in the same towns and regions as the
Christian Turks
Twente, Amsterdam and Groningen
and belonged
to the same congregations. Not less than 145 individuals and 163
groups indicated that they personally knew a Christian Turk. Personal
encounters with Christian Turks could make persons eager to send
letters. This is illustrated by an example from 1977, where twenty-one
occupants of houses on one street in the Dutch town of Hengelo
explained in a single letter why they resented the presence of the
Downloaded by [Universidad Alberto Hurtado] at 15:20 27 September 2017

Christian Turks in their street.7 Four years later, perhaps stung by the
memory of the previous letter, a group of people living in the same
street defended ‘our Christian Turks’. They pointed at the successful
integration of the families with their neighbourhood, and the friend-
ships between their children.
Frame analysis is a useful method to categorize and cluster
arguments in large data sets, and is thus well suited for this type of
research. Key to frame analysis is the grouping of arguments in
vignettes or typologies. In a ‘frame’ problems are defined and
diagnosed, moral judgements are presented, and a solution is offered
(Entman 1993, p. 52). Framing tells us who or what is defined as a
problem, and by whom and why (Schrover 2009, p. 192). Several
authors have used this method to analyse the social construction of
asylum seekers in media coverage and political debates (d’Haenens
and de Lange 2001; Lynn and Lea 2003; Nickels 2007).

The Dutch asylum procedure

Since the 1950s, national authorities or international organizations,
such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
(UNHCR), have decided who is a refugee on the basis of refugee
law and policy (Zetter 1991). Earlier research has shown that external
groups succeeded in altering the decisions of authorities (Alink et al.
2001, p. 290; Walaardt 2012, pp. 325
7). Rose (1993, p. 20) showed
that asylum seekers with strong connections in the country in which
they sought asylum were often able to profit from their network.
During this period, people who wanted to claim refugee status in the
Netherlands had to report to the immigration authorities, where they
applied both for recognition as a refugee and for a residence permit
(Fullerton 1988
89, p. 74). The police then forwarded each case to the
Ministry of Justice, whose officials decided if the applicant met the
definition of a refugee. According to the 1951 Geneva Refugee
Convention, which was incorporated into Dutch law in 1957, a
refugee is someone who has:
 From heroes to vulnerable victims 1203
a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion,
nationality, membership of a particular social group or political
opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable, or
owing to such fear, unwilling to avail himself of the protection of
that country (Cohen and Joly 1989, p. 5).

Since the lobbyists for the Christian Turks stressed the Christian roots
of their protégées, the fear of religious persecution was a dominant
element in their pleas. If the authorities decided that an applicant did
not comply with the terms of this definition, a residence permit based
on other grounds, for example humanitarian reasons, could be issued.
Downloaded by [Universidad Alberto Hurtado] at 15:20 27 September 2017

In 1974, the so-called ‘B-status’ was created for people who were not
recognized as Convention refugees, but who still could not be
repatriated without fear for their personal safety. This status was
granted if ‘compelling humanitarian reasons’ against repatriation
could be found. The B-status was comparable to a de facto refugee
status issued to asylum seekers in other European states (Paludan
1981, p. 71; Grahl-Madsen 1983, pp. 18
19).
Prior to 1965, only a few dozen asylum seekers entered the
Netherlands yearly. Most of them were men fleeing communism. At
the end of the 1960s, asylum seekers known as the New Refugees
(Cohen and Joly 1989, p. 6) began to appear. The hundreds of New
Refugees outnumbered their predecessors. This new category of
asylum seeker presented a different spectrum of refugee claims; their
family composition was more diverse; they fled from different
countries; and they often relied on a different set of lobby groups in
order to protest rejections (Paludan 1981, p. 69; Hoeksma 1987;
Gallagher 1989, p. 98; Bronkhorst 1990, p. 44; Loescher 2001, p. 179).
One example of the New Refugee was the Portuguese war resister.
Young men fled Portuguese territory and began arriving in the
Netherlands in 1968 because they refused to fight in colonial wars
in Mozambique and Angola. Their arrival prompted the Dutch
authorities to introduce restrictive measures. Most important was
the rule that a Portuguese had to reach the Netherlands within one
month after he left Portugal. The Portuguese had influential lobbyists
within Dutch society. Many left-wing politicians, the media and
refugee support groups began to portray them as deserving refugees.
The popularity of the often fashionably long-haired intellectual-
seeming Portuguese pressured authorities to be lenient. In this way,
the almost heroic image of the thoughtful, politically idealistic refugee
was prolonged, and resonated with current Dutch cultural preoccupa-
tions. Men fleeing communism and unpopular colonial wars could
easily fit the current image of a ‘Protest-Hero’. Ultimately, most
Portuguese asylum seekers were allowed to stay, not as refugees, but
because they found employment. In this way, when the Christian Turks
 1204 Tycho Walaardt
arrived in 1976 the dominant image of the ‘deserving refugee’ was still
that of a politically engaged man.

The refugee claims of the Christian Turks and their asylum procedure
In the mid-1970s, the first Christian Turks entered the Netherlands as
guest workers. When the recruitment of guest workers ended in 1973,
applying for asylum became the only option to stay legally in the
Netherlands. The Netherlands was a popular destination because
Christian Turks felt that a Christian country, known for its defence of
Downloaded by [Universidad Alberto Hurtado] at 15:20 27 September 2017

human rights, would be likely to grant them asylum; later, the presence
of relatives increased its popularity as a destination. In 1975, the first
Christian Turk lodged an asylum application; within one year 200
others had followed. Most of them were born in an area in the south-
eastern part of Turkey called Tur Abdin. The Christian Turks referred
to an increased violence between Kurds and Turkish authorities in this
area. This area of the Turkish countryside also faced exceptional
challenges from overpopulation, drought and economic recession. In
the 1970s, external factors, like the division of Cyprus in 1974 and
fighting in Lebanon in 1976, further strained relations between
Christians and Muslims in Turkey.
The Christian Turks and their advocates stressed that Christians in
Turkey faced religious persecution. They argued that only old people
and children could remain behind in the ancient villages in south-
eastern Turkey. The men said that they had to flee because they did not
want to be enlisted into the army, where they were discriminated
against and threatened with circumcision. Young women and girls
explained that they were at risk because Muslim men kidnapped them
and forced them into marriage. Boys claimed that they were teased by
their classmates and consequently dropped out of school.8 During the
interviews, the Christian Turks explained that they were under
constant threat of losing their income: attackers stole their cattle,
their vineyards were burned down, and their shops were looted. When
they complained to the police, Muslim policemen allegedly did not
take action against the attackers, and were sometimes accused of
collaborating with the attacks. Accusing the police could have life-
threatening consequences. Christian Turkish asylum seekers claimed
that their relatives had been shot or stabbed and had died. After
discussions with family members and religious leaders, the applicant
moved to Istanbul, but soon after his arrival he was targeted by
Muslim assailants and had to flee again. The Christian Turks felt that
they qualified as ‘deserving refugees’: they were being persecuted
because of their religious background and the Turkish authorities did
not offer protection to them due to this background.
 From heroes to vulnerable victims 1205
For their part, the Dutch authorities used three reasons to deny the
Christian Turks a refugee status. First, they argued that the Christian
Turks had not been persecuted by their authorities but had only had
problems with their Muslims neighbours in remote areas. The Dutch
authorities argued that an internal flight alternative was available in
Istanbul and Ankara. Second, the Dutch authorities were concerned
about the effects of creating a precedent; admission of some Christian
Turks would undoubtedly attract others. Finally, there was widespread
belief that the ‘Christian Turks’ were bogus refugees whose real
reasons for migration were economic, rather than ethnic or religious
persecution.9 Civil servants familiar with these cases noted that many
Downloaded by [Universidad Alberto Hurtado] at 15:20 27 September 2017

of their testimonies looked similar. One said that most interviewees in

question spoke about ‘cattle thefts, burned vineyards, corrupt police-
men, deceased relatives and the insecurity of Istanbul.10 The similarity
of their claims made him suspicious: it was entirely possible that the
refugee community was internally spreading information in order to
receive refugee status.
In the period 1975
81, 3,100 Christian Turks applied for asylum in
the Netherlands. By January 1982, 2,100 had received B-status, 150
had been deported, 100 had emigrated, 100 had disappeared and 650
cases were pending.11 In late 1982, almost all members of the latter
group were officially admitted because they had medical problems
caused by the long procedure (Ten Doesschate 1993). These figures
indicate that only 11 per cent of Christian Turks left the Netherlands.
The authorities’ strategy was to act tough in public to deter further
asylum seekers. However, those who were already in the country
seldom left. The Dutch authorities were hospitable, despite the
restrictive policies they claimed to pursue.
In 1976 and 1977, two successive amnesties resulted in permission to
stay for 600 Christian Turks. Parliament only accepted the second
amnesty if Christian Turks who arrived after the 1 March 1977 cut-off
date were rejected and told to leave. However, new arrivals who refused
to leave made this policy untenable. In 1978, the highest court of
appeal decided that the Christian Turks were discriminated against by
this arbitrary cut-off date and they were readmitted into the asylum
procedure. To maintain its image of restrictiveness, the Dutch
government introduced a new requirement for potential asylum
seekers: ‘personally experienced grief of serious nature.’ Officially,
applicants for asylum had to have experienced an attack aimed at their
person. The fairness of this new criterion was constantly disputed. One
lawyer wondered, for example, if constant humiliation was sufficient to
meet this requirement or if a relative had to die first.12
Most Christian Turks went through several interviews, appeal
procedures, summary proceedings and policy changes, before they
were allowed to stay. Applicants had the right of two independent
 1206 Tycho Walaardt
appeals with two different juridical bodies, and this resulted in long
administrative queues. Many applicants who lost their case in the final
instance did not actually leave, but instead went into hiding. Years
later, they came out of hiding, reapplied and (often) were successful.
The next section reveals which arguments contributed to this success.

Arguments
This paragraph discusses the five frames that appeared in the letters to
the Ministry of Justice. The letters looked similar and even the choice
of words was often identical. Four identical phrases to plea for less
Downloaded by [Universidad Alberto Hurtado] at 15:20 27 September 2017

restrictiveness were used by twenty-eight persons. They argued that the

Netherlands had a long tradition of hospitability, that the Bible
obliged Christians to help strangers, that the medical conditions of the
Christian Turks quickly deteriorated, and that all Christians in Turkey
were persecuted.13 These letters can be traced to a letter writing
campaign orchestrated by a refugee support group that urged
churchgoers to bombard the Ministry of Justice with as many letters
as possible. Refugee support groups and concerned religious organiza-
tions clearly believed in the power of public campaigns. When in 1979
and 1981 small groups of Christian Turks sought sanctuary in Dutch
churches, the sadness of their hopeless plight was turned into a media
event, which gained traction in Parliament.14 Table 2 reveals how often
certain identifiable arguments appeared in the sample letters.
The case of the Musa family serves not only as an illustrative
example of the arguments used, but also that campaigns were effective
in tipping the scales in favour of a family. It all started when a
campaign was launched at the behest of the pastor of a small village.
The pastor wrote that two out of three Christian Turkish families
living in his village had been admitted, but that nobody understood
why the Musa family had been rejected.15 The long waiting and
apparent arbitrariness was causing ‘mental suffering’, the pastor said.
The parents, he stated, were active church members and they did
voluntary work at the primary school. Deportation of these exemplary
citizens flew in the face of the long-standing Dutch tradition of
hospitality. A doctor wrote on behalf of the Musa family that the long
years of uncertainty and fear had resulted in insomnia, headaches and
stomach pains, all pointing at a ‘reactive depressive syndrome’. The
head of the school wrote that the children were exemplary pupils and
their classmates ‘were crazy’ about their new friends. As proof, he
included a collection of drawings. Leaving their friends behind, he
said, would cause ‘an irreparable trauma’. Not long afterwards, the
Ministry of Justice granted a humanitarian status to the Musa family.
The standard reply from the Dutch authorities to those who sent a
letter showed that while it patiently considered each case, in general,
 From heroes to vulnerable victims 1207
Table 2 Arguments appearing in the 557 letters

(Moral) judgement and treatment Number of

Defining the issue (admission or rejection) references

Persecution Christian Turks are persecuted 283

Criticising the Dutch
asylum procedure
Downloaded by [Universidad Alberto Hurtado] at 15:20 27 September 2017
Christian Turks were not 27
persecuted
Diplomatic relations between 18
Turkey and the Netherlands
Dutch asylum policy is arbitrary/ 92
others are welcome
Asylum policy is too strict 297

Asylum policy is too lenient 46

Asylum policies in other countries 57
Credibility Christian Turks are credible 51
Christian Turks are not credible 36
Morality The Netherlands is a Christian 68
country
Tradition of hospitality 39
Humanity and solidarity 98
References to Second World War 49
Length of the procedure 157
Culture of the group (religion, 79
family ties)
Embeddedness into Dutch society 161
Threats and positive The Netherlands is not full 38
additions to Dutch
society
The Netherlands is full 44
Fear of creating a precedent 39
Fear of increasing numbers 43
The labour market 58
The costs of admitting Christian 89
Turks

Note: Letters contained more than one argument.

restrictive policies had to be pursued. Rejecting aliens who had ‘burnt

their ships’ was painful and unpleasant but necessary, because of the
‘limited absorption capacity’ of Dutch society and the recent economic
downturn. In addition, Dutch parliament was in favour of such strict
measures, as was a large majority of the Dutch population.16 Indeed,
the letters explained that several groups of refugees had been warmly
welcomed in the past, but there was no need to extend this hospitality
to the Christian Turks since they could safely return to Turkey.

Persecution
The Dutch authorities used ‘lack of individual persecution’ as a
principal ground for rejecting the applications of Christian Turks. This
 1208 Tycho Walaardt
argument, however, seldom proved decisive. Advocates stressed that all
Christian Turks were persecuted in their home country, especially in
the mid-1970s when tensions between Muslims and Christians in
Turkey increased (Table 2 shows that persecution was the second most
common argument). Twenty-five lobbyists wrote they had had met a
Christian Turk who informed them that they would rather commit
suicide than repatriate.17 Such statements proved, according to
lobbyists, that Christians were indeed persecuted in Turkey. In
addition, eight case files contained letters from relatives in Turkey
who wrote that they also planned to flee if they could because
Christians ‘cannot live there’.18 Lobbyists argued that throughout
Downloaded by [Universidad Alberto Hurtado] at 15:20 27 September 2017

Turkey, both local and national authorities refused to protect

Christians. For example, one lawyer stated that the Muslim neighbours
of his clients were the perpetrators, but that the true culprits were the
Turkish authorities refusing to help.19
Interestingly, fifty-seven letter writers argued that girls and women in
particular faced persecution in Turkey. They wrote that young girls were
abducted and forced to marry, and older women were raped. The
Christian women lived in a backward, male-dominated Muslim society
and therefore deserved protection in a female-friendly society, they
argued. This argument emphasized Dutch progressiveness because ‘we’
favoured women’s rights. It seems that male asylum seekers were more
easily regarded as economic migrants and ‘fortune-hunters’. Single men,
or husbands who had left their families behind, could return, the autho-
rities argued.20 This information turned up in the asylum procedure.
One lawyer noted that his client was recently joined by his wife because
he believed that this would increase his chances during his procedure.21

Criticising the asylum procedure

Lobbyists fiercely criticized the way in which the Dutch authorities
reached their decisions to reject; the authorities proved sensitive to
criticism. Above was described that the asylum procedure of the
Christian Turks was amended several times after 1976. Almost 300
lobbyists simply stated that the authorities were too strict and that
leniency was needed. Common was the accusation that the Dutch
authorities acted arbitrary, thus tearing apart a tight community.22
Ninety-two lobbyists wrote that the principles of equality had to be
observed. Two lawyers argued that few asylum seekers had to deal with
so many arbitrary decisions as the Christian Turks.23 A support group
studied the events in the Turkish village of Kefri; all of the villagers
deserved admission, but some were rejected because they had identical
reasons for fleeing, the researchers argued.24 Ten host families
wondered why Dutch authorities rejected ‘our Christian Turks’, while
their parents, in-laws, siblings and neighbours were allowed to stay.25
 From heroes to vulnerable victims 1209
They combined this with an orientalistic argument: they suggested that
in ‘such cultures’ family ties were stronger than those ‘with us’. The
close family ties, they said, should make all relatives welcome if one of
them was granted status.26 Many lobbyists stressed the backwardness
of Turkish society. Turkish authorities were described as racist, weak
and corrupt and therefore unable and unwilling to offer protection to
Christians. One volunteer argued that all local rulers were Muslims
and cooperated with the attackers.27
A total of thirty-seven lobbyists claimed that many migrants and
refugees were welcomed, while Christian Turks, who were more
deserved of admission, were denied. One letter writer wondered why
Downloaded by [Universidad Alberto Hurtado] at 15:20 27 September 2017

other immigrants did not have to meet the criterion of ‘personal grief
of a serious nature’.28 Another lobbyist claimed that decision-makers
favoured asylum seekers from communist countries, if compared to the
Christian Turks.29
As mentioned above, the Dutch authorities were convinced that the
Christian Turks could have settled in towns in Turkey rather than in
the Netherlands. Letter writers opposed this idea of an internal flight
alternative because the Christian Turks were persecuted throughout
the country. One church council claimed that it was illusionary that
Christian Turks could stay in Istanbul and blend in because they did
not speak Turkish. He substantiated his claim with a list of assaults on
Christian Turks in Istanbul.30

Credibility
The issue of credibility of the Christian Turks was disputed. The
Dutch authorities and some members of the public depicted them as
economic migrants and their flight motives were trivialized. In 1979,
the Minister of Foreign Affairs publicly stated that Christian Turks
were coming to the Netherlands because it was a ‘paradise’.31 The
representative of the UNHCR in the Netherlands stressed the need for
a careful selection because only one in nine applicants was a refugee;
the other were economic migrants.32 One volunteer
who helped the
Christian Turks on a daily basis
warned that some bought their
asylum testimonies in Istanbul and learned them by heart.33 She said
that some of the persons whose stories seemed credible and reasonable
had been rejected, but that others that she knew had lied were
admitted. One Christian Turk stated that some of his countrymen gave
false testimonies to obtain residence permits.34 The examples men-
tioned above illustrate how the Christian Turks had to contend with a
public and official image that suggested that they exaggerated the
situation in Turkey in order to gain economic security and profit from
the benefits ‘in the land of plenty’.35
 1210 Tycho Walaardt
In order to combat this image, advocates adopted the strategy of
portraying the Christian Turks as ‘true’ and ‘honest’.36 A combination
of these words appeared in forty-two letters. To these letter writers, it
was ‘clear’ that the Christian Turks did not flee to improve their
economic situation but because they had to. Another important topic
was the trustworthiness of country of orgin information. Fifty-one
letter writers observed that the Dutch authorities had used wrong
information about what happened to Christians in Turkey when they
assessed their cases. They argued that the information that the Dutch
embassy collected in Istanbul was not trustworthy because their
informants could not speak freely. They continued that apparently
Downloaded by [Universidad Alberto Hurtado] at 15:20 27 September 2017

more objective human rights reports showed that all Christians in

Turkey faced religious persecution. Also, the media was divided on the
issue. In 1979, a Dutch TV reporter visited eastern Turkey on a fact-
finding mission. He argued that life was harsh for both Christians and
Muslims.37 He doubted that the Christians were persecuted because of
their religion in Turkey. Other journalists and the public accused this
journalist of underestimating the seriousness of the situation in Turkey
and he was accused of collaborating with the authorities.38
The discussion about credibility did not have a winner, like the
discussion about persecution. The Dutch authorities denied that the
Christian Turks were credible (and persecuted), but none of them was
repatriated because of this reason.

Morality
The arguments that can be grouped within our ‘morality’ frame were
decisive. Humanitarian arguments, in particular, gave the authorities a
reason to admit the Christian Turks who, according to official policies,
should have been rejected. Many letter writers argued that the
particular circumstances of the petitioners, pertaining to events that
had occurred after their arrival in the Netherlands, warranted the
granting of a humanitarian status. One argument that came increas-
ingly into play was the length of the asylum procedure. The long years
of uncertainty, the advocates argued, caused psychological and
psychosomatic problems.39 The waiting quite literarily made them
crazy, one man wrote.40 One volunteer argued that during his home
visits, he only met apathetic, aggressive and depressed people.41 Some
supporters went so far as to claim that the Dutch authorities had
purposely attempted to damage the health of certain Christian Turks.
One particularly emotional plea was made with reference to a mother
and her five children.42 Evicting this ‘honest Christian woman’, who
after years of suffering had finally found safety and religious freedom,
was condemnable, as one Dutch family who knew the woman argued.
Not surprisingly, family doctors in particular highlighted that the
 From heroes to vulnerable victims 1211
worsening medical condition of their clients deteriorated because of
the endless procedures.43
In March 1983, two professors wrote that the remaining 300
400
Christian Turks whose cases had yet to be decided did indeed deserve
admission. Their letter proved to be the decisive turning point in the
Christian Turk saga.44 The two professors from the Erasmus
University utilized the now familiar rhetoric about the Christian
Turks’ medical and psychological status as their primary justification.
They argued again that the waiting had made some of them suicidal;
others were aggressive and all of them were depressed. ‘The residue’
deserved admission on medical grounds, they said. Not long after that,
Downloaded by [Universidad Alberto Hurtado] at 15:20 27 September 2017

the residue was admitted.

Stressing the integrated position of the children of the families of the
Christian Turks in Dutch society was another important strategy. A
total of twenty-seven schools emphasized the good relations between
their Dutch and Christian Turkish pupils. Despite the tensions at
home, one school director observed that they behaved ‘just like
ordinary Dutch children’.45 Other school directors stated that the
Christian Turkish pupils quickly learned Dutch and became wester-
nized.46 Forcing them to return to a Muslim country, where they
would be bullied by Muslim children, was therefore unacceptable to
them.47 This integration argument is visible in individual case files.
One teacher wrote of one pupil that the father became a drunk and
was never home while the mother was apathetic, and blamed this on
the difficulties caused by the immigration process.48 He argued that
the daily fights at home resulted in beatings of their children. He
believed, just as other lobbyists argued, that only admission would
help to improve the life of his pupil.
Co-religionists emphasized the Christian roots of the Christian
Turks. They themselves stressed that they had endured persecution for
centuries in order to safeguard the survival of the church.49 Their
supporters were quick to see the advantages of copying this argument
and used it as a useful rhetorical tool. They stressed that the Christian
Turks belonged to the oldest Christian community in the world who
‘spoke the same language as Jesus’.50 These ancient Christians hoped
to have found refuge in the best Christian community in the world,
but, as one woman stressed, this had proved to be a vain hope.51
Lobbyists emphasized that the Christian Turks had purposely fled to a
Christian country and that they had expected better treatment. Thirty-
one lobbyists stressed that it was ‘our plight and honour to welcome
Christians in need’ and underpinned their pleas with references to
verses from Leviticus and from the Gospel according to Matthew and
Luke. They referred to the Christian tradition of offering shelter.
Lobbyists simplistically contrasted ‘the deserving Christians’ with
the ‘backward, barbarian and fanatic Mohammedans’.52 One person
 1212 Tycho Walaardt
explained that ‘a holy war’ raged in Turkey, while ‘we’ sat idle and
waited. All Christians in Turkey could be killed, she said, because that
was ‘what Muslims do’.53 Another woman added that Christian girls
were especially at risk because in Muslim countries ‘everybody could
abuse such girls’.54
The case file of the Suleiman family shows how the local religious
community stood up for Christian Turks who worshipped alongside
them.55 All the arguments they used were full of self-conceitedness.
The priest from the village Vaassen suggested that the beloved Dutch
tolerance for dissidents was absent in Turkey. The Bible study group
related to the Suleiman family stressed that religious persecution
Downloaded by [Universidad Alberto Hurtado] at 15:20 27 September 2017

would be unavoidable after they re-entered Turkey. To them it was

amazing how well they had adapted to the ‘simple life in the Christian
village’. The Protestant secondary school praised the ‘enthusiastic and
faithful’ children and noted that their father had a full-time job so he
was the sole provider for his family. The Secretary of State yielded to
the pressure of this religious community and granted a humanitarian
status to the Suleiman family.
Two of three Secretaries of State during this period were women
who belonged to the Christian Democratic Party. This allegiance
was used by letter writers to ‘shame’ the Christian Democrats into
permitting Christian Turkish immigrants to remain in the Netherlands.
No fewer than forty-three people threatened to resign their member-
ship of the Christian party and expressed an intention not to vote for
them in the upcoming elections as a result of their foot-dragging on
this issue. Certain letter writers wondered how the Secretary of State
could defend her ‘truly unchristian polices’.56 At least one writer saw
fit to warn the Secretary of State that on Judgement Day her deeds
would be evaluated.57
Other writers, thirty-nine in total, referred to the Dutch tradition of
hospitality for political exiles, and implied that it was dishonourable to
contravene this tradition in the case of the Christian Turks. Some
writers in this vein suggested that certain historical scenarios showed
the woe that could occur as a result of such a contravention. Several
letter writers suggested that in the 1930s German Jews had been
rejected at the Dutch border and had to return to Germany, where
they met their deaths. To convince the Dutch authorities to show
leniency, letter writers used emotionally charged terms that referred to
the Second World War like ‘wir haben es nicht gewusst’, ‘Entlösung’
and ‘Kristallnacht’.58

Threats and positive additions to Dutch society

The economic decline of the mid-1970s caused a sharp rise in
unemployment in the Netherlands and reduced opportunities in the
 From heroes to vulnerable victims 1213
labour market for the poorly educated Christian Turks. Those who
were against admission focused on population density, rising unem-
ployment, increasing costs and criminality. Civil servants justified
strict policies by pointing at the steady ‘stream’ of applicants. The
door could not be opened because a lenient policy would open
the floodgates to 100,000 Christians Turks waiting to immigrate.59 The
Minister of Justice justified the rejections to a church because
otherwise ‘in no time 5,000 to 10,000 others would be knocking at
our door.’60 The fear of creating a precedent was not only evident
amongst government ministers but also amongst members of the
public. For example, an eighty-five-year old woman suggested that if
Downloaded by [Universidad Alberto Hurtado] at 15:20 27 September 2017

Christian Turks were admitted, the Netherlands would be flooded with

Mediterranean strangers. She got the impression that the immigrants
had arrived, joined a church, and that this seemed to be a well-known
and relatively easy path to admission for immigrants and their
families.61
Anti-immigrant letter writers added that the Netherlands was too
crowded.62 They argued that overpopulation affected ‘their quality of
life’. Such pleas stressed that the additional costs involved were a
burden to the welfare state. ‘Ordinary Dutch’ were going to pay the
price, they said. They added that all Christian Turks had large families
and the costs of child support would skyrocket.63 One woman stated
that the Turks did not speak Dutch and knew only one phrase:
‘unemployment benefit’.64
To counter the precedent argument, pro-immigrant lobbyists
trivialized the number of potential applicants. In 1981, one letter
writer asserted that all Christian Turks who could opt for asylum had
already left Turkey.65 Two years later, a refugee support group stated
that the migration of Christians from Turkey had ended. The group
ensured the Dutch authorities that no precedent could be created by
admitting those who were staying in the Netherlands.66 They referred
to the fact that after 1980 the influx of Christian Turks dried up.
Furthermore, the non-specific arguments were combated with
specific ones: this Christian Turk was ‘friendly’, another one was
‘trustworthy’ and ‘traumatized’, and another one was essential on the
shop floor. For example, one employer praised the work of one
particular Christian Turk who worked in his meat factory. He added
that it was impossible to find suitable employees like this man.67 One
case file contained a petition signed by 2,000 people who wrote in
support of a particular family.68 This family belonged to their church,
school, neighbourhood, workplace and sports club. A local newspaper
noticed their popularity and argued that despite the mental suffering,
this specific family had never caused any problems. The journalist
continued that the wife already spoke Dutch and her husband was a
 1214 Tycho Walaardt
valuable employee in a warehouse. The aim of the petitioners was
achieved: this family was granted residence permits.
In one case, a certain family of five was granted status, with the
exception of the eldest son Camil, who was denied humanitarian status
even though he was apparently the ‘best-adjusted’ member of the
family.69 His case file revealed the influence of an extensive network of
native Dutch citizens who were willing to write on his behalf. The
Ministry of Justice received letters from his school, the family doctor,
the mayor, the neighbours, his Dutch language teacher, the host family
and a friend. They stressed that Camil was crucial to the family’s well-
being because he acted as intermediary between the doctors and his
Downloaded by [Universidad Alberto Hurtado] at 15:20 27 September 2017

family members when they were hospitalized. The mayor believed that
if Camil was deported ‘this family of hearty people’ would slide down
the social ladder. He concluded that the strong connections of Camil
with members of Dutch society opposed his departure: Camil spoke
Dutch, had many Dutch friends, attended church and was likely to get
a job. In the end, Camil did get a humanitarian status, mainly because
of his unique role as caregiver of the family. The two cases showed
(again) that humanitarian arguments could often tip the balance in
favour of individuals.

Conclusion
In the late 1970s, a decisive ‘frame’ shift occurred in the way that
Dutch authorities handled asylum seekers; this also had a long-term
impact on how the Dutch public perceived deserving refugees. Prior to
the 1970s, all actors involved in the asylum system stressed that
deserving refugees were intellectual male anti-communists or anti-
imperialist heroes. In the years between 1977 and 1983, lobbyists who
came out in support of asylum seekers and tried to get refugee status
for their protégés, increasingly used arguments that fell into the
morality frame. Through their campaigns, the lobbyists and other
interested parties changed the image of a deserving refugee to that as
we know it today: poor, uneducated, but deserving families with
vulnerable women and westernized children. Within one decade,
asylum seekers lost their heroical image and became passive, needy
and innocent victims.
This article has shown that the lobbyists’ actions were remarkably
successful. Most Christian Turks were eventually allowed to stay in the
Netherlands, albeit on humanitarian grounds and not as refugees.
Although the particulars changed, the image of a refugee remained
positive on the whole, particularly with regard to the ‘Christian’ nature
of the Turks. The Christian Turks could after all be accepted into
Dutch society as ‘honest and good Christians’, who had experienced
 From heroes to vulnerable victims 1215
centuries of persecution from non-Christians. Decisive was that the
asylum seekers and lobbyists shared the same religion.
The 1951 Refugee Convention had stressed the importance of pre-
flight persecution. The persecution and credibility frames showed that
the authorities initially used these criteria to reject Christian Turks
when they began to arrive during the mid-1970s. However, these
official rejections were seldom followed by an actual departure. Pro-
immigrant advocates continuously criticized the Dutch asylum proce-
dure and accused the Dutch authorities of engaging in unequal
treatment of immigrants and of arbitrariness. Pro-immigration
lobbyists focused successfully on post-flight trauma. Women and
Downloaded by [Universidad Alberto Hurtado] at 15:20 27 September 2017

children were increasingly put centre stage in highly personalized

campaigns. The vulnerable women and pitiful children were used to
justify the issuing of a humanitarian status.
Politicians were sensitive to media coverage, especially if campaigns
were personified (Schrover 2010, p. 92). Dutch authorities publicly
emphasized harsh policies but practised leniency. After years of
proceedings, most Christian Turks were admitted because they were
needy, innocent, traumatized, fellow Christians who had integrated
into Dutch society. This dialectic process resulted in a new stereotype
of a refugee
one that is common to this day.

Notes
1. National Archive, Archive of the Dutch Naturalization and Immigration Service and
its predecessors (hereafter NA): 5.023.5027 inventory number (hereafter inv.) 429, Memo
meeting Secretary of State of Ministry of Justice and Foreign Affairs 17/12/1975.
2. NA, 5.023.5027 inv. 2230, Letter 8/12/1982.
3. NA, 5.023.5027 inv. 3262
3268, Letters of private persons, organizations and political
parties.
4. For various examples of such letters see: NA, 5.023.5027 inv. 3269 and 3271.
5. NA, 5.023.5027 inv. 3269, Letter 11/8/1979.
6. NA, 5.023.5027 inv. 2664, Letter 21/5/1982.
7. NA, 5.023.5027 inv. 3264, Letter 9/2/1983.
8. NA, 5.023.5028 inv. 454, Interview aliens police 11/11/1976.
9. Parliamentary proceedings, 1978-179, number 15,642, p. 4.
10. NA, 5.023.5028 inv. 471 and 830, Remarks on cover of the case files.
11. NA, 5.023.5027 inv. 2664, Report of Central Medical Team for Refugees (1960, 1975,
1980) 3/8/1982.
12. NA, 5.023.5028 inv. 635, Letter 18/4/1979.
13. These twenty-three letters were almost identical; I used only one version.
14. Parliamentary proceedings 1979
1990, Resolution Wessel-Tuinstra 28/1/1980.
15. NA, 5.023.5028 inv. 678, Letters 13/1/1983, 3/11/1982, 13/7/1983.
16. NA, 5.023.5027 inv. 3262.
17. Two examples: De Trouw 4/9/1979; De Trouw 3/5/1979.
18. NA, 5.023.5028 inv. 1609, 786 and 848.
19. NA, 5.023.5028 inv. 383, Report Aliens Committee 28/1/1977.
20. NA, 5.023.5027 inv. 1111; NA, 5.023.5027 inv. 3265, Letter sent by Reformed Political
Party and reply 11/10/1979.
 1216 Tycho Walaardt
21. NA, 5.023.5028 inv. 796, Remark by lawyer during an appeal hearing, reference: 1980/34.
22. NA, 5.023.5027 inv. 3264, Letter 30/1/1983.
23. NA, 5.023.5027 inv. 3273, Letter 18/4/1979 and inv. 2146, Letter 3/5/1981.
24. NA, 5.023.5027 inv. 2146, Letter 22/4/1981.
25. NA, 5.023.5027 inv. 2146, Letter 3/4/1982.
26. This argument appeared in other letters: NA, 5.023.5027 inv. 391, Letter 27/2/1978.
27. NA, 5.023.5027 inv. 3264, Letter 12/1/983.
28. NA, 5.023.5027 inv. 3265, Letter sent by Protestant Political Party 1/12/1980.
29. NA, 5.023.5027 inv. 3269, Letter 7/10/1979.
30. NA, 5.023.5027 inv. 391, Letter 11/5/1978.
31. Parliamentary Proceedings 1978
1979, 15 642, no. 3, p. 10.
32. NA, 5.023.5027 inv. 1014, Report meeting between the UNHCR and representatives of
Ministry of Justice 20/4/1979.
Downloaded by [Universidad Alberto Hurtado] at 15:20 27 September 2017

33. NA, 5.023.5027 inv. 2316, Report meeting refugee group and Minister of Justice 22/8/1978.
34. NA, 5.023.5027 inv. 3274, Letter 7/5/1980.
35. NA, 5.023.5027 inv. 1014, Report of meeting between the UNHCR and representatives
of Ministry of Justice 20/4/1979.
36. NA, 5.023.5027 inv. 3274, Letter 7/5/1980.
37. NA, 5.023.5027 inv. 3270, Letter 11/12/1978 and 21/4/1979.
38. NA, 5.023.5027 inv. 3267, Letter sent by the UNHCR, reference: HO/77/34 10/5/1977.
39. NA, 5.023.5027 inv. 1117, Typed version documentary Ed van der Kraan, Tros Aktua
(1979).
40. For example: NA, 5.023.5037 inv. 3263, Letter 13/11/1979.
41. NA, 5.023.5027 inv. 3264, Letter 13/3/1983.
42. NA, 5.023.5027 inv. 3264, Letter 6/2/1983.
43. NA, 5.023.5027 inv. 3264, Letter 11/01/1983.
44. NA, 5.023.5027 inv. 3262, Letter 12/6/1981.
45. NA, 5.023.5027 inv. 2335, Letters sent by family doctors 11/12/1979, 9/8/1979 and 19/1/
1981.
46. NA, 5.023.5027 inv. 1108, Letter sent by professors Romme and Trimbos of Erasmus
University to Advice Committee of Council of State 17/3/1983.
47. NA, 5.023.5027 inv. 3266, Letter 31/1/1983.
48. NA, 5.023.5027 inv. 2335, Letter 10/12981; NA, 5.023.5027 inv. 2307, Letter 2/2/1978.
49. NA, 5.023.5027 inv. 3265, Letter 21/3/1981.
50. NA, 5.023.5027 inv. 3264, Letter 5/2/1983.
51. NA, 5.023.5027 inv. 2146, Letter sent by Syrian Orthodox Church in the Netherlands
to all Dutch churches (May 1979).
52. NA, 5.023.5027 inv. 3272, Circular mail of Mr S. of Reformed Church 28/12/1979.
53. NA, 5.023.5027 inv. 3263, Letters 24/7/1979 and 10/12/1979.
54. NA, 5.023.5027 inv. 3276, Letter 4/9/1979.
55. NA, 5.023.5027.3262, Letters 10/12/1979 and 24/7/1979.
56. NA, 5.023.5027 inv. 3262, Letter 21/4/1981.
57. NA, 5.023.5028 inv. 814, Letters 19/3/1979, 12/3/1979, 8/3/1979, 21/3/1979, 16/3/1979;
Note from Secretary of State to Council of State 18/3/1980.
58. NA, 5.023.5027 inv. 3263, Letter 5/3/1983.
59. NA, 5.023.5027 inv. 3262, Letter 19/9/1979.
60. NA, 5.023.5027 inv. 3276, Letter 30/4/1979; NA, 5.023.5027 inv. 3269, Letter 23/5/1979.
61. NA, 5.023.5027 inv. 3275, Letter 18/5/1979.
62. NA, 5.023.5027 inv. 2146, Response letter 18/5/1979.
63. NA, 5.023.5027 inv. 3276, Letter 7/5/1979.
64. NA, 5.023.5027 inv. 2311, Letter 18/7/1977.
65. NA, 5.023.5027 inv. 3270, Letter 28/8/1979.
66. NA, 5.023.5027 inv. 3270, Letter 16/5/1979.
67. NA, 5.023.5027 inv. 3265, Letter 7/5/1981.
 From heroes to vulnerable victims 1217
68. NA, 5.023.5028 inv. 788, Lists of petitions; Article in Brabants Dagblad (24/4/1981);
Letters 21/4/1981, 8/2/1982, 21/9/1982.
69. NA, 5.023.5028 inv. 786, Letters 10/4/1980, 29/1/1982, 1/2/1982, 24/3/1982, 25/3/1982,
20/4/1982.

References
ALINK, FLEUR, et al. 2001 ‘Institutional crisis and reforms in policy sectors: the case of
asylum policy in Europe’, Journal of European Policy, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 286
306
BRONKHORST, DAAN 1990 Een tijd van komen: De geschiedenis van vluchtelingen in
Nederland, Amsterdam: Jan Mets
COHEN, ROBIN and JOLY, DANIELLE 1989 ‘Introduction: the ‘‘new refugees’’ of
Downloaded by [Universidad Alberto Hurtado] at 15:20 27 September 2017

Europe’, in Danielle Joly and Robin Cohen (eds), Reluctant Hosts: Europe and its Refugees,
Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 5
18
D’HAENENS, LEEN and DE LANGE, MARIËLLE 2001 ‘Framing of asylum seekers in
Dutch regional newspapers’, Media, Culture & Society, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 847
60
DOESSCHATE, TEN and WILLEM, JAN 1993 Asielbeleid en belangen: Het Nederlandse
toelatingsbeleid ten aanzien van vluchtelingen in de jaren 1968
1982, Hilversum: Verloren
ENTMAN, ROBERT M. 1993 ‘Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm’,
Journal of Communication, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 51
8
FULLERTON, MARYELLEN 1988
89 ‘Restricting the flow of asylum-seekers in Belgium,
Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, and the Netherlands: new challenges to the
Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees and the European Convention on
Human Rights’, Virginia Journal of International Law, vol. 29, no. 33, pp. 33
114
GALLAGHER, DENNIS 1989 ‘The evolution of the international refugee system’,
International Migration Review, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 579
98
GRAHL-MADSEN, ATLE 1983 ‘Identifying the world’s refugees’, Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 467, no. 1, pp. 11
23
HOEKSMA, JAAP 1987 ‘Vluchtelingen in het Europa van de Burger: asiel zoeken in
Europa’, Justitiële Verkenningen, vol. 13, no. 8, pp. 98
121
LOESCHER, GILL 2001 The UNHCR and World Politics: A Perilous Path, Oxford: Oxford
University Press
LYNN, NICK and LEA, SUSAN 2003 ‘‘A phantom menace and the new apartheid’’: the
social construction of asylum seekers in the United Kingdom’, Discourse & Society, vol. 14,
no. 4, pp. 425
52
NICKELS, HENRI C. 2007 ‘Framing asylum discourse in Luxembourg’, Journal of Refugee
Studies, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 27
59
PALUDAN, ANNE 1981 ‘Refugees in Europe’, International Migration Review, vol. 15, no. 1,
pp. 69
73
ROSE, PETER 1993 ‘Tempest-tost: exile, ethnicity, and the politics of rescue’, Sociological
Forum, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 5
24
SCHROVER, MARLOU 2009 ‘Family in Dutch migration policy 1945
2005’, History of
the Family, vol. 14, pp. 191
202
*** 2010 ‘Why make a difference? Migration policy and making differences between
migrant men and women (The Netherlands 1945
2005)’, in Marlou Schrover and Eileen
Janes Yeo (eds), Gender, Migration and the Public Sphere 1850
2005, New York: Rutledge,
pp. 76
96
SCHUKKINK, AREND JAN 2003 De Suryoye: Een verborgen gemeenschap. Een historisch-
antropologische studie van een Enschedese vluchtelingengemeenschap uit het Midden-Oosten,
Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
STEWART, EMMA 2004 ‘Deficiencies in UK asylum data: practical and theoretical
challenges’, Journal of Refugee Studies, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 29
49
 1218 Tycho Walaardt
WALAARDT, TYCHO 2012 Geruisloos inwilligen. Argumentatie en speelruimte in de
Nederlandse asielprocedure, 1945
1994, Hilversum: Verloren
ZETTER, ROGER 1991 ‘Labelling refugees: forming and transforming a bureaucratic
identity’, Journal of Refugee Studies, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 39
62

TYCHO WALAARDT is a Postdoctoral Fellow in the Department of

History at Leiden University.
ADDRESS: Department of History. Leiden University, Leiden, PO
Box 9515, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands.
Email: t.walaardt@hum.leidenuniv.nl
Downloaded by [Universidad Alberto Hurtado] at 15:20 27 September 2017