Hillary places half a metre of files on the table. They represent only part of the changes introduced by the new European pact. She is ploughing through them all for her current research. ‘I am a real nerd,’” she says cheerfully. The pact has been in the making for 10 years, and Hillary is investigating the motives of member states in the negotiations. ‘Between all the formal requirements, member states determine their positions. From a legal perspective, it is important to understand how influence is exercised throughout that process. What happens there is highly specialised, and I try to make it more transparent.’

What will change on 12 June?

‘In detail, far too much to list. In broad terms, the entire asylum system. The entire system, as we know it today, will change. But you shouldn't think that some kind of dark cloud is descending on the member states from Brussels. The Netherlands has of course also been involved in the negotiations. Many things have not yet been fully worked out. For example, the pact includes the obligation to provide legal counselling to anyone applying for asylum. The question then is what that advice will look like and who will provide it: will it be a lawyer or someone from the government, and will it be done on an individual basis or as a general session? These are all things we don't know yet and that judges will have to decide. Because one thing is certain: there will be many court cases.’

Will the position of asylum seekers improve or deteriorate?

'If you force me to choose, I will say it will deteriorate. Proportionally, more people will be detained, which is problematic from a human rights perspective. Moreover, the time limits for deciding on asylum applications willbecome shorter. This makes it more difficult for governments to conduct thorough investigations, thereby increasing the likelihood that someone will be rejected. A separate instrument will also be introduced to determine when an “asylum crisis” is deemed to exist. The fact that a definition is being introduced is progress. Previously, you could say, “we have an asylum crisis, so we are now going to deviate from certain rights and deadlines.” That is no longer possible without justification. The risk is, however, that member states will use the crisis definition to deviate from important safeguards. For example, you could detain someone longer and extend deadlines. I am keeping my fingers crossed, but we will have to wait and see if that will actually happen.’

What does the Dutch policy mean for asylum seekers?

‘The new coalition will pursue a migration policy that bears the fingerprints of former Minister for Asylum and Migration Marjolein Faber. My advice is to set aside for a moment the proposals submitted under Faber. That policy is mainly symbolic and puts a lot of pressure on enforcement services at a time when they must apply the entire European pact and are already facing enormous backlogs. But apart from the timing, there are also many substantive weaknesses. For example, it is proposed to abolish permanent residence status for asylum seekers. The idea is to assess every 3 years whether anything has changed in a case. The situation in the country of origin may have changed, allowing an asylum seeker to return after all. In that case, you can say: you will not be granted a new asylum permit, and you must return to Syria. I wonder whether this will make a difference in many cases. In any case, it will create a lot more work for the IND and the courts that handle appeals. I also don't think it's conducive to integration if people know their asylum applications will be reviewed every 3 years. I wonder what we are doing to these people.’

Is asylum policy going in the wrong direction?

‘Policy should balance strong protection of individual rights with systematic organisation. The new cabinet's approach weakens protections for asylum seekers without meaningful improvements to the system. For the EU pact, I think it is still early to judge, but I am concerned that systemic order comes at the cost of individual rights.’

What can you contribute as an academic?

'My role as an academic is to investigate the truth. But we all know that this is quite difficult to grasp. In law, we categorise many things, and that influences everyday life, even though we have all come up with those categories ourselves. We see the consequences of this very clearly in asylum law: this person gets protection, and that person does not. In doing so, we determine people's lives. As academics, we have an important role to play as a countervailing force, to make sure we do not leave the law solely to politicians and policymakers.’