Should I stay or should I go? Navigating contradictory temporal logics in the Dutch asylum system

Temporal logics in migration policymaking become evident in migrants' oscillation between waiting and moving. Scholars explored temporal experiences of migrants stuck at borders, in asylum procedures and detention centres, showing how states use time to govern people's (im)mobility. Yet, there is little insight into what happens after migrants gain protection and how migration officials experience problems with time in their work. Drawing on the Netherlands as a case study, we analyse the implications of temporal logics in migration and integration policymaking for migrants moving through the asylum system and for migration officials. Building on temporal governance literature, we show that temporal logics can be ambiguous due to policies separating asylum-seeker reception from refugee integration. Asylum seeker reception is governed by an exclusionary migration policy, resulting in slow periods of waiting, whereas integration policy aims for refugees' fast inclusion leading to accelerated timelines. We challenge the idea of a clear-cut distinction between migration and integration temporalities, showing that differing temporal logics create in-between situations. For example, refugees may be expected to integrate while remaining 'stuck' in reception centres, sending conflicting messages about expectations, and leading to personal, mental, and health consequences. For migration officials, effective implementation is hindered when policy objectives differ significantly.