The Dutch government has collapsed twice in succession because of disagreements about immigration policy. Now the leader of the party that won the last elections by a landslide has pulled out of the ruling coalition. Why is immigration such a big issue in The Netherlands?
By Jan van Weeren
Two years ago, the Dutch government collapsed, as the Council of Ministers discussed several measures to curtail asylum immigration. Liberal and Christian party ministers could not accept the proposal to end family reunification for war refugees. New general elections were necessary, in which the votes for an anti-immigration party – Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom – outnumbered all the other 15 parties, of which only four had more than 20 seats in the Parliament. This posed a difficult problem for the formation of government: up until then, no other party in the House of Representatives had been willing to engage with this Party for Freedom which had remained in opposition for a quarter of a century. Now they were forced to work with Wilders.
Nevertheless they drew the line at making Wilders Prime Minister. Normally, the leader of the party with the highest number of votes becomes the new Prime Minister. However, two out of four parties forming a new government did not agree to that. The Party for Freedom had to appoint a neutral manager to preside and represent the Council of Ministers. Dick Schoof became the new Prime Minister.
In victory, Geert Wilders promised the country the ‘strictest asylum policy ever’, but this objective did not work out very well. The Party for Freedom proposed an emergency law, but this was seen as illegal by the Parliament. In order to speed things up, Wilders recently presented a list of demands for a stricter asylum policy in a rather take it or leave it mode. His list contained several measures that other parties rejected, such as a complete asylum stop, closing Asylum Seeker Centres, halting family reunification, and sending Syrian refugees home. His coalition partners preferred to stick to the original agreement that was established about a year ago, as the new coalition was formed. Then Geert Wilders pulled out of the four-party coalition. This prompted the Council of Ministers, including the Prime Minister, to resign.
There are a number of speculations regarding Geert Wilders’ decision to leave the coalition. The new government was not very successful in getting things done. Many of the promises made before the elections went unfulfilled. As a consequence, the Party for Freedom was falling in the polls. However, immigration control has been the most important issue to the electorate; more important for example than more housing, mitigation/adaptation of climate change, and affordable health care. The Party for Freedom is seen as the first topic owner of immigration control, which earned it 37 seats out of 150 in the House of Representatives after the last elections. It became by far the largest party. A combined left labour-green party became second with only 20 seats.
Why is asylum immigration such a big issue?
The general term ‘immigration’ is synonymous with asylum immigration in the eyes of most people in The Netherlands. But how could it become a major issue in elections? There are a number of explanations:
1. There is a huge housing problem in Holland. For young people it is almost impossible to find affordable housing. As a couple you need two relatively high incomes and financial help from your family to buy a house. To rent a house could be an alternative, but the private sector is too expensive, and subscribing for social housing puts you on an endless waiting list.
Under these circumstances it is unbearable for Dutch people to learn that so-called ‘status holders’, i.e. asylum seekers that have been granted a residence permit, get priority on that waiting list. Admittedly, cancelling this priority would not solve the present housing problem, but granting it was perceived very negatively. And after all, with ‘status holders’ the waiting list has become longer.
2. Many young men coming from Africa and the Middle-East make use of the regulations in the Geneva Convention and Directive 2011/95/EU in an attempt to enter the country as asylum seekers, although the chance of getting a residence permit is practically zero. These men are allocated to Asylum Seeker Centres in various communities, where some of them cause trouble. This varies from shoplifting to knifing and from intimidation to sexual harassment. Such incidents are highlighted in the media. In a number of communities, inhabitants vehemently opposed the establishment of an Asylum Seeker Centre.
3. Many ‘status holders’ remain unemployed for a long time and depend for their existence on social welfare. They are viewed as hangers-on in public opinion.
The scope of immigration in The Netherlands
Let us take one step back and ask: Is immigration a problem in The Netherlands? It definitely is, at its present scale.
From April 2024 until May this year, 130,000 immigrants were added to the Dutch population. This is a net increase (people that left the country have already been subtracted). It is the number of inhabitants of a medium-sized city. It will become worse the coming year, as a net number of 140.000 immigrants is projected. In an earlier blog I discuss the problems caused by the permanent influx of immigrants in densely populated industrialised countries. But to what extent is asylum immigration responsible for these problems? We need facts and figures to settle this question.
Immigrants coming to The Netherlands stem from inside or outside Europe. In 2022 [data below from Statistics NetherIands, published by the end of 2024], most immigrants from inside Europe came here for work (47,000), followed by people with Dutch nationality (44,000). A third group came as a partner or for family reunification (ca. 32,000) and a group of about the same size arrived for several other reasons than labour, family or study. 19,000 immigrants came here to study.
In 2023 immigrants from outside Europe came mainly for family reasons (42,000), among them partners from abroad or family members of ‘status holders’. 37,000 Ukrainians arrived under a EU-Council Directive for Temporary Protection. 26,000 immigrants came here for work, 23,000 for study, 5,000 for other or unknown reasons, and 32,000 were asylum seekers.
It will be clear that a yearly net influx between 130,000 and 140,000 immigrants in a country with severe housing problems, too little space for the energy transition, imminent floods, crowded highways, a congested grid, lack of water connections, an overburdened health system, and all in all a natural environment heavily under pressure, is not sustainable. Asylum seekers and their following family members are only part of the immigration burden, albeit an important part.
But that is not the whole story, if we are to create good immigration policy. A seminal study by Jan van de Beek and others assessed how far immigrants contribute to the common good. One important objective measure is a comparison of the economic costs and benefits over the entire life course of immigrants. Benefits minus the costs is their net contribution.
Van de Beek et al. found out that the net contributions of different immigrant groups differ greatly. Immigration for work and study from most Western countries and from a number of non-Western – especially East Asian – countries shows a positive outcome according to national transfer accounts. All other forms of immigration are budget neutral or have a negative effect on the national budget. The latter applies especially to family and asylum immigrants, particularly from Africa and the Middle East.
These findings are retrospective. But what if we look to the future? The Dutch population is ageing, its total fertility rate is by now below 1.7 child per woman. Some economists argue immigrants of all kinds are needed to keep our economy going. However, immigration is not a solution to ageing. If we tried to keep the percentage of those over the age of 70 constant with immigration, the Dutch population would grow extremely quickly, from around 18 million now to approximately 100 million by the end of this century. Such a ‘cure’ would surely be worse than the disease.
To what extent has Wilders a point if he focusses on asylum immigration?
All kinds of immigrants contribute to population growth and environmental pressure. They exacerbate overpopulation in The Netherlands. In this respect, all immigrants are equal, while from an economic perspective, some immigrants are more costly than others. Highly skilled expats have a positive net contribution. However, they require housing, additional health care, as well as education for their children. When they move out from their home country, they will leave an empty house there, and not in The Netherlands for Dutch families. Other labour migration is at best budget-neutral and mostly negative, surprisingly sometimes very negative.[1]
Immigrants who on average make a large negative net contribution to public finances are mainly found among those who exercise the right to asylum. They and their families tend to stay forever, whereas many study and labour migrants leave the country after a while. However, they will be replaced by others, so without restrictive measures there will be permanent quotas of labour and study migrants in The Netherlands. Their quotas may grow, but they do not cumulate systematically as with ‘status holders’ and their families.[2]
Is Wilders right to focus on asylum immigration? Yes and no. If we look at it from a perspective of overpopulation and ecological overshoot, other groups of immigrants are co-responsible for population growth. If we look at the issue primarily from an economic lens, however, then focusing primarily on reducing asylum and family reunification immigration makes more sense.
The negative impacts of inflows by more highly-educated and skilled immigrants, and labour migrants generally, can be dealt with by better policies at a national level. To date, higher payed expats can earn one third of their income tax-free; this privilege can be revoked. Employers and temp agencies can be forced to pay competitive wages in comparison to those of Dutch employees to lower skilled labour migrants (mostly working in construction, horticulture, distribution centres and slaughterhouses). Furthermore, employers should be made responsible for affordable and appropriate housing for their migrant workers. Institutes of higher education must only be allowed to offer courses in English instead of Dutch if this is arguably necessary for a degree. It is expected that such measures will reduce immigration and stop the population from excessively growing.
With asylum seekers and their following relatives, it is a different story. International treaties such as the UN Refugee Convention and EU regulations largely determine who is or is not admitted to Dutch territory under these categories. Asylum migration including family reunification was about 15% of all immigrants in 2024, the same percentage as the year before. Asylum migrants with their relatives are bound to stay. They yearly accumulate and will become a growing part of the Dutch population. Their net economic contribution to the common good is expected to be strongly negative for many years. Curtailing this influx requires an opt-out or even withdrawal from international agreements.
Given the chronic nature of asylum migration and the international hurdles that must be taken in order to control it, Wilders’ impatience is understandable. After all these years and different governments, practically nothing has been achieved yet.
Jan van Weeren is secretary of Stichting OverBevolking, the Dutch foundation against overpopulation
[1] Immigrants with a master’s degree make a positive net life course contribution of €130,000 (non-western) to €245,000 (western) against €515,000 for natives (rounded off to multiples of €5,000). Immigrants with at most primary education cost the treasury a net €360,000 (non-western) to €195,000 (western) over their whole lives compared to €235,000 for natives. A positive net contribution requires the immigrant to have at least a bachelor’s degree or equivalent education, or skills that enable them to generate an income comparable to someone working at bachelor’s level. (Van de Beek et al., p. 19)
[2] The educational level of immigrants is very decisive for their net contribution to the Dutch treasury, and the same applies to their children. If the parents make a strongly negative net contribution, the second generation usually lags behind considerably as well. (Van de Beek et al., p. 20)
