Dutch Migration Crisis and the New Government’s Proposed Solutions
Like virtually every other Western nation, the Netherlands faces a mass migration crisis. As a result, last November saw Geert Wilders’ anti-mass-migration Party for Freedom (PVV) secure the most seats in the Dutch parliament. Following half a year of contentious negotiations, a coalition deal was announced on May 16, paving the way for a new government. Neither Wilders nor any of the other coalition party leaders will assume the prime-ministerial post, and – as of this writing – it is still unclear who the new prime minister will be. But, based on the coalition agreement, the new government intends to get tough on mass illegal migration and asylum abuse.
The deal takes a holistic approach to mass immigration, stating at the outset that “[t]he Netherlands is one of the most densely populated countries in Europe.” The Netherlands has a population density of 1,100 people per square mile, comparable to U.S. states like New Jersey. The deal states that mass migration “puts pressure on housing, care, education and financial resources, and on social cohesion in our country.” This is a welcome recognition of the role of mass-migration-driven population growth and how it impacts every aspect of social life, be it in the Netherlands or highly-populated and congested metro areas in the U.S. with their housing crisis.
Guided by this approach, the coalition intends to implement an array of objectives, including:
- Deporting (“as much as possible, including forcibly”) asylum-seekers whose applications have been rejected, and making removals easier. Legal assistance to asylum-seekers will also be limited. This makes sense given that a low risk of deportation encourages meritless asylum claims to simply get a foot in the door. For example, Iraq is one of the top three countries of origin for asylum in the Netherlands, and Europe-wide, 74 percent of Iraqi claims are rejected.
- Doing away with indefinite asylum permits and tightening the requirements to receive a temporary residency permit.
- “Sharply limiting” who qualifies for family reunification with foreign nationals granted asylum in the Netherlands. In the first quarter of 2024, the number of applicants for family reunification with asylum-seekers shot up 63 percent, so there are clearly grounds for limiting chain migration.
- Repealing a law that required asylum-seekers to be dispersed throughout the country, thereby forcing communities to accept a sudden influx of migrants. Previous governments had attempted to deal with pressure migrants were placing on services in big cities by dispersing them to smaller communities.
- Increasing Dutch language proficiency requirements (in part because greater proficiency means greater labor force participation) and including awareness of the Holocaust and its victims as a qualification for successful “integration.” The time frame for naturalization will also be increased from five to 10 years, with the goal of ensuring that those accepted into the Dutch national community actually embrace “Dutch values.”
- Protecting the Dutch labor market. As one outlet clarifies: “additional requirements will be introduced for non-European Union labor migrants, and student migration will also be restricted” by “setting a maximum number of foreign students, and increasing tuition fees for non-EU students.”
- Reasserting the Netherlands’ right as a sovereign nation by introducing stricter border controls and withdrawing from the EU’s migration and asylum policy, which prefers to spread migrants around the continent rather than deterring illegal migration in the first place.
There are two overarching principles at work here. One is that the interests of citizens should take priority over the desires of foreign nationals and the quest for the “golden ticket” into a prosperous Western nation. (Over 900 million people globally wish to migrate, which means that open borders are unsustainable.) The other is the common-sense realization that deterring and discouraging asylum-abuse-driven mass illegal migration is a much better strategy than treating it as some sort of unstoppable force of nature. We can only hope that the Biden administration is taking notes because, as another recent FAIR article emphasizes, “the fact voters in one of the most progressive nations on earth have so resoundingly rejected unchecked migration should send a clear message to leaders in other countries, including our own. There is a limit to the fiscal burdens and social upheaval citizens will bear.”