Advice on limiting migration is a welcome gift for the forming parties

Timing is everything. For the four negotiating parties in the cabinet formation, the report of the state commission that investigated the growth of the Dutch population appears at first glance to be a welcome gift. The plea to slow down that growth through less migration fits seamlessly with the ambition of PVV, VVD, NSC and BBB. And advice is always popular if it is politically convenient.

NSC party leader Pieter Omtzigt spoke to X with satisfaction of “balanced advice”. In his first response, PVV leader Geert Wilders grumbled about the nineteen to twenty million inhabitants that the Netherlands can handle well according to the Van Zwol state committee: “The asylum and migration inflow must really be limited much more severely.” But he also knows: with this advice he has extra ammunition to argue for more measures to restrict immigration.

The peppery advice is not a total turn of events. Rather, political concern about migration numbers, including among established institutions, has been a growing trend for some time. At the end of 2020, the Scientific Council for Government Policy already suggested a target figure for the number of asylum seekers entering the Netherlands annually. And last year, Pieter Hasekamp, ​​director of the Central Planning Bureau, said that the arrival of more migrant workers does not close gaps in the labor market but “ultimately leads to new shortages”, for example in the housing market.

The long history of the Van Zwol State Commission is itself the best proof that the discussion is not entirely new. The reason was a motion by then VVD faction leader Klaas Dijkhoff in 2018 who called for the “consequences of demographic developments” to be mapped out. The fact that the report appears in the middle of a formation is a coincidence, due to the fall of Rutte IV.

Also read
State Commission on Demography: limiting migration necessary to maintain prosperity

‘More control over migration’

At the same time, the report is receiving a completely different reception due to this coincidental timing. The right-wing coalition negotiated by the four forming parties will want to make migration a spearhead, it is expected. During campaign time they all talked about the need for “more control over migration”. And what that grip should lead to was clear: fewer immigrants.

This solidarity on the surface conceals the fact that there are significant differences between the parties beneath the surface. There are differing opinions in particular about the importance of asylum migration versus other forms of migration, such as study and labor migration.

Asylum migration represents a relatively small part of total immigration: 11 percent in 2022. On the other hand, no group has proven to be so politically explosive. This is partly because asylum migrants stay longer than people who come to the Netherlands for work or study, and therefore rely more often on education, healthcare and other facilities. Another part of the explanation is that asylum often leads to unrest, especially where large asylum seekers’ centers are hastily set up.

Also read
Housing migrant workers is met with resistance almost everywhere in the Netherlands. Local residents do not want a ‘Polish hotel’ in the area

‘An eye for decisiveness’

The PVV also leaves little doubt about a third reason for curbing asylum migration. In the election manifesto, the party points out the cultural differences between the Netherlands and Islamic and non-Western countries. Newcomers from those countries often come through the asylum procedure.

The report of the Van Zwol State Commission points out that there is also room for stricter policy within European rules. Moreover, as a small and busy country, the Netherlands should lobby for an exceptional position within the European Union when it comes to the reception of asylum seekers. That advice will be received with approving looks in the formation’s negotiating room.

Because VVD, NSC and BBB also point to the asylum numbers as a source of concern in their own words. According to the VVD, “the Netherlands must become less attractive as a final destination.” At NSC it sounds that “an eye for the carrying capacity of society” is necessary. And BBB wants to put a ‘limit and limit’ on the numbers and advocates an annual quota of 15,000 asylum seekers, significantly less than the 35,000 who arrived in 2022 (figures for 2023 will only be known soon).

Disagreement

Asylum may be a priority, but in its migration paragraph the PVV also advocates policies that should inhibit labor and study migration. The party wants a so-called work permit for EU citizens who want to work in the Netherlands and to enforce a limitation on the number of foreign students.

That is where mutual disagreement germinates. Because while the VVD dropped the cabinet on asylum migration and conducted a tough campaign on asylum, Dilan Yesilgöz’s party is much more ambiguous in the discussion on labor migration. The party also wants ‘control’ in this area, but at the same time knows that the employers in its support base can make good use of cheap foreign workers.

This also became apparent when documents from the negotiations were released last summer, shortly after the cabinet fall. VVD member Micky Adriaansens, in her role as Minister for Economic Affairs, advocated expanding schemes that allow employers to bring migrant workers to the Netherlands. This could solve staff shortages in all kinds of sectors.

The proposal was part of the negotiations until the last minute, even after the Ministry of Social Affairs warned in a critical note that it would lead to more migrant workers and more pressure on the housing market.

Temporary housing

The VVD finds a loyal partner on this subject in the BBB. According to party leader Caroline van der Plas, the pressure that migrant workers put on the demand for housing can be solved by building temporary housing on industrial estates.

During the recent General Political Reflections, Van der Plas reacted strongly to a proposal from the SP to tackle labor migration. “My question is: how are we going to sell that to the citizens in the Netherlands who still want their parcel, who still want their groceries, who still want their mail delivered, who still want their gutters cleaned and who still want their solar panels installed? want?” she wondered. “You can say that they all have to leave and that they are not allowed to come here anymore until everything is in order, but how do we keep the country running?”

According to the committee, “zero migration” is not a wise idea – not even in the labor market

Here VVD and BBB are diametrically opposed to the PVV and NSC in particular. Omtzigt wants to look much more critically at abuses in the sector and at the admission of companies that depend on employees from abroad for their staff, such as distribution centers.

NSC is more confused about the question of whether such measures may also affect the agricultural and horticultural sector. Omtzigt also warns in the election manifesto that phasing out cheap gas, another pillar for horticulturists, should not be done without food security in mind.

The state commission gives the four parties enough to work with. According to Van Zwol, “zero migration” is not a wise idea, not even on the labor market. At least in some sectors, migrants will be useful to solve staff shortages. Which sectors these are, and how far from zero is sensible, is up to politicians, according to Van Zwol. And so first of all to these four parties.

To share





Email the editor