Fact Check: Do Immigrants Cost the Netherlands €17 Billion Annually?

(NETHERLANDS) The Netherlands’ long-running debate over immigration costs has sharpened ahead of the October 2025 vote, as new figures and older studies circulate in political speeches and on social media. The headline number often cited is stark: immigration costs the country about €17 billion per year on average between 1995 and 2019. That estimate, drawn from the “Borderless Welfare State” research program led by Jan van de Beek and colleagues, points to a total fiscal impact of roughly €400 billion over that 25-year period.

The figure covers all migrant groups combined, hides major differences between groups, and has sparked intense arguments over methods, fairness, and how to plan for the future.

How different migrant types affect public finances

At the core of the discussion is how different types of migrants affect public finances over their lifetimes. The studies frequently cited make distinct claims about groups:

• Labour migrants (arriving to work): estimated to be a net gain for the treasury — contributing more in taxes than they draw in public services. The cited positive contribution is over €100,000 per labour migrant who arrives between ages 20 and 50.
• Western immigrants: on average a net gain of about €25,000, with some nationalities (Japan, North America, Oceania, UK, Scandinavia, Switzerland) estimated to contribute up to €200,000 per person over their lifetimes.
• Asylum seekers: commonly cited lifetime net cost of about €475,000 per person.
• Non-Western immigrants: average lifetime net costs cited at €275,000, with higher averages for some regions — roughly €550,000 for Morocco and €600,000 for the Horn of Africa and Sudan.
• Family migrants: placed in the same cost bracket, about €200,000–€275,000 per person.
• International students: estimated lifetime net cost around €75,000 each.

In political debates these numbers have often been stretched, rounded, or used without essential context. Economists warn the modelling has limits and can lead to mistaken claims about a supposedly runaway burden.

Long-term projections and assumptions

According to the research cited by campaigners, the long-term projections are even larger: if recent patterns hold, immigration could cost the public purse about €600 billion over the next two decades. That forecast assumes the mix of arrivals, labour market participation, and use of public services stays broadly similar to past averages.

Caveats to these projections:

• Labour rules, integration policy, and global job demand change over time.
• Migrant flows respond to policy and economic conditions.
• Small changes in assumptions (market participation, age at arrival, education) can greatly change outcomes.

This is why the numbers carry large policy consequences but depend heavily on modelling choices.

Government budgets and near-term spending

The Dutch government’s budget figures provide a different perspective on day-to-day fiscal impact tied to asylum reception:

• The responsible ministry cites an average accommodation cost of about €71 per day per asylum seeker.
• For 2025, the budget line for admission and reception of foreigners is set at roughly €9.48 billion, which officials say is under 1% of national output.

Important distinctions:

• The annual €9.48 billion covers shelter, processing, and related services for a single year.
• It does not cover the full lifetime profiles that economic studies track.
• Annual reception spending and lifetime fiscal models are related but not interchangeable.

Warning: Mixing short-term reception expenses and lifetime model estimates leads to confusion. Annual budgets are cash flows in a year; lifetime models try to tally taxes paid minus public services used over decades.

The real-world trade-offs: services vs labour needs

The underlying question for voters is simple and difficult: what do these immigration costs mean for schools, healthcare, housing, and taxes?

• For families waiting months for services, money and services feel finite.
• Employers say they cannot fill jobs without foreign workers in health care, tech, logistics, and food processing.
• Labour shortages create costs too — understaffed hospitals or reduced production.

This tension — public-sector cost pressures vs private-sector labour needs — drives cabinet memos, policy choices, and campaign rhetoric.

Modelling approaches and critiques

Supporters of the widely cited cost estimates describe the approach as straightforward: tally a person’s lifetime taxes paid and subtract their share of public spending (cash benefits, schooling, health care, and a share of collective goods such as roads, police, and defense).

Criticisms include:

• Allocation of collective goods may overstate costs for groups with low early earnings.
• Models may undercount second-generation gains, business formation, or later integration effects once asylum seekers get work access.
• Historians note high early costs are driven by rules that restrict asylum seekers’ access to work and housing; easing rules can narrow the gap.

Supporters counter that the method is consistently applied across groups and that differences persist over long windows.

Local impacts and human consequences

The debate matters on the ground:

• Studies citing a €475,000 lifetime cost per asylum seeker can prompt local opposition to reception centers, even if those centers relieve emergency shelter overcrowding.
• Families fleeing war hear themselves reduced to lines on a balance sheet while waiting months for residency decisions and work access.
• Councils worry about clinic capacity and school places while employers recruit abroad for immediate needs.

VisaVerge.com reports that public debate often conflates short-term reception expenses with lifetime models, adding to public confusion.

Policy responses and political balance

Policymakers have taken steps reflecting the contested figures:

• Tightening entry for those unlikely to work soon (e.g., stricter checks for family migration, higher sponsor income requirements).
• Raising pay thresholds for some skilled migrants.
• Speeding work access for asylum seekers deemed likely to stay — to shrink reception costs and enable self-support.

Goals stated by officials: limit strains where they are highest and support migration that helps the economy. Employers, unions, and councils generally agree on direction but disagree on pace and detail.

Why individual characteristics matter

Lifetime fiscal impacts vary markedly by:

• Age at arrival (young skilled arrivals pay taxes for decades; older arrivals may draw more services).
• Education and work history (engineers vs late-arriving parents with limited language).
• Time to first job and access to recognition of credentials.

This explains why labour migrants arriving between ages 20–50 are estimated to be net contributors in the cited studies — the mix of arrivals matters as much as the total count.

International students and universities

• International students are estimated at a net cost of around €75,000 in some lifetime fiscal methods.
• Universities argue that:
  • Many graduates stay, work, and pay taxes.
  • Even those who leave build research and business links.
  • Cutting student inflows could harm innovation and reduce the future labour pool for nurses, teachers, and engineers.

They say “fiscal impact” does not capture spillover benefits.

Common misstatements in the political debate

• Claim: “Each non-Western immigrant costs €600,000.” Reality: the research gives an average of €275,000 for non-Western immigrants overall; some regional groups are higher, some lower.
• Claim: The €17 billion is this year’s bill. Reality: it is a long-run average across 1995–2019.
• Claim: The €9.48 billion reception budget proves a lifetime cost. Reality: annual budget vs lifetime tax-minus-service estimate are different measures.

Economists emphasize that averages are not destinies — education, age, and time-to-job shape outcomes.

Practical implications for stakeholders

What should different actors do now?

• Families planning family reunification: prepare for longer timelines and higher sponsor income thresholds.
• Employers needing staff: expect more checks on salary levels and duties; consider helping with credential recognition and language training.
• Municipal leaders: plan for continued pressure on housing and schools; coordinate with national agencies on reception capacity.

These steps don’t settle the broader cost debate but help systems cope with short-term strain.

Where to find practical guidance

For details on asylum processing, procedures, timelines, and work permissions consult the Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND): https://ind.nl/en/asylum

The IND site lays out rules that shape early outcomes — rules economists say have large effects on later tax payments and service use.

The moral dimension

The debate has an ethical side spreadsheets can’t settle:

• People fleeing war and persecution are protected by the 1951 Refugee Convention.
• Supporters of fiscal models say accounting for trade-offs helps maintain public support for asylum.
• Critics warn that selective use of figures can dehumanize and mislead.

There is no evidence of a collapse of the welfare state tied to asylum numbers; asylum flows have not trended upward in a simple straight line since the late 1980s.

Quick takeaway facts for voters

• The average annual immigration cost of about €17 billion is a long-run average (1995–2019), not a fixed annual bill.
• Different migrant types have different lifetime profiles:
  • Labour migrants and many Western immigrants: estimated net gains.
  • Asylum seekers, family migrants, and some non-Western groups: estimated net costs in the cited models.
• Common lifetime figures often quoted:
  • €475,000 per asylum seeker (commonly cited).
  • Over €100,000 net contribution per labour migrant (ages 20–50).
• The 2025 reception budget: €9.48 billion (under 1% of GDP) — an annual budget item, distinct from lifetime model results.
• Methods are contested; models may over-assign costs for public goods and undercount long-term integration gains.

How to read public claims during the campaign

When you hear headlines and campaign lines, ask:

1. Which figure is being quoted?
2. What exactly does the figure measure (annual budget, lifetime net cost, projection)?
3. Which groups does it apply to?
4. What assumptions underlie the number (age at arrival, labour participation, policy settings)?

These questions help separate signal from noise.

Final note

The Netherlands is not unique — other European countries face similar trade-offs: protect asylum, manage borders, meet labour needs, and maintain support for the welfare state. What stands out in the Dutch debate is the depth of available data and the intensity of scrutiny. Both are signs of a democracy wresting with difficult choices.

As the election approaches, expect frequent references to immigration costs, fiscal impact, and asylum seekers. When you hear them, ask what the number measures and how it fits the bigger picture — then decide which mix of rules and support seems right for your town, workplace, and country.