Immigration Dominates Dutch Election Campaign, Shaping Policy Debates

Immigration is dominating the Netherlands’ October 29, 2025 election campaign, with far-right leader Geert Wilders and his Freedom Party, the PVV, driving the conversation and shaping how other parties talk about borders, asylum, and housing. Polls place the PVV near 35%, and Wilders has made immigration the core of his appeal after collapsing the previous coalition government in June 2025—just 11 months after it was formed—over what he called slow progress on “the strictest immigration policy ever.” That move forced an early election and thrust immigration to the top of the agenda.

Wilders has laid out sweeping proposals: close Dutch borders to asylum-seekers, tighten border controls, and expel people with dual nationality convicted of crimes. Numerous legal and political experts have dismissed parts of this platform as illegal or unworkable, but it has nonetheless set the tone. He frames immigration as a cultural threat, saying many Dutch people “feel strangers in their own land, strangers in their own neighborhood,” and argues that “people are fed up with mass immigration and the influx of people who really do not culturally belong here.”

The data versus the slogans

The data tells a more complex story than the campaign slogans. According to the Dutch Statistics Agency, 316,000 people migrated to the Netherlands in 2024, which is 19,000 fewer than the prior year. First-time asylum requests also dropped from 49,892 in 2023 to 45,639 in 2024, an 8.5% decline, according to the Dutch Immigration and Naturalisation Service.

Official asylum and migration procedures are administered by the Dutch Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND), whose figures are guiding much of the media debate over trends heading into the vote.

Even with declining numbers, immigration remains the most polarizing theme because many voters connect it to the housing crisis. Families report that young adults can’t find affordable homes and believe asylum-seekers get priority for social housing. A 51-year-old nurse, Bianca de Vos, voiced a common worry: her children’s future in the Netherlands looks uncertain while rent rises and waitlists grow.

Researchers note immigration has become the lens through which people view economic issues, and housing is the clearest example. That connection has proven politically powerful for the PVV and for parties trying to recapture the narrative.

Street unrest and the tone of the campaign

The campaign’s temperature has risen on the streets. On October 12, 2025, masked men wrapped in the Dutch flag marched through Amsterdam with orange smoke flares, chanting “Wij zijn Nederland” (“We are the Netherlands”). In September, anti-immigration riots in The Hague targeted the offices of the center-left party D66. In towns across the country, clashes broke out near planned temporary asylum shelters.

These incidents reflect how a once-technical policy area—visa intake, asylum processing, housing allocation—has turned into a raw identity fight, visible far beyond parliament halls.

Mainstream parties are shifting their message in response. Senior figures like D66’s Rob Jetten and Frans Timmermans of the GreenLeft/Labour alliance now echo stricter tones on immigration—rhetoric once limited to the far-right. Northeastern University professor Marianna Griffini argues that the normalization of far-right framing by mainstream leaders helps explain why parties like the PVV have gained ground.

Meanwhile, other parties on the right, including JA21, are rising in the polls by emphasizing similar themes, adding pressure on centrist groups to harden their stance.

Poll snapshot

• Far-right forces: near 35%
• Center-right: near 40%
• Left: around 25%

That imbalance tells two stories:
1. Wilders and the PVV have set the terms of debate.
2. The right is split, complicating the math of forming a stable government even if the PVV wins the most seats.

Coalition math and what comes next

Wilders faces a major obstacle after election night: the four next-biggest parties have said they will not join a coalition under the PVV. This “cordon sanitaire”—the practice of isolating a party deemed too extreme—still holds, albeit tenuously. It weakened when the PVV took part in the last coalition, a first in the party’s history, but the pledge to exclude Wilders is again front and center.

The election therefore serves as a test of whether voters want the PVV back in government, or prefer a return to a calmer, managerial approach. Some polling analysis suggests the public may be moving away from populist slogans toward the center and a technocratic style, though any such shift remains uncertain.

If the PVV finishes first, it could still end up isolated, moving from insurgent disrupter to a party that can’t convert votes into a governing majority. That possibility explains the intensity of Wilders’ closing argument: he is racing to expand support while pushing rivals to accept his mandate on immigration.

Yet for every PVV speech on border controls, mainstream leaders counter by promising different answers to the housing crunch. The Christian Democrats and the GreenLeft/Labour alliance have put housing needs at the core of their messages, with Christian Democrats leader Henri Bontenbal calling for a return to “normal, civilized politics.” Still, immigration pulls the spotlight back, as PVV candidates blame migrants for pressure on housing. The result is an electoral tug-of-war over who “owns” the housing debate.

Real-world stakes and likely policy impacts

Behind the slogans, the policy stakes are real for families, employers, and local councils.

Potential effects if harder policies are adopted:
– Asylum-seekers could face longer waits and fewer reception sites.
– Municipalities might encounter tougher fights over shelter locations.
– Families seeking social housing could see allocation rules scrutinized or tightened.
– Employers relying on international workers may face unpredictable planning if broader immigration restrictions expand beyond asylum channels.

While the public data shows fewer arrivals year-on-year, the politics has moved faster than the numbers, with perceptions—often fueled by housing stress—driving the mood.

For voters, the choice is not only about whether the Netherlands should accept fewer asylum-seekers. It’s also about which institutions they trust to manage complex tradeoffs.

• The PVV offers a simple, firm line: close borders to asylum-seekers and tighten control.
• Center-right parties promise stricter management without the PVV’s most radical steps.
• Left and center-left groups argue for orderly systems and more homes, pushing back against blaming migrants for structural housing shortages.

Each path claims it will restore order, but they lead to very different coalitions and day-to-day outcomes.

Normalization dynamics and legal limits

There is also the question of how mainstream rhetoric changes policy even without a PVV-led government. As more parties adopt firmer language, rules can shift at the margins:

• Quicker removals after negative decisions
• Tighter family reunion conditions
• Stricter local approvals for shelter sites

Experts warn that once parties move their red lines, moving them back becomes harder. That’s part of the normalization dynamic Professor Griffini describes, where repeated exposure to tougher talk makes it feel standard—even when the law or the courts may limit what’s actually possible.

The law places limits on what any government can do. Courts and European obligations constrain radical proposals. But politics sets the priorities: where to invest, how to message, who to appoint, and what to put first when budgets and patience are tight.

The human dimension

On the ground, Dutch families feel the strain most clearly in housing queues and rent bills. Parents like Bianca de Vos say their children can’t find places to live. Local officials say they face anger at town halls when announcing temporary shelters. Community trust frays when people believe scarce homes go to newcomers first.

The national debate about immigration is really a debate about fairness—who waits, who gets help, and who decides.

Important facts to watch as campaigning finishes:
– The October 29, 2025 vote
– 316,000 total migrants in 2024
– 8.5% drop in first-time asylum requests in 2024

According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, readers should watch not only who wins the most seats, but whether parties committed to excluding the PVV keep that promise when coalition talks begin and the math gets tight.

For people directly affected by the policies—refugees seeking safety, dual nationals worried about proposals on expulsions, and families waiting for housing—this election is about daily life, not abstract ideology.

What the outcome will mean

The Netherlands is no stranger to charged debates over immigration. What is new is the degree to which the entire field now orbits the PVV’s message. Even leaders who reject Wilders’ platform now speak in terms defined by it, hoping to reassure voters that they take public concern seriously.

Two possible post-election scenarios:
1. The cordon sanitaire holds — parties will need creative arrangements to form a government that can address housing without stoking more unrest.
2. The cordon sanitaire breaks — the PVV will need to turn slogans into workable rules inside the limits of Dutch and European law.

Either way, immigration will remain the lens through which many voters judge results—especially those standing at rental listings with their children, waiting for the phone to ring.