Why do the Dutch hate migrants so much?
- Frame out
- 16 mrt
- 5 minuten om te lezen
If you want to grasp the state of Dutch politics today, you have to rewind to the post-World War Two era. Our resources? Plundered by Germany, just like in every other European country. The solution? Rev up the economy—fast. That meant rolling up our sleeves and working ourselves to the bone. But let’s be clear: The hard work of the Dutch adult citizens alone didn’t create the economic boom. Something else was at play.
In the sixties, the Netherlands thought it had a clever fix: cheap labor from Southern Europe and North Africa to keep the factories running. It was mostly from countries like Spain, Italy, Morocco and Turkey. They were called “guest workers” because they were supposed to leave. But people aren’t numbers, and economies don’t follow scripts. The men stayed, their families followed, and the government had no plan. So we had people who were exploited with no voice, because they didn’t control the language.
This one not the only reason, but a part of the reason we got the minimum wage in 1969. Still though, even when they got paid the right amount now, they got exploited in other ways. Many workers didn’t know what the average work week was in the Netherlands and made way more hours. Decades later, politics still stumbles over “integration,” while the descendants of those first workers have long claimed their place. So we had a new society in our society that felt like they didn’t even belong here.
Recognizing the permanent settlement of these migrant communities, the Dutch government introduced its first integration strategies in the 1980s. These policies aimed to facilitate both social and economic integration, supporting identity development while ensuring access to welfare provisions.
9/11 changed everything:
Things improved in the ‘80s and ‘90s, but then 9/11 happened, and the integration debate exploded. Voices like Theo van Gogh (filmmaker) and Pim Fortuyn (Politician) dominated TV, and criticism of Islam grew louder. But it didn’t stop at criticism—and in some ways, that’s understandable. Both men were murdered, though not for the same reasons. Fortuyn was killed on May 6, 2002, not by a Muslim, but by environmental extremist Volkert van der Graaf. Van Gogh, however, was assassinated by the Islamic extremist Mohammed Bouyeri on November 2, 2004.
So your average Turk and Moroccan, who didn’t have anything to do with that, became suspicious. Many were already born here but were seen as outsiders. Some of the suspicions can be explained by that those young adults and teenagers became their parent’s translators, who didn’t speak the language. Yes, there is on average more crime in those minorities, because they happen to be poorer on average. Many data suggest that poverty breeds crime. When you or your family is exploited, you aren’t as wealthy as the average citizen.
Geert Wilders enters the stage:
These dynamics created room for another political figure most of you already know: Geert Wilders. The public anger, the growing division, the feeling that mainstream politicians were too afraid to address immigration and Islam head-on—it all played into his hands. Wilders was less radical in 2006 when he founded the PVV, winning nine seats in parliament. Though critical of Islam and immigration, his rhetoric hardened over time. In 2007, he called for a Quran ban, later speaking of “Islamic mass migration” and “testosterone bombs” in refugee debates—clear signs of his radicalization since then.
The real question is: what did Dutch politics do in response? Instead of addressing the root causes of division—socioeconomic inequality, the failure of integration policies, and the alienation of entire communities—mainstream parties either ignored the problem or copied Wilders’ rhetoric in a watered-down form. Meanwhile, the children and grandchildren of those first guest workers, many of whom feel Dutch in every way, are still asked: "Where are you really from?"
And here we are, decades later. The same debates, the same fears, the same frustrations. History didn’t repeat itself—it just never stopped. So instead of confronting Wilders for his lack of explaining the root of the problems, they started to copy his rhetoric and style. The Dutch government introduced an integration test for predominantly "non-western" migrants, which had to be passed before they were allowed to enter the Netherlands. In 2007 an integration exam was introduced for most migrants residing in the Netherlands, reinforcing the emphasis on assimilation into Dutch society.
The migration balance (immigration minus emigration) varied from 50,000 in 2000 to minus 30,000 between 2005 and 2006. Since 2008, the migration balance has been stable, reaching approximately 30,000 per year. Although some things aren’t that bad, because language is power, the hate against migrants was growing.
The Netherlands follows Germany in reintroducing border checks, driven by Wilders’ PVV and rising anti-immigrant sentiment. Migration Minister Marjolein Faber announced the move, set for December 9, despite no extra funding for enforcement. Wilders calls it proof his party “delivers,” but it’s part of a broader European trend where security concerns override Schengen’s open-border ideals.
We haven’t learned anything, do we?
The exploitation of migrant workers in the Netherlands is not a new phenomenon; it's a recurring pattern that dates back to the 1960s when "guest workers" from countries like Spain, Italy, Morocco, and Turkey were recruited to bolster the post-war economy. These individuals often faced poor working conditions, language barriers, and social exclusion. Decades later, similar issues persist with migrant labourers from Eastern Europe and Ukraine.
Reports indicate that these workers frequently endure exploitation, including wage theft, deceptive recruitment practices, and threats of deportation if they voice concerns. Many are employed in sectors such as agriculture and domestic work, where they are vulnerable to abuse due to their precarious legal status and dependence on employers for both work and housing.
This "dual dependency" exacerbates their exploitation, as losing a job can also mean losing shelter. Despite past experiences, the Netherlands appears to be repeating the same patterns of labor exploitation without implementing effective safeguards to protect these workers. Addressing this issue requires acknowledging the systemic factors that perpetuate such exploitation and enforcing regulations that ensure fair treatment and protection for all migrant workers.
We tell ourselves we’ve learned, that integration policies and border controls will fix the “problem.” But the real problem isn’t migration—it’s our refusal to see these workers as people, not just economic tools. We claim to defend Dutch values, yet we ignore the exploitation happening under our noses. If history teaches us anything, it’s that turning a blind eye doesn’t make injustice disappear. It just ensures we’ll be having this same debate again in another few decades.
Sources:
Comments