How migration costs are misrepresented in Dutch election campaigns Fact check by EuroNews

As the Netherlands heads to snap general elections following the collapse of the Schoof government, immigration has emerged as a central campaign topic, particularly regarding its alleged fiscal burden.

Media and online commentators have circulated inflated claims, such as Dutch far-right commentator Eva Vlaardingerbroek’s assertion on X that “every non-Western immigrant in the Netherlands costs the national treasury an average of €600,000.”

Axccording to Euronews's fact check, Vlaardingerbroek’s figure exaggerates findings from a report on the long-term fiscal impact of immigrants in the Netherlands by Jan van de Beek and colleagues. That study, analysing migrants by motive—labour, study, or asylum—and region of origin, found that work migrants arriving between ages 20 and 50 contribute a net positive of over €100,000.

In contrast, other groups showed negative net contributions: around €400,000 for asylum seekers and €200,000 for family migrants, with the negative impact particularly pronounced for asylum seekers from Africa and the Middle East.

While van de Beek’s work has gained attention, especially his 2024 book Migratiemagneet Nederland and the earlier co-authored study Grenzeloze verzorgingsstaat (2021), economists have questioned its methodology. The studies suggest migration cost the Dutch treasury €400 billion between 1995 and 2019, raising alarms that the welfare state could collapse under continued immigration.

However, experts argue the conclusions are misleading. Jan Willem Gunning, professor of development economics at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, criticised the calculation of €17.3 billion yearly migration costs in 2016:

“The latter figure was not based on data. It was justified by a single sentence which amounted to a fundamental error: it was an argument for how much tax migrants should pay rather than to what extent the costs of public goods were caused by migrants.”

Gunning explained the study misclassifies public services as “rivalrous”—where one person’s use reduces availability for others—ignoring non-rivalrous goods like defense or flood protection.

In an op-ed co-authored with Casper de Vries and Alexander Rinnooy Kan, they argued:

“Our rough estimate suggests that a significant portion of the yearly €94.1 billion — about €40.5 billion — was spent on non-rivalrous pure public goods like defence. These costs don’t increase with population growth and shouldn't be allocated per capita. Only the remaining €53.6 billion in rivalrous goods should be considered, of which 22% — or €11.8 billion — is attributable to migration.”

When adjusting for these factors, the supposed €17.3 billion loss falls to €8.4 billion annually, less than 1% of GDP.

Economists also note migrants’ contributions evolve over time. De Vries said the van de Beek study assumes “a 20-year-old in 2016 will behave like a 60-year-old from that same year in 2056,” ignoring that migrants often gain education and skills over time, eventually providing a net positive fiscal impact.

Experts warn that exaggerating costs stigmatizes migrants. Leo Lucassen, professor of global labour and migration history at the University of Leiden, said, “There’s no such thing as isolated communities not wanting to assimilate. In the long run, they do integrate and contribute. They become Dutch, and their integration is up and running, despite some cultural differences.”

The Dutch Ministry of Asylum and Migration reports that accommodating an asylum seeker costs roughly €71 per day, with the 2025 budget for foreign admission and reception standing at €9.48 billion, less than 1% of GDP. Lucassen concluded:

“The figures might be right, but the conclusion that the welfare state can't accommodate migrants is ridiculous. Over the long run, there has generally been no upward trend in the number of asylum seekers since the late 1980s, and the welfare state has survived.”

By Sabina Mammadli