Immigration, racism, discrimination: the Dutch campaign’s core fights,
The Netherlands votes on October 29. Voters say immigration, racism, and discrimination are top concerns. Party manifestos draw sharp lines on all three, and the most watched debate so far tested how leaders defend those lines.
The issue set
Immigration framed the last election and lifted Geert Wilders’ PVV to 37 seats. It also shaped the short-lived cabinet that followed, after the VVD dropped its cordon sanitaire around the PVV. This cycle, VVD leader Dilan Yesilgöz rules out governing with Wilders, yet still proposes strict asylum reforms to bring numbers down. JA21 pushes further, calling for Danish-style border checks and ankle tags for rejected applicants to prevent absconding. The left, GL-PvdA and D66, accepts tighter control too, but pairs it with faster work access for those who can stay and stronger protections against labor exploitation.
On racism and discrimination, most parties offer plans, but the definitions diverge. GL-PvdA, D66, and CDA say Islamophobia and anti-Semitism both require action. The VVD warns Islamic schools can foster segregation and should be discouraged. JA21 calls Islamic culture harmful and pledges to challenge what it calls the myth that the Netherlands is a racist country. The PVV breaks from the pack with proposals that critics say are discriminatory by design, including a headscarf ban in government buildings and limits on non-Western languages in public communication.
Party positions at a glance
PVV: Wilders places asylum at the top. He calls the manifesto a program of democratic resistance to mass immigration and Islamisation. The PVV would send troops to the border to turn away refugees, close asylum facilities, and repeal the law that lets the state compel councils to house asylum seekers. The party seeks a Danish-style opt-out from EU refugee quotas, a total ban on immigration from Islamic countries, and a voluntary remigration scheme. Dual nationality would be banned. Naturalisation would extend to 15 years. Wilders says adult Ukrainian men should return to fight. The platform also includes a headscarf ban in government buildings, abolition of non-binary passports, and reversal of royal apologies for slavery and colonial violence.
CDA: The Christian Democrats pitch firm but fair. They want claims processed outside Europe to deter smuggling, a two-tier system that distinguishes temporary from permanent protection, and criminalisation of illegal stay, while keeping help to undocumented people legal. Settled refugees would face stricter language and integration demands, with status at risk for those who refuse. Work barriers would be lifted for likely qualifiers. The CDA promises stronger action against discrimination, names Islamophobia and anti-Semitism, and calls for better access for people with disabilities.
GL-PvdA: For the first time, the left sets a net migration target, between 40,000 and 60,000 a year, citing a population commission. The bloc backs fast and fair processing at the European border and legal aid for applicants. It proposes higher wages in sectors reliant on low-paid migrant labor to reduce exploitation, and longer stay plus EU-level tuition for Ukrainian refugees. Anti-discrimination plans include tougher penalties, more enforcement resources, bans on discriminatory algorithms and risk profiling, and added security for mosques and synagogues.
D66: The progressive liberals tie their approach to the 2026 European Migration Pact. They support external processing, faster procedures, and immediate participation in society. Work, education, and training would start on day one. Children in the Netherlands for five years would gain the right to stay. The party backs smaller, neighborhood-integrated asylum facilities, stronger regimes for the minority who cause disruption, and broader anti-discrimination laws that cover racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, poverty, neurodiversity, age, and disability. Health care would get a discrimination hotline and diversity training.
VVD: The liberals call for a fundamental reset. The host country sets intake based on capacity, not solely on conditions in origin states. A points system would select the most vulnerable. Work is the integration pathway, so newcomers are steered to shortages in health care, construction, and technology. Benefits would be cut after repeated refusal of work or language classes. Preschool would be compulsory for migrant children. The VVD wants more local power to refuse Islamic schools, arguing that freedom of education must not enable exclusion, and says discrimination based on origin will be tackled while opposing the use of culture or religion as a shield for oppression.
JA21: Joost Eerdmans proposes strict limits on all migration streams. Border controls would increase. Treaties would be renegotiated. Illegal migration becomes a criminal offense. Ankle tags track those slated for removal. All settled refugees would be reassessed, with a voluntary return program that prioritises Syrians. Appeals would be curbed by moving asylum tribunals outside the regular courts. Labor migration narrows to high-skilled demand. EU workers who become homeless after job loss would be sent home. The party rejects institutional racism as a policy premise and would end diversity and inclusion training.
The debate: hard lines, few converts
Thursday night’s SBS debate drew more than two million viewers, a high point so far. It was Wilders’ first debate appearance since he resumed campaigning. The evening focused on migration, housing, and health care. Wilders, who leads in polls, faced a coordinated push from Frans Timmermans, Dilan Yesilgöz, and Henri Bontenbal. They pressed him on delivery, for example his promise to abolish the health care deductible that did not happen, and on ministerial suitability after he defended former asylum minister Marjolein Faber. At one point the audience laughed when he said Faber had not been disqualified as a future minister. Yesilgöz dismissed him as one man with a Twitter account.
Bontenbal called Wilders the megaphone of discord and said it was time to turn the page. The Telegraaf concluded that other parties will not govern with the PVV. Wilders countered, I represent the will of the people, and argued that voters are tired of a three against one pile-on. Analysts warned of a martyr effect, where sustained establishment attacks can harden support. The Volkskrant noted his comments sounded hackneyed and tired, and that the program’s frequent ads and light moderation kept the content shallow. Polls scheduled for Saturday will show whether the clash moved votes.
What links the issues to the moment
Across the spectrum there is a shared promise to tighten migration management. The split lies in method and in rights. GL-PvdA and D66 tie control to due process, legal aid, faster integration, and anti-discrimination enforcement. CDA and VVD emphasize deterrence, capacity limits, external processing, and work-first integration with sanctions. JA21 seeks a treaty-revising hard stop. The PVV seeks a break from existing norms altogether, including bans and vetoes that would test Dutch and EU law.
On racism and discrimination, three currents stand out. One, a legalistic track that strengthens definitions, penalties, and enforcement. Two, a cultural track that targets segregating institutions and practices. Three, a rejectionist track that disputes the idea of systemic bias and trims diversity policies. Voters who ranked these issues highly now have clear, contrasting offers.
The choice on October 29
The campaign’s most watched debate did not blur those lines. It made them sharper. If the PVV remains isolated in coalition arithmetic, the next government will be shaped by the tension between capacity-driven control and rights-driven inclusion. If Wilders converts polls into power, the system will face tests on legality and practicality. Either way, immigration, racism, and discrimination will define the opening agenda of the next cabinet, and likely the terms of its survival.