VVD campaigns for a stricter migration policy but refuses stricter return laws in the EU

12 March 2026

For years, often during election season, the same slogans have been heard from the liberal-centrist VVD People’s Party: asylum inflow must decrease, rejected asylum seekers must leave, the Netherlands must regain control, and so on. But last week in Strasbourg it once again became clear how hollow those phrases are. When the European Parliament voted on the return regulation, a law that would expand deportation policies for asylum seekers without the right to stay, the VVD abstained from voting. Worse still, in the months beforehand the party had actively tried to weaken that very law.

The VVD has consistently used migration as a political crowbar. In 2017, Mark Rutte declared that people unwilling to adapt to Dutch norms were not welcome here, in an open letter widely circulated as an election pamphlet. In 2023, Dilan Yeşilgöz, then party leader, said that “the inflow of migrants is overwhelming us,” as if migration were an inexplicable and uncontrollable natural phenomenon, like gravity. In its 2025 election programme the VVD went further: spontaneous asylum applications would no longer be processed at all, only resettlement through selection would remain. Meanwhile, party leader Ruben Brekelmans stated during the debate on the government declaration on 25 February that the VVD “naturally wants to reduce the number of migrants entering our country. We always advocate that and we always work toward it. Asylum inflow must go down.”

From rhetoric to policy

The irony is striking: the VVD has been in power since 2010 and during this period millions of migrants have come to the Netherlands. This is not surprising. Despite all the tough words, the VVD has in fact facilitated migration.

For example, in December 2018 the United Nations Migration Pact of Marrakech was approved by the Dutch government (Rutte III), after being defended by VVD State Secretary Mark Harbers. This pact calls on countries to expand legal migration routes and grants migrants access to various services.

Eric van der Burg, VVD State Secretary for Asylum and Migration in the Rutte IV cabinet, shaped the so-called “Distribution Act” (Spreidingswet). This law obliges municipalities to receive a certain number of asylum seekers based on population size, thereby embedding the reception of asylum seekers as a permanent municipal responsibility. The Tweede Kamer approved the proposal in October 2023.

European migration approach

At the European level as well, little remains of the VVD’s tough rhetoric. Currently, four out of five rejected asylum seekers remain illegally in the EU. The European Commission proposed in March 2025 a binding return regulation intended to make it easier for member states to deport these individuals.

Malik Azmani, the VVD’s leader in the European Parliament and appointed as rapporteur on behalf of the Parliament, then drafted his own proposal.

His version was noticeably weaker than the Commission’s proposal: he made voluntary return a mandatory first step before forced measures could be used. This lengthens the procedure and makes swift return more difficult in practice. Additionally, detention for migration purposes, the mechanism that allows authorities to hold individuals who may abscond until deportation, was framed strictly as a last resort. Azmani therefore proposed a maximum detention period of 12 months, compared with the 24 months in the original proposal.

Right-wing parties in the European Parliament subsequently submitted a stricter counterproposal: no automatic suspension during appeals, children no longer excluded from return hubs, and a maximum detention period of 24 months. That proposal passed on 6 March by 396 votes to 226. Notably, Azmani abstained from the vote.

The ‘right-wing’ coalition partner

Moreover, the coalition agreement, drafted partly with the VVD, contains no structural solutions to the migration issue. Some proposals even facilitate migration. For instance, the Central Agency for the Reception of Asylum-seekers (COA) is enabled to create sufficient structural and flexible reception capacity, while the Distribution Act remains in place.

However, the agreement does not mention remigration or a potential withdrawal from the European Union, meaning that migration will likely remain one of the major challenges in the long term, once again under VVD policy.

One could say the VVD does not follow through on its bold campaign statements. That last part, failing to follow through, is correct. But are the VVD’s statements even that bold? After all, they merely call for limiting immigration, while remigration is what the Netherlands truly needs. According to this view, that is the only way to ensure that Dutch citizens do not eventually become a minority in their own country.

This, proponents argue, is what Forum voor Democratie (FVD) consistently advocates: not only reducing inflow, but actively promoting remigration of those who do not belong here.

The VVD speaks of control but lets go. It speaks of return but facilitates residence. It presents itself as critical of migration, yet signs the Marrakech Migration Pact, created the Distribution Act, and fails in the EU to push through genuinely stricter migration policies. This is the VVD’s election mask: just before elections, win votes with strong language that resonates with the public, and then, over 15 years, allow more than three million migrants to enter the country.

Fortunately, more and more people are beginning to distinguish between these two faces of the VVD. The mask is starting to fall. And this week, Dutch voters will have the opportunity to respond at the municipal elections on 18 March.