« Migration discussion threatens to become a deaf debate, » the SCP says in a new study

Anyone who is more concerned about migration also has less faith in the government and is more gloomy about society. That is stated in the report Migration as a mirror of social imagesthat the Social and Cultural Planning Office (SCP) will publish on Tuesday. The different views on migration also seem to contribute more and more to polarization, with more distrust and mutual aversion to society as a result. As a result, the migration debate threatens to become a « deaf discussion », says the SCP.

While it is essential that the Netherlands continues to have a structural discussion about migration policy, says migration researcher Jaco Dagevos of the SCP. « We have to dare to ask the fundamental question: what kind of migration country do we want to be? What size and forms of migration suit the Netherlands? How can migration contribute to major issues, such as the energy transition or shortages in healthcare? »

Among other things, the Migration Advisory Council and the State Committee on Demographic Developments argued for a clear vision of migration policy. The Cabinet Sheaf-with PVV, VVD, NSC and BBB-now wants to « drastically » limit asylum with the « most extensive package for grip on migration ever ».

However, a large group of citizens believe that governments in the Netherlands do not seem to be able to resolve the migration issue. For example, migration can gradually become a « a symbol of failing government policy », the SCP report says.

‘Exhaust valve’

The SCP study analyzes views on migration. Contrary to what is often thought, many people in the Netherlands have not started to think more negatively in comparison with the beginning of this century about the consequences of migration for the economy, culture and quality of life. Possible explanation is that the population changed, making new generations more used to diversity.

However, the political debate on migration has become more important, so that dissatisfaction with migration has gained a ‘clear exhaust valve’, according to the report. Only 9 percent of the population supports the recording of more asylum seekers. A third person believes that the Netherlands should close the boundaries for asylum seekers, even if this is not in line with international agreements.

If you think the government is not paying much attention for your interests, migration becomes something that sentiment can focus

A large group (58 percent) at the same time believes that the Netherlands has a moral duty to accommodate people who flee for war and violence, often referred to as ‘real’ refugees. « In the political debate it often seems as if there are only supporters and opponents, » says Dagevos. « In reality, a large group of Dutch people think nuanced about migration. They combine advantages and disadvantages of migration with each other, they are not simply against restrictive policy, but also see that there must be room for certain groups of migrants. »

The views on migration are influenced, among other things, by trust in the government. « People project their broader dissatisfaction with politics on migration. If you feel that the government has little attention to your views and interests, then migration becomes a subject that sentiment can focus. »

War

Another factor is education level. « Practical educated probably more often experience the disadvantages of migration, for example due to pressure on the housing market and social services, » says Donyvos.

Also plays a role how people define the Dutch identity. People who see identity mainly in cultural or ethnic terms (such as birthplace, skin color, religion) are often more negative about migration. Young people and HBO/WO-educated people link national identity less to ethnic characteristics.

In addition, the attitude differs depending on the type of migration. The Dutch are more positive about migrants who help with deficits in the labor market and to asylum seekers who flee for war and violence.

The migration debate can become more constructive if the broad, more nuanced middle group would have more room in the social and political debate, says Donyvos.

In addition, the government should be clear and realistic about migration policy. « You can partly control migration policy, but you are also embedded in international treaties and regulations, » explains Donyvos. « Be honest about the influence that you as a national government can have, about the speed with which you can achieve results. If the high expectations set by the policy are ultimately empty promises, this can only further boost the lack of trust and even cynicism towards politics. »

To share

Mail the editors