Asylum Numbers: What They Say and What We Lie With Them

Numbers are denial on repeat.

The Dutch debate about asylum seekers has become a number. "Too many" asylum seekers. "Unsustainable" numbers. "We cannot take anymore." The number varies. Sometimes 60,000 per year. Sometimes 100,000. Politics responds to the number, not to reality.

But numbers do not say what they seem to say. Let us be precise.

Netherlands: approximately 17 million people. Approximately 18 million if we count all long-term residents. Annually approximately 60,000 to 100,000 asylum seekers who arrive. That is between 0.35 percent and 0.6 percent of the population per year. For comparison: foreign students, approximately 200,000. Migrants from the EU for work, approximately 300,000 per year.

So the number of asylum seekers is statistically not even the largest migration number. It only feels larger, because it is laden.

Turkey: approximately 85 million people. Approximately 3.5 million Syrian refugees. That is four percent of the population. Lebanon: approximately 6 million. Approximately 2 million Syrian refugees. That is one third. Palestinian refugees, approximately 450,000.

So Turkey and Lebanon are holding the equivalent of: if the Netherlands said "full," we would have 50 million asylum seekers.

Why am I telling you this? Because our number teaches us nothing. Our question is not: can we do this? Our question is: do we want to do this? And that is entirely a matter of choice.

Asylum seekers cost money. That is correct. Approximately two billion per year for the Netherlands. For a budget of 85 billion, that is approximately 2.3 percent. Significant, but not catastrophic. For comparison: state subsidies to businesses, approximately six billion per year.

So the money is there. It is not a question of scarcity. It is a question of preference.

What is worse? That is what our debate should be. Asylum seekers cost money and effort. Yes. But they also bring labor capacity, consumption, paid taxes. Net effect: probably negative in the short term (two years), probably positive in the long term (ten years). But we only look at the short term.

The worst part is this: we use numbers to avoid thinking. "Too many asylum seekers" means nothing. It only says: I feel uneasy. Instead of converting that feeling into real policy ("we want this number, so here are the criteria"), we use numbers to sense that the problem exists.

This is what politics becomes when parties have no center. You do not say what you think. You say a number and hope others feel it.

I have seen this happen for years in government institutions. Budget problems? "Too many employees." Demand for services? "Too much regulation." Instead of saying: okay, what do we want, how much does it cost, can we afford it, you only say: too much.

The Netherlands needs an asylum policy, not asylum numbers. That policy should say: "We accept asylum seekers up to a certain level, because we think we can receive them and they will be valuable in the long term." Or it says: "We accept fewer, because we prioritize integrating those we have." Fine. Both are defensible.

What is not defensible is saying: the number is too high, without ever explaining what the "right" number is. Because then we are not doing policy. We are doing anxiety.

---

Sources: Dutch Central Bureau for Statistics (CBS); UNHCR Global Trends Report 2023; Immigration and Naturalization Service (IND) annual reporting