Dutch Misconceptions on Irregular Migration

Photo: Unsplash

A new report by Utrecht University reveals major gaps and distortions in public understanding of irregular migration in the Netherlands. The findings show that political narratives and media framing shape public attitudes far more strongly than empirical evidence about how irregularity actually occurs.

Mapping public knowledge

Based on a nationally representative YouGov survey of 1,052 adults conducted in February 2025, the study offers the first comprehensive overview of how the Dutch public defines irregular migration, what it believes about its scale, and how it views irregular migrants in relation to work and integration.

The researchers conclude that public knowledge is partial and uneven. Most respondents significantly overestimate the size of the irregular migrant population, despite estimates placing it at just 1.4% to 3.6% of the foreign-born population.

Politics, age and narrative framing

Overestimation is most pronounced among older respondents and those with right-leaning political views. According to the report, dominant political and media narratives strongly associate irregular migration with unauthorized border crossings and asylum procedures.

This focus obscures more common administrative pathways into irregularity, such as overstaying a tourist visa or losing legal residence following changes in employment, which are far less visible in public debate.

Invisible groups and labor market views

The study also finds that children of undocumented migrants are widely perceived as invisible within Dutch society. Attitudes toward irregular migrants as workers are more ambivalent.

Respondents associate irregular employment mainly with food delivery, construction, hospitality, cleaning and care work, with sex work frequently mentioned in open responses. In hiring experiments, many showed pragmatic preferences, favoring candidates with longer residence in the Netherlands, strong recommendations and family ties, even when their legal status was irregular.

Pragmatism alongside discrimination

Despite this pragmatism, the research highlights racialized hierarchies in perceptions. Candidates of Moroccan origin were less favored, pointing to persistent patterns of discrimination.

At the same time, social distance was lowest in everyday interactions such as workplaces and shops, suggesting that public attitudes are more nuanced than political rhetoric often implies.

Narratives over evidence

As co-author Ilse van Liempt notes, the Dutch public is not inherently hostile but operates within a narrative environment that equates irregularity with border control and asylum. This framing shapes understanding more powerfully than factual evidence and increasingly drives public debate.

As International Investment experts report, the findings indicate that Dutch public opinion on irregular migration is more pragmatic and open than political discourse suggests. However, the persistent gap between evidence and dominant narratives poses a long-term challenge for informed policymaking, particularly in labor markets facing demographic pressure and worker shortages.