- Immigrant Times
- Aug 6
- 4 min read
Updated: Sep 3
A Dutch city demonstrates that civility matters when debating immigration
Zwolle is an example to other European towns and cities
Peter Snijders, the Mayor of Zwolle, encourages a calm and rational debate of important issues affecting the city
August 2025: In June 2025, the Dutch government collapsed over migration policy. In one city, however, the issue is being discussed in a comparatively objective manner with the citizens. This has astonishing consequences.
Zwolle (population: 130,000) is a pretty medieval town where an unusual event recently took place: At a council meeting in mid-July (2025), an overwhelming majority voted in favour of a home for asylum seekers.
The right-wing populist Geert Wilders had previously tried to dismiss the project. However, this interference by a national politician at a municipal level probably displeased many in Zwolle. After all, they voted democratically in favour of the home.
This was very different from many other Dutch municipalities, such as Coevorden, Berlicum and Zutphen, where the accommodation of asylum seekers was prevented - often with riots. To understand what went differently in Zwolle, you need to know the beginning of the story.
Even though the Netherlands always takes its time to form governments, governments are usually stable when they are in place. That was true until recently. In June 2025, after eleven months of being in power, the Dutch government failed for the second time over the issue of migration.
The right-wing populists and conservatives under Prime Minister Dick Schoof were determined and radical. With Geert Wilders' blessing, they wanted to fulfil their promise to stop migration to the Netherlands, send migrants back, cut benefits for offenders and much more.
However, despite widespread anti-immigration sentiment in the country, which was reflected in Wilders' election victory, the intention to "crack down" was dashed by reality. Four ministers from Wilders' party resigned, which is why there will be new elections in October.
"The toughest asylum laws in the world", as promised by the populists, ultimately failed due to international treaties, human rights, the country's own Council of State, which did not want to declare a state of emergency for radical measures, and EU regulations.
Border controls, which the Netherlands has also introduced in the meantime, are just one example among many. As a permanent measure, this jeopardises the internal market and the Schengen area. As a consequence, so-called self-proclaimed ‘vigilante groups’ are now emerging. Many cosmopolitan and tolerant Dutch people are opposed to this. However, many Dutch people do indeed feel overburdened by migration.
Under the cabinet of the previous Prime Minister Mark Rutte, there was still the idea of building a central reception centre in the small town of Ter Apel for thousands of people. The situation escalated completely. People were sleeping on the streets everywhere, a small child died, the villagers were shocked and fought back.
One solution is now to distribute refugees throughout the country to many communities, depending on local possibilities. But many, especially with the images of Ter Apel in mind, reject asylum centres in their communities. Only occasionally does such a centre succeed in being accepted without riots or scandal. Just like in Zwolle - and for good reason.
What was different in Zwolle? Several factors were decisive, says migration researcher Karin Geuijens from Utrecht University. There was broad agreement in the country that refugees needed to be accommodated. So, the main issue was how to set up the centre for the migrants.
It was decided that what is offered to asylum seekers should benefit everyone in the community, from language courses and business counselling to mother and child care. After six months, refugees should be able to work, regardless of the status of their asylum procedure. After all, there is also a shortage of skilled labour in the Netherlands, particularly in the care and construction sectors.
Above all, however, one thing should not happen, said Geuijens: making decisions behind citizens' backs and presenting them with a fait accompli. It was also important not to organise votes on a large scale, for example, in sports halls, where activists who had travelled here were usually given a stage. Something like that could be very dangerous. A successful method in the municipalities is the classic door-to-door canvassing, direct dialogue and a clear stance from office holders.
The special role of mayors
Mayors in the Netherlands have a very different position from their counterparts in neighbouring countries. This is because they are appointed and are therefore not dependent on the next elections. This can have disadvantages, but often a committed person at the head of the municipality is more assertive and can think in the long term.
This is what happened in Zwolle. There are protests there too, even loud protests, but it does not dominate the debate. In Zwolle, the hope is that citizens will see reason and think in a solution-oriented way.
But it often only takes one spark to tip the entire situation in the country, emphasises Geuijens. It is not unlikely that the right-wing populist Wilders will win the next elections again. He has exercised tactical restraint in government. His ministers may have failed, but he has not. And his rhetoric still resonates with many.
Please note: The above article is an edited version of a programme originally aired and published online in German by the German national news broadcaster Tagesschau.
Further reading: Foreign nationals in Germany states and cities |
FOLLOW