Election campaign 2025
Analysis party programs
We have supported several parties with filing for amendments to influence the final party programs into being more pro-migration. After that we have analysed the final party programs on the following topics: everyone has the right to exist, a dignified existence, freedom of movement and stop border violence.
Christen Unie
CU scores 20% on our scale. They paint migrants as both a burden on public services and a symptom of “addiction to cheap labor,” blaming migrant workers for systemic exploitation. They want to limit the number of migrants allowed in, while forcing those who do come to assimilate through Dutch language learning and cultural adaptation. CU pretends there could be such a thing as a “humane deportation”, saying rejected asylum seekers should leave as soon as possible, with improved departure procedures and agreements with countries of origin. They even propose sanctions against countries that don’t cooperate. They only care about making returns faster and smoother: so “voluntary” is just another word for pressured compliance. CU legitimizes the same violent system upheld by other parties: people are detained, surveilled, separated from their communities, and forcibly sent back to countries where they may face persecution or destitution. CU’s Christian moral gloss doesn’t change the reality: deportation is violence, and CU is actively working to make it more efficient.
Groenlinks / PvdA
GL PVDA scores 22% on our scale. GroenLinks–PvdA presents itself as the humane alternative to the harsh policies of VVD or PVV, but their program shows how deeply they accept the state’s prerogative to manage, restrict, and deport. Their rhetoric of “solidarity” masks the reproduction of borders: solidarity only for the few, exclusion and return for the rest. At best, they call for “faster” or “more humane” returns, or emphasize that people from safe countries “must return as soon as possible”. Their emphasis on curbing “low-paid labor migration” exposes the contradiction: exploitation is blamed on migrant presence itself rather than on employers and the state that relies on precarious, underpaid work to sustain entire industries. GL/PvdA is a party that claims to stand against the far right, but has nonetheless adopted key elements of PVV discourse, Calls for a migration cap or arguments about “public support” mirror PVV talking points and normalize the idea that migration is inherently a “problem” to be managed.
D66
D66 scores 38% on our scale. D66 splits asylum seekers into “deserving” and “undeserving” based on behaviour and nationality. “Promising” migrants (skilled, knowledge workers, high-paid) or “bad” migrants (low-wage, “exploited,” or “unnecessary”). This framing allows them to celebrate certain forms of migration while cutting down others, instead of addressing the structural exploitation and precarity built into the labor market. It reduces migrants to their “usefulness” for the Dutch economy and continues to treat many workers as disposable. They openly call for “rapid return to the country of origin” for rejected asylum seekers and for so-called “nuisance” groups; this is nothing but detention under another name: a two-tier reception system where some are deemed worthy of open, “humane” care, while others are locked up and deported. D66 further insists on “return agreements” with countries of origin at the EU level, outsourcing deportations to authoritarian regimes willing to take people back in exchange for aid or political concessions. In practice, D66’s vision is a technocratic border regime. One that runs on data collection, registration, and “targeted” migration management.
SP
SP scores 65% on our scale. While the SP stresses humane treatment and rejects criminalisation, their strong support for swift deportations and expanded return infrastructure places them closer to centre parties on enforcement. What the SP is proposing is not a humane reception but a two-tier system: a narrow category of “deserving” refugees, and everyone else destined for rejection, detention, and deportation. In effect, the SP reproduces nationalist migration control: protecting the imagined Dutch community by controlling, disciplining, and expelling those who do not conform to its narrow definitions of need. By legitimising deportation as a necessary counterpart to “solidarity,” the SP actively strengthens the border regime it claims to challenge, turning human beings into problems to be managed and expelled in order to preserve a mythical sense of social cohesion.
Partij voor de Dieren
PvdD scores 81% on our scale. The PvdD rejects pushbacks, EU migration deals, and deportations to persecution. At the same time, their program still assumes that people who are not recognized as “refugees” can be returned. The promise of shelters and basic rights for undocumented people is compassionate, but it still becomes a way of managing uncertainty rather than granting security. Further, they still rely on “integration”, which is framed as humane, but it reproduces the expectation that newcomers must adapt to Dutch norms to be accepted. PvdD criticizes exploitation in sectors like slaughterhouses and wants equal rights for all workers. However, their suggestion of reintroducing work permits for EU workers would directly restrict mobility, increase bureaucratic vulnerability, and empower the state to decide who is “allowed” to work. It undermines their otherwise progressive commitments to equality and non-criminalization.
BIJ1
BIJ1 scores 100% on our scale. BIJ1 advocates for a migration policy that aligns with radical equality and human dignity. They call for an end to discrimination based on nationality, status, or legal documentation, claiming that everyone without a valid residence permit, including stateless persons, should have an opportunity to obtain one. Also, they are against detention and deportation; they want to close immigration detention centers and abolish Frontex, the EU border agency. Everyone, including undocumented people, will have the same rights as Dutch citizens, and everyone will have equal access to basic services such as healthcare, housing, education, and social support. They encourage free movement and the abolition of borders in the long term, advocating to promote safe, legal migration routes, with open borders as the ultimate goal.
VOTING ADVICE
In conclusion, there is only one political party that fully stands behind our mission and that's BIJ1.
We have supported several parties with filing for amendments to influence the final party programs into being more pro-migration. After that we have analysed the final party programs on the following topics: everyone has the right to exist, a dignified existence, freedom of movement and stop border violence.
Christen Unie
CU scores 20% on our scale. They paint migrants as both a burden on public services and a symptom of “addiction to cheap labor,” blaming migrant workers for systemic exploitation. They want to limit the number of migrants allowed in, while forcing those who do come to assimilate through Dutch language learning and cultural adaptation. CU pretends there could be such a thing as a “humane deportation”, saying rejected asylum seekers should leave as soon as possible, with improved departure procedures and agreements with countries of origin. They even propose sanctions against countries that don’t cooperate. They only care about making returns faster and smoother: so “voluntary” is just another word for pressured compliance. CU legitimizes the same violent system upheld by other parties: people are detained, surveilled, separated from their communities, and forcibly sent back to countries where they may face persecution or destitution. CU’s Christian moral gloss doesn’t change the reality: deportation is violence, and CU is actively working to make it more efficient.
Groenlinks / PvdA
GL PVDA scores 22% on our scale. GroenLinks–PvdA presents itself as the humane alternative to the harsh policies of VVD or PVV, but their program shows how deeply they accept the state’s prerogative to manage, restrict, and deport. Their rhetoric of “solidarity” masks the reproduction of borders: solidarity only for the few, exclusion and return for the rest. At best, they call for “faster” or “more humane” returns, or emphasize that people from safe countries “must return as soon as possible”. Their emphasis on curbing “low-paid labor migration” exposes the contradiction: exploitation is blamed on migrant presence itself rather than on employers and the state that relies on precarious, underpaid work to sustain entire industries. GL/PvdA is a party that claims to stand against the far right, but has nonetheless adopted key elements of PVV discourse, Calls for a migration cap or arguments about “public support” mirror PVV talking points and normalize the idea that migration is inherently a “problem” to be managed.
D66
D66 scores 38% on our scale. D66 splits asylum seekers into “deserving” and “undeserving” based on behaviour and nationality. “Promising” migrants (skilled, knowledge workers, high-paid) or “bad” migrants (low-wage, “exploited,” or “unnecessary”). This framing allows them to celebrate certain forms of migration while cutting down others, instead of addressing the structural exploitation and precarity built into the labor market. It reduces migrants to their “usefulness” for the Dutch economy and continues to treat many workers as disposable. They openly call for “rapid return to the country of origin” for rejected asylum seekers and for so-called “nuisance” groups; this is nothing but detention under another name: a two-tier reception system where some are deemed worthy of open, “humane” care, while others are locked up and deported. D66 further insists on “return agreements” with countries of origin at the EU level, outsourcing deportations to authoritarian regimes willing to take people back in exchange for aid or political concessions. In practice, D66’s vision is a technocratic border regime. One that runs on data collection, registration, and “targeted” migration management.
SP
SP scores 65% on our scale. While the SP stresses humane treatment and rejects criminalisation, their strong support for swift deportations and expanded return infrastructure places them closer to centre parties on enforcement. What the SP is proposing is not a humane reception but a two-tier system: a narrow category of “deserving” refugees, and everyone else destined for rejection, detention, and deportation. In effect, the SP reproduces nationalist migration control: protecting the imagined Dutch community by controlling, disciplining, and expelling those who do not conform to its narrow definitions of need. By legitimising deportation as a necessary counterpart to “solidarity,” the SP actively strengthens the border regime it claims to challenge, turning human beings into problems to be managed and expelled in order to preserve a mythical sense of social cohesion.
Partij voor de Dieren
PvdD scores 81% on our scale. The PvdD rejects pushbacks, EU migration deals, and deportations to persecution. At the same time, their program still assumes that people who are not recognized as “refugees” can be returned. The promise of shelters and basic rights for undocumented people is compassionate, but it still becomes a way of managing uncertainty rather than granting security. Further, they still rely on “integration”, which is framed as humane, but it reproduces the expectation that newcomers must adapt to Dutch norms to be accepted. PvdD criticizes exploitation in sectors like slaughterhouses and wants equal rights for all workers. However, their suggestion of reintroducing work permits for EU workers would directly restrict mobility, increase bureaucratic vulnerability, and empower the state to decide who is “allowed” to work. It undermines their otherwise progressive commitments to equality and non-criminalization.
BIJ1
BIJ1 scores 100% on our scale. BIJ1 advocates for a migration policy that aligns with radical equality and human dignity. They call for an end to discrimination based on nationality, status, or legal documentation, claiming that everyone without a valid residence permit, including stateless persons, should have an opportunity to obtain one. Also, they are against detention and deportation; they want to close immigration detention centers and abolish Frontex, the EU border agency. Everyone, including undocumented people, will have the same rights as Dutch citizens, and everyone will have equal access to basic services such as healthcare, housing, education, and social support. They encourage free movement and the abolition of borders in the long term, advocating to promote safe, legal migration routes, with open borders as the ultimate goal.
VOTING ADVICE
In conclusion, there is only one political party that fully stands behind our mission and that's BIJ1.