New Report Reveals Major Gaps in Dutch Public Understanding of Irregular Migration

A new report published today by researchers at Utrecht University reveals widespread misconceptions among the Dutch public about irregular migration. The report highlights how political narratives and media coverage shape public attitudes far more than actual evidence. 

Public Understanding and Attitudes to Irregular Migration in the Netherlands, part of the Horizon Europe funded I-CLAIM project (www.i-claim.eu), draws on a nationally representative YouGov survey of 1,052 adults conducted in February 2025. It offers the first comprehensive picture of what the Dutch public knows about irregular migration, how they define it, and how they view irregular migrants in the context of work and integration.

Dutch perceptions of irregular migration are partial, uneven and distorted. 

Key findings include:

• The public overestimates the scale of irregular migration. While current estimates place irregular migrants at around 1.4–3.6% of the foreign-born population, respondents greatly overestimate this.
• Overestimation is particularly pronounced among right leaning respondents.
• Gaps in knowledge also exist regarding probable pathways into irregularity. When asked about possible scenarios leading to irregularity, the public mainly links irregular migration to unauthorised border crossings and pending asylum claims. More routine or administrative pathways such as overstaying a tourist visa or losing lawful residence after changes in employment are less often recognised as leading to irregularity.
• It was also found that children of undocumented migrants are widely perceived as invisible.
• Attitudes toward, and perceptions of, irregular migrants as workers were mixed. Respondents identified food delivery, construction, hospitality, cleaning, and care as the main sectors of irregular employment. They added sex work in the open questions as a sector where it was expected to have many irregular migrants working.
• In hiring experiments they expressed pragmatic preferences, favouring candidates with longer Dutch residence, good recommendations, and family ties in the country, even if irregular.
• Preferences were however shaped by racialised hierarchies with candidates from Morocco less favoured. 

Dr. Ilse van Liempt, co-author of the report and I-CLAIM principal investigator says:

“Our findings show that people in the Netherlands are not necessarily hostile, but they are navigating a narrative environment where irregularity is equated with border control and asylum. This framing obscures the more routine, legal and bureaucratic ways people lose status, and it shapes public understanding far more than evidence does. It is important to be aware of this because public debate is increasingly shaped by narratives, not by facts." 

If policymakers want to foster informed debate, they must address the wider ecosystem of narratives that distort public understanding. 

The report also finds high levels of pragmatism and openness: respondents were more positive toward irregular migrants who showed markers of belonging, and social distance was lowest in everyday encounters such as shops or workplaces. These results, the authors argue, show that the Dutch public attitudes are far more nuanced than political rhetoric suggests.

About the report

The study forms part of the “Improving the Living and Labour Conditions of Irregularised Migrant Households in Europe” (www.i-claim.eu) study, funded by Horizon Europe and UKRI. The Dutch report contributes to a broader comparative programme investigating irregularisation processes, public attitudes, and migrant experiences across six European countries.