Omtzigt Advocates for Increased Birth Rates, but Warns It Won’t Curb Immigration
A declining birth rate in the Netherlands and across Europe may lead to an uptick in immigration from other regions, according to NSC leader Pieter Omtzigt during a recent lecture. However, his proposed “solution” not only risks inciting xenophobia but also fails to reduce the Netherlands’ reliance on foreign workers, argues Leo Lucassen, a professor of Global Labour and Migration History at Leiden University.
In his HJ Schoo lecture titled “Thinking in Solutions,” Omtzigt expressed concern about the potential shrinkage of the population due to limited net migration unless birth rates increase significantly and sustainably. He suggested that one potential solution lies in encouraging Dutch women to have more children, or else face mass immigration from Africa, where birth rates are significantly higher than in Europe.
Omtzigt articulated that a lack of Dutch-born children to fill workforce gaps could lead to considerable immigration from Africa, which he views as a threat to Dutch society. This sentiment echoes themes from Jean Raspail’s 1973 novel The Camp of the Saints, which foresees mass immigration disrupting France and Europe. Such narratives, driven by replacement theory advocates like Anders Breivik and Renaud Camus, have entered mainstream political discourse.
While Omtzigt’s recommendation is to boost fertility rates, experts point out that this approach is unrealistic. Currently, birth rates across Europe are well below the necessary replacement level of 2.1, with most countries hovering around 1.5, including the Netherlands. Even if efforts were made to raise these numbers, it would take at least 25 years for the effects to materialize.
Omtzigt’s assertion that the Netherlands and other European nations will continue to rely on immigration is valid, yet his solutions reflect wishful thinking and propagate a xenophobic narrative about future immigration. Rather than addressing the economic realities and the role of immigration and integration, Omtzigt’s rhetoric simply revives fears of mass migration, hindering meaningful discussions about demographics and migration issues.
While it’s true that Africa’s population has tripled since Raspail’s book was published, its share of Europe’s population remains minimal. Most African migration is internal or within the continent, driven by factors such as labor recruitment from North Africa, decolonization, and conflicts fueled by foreign intervention in the Horn of Africa.
If Omtzigt seeks genuine solutions, he should focus on addressing economic imbalances caused by agricultural practices and exploitative labor market policies that have emerged under the VVD’s push for flexibility. This could mean reducing the number of slaughterhouses and greenhouse operations that are both environmentally harmful and heavily reliant on labor.
Additionally, reforms in the distribution sector, which largely depends on exploited labor from Eastern Europe, are essential. Nevertheless, even with such changes, the Netherlands will still require immigrants, particularly in high-tech, healthcare, and construction sectors.
To effectively mitigate the social cohesion challenges posed by immigration, Omtzigt should propose a long-term strategy acknowledging the Netherlands’ identity as an immigration country. This would involve moving away from scapegoating politics and instead providing status holders and their families with better opportunities. Enhancing the capacity of the labor inspectorate to combat exploitation and increasing the minimum wage would not only improve the livelihoods of both Dutch workers and newcomers but also promote labor-saving innovations.
