Dutch Cabinet Adopts Controversial Immigration Law Unchanged as Journalist Quits Over Normalised Racism
The Hague, 29 March 2026
The Jetten cabinet’s decision to implement Faber’s immigration law without modifications has sparked fierce criticism from parliamentary journalist Lamyae Aharouay, who announced her departure from political reporting after eight years. Aharouay warns that 46 MPs don’t consider her Dutch due to her name and headscarf, comparing current political dynamics to 1930s Berlin through William Shirer’s observations of Nazi normalisation tactics. The cabinet’s reliance on far-right support signals a troubling shift in mainstream politics.
Parliamentary Journalist’s Stark Warning
Aharouay, who joined NRC’s political editorial staff in 2018, published a farewell piece on 27 March 2026 explaining her decision to leave political journalism in The Hague [1]. She cited feeling ‘sick’ and ‘scared’ due to what she describes as the rise of the extreme right, the normalisation of racism, and personal hatred directed at her because of her name and headscarf [1]. The veteran parliamentary correspondent specifically noted that 46 members of the Dutch Parliament do not consider her to be Dutch, highlighting the personal impact of the shifting political climate [1].
Historical Parallels and Political Normalisation
In her analysis, Aharouay draws troubling parallels to the 1930s by referencing William Shirer’s Berlin Diaries, which documented how the Nazis gradually transformed hate and racism into accepted policy [1]. Shirer, who served as a Berlin correspondent for the New York Times during the 1930s, chronicled the systematic normalisation of extremist ideology that eventually became state doctrine [1]. Aharouay argues that a similar pattern is emerging in Dutch politics, where right-wing parties are increasingly accepted as legitimate political movements whilst media outlets normalise incitement against asylum seekers [1].
Cabinet’s Political Positioning and Parliamentary Support
The Jetten cabinet’s adoption of Faber’s immigration law represents what Aharouay characterises as a continuation of this normalisation process [1]. The current government maintains its parliamentary majority through support from the Markuszower group and can secure additional backing from SGP and/or JA21 when needed [1]. This political arithmetic demonstrates how mainstream parties have become dependent on far-right support to implement controversial legislation, a dynamic that Aharouay warns represents politicians paving the way for extremism rather than serving as a bulwark against it [1].
Recent Parliamentary Activity and Legislative Context
The immigration law’s adoption occurs against a backdrop of intense parliamentary activity around migration issues. On 25 March 2026, amendments by Vondeling and Wilders were submitted addressing the criminalisation of illegal status, with exceptions for certain forms of participation, modifying the Aliens Act 2000 and other legislation related to implementing the EU Asylum and Migration Pact 2026 [2]. Additional amendments from 23 March 2026 and 19 March 2026 further demonstrate the sustained legislative focus on restricting asylum and migration policies [2]. On 23 March 2026, Vondeling and Wilders also submitted a motion calling for border closures, a complete asylum stop, and rejection of all redistribution forms within the asylum and migration pact framework [2].