reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker argues against adopting a dispersal law for asylum seekers in the Netherlands. They highlight the lack of public support for asylum and the preference for regional reception. The speaker also mentions the integration challenges faced by different regions and the strain it puts on municipalities. They discuss the significant impact of asylum-related immigration on healthcare, education, social housing, crime rates, and local resources. The speaker emphasizes the need to address the underlying integration problem rather than focusing solely on reception capacity. They believe that implementing a dispersal law would only delay the inevitable and exacerbate the integration issue. The speaker concludes by urging policymakers to tackle the root causes of immigration and integration. Translation: The speaker advises against implementing a dispersal law for asylum seekers in the Netherlands. They argue that there is little support for asylum in the country and highlight the challenges of integration. The speaker discusses the strain on municipalities and the impact on healthcare, education, housing, and crime rates. They believe that a dispersal law would only temporarily increase reception capacity without addressing the underlying integration problem. The speaker urges policymakers to focus on addressing the root causes of immigration and integration.

Tijdens het debat uiten de sprekers boosheid over uitspraken van de minister: "we weten namelijk inmiddels vrij goed waar ze wonen. Vrij precies eigenlijk per postcode weten we waar ze wonen." Ze beschrijven "wijk voor wijk, straat voor straat, arm voor arm" en "Deur voor deur, arm voor arm." Ze noemen de minister een dehumaniserende aanduiding en "wappies", spreken van "Totaal ontwerper, totale wappie" en noemen dit "complot retoriek." Volgens hen zijn dit oorzaken van polarisatie. Een spreker vraagt de minister één feit te weerspreken, maar "Dat wil ik niet." De spreker stelt dat de minister "degene die hoofd verantwoordelijk is voor vrijwel al die spanningen en polarisatie waar we nu mee te maken hebben" en wil hem "een spiegel voorhouden." De ander zegt: "Stop ermee. Dat was mijn inhoudelijke reactie op al dit soort complottheorieën. Stop ermee." During the debate, the speakers express anger about the minister's statements: "we know now quite well where they live. Quite precisely, per postcode, we know where they live." They describe "neighborhood by neighborhood, street by street, arm for arm" and "Door to door, arm for arm." They call the minister a dehumanizing label and "wappies," talk of "Total designer, total wappie" and call this "conspiracy rhetoric." According to them, these are causes of polarization. A speaker asks the minister to refute one fact he named, but "I don't want to." The speaker argues that the minister is "the one primarily responsible for almost all the tensions and polarization we are dealing with" and wants him "hold up a mirror to him." The other person says: "Stop it. That was my substantive response to all these kinds of conspiracy theories. Stop it."

The speakers discuss the political situation surrounding Geert Wilders and the PVV. The first speaker suggests that if Wilders had participated in a debate, the other side might have won, and expresses frustration that “nothing happens in the Netherlands” right now. The dialogue turns to the nature of democracy within the parliament, with one speaker insisting that the parliament is “super democradig” while implying the PVV is not. The conversation questions the democratic legitimacy of the PVV, reinforcing that one speaker is not a member of the PVV in the traditional sense. A key point raised is the claim that there is “not a democratic club” for the PVV, contrasting their approach with the broader parliamentary system. The other speaker counters by noting that they are a member of the faction, not the party, highlighting a formal distinction: “Not of the party, because there is but one person and that is Geert Wilders himself.” This statement emphasizes a centralized leadership structure and suggests that the party’s organizational breadth is limited to a single figure at the top. The exchange also touches on the hypothetical impact of broader party membership, with a suggestion that if the PVV could assemble more members, it might be argued to be more democratic. Despite this, the speaker indicates that they will refrain from pursuing that argument in the current discussion. Throughout, the speakers grapple with how representation and democratic processes operate within the Netherlands’ political landscape, especially in relation to Wilders and the PVV. The dialogue conveys a sense of urgency and dissatisfaction about the state of politics, underscored by the assertion that a debate or more widespread participation could have changed outcomes, in contrast to the stagnation they perceive in the present moment.

The exchange centers on accusations of hyperbolic statements and the accuracy of quoted posts. Speaker 0 challenges Speaker 1's credibility, citing a series of posts and asking whether the statements were read correctly. - On 02/11/2026, Speaker 0 cites a Blueski post: “my words or your words, not mine. The democrats video telling service members to ignore illegal orders didn't go far enough. They should have also urged them to refuse unethical orders, whether illegal or not. There are many things deemed legal that are still obviously unethical, and everyone should hold themselves to this higher law,” and asks, “Did I read that correctly?” Speaker 1 confirms reading it and asks if Speaker 0 disagrees with it, questioning whether people should do unethical things in their capacity of [unknown context]. - On 12/31/2025, Speaker 0 references a post reading, “in front of god and country. … They referring to Republicans think they control their way into us accepting ethnic cleansing,” and asks, “Did I read that correctly?” Speaker 1 responds that it related to a DHS security post advocating a 100,000,000 deportations, stating that “A 100,000,000 deportations would be ethnic cleansing,” adding, “You would be True. One third of the country. So, yes, there are people within the Department of Homeland security.” Speaker 0 asks whether this is hyperbolic and requests more time. - On 02/05 (implied), Speaker 1 notes, “advocating a 100,000,000” but the sentence is cut off in the transcript. Speaker 0 comments, “reputations is … cleansing,” while continuing to engage in the discussion with the chair and audience; Speaker 0 asks for thirty more seconds. - On 03/02, Speaker 0 quotes Speaker 1: “if you rule against Trump's population purge agenda, no hyper permanently there, the nativists will name you, threaten you, and come after you. These judges are much braver than the ICE agents who hide behind masks while violating the constitution. They are much braver.” Speaker 1 clarifies, “They put their names on their rulings, and they stand behind their constitutional rulings. When I talk about population purge, I'm talking about the fact that they're trying to deport US born citizens, people born here. They are trying to deport them as well. So it's not a mass deportation agenda. It is also an agenda intended to reduce the population of The United States, including US born people.” - Speaker 0 responds, “Thank you.” Speaker 1 adds, “These are not hyperbolic statements. I appreciate you reading my account. Here's the good news.” The conversation escalates in tone as Speaker 0 interjects with disbelief, asking, “What planet … parachute him from?” Speaker 1 replies, “No. No.” Speaker 0 comments, “Hey, guys. You're you you You trigger my gag reflex,” and Speaker 1 closes with, “Mr. Bieber.”

The speaker discusses the target number for immigration in the country. They believe that the growth in immigration should align with the number of houses, doctors, and available jobs. They mention that their platform will link population growth to these factors, rather than setting arbitrary targets for political gain. When asked for a specific number, the speaker states that they cannot provide one at this time, as it will depend on the conditions in the year they form the government in 2025.

The government has fallen because of the high influx of people into the country. There are concerns among the Dutch about the ability to handle such a large number of immigrants. People are questioning the safety of their neighborhoods if this issue continues to be ignored. The speaker refuses to turn a blind eye and believes that solutions are necessary for the country.

VVD-wethouder Erik van der Burg in Amsterdam made a surprising statement during a conference, expressing his happiness with an increased number of asylum seekers. This remark may not be surprising to some, as there have been claims that the VVD is pro-immigration and pro-EU, despite their occasional tough talk on border controls and reducing EU influence. These claims suggest that the party ultimately aligns with the trend of diminishing Dutch independence.

According to the speaker, vaccination eligibility should only have been granted after a doctor determined it was advisable for an individual case, because—except for a single exception—virtually no one under 60 would have faced a chance of serious complications from coronavirus. The speaker claims that therefore, people under 60 should not have been vaccinated, and that filling sports halls with vaccination sites was completely contrary to the purposes for which the vaccines were authorized by the EMA. The speaker further argues that evaluating vaccine safety required that side effects be properly recorded. They quote the EMA as saying it expects many reports of side effects occurring during or shortly after vaccination, meaning that complaints must be reported in the first period of vaccination. The speaker then says that the government supported a policy in which these complaints were not reported in the first 14 days after vaccination because the vaccine would need 10 to 14 days to become effective. The speaker claims that all complaints in that time were instead attributed to coronavirus, calling this both fraudulent and deliberately endangering human lives. The speaker also refers to an ongoing “gigantic so-called unexplained excess mortality.” In summary, they state that the EMA information is devastating for the vaccination policy of Rutte and De Jonge, claiming the government knew the vaccines would not protect against virus transmission but did not share that information with the public. The speaker says the government pushed the vaccines on citizens with “lies,” concealed side effects, and endangered the health of everyone who took the vaccine. They conclude that the vaccination campaigns should be stopped as soon as possible because they are not safe and do not meet EMA requirements. The speaker ends by saying the government and all political parties that supported this should be held accountable for their “lies and deception,” and then hands the word to Jojim Koers.

Amsterdam, The Hague, and Rotterdam have high migrant populations from non-Christian, non-Western countries. London and Brussels also have a majority of migrants. The speaker believes the great replacement theory is now reality, with native populations being outnumbered. They criticize leaders for celebrating this shift as "diversity" meaning fewer white people. They question why leaders would be happy about their people no longer being the majority in their own country.

The speech argues that the migration turnaround announced by Chancellor Merz and Interior Minister Dobrindt is a total bluff. It claims that hundreds of thousands still enter Germany’s social system each year, with 150,000 asylum applications last year and a matching number through family reunification, indicating ongoing immigration pressure. The speaker asserts that newly designated safe countries of origin affect only a fraction of illegal migration and that misuse of the asylum system persists. The speaker accuses the current and previous governments of “plundering” Germany, noting that more than half a billion euros in child benefits were sent abroad in 2025 alone. It is claimed that child benefit transfers have risen sharply over the last decade, totaling 5,000,000,000 euros since 2010. The main asylum-origin countries are described as among the world’s most violent, and the speaker contends that uncontrolled mass migration has brought escalating crime and the wars and conflicts of the Middle East into German streets. According to the speech, the migration policy harms the native population and erodes essential elements such as homeland, freedom, security, and educational opportunities. It is asserted that established policy has created No-Go areas and parallel societies within the country and at schools, and that it has opened and even naturalized Islamist subversion. The overall claim is that current policy is failing to protect German society, culture, and the social contract, while enabling ongoing and amplified immigration and its perceived negative consequences.

The speaker states that an historic flood of undocumented immigrants crossed the border during the first three years of the administration, with arrivals quadrupling from the last year of President Trump. The speaker asks if it was a mistake to loosen immigration policies. The other speaker responds that the policies proposed are about fixing a problem, not promoting one. The first speaker reiterates that the numbers quadrupled. The other speaker claims that they have cut the flow of illegal immigration by half, as well as the flow of fentanyl by half, but that Congress needs to act to fix the problem.

Ik wil het hebben over de kraan: de kraan staat open; dit jaar is er meer immigratie naar Europa dan ooit, en het krijgt erger. Uw taak is hierover te spreken; het is uw verantwoordelijkheid en plicht, wat de kiezer van u verlangt. Ga voor het Australisch model: ngoschepen geen mensen meer laten afzetten, illegale boten en smokelaars stoppen. Sluit akkoorden met Afrikaanse en Noord-Afrikaanse landen en stop illegale migratie. Dat is uw opdracht; volgend jaar in juni wordt u afgerekend. Let me talk about the faucet: the faucet is open; this year there is more immigration to Europe than ever, and it gets worse. Your task is to speak about the faucet: it is your responsibility and duty. Go for the Australian model: ngoschepen no longer drop people, illegal boats and smugglers cannot depart. Make agreements with African and North-African countries to stop illegal migration. That is your assignment; next June you will be held to account.

The speaker expresses frustration that no one in the room is addressing the Islam and Islamization as the main cause of antisemitism. They question why the Islam is not being held accountable for its association with hatred towards Jews. The speaker urges the minister to acknowledge that Islam is a significant contributor to antisemitism and to stop allowing open borders and the influx of more Muslims into the country. They argue that this will only lead to an increase in antisemitism and the exodus of Jews from the country. The speaker criticizes the minister for denying the intrinsic antisemitism in the Quran and suggests that the solution lies in de-Islamizing the Netherlands through addressing mass immigration from Islamic countries.

De spreker reageert op commotie over zijn eerdere woordgebruik als lid van de oppositie. Hij benadrukt dat er een nieuwe situatie is ontstaan, waarin hij als lid van een fractie de rechtsstaatsverklaring heeft ondertekend en zich daaraan zal houden. Hij erkent dat de demografie van Nederland verandert, met name in de grote steden, en dat het legitiem is om zich daar zorgen over te maken. Echter, hij neemt afstand van de termen 'omvolking' en 'omvolkingstheorie', omdat deze een bewust planmatig beleid suggereren en een negatieve connotatie met het nazisme hebben. Hij gelooft niet in een dergelijk plan en verafschuwt alles wat met Nazi's te maken heeft. Hij sluit zich aan bij het standpunt van de AIVD en NCTV en zal de termen niet meer gebruiken, maar in plaats daarvan spreken over de zorgelijke demografische ontwikkelingen in Nederland. **English translation:** The speaker responds to the commotion about his previous use of words as a member of the opposition. He emphasizes that a new situation has arisen, in which he, as a member of a parliamentary group, has signed the rule of law declaration and will adhere to it. He acknowledges that the demographics of the Netherlands are changing, particularly in the major cities, and that it is legitimate to worry about this. However, he distances himself from the terms 'population replacement' and 'population replacement theory', because they suggest a deliberate planned policy and have a negative connotation with Nazism. He does not believe in such a plan and detests everything related to Nazis. He aligns himself with the position of the AIVD and NCTV and will no longer use the terms, but instead speak of the worrying demographic developments in the Netherlands.

Speaker 0: Stop spreading the nonsense that a few bad apples are ruining it for the rest of the Muslims. This is a large majority of 700,000 Muslims who reject our free society. Mr. Prime Minister, you have imported a monster into our country with Islam, which poses a great danger. Here are some proposals for the umpteenth time, Madam Chair. One: acknowledge that Islam is an ideology of hate and terror that does not belong in the Netherlands. Two: immediately close our borders to asylum seekers and immigrants from Islamic countries, reinstate border controls. Three: start dismantling Islamic institutions like mosques, especially those receiving foreign funding. Four: imprison or deport anyone who threatens or uses violence, including hundreds of jihadist sympathizers. And five, ask schools and media to display a Mohammed cartoon to show our unwavering commitment to freedom. Finally, to the 700,000 Muslims who do not respect our freedom, democracy, and core values, I say: Leave. Go to an Islamic country where you can enjoy their rules. This is our land, not yours. This is the Netherlands.

Penny Morton was asked about the promise to reduce net migration in various manifestos since 2010, with over 4.3 million people entering the country. The questioner doubts the credibility of a new promise to cut migration in the 5th manifesto due to past failures.

Speaker 0 expresses support for Israel and the right of Israel to defend itself, but says they have to do this because they simply have no option if they are to survive as a country, and frankly, in many ways, as a race in that part of the world. Speaker 1 asks whether immigration represents a major threat to Britain from a demographic perspective, noting that in the last twenty years the white British population has declined from 87% to 74%, and asks if that is a concern. Speaker 0回答: No. No. Speaker 1 reiterates the claim of rapid demographic change, stating that the fastest and most rapid decline of the white British population ever experienced in British history has occurred in a tiny short period of time, and that majority cities that were once 90% white British are now majority ethnic minorities, citing London, Leicester, and Birmingham, and asks why this isn’t a concern of Speaker 0. Speaker 0 responds: But they're not unrecognizable as being English because of skin color. They're unrecognizable because of culture. He adds that he genuinely thinks the British are the most open minded, most accepting people.

Speaker 1: Mentions there are many things she wishes people knew, but mostly with the administration she wishes people knew that “we're letting in criminals daily.” Speaker 2: States the big issue for the region is migration, noting “we poured a lot of money into Central America,” amounting to “4,000,000,000 over four years,” but migrants are now coming from elsewhere, including Venezuela. Speaker 3: Asks, “So what is the end goal?” Speaker 1: Asks why aren’t they allowing children, noting “a lot of children travel to The United States, David.” Speaker 2: Explains aid goes to female presence in Mexico, training women, and mentions working with gender issues in Pakistan, aiming to recruit, retain, and advance more women in law enforcement. Asks whether US taxpayers’ money should be spent in “our country on this issue,” implying women may not care about certain aspects. Speaker 2: Asks how close Secretary Lincoln is to him, “five degrees separation,” and notes migration is a niche industry that flies under the radar; the average American doesn’t know what they do. Speaker 1: Thanks the chairman, ranking member, and members for the opportunity to testify. Speaker 2: Mentions upcoming briefings in two weeks on the FY 2025 budget request on the Hill. Speaker 0: States migration is the big issue for the Hill and asks, “Stop migration. What are we doing to stop migration?” Speaker 1: Responds that he’s not accountable for that and says, “We do stuff,” referencing the root causes strategy, which is about giving money to support and help people at the origins of migrants so they feel they can stay there instead of migrating. It’s “Central America, basically.” He says they poured a lot of money into Central America, and again mentions “4,000,000,000 over four years.” Speaker 2: Asks if it’s doing anything; response: yes, for them, but migrants are now coming from elsewhere like Venezuela, and acknowledges that outcome looks bad for the administration and for politics in general. Speaker 3: Seeks the end goal and asks again why there’s a limit on who’s allowed in. Speaker 1: Cites changes in demographics in the United States; notes that Nebraskans are traditional Americans not leftists, while Latin Americans are described as leftists, framing it as a system to try to change demographics.

**Summary in Dutch:** Speaker 1 wil het hoofdlijnenakkoord openbreken, met name op het gebied van asiel. Hij stelt dat de huidige maatregelen onvoldoende zijn en dat Nederland een "groot AZC" dreigt te worden. Asielzoekers blijven langer en kosten meer dan arbeidsmigranten, die de staat vaak nog iets opleveren. Ondanks dat de PVV zich redelijk heeft opgesteld en concessies heeft gedaan, is hun geduld nu op. Kiezers zijn teleurgesteld over de resultaten van het asielbeleid. De wetten van Faber zijn nog niet doorgevoerd, maar zelfs als ze dat zijn, zullen ze niet genoeg zijn. Speaker 1 wil hardere maatregelen om de instroom te verminderen en de uitstroom te verhogen, en wijst erop dat andere Europese landen verdergaande maatregelen nemen. **Summary in English:** Speaker 1 wants to break open the main agreement, especially in the area of asylum. He argues that the current measures are insufficient and that the Netherlands is in danger of becoming a "large asylum center." Asylum seekers stay longer and cost more than labor migrants, who often still yield something to the state. Despite the PVV behaving reasonably and making concessions, their patience has now run out. Voters are disappointed with the results of the asylum policy. The Faber laws have not yet been implemented, but even if they are, they will not be enough. Speaker 1 wants tougher measures to reduce inflow and increase outflow, pointing out that other European countries are taking more far-reaching measures.

Speaker 0 states that voters in Pennsylvania and across the country consider immigration a key election issue, specifically the influx of illegal immigrants from over 150 countries. Speaker 0 asks how many illegal immigrants Speaker 1's administration has released into the country over the last three and a half years, suggesting a number like 1,000,000 or 3,000,000. Speaker 1 agrees immigration is a topic of discussion. Speaker 1 states that the U.S. has a broken immigration system that needs repair. Speaker 0 claims that 6,000,000 people have been released into the country.

Speaker 0 asserts that under former secretary Mayorkas, described as a dual citizen with Israel and a Jew, the DHS imported over 80,000 refugees after the Afghan withdrawal, and claims this number does not include “millions of migrants from elsewhere.” The speaker states that Mayorkas’ impeachment was dropped due to anti Semitic conspiracy theories known as the “Klerge plan,” and contrasts this with reference to a “literally a 177 page UN document titled Replacement Migration.” The speaker contends that “Immigration is the tool of the Zionist occupied government in order to justify the full establishment and implementation of a permanent authoritarian surveillance police state,” and claims they are utilizing the Patriot Act and Palantir “as a weapon against the American people.” The speaker alleges that ICE “receives their training, policies, procedures, protocols directly from the IDF,” and that “ICE has hundreds, if not thousands, of IDF foreign military members operating within the agency.” They further claim that “these United States Of America are not only occupied,” and describe “a foreign paramilitary domestic terrorist organization operating under the guise of a federal agency on our streets, by definition.” The speaker proclaims that the country is in the “beginning phases of Bolshevik Revolution two point o,” and invokes the phrase “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” They reference their own oath: “I swore a note to support and defend the constitution of The United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” The passage ends with the speaker asking, “Did you?”

De spreker wil reageren op commotie over zijn woordgebruik in het verleden als lid van de oppositie. Hij zit nu in een fractie die de rechtsstaatsverklaring mede heeft ondertekend en zal zich daaraan houden. De spreker stelt dat de demografie van Nederland verandert, met name in de grote steden, en dat hij zich daar zorgen over maakt. Hij realiseert zich dat de termen 'omvolking' en 'omvolkingstheorie' onjuist en ongewenst zijn, en een verschrikkelijke connotatie naar het verleden en het nazisme met zich meebrengen. Hij neemt hier volledig afstand van en zal die termen niet meer gebruiken. Hij gelooft niet in een plan of complot en verafschuwt alles wat met nazi's en hun ideologie te maken heeft. Hij sluit zich aan bij de AIVD en de NCTV die zich tegen omvolking en omvolkingstheorie hebben gekeerd, en zal in het vervolg spreken over de zeer zorgelijke demografische ontwikkelingen in Nederland. --- The speaker wants to respond to the commotion about his past use of words as a member of the opposition. He is now in a faction that co-signed the rule of law declaration and will abide by it. The speaker states that the demographics of the Netherlands are changing, especially in the major cities, and that he is concerned about this. He realizes that the terms 'population replacement' and 'population replacement theory' are incorrect and undesirable, and carry a terrible connotation to the past and Nazism. He distances himself completely from this and will no longer use those terms. He does not believe in a plan or conspiracy and abhors everything related to Nazis and their ideology. He joins the AIVD and the NCTV, who have turned against population replacement and population replacement theory, and will henceforth speak of the very worrying demographic developments in the Netherlands.

Speaker 0 challenges Speaker 1 on leadership and promises, noting that public faith is essential to recover in the polls. They reference Speaker 1’s pledge to “smash the gangs” and point out that small boat crossings and the use of asylum hotels have continued to rise, asking if the mission is succeeding and whether the promise to end asylum hotels by the end of the parliament (2029) will be met. Speaker 1 responds that asylum hotels peaked at 400 and are now about 197, with some of that decline occurring before they came to power. The criticization centers on the previous government failing to process asylum claims, which allowed tens of thousands to arrive without determination. This, Speaker 1 argues, created a growing pool needing accommodation, making the hotel system “absurd.” The only long-term solution, he says, is to process those claims and determine who should stay and who should be removed. He claims they have removed 50,000 since taking office—the largest number in the best part of a decade—and reiterates a commitment to ending asylum hotels by the end of this parliament, though he notes it was not a fulfilled part of the manifesto. Speaker 0 presses again, asking for progress and whether the target will be met this year, emphasizing taxpayer frustration due to the last government’s mess and the tens of thousands in limbo awaiting decisions. Speaker 1 clarifies that there is no fixed date yet; he wants the timeline brought forward and accelerated, but he does not want to set a date until the team is confident it can be met. He asserts that the evidence of progress will appear in coming months, and, as they move into 2026, there will be visible steps toward closing the hotels. He stresses that the only lasting reduction in asylum hotels will come from swift processing of claims, ensuring those without a right to be here are removed, and that the pursuit of this objective must be brought forward, not delayed.

An interviewer states that undocumented immigrant arrivals quadrupled during the first three years of the speaker's administration compared to the last year of President Trump's term and asks if loosening immigration policies was a mistake. The speaker responds that the problem is long-standing and that solutions have been offered since day one. The interviewer asks again if allowing the increase was a mistake. The speaker says the proposed policies are about fixing, not promoting, the problem. The interviewer reiterates that the numbers quadrupled. The speaker claims that due to their actions, they have cut the flow of illegal immigration and fentanyl by half, but congressional action is needed to fix the problem.

Thank you for voting for the VVD. We will use your vote to make the Netherlands better. We aim to limit migration, support middle-income earners, help businesses, and build houses. We want to form a Center-Right coalition with PVG, NRC, and BBB, the three major winners. We take responsibility and will deliver on our promises. We will work towards a Center Bridge Cabinet from the Second Chamber. We understand the need for change and believe we can achieve more for you from the Chamber. We will also bring our own VVD proposals. We do not accept any compromise on the rule of law or the country's financial stability. We are open to discussions with PVG, NRC, and BBB to determine the best form of collaboration. We are ready to start talking.