This article describes the migration history of the Netherlands after World War II. The emphasis is on labour migration as the article seeks to clarify that the inflow of foreign labour had a large impact on the magnitude and the course of migration flows towards and from the Netherlands. This is quite obvious for the period in which labour migration was the most important immigration type. However, this article also deals with the influence of labour migration of earlier periods on other migration types, which became the most important immigration types from the first oil crisis of 1973. Next to the immigration history, the inflow of foreign labourers also affected the emigration history of the Netherlands to a certain extent.

Since 1995 the influx of labour migrants in the Netherlands has increased steadily from over 10.000 in 1995 to around 47.000 in 2011. As a consequence, from 2007, searching a job is the main migration motive of non-Dutch immigrants to migrate to the Netherlands. On average, one third of all labour migrants were women. Explanations for the fact that a minority of the labour migrants coming to the Netherlands are women can be derived from the literature. Possible reasons are gender patterns (in the Netherlands and/or the countries of origin) and differences in the personal networks of men and women. In addition, the Dutch labour migration policy, and in particular the conditions applying to labour migrants (in terms of education and employment sector) as well as the restriction on the right of family members of labour migrants to work in the Netherlands, may limit the influx of female labour migrants.

It is often overlooked that many migrants only stay temporary in the host country. From a policy view the question as to what extent labour market performance affects the decisions of migrants to return to their home country is highly relevant. Based on data on recent labour migrants to the Netherlands this question is investigated. From the host country perspective it is positive that unemployment and low income shorten the duration of stay. This implies that the overconcern by host countries being burdened by welfare seekers is unfounded. However, high-income migrants are also more prone to leave. Thus, even when policies of attracting highly qualified labour migrants are successful, this won’t have a sustainable effect on the labour market in the Netherlands. These migrants usually don’t stay very long in the country, but either move on or return to their home country.

This article describes the social position of Central and Eastern European (CEE) migrants in the Netherlands, in particular their labour and housing position, using the results of recent Dutch research by three different groups of scholars. We cannot speak of a homogeneous group of migrants. The prevailing image of the hard-working labour migrant, doing low-qualified and often low-paid work (even though many of them are highly skilled) and faced with poor working and living conditions is largely confirmed by the available research. However, there are also knowledge workers (‘kennismigranten’) among the migrants from CEE-countries working in the Netherlands. In addition, the authors also found partners and children of previous migrants from CEE-countries, and students. This diversity of the new group of migrants from CEE-countries forms a challenge for local governments to find appropriate instruments to lead integration on the right track.

Recent labour migration from Central and Eastern Europe has, next to positive economic facets, also negative aspects like nuisance. This article describes the nature of this nuisance and the circumstances causing this. According to key informants who have been interviewed for this study, the nuisances discussed in this article pertain to only a small part of the labour migrants. The nuisance related to labour migrants from Central and Eastern Europe mostly consists of loud ‘noises of living’ around the home and in public space. Considering the nuisance, the following aspects seem to be part of the cause: thin-walled houses and the (illegal) letting per room; poor commitment to the neighbourhood due to temporary stay; quarrels and acts of violence between labour migrants and excessive drinking; lack of privacy and therefore meeting in public space; and housing in neighbourhoods with an accumulation of social issues. In this article the authors describe these aspects and their occurrence.

This article focusses on the share of Roma in the labour migration from Eastern and Central Europe to the Netherlands. By combining European reports on the situation of what is Europe’s largest minority group with insights from Dutch migration studies push and pull factors are identified as well as the mobility patterns of Roma involved in the process of migration. Attention is also paid to the ‘when and how’ of the Dutch response (‘agenda setting’) – at home and in the European context – to the growing importance of the Roma issue in Europe. As an example the position of Bulgarian Roma in larger cities like Rotterdam is explored further.