Is it possible or even desirable to make a cost-benefit analysis of immigration? This is the awkward debate being waged in Dutch politics after the far-right Freedom Party demanded to know the impact immigration has on the nation's budget.

The government answered most of the questions but refused to address non-Western immigrants specifically, as the Freedom Party has demanded. Integration Minister Eberhard van der Laan says the government does not compile figures on specific groups in society. The Freedom Party argues the government is failing to fulfil its duty to provide information to the electorate. RNW's political editor John Tyler explains:

Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders is best known internationally for his controversial anti-Islam film Fitna, a compilation of clips warning against the allegedly pernicious influence of Islam. He hit the international headlines again when the UK barred him from entering the country on the ground that his visit would stir up hatred. In his home country he faces a court case for inciting discrimination.

Muslim
In the Netherlands, where the largest immigrant groups come from predominantly Muslim countries Turkey and Morocco, the Freedom Party is calling for a total halt to immigration. Most controversially, Mr Wilders has said millions of immigrants in Europe should be sent to their country of origin - even if they weren’t born there – if they commit a crime or “start thinking about jihad or sharia”.

It is against this background that the Freedom Party put in a request to the government to calculate in financial terms the precise costs and benefits of non-Western “mass immigration” to the Netherlands.

Constitution
The government duly promised to answer the question and come up with the figures. Sure enough last week the Labour Party Integration Minister duly produced nearly thirty pages of relevant data on government finances. However, conspicuous by its absence was a figure expressing the cost to the country of an individual immigrant.

“We do not keep accounts on the value of human beings," said Mr Van der Laan. Yesterday in parliament he added that “On principle we won’t answer the question: what does a member of an ethnic minority cost? Because most of them were born in the Netherlands. Article 1 of the constitution does not allow us to discriminate among citizens.”

However, he stressed that the Freedom Party had received a proper answer to its question. In fact – despite the minister’s assertions – the Dutch statistics office did carry out a study on the cost of immigration back in 2003, and the results were duly included.

Mess
What caused a stir was a remark by Mr Van der Laan that the refusal to name a figure was partly a political decision. This seemed to imply that the minister was trying to dodge his constitutional obligation to provide information. In the debate last night he admitted that his initial handling of the request had been awkward. The opposition Socialist Party went further, accusing him of “making a mess of it”, and the senior coalition partner Christian Democrats said he had been “a bit stupid”.

But while the government has an obligation to supply information, what preoccupied many MPs in yesterday’s debate was the intention behind the Freedom Party’s request in the light of its anti-Islam and anti-immigrant political agenda. Freedom Party MP Sietse Fritsma would say no more than that “the tax payer has a right to information”.