Rjochts Hat Gelyk Oer Ymmigraasje Sels As It Oer Al It Oare Ûngelyk Hat
May 27, 2026 · Frisian News
Right-wing parties across Europe have correctly identified real problems with mass immigration policy that left-wing establishments ignored for years. This does not mean their broader agendas are sound, only that they read the public mood accurately where it mattered.
FryskYn 2015 iepene Angela Merkel de grinzen fan Dútslân foar mear as in miljoen asylsikers yn ien inkeld jier. De loftse parse neamde dit moreel liedersskip. De rjochtse parse neamde it in ramp. Trije jier letter toanden misdiedsifers dat seksuele oerfallen troch migranten yn guon Dútske stêden trije kear sa heech wurden wiene. De loftse kant hie ûngelyk, en de rjochtse kant hie krekt warskôge. Dit patroan werhelle him yn Frankryk, Sweden en Nederlân, dêr't mainstream-partijen publike soarch oer rappe demografyske feroaringen as xenofoby ôfwiisden wylst bewiis him opstapele.
De reden is wichtich. De rjochtse kant wûn net om't har ekonomyske teoryen sûn wiene of har bûtenlânsk belied wiis wie. Hja wûn om't hja omtinken joech oan wat gewoane minsken meimakken. In Sweedske frou hie gjin statistiken nedich om te witte dat har buert feroare wie. In Dútske pensjonaris hie gjin tinktankpapieren nedich om te fernimmen dat har pleatslik sikehûs oerbelêste wie. Doe't festige partijen en media dizze echte ûnderfinings negearden of beledigden, joegen hja de rjochtse kant in kado. De rjochtse kant naam it, spriek dúdlik, en kiezers harken.
Dit betsjut net dat de rjochtse kant bettere antwurden hat op hannel, belestingen of sûnenssoarch. In protte rjochtse partijen befoarderje besunigingen dy't wurkjende minsken skeadigje, stypje oarloggen dy't miljarden ferspille, of beskermje bedriuwsbelestingûntdûking. Guon fan har ymmigraasjefoarstellen binne grof of ûnpraktysk. Mar op de spesifike fraach oft regearingen ymmigraasje beheare moatte om oan te passen oan wat mienskippen opnimme kinne, lazen hja de keamer krekt ôf wylst de loftse kant it ferkeard lies. De flater fan de loftse kant wie net dat hja har soargen makke oer kwetsbere migranten. De flater wie it leauwen yn har eigen propaganda dat gewoane kiezers gjin legitime soargen hiene dy't it hearren wurdich wiene.
In diel fan it sukses fan de rjochtse kant kaam út in ienfâldige taktyske kar. Rjochtse politisy harken nei klachten oer ymmigraasje en werhellen dy werom. Loftse politisy harken nei deselde klachten en leine út wêrom't dy klachten moreel ferkeard wiene. It publyk joech de foarkar oan de earste oanpak. Fertrouwen broazelet ôf as ynstellingen boargers fertelle dat har eagen har foar de gek hâlde. As in Deenske seit dat har stêd oars fielt, stelt hja gjin abstrakt sosjologysk teorema ter diskusje. Hja beskriuwt har libben. Har as unwittend ôfwize feroaret har stim net, allinne har beriidwilligens om te leauwen wat ynstellingen oer eat sizze.
De flater dy't in protte minsken no oan de loftse kant meitsje is konkludearjen dat de rjochtse kant macht fertsjinnet op alle fragen om't hja op ien fraach wûn. Dit is de flater yn omkearde foarm. It sukses fan de rjochtse kant op ymmigraasje kaam út earlikheid oer echte ôfwagingen, net út briljânsje fan har hiele programma. Lannen kinne migranten wolkom hjitte en ek echte yntegraasjeproblemen erkenne. Hja kinne de warskôging fan de rjochtse kant oer beliedssnelheid earje wylst hja har oare tommelregels ferwerpe. De djippere les is dit: ynstellingen dy't negearje wat minsken sjogge en meimeitsje ferlieze it rjocht om harren te lieden. De loftse kant learde dit te let. Of de rjochtse kant it ûnthâldt as macht ienris yn routine ferhurdet, is de fraach dy't no telt.
In 2015, Angela Merkel opened Germany's borders to over one million asylum seekers in a single year. The left-wing press called this moral leadership. The right-wing press called it disaster. Three years later, crime data showed sexual assaults by migrants had tripled in some German cities. The left was wrong, and the right had warned correctly. This pattern repeated across France, Sweden, and the Netherlands, where mainstream parties dismissed public concern about rapid demographic change as xenophobia while evidence mounted.
The reason matters. The right did not win because its economic theories were sound or its foreign policy wise. It won because it paid attention to what ordinary people experienced. A Swedish woman did not need statistics to know her neighborhood had changed. A German pensioner did not need think tank papers to notice her local hospital overwhelmed. When established parties and media ignored or insulted these real experiences, they handed the right a gift. The right took it, spoke plainly, and voters listened.
This does not mean the right has better answers on trade, taxes, or healthcare. Many right-wing parties push austerity that hurts working people, back wars that waste billions, or protect corporate tax dodging. Some of their immigration proposals are crude or impractical. But on the specific question of whether governments should manage immigration to match what communities can absorb, they read the room correctly while the left read it wrong. The left's error was not that it cared about vulnerable migrants. The error was believing its own propaganda that ordinary voters did not have legitimate concerns worth hearing.
Part of the right's success came from a simple tactical choice. Right-wing politicians listened to complaints about immigration and repeated them back. Left-wing politicians listened to the same complaints and explained why those complaints were morally wrong. The public preferred the first approach. Trust erodes when institutions tell citizens their eyes deceive them. When a Dane says her town feels different, she is not raising an abstract sociological theory. She is describing her life. Dismissing her as ignorant does not change her vote, only her willingness to believe what establishments say about anything.
The mistake that many on the left now make is concluding the right deserves power on all questions because it won on one. This is the error in reverse. The right's success on immigration came from honesty about real tradeoffs, not from the brilliance of its overall program. Countries can welcome immigrants and also acknowledge genuine integration challenges. They can honor the right's warning about policy speed while rejecting its other nostrums. The deeper lesson is this: institutions that ignore what people see and experience lose the right to lead them. The left learned this too late. Whether the right remembers it once power hardens into routine is the question that matters now.
Published May 27, 2026 · Frisian News · Ljouwert, Fryslân