Between Sanctuary and Hostility: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Municipal Policies on BBB-services in Amsterdam and Rotterdam

The national government’s decision to discontinue the National Alien Provision (LVV) pilot in the Netherlands left participating municipalities, including Amsterdam and Rotterdam, to decide whether to continue funding Bed, Bad, Brood (BBB) services with local resources. This study addresses how local political actors in Amsterdam and Rotterdam legitimize their decisions regarding the provision of these services to undocumented migrants. It examines their contrasting approaches within the broader context of sanctuary cities and the local turn in migration governance. Specifically, the research employs critical discourse analysis of municipal council meetings, motions, and amendments. Findings reveal a clear difference in the framing of undocumented migrants. Amsterdam consistently used neutral language and humanitarian portrayals, aligning with its self-perception as a human-rights city. In contrast, Rotterdam increasingly employed negative and threat-based framings after a coalition change, reflecting its anti-sanctuary stance. Legitimization strategies also varied: Amsterdam emphasized human rights and legal obligations, while Rotterdam shifted towards economic, practical, and societal concerns. Interestingly, both supporting and opposing parties often utilized similar legitimization types but strategically reframed them to align with their political ideologies. This study demonstrates that the legitimacy of policy decisions is dynamically constructed through evolving framings and legitimization strategies, and heavily influenced by shifts in local political power. It contributes to understanding the strategic nature of local migration discourse and the factors driving divergent urban approaches to undocumented migrants.