United States, Denmark, Italy – migrants on the way out
Editor’s note: Moses Becker is a special political commentator for News.Az. He holds a PhD in political science and specializes in interethnic and interreligious relations. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the position of News.Az.
For years, Western political elites insisted that mass migration was inevitable, irreversible, and morally obligatory. Borders were portrayed as outdated constructs. National identity was dismissed as a relic. Any attempt to restrict migration flows was framed as reactionary — even dangerous.
That consensus is now unraveling.
The United States, Denmark, and Italy — three countries operating in very different political contexts — are converging on a similar conclusion: uncontrolled migration carries political, economic, and social costs that democratic systems can no longer ignore.
Donald Trump’s first presidency marked the beginning of a structural shift in American immigration policy. His approach was blunt but clear: selective migration, stronger border enforcement, and tighter limits on asylum from specific countries. At the time, Democrats in Congress mobilized to block much of this agenda, arguing that such measures undermined the liberal international order and the principle of openness.
Source: Reuters
When Democrats returned to the White House, border restrictions were eased once again. The result was predictable: migration flows increased sharply. Major American cities struggled to absorb the influx. Social services became overstretched. Homeless encampments expanded. Public frustration intensified.
Trump’s return to office signaled not merely a political comeback but a broader recalibration of immigration philosophy. Within his first hundred days, deportations reportedly reached 139,000 individuals. Executive orders targeted birthright citizenship and asylum procedures — long-standing pillars of American immigration law. One order, titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship, sought to end the automatic granting of citizenship to children born in the United States to parents without permanent legal status.
Critics describe the measures as radical. Supporters call them overdue.
At the same time, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services was instructed to reexamine green cards issued to nationals from a broad list of “countries of concern.” Legal pathways to employment authorization were narrowed. A high-investment “golden visa” proposal was promoted, effectively redefining eligibility for residency through economic contribution rather than humanitarian criteria.
The message was clear: entry into the United States would no longer be treated as automatic, and citizenship would not be reduced to an administrative formality.
What is striking is not only America’s shift, but Europe’s as well.
Denmark has long been an outlier within the European Union. After the 2015–2016 migration crisis, Copenhagen quietly implemented one of the most restrictive immigration frameworks in the Western world. In 2019, a “paradigm shift” law established temporary — not permanent — protection as the default status for refugees. Integration ceased to be rhetorical; it became conditional. Employment was made mandatory for long-term residency. Welfare dependence became politically untenable.
The numbers are telling. Asylum applications fell by more than 80 percent. Overall immigration declined sharply. The Danish government, including its left-leaning leadership, openly defends strict controls as essential to preserving social cohesion.
Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen’s statement that Denmark must be “quite tough” on migration reflects a broader European reassessment. For years, Brussels championed a universalist approach to asylum and border policy. Now even the European Parliament has endorsed mechanisms allowing migrants to be redirected to “safe third countries” outside the EU.
Italy, facing sustained migration pressure across the Mediterranean, has followed a similar path. Expanded deportation powers, enhanced border screening, and even the possibility of naval involvement are now part of Rome’s policy toolkit. The objective is explicit: reassert sovereign control over entry, distinguish legal labor migration from irregular crossings, and reduce abuse of asylum procedures.
What unites these cases is not ideology. Denmark’s government leans left. Italy’s governing coalition leans conservative. Trump’s America reflects a form of populist nationalism. Yet all three are converging toward stricter migration governance.
Why now?
Because migration is no longer framed solely as a humanitarian issue. It has become an economic and technological question as well.
For decades, migrants filled labor shortages in manufacturing, construction, agriculture, and service industries. But the rise of automation, robotics, and artificial intelligence is reshaping labor markets across advanced economies. Structural demand for low-skilled labor is declining. Developed countries increasingly prioritize technological productivity over demographic supplementation.
In that context, large-scale migration becomes politically more difficult to defend.
Source: bertelsmann
Western societies are rediscovering that social cohesion, public trust, and national identity are not abstract ideals. They function as measurable political assets. Denmark’s performance in income equality, quality of life, low corruption, and low crime rates is not entirely separate from its strict integration and immigration policies. Social systems depend on shared norms and reciprocal obligations.
This does not signal the end of migration. It signals the end of open-ended migration.
An emerging Western model appears to rest on three principles: tighter border enforcement, conditional integration tied to employment and cultural adaptation, and a clear distinction between legal labor migration and irregular entry.
Critics warn of rising nationalism. Supporters argue for restored sovereignty. What is increasingly evident, however, is that the post-2015 migration consensus in the West has fractured.
The United States, Denmark, and Italy are not isolating themselves from the world. They are redefining the conditions under which participation is granted.
Whether this recalibration stabilizes Western societies or deepens ideological divisions remains uncertain. What is clear is that migration policy has moved from the moral margins to the strategic center of Western politics.
And it is unlikely to revert to the previous status quo.
(If you possess specialized knowledge and wish to contribute, please reach out to us at opinions@news.az).
Similar news
