A Shift in Progressive Politics: The Danish Social Democrats’ Stance on Immigration
In recent years, Denmark’s Social Democrats, led by Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, have faced intense criticism from progressives around the world for their stringent immigration policies. Many on the left have labeled the party as racist, reactionary, and even right-wing, arguing that their stance on immigration is a betrayal of progressive values. However, Frederiksen and her team firmly believe that their approach is not only consistent with progressivism but is, in fact, essential to preserving the very foundations of their welfare state. For Frederiksen, immigration is not a peripheral issue but a central concern—one that she argues is vital to maintaining the social cohesion necessary for a robust welfare system.
From her modern office in Copenhagen, Frederiksen explained that leftist politics thrive on collective solutions and a sense of shared community. Without this cohesion, voters are unlikely to support the high taxes that fund Denmark’s generous welfare programs. "Being a traditional Social Democratic thinker means you cannot allow everyone who wants to join your society to come," she said. In her view, unchecked immigration undermines the sustainability of welfare societies, placing undue burdens on the working class, such as strained public services, overcrowded schools, and increased competition for housing and jobs. These realities, Frederiksen argues, are felt most acutely by working-class families, who bear the brunt of the challenges posed by high immigration levels.
The Case for Restrictive Immigration: Frederiksen’s Principle, Not Politics
Frederiksen is unapologetic about her party’s immigration stance, insisting that it is rooted in principle rather than political opportunism. She and her party believe that high levels of immigration exacerbate economic inequality, a issue that progressives should prioritize addressing. By limiting immigration, the Social Democrats aim to protect the most vulnerable members of their own society—those who are already struggling to make ends meet. Frederiksen emphasizes that her party’s position on migration is not an outlier but a deeply held conviction. "It is something we do because we actually believe in it," she said.
This approach has proven politically effective, helping the Social Democrats return to power and maintain their position even as left-wing parties elsewhere have struggled. Frederiksen’s argument resonates with many working-class voters who feel that the economic and social costs of immigration are being ignored by more affluent progressives. She critiques what she sees as a disconnect between affluent leftists, who may idealize open borders, and the less privileged voters who experience the direct consequences of immigration firsthand. "There is a price to pay when too many people enter your society," Frederikken said bluntly. "Those who pay the highest price are the working class or lower class in the society. It is not the rich people. It is not those of us with good salaries, good jobs."
A Warning for Center-Left Parties: The Immigration Dilemma
The debate over immigration is not unique to Denmark. As center-left parties in other countries, including the United States, seek to regain power, they will have to grapple with the same challenges. Immigration is likely to remain a defining political issue in the coming years, driven by factors such as poverty, political instability, climate change, human trafficking, and the spread of social media. While wealthier nations with declining birthrates may need immigrants to sustain their economies, the current approach to immigration in the West has been largely unsuccessful.
In many countries, immigration has been chaotic, often taking place outside legal frameworks and at a pace that exceeds public comfort. Voters were rarely consulted about the scale of immigration, and had they been given the chance, they might have rejected it. Instead, opposition to immigration has often emerged after the fact, fueling populist backlashes. In the United States, Donald Trump’s victories in 2016 and 2024 were partly due to his hardline stance on immigration, including mass deportation. Similarly, in Europe, far-right parties have capitalized on anti-immigration sentiment, gaining significant political ground.
The Clash Between Progressive Ideals and Practical Realities
Frederiksen’s stance on immigration reflects a deeper tension within progressive politics: the conflict between the ideal of openness and inclusivity and the practical challenges of maintaining a cohesive, equitable society. While progressives often champion diversity and the rights of migrants, they must also address the concerns of their core constituents—working-class voters who feel that their interests are being overlooked.
The Danish Social Democrats’ approach is a response to this dilemma, prioritizing the welfare of their existing citizens over the goal of maximizing immigration. Frederiksen does not see this as a betrayal of progressive values but as a necessary adjustment to ensure that the welfare state remains sustainable. Her party’s success suggests that this strategy can resonate with voters, particularly those who feel that the left has lost touch with their concerns.
However, this approach is not without its critics. Many argue that restrictive immigration policies undermine the very principles of solidarity and equality that progressive movements were founded upon. The debate over immigration is thus not just about numbers or economics but about the kind of society we want to build. As the world grapples with the complexities of migration, the Danish Social Democrats’ stance offers a provocative case study of how center-left parties might navigate this fraught terrain.