How selective immigration policies can curb populist backlash Canada, Sweden serve as success stories

Opposition to immigration is reshaping politics worldwide. Donald Trump’s hardline stance helped secure his 2024 return to the White House, where he immediately declared a southern border emergency. Similar anti-immigration sentiment is boosting far-right parties in Europe, forcing even centre-left governments like the UK Labour Party to adopt tougher measures.

Pro-immigration advocates argue that migration benefits economies and enriches societies, blaming prejudice, misinformation, and political scapegoating for resistance. However, as an article published by Foreign Affairs acknowledges, many citizens’ concerns are practical—whether the state can maintain order, ensure fair job competition, and protect housing and public services. Mismanaged migration flows, rather than messaging, often fuel backlash.

Governments frequently misread public opinion, focusing on reducing immigration numbers, such as the UK’s net migration targets. Yet research conducted by the article's author shows attitudes do not correlate with actual immigration levels: small inflows, like asylum seekers in New York in 2022, can spark fierce debate, while much larger movements—such as millions of Ukrainians entering the EU—face less resistance. Even areas with few immigrants can harbour strong opposition when immigration dominates the national debate.

Support hinges on perceptions of societal benefit. In the UK, immigration was more accepted when seen as boosting the country’s economy or filling labour shortages. Data from other nations show similar patterns: voters are more open to immigration when convinced it strengthens the nation, regardless of direct personal impact.

Sweden & Canada serving as successful yet vastly different case studies

Across wealthy democracies, immigration policies designed to meet economic needs tend to attract broader public support than those based primarily on humanitarian principles. The publication contrasts two national approaches that are successfully curbing both populist sentiment and backlash to immigration: Sweden’s open asylum system and Canada’s selective, skills-based model—to illustrate this point.

In recent decades, Sweden has welcomed hundreds of thousands of refugees and their families without considering applicants’ skills or income. Generous welfare provisions have been central to Sweden’s long-standing commitment to asylum and equality. However, many newcomers, particularly asylum seekers, contribute less in taxes than they receive in benefits.

This imbalance, coupled with rising numbers of arrivals, has heightened social tensions and raised concerns about strain on the welfare state. These perceptions of a malfunctioning immigration system have fuelled the rise of the far-right Sweden Democrats since the 2010s, whose platform capitalises on public unease.

Economists often argue that even low-skilled immigrants bring long-term economic benefits. They can fill critical labour shortages, push native-born workers into higher-paying roles, and revitalise struggling rural or industrial regions. Yet these benefits are typically diffuse and slow to materialise, making them difficult for voters to recognise. This disconnect between economic theory and public perception contributes to political backlash against humanitarian-based immigration policies.

Canada offers a markedly different example. It admits large numbers of immigrants—among the highest per capita globally—but does so selectively. Using a transparent, points-based system, Canada prioritises applicants with in-demand skills, relevant education, and the ability to contribute to the economy in the near term. The clarity of this approach helps the public understand the rationale behind admissions.

When issues arise, such as concerns over housing shortages or abuses of student visas, the Canadian government has acted quickly to adjust policy and tighten oversight. These responsive measures have maintained public confidence in the system, preventing significant political gains by anti-immigration forces. As a result, Canada has managed to sustain both high immigration levels and relative political consensus on the issue.

While selective immigration policies may appear impersonal compared to humanitarian-driven approaches, the publication's research suggests they are the only reliable path to maintaining public trust in open immigration systems.

No democracy has successfully reduced public opposition to immigration without being deliberate about whom it admits. Cross-national data further indicate that selective systems, like Canada’s, actually facilitate higher overall immigration by reassuring citizens that arrivals will benefit the host country.

As the article highlights, immigration debates are often presented in stark, binary terms—open versus closed borders, pro- versus anti-immigration, nationalist versus cosmopolitan. However, the key dividing line is not openness itself but the type of immigration policy pursued. Policies that focus on economic contributions and labour needs are more likely to gain durable public backing than those driven solely by humanitarian imperatives.

By Nazrin Sadigova