The Impact on Migration Policy at the Forefront of European Politics

A protest sign displayed during a Day Without Immigrants (2017)

Credit: Master Steve Rapport / Wikimedia Commons

On June 2, 2025, the Dutch government collapsed due to internal disputes over migration. The issue continues to affect national politics across Europe, highlighting immigration as one of the most destabilizing forces. The far-right Freedom Party (PVV), led by Geert Wilders, pulled out of the ruling coalition just 11 months after the coalition took office, following disputes over migration legislation. Proposals such as freezing asylum applications, stopping the construction of reception centers, and limiting family reunifications were excluded from the upcoming laws. Immigration has evolved into a central political fault line. It has contributed to the rise of right-wing populism, shifts in mainstream policy, and increasing government instability. Although the UK, EU, and Denmark are responding to these issues in different ways, they all face pressure to adapt their policies due to rising right-wing populism, demographic shifts, and geopolitical instability. In the UK, this tension is intensified by labor shortages in sectors such as healthcare, rising support for the Reform Party, and Labour’s shift toward stricter immigration policy. Across the EU, proposals like third-country return hubs and the continued strain on southern states raise human rights and policy coordination challenges. Denmark’s cross-party restrictionist model reflects how migration has reshaped traditional ideological lines. These cases reveal a growing divide between political sentiment and economic necessity, an imbalance that will define the future of immigration governance in Europe.

After leaving the EU, the UK was no longer bound by EU migration laws, giving it the opportunity to reshape its immigration strategy independently. The Reform Party, led by Nigel Farage, initially proposed an immigration freeze in 2024, but has since reversed course, now supporting capped essential immigration. On May 12, 2025, Prime Minister Starmer announced plans to get stricter on legal immigration. While migration was once believed to benefit the economy, recent stagnation has increased political pressure to reassess that stance. The Labour Party has altered its stance on the subject, proposing an increase in the time to attain citizenship and stricter requirements for pathways to citizenship. Recently, the Reform Party has continued to grow, winning local elections, mayoral campaigns, and gaining support nationally. This illustrates growing dissatisfaction among the public, with immigration increasingly viewed as a source of economic and social strain. The Prime Minister now faces the challenge of managing this rise of support for the Reform Party as well as looking out for the future of the nation. Even with minimal economic growth, sectors like healthcare and hospitality still rely heavily on migrant labor to fill employment gaps. In 2024, vacancies in social welfare totaled 131,000. A major gap remains between the nation’s economic labor needs and the increasingly anti-immigration sentiment among the public. Keeping in mind the government’s responsibility to the people, this shift in immigration policy seems aimed at slowing the Reform Party’s growing influence.

While the UK can now make unilateral changes to its migration policy after Brexit, countries in the European Union, as well as those in the Schengen Zone, must reach consensus on policy. These policies proposed are seen differently across the EU, with some countries supporting tougher border control and others supporting tougher asylum requirements. For the EU, they have returned to a policy that involves “Return Hubs.” These hubs would be third-party countries used to temporarily house rejected asylum seekers before their return to their country of origin. Under current EU rules, rejected asylum seekers may only be returned to their country of origin or the country through which they entered the EU. Amnesty International and hundreds of other human rights organizations stand against the new policy, stating that it was previously a rejected proposal in 2018. The EU abides by the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits returning asylum seekers to countries where they may face harm. Without a legal framework to ensure transparency and oversight, the policy poses significant legal and reputational risks for the EU. As the hubs hope to remove these people from the EU, this outsources the enforcement of human rights that these asylum seekers are afforded, but there is a lack of specifics on how human rights will be protected under the plan. Further policy would specify that if one member country rejects an asylum claim, if they seek asylum in another EU country, that second country can uphold the initial rejection. Many Southern EU countries, such as Italy, Greece, and Germany, experience the majority of the immigration issues that are felt by the EU border. The Dublin Regulation is seen as unfair to southern EU countries in particular, as if an asylum seeker enters irregularly with no family residing in the EU or previous visa or residence permit, it generally falls upon the country in which they entered. While the return hub policies hope to relieve pressure, there remains a lack of policy that would support the equitable relocation of asylum seekers. Due to the general rise in populism and anti-immigration sentiments across the EU, centrist governments are put in a position that pushes them to adopt tougher stances on immigration, sometimes to the detriment of human rights considerations.

Since 2015, Denmark has pursued a tougher approach towards immigration. They have a highly restrictive migration policy, passing 70 amendments tightening immigration between 2015 and 2019. The Liberal and Social Democratic parties took a unique approach to immigration policy. They enacted strict legislation aimed at discouraging both immigration and asylum applications in Denmark. Legislation such as the Jewelry Bill allows the confiscation of non-sentimental jewelry of immigrants and asylum seekers to cover their stay in Denmark.  During the 2015 migrant crisis, the Danish public adopted a hardline stance on immigration. With one of the highest tax burdens in Europe, many feared that an influx of immigrants would strain their social welfare system. More recently, Denmark has continued its restrictive stance, attempting to outsource asylum processing to third countries, much like the UK’s Rwanda proposal, as well as being an outspoken supporter of the return hub idea. While Denmark is a part of the EU, they have opted out of many EU Justice and Home Affairs policies, allowing for domestic flexibility on migration policy. Despite the Social Democrats being a center-left party, they have maintained a hardline approach, illustrating how immigration policy has crossed party lines. Countries look to Denmark’s model as a way to meet their constituents’ demands for a strong welfare state while maintaining strict immigration control. As anti-immigration attitudes continue to become mainstream across Europe, Denmark is an example of a progressive government figuring out restrictionist policies to maintain political relevance and trust. 

Immigration has emerged as a defining political issue across Europe, changing party platforms and ideological lines, as well as exposing divides between economic needs and political sentiment. From the rise of the right-wing parties in the UK to the hardline politics in Denmark, migration policy has become central to the future of governance in Europe. While countries vary by response, the challenge is clear: how to create sustainable migration systems that are best for citizens and immigrants, based on economic demand and human rights. Europe is in need of reform and cooperation to contend with this issue, or the region will be at risk for instability, populism, and damage to human norms.