The Anti-Immigration Left(s) In Europe
Updated: Nov 14, 2025
Key points
The Migration Crisis Paradox in Europe
Europe’s migration crisis presents a striking paradox: while Chancellor Angela Merkel’s CDU, a centre-right party, welcomed over a million refugees from the Middle East in 2015, as she thought "Wir schaffen das" ("We can do this"), it was Denmark’s Social Democrats (a left-wing party) that implemented some of the continent’s toughest anti-migration policies. These measures proved effective in reducing migration, defying conventional political expectations.
This paradox underscores a broader truth: migration is not an issue monopolized by the far right. Just as climate change transcends the Green agenda and technological challenges extend beyond "geeks," migration has evolved into a cross-partisan concern. Historically, far-right parties have capitalized on migrati
on as a defining issue, propelling them to electoral success across Western democracies. Yet, in recent years, the topic has extended significantly toward center-right.
A lesser-known but significant development is the adoption of anti-migration policies by left-leaning parties and movements. Recognizing that migration cannot be dismissed as a fringe concern, nor ignore its political and social implications. These parties have begun addressing it openly, without resorting to extremist rhetoric. Three distinct left-wing traditions (the radical left, labour , and social democrats parties) have engaged with migration as a major issue, particularly in Germany, the UK, and Denmark. By doing so, they have broken taboos, regained electoral ground, and even returned to power, implementing pragmatic and effective regulations.
Could this approach serve as a template for other European governments? The shift suggests that addressing migration with nuance, rather than ideological rigidity, may be the key to both political success and policy efficacy.
The German radical Left: Bundnis Sarah Wegenknecht (BSW)
BSW, the party founded by Sarah Wagenknecht, emerged as a splinter group from Die Linke, a
radical left-wing party originally co-founded by her husband, Oskar Lafontaine. Lafontaine himself had broken away from the SPD to advocate for a more radical left-wing agenda. What makes BSW particularly intriguing (and even counterintuitive for mainstream thinking) is its decision to put immigration among top issues. This stance challenges the conventional assumption that migration concerns are exclusive to far-right politics.
BSW’s focus reflects a broader trend: migration is increasingly becoming a pressing issue for the working-class, the concern is particularly stronger in Eastern Germany. The lower strata of society, often the most exposed to the impacts of mass migration, are driving this shift. By addressing migration openly, BSW underscores that the topic transcends ideological boundaries, demanding attention from across the political spectrum.
How BSW does take stock of the migration situation...
BSW wants a better control of immigration through more secure borders.. Germany has welcome the equivalent of big city every year since 2015. This had several consequence on the local society and its resources:
Overcrowded classroom with a large part of the students who cannot speak German well enough.
Housing has become more challenging for middle income
Women feel unsafe. They now avoid streets and public baths as harassed more often.
More social benefits are allocated to migrants from €4bn in 2021 to €14bn in 2024. These are resources taken at the expense of single parents having less access to day-care due to lack of capacity.
Uncontrolled mass arrival of men with no information on their backgrounds, their willingness to integrate poses security risk. This naïve approach resulted in a disproportionate large increase of knife crimes, sexual aggressions and religious-motivated terrorism.
Even criminals without the right to stay are rarely deported. The political failure to act upon it outrage both nationals as integrated immigrants (who abide by the laws). They fear that failed integration, Islamist violence and crime committed by non-German will tip public sentiment against them.
Although BWS is for refugee rights, uncontrolled passing of borders have to stop. A pause is necessary to establish ground: Anyone entering from a safe third country has no right to stay in Germany. Anyone with no right to stay should not be allowed to claim for asylum, residence nor social allowance.
The three attacks of Mannheim, Solingen and Magdeburg could have been avoided if authorities played their roles. The attacker of Solingen should not have been on German soil, if the expulsion right and procedure had been executed properly. The attacker of Magdeburg had already been convicted of violent threats in Germany. Instead a minister of Interior preferred allocating the surveillance of harmless government critics instead of genuine threats.
Key Demands on Asylum and Immigration Policy
1. Stricter Rules for Criminal Offenders
- Refugees who commit serious crimes should lose their right to asylum in Germany.
- Protection from deportation should only apply if there is clear evidence of a death penalty threat in their home country.
2. Enforcement of Deportations
- Immigrants who seriously violate the law must be expelled and deported.
- Authorities and courts should prioritize and expedite deportation procedures.
3. Addressing Illegal Residence
- Around 572,000 foreigners without legal status lived in Germany at the end of 2023.
- These individuals should be encouraged or required to leave Germany quickly to send a clear signal that illegal residence is not tolerated.
4. Criticism of Failed Deportations
- From January to September 2024, 23,610 out of 38,328 planned deportations failed.
- This is seen as a failure to uphold the rule of law and a broken promise by the Chancellor.
5. Reforming Asylum Procedures
- Asylum procedures should be completed within three months.
- Authorities and courts handling asylum cases need more staff and resources to speed up the process.
6. Focus on Non-Integrated Individuals
- Authorities should prioritize deporting those who are not integrated or unwilling to integrate, rather than targeting law-abiding, well-integrated immigrants.
7. Integration Requirements
- Learning German and entering the workforce are essential for integration.
- An adult education system should be established to help immigrants obtain school qualifications and vocational training.
8. Critique of EU Asylum Policy
- The current EU policy, which allows most arrivals to stay regardless of their protection status, creates a pull factor and encourages dangerous migration.
- The EU is criticized for abandoning those who cannot afford smugglers or endure dangerous routes.
9. Call for Policy Change
- Many European countries are demanding a shift in EU asylum policy.
- The German government is criticized for resisting necessary changes.
1. Dysfunctional Asylum System
- The current European asylum policy is broken, enabling criminal smuggling networks and causing more harm than good.
- Asylum procedures should be reformed and conducted outside the EU in safe third countries.
2. Rejection of the Global Compact for Migration
- Germany should withdraw from the **Global Compact for Migration**, which promotes international migration.
3. Addressing Root Causes of Migration
- Focus on improving living conditions in countries of origin through development aid, climate protection, and ending wars.
- Lift economic sanctions that harm civilian populations in targeted countries.
4. Critique of Western Interventionism
- Many refugee flows originate from countries destabilized by U.S. and allied interventions (e.g., Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Libya).
- Military support for warring parties must end, and geopolitical interference should be avoided.
5. Humanitarian Focus
- Strengthen financial support for humanitarian organizations (e.g., UNHCR) to assist refugees in crisis regions, rather than encouraging dangerous migration to Europe.
6. Policy Shift for Germany and the EU
- Prioritize sustainable solutions in countries of origin over limited, selective immigration to Europe.
British Blue Labour: the influential movement behind Labour migration agenda to protect the working-class
Founded in 2009, by Maurice Glasman, the movement in the Labour party was a reaction to New Labour (elitist "Champagne Socialist of Islington", globalist pro-migration, at odds with the working-class). Their driving principle is sovereignty to have a real capacity to implement policies. Deeply rooted in the Labour tradition they defend the working class and dignity in labour, fighting dehumanisation of the working class. Paradoxally both socialist and monarchist, traditionalist and modernist, secular and religious, they do not want to narrow themselves to the sole State. They want to promote local and democratic community management rather than relying on top-down bureaucratic welfare state.
For M. Glasman globalisation has promoted technologies, migration abolishing borders, sovereignties and the concept of "nation" became obsolete at the expense of the local life, undermining local solidarity and the working class. Now The working class resent the dominating class "lanyard class that dictates behaviour and thoughts through the badge they wear. The government must do more to protect the working class. Too many minsters are progressist living in a fantasy world and they are struggling with facing terrible pressure of reality, that is now taking shape.
The movement is influential in the current Starmer government with Morgan McSweeney, the crucial PM chief of staff. Blue Labour influence may be behind the speech by PM K. Starmer: "Britain risked becoming an “island of strangers”, and that “uncontrolled” migration had done “incalculable damage”, as he launched plans to curb net migration.
With D. Lammy Foreign secretary appointed as deputy PM then Justice Chancellor and S. Mahmood as a home minister the movement is having more weight on the British government's direction. The Muslim Pakistani minister wants to crack down on illegal immigration. She represents a community of 70% non-white who arrived in the UK abiding by stricter rules of immigration. They want equity and that all present and future migrant face the same level of rules. They want migration control. Her roadmap is to crack down on high level of immigration 110,000 asylum demand, a 20% increase over 12 months. She plans to fasten immigration request and limit appeals possibilities. Following protests in front of hotels where migrants have placed, Labour government considers moving the asylum seekers in abandoned military barracks…Legal immigration has to be reduced too with fewer student visa and English test, at the expense of business and NHS in search of cheap labour. They plan to limit even stop Family regroupment, scrap indefinite right to remain and automatic access to British nationality.
Blue Labour stated its plans "Labour must restore the integrity of the sovereign nation", Blue Labour calls for lower immigration: “Immigration is not a distraction or a culture war issue; it is the most fundamental of political questions, a cause of social fragmentation, and the basis of our broken political economy.
We should drastically reduce immigration, reducing low-skill immigration by significantly raising salary thresholds; closing the corrupt student visa mill system; and ending the exploitation of the asylum system, if necessary prioritising domestic democratic politics over the rule of international lawyers.”
We are proud of our multiracial democracy and we utterly reject divisive identity politics, which undermines the bonds of solidarity between those of different sexes, races and nationalities. We should legislate to root out DEI in hiring practices, sentencing decisions, and wherever else we find it in our public bodies.
Danish Social Democrats: the moderate Left that implemented the strictest laws against migration, while still in the EU.
Social-Demokraten (SD) have won back power in 2019 and 2022 thanks to their anti-migration agenda: "Danskerne Først". ‘There’s a broad consensus in Denmark around migration’ illustrating
that migration is a key agenda part across Left and Right parties. SD asked Danish people to choose between an efficient welfare state or keeping unsustainable level of immigration. While staying in the EU, the Social-Democrats managed to implement the strictest anti-migration laws. They succeeded in a dramatic fall in immigration (by 80%?) thanks to tough domestic regulations without asking other neighbouring countries to manage their borders, unlike the UK.
"It’s important to have a discussion around the number of people who can come and still have a functioning welfare state — especially for Social Democrats. The Bundestag and other parliaments in Europe should debate how many people their country can integrate. We should not conduct this debate from a nationalist or culture war perspective, that someone is overwhelming your country. All this ‘Untergang des Abendlandes’ [Decline of the Occident/West] rhetoric is not useful in any sense. I think you need to underscore what I believe is the fact that it’s always the people at the bottom that take the hardest hit from large and uncontrolled migration. " Kaare Dybvad Bek, Social Democrat Minister of Immigration and Integration
The precedent of Palestinian Asylum Seekers. In 1991, 321 stateless Palestinians from Lebanon managed to enter Denmark and asked for asylum. Their applications were rejected by the Danish Commission on Asylum Seekers. Then, nearly 100 of them occupied a church in Copenhagen. After humanitarian outcry from activists and artists, a special law granted the whole group asylum in Denmark.
In 2019, the Foreigners and Integration Ministry officially reported: "of the 321 asylum seekers, 204, or almost two-thirds, have in the period 1992–2019 been convicted of some criminal offence, 71 have been sentenced to prison, 176 are living off government
Of this second generation, 337, or one-third, had in 2019 been convicted of criminal activities, and mostly been fined: 132 had been sentenced to prison.
This highlights the series of challenges to integrate non-Western foreigners. Some groups can be a heavy burden for the welcoming society.
The wave of crime in Sweden from inter-gang formed by Middle-Eastern immigrants (1st and 2nd generation), terrorism in Denmark pushed all parties to take action.
Danish police released statistics, unlike in many other countries, that showed that "non-Western backgrounds are as much as six times more likely to commit violent crime than white Danes."
The policies In 2018 the Danish "SocialDemokraten" proposed their plan to fight immigration and push more effective integration through their "Retfærdig og Realistisk" agenda. ""You are not a bad person if you do not want to see your country fundamentally changed. And you are not naive if you want to help other people toward a better existence."
Denmark aimed first at preventing population to leave their country of origin with campaign in countries where higher concentration migrants who could potentially be tempted to moave to Europe. Through series of local campaign in Lebannon (with Syrian refugees)
To limit migration appeal, migrants have to give away part of their wealth and belonging to the Danish State. Indeed, welcoming foreign population (non-western) is more problematic than integrating western new-comers.
Policies based on distinctive treatment of non-westerners.
The government classifies people and distinguish non-western individuals with special treatment.
A Social Democrat Borgen M.P. and Housing speak-person explains the Ghetto Law was implemented as they noticed a large part of "Non-Western" foreigners had lower level of education and more children did not go to school. The Danish culture is about equality of gender in education and welfare. Hence it is unacceptable that some girls growing up in a society in Denmark doesn't have the same rights as every other girl.
The Ghetto Law aims at preventing the domination of "Non-Western" immigrants and keep them a a max 25/30% of the district. Eviction of non-Western residents occur when they reach 50% to avoid "parallel society" with high crime and unemployment. "Non-western" families are relocated to predominantly white neighbourhood to have an effective integration with access to better jobs and education. These people will absorb Danish values. Kids are sent to pre-schools from the age of 1 to learn Danish language, tradition and values in order to ensure integration or the parents will lose the welfare benefits.
Ultimately, Denmark offers up to DKK 222,000 (€30,000) for immigrants to return home.
Key take-away
The issue of mass migration transcends partisan lines: from the working - class in East Germany to the Establishment in the Britain and the Social-Democrats in power in Denmark. Theses diiferent Left parties observe publicly that both legal and illegal migration given the current scale. They expose the issue is pregnant for the most vulnerable nationals, taking resources and welfare away from the people living in the country. They all also recognize that cultural differences is an issue and that integration is not posssible leading to parallel societies.
They also set an agenda to address this issue and have effect to reduce migration. The left politicians and academics prove that they all parties can have a realistic and honest approach of the migration beyond the rhetorical of far-right too called populists by the Establishment media and academics who too oftern sides with migration in the name of anti*racism and multi-culturalism, and take this side as a reaction to the lower class reaction. The condescendence of these elite putting words in the mouth of the popular social classes with fear of the foreigners, racism, xenophobia is baseless, as they are often cit-often form these parts of population and come up with assumption transferring their bubble of muti-ethnic big cities and group think form teh bobo reading the same media and importing ideology like US wokism to Europe where this ideology has no base.
goes beyond the agenda of the sole parties an d is Denmark achieved to tackle migration and reduce asylum request by 80%. Why is this template not replicated by other European countries which face similar issues? Very often solutions are available and known, but not implemented due to lack of political will.
