Nordic Nations Tighten Immigration

Commentary

For decades, the Nordic governments welcomed more immigrants than many other European countries. Politicians across the political spectrum cited multiple reasons for doing so, including humanitarian reasons, demographic needs, and economic benefits. As well, proud of building “multicultural societies,” they set low demands for assimilation.

However, today, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, and Iceland are reducing their immigrant intake and are increasing the requirements for language skills, cultural integration, financial independence, and civic knowledge to become citizens.

Several factors contributed to this shift, including welfare costs, housing shortages, crime rates, unemployment, social unrest, and cultural tensions. At the same time, electoral successes for anti-immigrant parties, such as the Norwegian Progress Party, the True Finns in Finland, the Sweden Democrats, and the Danish People’s Party, pressured established politicians to reconsider what had been an elite-driven effort and ultimately reverse several longstanding policies.

The shift started in Denmark, where Social Democrat Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen in 2019 announced a “paradigm shift” and moved the focus from inclusion to deterrence and return. Residency permits for refugees were revoked, repatriation efforts increased, and forced relocations from areas with many non-Western residents carried out. Denmark now has a “zero net asylum seekers” policy, characterized by limited benefits, strict reunification rules, and expedited returns.

In time, the other Nordic countries followed suit and adopted similar policies. Norway reduced refugee benefits and allowances, while Finland reduced refugee quotas, introduced stricter citizenship requirements, and imposed more stringent conditions for family reunification. Even in Iceland, which has historically accepted far fewer immigrants than its Nordic neighbors, the foreign-born population has grown so rapidly that people today are raising increasing concerns about immigration and lack of integration.

The most notable change, however, has taken place in Sweden. There, both left- and right-wing governments maintained an open border—also called an “open heart”—policy for decades. As a result, since the 1990s, Sweden’s population has increased to 10 million from 8 million, primarily because of immigration from culturally diverse and conflict-affected regions such as Africa and the Middle East. This population surge led to problems with welfare costs, crime, and social and cultural tensions both between Swedes and immigrants and between various immigrant populations. And because Swedish officials long failed to acknowledge—and even less effectively address—these adverse effects, the political backlash ultimately became brutal. In the 2022 general election, the anti-immigrant Sweden Democrats received more than 20 percent of the vote and became the second-largest party and kingmakers in the Riksdag, the country’s parliament.

As a result, the minority center-right government that took office in October 2022 had to reach a controversial agreement with the Sweden Democrats regarding their active support and then implement significant changes, including tightened restrictions for asylum and residence permits, more stringent family reunification rules, higher income requirements for work visas, and substantial incentives for migrants to return home. Additionally, new citizenship rules will soon extend the residency requirement from five years to eight years, requiring proof of an “honest life” free from crimes and debts, a language test, evidence of self-sufficiency, and a formal integration pledge.

Thus, all Nordic countries have reduced their intake of immigrants and increased demands for assimilation. Still, these changes have been late, slow, and hesitant, and the economic, social, cultural, and other effects of decades of mass immigration and lackluster assimilation are overwhelming. To boot, changes made are fiercely opposed by left-wing parties, human rights associations, immigrant groups, and the media, which tend to label all restrictive and demanding measures as unnecessarily harsh, principally unfair, and potentially racist.

As a result, progress has been slow, delayed, and limited. Denmark has effectively stopped asylum-based immigration; however, the number of new foreign-born residents remains stable or increases because of family reunification and labor migration (17 percent in 2024). Similarly, even though Sweden’s immigration numbers have fallen significantly, by mid-2025, the country will still naturalize so many foreign nationals that it will lead the European Union in new citizenships per capita. Sweden also continues to deal with record levels of shootings, rapes, and bombings.

Following the outbreak of the Russia–Ukraine War in 2022, both Norway and Finland experienced significant rises in immigration, leading to even stricter rules. For example, the Norwegian government has labeled certain Ukrainian regions as “safe” to discourage migration from those areas.

Will the strictness last? This depends on a complex interplay between public opinion, ideological pressures, and economic realities. Among voters, anti-immigrant sentiments still appear to be on the rise. At the same time, socialist and liberal activists demand a return to an open-door, lax assimilation policy. And because the Nordic countries face low birth rates and labor shortages in sectors such as health care, employers also push for more relaxed immigration rules.

Therefore, the question is whether politicians will once again yield to radical and economic interests, as well as their own traditional inclination to let their countries act as “humanitarian superpowers,” even if it contradicts public opinion. If they do, things may take a turn for the worse.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.