Borders, Beliefs, and Balance: The West's Dilemma Between Social Stability and Refugee Rights

What began as a political sweet game: “surprise-surprize: guess who’s back?”—now seems to be taking a heavy toll on the world's democracy. Heavy toll suggests an elephant in the room. To many, the surprise has turned into terror, as the reelection of President Trump as the 47th President of the United States on November 5, 2024, promises to be inauspicious to democracy. This political shift has significant implications for global immigration narratives, as the U.S. reaffirms its hardline stance on border control and refugee admissions. One of the administration's most controversial policies has been the initiation of mass deportations, targeting undocumented immigrants and asylum seekers in an aggressive bid to reshape the U.S. immigration system. Immigration is a global crisis. The American example echoes the dilemmas faced by European nations like Denmark, intensifying the global debate over social sustainability and humanitarian obligations.

What informs and what ought to inform a fair immigration ideology? What are the key information sources for immigration policies? Speculations suggest that online information sources significantly influence policy-making. Therefore, social media interactions should be viewed as organic agents of policy formation within the framework of digital participatory democracy. If that’s the case, doesn’t that make policy-making and immigration vulnerable to electronic trading challenges like 'consumer power’ under the guise of ‘internet democracy?’ Or worse still, power asymmetries-based inequalities—where a group of people in society benefit at the expense of others—based on commodity logic and profit logic as a historical consequence like Elon Musk and Donald Trump? Again, what ought to inform a fair immigration ideology? 

Power is the ethos of the American political culture. And with the current administration, participatory democracy is fundamentally compromised by platform capitalism—Elon Musk and the operation of X (formerly twitter). The January/February 2025 issue of Foreign Affairs features an article titled “The Strange Triumph of a Broken America,” which explores the paradox of the United States’ sustained global dominance despite the internal challenges. Author Michael Beckley asserts that while domestic dysfunction is evident, it hasn’t significantly diminished America’s global power. That’s the word: power. He asserts that despite perceptions of decline, the U.S. remains the richest and most powerful nation globally.

What Western state when it comes to immigration policies fairly balances national interests and humanitarian obligations: Sweden? Regarding Sweden's immigration policies, the government announced on September 14, 2024, a plan to increase financial incentives for voluntary repatriation—approximately $34,000. This idea was

championed by the anti-immigrant Sweden Democrats party. What then, should the rise of anti-immigrant sentiment in Western politics be seen as a “new glossy magazine cover”—a surface-level narrative masking deeper societal and political complexities?

Over the past decade, mobility has become a highly politicized issue in many Western societies. For example, immigration has been used as a proxy for broader debates about national identity, economic insecurity, and cultural change. Certainly, in the evolving landscape of global social policy, the tension between social sustainability and immigration has become a defining issue. Where do we draw the line? Denmark stands as a prominent example of this struggle, having implemented some of the most stringent immigration policies in the Western world. Its approach reveals the broader moral conflict that underpins immigration narratives across Western civilization, highlighting the complexities nations face in balancing national interests with humanitarian obligations. For exploring solutions, if not in Scandinavia where? If not Denmark who?

Denmark’s Approach: A Hardline Immigration Policy

There seems to be consensus in Western countries that Denmark’s model of hardline immigration policy is a functional model when it comes to border control. Whether Denmark is deserving of this immigration policy glory, time will tell. Over the past two decades, Denmark has undergone a significant transformation in its immigration policy. Under the leadership of Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and the center-left Social Democrats, the country has adopted a "zero refugee" stance, aiming to minimize asylum admissions to near-zero levels. In 2024, Denmark granted only 860 asylum requests, marking a historic low.

Denmark's policies include:

Strict Border Controls: Enhanced security measures and streamlined asylum procedures ensure rapid processing and, when applicable, deportations. Deterrence Strategies: Public messaging and policy frameworks discourage asylum seekers from choosing Denmark.

Citizenship Restrictions: Tougher requirements for citizenship emphasize integration

and alignment with Danish values. 

Anti-Ghetto Laws: These controversial laws aim to dismantle concentrated non-Western communities, promoting social cohesion. The how here matters more than the what. 

Revocation of Residency Permits: In 2021 and 2023, Denmark revoked residency permits for Syrian refugees, reinforcing the notion of asylum as a temporary protection. These policies, while effective in reducing asylum numbers, raise critical ethical questions about the responsibilities of wealthy nations in addressing global displacement crises.

One could argue that Denmark’s approach is focusing on administrative questions, inevitably, ignoring the question of power. Immigration Narratives in Western Civilization. However, Denmark’s stance is not an isolated phenomenon but part of a broader shift in Western immigration narratives. Across Europe and North America, countries grapple with the dual pressures of social sustainability and moral responsibility. 

Social Sustainability Concerns: Proponents of restrictive immigration argue that unchecked migration strains public services, undermines social cohesion, and poses challenges to national identity. Denmark’s policies reflect these concerns, with strong public support—estimated at 80-85%—particularly among lower-income groups who

feel most vulnerable to societal changes. But what about the reverse: the moral implication of downplaying humanitarian obligations?

Moral and Legal Obligations: Western nations are bound by international conventions to protect refugees fleeing persecution. The moral conflict arises when national interests collide with these humanitarian commitments. Critics argue that policies like Denmark’s undermine the very principles of asylum and protection that Western

democracies claim to uphold.

Political Realignment: Denmark’s case illustrates how immigration has transcended traditional left-right political divides. The Social Democrats’ hardline stance has garnered support from working-class voters traditionally aligned with progressive policies, indicating a realignment where social stability takes precedence over

ideological purity.

The Broader Implications

The Danish model poses essential questions about the future of immigration policy in

Western civilization:

1. Can social sustainability coexist with open humanitarian policies? Denmark suggests that strict control is necessary to maintain social order, yet this comes at a moral cost.

2. What is the role of Western nations in global displacement crises? As conflicts and climate change displace millions, the moral imperative to offer refuge clashes with domestic pressures for stability.

3. How do immigration policies shape national identity and social cohesion? Policies aimed at integration and deterrence reflect deep-seated anxieties about cultural change, raising concerns about xenophobia and exclusion.

Conclusion

Denmark’s immigration approach epitomizes the struggle within Western societies to balance social sustainability with moral responsibility. As other nations contemplate similar paths, the debate will likely intensify, forcing policymakers and citizens alike to confront fundamental questions about identity, compassion, and the fabric of modern democracies. The challenge lies in crafting policies that uphold both the integrity of national social systems and the ethical imperatives that define the Western commitment to human rights. As human mobility is unavoidable, global social policies should strategically accommodate the tension between social sustainability and immigration. This is a test in the reign of Donald Trump, a disruptive character in the landscape of politics and human democracy. Will Trump change the world, or will the world change Trump? Should other Western governments allow Trump's America to be a new oligarchy government marked by crony capitalism, the world will inherit a dysfunctional broken democracy, where the songs of human equity and equality will sing themselves in the parody of democracy’s sweet death: ‘peekaboo!’—the world in empty anticipation—‘peekaboo!’ This might be the last chance to redefine the boundary markers of democracy. If not now when? If not us who?

References

1. Associated Press. (2024). Trump administration expands mass deportation policies. AP News. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/article/fb0c2a5351334f4615706033b820bf92

2. Foreign Affairs. (January/February, 2025). The Strange Triumph of a Broken America: Will Trump Change the World? Foreign Affairs, 104(1).

3. GB News. (2024). Denmark asylum admissions plummet under zero refugee policy. GB News. Retrieved from https://www.gbnews.com/news/world/denmark-asylum-plummet-zero-refugee-policy

4. News.com.au. (2024). 'Beyond cruel': White House criticized over ASMR deportation video. News.com.au. Retrieved from https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/us-politics/beyond-cruel-white-house-cops-backlash-after-releasing-bizarre-asmr-deportation-video/news-story/7511eae8d2e85e36cf1896b5ae0fd1e2

5. San Francisco Chronicle. (2024). Thousands march against mass deportations. SF Chronicle. Retrieved from https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/march-against-mass-deportations-20162208.php

6. Telegraph. (2025). Denmark’s zero refugee policy drives down asylum admissions. The Telegraph. Retrieved from https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/02/09/denmarks-zero-refugee-policy-drives-down-asylum-admissions

7. The Times. (2024). What happens if Trump wins the 2024 election? The Times. Retrieved from https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/what-happens-trump-wins-election-2024-xvc2qc0bv

8. Time. (2024). Donald Trump’s immigration plan for 2024: What you need to know. Time.Retrieved from https://time.com/7171654/donald-trump-immigration-plan-2024