Go Back to Where You Came From

Go Back to Where You Came From Plot Summary

Introduction

Immigration has emerged as one of the most divisive political issues in Western democracies, fundamentally reshaping electoral landscapes and challenging long-held assumptions about national identity. The debate has typically been polarized between those who view immigration as an existential threat to cultural cohesion and those who dismiss any concerns as merely xenophobic. This false dichotomy obscures the complex reality that while immigration inevitably creates tensions in receiving societies, the greatest danger comes not from immigrants themselves but from the political backlash against them by citizens and leaders of democratic nations. The rise of anti-immigration sentiment represents more than just a policy disagreement; it signals a profound challenge to the liberal democratic order established after World War II. By examining how xenophobia has been normalized and weaponized across Western democracies, we can better understand the mechanisms through which legitimate anxieties about cultural change and economic security transform into support for illiberal policies that undermine democratic institutions. This analysis reveals the paradoxical way in which efforts to "protect" national cultures from outside influences often end up destroying the very values these societies claim to defend.

Chapter 1: The Evolution of Anti-Immigration Politics in Western Democracies

Anti-immigration politics in Western democracies has undergone a remarkable transformation over the past half-century, evolving from fringe movements to mainstream political forces. What began as economic concerns about guest workers in the 1970s gradually morphed into cultural anxieties by the 1990s and security fears after 2001. This evolution reflects deeper shifts in how national identity is understood and contested in an era of globalization and increased mobility. The trajectory has been strikingly similar across different countries. Initially, immigrants were largely invisible in political discourse, viewed as temporary workers who would eventually return home. This changed as it became clear that guest workers intended to settle permanently and bring their families. Countries like Germany, France, and the Netherlands operated under the assumption that these workers would contribute economically without fundamentally altering the social fabric. When this expectation proved incorrect, political tensions emerged that established parties were ill-equipped to address. The failure to develop coherent integration policies during this critical period created a vacuum that new political entrepreneurs eagerly filled. Figures like Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands pioneered a new form of anti-immigration politics that claimed to defend liberal values against supposedly illiberal newcomers. This framing proved particularly effective because it allowed opposition to immigration to be presented not as bigotry but as protection of progressive achievements in areas like gender equality and LGBTQ rights. The 9/11 attacks and subsequent terrorist incidents in Europe accelerated this transformation, enabling anti-immigration politicians to portray Muslim communities specifically as security threats. By the 2010s, formerly fringe positions had become normalized across Western democracies. Mainstream parties increasingly adopted elements of anti-immigration rhetoric and policy to stem voter defections to populist challengers. This normalization process was further accelerated by the 2015 refugee crisis, which created conditions for nativist politicians to present themselves as prophetic voices who had long warned about the dangers of open borders. Even countries with relatively progressive traditions, like Sweden and Germany, saw significant electoral gains for anti-immigration parties in the aftermath of the crisis. The evolution of anti-immigration politics reveals a troubling pattern: what begins as concern about specific issues like labor competition or cultural differences gradually transforms into comprehensive rejection of pluralism itself. This progression threatens the foundational principles of liberal democracy by redefining national belonging in ethnic rather than civic terms and by portraying certain citizens as inherently less legitimate members of the political community based on their origins or religious beliefs.

Chapter 2: Cultural Anxiety and the Transformation of National Identity

Cultural anxiety about immigration transcends simple economic calculations, touching on fundamental questions of identity, belonging, and social cohesion. Across Western democracies, significant segments of the population experience immigration not primarily as economic competition but as an existential threat to their way of life. This anxiety manifests in fears about the erosion of traditional values, the changing character of neighborhoods, and the perceived dilution of national identity. The perception that national culture is under threat has proven particularly powerful in countries with strong welfare states and secular traditions. In Denmark, the Netherlands, and France, concerns about immigration frequently center on the compatibility of Islamic religious practices with established secular norms. Public debates focus intensely on visible symbols of difference—headscarves, religious dietary requirements, gender segregation in certain contexts—that become proxies for deeper anxieties about cultural continuity. These concerns are not limited to conservative segments of society; many progressives also worry that increased religious conservatism among immigrant communities might undermine hard-won advances in areas like gender equality or LGBTQ rights. Integration failures have provided fertile ground for these anxieties to flourish. In many European cities, spatial segregation has created neighborhoods where immigrants and their descendants live in conditions of economic marginalization and social isolation. These areas become symbolic battlegrounds in political debates about national identity. The Dutch experience illustrates this dynamic particularly well. In 2000, prominent intellectual Paul Scheffer published an influential essay titled "The Multicultural Drama," which argued that the Netherlands' tolerant approach to cultural diversity had inadvertently created parallel societies with minimal interaction. This critique resonated widely because it came from within the progressive establishment rather than from right-wing circles. Educational systems across Europe have struggled to address these challenges effectively. Schools in immigrant-heavy neighborhoods often lack resources to provide adequate language support, resulting in persistent achievement gaps. These educational disparities translate into limited economic opportunities, creating cycles of disadvantage that reinforce segregation. The concentration of immigrant children in certain schools leads to "white flight" as native parents move their children to schools with fewer immigrants, further entrenching social divisions. Religious differences, particularly regarding Islam, have become increasingly central to debates about integration. What began as concerns about practical accommodations for religious practices evolved into fundamental questions about the compatibility of Islamic beliefs with European values. High-profile controversies—from headscarves in French schools to cartoons of Muhammad in Denmark—transformed abstract debates about multiculturalism into concrete conflicts over freedom of expression, gender equality, and secularism. These tensions are exacerbated when terrorist attacks occur, allowing anti-immigration politicians to conflate religious conservatism with extremism. The challenge for liberal democracies lies in acknowledging legitimate concerns about cultural continuity while rejecting exclusionary nationalism. This requires developing new civic narratives that recognize both the value of cultural diversity and the human need for social cohesion. Simply dismissing anxieties about cultural change as xenophobic fails to address the real tensions that arise when different value systems coexist within the same political community. Equally problematic is the nativist response that defines national identity in terms that inherently exclude certain citizens based on their origins or beliefs.

Chapter 3: Welfare States and the Challenge of Selective Solidarity

The tension between generous welfare systems and open immigration policies represents one of the most significant challenges facing Western democracies. Comprehensive safety nets that characterize countries like Denmark, Sweden, and the Netherlands were designed with relatively homogeneous populations in mind, built on high levels of social trust and willingness to support fellow citizens. Mass immigration has strained this model by introducing greater diversity and, in some cases, challenging the solidarity that underpins redistribution. This tension manifests in what scholars call "welfare chauvinism"—the belief that welfare benefits should be restricted to native-born citizens or those who have "earned" their place through contributions. Populist parties have seized on this sentiment, arguing that governments must choose between maintaining generous welfare systems and accepting large numbers of immigrants. The Danish People's Party exemplifies this approach, combining strong support for the welfare state with strict opposition to immigration—a position that has attracted many working-class voters who previously supported social democratic parties. The fiscal reality of integrating newcomers presents genuine challenges. Short-term costs can be substantial, particularly for refugees who may arrive with limited language skills, education, or job qualifications relevant to advanced economies. While research suggests that immigration often yields economic benefits over the long term, these gains may be unevenly distributed, with lower-skilled native workers potentially facing wage competition. This economic dimension interacts with cultural concerns to create a potent political narrative about immigration threatening both material well-being and national identity. Labor market integration represents another dilemma. In countries with high minimum wages, strong employment protections, and extensive collective bargaining, immigrants—especially refugees—often struggle to find work. This leads to higher welfare dependency rates among some immigrant groups, reinforcing negative stereotypes and fueling resentment. Yet proposals to create special entry-level wages for immigrants or refugees face fierce opposition from unions and leftist parties concerned about undermining labor standards for all workers. Beyond purely economic calculations, welfare states operate on implicit social contracts that assume high levels of solidarity among citizens. Political scientist Robert Putnam's research suggests that increased ethnic diversity can temporarily reduce social trust, potentially undermining support for redistributive policies. When citizens perceive welfare recipients as cultural outsiders, their willingness to fund generous benefits may diminish. This dynamic creates difficult trade-offs for progressive parties traditionally committed to both multiculturalism and robust welfare systems. The refugee crisis of 2015 dramatically intensified these tensions. The arrival of hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers with immediate humanitarian needs placed enormous pressure on social service systems. Even countries with strong humanitarian traditions experienced significant political backlash as local communities struggled to absorb newcomers. The perception that asylum systems were being overwhelmed contributed to electoral gains for parties advocating more restrictive policies and forced mainstream parties to reconsider their positions on immigration and integration.

Chapter 4: How Far-Right Parties Co-opted Progressive Values

Far-right parties across Europe have executed a remarkable strategic pivot by co-opting traditionally progressive causes—from gay rights to women's equality and secularism—and reframing them as justifications for anti-Muslim policies. This transformation represents one of the most significant and underappreciated political developments in Western democracies, allowing nativist movements to broaden their appeal beyond traditional constituencies. Pim Fortuyn, the openly gay Dutch politician assassinated in 2002, pioneered this approach. By fashioning a new type of far-right politics in progressive garb, he redirected the entire national debate. Fortuyn pushed the right toward a form of conservatism that could work in a country with progressive views toward homosexuality, prostitution, and premarital sex. He proved that the winning argument for the European far right was not an American-style appeal to conservative religious values but the claim that it was protecting women, gays, and secularism from backward Muslims. Marine Le Pen has perfected this strategy in France. When she took control of the Front National (now National Rally), she made purging the party of its anti-Semitic image central to her "de-demonization" campaign. In a pivotal 2010 speech, she declared, "I hear more and more firsthand accounts of how, in certain neighborhoods, it's not good to be a woman, or a homosexual, or a Jew—or even French or white." With this statement, she was explicitly telling gay voters, women, and Jews that immigrants and Muslims were the cause of their victimization, positioning herself as their defender against an intolerant foreign influence. This strategy has yielded electoral dividends. Surveys show that far-right parties have made significant inroads among constituencies that traditionally avoided them, including gay voters and women concerned about gender equality. By surrounding themselves with openly gay advisers and reaching out to Jewish voters, these parties have given political expression to the idea that the left, not the right, now poses the greatest threat to vulnerable minorities by enabling supposedly intolerant immigrant communities. The co-option of secularism (laïcité) as a weapon against Muslims represents another dimension of this strategy. Once championed by the left as a means of limiting the Catholic Church's influence, secularism has been transformed by the far right into a tool for targeting Islamic practices. Far-right leaders argue that everyone has the right to practice religion, but only in the private sphere, while defending Christian traditions as merely "cultural" rather than religious expressions. This selective application of secularism was vividly illustrated during the "burkini ban" controversy in France, when modest swimwear favored by some Muslim women was prohibited on beaches in the name of women's liberation and secularism. This rhetorical strategy places progressive parties in a difficult position. When far-right leaders claim to defend women's rights or LGBTQ equality against conservative religious influences, they appropriate language and concerns traditionally associated with the left. Progressives who attempt to defend religious freedom for Muslims risk being portrayed as betraying their own values, while those who criticize conservative religious practices may inadvertently reinforce anti-Muslim sentiment. This dilemma has contributed to the fragmentation of traditional left-wing coalitions and created openings for far-right parties to attract voters who would never support explicitly racist or sexist platforms.

Chapter 5: Media Narratives and the Normalization of Xenophobia

Media coverage has played a crucial role in shaping public perceptions of immigration and integration, often amplifying fears and reinforcing stereotypes that fuel populist movements. Through selective reporting, inflammatory language, and the platforming of extreme voices, mainstream media outlets have—sometimes unwittingly—contributed to the normalization of xenophobic discourse across Western democracies. The transformation of media ecosystems has accelerated this process. Traditional gatekeepers have lost influence, while digital platforms have created new opportunities for the amplification of nationalist and anti-immigrant narratives. Social media algorithms that prioritize engagement often promote content that triggers outrage or fear, giving anti-immigration messaging a structural advantage. Individual incidents involving immigrants can be rapidly transformed into viral content suggesting broader patterns, while contextualizing information or corrections are less likely to reach the same audience. Language choices in reporting reveal underlying biases that shape public perception. Media accounts often use shorthand like "of foreign background" to describe criminals with immigrant heritage, while expressing surprise when ethnic natives commit violent crimes. This creates a powerful narrative linking ethnicity and criminality that politicians can exploit. Similarly, metaphors of natural disasters—"floods," "waves," and "tides" of immigrants—dehumanize newcomers and present immigration as an overwhelming force threatening national stability. In Denmark, the tabloid newspaper Ekstra Bladet helped transform the immigration debate in the mid-1990s with its series "The Foreigners," which featured sensationalist coverage of refugee "abuse" of the welfare system. One prominent story highlighted a Somali man with two wives and eleven children receiving substantial welfare benefits. This media onslaught immediately captured public attention and held special appeal for working-class voters who saw refugees as competitors for both jobs and benefits. Similar patterns have played out across Europe, with tabloid media particularly effective at framing immigration in terms of threat and burden. The framing of terrorist attacks has been especially consequential. Media coverage often implicitly or explicitly links acts of terrorism to broader Muslim communities, reinforcing the perception that Islam itself poses a security threat. After attacks, reporting frequently focuses on the religious background of perpetrators while giving less attention to other factors like mental health issues or criminal histories. This selective emphasis creates a climate where all Muslims become objects of suspicion, regardless of their individual beliefs or behaviors. Political actors have adapted to this changing media environment by developing communication strategies that leverage these dynamics. This includes the strategic use of provocative statements to gain attention, followed by partial retractions that nonetheless keep controversial ideas in circulation. It also involves the careful calibration of language to maintain plausible deniability about xenophobic intent while sending clear signals to sympathetic audiences—what scholars call "calculated ambivalence." The cumulative effect of these media transformations has been a significant shift in the boundaries of acceptable discourse. Positions that would once have triggered universal condemnation from mainstream political and media figures—such as advocating religious tests for immigration or suggesting certain cultural groups cannot be integrated—now regularly feature in mainstream debate. This normalization process creates a permissive environment for increasingly extreme policy proposals and contributes to a climate where xenophobic attitudes are increasingly expressed without social sanction.

Chapter 6: The Self-Destructive Cycle of Illiberal Reactions

The most profound danger facing Western democracies today is not external but internal—the willingness of liberal societies to abandon their foundational principles in response to perceived threats from immigration and terrorism. This self-destructive impulse threatens to transform constitutional democracies into majoritarian systems that disregard minority rights and civil liberties in the name of protecting national identity and security. Modern liberal democracies have two crucial characteristics: they seek to reflect the will of the majority through elections and to protect the rights of minorities by enshrining them in constitutions and establishing independent judiciaries to check the power of elected leaders. As anti-immigrant parties gain prominence, they increasingly privilege the former while dismissing the latter as irrelevant or even antidemocratic. They are democrats only insofar as they believe in majoritarianism, showing little regard for constitutional protections that contradict what they claim to be the will of the people. This erosion of liberal democracy is occurring through seemingly incremental steps that collectively represent a significant retreat from established norms. In the Netherlands, parliament passed a law authorizing the government to strip dual nationals of their Dutch citizenship if deemed a security threat—a measure that creates two tiers of citizenship based on national origin. France has seen cities ban modest swimwear on public beaches in the name of secularism, effectively restricting the religious freedom of Muslim women. In the United States, attempts to ban immigration from predominantly Muslim countries and attacks on federal judges who halted such orders represented similar challenges to constitutional principles. The philosopher Ernst Cassirer, who fled Nazi Germany, warned of this danger in his final book, The Myth of the State. He argued that in times of social stress, rational discourse can be overwhelmed by political myths—carefully crafted narratives that appeal to collective fears and desires. When a society's hopes are frustrated, Cassirer warned, "the former social bonds—law, justice and constitutions—are declared to be without any value." All that matters is the power of the leader and the myth he propagates. This risk remains because the force of political myth is never truly vanquished but "always there, lurking in the dark and waiting for its hour and opportunity." The political scientist Fareed Zakaria identified this danger in his 1997 essay "The Rise of Illiberal Democracy," arguing that democracy and liberalism were coming apart. "Constitutional liberalism is about the limitation of power; democracy is about its accumulation and use," he wrote. At a time when elected leaders openly question the legitimacy of independent judiciaries and advocate policies that discriminate against religious minorities, it is a lesson worth recalling. "The institutions and attitudes that have preserved liberal democratic capitalism in the West were built over centuries," Zakaria argued. "They are being destroyed in decades. Once torn down they will not be so easy to repair." The greatest irony is that in their zeal to protect liberal values from perceived external threats, Western democracies risk destroying those values from within. By implementing policies that discriminate against religious minorities, undermine judicial independence, and erode civil liberties, they are effectively hitting the self-destruct button rather than finding ways to accommodate diversity while maintaining core principles. The true test of liberal democracy is not whether it can exclude those deemed threatening but whether it can remain true to its foundational values even in the face of challenges.

Chapter 7: Balancing Democratic Values in Diverse Societies

The sustainability of liberal democracy in increasingly diverse societies represents one of the defining challenges of our era. The evidence from Western democracies suggests that this relationship is neither predetermined nor simple. Some diverse societies maintain robust democratic institutions while others experience significant strain. Understanding the conditions that facilitate democratic resilience in the face of demographic change has become an urgent research and policy priority. Social trust emerges as a critical factor in this equation. Societies with high baseline levels of institutional trust appear better equipped to manage the tensions that inevitably arise from increasing diversity. When citizens trust that government institutions will enforce rules fairly and address legitimate concerns, they show greater tolerance for demographic change. Conversely, when trust in institutions erodes, citizens become more susceptible to nativist appeals that promise protection against perceived threats. This suggests that strengthening institutional performance and transparency may be as important as promoting multicultural values. Economic inequality significantly exacerbates tensions around immigration and diversity. When native populations experience economic insecurity, they become more likely to view immigrants as competitors for scarce resources rather than as contributors to shared prosperity. The concentration of immigration's costs and benefits—with costs often falling disproportionately on working-class communities while benefits accrue more broadly—creates political vulnerabilities that nativist movements exploit effectively. Policies that ensure more equitable distribution of both costs and benefits could potentially reduce these tensions. The pace of demographic change matters considerably. Research indicates that rapid changes in community composition generate stronger resistance than gradual shifts that allow for adaptation over time. This temporal dimension helps explain why rural areas and small towns with limited previous exposure to diversity often show stronger anti-immigration sentiment when newcomers arrive suddenly. Recognition of these dynamics suggests that managed approaches to integration that consider local absorption capacity may prove more sustainable than policies that ignore community impacts. Democratic institutions themselves require adaptation to function effectively in diverse societies. Electoral systems, bureaucratic procedures, and public services designed for relatively homogeneous populations may need reconfiguration to ensure equitable representation and service delivery in multiethnic contexts. Innovations in democratic practice—from deliberative forums that bring diverse citizens together to proportional representation systems that ensure minority voices are heard—offer promising avenues for institutional evolution. The cultural dimension of integration remains contentious but essential. Liberal democracies must navigate between two unsustainable extremes: demanding complete assimilation that erases cultural differences, or embracing a relativistic multiculturalism that avoids establishing any shared civic values. The most promising approaches focus on developing inclusive national identities that accommodate diversity while maintaining commitment to core democratic principles. This requires ongoing negotiation rather than fixed formulas, with both majority and minority communities participating in defining shared civic culture.

Summary

The rise of xenophobia in Western democracies reveals a profound paradox: the greatest threat to liberal democratic values comes not from immigrants themselves but from the illiberal reactions they provoke among citizens and leaders of democratic nations. By examining how legitimate anxieties about cultural change and economic security transform into support for policies that undermine constitutional protections and minority rights, we gain crucial insight into democracy's vulnerabilities in an age of increasing diversity and mobility. The evidence suggests that neither complete closure to immigration nor unmanaged openness offers a sustainable path forward; instead, democratic societies must develop new civic narratives and institutional arrangements that acknowledge both the value of cultural diversity and the human need for social cohesion. The future of liberal democracy in diverse societies depends on our ability to balance competing values and interests without abandoning core principles. This requires moving beyond simplistic framings that either celebrate diversity without addressing its challenges or reject it entirely in favor of homogeneity. It means acknowledging legitimate concerns about cultural continuity and belonging while insisting these concerns be addressed within a framework of equal citizenship and mutual respect. Most importantly, it demands recognition that the true measure of democratic resilience is not a society's ability to exclude those perceived as different but its capacity to maintain commitment to constitutional principles and human dignity even when doing so contradicts majority preferences or short-term political advantage.

About Author

Loading...

Sasha Polakow-Suransky

Read more