The crisis of Western countries closing their doors to immigrants

For some time now, Western countries have been under heavy pressure on immigration due to the global economic crisis. Due to the constant opposition of the local people, these countries are continuously tightening and restricting their immigration policies. Although Canada, the US, and other Western countries are trying to maintain their human face by announcing new immigration targets.

Actually, the situation of Western nations shutting their borders to immigrants arises from intricate political and social dynamics, resulting in policies that limit immigration due to worries about security, economic pressure, and cultural effects. This has resulted in actions such as heightened border controls, more stringent asylum regulations, and lowered immigration targets, even in nations with significant demand for immigration like Canada. Critics contend that these policies stem from fear and political pressure, undermining the economic and social fabric of nations and possibly pushing migrants toward more perilous routes, thereby benefiting traffickers.

Countries, including Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, and Sweden, have increased the length of their border checks as a result of the perceived dangers of “irregular migration.”

Furthermore, a statement by US President Trump has created a lot of fear and doubts in the immigrant communities. After two National Guardsmen were shot dead by a suspected Afghan national in Washington, DC, President Trump has said that he will permanently close the entry of people from the third world into the US. The suspected Afghan national had previously successfully obtained US immigration by claiming compassion for helping US troops in Afghanistan.

The president criticised the immigration policies of the former Biden administration for allowing such individuals into the United States. In his second term, Trump’s raids and deportations have ravaged communities across the United States. The administration promised to focus on people with criminal records and those convicted of violence, but many law—abiding residents and even US citizens have sometimes faced ICE and Customs and Border Protection officers.

Several judges have criticized the administration for failing to provide due process to people facing deportation. Some who had never been convicted of a crime in the United States were sent to a notorious prison in El Salvador. He announced an immediate ban on immigration from third-world countries, saying that immigrants who pose a threat to the country’s security have no right to live in the United States. They also announced the closure of federal benefits and subsidies to temporary immigrants. Although they did not name any third-world countries, they have announced a ban on immigration applications from all Afghan citizens living in the United States.

However, Trump aims to “shut the border” to “developing nations.” This phrase from the Cold War era is no longer relevant and lacks precision, yet he selected it deliberately. Scholars have consistently criticized the term “third world” for its tendency to homogenize diverse countries based on race.

Trump employs it as it primarily serves as a political term for areas with diverse populations. In contemporary political discourse, the phrase “third world” pertains to the restriction of migration from regions predominantly inhabited by Black, Brown, and Asian populations, including Latin America, the Caribbean, Africa, the Middle East, South Asia, and Southeast Asia. The concept lacks originality. This trend signifies a regression to America before 1965, when immigration policies were overtly rooted in racial considerations.

Through his executive order, Trump has unified the immigration, asylum, refugee admission, visa, family reunification, and work permit systems under a single goal: exclusion. While talking about “closing the border,” Trump conflates several legal concepts that are essential to the immigration system, including asylum, admitting refugees, visas, family reunification, and employment migration. Substantiating immigration is under the purview of the president under INA 212(f) and 215(a).

No president has the authority to do away with the court system. Trump v. Hawaii maintained the Muslim ban without endorsing a freeze, according to the judgment. It made suspensions pertaining to security more malleable. A global ban on non-white areas would violate the rights to equal treatment and due process. The project proves that a president can use racial classifications to exclude entire communities, regardless of what the courts decide.

Not only the third-world countries, but the US administration has advised Canada and other Western countries to control immigration through its state message. Although the Canadian Immigration Minister has expressed ignorance of this American directive, the arrival of temporary residents and international students has been further reduced under the immigration policy of 2026-28 announced by Canada.

There will be 5 per cent fewer foreign nationals living in Canada temporarily by the end of 2027, according to the government’s plan. In 2026, the goal for new temporary residents is 385,000, and in 2027 and 2028, it rises to 370,000. Of the 33,000 individuals who applied for work permits in 2026 and 2027, the government has decided to award permanent residency.

Nevertheless, there are no predetermined goals for those applying for refugee status, study or work permits in Canada, electronic visas, or temporary residence visas. There will be a halt to individual refugee applications until 2027, though. The number of pending refugee applications is 90,000.

In the meantime, European nations have implemented significant alterations to their immigration policies. In 2015, numerous European nations dedicated themselves to aiding millions of Syrian and Afghan refugees, along with individuals from various other countries around the globe. Countries such as Germany have embraced a culture of hospitality and compassion towards refugees. In addition to Germany, several other European nations that once embraced refugees are now turning them away. Denmark was among the pioneering nations in Europe to impose stricter immigration regulations. Various other European nations have adopted the stringent regulations that Denmark implemented in 2019. Frederiksen, the Danish Prime Minister, has unveiled a new deportation law that allows refugees to return to their countries of origin.

The Government has shut down and, in certain instances, even razed social housing estates where over fifty per cent of the residents were from non-Western backgrounds, which had turned into centers of crime and poverty. In November, the Labour Government under UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced a major overhaul of the country’s refugee policy, which is now among the harshest in Europe.

Reforms by the UK Home Secretary have led to 400,000 refugee claims in four years. Since 2023, net migration to Britain has dropped by roughly 80 per cent. The British Government has raised the permanent residency waiting time to 20 years, like Denmark. This period will assess applicants every 2.5 years. Deportation if a country is safe during this time. Legal migrants entering Britain will now take 10 years to become permanent residents, up from five. Employed claimants lose housing and weekly payments.

Refugees cannot rely on their families to stay in Britain. Many Western countries worry about immigration. This has been a major issue for Western countries. Immigration issues with this problem have centered in Britain. Many residents have protested in the streets. A riot has occurred. Violence against refugees is rising. In this environment, Government rigidity makes sense. The writer is a freelance writer and journalist who lives in Brampton, Canada.