Although several studies indicate that the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden) have approached each other regarding legislation concerning immigration (i.e., laws regulating the conditions under which third country nationals are allowed to settle in a country for longer or shorter periods of time), no empirical overview has been carried out so far covering all three major immigration categories (forced migration/asylum seekers; family reunification and labour migration) in these reasonably similar countries.
Our overarching question concerns the character of immigration legislation in the Nordic countries 2000-23 (we do not discuss integration as a topic, i.e., any measures aimed at those people who have been allowed to enter a country; nor do we analyse rhetoric as such). Moreover, we relate the development of immigration legislation to three aspects often highlighted in previous research: 1. When have Populist Radical Right parties (PRR) been able to influence government policies (either directly via formal Cabinet membership or indirectly via a supporting party position)? 2. What has the level of voter support been for the Populist Radical Right parties? 3. What has the level of immigration been?
A key conclusion is that the legislative changes have gone in a restrictive direction in all four countries, but the pace has differed somewhat. With the odd exception there have been no rebounds in any liberal direction.
The various measures are quite similar among the four Nordic countries although most far-reaching in Denmark – but Norway was as early as Denmark (legislative restrictions beginning to be implemented from 2001 and onwards). At each point when a PRR party has either been in a formal (coalition) government position or been a supporting party to a government, the immigration legislation has taken a stricter turn.
This is not to say that there haven’t been any instances when the legislation has become stricter without any PRR government involvement. However, with the exception of Finland in 2007-11, this has only happened when a PRR party has done well in the most recent general election thus posing an increased threat to the other parties. Only once has the legislation become more liberal in the face of a looming threat from a PRR party; in Sweden during the 2010-2014 Parliament.
There are instances when increased levels of immigration coincide with a tightening of immigration. This has happened at five of the 24 Parliaments covered by the paper. Still, PRR parties have at the same time either been able to influence government policies or received a very good parliamentary election result. Moreover, there are as many instances of falling migration levels coinciding with stricter policies. At all these instances a PRR party has either been able to influence the government or done very well at the parliamentary election.
Overall, the traditional mainstream parties have gradually adjusted their immigration legislation to stricter positions as PRR parties have grown stronger (both in terms of votes and in terms to closeness to government position).