write.as
Researcher: “Politicians on both sides are wrong about the refugee crisis”
Göteborgs-Posten Plus | 23 Sep, 5:46 AM | 1,906 words Author: Ulf Roosvald
Gothenburg. Around the world, politicians are debating the migration crisis and how it should be resolved. Hein de Haas, one of the world’s leading migration researchers, instead asks: What crisis? The share of migrants has remained at a constant level for several decades. The general public has a much more balanced view of migration than politicians in the Western world do.
One of the world’s leading migration researchers accuses UNHCR of exaggerating its refugee statistics, says right-wing parties are looking for scapegoats, argues that the climate crisis is unlikely to lead to more refugees, and dismisses the idea behind Sweden’s “youth deportations.” In short: regardless of political orientation, most decision-makers are wrong. “Both politicians and the public know surprisingly little about how migration works. This means that no one can analyse the figures properly, which leads to poor debate and symbolic politics,” says Hein de Haas, professor of sociology at the University of Amsterdam. Before the summer, the Institute for Futures Studies presented a report on Swedes’ attitudes towards migration during the years 2012–2025. The report’s authors were surprised when it turned out that the population’s views on immigration were relatively balanced. Admittedly, attitudes had become somewhat more negative during the period — but the major change had taken place on the political scene and in public debate. Far-right views have become normalised Hein de Haas has spent just over 30 years studying migrants and migration. The conclusions of the Swedish study are entirely consistent with his research. “The average citizen is much more level-headed about migration than politicians are. The major shift in recent years has been in the political narrative, where both right-wing and centrist parties have adopted a description of the problem that was previously regarded as far-right. But the shift is not about what people actually think.” In his book How Migration Really Works, Hein de Haas presents 22 myths about migration. He then debunks them one by one, carefully and scientifically, regardless of whether they are myths used by right-wing or left-wing debaters, by migration advocates or migration opponents. And can one even be for or against migration? Not according to Hein de Haas. “No. The existence of migration is a fact. People will always be prepared to cross borders in search of a better life. For most people, migration is a rational decision, a long-term strategy for improving the situation for themselves or their families,” says Hein de Haas. In the wake of the refugee movements following the war in Syria, Hein de Haas felt that both the public and politicians appeared completely uninformed about how migration works. That is why he wrote his book: to help raise the level of both knowledge and debate. Hein de Haas is professor of sociology at the University of Amsterdam and professor of migration and development at Maastricht University. He is also a co-founder of the International Migration Institute at the University of Oxford. The book How Migration Really Works was published in autumn 2023 and examines 22 different myths, assumptions or misconceptions that are often spread in the migration debate. Hein de Haas calls for a new attitude towards and understanding of the movement of people around the world. The book has been translated into 14 languages, although not yet into Swedish. He accuses climate activists of hijacking the refugee debate. De Haas sees climate change as a major problem, but says there is no scientific evidence that it will lead to new international refugee flows. He dismisses ideas such as immigrants taking jobs from the native population or high immigration causing crime to increase. He believes that human-rights organisations misinterpret statistics in their pursuit of funding, and he rejects the theory that reducing poverty in low-income countries would reduce migration. The fact is precisely the opposite: when poor countries become richer and develop a more prosperous and better-educated population, both people’s ability and their willingness to move across international borders increase. In Sweden, one of the most heated political issues recently has been the so-called “youth deportations”, in which young adults who have spent much of their childhood in Sweden are deported because the main rule in Sweden is now that only temporary residence permits are granted. “I have heard about this. Research shows that this kind of deterrence policy has only very marginal effects. There cannot be very many people affected by these youth deportations, can there? This is symbolic politics to a very high degree. I am not surprised that the Swedish government was forced to back down somewhat on the issue.” The background to the term “youth deportations” is that temporary residence permits have been the main rule in Sweden since 2016. Children and young people who previously could remain permanently were instead forced to apply for a new permit when they turned 18, without being able to benefit from their parents’ permanent residence permits. The maintenance requirements have also been tightened, making things more difficult for young adults who have rarely had time to obtain well-paid jobs. The possibility of being allowed to stay on the basis of “particularly distressing circumstances” has been abolished. This resulted in several young adults being forced to leave Sweden and their families. During spring 2026, the issue of youth deportations was the subject of extensive debate, strong protests and political disagreement. In June 2026, the government and the Sweden Democrats presented a compromise in the form of a new “safety valve.” Young adults between the ages of 18 and 21 are to be able to obtain residence permits on the basis of their ties to their parents. The proposed new legislation is to enter into force on 1 October 2026 and give a new opportunity to young people who have already received rejection decisions or managed to leave the country during 2025 and 2026. Hein de Haas argues that one of the few truths about migration is that there is an integration problem. He says this stems from the fact that the whole of north-western Europe lives under the illusion that immigrants and refugees are only here temporarily, when everyone actually knows that most refugees who are admitted will stay. “This illusion of temporariness has to be broken. Instead, we need to ensure the integration of the people we allow in. The longer we deny that they will remain for a long time, the greater the problems with integration and segregation become. Sweden and many other countries in north-western Europe are clear examples of this.” Strict rules make more people stay Research also shows an interesting paradox: policies focused on stopping or deterring people from entering a country sometimes increase net immigration, because those policies also discourage people from leaving the country. “The harder it is to get in, the fewer people will return, perhaps because they know it will be difficult to get back in again. When groups are marginalised and are not given long-term residence permits, they integrate less successfully and the problems become greater.” Gothenburg, where I live, is considered Sweden’s most segregated city. What should we do about that? “The problems in Swedish suburbs are real; it would be foolish to deny that. If you live in an area where more than half of your neighbours have origins in countries other than Sweden, then a change has taken place that can make an ethnic Swede feel uncomfortable.” “But Sweden’s integration problems reflect the results of failed urban planning, poor integration policy and historical coincidences, such as those suburbs being empty during a period when many refugees arrived. So these are problems that have accumulated. But if those problems are used as a reason to draw general conclusions about immigration, then you go wrong.” From the Second World War until very recently, Western immigration policy generally became more liberal. At the same time, border surveillance, efforts to pursue human smugglers and similar measures became more intensive. In 2012, Frontex, the EU’s border and coast guard agency, had a budget of €85 million. This year, it is €1.12 billion. De Haas believes that this paradox arises because Western governments are constantly trying to satisfy three different demands. One is to keep markets open, which requires labour and therefore often requires immigration. Another is that migrants arriving in a new country must have their human rights respected. A third demand comes from voters, who want reduced migration or at least better control of immigration. “This leads to a form of hypocrisy. On the one hand, politicians want to show how tough they are, as in the example of the youth deportations. On the other hand, throughout Europe we tolerate and facilitate the recruitment of people from abroad to clean our hotels, pick berries, work on our ships or take other jobs that the native workforce is unwilling to do.” Sceptical about the Migration Pact Hein de Haas therefore dismisses myths, descriptions and political proposals from both the right and the left. But how does he himself think Europe should deal with those who come to our borders seeking protection? “The EU Migration Pact is now being introduced, and I have been quite critical of it. But Europe is at least trying to develop something jointly, which is essential. It is a fact that some countries in Europe have taken much greater responsibility for receiving refugees than others. I am not necessarily talking about Sweden here, but for example Italy and Greece. It is good that we are creating a common regulatory framework.” The EU has adopted a new framework for the asylum and migration systems of its member states. The new Migration Pact will regulate how the asylum process in the EU is to work, how migrants are to be screened at the border, and what member states are to do when large numbers of people seek protection in the EU at the same time. The asylum process is intended to work as follows: A new system replaces the old Dublin rules, under which people were required to seek asylum in the first EU country they entered. Instead, it is to become clearer which country is responsible for examining an application, and the distribution of asylum seekers is intended to become fairer among EU member states. Everyone who comes to Sweden as an asylum seeker will be given a place at a reception and return centre when they submit their application. People whose asylum applications are rejected will be given places at one of the return centres once their deportation decision comes into force. They will then live there until they leave the country. There are to be eleven reception and return centres in Sweden. One of them is located in Mölndal. Hein de Haas believes that if European countries showed solidarity with one another and distributed asylum seekers fairly across the continent, we would be able to cope with these refugees without major problems. However, he is sceptical as to whether the pact will work that way. “As things stand now, the refugee pact seems mainly to be about stopping as many people as possible at Europe’s borders, and that is not exactly in the spirit of the Refugee Convention.” “Research also shows that extremely strict border rules mainly lead to more people trying to enter illegally, as long as there is a demand for labour in the destination country and war or conflict in the country of origin. So it is somewhat unclear to me what problem the Migration Pact is going to solve, even though I support European cooperation.”
