Subscribe
The political Left, currently active in Europe and across the Western world frequently speaks of values. It speaks of values such as openness, diversity, equality, gender equality, solidarity, tolerance, and humane justice policies. Left-wing politicians stand up for values. They believe in values. They turn their values into political priorities.
However, there is a problem. In countries like France, the UK, and Sweden—to name just a few examples—the Left’s political victories have often led to outcomes vastly different from what the rhetoric surrounding these noble values promised.
The sometimes almost obsessive focus on openness has created a host of problems where immigration has gone uncontrolled. That openness simply became excessive.
One reason why European nations and the European Union have struggled so much to halt illegal immigration is undoubtedly the genuine ideological resistance to controlled borders. After all, Europe is supposed to stand for openness.
As an example, we might recall the open conflict a few years ago between the then-head of Frontex, the Frenchman Fabrice Leggeri, and the Swedish Commissioner Ylva Johansson, whose portfolio included migration. Leggeri felt he could not perform his duties as the head of the agency responsible for policing the EU’s borders. He was forced to resign from his post and claimed the Commissioner had urged him not to allow his staff to turn away illegal migrants. Instead, Frontex was expected to welcome new migrants and effectively assist them in entering the EU. Ylva Johansson denied having said this, yet the conflict remains noteworthy. Could there have been political pressure from the Commission over the years to allow people to enter the EU illegally?
Now, in 2026, the tune has changed. Borders are to be controlled. Illegal migration is to be combatted. And why is this? Well, presumably because the openness so cherished by the Left created problems. Vast numbers of people came to Europe and stayed illegally. Many turned to crime or were forced to work under undignified—even inhumane—conditions. Public opposition to illegal migration grew, and politicians realized they had to act. Ultimately, the political establishment was forced to compromise on its own ideals. Europe was not merely to be open; it was also to be enclosed by borders.
The challenge here is that, in a sense, we all believe in openness. European conservatives, too, desire an open Europe. Yet conservatives generally possess a greater capacity than those on the Left to adopt a pragmatic and realistic stance toward the concept of openness. Conservatives understand that openness is not an absolute value; it must be nurtured, regulated, and controlled if it is to yield the positive outcomes we desire.
For the paradox of the Left’s version of openness is that it results in a society that eventually falls apart. There is a utopian streak in leftist thought that tends to foster a one-dimensional mindset. Openness must apply to everyone; otherwise, we are making distinctions between people—thereby abandoning the principle of absolute equality. In doing so, we have drawn a distinction between citizens and non-citizens, between Europeans and non-Europeans, and between a well-educated workforce capable of contributing and an unskilled workforce that we do not really need as long as we have unemployed people of our own.
The paradox of the Left’s idealized thinking is that it ultimately produces the exact opposite of what it originally intended. Once unchecked migration has continued for long enough, the populations of Europe will not feel that their countries have become more open and freer; instead, they will lock themselves indoors at night to avoid falling victim to crime. They will also begin voting for parties that oppose immigration entirely. And politicians will eventually be forced to take measures to implement genuine border controls.
Sweden is one of the European countries where a previously naive stance on openness has now forced the adoption of policies aimed at making the nation the least attractive destination for refugees in the entire European Union.
Had the pro-immigration Left been willing to compromise slightly on its own ideals—advocating for a reasonable, measured, and regulated degree of openness—an immigration-critical party like the Sweden Democrats might never have risen to power. In that scenario, the Left could have maintained its monopoly on the immigration narrative. Instead, it remained uncompromising: openness, openness, openness. And, as expected, the backlash eventually came.