Immigration policy, despite its current low profile, remains a potentially decisive factor in upcoming Danish parliamentary elections, according to election researcher Kasper Møller Hansen. He cautions politicians against complacency, emphasizing that the narrow margin between the red and blue blocs means that immigration policy could still sway voters.

Hansen points to historical precedents where immigration policy significantly impacted election outcomes, favoring the blue bloc. He notes that Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen’s strategy has been to minimize the immigration debate, but warns that any resurgence of the issue could trigger voter shifts and alter the election’s outcome.

Hansen highlights the unique ability of immigration policy to engage voters due to its visible nature and its focus on human lives. However, he argues that disagreement is necessary for the issue to be decisive. He explains that the current consensus on strict immigration policies across the political spectrum differs from the past.

The Danish People’s Party, led by Pia Kjærsgaard, capitalized on a perceived lack of political response to concerns about Muslim immigration and Danish culture. Venstre later aligned with the Danish People’s Party on immigration, contributing to electoral victories.

Two key turning points in the immigration debate were the 2001 election, which saw the implementation of stricter rules for family reunification, and the 2015 refugee crisis, where Syrian refugees traveled through Denmark, highlighting the challenges of open borders. This led to a shift in public opinion and increased support for the Danish People’s Party.

Hansen emphasizes the Social Democrats’ shift towards a stricter stance on immigration under Mette Frederiksen, acknowledging the importance of controlling the number of immigrants. This shift involved a collaborative approach with the Danish People’s Party, effectively neutralizing the party’s influence. Frederiksen’s strategy involves maintaining a strict position on immigration to avoid appearing weak and losing support to parties with more hardline stances.