Ferruccio PASTORE

Director of FIERI, independent research institute on migration based in Torino, Italy

Negative migration narratives are a key driver of change in contemporary politics. Within progressive circles, there is a widespread belief that this trend cannot be effectively countered, leaving only two options: embracing milder versions of right-wing discourse or avoiding the topic altogether. However, neither of these strategies has worked. It is time to change course. 

“A spectre is haunting Europe” (and the rest of what we once called the West): it is the Migrant. Unlike communism, which Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels famously branded in those terms in 1848, this spectre is disorganised and powerless. Nevertheless, recent history – from Brexit to Donald Trump’s electoral victories – shows that it can be exploited in dramatically transformative ways. The paradox does not stop there. Statistics show that unauthorised arrivals and border apprehensions are decreasing, both along the Mexico-US border and in the Mediterranean. Yet, on both sides of the Atlantic, anti-migration rhetoric is becoming increasingly radicalised rather than being toned down.

Narrative shifts

It is not just a matter of intensity and pervasiveness. We are also witnessing a qualitative shift in what media scholars call ‘masterframes‘. Ten years ago, populist migration narratives were hinged upon the border as a key element. ‘Invasion’ from the outside was the core threat, and border protection was the ultimate response. Since then, the dominant discourse has evolved, shifting its focus to the heart of Western societies. ‘Unassimilable’ migrants, due to their religion and/or essentially deviant nature, are increasingly portrayed as an internal enemy and an existential threat that must be physically removed. While one of the leading slogans of Trump’s 2016 campaign was ‘Build the wall’, by 2024, it had become ‘Mass deportation now’. Meanwhile, in Europe, the initially bombastic provocation of ‘remigration’, launched in Germany by the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), has crept towards the mainstream agenda, in Italy and elsewhere.

Just like the invasion tales, these narratives are also at odds with the figures that do not show any systematic increase in serious crimes nor in terrorist attacks by foreigners, as ‘internal enemy’ narratives postulate.

The real dangers

Besides grossly overstating dangers associated with immigration, this new breed of ‘migraphobic’ narratives completely dismisses social and economic threats caused by insufficient migration levels. Demographic and economic evidence in this regard is apparently incontrovertible: “Although they represented only around 9 per cent of the total labour force in 2022, foreign workers have accounted for half of its growth over the past three years”. These words were not uttered by some dangerous radical, but by Christine Lagarde, the president of the European Central Bank at the annual symposium of the US Federal Reserve, last August.

However, for a public opinion overwhelmed (and distracted) by cascading crises and wars, factual evidence seems to have lost any weight. Hence, the surreal situation in which flawed migration narratives consolidate their hegemony, while sound ones keep losing ground. Populist leaders are well aware that this course is unsustainable. As long as they are not in power, they can appeal to an act of faith (and submission), as the French far-right journalist and politician Éric Zemmour recently did when he declared – with a rather sinister smile – that ‘politics needs to defeat demographics’).

However, when anti-migration leaders come to power, it becomes difficult to ignore the recessionary effects of their electoral promises. Consequently, they are systematically forced to relax restrictions on immigration for employment purposes. The Italian case is particularly instructive here, with Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s government announcing a record target of half a million admissions in the period 2026-2028 in October 2025, in clear contrast with its own ideological inclinations.

By the way, notice that such political flip-flopping is nothing new in Italian history. The largest amnesty for undocumented migrants (647,000 beneficiaries) was implemented in 2002 by a right-wing government led by Silvio Berlusconi.

Calling the bluff(s)

When anti-migration politicians turn pro-migration, they obviously do not advertise it loudly. The trick consists of making employers happy without voters noticing. But the deeper demographic gaps bite, and the larger labour shortages become, the more difficult this trick becomes. Not only ideologically, but also practically, for mere reasons of attractiveness: In a context of increasingly harsh international struggle for skills, it is not easy to attract talent when you keep projecting a generally unwelcoming and nationalistic image of your country to the outside world.

In this surreal landscape, what are the chances for progressive migration politics? In spite of the widespread perception that ‘there is no alternative’, which leads most progressive leaders to choose milder versions of restrictive policies or to avoid the issue altogether, there is growing evidence that there is an alternative. What is needed is the courage to call the bluff loud and clear. What is needed is the courage to openly and aggressively blame ‘restrictionists’ for their anti-national and ultimately suicidal political behaviour.

There will be hard reactions, of course. Some will charge pro-migration progressives with being pro-elites and against the native working class. New and proactive forms of workers’ internationalism will be needed in response.

Other critics will claim that labour shortages driven by declining demographics are temporary and solvable, primarily thanks to technology. A daring example of this post-migration thinking came during the January 2026 World Economic Forum in Davos, when Elon Musk predicted a future of “amazing abundance” in which humans will be cared for by humanoid robots and so-called low-skilled workers will become superfluous.

But here too, what will indeed happen on a large scale in the very long term is, in the short and medium term, just another bluff. A narrative trick aimed at hiding the fact that while hyper-sophisticated robots will soon be available to complement the warmth of traditional human care for the rich, the poor (including what we once called middle class) will still not be able to afford either one. This is just another bluff to call, and if the progressives do not do it, nobody will.

Photo credits: Shutterstock / Mahmoud Mahdi Photo