From ‘us first’ to ‘only us’. Why the right wing wins thanks to immigration

In Saxony-Anhalt, almost one in two voters cast their ballot for the Alternative für Deutschland. The AfD won the regional elections with 44 per cent of the vote, more than double the figure from five years ago. At the heart of its manifesto is the fight against immigration, with a proposal to abolish the constitutional right to asylum and a ‘remigration’ policy that goes far beyond the repatriation of irregular migrants: more detentions and forced deportations; the return of Ukrainians and all beneficiaries of protection from countries now deemed safe; the reduction of social benefits to encourage departure; and the turning away of asylum seekers at internal borders, transforming the temporary exemption from the Schengen Agreement into a permanent system of control. Ultimately, this represents a complete reversal of the reception policy championed by Angela Merkel in 2015. It would be simplistic to attribute a result of this magnitude to a single cause: the economic crisis, the weakness of the federal government and mistrust of the traditional parties have also played a part. However, it would be a mistake to deny the centrality of the migration issue. Hence the unavoidable question: why, on this issue, does the right continue to prevail – today even in its radical form – except in countries such as Denmark, where the left has embraced austerity?

The most common explanation is that the right wins because it stokes fears, such as that of ethnic replacement, or offers easy but unrealistic solutions, such as closing the borders. This explanation certainly captures part of the truth. But the right also wins for a deeper reason: because it adopts the perspective most appealing to the majority of voters, that of the citizen as a member of a political community.

Slogans such as ‘Italians first’ and ‘America First’ crudely express a genuine question: what obligations do we have towards those who belong to our community, and what obligations do we have towards those outside it? It is the conflict between two different perspectives. The moral perspective considers what is right for everyone, for every person, regardless of their affiliation. The ethical-political perspective considers what is good for us, as members of a community. The right wing elevates the latter to an absolute: ‘us first’ tends to become ‘only us’. But much of the left commits the opposite error: it treats any priority given to citizens as morally suspect, overlooking the fact that democracy, the welfare state, taxation and political solidarity presuppose a defined community.

This is yet another reason why it is not enough to counter restrictive policies with the ‘rights-based approach’ – a term currently in vogue amongst legal experts. Rights establish what must not be done to anyone: they prohibit arbitrary detention, refoulement where there is a risk of persecution or inhuman treatment, and decisions lacking safeguards and effective remedies. But rights do not specify how many migrants to admit, through which channels, according to which criteria, nor what balance to strike between reception, integration, social cohesion and administrative capacity. Respect for fundamental rights is the limit of any migration policy, not a migration policy in its own right. Within that limit, more open or more restrictive policies are possible, which must be decided democratically, including – according to the teachings of Jürgen Habermas – on the basis of ethical-political and pragmatic considerations.

To think that invoking rights can replace these decisions reveals a fallacious ‘pan-legal’ view: one cannot entrust the law with the task of resolving a conflict that is, first and foremost, political. Otherwise, we repeat the flawed perspective that favours the right: the underestimation of the viewpoint of the citizen-as-community-member, of their expectations regarding security, and of their perception of border control as the true litmus test of a democracy’s capacity for self-governance. The two perspectives referred to are different but not irreconcilable. What is lacking, however, is a synthesis that recognises both needs: a political community may prioritise the welfare of its members, but it cannot do so whilst denying migrants the respect due to every person. Political solidarity requires borders, but borders do not suspend morality and a sense of humanity. As long as the Left offers universalism without a credible vision of belonging, the Right – even whilst offering only a sense of belonging – will continue to hold a decisive advantage. Not because it has the best solution, but because it has remained almost alone in taking an essential part of the problem seriously.