Immigration has always occurred. Yet, it has not always been at the centre of political debates. This is because immigration has tended to happen according to flows of supply and demand in a natural way. If there was unemployment or famine in one place, and work or population shortage in another, it was only natural that people would relocate. Immigration to the US was only really regulated once the need decreased.

Immigration tends to be politicized when the going gets tough — when unemployment is high, when pandemics hit or when natives are otherwise uncertain about their future or are just angry and bitter. As socio-economic problems arise, so does a fear that immigrants are thoroughly incompatible with the native culture. However, the causal link in this is far from obvious: are socio-economic reasons to oppose immigration linked with cultural fears? Therefore, there is an ongoing debate in the social sciences about whether people oppose immigration primarily for cultural reasons arising out of a fear of losing one’s culture, or for economic reasons arising out of a fear of losing one’s job.

In early March when COVID-19 became a pandemic, most of us did not know what to expect, and neither did our policymakers. Heads of governments were suddenly confronted with a situation they had not previously encountered and which they did not expect. This is partly the reason for different policies with regard to public measures against the virus. Some countries began shutting down in March while others remained open for a much longer period. The outcomes have thus been quite different. By August 2020 the pandemic had spread across the world. With a view to the current time period since March, policymakers have begun discussing the most effective measures towards the spread of the pandemic. One country has drawn the attention of the critics. The country is Sweden.