The rise of right-wing, anti-immigration parties in Europe is often explained by concerns over immigration’s effects. Many believe voters support these parties because they fear losing jobs, paying higher taxes and rents, or seeing their culture change.
A new study by researchers from ETH Zurich and Bocconi University in Milan tests this idea in Switzerland. It looks at voting patterns before and after 2004, when the country allowed free movement for European Union (EU) citizens. The study focuses on towns within 30 minutes of the national border.
A controlled approach
Unlike past research, this study takes a controlled approach. It compares two areas: towns within 15 minutes of the border, where immigration increased due to cross-border workers, and those 15 to 30 minutes away, which serve as a control group.
The results are striking. In border towns, support for anti-immigration parties—such as the Swiss People’s Party (SVP), the Ticino League, and the Geneva Citizens’ Movement—rose by six percentage points after the border opened, compared to the control group.
To understand why, the researchers looked at economic and social concerns. They found no evidence that more immigration harmed residents, either in reality or in perception. Most EU migrants were culturally and linguistically similar to the Swiss, making identity concerns less likely. Economic fears also seem misplaced. Data show that wages and employment in border towns stayed the same or even improved after the labor market opened. Traffic congestion, often seen as a sign of overcrowding, increased at similar rates in both regions.
Political factors
Since economic and cultural fears do not explain the shift, the researchers examined political messaging. In 2004, the SVP started using the term “density stress” to link immigration to crowded trains, traffic, and urban sprawl. This message avoided direct xenophobia and appealed to a wider audience.
The evidence supports this. Media coverage of “density stress” rose sharply after 2004. Anti-immigration parties also became more active in border areas, submitting more parliamentary motions on immigration than their colleagues in other regions. Surveys show that voters with moderate political interest—neither highly engaged nor completely disengaged—were most influenced by this messaging.
The study suggests that anti-immigration parties do not just react to public concerns—they create them. By crafting narratives that play on people’s unease, they shape debate and gain support, even when immigration has no clear negative impact. In border areas, where they focused their efforts, this strategy appears to have worked.
