Riktningen för global immigrationspolitik: En mer selektiv, strategisk och politiskt styrd framtid

The policy response, however, is changing. The broad direction is towards more selective migration, greater government control, stronger compliance and a closer relationship between immigration policy and economic policy. This is not necessarily a move towards less migration overall. Increasingly, it is a move towards different migration.

Europe: managing migration while competing for people

Europe provides perhaps the clearest example of the tension between political pressure and economic necessity. The EU received 4.2 million immigrants from outside the EU in 2024. At the same time, Europe continues to face demographic pressures associated with an ageing population and significant labour-market needs.

This helps explain why European policy is developing along two tracks. The first is stronger management of irregular migration, borders and asylum. The second is the development of mechanisms to attract workers and skills that European economies require.

The EU Pact on Migration and Asylum, which began applying in June 2026, is an important part of this new framework. It seeks to create a more consistent European approach to border management, asylum procedures, returns and solidarity between Member States. At the same time, the EU continues to develop legal migration and talent-attraction initiatives. 

The numbers also demonstrate that migration policy cannot be viewed solely through the lens of economic migration. At the end of 2025, 4.35 million people fleeing Ukraine were under temporary protection in the EU. Germany, Poland and Czechia accounted for the largest numbers, while Spain was also among the countries experiencing increases during 2025. 

This is an important reminder that European immigration policy is being shaped by several different forces simultaneously: labour markets, humanitarian obligations, geopolitical developments, border management and domestic politics.

Which migrants? Into which sectors? Under what conditions? And with what pathway towards long-term residence? That distinction is likely to become increasingly important across Europe.

Asia-Pacific: international talent remains essential, but governments want greater control

A similar pattern is emerging across Asia-Pacific, although the political context is different. Many economies in the region remain highly dependent on international workers. At the same time, governments are increasingly concerned with ensuring that foreign labour complements rather than displaces the domestic workforce.

Singapore provides a particularly clear example. Singapore's foreign workforce remained substantial in 2025. Ministry of Manpower data shows approximately 203,300 Employment Pass holders, 178,900 S Pass holders and 1.22 million Work Permit holders at the end of 2025. These figures demonstrate that Singapore remains fundamentally open to international labour.

But the policy architecture around that workforce is highly controlled. Employment Pass candidates must meet salary requirements and pass the COMPASS assessment, while work-permit and S Pass employment is subject to sector-specific quotas and levies. For example, the foreign-worker dependency ratio ceiling for Singapore's services sector is 35%. This is a useful model for understanding the direction of travel across much of Asia-Pacific. The objective is not to eliminate foreign workers. It is to manage the economic relationship between foreign and domestic labour.

Singapore has also explicitly linked foreign-worker policy with local employment outcomes. The Ministry of Manpower reported in 2026 that, over the previous decade, the number of resident professionals, managers, executives and technicians had increased by 357,000 while Employment Pass and S Pass numbers increased by 24,000. 

This provides an important policy lesson. Immigration systems are increasingly being judged not just by how many people a country admits, but by what happens to the domestic workforce alongside that migration.

Australia provides another example of a country that continues to require migration while seeking greater control over its composition. The Australian Government has set the 2026–27 Permanent Migration Program at 185,000 places. The significance is not simply the number, as Australia continues to use migration as an economic tool, particularly through skilled migration, while simultaneously responding to domestic concerns around population growth, housing and infrastructure.

The wider lesson is consistent with Singapore. Governments may continue to welcome international talent, but increasingly want to determine which skills are needed, at what level, and under what conditions. For employers, this means that immigration policy is becoming more closely linked to workforce planning.

North America: controlling temporary migration while protecting economic immigration

North America provides perhaps the clearest example of immigration policy being shaped directly by domestic political pressures. In the United States, border security, irregular migration and immigration enforcement have become central political issues. The result has been a much more interventionist and restrictive policy environment, with executive action, regulation, enforcement and litigation all playing significant roles.

Canada illustrates a different approach but is responding to some of the same pressures. The Canadian Government's 2026–2028 Immigration Levels Plan reduces the scale of new temporary migration while maintaining a substantial permanent immigration programme.

For 2026, Canada is targeting:

• 385,000 new temporary residents;‍
• 230,000 temporary workers;‍
• 155,000 international students; and‍
• 380,000 new permanent residents.

The policy objective is particularly revealing. Canada has committed to reducing its temporary population to below 5% of the total population by the end of 2027, while maintaining permanent resident admissions at 380,000 per year across the 2026–2028 plan. Economic immigration is expected to account for 64% of permanent admissions by 2027 and 2028.

This is a clear example of the emerging distinction between temporary migration and economically valuable permanent migration.

Canada is not abandoning immigration. Instead, it is attempting to reduce the scale of temporary migration while concentrating permanent migration more heavily on people who can support long-term economic objectives. That distinction is likely to become increasingly important globally.

‍The UK: a clear example of the changing model

The UK sits within the wider global trend, but developments since 2024 provide an especially clear illustration of how immigration policy is being recalibrated.

The official statistics show that the change is already visible in the data. In the year ending December 2025, the UK granted 168,000 work visas to main applicants, 19% fewer than the previous year and 50% below the 2023 peak. Health and Care Worker visas fell particularly sharply, while other skilled-worker grants also declined. 

This is not simply a change in demand, but it reflects deliberate policy intervention. The UK has increased salary and skills requirements, restricted access to certain occupations and placed greater emphasis on domestic skills development. The Government's wider policy direction has been towards a smaller, more highly skilled migration system.

At the same time, the UK still issued 407,000 sponsored study visas to main applicants in the year ending December 2025, demonstrating that international mobility remains substantial even while some routes have tightened.

The UK therefore provides a useful illustration of the broader global trend: migration is being managed by category rather than simply being increased or reduced as a whole. Some forms of migration are being constrained, while others remain strategically important.

From migration volume to migration value

One of the most important changes taking place globally is the move from considering migration primarily in terms of volume towards considering its composition and value.

Governments increasingly differentiate between:

• Highly skilled professionals and specialists.
• Workers filling identified labour shortages.
• Strategic industries and occupations.
• Entrepreneurs and investors.
• International students and graduates.
• Temporary workers.
• Family migration.
• Humanitarian and protection-based migration.

The policy treatment of these groups is becoming increasingly distinct. Singapore's salary thresholds and COMPASS system, Australia's skilled migration settings, Canada's increasing emphasis on economic immigration and the UK's focus on higher-skilled migration all point towards the same underlying principle.

Generally, the strongest immigration cases increasingly align with a country's economic priorities. For employers, this means the immigration question is becoming more closely connected to the role itself. The salary, occupation, skills, location, sector and strategic importance of the position can all influence the immigration pathway available.

There is an important contradiction at the centre of current immigration policy. Many governments want to reduce or better control migration. But many of the same economies need migration because their populations are ageing and their workforces are under pressure. This tension is unlikely to disappear.

How do advanced economies maintain productive workforces when demographic trends are working against them?

Immigration is one answer, but governments increasingly want to control precisely how that answer is delivered. The political debate around migration is increasingly connected to:

• Housing affordability.
• Population growth.
• Infrastructure.
• Offentlig service.
• Lönenivåer.
• Inhemsk sysselsättning.
• Gränssäkerhet.
• Nationell identitet.
• Integration.
• Nationell säkerhet.

Detta innebär att migrationspolitiken kan förändras när det underliggande politiska landskapet skiftar. Kanadas minskning av tillfällig migration, Storbritanniens begränsningar av arbetstillstånd, Singapores fortsatta användning av kvoter och lönetrösklar samt Europas ökade fokus på gräns- och asylhantering är olika politiska svar – men de speglar samma politiska verklighet.

Regeringar vill i allt högre grad visa att invandringen är under kontroll och att den ger tydliga ekonomiska eller sociala fördelar.

Vad innebär detta för arbetsgivare?

Konsekvenserna för globala företag är betydande. Migration och personalplanering blir alltmer oskiljaktiga. Arbetsgivare kan inte längre utgå från att ett beslut om internationell rekrytering kan följas av en ansökan om arbetstillstånd som en separat administrativ uppgift. Det migrationspolitiska landskapet måste i allt högre grad vägas in redan i början av personalplaneringsprocessen. När ett land skärper behörighetskraven, höjer lönetrösklarna eller prioriterar specifika yrkesgrupper, kan dessa förändringar direkt påverka rekryteringsstrategin.

Efterlevnad av migrationsregler blir en strategisk fråga i takt med att regeringar söker större kontroll. Arbetsgivaransvaret blir därför allt viktigare. Krav på sponsring, lönetrösklar, kvoter för arbetskraft, rapporteringsskyldigheter och dokumentation är inte längre bara tekniska migrationsfrågor. De kan direkt påverka ett företags förmåga att rekrytera och behålla internationell kompetens.

Politisk bevakning blir en del av migrationsplaneringen. Den politiska inriktningen kan vara lika viktig som de regler som gäller för stunden. En organisation som planerar ett omfattande internationellt rekryteringsprogram bör förstå inte bara dagens migrationskrav, utan även de politiska och ekonomiska påtryckningar som kan leda till att dessa krav förändras.

Framåtblick

Sammantaget pekar bevisen mot ett globalt migrationssystem som blir mer selektivt, mer ekonomiskt fokuserat och mer politiskt lyhört.

Fem teman kommer sannolikt att förbli särskilt viktiga.

För det första, ökad selektivitet. Länder kommer att fortsätta tävla om kompetens samtidigt som de försöker begränsa de migrationskategorier som skapar större politisk eller ekonomisk press.

För det andra, en tätare samordning med arbetsmarknadspolitiken. Immigrationssystem kommer i allt högre grad att spegla nationell kompetensbrist, strategier för den inhemska arbetskraften och strategiska sektorer.

För det tredje, en noggrannare granskning av tillfällig migration. Omfattningen och sammansättningen av tillfälliga populationer kommer sannolikt att förbli under press, särskilt där regeringar står inför begränsningar gällande bostäder och infrastruktur.

För det fjärde, mer differentierade vägar. Distinktionen mellan en högkvalificerad yrkesperson, en arbetstagare inom bristyrken, en internationell student, en tillfällig arbetstagare och en familjemigrant kommer att bli allt viktigare.

Slutligen, ökad politisk volatilitet. Immigrationspolitiken kommer att förbli mycket känslig för val, opinion, geopolitisk utveckling och inhemska ekonomiska förhållanden.