Welcome, User!
A historical and structural look at why America’s identity fits high immigration and economic dynamism better than Scandinavian-style social democracy—and why a “mobility state” might be the only way to reconcile openness with social protection.
For as long as it has existed, the United States has carried two competing self-portraits. On one hand, it is the archetypal “nation of immigrants”—a country defined not by bloodline but by the recurring arrival of new people, new languages, and new cultural currents. On the other, it has repeatedly flirted with the idea of building a large, protective, European-style welfare state, the kind associated with stability, solidarity, and a tightly woven social safety net. These are both powerful visions of what a nation can be. But they do not always coexist easily.
The tension is simple to describe and notoriously difficult to resolve: can a country sustain both high levels of immigration and a far-reaching social-democratic welfare state? Many modern political movements treat these two ideals as naturally compatible—morally aligned, even. Yet historically, the countries that built the most comprehensive social-democratic systems did so under conditions of cultural homogeneity and slow demographic change. The United States, by contrast, has been defined by constant demographic renewal, often in rapid waves.
A century ago, though, something different happened. The United States tightened its immigration laws dramatically, shutting the door to whole regions of the world under the logic of racial “preservation.” And it was precisely in that same era—roughly from the 1930s through the 1960s—that America developed the beginnings of a modern welfare state, expanded union power, and laid the foundations of its vast administrative apparatus. These two forces—redistribution and demographic closure—grew together not because they were philosophically aligned, but because one was artificially engineered to make the other politically possible.
Today, that artificial constraint is gone. The United States has reopened itself to the world, and its population is once again diverse, dynamic, and in constant motion. What remains is a political tension the mid-century country never had to confront: how do you sustain redistributive politics in a society that is increasingly heterogeneous and globally connected?
This essay argues that, if history is any guide, the American identity aligns far more naturally with openness, immigration, and economic dynamism than with a tightly managed, Scandinavian-style model of social democracy. The challenge is not to decide whether America should choose between immigration and welfare, but to acknowledge that the two were never designed to grow together without friction—and to ask what a genuinely American synthesis would look like today.
The early twentieth century marked a dramatic shift in the American relationship to immigration. After decades of rapid demographic transformation—driven largely by arrivals from Southern and Eastern Europe—political leaders concluded that the country had absorbed “enough.” The Johnson–Reed Act of 1924 formalized that judgment. It imposed strict national-origins quotas designed explicitly to preserve what policymakers believed was the “traditional” ethnic composition of the United States: overwhelmingly Northern European and Protestant.
This was not a hidden agenda; it was the selling point. Congressional debates of the period were filled with openly expressed fears about Italians, Jews, Slavs, Greeks, and other groups deemed “undesirable,” “unassimilable,” or “racially inferior.” Scientific racism—then viewed as credible by elite institutions—provided the intellectual veneer. Immigration policy became an experiment in demographic engineering, a deliberate effort to slow, freeze, or reverse the ethnic diversification of the country.
The effect was immediate and profound. Immigration dropped to historic lows, and the nation experienced one of the most demographically stable periods in its history. For the first and only time, the United States was, by law, designed to remain what it already was.
It was in this same era of demographic closure that the federal government began constructing the first durable pillars of an American welfare state. The Great Depression exposed deep vulnerabilities in the economic order, and the New Deal responded with a sweeping redefinition of the government’s role in economic and social life. Social Security provided an income floor for retirees and the disabled; federal labor protections secured higher wages and safer conditions; and programs like the Civilian Conservation Corps and Works Progress Administration put millions back to work.
At the same time, the Wagner Act strengthened labor unions, giving workers newfound bargaining power inside a relatively stable labor market. The modern administrative state took shape through new agencies, new regulations, and an expanded federal presence in daily economic life.
What emerged was not merely emergency relief but a long-term institutional shift: early social democracy, American-style. And crucially, it was built atop a population whose composition was no longer changing at the pace typical of the U.S. experience.
The coexistence of redistribution and demographic closure was not a coincidence; it was a political synergy. The restricted immigration regime reduced population churn, stabilizing labor markets and strengthening unions' bargaining power through reduced competition. Policymakers faced lower resistance to redistributive programs, as beneficiaries were seen as part of a more unified national group. This fostered the “mid-century consensus”—a romanticized era of agreement on the social contract—that relied on artificially curbed diversity rather than organic harmony.
The mid-century years now appear remarkably stable only when viewed from above. Seen from the ground, they were stable because the state enforced a closed demographic system while simultaneously engineering a more protective economic one. In other words, the welfare architecture of that era relied on conditions that America no longer chooses—and no longer wants—to replicate.
None of this means that immigration restriction alone “caused” the welfare state to emerge. Economic collapse, industrial organization, mass unemployment, and the political strength of labor all played central roles in driving New Deal reforms. But demographic closure removed one major source of perceived competition and out-group resentment from the equation. It made it easier for policymakers to sell redistribution to an electorate that, rightly or wrongly, imagined the beneficiaries as part of a single national community. In that sense, immigration policy did not create social democracy, but it cleared political space for a more solidaristic welfare architecture than a constantly changing, high-immigration society might have tolerated.
The decades following World War II occupy a special place in the American imagination: years of mass homeownership, stable employment, rising real wages, accessible education, and a broad middle class. Yet this prosperity rested on an unrepeatable landscape. The war devastated Europe and East Asia’s industrial bases, leaving U.S. capacity intact and dominant. With almost no foreign competition, American firms exported freely, unions won strong gains, and the dollar’s reserve status amplified leverage. The resulting growth was mistaken for a permanent triumph of policy when it was a geopolitical accident. Once competitors recovered, the conditions vanished—exposing a model built on limited competition and relative demographic closure that cannot survive in today’s globalized, diverse, high-mobility world.
Building on the US mid-century example, the social-democratic systems of Scandinavia—often idealized in American political debates—did not emerge in a vacuum. They were built within societies characterized by extraordinary cultural, linguistic, and ethnic homogeneity. For most of the twentieth century, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway were overwhelmingly composed of populations that shared not just ancestry, but also social norms, religious traditions, and expectations about civic duty.
This sameness produced something invaluable to redistribution: high social trust. Citizens were far more willing to support steep taxation when they believed the benefits would flow to people who shared similar backgrounds, similar values, and similar conceptions of work and responsibility. Political scientists have long argued that the durability of welfare states depends on this trust—on a collective sense that recipients of public support are “like us” and are playing by the same rules.
In that context, taxation felt less like extraction and more like mutual insurance. The Scandinavian welfare model was not merely a technical policy arrangement; it was a cultural project made possible by demographic stability.
Another feature that enabled Scandinavia’s generous systems was scale. These countries are small—geographically, administratively, and demographically. A smaller population makes welfare distribution simpler, cheaper, and easier to monitor. Social services can be delivered with less bureaucratic complexity, and program abuse can be identified more quickly.
Small populations also tend to be less geographically mobile, which stabilizes the tax base and reduces the risk of benefit tourism. Because inflow pressures are lower, welfare programs do not strain rapidly or unpredictably. The system is not constantly adjusting to new population flows or demographic shocks.
This administrative simplicity is often overlooked in American debates. A country of 5 million can run a welfare system that a country of 330 million—spread across a continent, with high internal migration and major global inflows—simply cannot imitate without profound structural redesign.
There is a reason why the countries most associated with generous welfare systems often maintain some of Europe’s strictest immigration policies.
Denmark, despite its international reputation for progressivism, enforces highly restrictive immigration rules—including stringent integration requirements and reduced benefits for newcomers.
Sweden, after taking in record numbers of refugees during the 2015 migration crisis, experienced a political backlash that reshaped its entire political landscape, empowering parties that campaigned on limiting immigration to protect welfare sustainability.
Norway has struggled with integration challenges and has adjusted benefits and requirements in response to public concerns about fairness and cohesion.
These cases illustrate a recurring pattern: as diversity increases, the political willingness to fund expansive welfare programs often decreases. Generosity becomes contingent not just on economic capacity, but on whether the electorate believes the recipients share enough common identity to justify redistribution.
When public perception shifts—from “we are one national group” to “we are an assortment of groups with different norms”—welfare support erodes. Scandinavian countries have responded by tightening immigration rules, modifying benefits, or both.
The lesson from Scandinavia is neither obscure nor controversial among political scientists: welfare states built on homogeneity struggle when diversity rises too quickly.
This does not mean diversity is inherently incompatible with social welfare. It means that welfare systems designed under assumptions of cultural sameness cannot be sustained without adaptation when those assumptions no longer hold. The United States, already far more diverse, mobile, and open than any Scandinavian society at the peak of its welfare expansion, cannot simply import a Nordic model without confronting the foundational differences that made those models work.
The modern Democratic coalition is built on a set of ideals that coexist uneasily when placed under practical political pressure. On paper, the party champions both expansive immigration and a strengthened social safety net—a combination that aligns morally with universalism yet clashes structurally with the historical foundations of welfare politics.
Progressive activists and many academics emphasize moral universalism: the idea that the United States has an obligation to welcome newcomers and ensure their economic security. At the same time, the academic left has increasingly advocated European-style social-democratic structures—universal healthcare, robust public benefits, stronger labor protections, and extensive regulatory oversight.
Substantial parts of the traditional labor-left, however, remain skeptical. Workers in sectors vulnerable to wage competition often express ambivalence about large-scale immigration. Unions, historically empowered during eras of demographic stability, worry that higher labor supply dilutes bargaining power. This tension is rarely acknowledged openly, but it sits at the core of the coalition.
Latino voters—often assumed to align naturally with pro-welfare politics—do not reliably do so. Many Latino communities value entrepreneurship, personal responsibility, and moderate taxation. They often support immigration reform while maintaining more centrist or even conservative views on redistribution.
Tech elites, meanwhile, constitute a powerful and increasingly dominant Democratic constituency. They are overwhelmingly pro-immigration—particularly for high-skill labor—yet deeply resistant to unionization and often skeptical of broad redistributive taxation. Their vision of immigration is globalist and meritocratic, not tied to welfare expansion.
The result is internal friction—a political project that aspires to Scandinavian outcomes while operating within a fundamentally different economic and demographic reality, and that still imagines “more protection” rather than a redesign of the system around mobility and churn.
If the Democratic coalition suffers from tension, the Republican coalition suffers from outright contradiction. Republicans oppose immigration—illegal and often legal—with increasing intensity. At the same time, they oppose expansions of the welfare state, champion small government, and resist tax increases of any kind.
Yet they are also the party most fiercely protective of senior entitlements: Medicare, Social Security, and veterans’ benefits. These programs constitute the largest components of federal social spending, and their political base depends heavily on them. The average Republican voter rejects “welfare” in the abstract while vigorously defending the welfare he or she personally receives.
This alone would create cognitive dissonance, but the contradiction deepens with the party’s economic ideology. Republican leaders often defend neoliberal policies—free markets, deregulation, low taxes—that benefit corporations and the wealthy, while pairing them with strict nationalist rhetoric aimed at protecting “the American worker.”
The result is a political base that fiercely opposes “welfare,” yet overwhelmingly supports the largest and most expensive social programs the government operates. This selective defense illustrates that the contradiction is not about spending itself, but about the narrative framing of who deserves support.
This pairing—economic libertarianism plus cultural nationalism—turns the coalition into something that functions less as a coherent worldview and more as a vehicle for identity politics. Immigration becomes the symbolic battle that stands in for deeper anxieties about cultural change, economic displacement, and national identity.
In practice, the right is trying to freeze an entitlement structure that depends on a growing, working-age tax base while simultaneously opposing the very immigration flows that would keep that base healthy. If the American right continues pairing hostility to immigration with sacrosanct senior entitlements, it will remain trapped in a politics that cannot reproduce itself demographically without the newcomers it campaigns against.
The overall effect is incoherence: a party that is anti-welfare, anti-tax, pro-elder benefits, anti-immigration, and pro-corporate all at once. These contradictions do not destroy the coalition, but they do force it to rely increasingly on symbolic politics rather than policy consistency.
Both major coalitions carry internal contradictions, and both will face mounting stress as demographics, economics, and culture continue to shift. The tensions, however, play out differently. The Democratic fusion of high immigration and European-style social democracy runs into structural limits in a diverse, high-churn society, because its central promise depends on sustaining broad voter support for large-scale universal redistribution across increasingly heterogeneous groups.
Republican contradictions are easier to defer. They revolve around symbolism, identity, and selective exceptions—denouncing “big government” while defending large entitlement programs, opposing immigration in the abstract while relying on immigrant labor in practice, pairing pro-market economics with protectionist rhetoric. This is not a recipe for long-term coherence, yet it allows the coalition to function politically without resolving its underlying tensions.
The Democratic project, on the other hand, must confront harder arithmetic. Expansive universal benefits require stable majorities willing to tax themselves on behalf of an ever-changing demos. In a low-trust, high-diversity environment, that support is fragile. Unless the party’s factions converge on a coherent vision of how immigration and welfare can coexist—and on institutions that build trust across groups—the coalition will remain perpetually pulled in opposing directions.
The central question animating this entire debate is whether the United States can sustain both high levels of immigration and a strong system of social protection. The instinctive answer from many corners of the political spectrum is “of course”—that a moral, prosperous society should do both. But once we step away from sentiment and into structural analysis, the answer becomes more nuanced.
Yes, America can have both.
But not in the form that Scandinavian countries developed, and certainly not by imitating their institutional designs. In practice, no large, diverse democracy has yet managed to maximize high immigration, expansive unconditional benefits, and stable long-term voter support all at once without eventually compromising one of the three.
To combine openness with social protection, the United States would need a different kind of welfare architecture—one tailored to a country that is large, diverse, mobile, and perpetually reshaped by immigration.
On purely economic grounds, immigration is not the obstacle it is often imagined to be. In fact, immigrants contribute substantially to long-term economic growth. They:
From a fiscal standpoint, immigration can enhance the capacity of a welfare state rather than drain it. The problem is not the math.
The real barrier is political, not financial.
Redistribution depends on social cohesion, as both the mid-century U.S. and Scandinavian histories suggest. In a high-immigration context, challenges include eroded voter solidarity, heightened polarization from demographic shifts, and weakened high-trust models in fluid societies. Scandinavian systems thrived on exceptional trust, but U.S. trust is already low, making rapid change a barrier to abstract universalism.
The most common objection, of course, is that the United States already operates a massive welfare state—Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, disability insurance, and veterans’ benefits—and that these programs continue to function despite high diversity. But these are not universal, Scandinavian-style social programs; they are categorical and identity-coded. They are understood by voters not as redistributive welfare but as “earned benefits,” tied to age, work history, or military service.
Their legitimacy comes from that framing. They are politically insulated precisely because they avoid the perception of broad, unconditional redistribution across social groups. In other words, America’s largest social programs succeed because they sidestep the political challenges of diversity rather than solving them. They do not demonstrate that a universal welfare state can thrive in a high-immigration society—they demonstrate how Americans have historically relied on narrow eligibility, not universalism, to preserve political support.
A workable American model would therefore have to break with all three familiar templates at once: the European protection state, the libertarian minimal state, and the instinct to simply scale up the patchwork of categorical programs the U.S. already operates. The protection state builds security by buffering citizens inside a relatively stable, culturally homogeneous society; its promise is stability, and large-scale immigration is treated as a potential strain on that stability. The minimal state keeps taxes and guarantees low and treats security as an almost entirely private matter; in that world, immigration is primarily a question of labor costs and cultural anxiety, not of shared social architecture.
A mobility state would be different from either. Instead of cushioning citizens inside a fixed order or leaving them fully exposed to raw markets, it would treat public spending as opportunity infrastructure: simple universal baselines, portable benefits that follow people across jobs and states, aggressive skill-building, rapid legal and economic integration for newcomers, and strong incentives for entrepreneurship and experimentation. Its promise would not be “we will protect you from change” but “we will equip you to ride it.”
In short, a mobility state would be designed for a society that has always renewed itself through motion, not stasis—one that accepts high immigration and internal churn as permanent features, not temporary shocks.
The closest America has ever come to a mobility-state framework was the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944—the GI Bill. In one stroke it gave sixteen million returning veterans portable, generous, and largely universal benefits: tuition, low-interest home loans, and living stipends. It was not permanent welfare; it was a rocket booster for upward motion. Recipients used it to move across states, switch industries, start businesses, and educate themselves into entirely new lives. The program accepted massive demographic and geographic churn as a given and turned it into a core driver of the postwar middle class. Its implementation, however, was scarred by discriminatory practices that systematically limited Black veterans’ access to its most valuable benefits—proof that mobility-state tools can still reproduce hierarchy if access is not genuinely universal. Even so, the GI Bill remains one of the most popular and least-contested social programs in American history, largely because it equipped people to ride change rather than hide from it.
If such a mobility state is the practical answer to the paradox, a deeper question remains: when forced to choose, which tradition—openness or protection—actually lies closer to the American soul?
If the United States must decide which political tradition best reflects its historical identity, the answer lies not in welfare institutions but in its longstanding relationship with immigration. From its earliest days, the U.S. has framed itself as a nation built on a creed—a set of ideas about liberty, opportunity, and self-determination—rather than on ancestry or ethnic lineage. This creed-based identity has always given the country a distinctive openness, attracting people who sought reinvention, security, or upward mobility.
Immigration has repeatedly been the engine of American dynamism. New arrivals have brought languages, religions, skills, cuisines, technologies, and worldviews. They have expanded the labor force, founded companies, revitalized cities, and driven innovation across every major industry. Cultural diversity has acted not as a burden but as a source of creativity—fueling artistic movements, intellectual breakthroughs, and even entirely new genres of American culture.
From Silicon Valley to American music, from scientific laboratories to neighborhood small businesses, diversity has been one of the country’s strongest competitive advantages. When the U.S. embraces immigration, it buys a perpetual source of renewal—economic, cultural, and demographic.
Social welfare, by contrast, has always been a supporting feature rather than a defining one. It has played a stabilizing role, providing a floor beneath the most vulnerable and offering a buffer against the harshest swings of the market. At its best, the American welfare system has been moral, pragmatic, and responsive to moments of crisis.
But it was never the ideological core of the American project. It never reached the breadth, centrality, or philosophical depth of European social democracy. It has always been bounded—less generous, less universal, and more fragmented. American political culture tends to view government intervention through a lens of suspicion even when it approves of specific programs.
The American ethos has prized mobility over stasis, opportunity over protectionism, and individual advancement over collective security. Welfare works best in the United States when it amplifies that mobility—helping people acquire skills, move freely, and seize economic opportunity—rather than when it attempts to replace the market with a protective shelter.
Taken together, these traditions suggest a clear answer: if America must choose between high immigration and a Scandinavian-style welfare state, the more authentically American choice is immigration.
Immigration is woven into the country’s origin story, its national mythology, and its ongoing growth. It has shaped the American economy, the American imagination, and the American future far more deeply than any redistributive model borrowed from abroad. Social democracy was an experiment of circumstance; immigration is a defining principle.
That said, the goal is not to pit the two values against each other. The real challenge for the United States is to build a welfare model that supports movement rather than restraining it—one that protects people without insulating them from the opportunities that constant renewal creates.
The path forward is not Scandinavian replication but American innovation: a system that balances mobility with security, openness with cohesion, and diversity with shared civic purpose. If the U.S. succeeds, it will not be because it chose one side of the paradox, but because it designed institutions that allow the paradox to function.
America is attempting to combine two political traditions that evolved under opposite conditions, and that collision is the source of the current paradox. One tradition is rooted in openness, movement, and reinvention. The other seeks stability, security, and a more protective social contract. For a brief moment in the mid-twentieth century, these two forces appeared to work together—but only because the United States had artificially closed itself off from the world at the same time it was constructing its early welfare institutions.
That era has ended. The country has re-opened, diversified, expanded, and globalized. Immigration once again shapes the American story, not as a side note but as a central element of its cultural and economic engine. The Scandinavian model, built in small, homogeneous, slow-changing societies, cannot simply be imported into a nation defined by scale, heterogeneity, and perpetual motion.
The real task, then, is neither nostalgia nor imitation. It is recognition. The United States will succeed in the twenty-first century not by denying what makes it different, but by building institutions that make sense for a country that is large, diverse, mobile, and continually transformed by new arrivals. It must design a welfare system that complements movement rather than restrains it—one that empowers people to navigate change rather than sheltering them from it.
If America embraces this reality, it can resolve the paradox at the heart of its politics. Immigration does not have to threaten social protection, and social protection does not have to stifle dynamism. Making the two compatible begins with recognizing that the old mid-century formula depended on conditions that no longer exist—and that the future demands adaptation rather than replication.
In the end, the American story has always been closer to an open-port engine than a sheltered harbor: messy, noisy, fast, contradictory, and thrillingly alive. Its strength has never come from uniformity or predictability, but from energy, reinvention, and the constant arrival of new people bringing new possibilities. The task ahead is to build a system that honors that reality—not by closing the door, and not by abandoning social protection, but by crafting a uniquely American model that treats dynamism not as a threat, but as the country’s greatest advantage.
Facebook
Reddit
WhatsApp
Twitter