The home secretary, Shabana Mahmood, is expected this week to press ahead with plans to make it harder for migrants to gain settled status, extending the wait from five to 10 years. She will not change tack despite Labour’s crushing byelection defeat to the Greens. This is a mistake.

Ms Mahmood argues that Denmark’s Social Democrats curbed inflows to protect the welfare state and won at the ballot box. A general election in Denmark later this month will test whether that policy remains popular. Her recent visit to Copenhagen kept the spotlight on asylum, the most politically charged part of the UK system. Yet asylum flows are a small fraction of overall migration and largely disconnected from the labour shortages that undergird Britain’s economic debate. Public concern about migration is real – shaped by pressures on housing, services and wages. But pollsters say that this is disproportionately driven by Reform UK supporters, who worry substantially more about immigration than voters backing far-right parties in Europe. That suggests that the politics of migration is more complex than headlines imply.

The home secretary may propose cutting migration to show that she is listening. But in ageing countries where migrant workers are concentrated in key sectors such as health and construction, the fallout is very real. In Britain, visas for overseas nurses have fallen by 93%, from 26,100 in 2022 to 1,777 in 2025. Care worker visas are down 97% over the same period. Social care providers are struggling to recruit; construction firms warn of delays; universities compete globally for talent. Clearly, imposing sudden restrictions would have consequences beyond the raw numbers.

The tension between tighter controls and reliance on migrant labour is evident across Europe. Far‑right Sweden Democrats support a government that raised repatriation grants from £800 to £30,000 per adult, only for local authorities to protest over fears that labour shortages would hit essential services. Migration policy ought to align political rhetoric with economic reality and workforce planning. Shouting about cultural threats may win votes, but it does not staff surgical wards, harvest crops or build homes.

Demographic arithmetic eventually trumps nationalist rhetoric. Italy’s far-right prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, cannot reverse a collapsing birthrate or a greying workforce, so her government last year issued record numbers of work visas to non-EU nationals. Britain faces similar constraints. Although the working-age population is not shrinking outright, the ratio of workers to dependents is tightening as society ages. Labour supply is a long-term workforce issue, not short-term politics – especially when anti‑migrant rhetoric fuels tensions.

Ministers may say they are borrowing from Denmark rather than bowing to Reform UK. Yet Denmark, too, relies on migrant labour: foreign workers there have accounted for more than a third of employment growth in recent years. Key public services depend on migrant staff. Needlessly tightening rules could damage community cohesion. Ministers would be wrong to extend the path to settlement to 10 years because this entrenches insecurity that weakens workers’ ability to assert rights and put down roots. A serious government would level with voters about the country’s needs, invest in training at home and design migration rules that reflect both democratic consent and economic requirement. Without that, sectoral shortages, not ministers, will drive policy.

• Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.