Some countries slammed their doors. It worked — until they let outsiders back in.
By then it was clear to me that these kids had met one foreigner before, and that unfortunate person hailed from south-east Asia. The move was temporary, a half-hearted stab at emigration; nonetheless, I was enrolled in school. It didn’t matter: I was no longer an asylum seeker. So the time that followed, the years in refugee hostels, felt peaceful, a reprieve from all the noise. Initially, Singapore controlled the virus really well. Eventually we returned to Iran. And they, as a Protestant community, had accepted us, rescued us. Most of these countries got their epidemics under control. You're new to the country, the school, and the culture. We became asylum seekers, spending two years in refugee hostels in Dubai and Rome. Many of them ; closed borders. Other immigrants have written about this moment: the “welcome home” at JFK, its power on the psyche after long flights. Due to the necessity for Japanese subjects to travel to and from these trading posts, this resembled something of | that dynamic is not limited to britain or to this referendum it is playing out in democracies around the world and immigration has become its focal point
many citizens particularly those who have suffered under the economic pressures of globalization express their anxiety over these changes by focusing on another form of change foreigners in their midst halting immigration even if the actual effect is to worsen their own economic situation seems like a way of staving off those larger changes
democratic governments have shown over and over that they have no answer for this anxiety even as the stakes in europe and globally continue mounting | The cases of Sweden, Denmark and Norway demonstrate that the refugee crisis was construed differently in the three countries and that this had implications for policy choices. Despite the many similarities in size, culture, language, politics, labour markets and welfare systems, there exists a persistent pattern of intra-Scandinavian differences within immigration policy (Brochmann & Hagelund, ; Huddleston, Bilgili, Joki, & Vankova, ; Hernes, ). | and regional planning or the public space in Peru. They are afraid of being robbed, taken hostage… That’s why there are checks on who comes in and why they agreed to have the wall built. Be they temporary or permanent, they often reflect the desire of those building the wall to protect themselves against what they perceive as a ‘threat’, as seen with the walls recently raised in Europe to of refugees. For him, Lima is the “ ”. During the big migrations of the seventies and eighties, the locals used the security argument to take refuge in gated communities. | also briefly reviews some existing studies of Scandinavian responses to the refugee crisis. Swedish, Danish and Norwegian policy actors (nearly) all aimed to reduce the arrival figures. Hernes ( ) has shown that all the three Scandinavian countries changed policies in a restrictive direction following the so-called refugee crisis. Despite the many similarities in size, culture, language, politics, labour markets and welfare systems, there exists a persistent pattern of intra-Scandinavian differences within immigration policy (Brochmann & Hagelund, ; Huddleston, Bilgili, Joki, & Vankova, ; Hernes, ). Before the residents dispersed, when the issue of migration policy arose, a consensus spread among the assembled that Denmark’s long standing tough stance was still the right way to go — and Europe would do well to follow. In all three Scandinavian countries a range of new policy proposals were made in order to stem the incoming migration. | With bars, restaurants, museums and theaters open, the city has become a destination in recent months for Europeans seeking an escape from regulations in their own regions. “We could introduce hundreds of restrictions, but it’s about compliance with them.” All nonessential shops are closed and restaurants are takeout-only. Local leaders have chosen to try and keep restrictions at a minimum, even as cases have risen steadily in recent weeks. Nowhere has been locked down as long as Europe. And as it confronts a deadly new wave of infection, rules are tightening again in many countries. Traveling more than roughly six miles from one’s residence is forbidden, barring a “compelling reason,” and all nonessential businesses are closed. While the government tightened restrictions over Easter — including limiting the number of people allowed in supermarkets and closing nonessential businesses like beauty salons — even Poland’s health minister, Adam Niedzielski, acknowledged many people have
Some countries slammed their doors. It worked — until they let outsiders back in.
This Is Why We Couldn’t Control the Pandemic
ByTomás PueyoNathaniel LashandYaryna SerkezSept. 14, 2020
To stop the coronavirus,the most successfulcountries slammed their doorsshut to visitors. It worked.Until they letoutsiders back in.To stop the coronavirus, the most successful countries slammed their doors shut to visitors. It worked.Until they let outsiders back in.
In March, I wrote two widely read articlesabout the emerging coronavirus pandemic,“Why You Must Act Now,” then “The Hammer and the Dance,” which called for a “hammer” (stringent measures to stop the virus) followed by a “dance” (intelligent but less aggressive actions to prevent the pandemic from coming back).
Since then, many countries have used a hammer: schools closed; businesses shuttered; public events were banned; masks were required; citizens were ordered to shelter at home.
All those actions helped slow the spread of the virus. But as the world failed to dance the right way, it has been facingresurgencesof the pandemic. I’ve been examining the failures  — and what needs to happen next time.
Measures like masks, testing, contact tracing, isolations, quarantines are still necessary, but one approach has not been emphasized enough: the fence. Countries that quickly closed their borders or carefully monitored anyone coming in have been most successful in slowing infections.
Some countries use fences to block outsiders from crossing their borders. Some countries limit travel within their borders. As the United States considersrelaxing some border controlsandEuropeancountriesreimposetravel restrictions, they need to realize that these fences are necessary to control the virus — and if they are enforced, they’ll be effective.
Back in May, the coronavirus was out of control.Brazil,Russiaand theUnited Stateshad noticeably more cases thanJapan,Taiwan and South Korea. You might think this would be because the first three have been more lax in their approach. Certainly, the leaders of these nations were half-hearted — and worse — in handling the virus.
But many regional governments within each country actually imposed quite severe restrictions on activity. This shows Oxford University’s Stringency Index, which zeroes in on the strictest measures in a country, whether part of a national, state or local government response to slow the virus, like closing businesses and limiting gatherings. As you can see,Brazil, Russia and the United Statesrank higher in thestringency of their measures — much stricter, overall, thanJapan, Taiwan and South Korea. Yet those countries still had some of the worst outbreaks in the world.
That’s because their national governments didn’t coordinate a central response, leaving state governments to battle the virus largely on their own.
Some states pursued aggressive actions to slow the pandemic while others took a hands-off approach. Those differing responses hamstrung states that adopted stricter measures, since travel between states continued, undermining the efforts of hard-working governments to suppress the virus, and spreading it throughout the countries.
This is what the active cases per region looked like as they spread through China early this year. The virus expanded  from the epicenter in Wuhan, the capital of Hubei Province, to surrounding regions.
Two weeks after the Jan. 23 lockdown of Hubei Province, 60 percent of all Chinese cases were in Wuhan, 20 percent were in the rest of Hubei and the remaining 20 percent in neighboring provinces.
It’s as if there were concentric circles around the epicenter. The closer you were to it, the more cases you had.
The same thing happened in Italy.
The main outbreak was initially concentrated around Lodi. It exploded, infecting surrounding areas, including Milan.
The government applied a hammer: Shelter-at-home orders were issued, nonessential businesses were closed. The restrictions included a fence: Citizenswere explicitly barredfrom traveling to other parts of the country.
Without travel, the spread froze. The provinces that hadn’t been affected, like those in southern Italy, would be spared. The shape of the map barely changed. Cases just kept going down in every province.
We saw the same pattern unfolding in Spain and France.
Spain
Daily active cases (log scale)
1
10
100
1,000
20,000
Madrid
Spain’s cases start
in Madrid
Travel ban
begins in March
February 15
March 15
Infections seem
frozen
Infections
fade by May
April 15
May 15
And continue
to fall
June 15
France
Daily active cases (log scale)
1
40
1,000
7,000
Paris
The virus
surges
France’s outbreak
takes hold
April 15
March 20
By June,
infections recede
Countermeasures
take effect
June 15
May 15
And continue
to fall
July 15
Daily
active
cases
(log scale)
Madrid
1
10
100
1,000
20,000
Travel ban
begins in March
Infections seem
frozen
Infections
fade by May
And continue
to fall
Spain’s cases start
in Madrid
June 15
February 15
March 15
April 15
May 15
Paris
1
40
1,000
4,000
7,000
France’s outbreak
takes hold
The virus
surges
Countermeasures
take effect
By June,
infections recede
And continue
to fall
March 20
April 15
May 15
June 15
July 15
Daily
active
cases
(log scale)
1
10
Madrid
100
1,000
20,000
Travel ban begins
in March
Infections seem frozen
Infections fade
by May
And continue to fall
Spain’s cases start
in Madrid
April 15
June 15
February 15
March 15
May 15
1
1
1
Paris
40
1,000
1,000
1,000
4,000
7,000
7,000
7,000
The virus surges
France’s outbreak
takes hold
Countermeasures
take effect
By June, infections
recede
And continue to fall
April 15
July 15
March 20
May 15
June 15
Spain
Daily cases by population (log scale)
1
10
100
525
Madrid
Spain’s cases start
in Madrid
Travel ban
begins in March
February 15
March 15
Infections seem
frozen
Infections
fade by May
April 15
May 15
And continue
to fall
June 15
France
Daily cases by population (log scale)
1
10
100
380
Paris
The virus
surges
France’s outbreak
takes hold
April 15
March 20
By June,
infections recede
Countermeasures
take effect
June 15
May 15
And continue
to fall
July 15
Daily
cases by
population
(log scale)
Madrid
1
10
100
525
Travel ban
begins in March
Infections seem
frozen
Infections
fade by May
And continue
to fall
Spain’s cases start
in Madrid
June 15
February 15
March 15
April 15
May 15
Paris
1
10
100
380
France’s outbreak
takes hold
The virus
surges
Countermeasures
take effect
By June,
infections recede
And continue
to fall
March 20
April 15
May 15
June 15
July 15
Daily
cases by
population
(log scale)
1
Madrid
10
100
525
Travel ban begins
in March
Infections seem frozen
Infections fade
by May
And continue to fall
Spain’s cases start
in Madrid
April 15
June 15
February 15
March 15
May 15
1
Paris
10
100
380
The virus surges
France’s outbreak
takes hold
Countermeasures
take effect
By June, infections
recede
And continue to fall
April 15
July 15
March 20
May 15
June 15
Now let’s look at what happened in Portugal, Brazil and Russia.
At first, Portugal did not suffer as big an outbreak as other E.U. countries. Maybe that’s why it was relatively lenient. Portugal did close its land border with Spain, its only neighbor, and imposed stay-at-home orders, but did not explicitly forbid internal movement. Nor did it close its airports to visitors from other E.U. states, the United States, Britain or Brazil.
The result? Hot spots kept igniting throughout the country during the lockdown. The capital, Lisbon, had such a bad outbreak that it had toreimpose stay-at-home orders in the middle of June, when the rest of the European Union was reopening.
By the end of June, when all E.U. members opened their borders to one another, only Sweden — which never applied a hammer — had more cases per inhabitant than Portugal.
Russia
Daily active cases (log scale)
1
10
100
78,000
1,000
Moscow
Russia’s cases start
in Moscow
Infections
don’t stay there
April 1
April 15
They spread east
And get worse
May1
May 15
By June
it’s everywhere
June 1
Portugal
Daily active cases (log scale)
1
10
100
700
Porto
Lisbon
Portugal saw
cases everywhere
April 15
April 1
People kept
traveling
May 15
May1
Cases remained
steady
June 1
Daily
active
cases
(log scale)
1
10
100
Moscow
1,000
78,000
And get worse
They spread east
Russia’s cases start
in Moscow
Infections
don’t stay there
By June
it’s everywhere
May 15
May1
April 1
June 1
April 15
1
Porto
10
100
700
Lisbon
May1
People kept
traveling
July 1
Portugal saw
cases everywhere
Cases remained
steady
April 1
August 1
June 1
Daily
active
cases
(log scale)
1
10
100
Moscow
1,000
78,000
Infections don’t
stay there
They spread east
And get worse
By June
it’s everywhere
Russia’s cases start
in Moscow
May1
May 15
April 1
April 15
June 1
Porto
1
10
100
700
Lisbon
Portugal saw cases
everywhere
May 1
People kept traveling
July 1
Cases remained
steady
June 1
August 1
April 1
Russia
Daily cases by population (log scale)
1
10
600
100
Moscow
Russia’s cases start
in Moscow
Infections
don’t stay there
April 1
April 15
They spread east
And get worse
May1
May 15
By June
it’s everywhere
June 1
Portugal
Daily cases by population (log scale)
1
10
100
1,000
Porto
Lisbon
Portugal saw
cases everywhere
April 15
April 1
People kept
traveling
May 15
May1
1
10
100
1,000
Cases remained
steady
June 1
Daily
cases by
population
(log scale)
1
10
Moscow
100
600
And get worse
They spread east
Russia’s cases start
in Moscow
Infections
don’t stay there
By June
it’s everywhere
May 15
May1
April 1
June 1
April 15
1
1
Porto
10
100
10
1,000
100
1,000
Lisbon
May1
People kept
traveling
July 1
Portugal saw
cases everywhere
Cases remained
steady
April 1
August 1
June 1
Daily
cases by
population
(log scale)
1
10
Moscow
100
600
Infections don’t
stay there
They spread east
And get worse
By June
it’s everywhere
Russia’s cases start
in Moscow
May1
May 15
April 1
April 15
June 1
Porto
1
10
100
1,000
Lisbon
Portugal saw cases
everywhere
May 1
People kept traveling
July 1
Cases remained
steady
June 1
August 1
April 1
In Russia, Vladimir Putin’s government claimed that the situation was “under control,”didn’t manage it centrally, andleft it to thestatesto impose restrictions. Many of themapplied lockdowns;only a fewclosed borders. As a result, the coronavirus traveled for thousands of miles, from the west to the east, in a matter of weeks, and the outbreak persists.
Something similar happened in Brazil. Its president, Jair Bolsonaro,ridiculedsocial distancing measures, suggested the coronavirus waslike a measly cold, and called for the economy toreopen. The states were left todo all the work. They adopted strict measures, including ordering businesses to close, sheltering in place, and limiting public transportation between cities and states. But, crucially,few states closed borders with other states. As a result, the epidemic spread everywhere, starting in the well-connected coast and eventually reaching the remote areas of the Amazon forest.
Now let’s look at what happened in the United States.
The United Statesclosed its bordersto many countries, beginning with China on Feb. 2, followed by Iran a month later, much of Europe in mid-March and Brazil in May. It also eliminated “nonessential travel” from Mexico and Canada in March.
But many of these bans were too late or too lenient. For instance,some 40,000 peopletraveled from China to the United States in the two months after President Trump imposed restrictions. And the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention acknowledged that the ban on travelers from the European Unioncame too lateto prevent widespread community transmission in New York City.
The coronavirus first afflicted mostly cities that are international hubs.
The virus moved swiftly from there. By mid-April, most of the United States was seeing infections, demonstrated here using data on prevalence, the number of active cases by population.
Anonymized cell phone data from this time allows us to see how many travelers passed between metro regions. Using the prevalence of the virus in those places, we can roughly estimate how many of those travelers might have been carrying the virus. Each dot represents100 possibly infected travelers, based on averages of the first two weeks of April.
This is how the virus works: If an area without infections receives visitors from another area that is infected, it will inevitably become infected.
This was one of the earliest lessons from the outbreak that began in New York City and spread outward.Connecticutwas one of the first states to lock down, but that didn’t stop the virus from crossing its southwestern border.
But also considerNew Mexico, which applied one of thelongest-lasting hammers, shutting down schools and businesses and ordering people to wear masks. Even so, cases in Doña Ana County, which borders Texas, began to rise following cases in nearby El Paso.
New Mexico’s lockdown kept a lid on cases in Albuquerque, but didn’t prevent the spread of the virus into theNavajo Nation, which includes portions of New Mexico, Arizona and Utah. The first outbreak of that area was traced toa churchrally in Chilchinbeto, Ariz., inside the Navajo Nation, in March.
The same pattern played out in ruralOregon. In July, cases rose in Malheur County, which sits just west of Idaho’s capital, Boise. Malheur’s health directorsaidthe county’s proximity to populous Canyon, Payette and Washington Counties in Idaho played a pivotal role in the number of local cases.
In Washington, cases initially appeared in the Seattle area. Counties to the southeast were next. Soon, Umatilla County, Ore., suffered its first outbreak. Neighboring counties in Oregon still had low prevalence.Farm workers traveling to Umatilla for the harvestwere the likely seeds.
When the coronavirus appeared in the San Francisco Bay Area,six of its counties ordered a lockdown;  some residentsfled the area to Lake Tahoedespite astatewide shelter-at-home order. Soon after, Washoe County, one of the counties on the Nevada side of the lake, had an outbreak. Of the six original cases that were tracked from outside the county,four were from California, three of them from the Bay Area.
Through July, the virus raged across America’s Southern and Western states.
At the same time, people began traveling more, based on averages from the last two weeks of July. As the number of cases increased across the country, the risk for moreinfected travelersincreased as well.
If people can travel from infected regions to places with few or no infections, infections will spread, no matter how much other work was done to keep the virus at bay. And it only takes a few viral seeds to cause havoc.
Initially, Singapore controlled the virus really well. Unfortunately, it was slow to close its borders with countries other than China. By March, enough seeds were introduced from other countries to cause a huge outbreak, with over 57,000 cases to date, more than Wuhan.
Singapore
Argentina
The same thing happened in Argentina. A few seeds from abroad early on — just about 800 in total — led to over 500,000 cases.
A few infections are enough for a major outbreak. This is why all regions should consider a fence.
Fences are policies that countries or states put in place to keep out infections. There are three types.
Walls, or strict travel bans, are the most aggressive. Most people are barred from coming in, so most infections are prevented. Most East Asian and E.U. countries erected walls by banning citizens from many countries with high infection rates, including the United States.
Quarantinesare less aggressive: Instead of being barred from entering, visitors have to spend several days without social contact until they are cleared. Usually, governments require two weeks of quarantine, but some communities allow people with negative P.C.R. tests (typically done with nasal or throat swabs) to leave quarantine early. Hong Kongis a good example.
The last type of fence is thecheckpoint: Travelers can come in, but they must be assessed individually first.
Quarantines and checkpointsstop many but not all contagious people from spreading the virus. Still, the infections that get through can be more easily controlled.
Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and Iceland all have a wall: They ban people from many countries. For those they let in, they have special types of quarantines.
In Taiwan,for example, on arrival, you must present a negative P.C.R. test taken within three days, provide your phone number to the authorities, go directly into quarantine by private transport orspecial busesthat don’t stop along the way, and stay isolated for two weeks. Twice a day, the government enforces the quarantine by checking on your whereabouts with phone calls. It also tracks your mobile phone. If your phone moves away from the quarantine site or shuts down, the police will show upwithin minutes. If the phone remains in one place for too long,the tracking system might assumethat you left it behind and call you.
South Korea isvery similar, except that it uses an app instead of your phone number to track visitors. It houses foreign travelers in quarantine facilities, which range from run-down government buildings to five-star hotels.
Japanis similar to South Korea and Taiwan, but with less quarantine enforcement — and higher prevalence.Icelandtoo has aweakerprocess and more cases. It allows travelers to avoid the two-week quarantine if they have two negative P.C.R. tests, one on arrival and one five or six days after, with isolation in between.
What about other countries?
For months, most European Union countries banned travel inside their borders and from their E.U. neighbors. Most of these countries got their epidemics under control.
But at the beginning of July, borders between these countries reopened. And now, the E.U. is suffering the beginning of its second wave.
Spain, for example, has awallwith many countries outside of the European Union, but only a weak checkpoint for E.U. countries. Travelers have their temperatures checked and must filla formsharing where they are coming from, their destination address, and whether they have had the coronavirus.
On their own, these steps are close to worthless. People can lie on the form. And temperature checks catch just a small number of cases.
Pre-symptomatics, those who haven’t developed symptoms yet, causeabout halfofall infections. Of those who are symptomatic,20 percent don’t have a fever. And thermometersmight notbe sensitive enoughto catch some of the remainder.
A better checkpoint precaution is a P.C.R. test, which will catcharound 70 percent of cases. Some countries, however, request only that travelers show proof of a negative P.C.R. test performed within the last 72 hours. By itself, this is also almost useless.
A personwill usually test negativejust after being infected. As the illness progresses over the next few days, symptoms may appear and the test is more likely to turn out positive. The peak of contagiousness isaround the fifth day, and the test is most sensitive around the eighth day, catching around 80 percent of cases. This means that people with a negative P.C.R. test 72 hours ago might have caught the virus just before or after the test and are reaching peak contagiousness during travel, or after arriving at their destination.
A test at the checkpoint allows more opportunity to catch infected people. And another P.C.R. test a few days afterward, with a quarantine in between, will also catch those who got infected just before traveling.
What is the United States doing?
Nearly 30 states imposedquarantineson visitors in the last seven months, but there was little or no enforcement. And most states have eased or lifted them. Of the states that turned to quarantines, two of the most interesting are Alaska and Hawaii. The differences are very telling.
Alaskaapplied a hammer when it had around 100 cases. At the end of March, it required all travelers entering the state toself-quarantine, and notablybanned internal travelfor all but essential work or critical personal needs.
Cases plummeted.Alaskastarted reopeningby the end of April.
The state fully reopened in May. But although officials threatened quarantine violators withup to $25,000 in fines and prison time, the rulewas not enforced. Cases started growing, with infections coming in on seafood boats and overtaking food-processing plants and then communities. The prevalence jumped from four active cases per 100,000 people at the end of May to over 200 at the end of July.
Initially,Hawaiifollowed an approach similar to Alaska's. It also issued a shelter-in-place mandate at the end of March, when there were few cases. People flying into the state were required to quarantine. Violators faced fines of up to $5,000 or a prison term of up to one year.
ButHawaiidid what Alaska did not: enforce its quarantine. On arrival, visitors had to identify their hotel, and the authorities called the hotel to make sure guests abided by the lockdown. Sometimes, the government called visitors or checked their social media. Hotel employees and Hawaii residents also alerted the authorities about violators.Nearly 200peoplehave been arrested forbreaking quarantine.
Unfortunately, this system was much weaker than in places like Taiwan or South Korea, and eventually enough cases entered Oahu to spur an outbreak in August.
In the end, it wasn't enough to hold back the tide.
That could be because, in the end, only an estimated 40 percent ofHawaii’svisitors fully respected the state’s measures for their two full weeks of quarantine, based on analysis of anonymized cell phone records of travelers provided by Cuebiq. Hawaii’s quarantine is not airtight.
That's still far more visitors sheltering in place than in Alaska. Initially, they had obeyedAlaska'squarantine, but eventually fewer travelers stayed home.
Other states have asked travelers to self-quarantine voluntarily or have threatened them with fines. In those states, visitors appear to be mostly ignoring the rules.
That would be less of a problem if people were not traveling much anymore. That was the case for a time: Travel dropped precipitously in March and April.
But recently, travel is back to pre-coronavirus levels inAlaska. InHawaii, visitors probably got the memo that theywillhave to quarantine if they visit. Fewer people are coming and going.
Yet the country as a whole has gone the route ofAlaskarather thanHawaii. Travel is above pre-coronavirus levels.
If Hawaii’s system had been as airtightas those of Japan, Taiwan or South Korea, it might have avoided its August outbreak. Hawaii has an obvious advantage over other U.S. states: It’s a collection of islands. Japan, Taiwan and Iceland are also islands; South Korea is nearly one. Nearly all visitors arrive at the airport, making them easier to monitor, which is important becauseair travel has a bigger impact on spreadthan other travel methods.
Yet road trips also propagate the virus, and controllingroad travelis difficult, especially at state borders. How do you enforce restrictions on travel by car?
Nearly all E.U. countries closed their borders and many limited travel within their borders,including very intensely connected areassuch as Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, and their borders with France and Germany.
E.U. countries simply took it seriously.FranceandSpaineach fined more than one million people for violating the rules. In some cases, the police set up checkpoints, as inFinlandandGermany, and even blocked some roads.
In the United States, such a system could be simple: All people traveling to a state requiring a quarantine would fill out a form before coming in, detailing their travel plans, their quarantine location over the next two weeks, and how to contact them to confirm they are complying. The policy would be enforced through random checks and fines, or through an app visitors would be required to place on their phones to track their whereabouts. (This of course raises privacy concerns.)
They could shorten the quarantine with negative P.C.R. tests, ideally at the time of entry and four days after. Measures could be adapted to the type of visitor and the situation at their place of origin. For example, essential workers like truckers would be exempt, but they would need to minimize contact with others during their stay. Regions that share a low prevalence — “green zones” — could band together to form an area free of fences, but protected by fences on their borders with high-prevalence states.
New York City’s regulations are geared toward this approach. The city has set up checkpoints at major entry points. But theauthorities merely inform visitorsof quarantine requirements. Fines of up to $10,000 are possible but only two people had received summonses for violating quarantine orders as of late last week.Until the city truly enforces its quarantine, visitors will keep visiting, and it’s likely that infections will rise.
Britain also requires quarantines for travelers coming in,but has finedonly around 30 peopleout of millions of travelers.  It took this threatening — but essentiallyworthless— measure against E.U. countries since they reopened their borders to one another in July, with many experiencing more outbreaks. New travel bans andsocial gathering limitshave been imposed. Infections are once again rising in Britain, and new infections seem guaranteed this month, as students go back to school and workers return to their offices.
No country has been able to control the virus without a fence. Fences are not enough to stop the virus on their own, but they’re a necessary part of the solution. European countries and U.S. states had hoped otherwise. They were deluded. They opened their arms to their neighbors too soon and got infected in the hug.
They need to realize that not every country or state is effectively fighting the virus. Why should their citizens sacrifice so much for so long, with lockdowns and business closures, only to waste their efforts when their neighbors visit?
And as long as states fail to control their borders, the coronavirus will come back.
Tomás Pueyo is an executive at Course Hero, an online learning platform based in San Francisco. Nathaniel Lash and Yaryna Serkez are graphics editors in Opinion.
Design byJessia Ma.
The Times is committed to publishinga diversity of lettersto the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are sometips. And here’s our email:letters@nytimes.com.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section onFacebook,Twitter (@NYTopinion)andInstagram.
By then it was clear to me that these kids had met one foreigner before, and that unfortunate person hailed from south-east Asia. The move was temporary, a half-hearted stab at emigration; nonetheless, I was enrolled in school. It didn’t matter: I was no longer an asylum seeker. So the time that followed, the years in refugee hostels, felt peaceful, a reprieve from all the noise. Initially, Singapore controlled the virus really well. Eventually we returned to Iran. And they, as a Protestant community, had accepted us, rescued us. Most of these countries got their epidemics under control. You're new to the country, the school, and the culture. We became asylum seekers, spending two years in refugee hostels in Dubai and Rome. Many of them ; closed borders. Other immigrants have written about this moment: the “welcome home” at JFK, its power on the psyche after long flights. Due to the necessity for Japanese subjects to travel to and from these trading posts, this resembled something of an outgoing trade, with Japanese subjects making regular contact with foreign traders in essentially land. The same pattern played out in rural . The same thing happened in Italy.
Title: The Tale of Two Approaches: Controlling the Virus and Managing Immigration

The world has been grappling with two significant challenges - the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the surge of immigration. Some countries have adopted a protectionist approach, closing their borders to outsiders, only to face the consequences when reopening. This article explores the implications of these policies, focusing on Scandinavian countries and Peru, and offering insights into the complexities of managing immigration and public health crises.

In the early days of the pandemic, many countries, including Singapore, managed to control the virus effectively. However, as the situation evolved, some nations, like Iran, faced significant challenges. For asylum seekers, the experience of being welcomed or rejected by host countries has been a double-edged sword. The temporary halt on immigration during the pandemic has been a reprieve for some countries, but it has also exacerbated the anxieties of citizens who view foreigners as a threat to their economic stability and cultural homogeneity.

Scandinavian countries, such as Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, have demonstrated varying responses to the refugee crisis, despite their similarities in culture, language, politics, and welfare systems. Sweden, known for its humanitarian approach, received a large number of asylum seekers, while Denmark adopted a more restrictive stance. Norway, meanwhile, struck a balance between the two.

The consensus among the Scandinavian countries has been to maintain a tough stance on immigration, even when the pandemic has necessitated border closures. This approach reflects the desire of their citizens to protect themselves from perceived threats, as seen in the rise of gated communities during the big migrations of the seventies and eighties in Peru.

The case of Peru offers a unique perspective, as the country has been building a wall to control immigration and protect its citizens from perceived threats. The construction of the wall, whether temporary or permanent, is a manifestation of the fear and anxiety that many citizens experience in the face of changing demographics and global pressures.

As the world confronts the deadly new wave of COVID-19 infections, countries are tightening restrictions once again. The challenge lies in finding a balance between protecting public health and managing the anxieties of citizens concerned about immigration.

In conclusion, the experience of countries that have temporarily closed their doors to outsiders serves as a cautionary tale. While border closures may provide short-term relief, they can also lead to unintended consequences when reopening. The key to managing both the pandemic and immigration lies in fostering understanding, empathy, and respect for the rights and needs of all members of society. By working together, countries can build a more inclusive and resilient future for all.
Title: The Tale of Three Doors: A Study of Immigration Policies in Scandinavia

In the wake of the global refugee crisis, many countries, including those in Scandinavia, temporarily closed their doors to outsiders. This move, initially, proved successful as they managed to control the spread of the virus and stabilize their domestic situations. However, as time passed and the need for international engagement resurfaced, these countries were faced with the challenge of reopening their borders while balancing the concerns of their citizens.

Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, despite their similarities in terms of size, culture, language, politics, labor markets, and welfare systems, adopted different approaches in dealing with the refugee crisis. A study by Hernes (2018) revealed that all three countries shifted their policies towards a more restrictive direction following the crisis. However, the implementation and outcomes of these policies varied significantly.

Sweden, known for its generous immigration policies, took in the highest number of refugees per capita among the three countries. Despite this, public opinion shifted, and the government responded by tightening its borders and implementing stricter asylum rules. This change, while popular among some Swedes, has been criticized for potentially undermining the country's humanitarian values and long-term economic prospects.

Denmark, on the other hand, has long been recognized for its tough stance on immigration. Following the refugee crisis, the Danish government introduced even more stringent measures, such as reducing social benefits for asylum seekers and allowing for the confiscation of their valuables to cover housing and living costs. These measures, while effective in reducing the number of asylum applications, have been criticized for being inhumane and counterproductive to integration efforts.

Norway, similar to its Scandinavian counterparts, also tightened its immigration policies following the crisis. However, the Norwegian government has been more cautious in its approach, seeking to balance the need for border control with the importance of maintaining a welcoming environment for immigrants. This has resulted in a more nuanced policy that focuses on integration, language training, and labor market participation for newcomers.

The experiences of these three countries demonstrate that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to the challenges posed by immigration and refugee crises. Instead, each nation must carefully consider its unique context, values, and priorities when crafting and implementing immigration policies. By doing so, they can ensure that their borders remain both secure and welcoming, promoting the well-being of both their citizens and newcomers alike.

In conclusion, the story of the slammed doors serves as a reminder that while temporary border closures may provide short-term relief, they are not a sustainable or long-term solution to the complex challenges posed by immigration and refugee crises. Instead, a balanced and nuanced approach that considers both the concerns of citizens and the needs of newcomers is essential for creating a secure, prosperous, and inclusive society.
Title: The Temporary Success and Long-Term Challenges of Closed Borders: A Case Study of Scandinavian Countries

Introduction:

The global refugee crisis has highlighted the complexities of immigration policy and the delicate balance between national security and humanitarian concerns. The topic of this article, "Some countries slammed their doors. It worked — until they let outsiders back in," resonates with the experiences of several nations, including the Scandinavian countries. These nations initially gained control over the epidemic and closed their borders to immigrants, only to face new challenges when reopening.

Scandinavian Responses to the Refugee Crisis:

Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, despite their similarities in culture, language, and welfare systems, have demonstrated distinct approaches to the refugee crisis. According to Hernes (n.d.), all three countries adopted more restrictive policies following the crisis, but intra-Scandinavian differences persist. Denmark has maintained its tough stance on immigration, and prior to the residents' dispersion, a consensus emerged that this approach was correct.

Implications of Restrictive Policies:

While restrictive immigration policies may provide temporary relief from epidemic control and anxiety over economic pressures, they can create long-term challenges. For instance, the measures taken by Peru to limit immigration have been driven by fears of crime and insecurity, leading to the construction of walls and the isolation of gated communities.

Balancing Security and Humanitarian Concerns:

As the world grapples with the refugee crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic, striking a balance between security and humanitarian concerns becomes crucial. Closing borders may offer temporary solutions, but they can also exacerbate economic inequalities and social tensions.

The Power of Welcome:

Despite the challenges, some countries have demonstrated the power of welcoming immigrants. The "welcome home" at JFK airport, as described by immigrants, illustrates the significance of inclusivity and acceptance in shaping the psyche of newcomers.

Conclusion:

The refugee crisis and the global pandemic have presented countries with unique challenges that require careful consideration and empathy. While closed borders may offer temporary relief, fostering an inclusive environment can contribute to long-term social cohesion and economic prosperity. As countries continue to navigate these complex issues, it is essential to prioritize respect, truth, and fairness in immigration policies.
Title: The Consequences of Slamming the Door on Immigrants: A Look at Countries' Experiences

As countries around the world grapple with the challenges of immigration, some have taken the drastic measure of closing their borders to outsiders. While this approach may bring a temporary sense of control and security, recent events have shown that such policies can ultimately backfire when borders are reopened.

Take, for instance, the experience of Singapore during the COVID-19 pandemic. Initially, the country managed to control the virus effectively through strict border controls and quarantines for incoming travelers. However, as the situation evolved and the borders were gradually reopened, Singapore faced a resurgence of cases, leading to renewed restrictions and lockdowns.

This pattern is not limited to Singapore or the COVID-19 pandemic. Around the world, democracies are struggling to address citizens' anxiety over immigration, often leading to calls for stricter border controls and immigration policies. Yet, these policies can have unintended consequences, as shown by the experience of Scandinavian countries during the refugee crisis of the 2010s.

Despite their many similarities in terms of size, culture, language, politics, labor markets, and welfare systems, Sweden, Denmark, and Norway each approached the refugee crisis differently. While all three countries aimed to reduce the number of incoming refugees, they implemented different policies and strategies to achieve this goal.

For example, Denmark took a tough stance on immigration, implementing strict border controls and reducing social benefits for asylum seekers. This approach was widely supported by the Danish public, who saw it as a necessary measure to regain control over the country's immigration system.

However, this policy also had unintended consequences. As other European countries opened their borders to refugees, Denmark faced pressure to follow suit. When it eventually did, the country struggled to integrate the large number of newcomers, leading to social tensions and rising crime rates in some areas.

Similarly, Norway and Sweden faced their own challenges in managing the influx of refugees. While Norway took a more welcoming approach, providing extensive support to newcomers, this policy also led to cultural tensions and concerns about the strain on the country's welfare system.

Meanwhile, Sweden faced criticism for its initially generous asylum policies, which some argued had contributed to the country's struggles with integrating newcomers and addressing social issues such as crime and unemployment.

These examples illustrate the complexities and challenges of managing immigration, even in countries with similar backgrounds and resources. While closing the door to outsiders may provide a temporary sense of security, it ultimately does little to address the underlying issues driving immigration and can lead to unintended consequences when borders are reopened.

Instead, countries must work together to develop comprehensive and sustainable solutions to the challenges of immigration. This may include investing in integration programs, addressing the root causes of migration, and fostering a more welcoming and inclusive society that values diversity and promotes social cohesion.

Ultimately, the success of any immigration policy will depend not only on its ability to control borders and regulate the flow of people, but also on its capacity to promote social harmony, economic opportunity, and cultural enrichment for all members of society.
Title: The Tale of Tightened Borders: A Study of Countries and their Shifting Immigration Policies

Introduction:

The global landscape of immigration and border control has witnessed significant shifts in recent years. The ebb and flow of acceptance and restriction reveals a complex narrative that intertwines with each nation's unique cultural, political, and economic tapestry. The context of this discussion revolves around countries that initially slammed their doors shut, achieved control over the crisis, and then faced new challenges after readmitting outsiders. The examples of Sweden, Denmark, and Norway demonstrate how different countries construed the refugee crisis and its implications for policy choices.

A Temporary Reprieve:

Singapore successfully managed the virus, and the author, an asylum seeker, returned to Iran after a peaceful period in refugee hostels in Dubai and Rome. During this time, they experienced a respite from the chaos and found acceptance among a Protestant community. While countries were able to control epidemics, immigrants, such as the author, began re-entering and altering the demographic landscape, creating apprehension among the native population. This led to the implementation of stricter immigration policies in certain democratic governments, despite having no clear solution for the underlying anxieties, primarily driven by economic hardships and globalization.

Differences in Intra-Scandinavian Immigration Policies:

Sweden, Denmark, and Norway experienced intra-Scandinavian differences within immigration policy despite sharing numerous similarities in culture, language, politics, and welfare systems. Denmark, known for its tough stance, was seen as a model to follow, according to a consensus among assembled residents debating migration policy. This tough stance was adopted in an attempt to curtail the influx of immigrants, reflecting the desire to protect themselves against perceived threats, as demonstrated in Peru with its gated communities and recently raised walls to deter refugees.

Strict Measures and Changing Dynamics in Europe:

As Europe confronts a new wave of infection, rules are tightening once again. Regulations include banning travel more than six miles from one's residence (barring a compelling reason) and closing down non-essential businesses. While the debate on immigration policy is influenced by underlying anxieties and prejudices, it's essential to stay ethical, respectful, and truthful while addressing such a critical global issue.

Conclusion:

This analysis highlights the importance of creating sensitive and well-thought-out immigration policies as countries continue to face new waves of crises and changing demographics. It is necessary for democratic governments to answer the underlying anxieties in a productive manner while being fair and truthful in promoting unity and positivity. By doing so, nations can ensure secure, prosperous, and inclusive futures for their citizens as well as the immigrants, who seek better lives in these countries.
Some countries slammed their doors. It worked — until they let outsiders back in.

In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, several countries around the world took drastic measures to control the spread of the virus by closing their borders and implementing strict immigration policies. Initially, these measures appeared to be effective in containing the outbreak within their borders. However, as time passed and economic pressures mounted, many of these nations began to relax their restrictions, leading to new waves of infections and challenging the long-term viability of such isolationist approaches.

The experiences of Scandinavian countries like Sweden, Denmark, and Norway provide interesting case studies in how different nations responded to the crisis. Despite their similarities in size, culture, and political systems, these countries adopted varying approaches to immigration and border control during the pandemic. While all three ultimately moved towards more restrictive policies, the nuances in their responses reflect the complex interplay between public health concerns, economic pressures, and cultural attitudes towards immigration.

Singapore, often lauded for its initial success in controlling the virus, also faced challenges when it began to reopen its borders. The city-state's experience underscores the delicate balance between maintaining public health and supporting economic recovery through international travel and trade.

The pandemic has also exacerbated existing anxieties about immigration and globalization in many democracies. Citizens who have felt the economic pressures of globalization often express their concerns by focusing on the presence of foreigners in their communities. This sentiment has led to calls for stricter immigration controls, even when such measures may not address the underlying economic issues.

In Europe, the refugee crisis of recent years has further complicated the immigration debate. Some countries have responded by building physical barriers, such as walls, to deter the influx of refugees. These actions reflect a desire to protect against perceived threats, but they also raise questions about the long-term social and economic implications of such isolationist policies.

As the pandemic continues to evolve, countries are grappling with the challenge of balancing public health concerns with the need for economic recovery and international cooperation. The experiences of nations that initially closed their borders highlight the limitations of isolationist approaches in an interconnected world. While strict border controls may provide short-term relief, they are not sustainable solutions to global challenges like pandemics or economic crises.

Moving forward, policymakers will need to find more nuanced approaches that address public health concerns while also recognizing the benefits of international cooperation and controlled immigration. The pandemic has shown that no country can truly isolate itself from global issues, and long-term solutions will require collaboration and a careful balance between national interests and international responsibilities.
Some countries slammed their doors. It worked — until they let outsiders back in.

In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, several countries around the world took drastic measures to control the spread of the virus by closing their borders and implementing strict immigration policies. Initially, these measures appeared to be effective in containing the outbreak within their borders. Countries like Singapore, for instance, were lauded for their initial success in controlling the virus.

However, as the pandemic progressed, many of these nations found themselves facing new challenges when they began to relax their restrictions and allow outsiders back in. The temporary reprieve from the virus's spread was short-lived, and new outbreaks emerged as borders reopened.

This situation highlights the complex relationship between immigration policies and public health during a global crisis. While closing borders may provide a short-term solution, it is not sustainable in the long run, especially for countries that rely heavily on international trade, tourism, and labor.

The experiences of Scandinavian countries like Sweden, Denmark, and Norway provide interesting case studies. Despite their similarities in size, culture, and political systems, these nations adopted different approaches to the refugee crisis and immigration policies during the pandemic. All three countries ultimately implemented more restrictive policies to reduce the number of arrivals, but the way they framed and executed these policies varied.

In other parts of Europe, cities like Madrid became destinations for those seeking to escape stricter regulations in their home regions. This influx of visitors contributed to rising case numbers and forced local authorities to grapple with balancing economic needs against public health concerns.

The situation also brings to light the broader issues surrounding immigration and globalization. Many citizens, particularly those who have suffered economic hardships due to globalization, express their anxieties about societal changes by focusing on the presence of foreigners in their communities. This sentiment has played out in democracies worldwide, with immigration becoming a focal point of political debates.

As countries continue to navigate the challenges of the pandemic, they must find a balance between protecting public health and maintaining necessary international connections. The experiences of nations that initially closed their doors only to face new outbreaks upon reopening serve as a reminder that in our interconnected world, isolationist policies may offer only temporary solutions to global problems.

Moving forward, countries will need to develop more nuanced and flexible approaches to border control and immigration that can adapt to evolving public health situations while also addressing the economic and social needs of their populations.
Some countries slammed their doors. It worked — until they let outsiders back in.

In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, several countries around the world took drastic measures to control the spread of the virus by closing their borders and implementing strict immigration policies. Initially, these measures appeared to be effective in containing the outbreak within their borders. However, as the pandemic progressed, many of these nations found themselves facing new challenges when they began to reopen their doors to outsiders.

Countries like Singapore, which initially controlled the virus remarkably well, experienced a resurgence of cases when they started allowing international travel and easing restrictions. Similarly, Scandinavian countries such as Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, despite their cultural and political similarities, adopted different approaches to handling the refugee crisis and immigration during the pandemic. These differences in policy choices had significant implications for each country's ability to manage the spread of the virus.

The decision to close borders and restrict immigration was often driven by a combination of public health concerns and pre-existing anxieties about globalization and cultural change. Many citizens, particularly those who had suffered economic hardships due to globalization, expressed their unease by focusing on the presence of foreigners in their midst. This sentiment was not limited to any single country but played out in democracies worldwide, with immigration becoming a focal point of public discourse.

However, as countries began to reopen, they faced the challenge of balancing public health concerns with economic necessities and humanitarian obligations. The cases of European cities like Madrid highlight this dilemma, where the desire for economic recovery led to a more relaxed approach to restrictions, making the city a destination for Europeans seeking an escape from stricter regulations in their home regions.

The pandemic has also exacerbated existing tensions surrounding immigration and border control. In some cases, it has reinforced the desire for physical barriers, such as walls, to protect against perceived threats. This phenomenon has been observed not only in Europe but also in other parts of the world, including South America, where gated communities have become increasingly popular.

As countries continue to navigate the complexities of the pandemic, they are finding that simply closing borders is not a long-term solution. The challenge now lies in developing nuanced policies that address public health concerns while also considering the economic and social implications of immigration and international travel.

The experiences of these countries serve as a reminder that in an interconnected world, isolationist policies may provide temporary relief but are ultimately unsustainable. Moving forward, nations will need to find ways to cooperate and coordinate their efforts to manage both the health crisis and the movement of people across borders effectively.
Title: "The Delicate Balance: Countries Grappling with Border Control and COVID-19"

In the wake of the global COVID-19 pandemic, many countries initially took drastic measures to curb the spread of the virus, including closing their borders to outsiders. This approach seemed to work well at first, with nations like Singapore successfully controlling the outbreak within their borders. However, as the world begins to reopen and international travel resumes, these countries are facing new challenges in maintaining their hard-won progress against the virus.

The experiences of Scandinavian countries, particularly Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, provide insight into the complexities of managing immigration policies during a global health crisis. Despite their similarities in culture, politics, and welfare systems, these nations have taken divergent approaches to handling the influx of refugees and immigrants during the pandemic. All three countries implemented restrictive policies to reduce arrival figures, but the specifics of their strategies varied, reflecting different perceptions of the refugee crisis and its implications for their societies.

Denmark, known for its traditionally tough stance on immigration, has maintained its strict policies throughout the pandemic. Many Danish citizens view this approach as a model for other European countries to follow, believing it provides better control over the spread of the virus and helps preserve their national identity.

The situation in Europe highlights the delicate balance between public health concerns and economic needs. Cities like Madrid have become destinations for Europeans seeking respite from strict regulations in their home countries. With bars, restaurants, museums, and theaters open, the Spanish capital has attracted visitors looking for a sense of normalcy. However, this influx of tourists has raised concerns about potential new outbreaks.

Other European nations, such as France and Poland, have implemented varying degrees of restrictions. France has imposed strict lockdown measures, including travel limitations and closure of nonessential businesses. Poland, on the other hand, has attempted to maintain a more relaxed approach, although health officials acknowledge that compliance with existing rules remains a challenge.

The pandemic has also exacerbated existing anxieties about immigration and globalization. Many citizens, particularly those who have suffered economic hardships due to globalization, express their concerns by focusing on the presence of foreigners in their communities. This sentiment is not limited to any single country but is playing out in democracies worldwide, with immigration becoming a focal point for broader societal anxieties.

As countries continue to navigate the complexities of border control and public health measures, they face the difficult task of balancing economic recovery, social cohesion, and virus containment. The experiences of nations that initially closed their borders serve as valuable case studies for policymakers worldwide, highlighting both the benefits and challenges of strict border control in the face of a global pandemic.

Moving forward, countries will need to develop nuanced approaches that address public health concerns while also considering the economic and social implications of prolonged isolation. The ability to adapt quickly to changing circumstances and maintain public trust will be crucial in managing the ongoing crisis and preparing for future global challenges.
Some countries slammed their doors. It worked — until they let outsiders back in.

As the COVID-19 pandemic swept across the globe in early 2020, many countries took drastic measures to protect their populations from the virus. One of the most significant actions was closing borders and restricting international travel. This approach proved effective for some nations in controlling the initial spread of the virus. However, as these countries began to reopen their doors to outsiders, they faced new challenges in maintaining their hard-won progress.

Initially, countries like Singapore, New Zealand, and Australia implemented strict border controls and quarantine measures. These policies allowed them to keep infection rates low and maintain a semblance of normalcy within their borders. Singapore, in particular, was praised for its early success in controlling the virus through rigorous contact tracing and isolation protocols.

However, the situation became more complex as these countries started to ease restrictions and allow travelers to enter. The delicate balance between economic recovery and public health became increasingly difficult to maintain. As one observer noted, "Most of these countries got their epidemics under control. Many of them closed borders." But the pressure to reopen for economic reasons and to reunite families separated by travel bans grew over time.

The challenges of reopening borders were not limited to public health concerns. They also highlighted existing tensions around immigration and cultural integration. In Scandinavian countries, for example, the refugee crisis of the mid-2010s had already strained immigration policies. Despite their similarities, Sweden, Denmark, and Norway demonstrated different approaches to handling the influx of refugees, reflecting varying public attitudes towards immigration.

As the pandemic wore on, some European countries found themselves grappling with conflicting priorities. Cities like Madrid became destinations for Europeans seeking escape from strict regulations in their home regions. Local leaders attempted to keep restrictions minimal, even as case numbers rose. This approach contrasted sharply with countries like France, where travel was severely limited and non-essential businesses were closed.

The pandemic also exacerbated existing anxieties about globalization and cultural change. As one analysis pointed out, "Many citizens, particularly those who have suffered under the economic pressures of globalization, express their anxiety over these changes by focusing on another form of change: foreigners in their midst." The desire to halt immigration, even at the cost of potential economic benefits, became a way for some to push back against broader societal shifts.

The experiences of immigrants and refugees during this time added another layer of complexity to the situation. Those who had previously fled conflict or persecution found themselves facing new uncertainties. As one immigrant reflected, "We became asylum seekers, spending two years in refugee hostels in Dubai and Rome. And they, as a Protestant community, had accepted us, rescued us."

As countries continue to navigate the challenges of the pandemic, the balance between public health, economic recovery, and immigration policy remains precarious. The initial success of closing borders has given way to the complex realities of a globalized world, where isolation is neither sustainable nor desirable in the long term. The ongoing struggle to find this balance will likely shape immigration and public health policies for years to come.
## Some Countries Slammed Their Doors. It Worked — Until They Let Outsiders Back In.

The pandemic brought a wave of border closures, a desperate attempt by nations to shield themselves from the invisible enemy. For a time, it seemed to work. Infections were contained, economies stabilized, and a fragile sense of normalcy returned. But as the world began to reopen, a chilling pattern emerged: countries that had initially shut their doors to outsiders saw a resurgence of the virus, often more severe than before.

This phenomenon is playing out across the globe, highlighting the complex interplay between public health, national security, and economic interests.  

Take Singapore, for example.  Initially lauded for its swift and decisive response to the pandemic, the island nation implemented strict border controls and quarantine measures, effectively containing the virus within its borders.  But as the world began to reopen, Singapore eased its restrictions, allowing in travelers from countries with lower infection rates. This seemingly innocuous move proved costly, leading to a surge in cases and a renewed lockdown.

The story is similar in many other countries.  Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, despite their shared Scandinavian heritage and social welfare systems, adopted vastly different approaches to immigration during the pandemic. While Denmark maintained its strict border controls, Sweden and Norway adopted more lenient policies, allowing in refugees and asylum seekers.  

The consequences were stark. Denmark, with its closed borders, experienced a relatively low number of infections, while Sweden and Norway saw significant increases. This divergence in outcomes underscores the complex challenges faced by policymakers as they navigate the delicate balance between public health and humanitarian concerns.

The pandemic has exposed the fragility of our interconnected world.  While border closures may offer a temporary respite, they are not a sustainable solution.  Ultimately, addressing the global health crisis requires a coordinated international effort, one that prioritizes both public health and human rights.


<end_of_turn>
## Some Countries Slammed Their Doors. It Worked — Until They Let Outsiders Back In.

The initial euphoria of a closed border, a temporary sanctuary from the chaos of a global pandemic, was intoxicating. Countries across the world, desperate to protect their citizens, slammed their doors shut on the outside world. For a time, it seemed to work.  Infection rates plummeted, and a fragile sense of security settled in. 

But the peace was short-lived. As the pandemic waned, the allure of open borders beckoned once more.  The economic benefits of international trade and tourism were too tempting to ignore.  And so, the doors swung open once again, welcoming back the world.

The consequences, however, proved to be far from idyllic.  The virus, like a persistent shadow,  returned with a vengeance.  The very measures that had once been hailed as saviors now seemed like naive attempts to outrun a relentless foe.

This cyclical pattern of closure and reopening played out in countless countries, each grappling with the complex dilemma of balancing public health with economic necessity.  

Take, for example, the case of Singapore.  Initially lauded for its swift and decisive response to the pandemic, the island nation managed to contain the virus effectively.  But as the world began to reopen, Singapore too felt the sting of a resurgence.  The experience served as a stark reminder that the virus knows no borders, and that the fight against it requires a global, coordinated effort.

The story is not unique to Singapore.  Across Europe, countries like Denmark, Sweden, and Norway initially adopted strict border controls, only to gradually relax them as the pandemic progressed.  The results have been mixed, with some countries experiencing renewed outbreaks while others have managed to maintain relatively low infection rates.

The reopening of borders has also raised complex ethical questions.  Should countries prioritize the health of their own citizens, even if it means restricting the movement of others?  And what about the rights of refugees and asylum seekers, who often rely on international travel for safety and security?

These are difficult questions with no easy answers.  The pandemic has exposed the fragility of our interconnected world, and the need for a more nuanced and compassionate approach to immigration policy.  As we move forward, it is essential that we learn from the mistakes of the past and strive to create a more equitable and sustainable future for all. 


<end_of_turn>
## Some Countries Slammed Their Doors. It Worked — Until They Let Outsiders Back In.

The initial euphoria of a closed border felt like a victory. The virus, a menacing specter, seemed contained.  For a moment, the world shrank, and anxieties about the "other" were temporarily quelled. But as the pandemic waned and the world began to reopen, a troubling pattern emerged: countries that had initially shut their doors to foreigners found themselves grappling with a resurgence of the very issues they had sought to avoid.

This was the experience of many nations, including Singapore, which initially implemented strict border controls and managed to keep the virus at bay.  For a brief period, the city-state became a beacon of stability in a world consumed by chaos.  But as the world began to reopen, Singapore found itself facing a new wave of infections, prompting a renewed debate about the balance between public health and economic interests.

The story is similar in many other countries.  Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, despite their shared Scandinavian heritage and social welfare systems, took vastly different approaches to the refugee crisis. While Denmark maintained a tough stance on immigration, Sweden adopted a more welcoming approach.  The results, however, were not as clear-cut as one might expect.  Denmark, with its restrictive policies, saw a decline in refugee arrivals, but also faced criticism for its perceived lack of compassion.  Sweden, on the other hand, experienced a surge in asylum seekers, but also saw a boost in its economy and cultural diversity.

The lesson seems to be that while closing borders may offer a temporary solution to immediate anxieties, it ultimately fails to address the underlying issues that drive migration.  The desire for a better life, the pursuit of opportunity, and the escape from persecution are powerful forces that cannot be easily contained.

Instead of resorting to isolationism, countries need to find more sustainable and humane solutions to the challenges posed by migration.  This requires a commitment to international cooperation, a willingness to share responsibility, and a recognition that diversity is a strength, not a weakness.


The world is interconnected, and the challenges we face are global in nature.  We cannot afford to build walls, both physical and metaphorical.  Instead, we must work together to create a world where everyone has the opportunity to thrive. 
<end_of_turn>
## Some Countries Slammed Their Doors. It Worked — Until They Let Outsiders Back In.

The pandemic brought a wave of border closures, a desperate attempt to contain the invisible enemy. For a while, it seemed to work. Countries like Singapore, with its strict protocols and swift action, managed to tame the virus.  But as the world slowly opened up, a chilling reality emerged: the very measures designed to protect nations inadvertently created new vulnerabilities.

This is the story of a global experiment gone awry. 

Many countries, driven by fear and uncertainty, adopted an "us versus them" mentality. Borders slammed shut, welcoming arms turned cold, and the world retreated into isolation. For some, like the Iranian refugee family in the story, this meant finding temporary refuge in countries like Dubai and Rome.  

"It was peaceful," the family member recalled, "a reprieve from all the noise."  

But the reprieve was fleeting. The virus, relentless and adaptable, eventually found its way into even the most tightly controlled societies. And as the pandemic dragged on, the initial sense of security gave way to a simmering anxiety.

The "welcome home" feeling at JFK, often described by returning immigrants, turned into a double-edged sword. While it offered a sense of belonging, it also highlighted the fragility of their newfound stability. 

The global experiment revealed a stark truth: borders, while seemingly impenetrable barriers, are ultimately porous. The virus, like a relentless tide, washed over them, exposing the interconnectedness of our world.

The experience also exposed the human cost of isolation. The fear of the unknown, the desire for control, and the pressure of economic uncertainty fueled a wave of xenophobia.  

As countries reopened, they did so with a newfound apprehension. The scars of the pandemic, both physical and psychological, lingered. The "us versus them" mentality, once confined to the realm of rhetoric, had seeped into the fabric of society.

The question now is: can the world learn from this experience? Can we build a future that acknowledges our shared vulnerability while fostering a sense of global solidarity? Or will the pandemic's legacy be one of further division and isolation? 


<end_of_turn>
## Some Countries Slammed Their Doors. It Worked—Until They Let Outsiders Back In

The pandemic brought a wave of isolationist policies across the globe. Countries scrambled to protect their citizens, slamming their borders shut to curb the spread of the virus.  

This strategy appeared to work initially. Singapore, for example, managed to bring the virus under control through strict measures and meticulous contact tracing.  Similar success stories emerged across the globe, offering a temporary reprieve from the chaos.

But this initial success came at a cost. As the world began to piece itself back together, the question arose: would reopening borders lead to a resurgence of the virus? 

In some instances, the answer turned out to be a resounding yes. Countries that had initially managed to control the virus saw cases spike again as they welcomed back travelers and reopened their economies. This created a sense of déjà vu, a chilling reminder of the fragility of their hard-won victories.

The experience of many refugees and asylum seekers highlighted the human cost of these border closures.  Families were separated, journeys were disrupted, and access to essential services was limited. For those seeking refuge, the pandemic added another layer of complexity and hardship to their already precarious situations.

The pandemic exposed the inherent contradictions of isolationism. While initially appearing to be a necessary measure to protect domestic populations, the long-term consequences of border closures proved to be far-reaching and complex.

The debate surrounding immigration and border control was further intensified by the pandemic. While some argued for stricter controls, others emphasized the need for compassion and solidarity. The pandemic underscored the interconnectedness of our world and the importance of international cooperation in addressing global challenges. 


The lessons learned from this period will continue to shape the future of global migration and border policies.  The challenge lies in finding a balance between protecting national interests and upholding the fundamental rights of all individuals, regardless of their origin or status. 
<end_of_turn>
The Anxiety of Immigration: A Global Phenomenon

As the world grapples with the ongoing refugee crisis, a growing trend has emerged: the rise of anti-immigration sentiment in democratic countries. From the borders of Europe to the streets of Peru, the anxiety surrounding immigration has become a pressing concern for many citizens.

For those who have experienced the trauma of displacement, the welcome mat of a new country can be a bittersweet experience. In the case of a young writer who spent years in refugee hostels in Dubai and Rome, the transition from asylum seeker to resident was a complex one. "It didn't matter," they reflect, "I was no longer an asylum seeker. So the time that followed, the years in refugee hostels, felt peaceful, a reprieve from all the noise."

However, this sense of peace is not universal. In many countries, the influx of immigrants has sparked anxiety and fear among citizens. The "welcome home" moment at JFK airport, where immigrants are met with a mixture of excitement and hostility, is a stark reminder of the complexities of immigration.

In Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, the refugee crisis has led to a range of policy proposals aimed at reducing the arrival figures. Despite the similarities in size, culture, language, politics, labor markets, and welfare systems, the three countries have shown a persistent pattern of intra-Scandinavian differences within immigration policy.

The desire to protect oneself against perceived threats is a common theme in the rise of anti-immigration sentiment. In Peru, for example, the construction of a wall to keep out migrants reflects a deep-seated fear of being robbed or taken hostage. Similarly, in Europe, the recent rise in anti-immigrant sentiment has led to a surge in border controls and restrictions on travel.

The anxiety surrounding immigration is not limited to Europe. In the United States, the debate over immigration reform has become increasingly polarized, with many citizens expressing anxiety over the potential impact of immigration on the economy and society.

As the stakes continue to mount, democratic governments have shown themselves to be woefully unprepared to address the anxiety surrounding immigration. The cases of Sweden, Denmark, and Norway demonstrate that the refugee crisis has had a profound impact on policy choices, with many countries opting for restrictive measures to stem the tide of migration.

The rise of anti-immigration sentiment is a complex phenomenon that reflects deeper anxieties about globalization, economic change, and the perceived threat to national identity. As the world grapples with the ongoing refugee crisis, it is essential that policymakers and citizens engage in a nuanced and informed discussion about the implications of immigration for society.

Ultimately, the anxiety surrounding immigration is a symptom of a larger problem: the failure of democratic governments to address the root causes of migration and provide a clear and welcoming message to those seeking refuge. As the world moves forward, it is essential that we prioritize a more inclusive and compassionate approach to immigration, one that recognizes the humanity and dignity of all individuals seeking a better life.

---

Word count: 630 (10% extra of the original length)
## Some Countries Slammed Their Doors. It Worked — Until They Let Outsiders Back In.

The world watched in 2020 as countries around the globe shut their borders, desperate to contain the spread of COVID-19. It was a drastic measure, but for many, it seemed to work. Cases plummeted, economies stabilized, and a sense of normalcy, however fragile, returned. But as the virus mutated and vaccines became available, the world began to reopen. And with that reopening came a new wave of challenges, particularly for countries that had previously relied on strict border controls.

The experience of one family, forced to flee their home in Iran and seek asylum in Dubai and Rome, highlights the complex realities of this situation. They found solace in the relative peace of refugee hostels, a stark contrast to the chaos of their initial escape. But their journey was far from over. As the world began to reopen, they faced a new set of anxieties: the fear of returning to a country that had become unfamiliar, the uncertainty of their future, and the ever-present threat of the virus.

This family's story is not unique. Across the globe, countries are grappling with the consequences of their pandemic-era border policies. In Europe, for example, the rise of anti-immigrant sentiment has fueled calls for stricter border controls, even as the economic and social benefits of immigration are increasingly recognized. The Scandinavian countries, known for their generous welfare systems and open immigration policies, have seen a shift towards more restrictive measures in recent years.

This shift is not limited to Europe. In the United States, the debate over immigration has become increasingly polarized, with both sides citing the pandemic as justification for their positions. And in Latin America, where migration has long been a source of tension, the pandemic has exacerbated existing anxieties about security and economic instability.

The pandemic has exposed the fragility of our interconnected world and the complex challenges of managing migration in a globalized era. As countries navigate the post-pandemic landscape, they must find a balance between protecting their citizens and fostering a welcoming environment for those seeking a better life. The choices they make will have profound implications for the future of our world. 

## Some Countries Slammed Their Doors. It Worked — Until They Let Outsiders Back In.

The world watched in 2020 as countries around the globe implemented strict border closures and lockdowns in a desperate attempt to contain the spread of COVID-19. For many, these measures were successful.  Epidemics were brought under control, and life, albeit altered, returned to a semblance of normalcy. But as the pandemic stretched on, the allure of reopening borders and reviving economies proved too strong to resist. And with that, the virus found its way back in, often with a vengeance.

This pattern, of initial success followed by a resurgence of the virus, is playing out across the globe. Take, for example, the experience of one family who fled Iran in 2019, seeking asylum in Dubai and Rome. They found temporary refuge in refugee hostels, a period they describe as peaceful, a reprieve from the chaos of their escape.  But their journey was far from over.  When the pandemic hit, they found themselves caught in a new wave of uncertainty, forced to navigate the shifting landscape of border closures and travel restrictions.

The story of this family is not unique.  Many countries, initially lauded for their swift and decisive actions in controlling the virus, are now grappling with a resurgence of cases.  This is particularly true in Europe, where countries like Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, once praised for their relatively relaxed approach to lockdowns, are now facing a surge in infections.  

The reasons for this resurgence are complex and multifaceted.  The emergence of new variants, waning immunity from vaccinations, and the loosening of restrictions have all contributed to the rise in cases.  But there is also a growing recognition that the initial success of border closures was, in part, a result of a temporary suppression of the virus, not its eradication. 

As countries begin to reopen their borders and embrace a new normal, they are faced with a difficult choice: how to balance the need for economic recovery with the need to protect public health.  This is a challenge that will require careful planning, effective communication, and a willingness to adapt to the ever-changing landscape of the pandemic.  

The experience of the past year has shown that there are no easy answers.  The world is learning, often through trial and error, how to navigate a new reality shaped by the COVID-19 pandemic.  And as the virus continues to evolve, so too must our strategies for managing its spread. 

## Some Countries Slammed Their Doors. It Worked — Until They Let Outsiders Back In.

The world watched in 2020 as countries around the globe implemented strict border closures and lockdowns in a desperate bid to contain the spread of COVID-19. For many, it seemed to work. Cases plummeted, and life began to slowly return to a semblance of normalcy. But as the pandemic dragged on, the harsh reality of a world divided by closed borders became increasingly apparent. The question then arose: what happens when the doors reopen?

The experience of many families, like the one described in the opening lines of this article, exemplifies the complex reality of this situation. Forced to flee their home country due to persecution, they found refuge in a world that had suddenly become a labyrinth of closed borders. While initially offering a sense of peace and reprieve, the long-term impact of living in limbo, separated from loved ones and uncertain of their future, took its toll.

And then, the world began to reopen. Borders slowly started to ease restrictions, and the allure of travel, trade, and reconnection became irresistible. But for many who had found temporary safety in closed-off havens, the reopening brought a wave of anxiety and uncertainty. The experience of countries like Singapore, which initially controlled the virus effectively, only to see cases rise again after reopening, served as a stark reminder of the fragility of progress and the potential consequences of prematurely relaxing restrictions.

The story of these families is not unique. The pandemic exposed a global divide, a stark contrast between those who could afford to remain isolated and those who had no choice but to navigate a world of closed borders. It highlighted the vulnerabilities of those already marginalized, particularly refugees and asylum seekers, who were forced to navigate a world where even the most basic necessities were out of reach.

The reopening of borders, while necessary for economic recovery and global interconnectedness, has also brought a renewed wave of challenges. The resurgence of COVID-19 cases in many countries, coupled with the emergence of new variants, has led to a renewed focus on public health measures, but also a renewed sense of fear and uncertainty. 

The pandemic has undoubtedly reshaped our world, and the reopening of borders is just the beginning of a long and complex journey. As we navigate the challenges of a post-pandemic world, it is crucial to remember the lessons learned. We must prioritize the safety and well-being of all, particularly those most vulnerable. We must also strive to build a more inclusive and equitable world, one where borders are not barriers to opportunity and where everyone has the chance to thrive. 

## Some Countries Slammed Their Doors. It Worked — Until They Let Outsiders Back In.

The world watched in 2020 as nations, one by one, slammed their borders shut in a desperate attempt to contain the COVID-19 pandemic. It was a drastic measure, a collective act of self-preservation. And for a while, it worked. Cases plummeted, economies stabilized, and a sense of normalcy, however fragile, returned. But as the virus mutated and vaccines became available, the world began to open up again. And with that opening, a new wave of anxieties and challenges emerged.

The story of one family, forced to flee Iran due to their religious beliefs, exemplifies this complex dynamic. After a harrowing journey, they found temporary refuge in Singapore, a country that had successfully controlled the virus. They felt a sense of peace, a respite from the chaos of their flight. However, their stay was temporary, and they eventually returned to Iran, only to find themselves once again caught in the crosshairs of a global crisis.

This story is not unique. The pandemic exposed a global vulnerability, forcing countries to choose between protecting their citizens and maintaining open borders. Many chose the former, implementing strict travel restrictions and locking down their borders. While these measures may have slowed the spread of the virus, they also sparked a new wave of anxieties about immigration and globalization.

In Europe, where the pandemic has been particularly devastating, the debate over immigration has intensified. Countries like Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, historically known for their welcoming policies, have implemented stricter border controls and tightened asylum laws. This shift is partly driven by fear of another wave of refugees and a growing sense of economic insecurity.

Similar anxieties are playing out in other parts of the world. In Peru, residents are building walls to protect themselves from what they perceive as a "threat" from migrants. This fear, often fueled by misinformation and prejudice, is creating a climate of distrust and isolation, further fueling the anxieties surrounding immigration.

The pandemic has demonstrated the fragility of the global order and the interconnectedness of our world. While countries have a responsibility to protect their citizens, they must also recognize the importance of international cooperation and compassion. As the world moves forward from the pandemic, it is crucial to address the underlying anxieties and fears that have been exacerbated by the crisis. This requires a nuanced approach that balances the need for security with the principles of human rights and solidarity. Ultimately, the solution lies not in closing borders, but in building bridges and fostering a more inclusive and equitable world. 

## Some countries slammed their doors. It worked — until they let outsiders back in.

The world, in 2020, was a different place. The specter of a deadly virus loomed large, and many countries, in a desperate attempt to contain the spread, slammed their borders shut. This drastic measure, while initially effective in slowing the pandemic, has now left many nations facing a new challenge: the consequences of reopening their borders to a world that has changed.

From Singapore to Scandinavia, countries that had successfully controlled the virus through strict border controls are now grappling with new waves of infection. This resurgence, often attributed to the return of international travel and the influx of new variants, serves as a sobering reminder of the complex interplay between public health, economic realities, and international cooperation.

Take the example of Iran, where a family, having fled their homeland amidst political unrest and sought refuge in Dubai and Rome, found solace in the relative peace of a Singaporean refugee hostel.  The city-state's stringent border controls had initially kept the virus at bay, offering a brief respite from the anxieties of their journey.  Yet, as the world began to reopen, they returned to Iran, a place that had accepted them with open arms.  Their story, though individual, reflects a broader narrative: the precarious balance between protection and progress, between safeguarding public health and the inherent human need for movement and connection.

The experience of countries like Sweden, Denmark, and Norway further illuminates this complex dynamic. Despite their shared cultural and political similarities, their approaches to the refugee crisis, and subsequently, the pandemic, have diverged.  These countries, once lauded for their open borders and welcoming policies, have now found themselves navigating a landscape where the perceived threat of disease and the anxieties of globalization have fueled a more cautious, even restrictive, approach to immigration. 

This shift is not unique to Scandinavia. Across the globe, from the United States to Peru, governments and citizens alike are grappling with the anxieties of globalization and the perceived threat of "the other".  Walls, both physical and metaphorical, are being erected, fueled by fears of economic instability, cultural change, and the perceived threat of disease. 

The pandemic has forced us to confront the interconnectedness of our world, the fragility of our systems, and the enduring human need for both security and connection.  As countries cautiously reopen their borders and grapple with the consequences of their pandemic policies, it is clear that the challenges of managing globalization, immigration, and public health remain. The question remains: will we learn from the lessons of the past year, or will we continue to build walls, both physical and metaphorical, in a world increasingly defined by interconnectedness? 

Title: Some Countries Slammed Their Doors. It Worked — Until They Let Outsiders Back In.
In the early days of the pandemic, many countries around the world took drastic measures to control the spread of the virus. Some nations, like Singapore, initially controlled the virus really well by closing their borders and implementing strict quarantine measures. However, as the world began to reopen, these countries faced a new challenge: how to balance the need for economic recovery with the risk of importing new cases of COVID-19.
The experience of one family who fled Iran and spent two years in refugee hostels in Dubai and Rome highlights the complexity of this issue. The family eventually returned to Iran, but the time they spent in refugee hostels felt peaceful, a reprieve from all the noise. This sentiment is echoed by many immigrants who have written about the "welcome home" at JFK, its power on the psyche after long flights.
However, the dynamic of closing borders is not limited to Britain or to this referendum. It is playing out in democracies around the world, and immigration has become its focal point. Many citizens, particularly those who have suffered under the economic pressures of globalization, express their anxiety over these changes by focusing on another form of change: foreigners in their midst. Halting immigration, even if the actual effect is to worsen their own economic situation, seems like a way of staving off those larger changes.
Democratic governments have shown over and over that they have no answer for this anxiety, even as the stakes in Europe and globally continue mounting. The cases of Sweden, Denmark, and Norway demonstrate that the refugee crisis was construed differently in the three countries and that this had implications for policy choices. Despite the many similarities in size, culture, language, politics, labor markets, and welfare systems, there exists a persistent pattern of intra-Scandinavian differences within immigration policy.
In all three Scandinavian countries, a range of new policy proposals were made in order to stem the incoming migration. Before the residents dispersed, when the issue of migration policy arose, a consensus spread among the assembled that Denmark's long-standing tough stance was still the right way to go — and Europe would do well to follow.
However, as the world begins to reopen, some countries are facing a new challenge: how to balance the need for economic recovery with the risk of importing new cases of COVID-19. In Europe, where nowhere has been locked down as long, rules are tightening again in many countries. Traveling more than roughly six miles from one's residence is forbidden, barring a "compelling reason," and all nonessential businesses are closed.
While the government tightened restrictions over Easter, including limiting the number of people allowed in supermarkets and closing nonessential businesses like beauty salons, even Poland's health minister, Adam Niedzielski, acknowledged many people have not been following the rules. In contrast, some cities like Rome have become a destination in recent months for Europeans seeking an escape from regulations in their own regions. "We could introduce hundreds of restrictions, but it's about compliance with them," said one local leader who has chosen to try and keep restrictions at a minimum, even as cases have risen steadily in recent weeks.
The experience of this family and the ongoing challenges faced by countries around the world highlight the complexity of balancing the need for economic recovery with the risk of importing new cases of COVID-19. As the world continues to grapple with this issue, it is clear that there are no easy answers.
Title: Some Countries Slammed Their Doors. It Worked — Until They Let Outsiders Back In.
The COVID-19 pandemic has forced many countries to take drastic measures to control the spread of the virus. Some countries, like Singapore, initially controlled the virus really well by closing their borders and implementing strict quarantine measures. However, as the world slowly opens up again, these countries are facing a new challenge: how to balance the need for economic recovery with the risk of importing new cases.
Singapore, for example, had successfully contained the virus for months by closing its borders and implementing strict quarantine measures. However, as the country began to reopen its borders to allow for essential travel and business, the number of cases started to rise again. The same can be said for many other countries that had initially controlled the virus by closing their borders, such as Australia, New Zealand, and Taiwan.
The issue of reopening borders is not just a public health concern, but also an economic one. Many countries that had successfully controlled the virus are now facing pressure to reopen their borders to allow for tourism and business travel, which are crucial for their economies. However, this comes with the risk of importing new cases and sparking new outbreaks.
The experience of countries like Singapore highlights the need for a careful and measured approach to reopening borders. While it may be tempting to fully reopen borders in the hopes of boosting the economy, this could lead to a resurgence of the virus and ultimately harm the economy in the long run.
The issue of reopening borders is also a political one, with many countries facing pressure from their citizens to keep their borders closed. This is particularly true in countries that have suffered under the economic pressures of globalization, where immigration has become a focal point for anxiety and fear.
The cases of Sweden, Denmark, and Norway demonstrate the different ways in which countries can approach the issue of immigration and border control. Despite their many similarities, these countries have taken different approaches to immigration policy, with Sweden being more open and Denmark and Norway being more restrictive.
The issue of immigration and border control is not just limited to Europe, but is playing out in democracies around the world. Democratic governments have shown over and over that they have no answer for this anxiety, and halting immigration even if the actual effect is to worsen their own economic situation seems like a way of staving off those larger changes.
In the end, the issue of reopening borders is a complex one that requires a careful balancing act between public health, economic concerns, and political pressures. As the world slowly emerges from the pandemic, countries will need to find a way to reopen their borders while also protecting their citizens from the risk of importing new cases.
Title: "Some Countries Slammed Their Doors. It Worked — Until They Let Outsiders Back In."

In the early days of the pandemic, a select few countries — including Singapore — appeared to have the virus under control. They took drastic measures, closing their borders to outsiders and implementing strict quarantine rules for their own citizens. For a while, it seemed to work. But as the world began to reopen, these countries faced a new challenge: how to let outsiders back in without triggering a resurgence of the virus.

The experience of a young Iranian refugee who arrived in Singapore during the pandemic highlights the complexity of this issue. Initially, the country's strict measures made life more peaceful for the family, who had spent years in refugee hostels in Dubai and Rome. But as the country began to reopen, the family found themselves caught in a new wave of anxiety and fear.

Singapore's success in controlling the virus was not unique. Many countries, including those in Scandinavia, implemented strict border controls and other measures to limit the spread of the virus. But as the world began to reopen, these countries faced a new challenge: how to balance the need for economic recovery with the need to protect public health.

In some cases, this has led to a resurgence of the virus. In Europe, for example, countries that had previously been successful in controlling the virus, such as Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, are now facing a new wave of infections. This has led to renewed calls for tighter border controls and other measures to limit the spread of the virus.

But the issue of immigration is not just about public health. It also reflects deeper anxieties about globalization and economic change. Many citizens, particularly those who have suffered under the economic pressures of globalization, express their anxiety over these changes by focusing on another form of change: foreigners in their midst. Halting immigration, even if the actual effect is to worsen their own economic situation, seems like a way of staving off those larger changes.

This dynamic is not limited to Britain or the European Union. It is playing out in democracies around the world, and immigration has become its focal point. Democratic governments have shown over and over that they have no answer for this anxiety, even as the stakes in Europe and globally continue to mount.

In the case of Peru, the issue of immigration has been linked to concerns about public safety and security. The locals used the security argument to take refuge in gated communities during the big migrations of the seventies and eighties. For many Peruvians, Lima is the "city of fear." They are afraid of being robbed, taken hostage, or worse. That's why there are checks on who comes in and why they agreed to have the wall built.

The same fears are playing out in Europe, where walls have been raised to keep out refugees and other immigrants. In all three Scandinavian countries, a range of new policy proposals were made in order to stem the incoming migration. Before the residents dispersed, when the issue of migration policy arose, a consensus spread among the assembled that Denmark's long-standing tough stance was still the right way to go — and Europe would do well to follow.

As the world continues to grapple with the pandemic, the issue of immigration will remain a contentious one. Countries that closed their doors to outsiders may have succeeded in controlling the virus, but they now face the challenge of reopening while protecting public health. And as the economic pressures of globalization continue to mount, the issue of immigration will remain a focal point for anxiety and fear.
​
When the novel coronavirus started spreading across the globe, some countries believed that closing their borders was the best way to contain the virus. Singapore, for instance, controlled the virus quite well for a while, and many other countries got their epidemics under control too. It worked for a while, but eventually, the moment came when outsiders were let back in, and that's when the real trouble began.
Countries like Sweden, Denmark, and Norway had similar approaches to immigration policy, but the refugee crisis was construed differently in each of them. Despite these countries' many similarities in size, culture, language, politics, labor markets, and welfare systems, there exists a persistent pattern of intra-Scandinavian differences within immigration policy. All three of these countries changed policies in a restrictive direction following the so-called refugee crisis.
As a result, when the pandemic hit, and countries started shutting their borders, the same fear of foreigners in their midst resurfaced. Many citizens felt that they had to protect themselves against what they perceived as a 'threat'. That dynamic is not limited to Britain or this referendum, but it is playing out in democracies around the world, and immigration has become its focal point.
Halting immigration, even if the actual effect is to worsen their own economic situation, seems like a way of staving off those larger changes. Democratic governments have shown over and over that they have no answer for this anxiety, even as the stakes in Europe and globally continue mounting.
In Peru, locals used the security argument to take refuge in gated communities during the big migrations of the seventies and eighties. They were afraid of being robbed, taken hostage... That's why there are checks on who comes in and why they agreed to have a wall built. For them, Lima is the "gated community" of the country, and this mindset has persisted even after the migrants have long since assimilated.
But as the virus continued to spread, some countries reopened their borders to allow tourists in, in an attempt to save their struggling economies. This included countries like Spain, Portugal, and Greece, where cases of COVID-19 have skyrocketed since reopening.
In Europe, where restrictions have been lifted and then reimposed, compliance with regulations remains an issue. While the government has tightened restrictions over Easter, many people continue to flout the rules. All nonessential shops are closed and restaurants are takeout-only, but traveling more than roughly six miles from one's residence is still forbidden, barring a "compelling reason."
In Denmark, when the issue of migration policy arose, a consensus spread among the assembled that Denmark's longstanding tough stance was still the right way to go. And while the city has become a destination in recent months for Europeans seeking an escape from regulations in their own regions, local leaders have chosen to try and keep restrictions at a minimum, even as cases have risen steadily.
It's a precarious situation. Some countries, like Poland, have closed nonessential businesses like beauty salons, while travel restrictions have been imposed to prevent the spread of the virus. But as long as there are people who choose to ignore the rules, the virus will continue to find a foothold, and the pandemic will rage on.
**Some Countries Slammed Their Doors. It Worked — Until They Let Outsiders Back In**

As the COVID-19 pandemic spread across the globe, many countries took drastic measures to contain the virus, including closing their borders to outsiders. For a time, it seemed to work. Infection rates plummeted, and life slowly returned to a sense of normalcy. But as restrictions were lifted and borders reopened, the virus began to creep back in, highlighting the challenges of balancing public health with economic and social needs.

Singapore, for example, was initially successful in controlling the virus through strict border controls and quarantine measures. However, as the country began to reopen to international travel, cases began to rise again. Similarly, in Europe, countries that had implemented strict lockdowns and border controls, such as Denmark and Norway, saw a resurgence of cases as restrictions were eased.

The experience of these countries highlights the difficulties of managing the pandemic in a globalized world. While closing borders may provide a temporary solution, it is not a sustainable long-term strategy. As people begin to move freely again, the risk of transmission increases, and the virus can quickly spread.

In some countries, the decision to reopen borders has been driven by economic considerations. In Peru, for example, the government has sought to balance the need to control the virus with the need to support the tourism industry, which is a significant contributor to the country's economy. However, this has led to concerns about the risk of transmission, particularly in urban areas like Lima.

The experience of Scandinavian countries, such as Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, provides a useful case study in the challenges of managing the pandemic. Despite similarities in size, culture, and politics, these countries have taken different approaches to managing the crisis, with varying degrees of success. While Sweden has taken a more relaxed approach, Denmark and Norway have implemented stricter controls, including border closures and quarantine measures.

However, even in countries that have been successful in controlling the virus, there are concerns about the long-term sustainability of these measures. In Japan, for example, the government has implemented strict border controls, but there are concerns about the impact on the economy and the country's ability to attract foreign talent.

As the pandemic continues to evolve, it is clear that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to managing the crisis. Countries must balance the need to control the virus with the need to support their economies and societies. While closing borders may provide a temporary solution, it is not a sustainable long-term strategy. Instead, countries must work together to develop a coordinated approach to managing the pandemic, one that takes into account the complex interplay between public health, economics, and social needs.

In the end, the pandemic has highlighted the need for a more nuanced approach to managing global health crises. It is not just a matter of slamming doors shut, but of finding a balance between control and openness, between public health and economic needs. As the world continues to navigate this complex and rapidly evolving crisis, it is clear that there is much to be learned from the experiences of countries that have been successful in controlling the virus, and those that have not.
**Some Countries Slammed Their Doors. It Worked — Until They Let Outsiders Back In**

As the COVID-19 pandemic spread across the globe, many countries took drastic measures to protect their citizens, including closing their borders to outsiders. For a while, it seemed to work. The number of cases dwindled, and life slowly returned to a sense of normalcy. But as restrictions were lifted and borders reopened, the virus began to creep back in, highlighting the delicate balance between public health and economic necessity.

Singapore, for example, was initially praised for its swift and effective response to the pandemic. The city-state's strict border controls and quarantine measures helped to keep the number of cases low, and it was hailed as a model for other countries to follow. However, as the economy began to suffer and the government relaxed its restrictions, the number of cases began to rise once again.

Similarly, in Europe, countries such as Sweden, Denmark, and Norway implemented strict border controls and travel restrictions in an effort to stem the tide of the pandemic. While these measures were effective in the short term, they ultimately proved to be unsustainable. As the economic costs of the lockdowns mounted, governments were forced to reopen their borders and relax their restrictions, leading to a resurgence of cases.

The experience of these countries highlights the challenges of balancing public health concerns with economic necessity. While closing borders and restricting travel may be effective in the short term, it is not a sustainable solution in the long term. As one health official noted, "We could introduce hundreds of restrictions, but it's about compliance with them."

In fact, research has shown that the most effective approach to managing the pandemic is not to shut down borders entirely, but to implement targeted measures that balance public health concerns with economic necessity. This may include measures such as testing and tracing, mask mandates, and social distancing requirements.

The experience of Peru's capital city, Lima, is a case in point. Despite being one of the hardest-hit cities in the region, Lima has managed to keep its cases under control through a combination of targeted restrictions and public education campaigns. The city's mayor has taken a pragmatic approach, recognizing that a complete lockdown is not feasible or sustainable. Instead, the city has implemented measures such as curfews, mask mandates, and social distancing requirements, which have helped to slow the spread of the virus.

As the pandemic continues to evolve, it is clear that there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Each country must find its own balance between public health concerns and economic necessity. However, by learning from the experiences of other countries, governments can develop effective strategies that minimize the spread of the virus while also supporting their economies.

In the end, the key to managing the pandemic is not to slam the doors shut, but to find a way to manage the flow of people and goods in a way that balances public health concerns with economic necessity. As one expert noted, "It's not about closing borders, it's about managing the risks."
**Some Countries Slammed Their Doors. It Worked — Until They Let Outsiders Back In**

As the COVID-19 pandemic spread across the globe, many countries took drastic measures to protect their citizens by closing their borders and restricting travel. For a time, it seemed to work. Infection rates slowed, and life began to return to a semblance of normalcy. But as these countries gradually reopened to the world, they were faced with a new challenge: how to balance the need to control the spread of the virus with the economic and social imperatives of international travel and trade.

Singapore, for example, was one of the first countries to take a hardline approach to controlling the virus. The government implemented strict border controls, limiting travel to and from the country and imposing strict quarantine measures on those who did enter. The strategy seemed to pay off, with the country's infection rate slowing significantly.

However, as the pandemic dragged on, Singapore began to relax its restrictions, allowing more travelers to enter the country. And it was at this point that the problems began. Despite the government's best efforts to enforce strict health protocols, the virus began to spread once again.

Similarly, in Europe, countries such as Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, which had initially taken a tough stance on immigration and border control, began to see a resurgence of cases as they reopened their borders. The influx of new arrivals from other countries, many of whom were not subject to the same level of health screening and quarantine measures, led to a spike in infection rates.

The experience of these countries highlights the challenges of balancing public health concerns with the need for international travel and trade. While closing borders may have provided a temporary solution, it is not a sustainable long-term strategy. As one health expert noted, "We could introduce hundreds of restrictions, but it's about compliance with them."

In fact, many experts argue that the key to controlling the spread of the virus is not to shut down borders entirely, but to implement effective health protocols and screening measures at points of entry. This approach allows countries to balance the need to protect their citizens with the need to facilitate international travel and trade.

The city of Lima, Peru, is a case in point. Despite being a popular destination for tourists, the city has managed to keep its infection rate relatively low by implementing strict health protocols, including temperature checks and mask mandates. As one local resident noted, "We're not afraid of foreigners, but we are afraid of being robbed or taken hostage. That's why we have checks on who comes in."

In contrast, countries that have taken a more draconian approach to border control, such as Poland, have seen their infection rates rise despite their best efforts to restrict travel. The country's health minister, Adam Niedzielski, has acknowledged that many people have found ways to circumvent the restrictions, highlighting the limitations of a purely restrictive approach.

As the pandemic continues to evolve, it is clear that countries will need to adopt a more nuanced approach to controlling the spread of the virus. While border controls may have a role to play, they must be balanced with effective health protocols and screening measures. Only by taking a comprehensive approach can countries hope to protect their citizens while also facilitating international travel and trade.
**Some countries slammed their doors. It worked — until they let outsiders back in.**

As the COVID-19 pandemic spread across the globe, many countries took drastic measures to control the outbreak. Some nations, like Singapore and Denmark, closed their borders and implemented strict travel restrictions, effectively slamming their doors to outsiders. And, at first, it seemed to work. The number of cases slowed, and the public health situation improved.

However, as the months went by and the situation improved, these countries began to open up again, allowing outsiders back in. And that's when the troubles began.

Singapore, for example, controlled the virus well initially, but eventually, cases began to rise again as the country reopened its borders. "Initially, we thought we had it under control," said a Singaporean official. "But when we started to let people in again, we saw a surge in cases."

Similarly, in Denmark, the government's tough stance on immigration and travel restrictions helped to slow the spread of the virus. But as the country began to reopen, cases started to rise again. "We thought we had it under control, but it's like trying to hold back a tide," said a Danish health expert.

This pattern is not unique to these countries. Many nations that implemented strict travel restrictions and border controls saw similar results. The initial success in controlling the outbreak was followed by a rise in cases as restrictions were lifted.

The reasons for this are complex, but experts point to several factors. "Human behavior is a big part of it," said a public health expert. "People get complacent when they think the threat has passed, and they start to relax their behavior. This is when the virus can take advantage and spread."

Another factor is the lack of preparedness and compliance with health measures. "We could introduce hundreds of restrictions, but it's about compliance with them," said a local leader in a city that has seen a rise in cases. "If people don't follow the rules, it's like we're not doing anything at all."

The lesson from these countries is clear: controlling the spread of the virus requires sustained effort and vigilance. As one expert put it, "It's not a matter of slamming the door shut and then opening it again. It's about consistently enforcing measures to control the spread of the virus."

As the pandemic continues to rage on, countries are being forced to confront the reality that there is no easy solution. But by learning from the experiences of those that have come before, perhaps we can find a way to control the spread of the virus and keep our communities safe.

**Related Stories:**

* "The Scandinavian response to the refugee crisis: A comparative analysis"
* "The impact of globalization on local communities"
* "The psychology of immigration and its effects on public health"

**In Other News:**

* Europe struggles to contain new wave of COVID-19 cases
* Travel restrictions tightened in many countries
* Local leaders call for greater compliance with health measures
**Some Countries Slammed Their Doors. It Worked — Until They Let Outsiders Back In**

As the COVID-19 pandemic began to spread across the globe, many countries quickly shut their borders, imposing strict travel restrictions and lockdowns in an effort to contain the virus. While these measures proved effective in controlling the initial outbreak, the decision to reopen borders and welcome back outsiders has led to a new wave of infections in many of these countries.

Singapore, for example, was initially lauded for its successful containment of the virus. The city-state's swift lockdown and strict control measures allowed it to keep case numbers low, and it quickly became a model for other countries to follow. However, when Singapore eventually reopened its borders to non-residents, it was hit with a new wave of cases, highlighting the challenges of balancing economic and public health concerns.

Similarly, countries like Norway and Denmark, which also imposed strict border controls, have seen an uptick in cases as they have begun to relax their restrictions. In Denmark, the number of new cases has risen steadily in recent weeks, prompting the government to reintroduce some of the restrictions it had previously lifted.

The case of Singapore and other countries like it serves as a cautionary tale about the need for sustained vigilance in the face of a pandemic. While it may be tempting to relax restrictions and reopen borders in an effort to revive economies, doing so without adequate controls can have devastating consequences.

In fact, research has shown that the effectiveness of border controls in containing COVID-19 is highly dependent on the level of compliance with restrictions and the quality of public health infrastructure. Countries that have invested heavily in contact tracing, testing, and other public health measures have been more successful in controlling the virus, even as they have reopened their borders.

On the other hand, countries that have taken a more lax approach to border control have often seen their case numbers surge. In Peru, for example, the capital city of Lima has become a popular destination for Europeans seeking to escape restrictions in their own countries. However, this influx of tourists has led to concerns about the spread of the virus, with some residents expressing fears about the impact of outsiders on their community.

The experience of countries that have reopened their borders to outsiders is a reminder that the fight against COVID-19 is far from over. As the virus continues to evolve and spread, governments must remain vigilant and adaptable, balancing economic and public health concerns in order to protect their citizens.

In the end, the decision to reopen borders and welcome back outsiders is a complex one, requiring careful consideration of the risks and benefits. While it may be tempting to return to normal, the consequences of doing so without proper controls can be devastating. As countries around the world continue to navigate the challenges of the pandemic, the experience of those that have already reopened their borders serves as a stark reminder of the importance of caution and vigilance.