established parties move toward more anti-immigration positions and emphasise the immigration issue more strongly(Abou-Chadi 2016; Abou-Chadi and Krause 2020). This is true not only for parties on the mainstream right, but also for those on the mainstream left. Our research indicates that such moves are not just a response to shifting public opinion, but rather main­stream parties seek to act strategically to counter the success of the radical right and win back voters. The underlying logic is simple: if radical right parties are winning on an anti-immigration platform, then surely moving right on immigration would help to win these voters back. Anti-immigration positions do not win back voters from the radical right The crucial question then is, does this approach work? When mainstream parties take more anti-immigration positions, does it in fact weaken the radical right? We have researched this question extensively(Abou-Chadi, Cohen and Wagner 2022; Krause, Cohen, and Abou-Cha ­di 2023) and our conclusion is clear: moving right on im ­migration does not help to win back voters from the radi­cal right. We analysed electoral survey data in 13 countries from 1989 to 2017, which includes information on how people voted in the most recent and in the previous election. This allows us to test how vote switching between main­stream parties and the radical right is affected by main­stream party positions on immigration. We find that when mainstream parties position themselves more to the right on immigration, this does not help to win back more voters from the radical right. Generally, it increases the volume of vote switching between the radical right and mainstream parties, but if anything, the radical right is the net winner of this exchange. European mainstream parties have strategically shift­ed to more anti-immigration positions. However, this has not helped them to weaken the radical right. Indirect consequences: public opinion and normalisation of the radical right Shifting right on immigration does little to win voters back, then. But it has important indirect effects that fuel the rise of far-right parties and their ideology. First, the positions of mainstream parties on immigration affect public opinion. When mainstream parties highlight immigration issues, they make these topics more salient in the public debate. This heightened visibility amplifies public concerns and encourages citizens to evaluate poli­tics through an immigration lens. 2 Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung e.V. And the effects are not limited to salience. Political sci­ence research demonstrates that party positions shape the attitudes of their supporters(Lenz 2012). When main ­stream parties adopt anti-immigration rhetoric, their vot­ers tend to follow suit, gradually shifting public opinion in a more restrictive direction. This does not mean that some voters do not have real concerns about immigra­tion. Nevertheless, elite behaviour matters immensely for public opinion on political issues. When people constant­ly hear that immigration is a problem, it should not sur­prise us that they start to believe it. Second, by shifting their stance on immigration, estab­lished parties contribute to the normalisation of radical right parties and their ideology(Valentim, Dinas, and Zi­blatt 2025). Ideas that were once considered fringe or ex ­tremist begin to seem part of legitimate political dis­course. By moving right on immigration, then, mainstream par­ties shift public opinion more toward the radical right and at the same time normalise radical right parties and their ideology. Reaction to public opinion: the cycle continues In the final stage of the cycle, mainstream parties re­spond to the very shifts in public opinion they helped to bring about. When polls show rising hostility or»scepti­cism« toward immigration, parties tend to interpret this in terms of a public demand for even tougher policies. They react by moving further right, thus deepening the cycle. Thus what began as a tactical manoeuvre becomes a self-reinforcing dynamic: political competition circles around immigration and how to reduce it. This cycle brings radical-right parties and their ideology in from the margins to the very heart of our democracies. Breaking the cycle Breaking this vicious cycle requires rethinking political strategy. Instead of mirroring the rhetoric of the radical right, mainstream parties need to address the grievances arising from the socio-economic transformations of our time with a focus on their own vision and agenda. Pro­gressive parties in particular need to stop being reactive and instead to embrace the transformative power of an agenda based on decommodification, inclusion and sus­tainability. When parties see themselves only as manag­ing and solving problems, they leave the field clear for other parties to shape the agenda of issues, ideologies and identities. On issues such as housing, cost of living and the climate crisis, progressive parties need to devel­op bold agendas to break the vicious cycle of immigra­tion as the dominant issue in politics. Progressive parties