There has been an increased quest for more restrictive policies to control migration in liberal democracies. As migrants are perceived to pose security threats as well as grab job opportunities from locals, this has resulted in developing a nativist stance. However, the effectiveness of these policies has always been a question of debate in academic circles. Despite the erection of restrictive migration policies, migration has kept on going up. This article tries to explore those reasons. In the first place, liberal traditions in democracies where fundamental rights are never compromised and where the judiciary plays the role of the watchman on executive authorities have not allowed the governments to enforce these policies in their entirety. On many occasion, even these policies have been declared void by the judges. The role of civil society and NGOs in these countries has also worked to the advantage of migrants against the government.