Presentation on theme: "Immigration policy. Immigration dilemmas Economics –Labor force vs. –Costs of services Moral obligation –Providing safe-haven Integration –How to."— Presentation transcript:
Immigration dilemmas Economics –Labor force vs. –Costs of services Moral obligation –Providing safe-haven Integration –How to avoid social division
Varieties of immigration Economic immigration –Guestworker/temporary visa –Permanent economic migration High-skilled Low-wage farm or service sector Family unification Asylum Undocumented migrants
Four cases U.S. –Mostly family unification –Some economic migration –Pretty generous on asylum –Large undocumented population Germany –Guestworkers till 1973; then little economic migration –Generous on family unification and asylum
Four cases United Kingdom –First postcolonial migration –Now, strict on family unification and asylum –Modest economic migration Canada –Mostly economic migration –Generous family unification and asylum
Public opinion Completely agree Mostly agree Mostly disagree Completely disagree CA + MA MD + CD USA Canada France Germany UK Italy Japan
Diffuse v. concentrated effects Key concept: Diffuse vs. concentrated effects Concentrated costs/benefits –High per capita costs/benefits for smaller group Diffuse costs/benefits –Low per capita costs/benefits for larger group
Diffuse v. concentrated effects DiffuseConcentrated Diffuse Concentrated Costs Benefits
Diffuse v. concentrated effects DiffuseConcentrated DiffuseGST tax cutFree trade Concentrated Liberal immigration policy Cap on civil liability awards Costs Benefits
Diffuse v. concentrated effects Concentrated losers or beneficiaries are advantaged –More likely to notice, care about policy effects –Easier to identify common interests organization easier –If Olsonian “small group” less free-riding more organization Concentrated benefits of immigration to –Employers –Immigrant groups Diffuse costs to average voter Exception: Focusing event high issue salience (e.g., 9/11)
Rising public salience of immigration Increasingly, European publics are paying attention to the issue. Why? Focusing event (9/11) –Links immigration to security –Links immigration to religious/cultural difference Economic stress Opportunism by far-right parties Relatively large flows of refugees within short period
Institutions Interest-group influence depends on institutions Centralized authority shuts out ethnic lobbies But strong courts offer alternative access point Centralized authority greater reflection of public opinion more restrictive policy??
Policy feedback Past policy choices shape new immigration politics: Reshapes the population and the electorate Creates expectations of continued residency Creates claims for family unification Past integration policies shape current public attitudes toward immigration
Canadian exceptionalism? Why is Canadian immigration regime marked by: Highly liberal policy? Low politicization of issue? Lack of significant populist, anti-immigrant party or movement?
Economic development and culture: Settler societies vs. ethnic states Settler societies –“Nations of immigrants” –Resource-rich, labor-poor economic benefits of immigration Ethnic states –Latecomers to immigration Geography too exposure to refugee and undocumented immigrant flows
Conclusion No one causal factor explains it all: 1.Economy & cultural ideas can explain settler-ethnic state differences 2.Interest-organization can explain outcomes with open legislative institutions 3.Judicial institutions explain outcomes elsewhere 4.Policy feedback helps explain developments over time