1. European Immigration Classism: Attitudes toward “Good” and “Bad” Immigrants Dr. Rueyling Tzeng Research Fellow Institute of European and American Studies Academia Sinica, Taiwan rtzeng@sinica.edu.tw WAPOR 68th Annual Conference The Networks of Public Opinion: New Theories, New Methods Buenos Aires, Argentina June 16-19, 2015 1

2. 2

3. Questions Classism in immigration policy:  Preferring high skilled immigrants over low skilled immigrants.  EU Blue Card: to make member states more attractive for highly qualified migrants. Such policies reflect public opinion? 3

4. Classism in public opinions?  Most surveys offer little help. Dependent variable:  Respondents are asked about their attitudes towards immigrants in general.  Many often have low-skilled immigrants in mind when replying such question. Independent variables:  Indirect measurement of main factors influencing individual attitudes toward immigrants. 4 Questions

5. Data Transatlantic Trends: Immigration, 2011.  To identify attitudes and policy preferences of the general public related to immigration in Europe and the United States.  A follow-up to the Transatlantic Trends: Immigration Survey conducted by the German Marshall Fund in 2008, 2009, and 2010.  US, UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain. 5

6. Dependent variables How much do you agree or disagree that the (COUNTRY) should allow more immigrants with a high level of education to come and live here? Do you… How much do you agree or disagree that the (COUNTRY) should allow more immigrants with a low level of education to come and live here? Do you… 1 Strongly Disagree 2 Somewhat Disagree 3 Somewhat Agree 4 Strongly Agree 6

7. Independent variables Economic and cultural factors  Indirect: Respondents’ characteristics Income, occupation, cultural chauvinism  Direct: Respondents’ perception of immigrants’ influence Cultural impact  Some people think that immigration enriches (NATIONALITY) culture with new customs and ideas. Others think that these new customs and ideas negatively affect (NATIONALITY) culture. Which comes closer to your point of view? 1 Immigration enriches (NATIONALITY) culture 2 Immigration negatively affects (NATIONALITY) culture 7

8. Independent variables Economic impact  Could you please tell me how much you agree or disagree with each of these statements about immigrants in general? --- Immigrants take jobs away from native born. --- Immigrants generally help to fill jobs where there are shortages of workers. --- Immigrants help create jobs as they set up new businesses. --- Immigrants bring down the wages of (NATIONALITY) citizens. --- Immigrants are a burden on social service. 1 Strongly Disagree 2 Somewhat Disagree 3 Somewhat Agree 4 Strongly Agree 98 DK 、 99 RA Missing 8

9. 9 Background Information

10. 10 Table 1: Total net migration (annual average in thousands, annual rate per 1,000 in population) Period1990-19951995-20002000-20052005-2010 United Kingdom33.598.7189.5 0.61.73.23.1 Germany529.8190.4186.0110.0 6.72.3 1.3 France47.938.4152.1100.0 0.80.72.61.6 Italy58.942.6350.0330.0 1.00.76.15.6 Spain64.7158.5500.8350.0 1.74.012.48.1 Source: United Nations (2011: 164, 170, 194, 284, 308, 310)

11. 11 Table 2: Migration and demographic data International Migrant Stock 1 (percentage of total population) Population 60 Years of Age or Older 2 (percentage of total population) Total Fertility Rate (children per female) 2010 2012 2050 2005-2010 3 Latest year 4 World 3.2 11 22 2.53 United Kingdom 11.3 23 30 1.88 1.95 (2009) Germany 11.7 27 37 1.36 1.37 (2010) France 11.4 24 30 1.97 2.07 (2009) Italy 7.9 27 38 1.39 1.43 (2010) Spain 13.5 23 38 1.41 1.39 (2010) Sources: 1. United Nations (2013) 2. United Nations (2012a) 3. United Nations (2012b) 4. United Nations (2012c)

12. 12 Table 3: Foreign-born population, labor force, and educational attainment, 2009 Foreign-born Population (thousand and percentages) 1 Foreign-born Labor Force (thousand and percentages) 2 Education attainment (tertiary) 3 Foreign-born (% of all foreign- born 15-64) Difference (+/-) with the native born United Kingdom6,899.0 3,698.0 47.3 19.7 11.3 12.9 Germany6,694.8* 3,289.0* 18.9 -4.2 8.2 9.4 France7,287.8 3,266.8 24.3 -2.2 11.6 Italy4,798.7 2,787.2 11.0 -2.1 8.0 11.3 Spain6,604.2 4,229.2 21.3 -7.7 14.4 18.5 Sources: 1. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2014: 362, 382). 2. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2011: 443, 445). 3. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2012: 48). *: Calculated by foreign residents and foreign workers.

13. 13 Results

14. 14 High education Low education Differences strongly & somewhat agree(1) DK&R (2) strongly & somewhat agree(3) DK&R (4) (1)-(3)(2)-(4) United Kingdom 55.4% 3.9% 15.3%4.7% 40.1%-0.8% Germany 73.2% 1.1% 24.3%3.2% 48.9%-2.1% France 56.2% 1.9% 36.3%3.4% 19.9%-1.5% Italy 66.0% 3.9% 44.2%5.5% 21.8%-1.6% Spain 68.5% 8.7% 33.7%10.3% 34.8%-1.6% Table 4: Country should allow more high/low education immigrants Note: N=1,000

15. 15 Table 5: Acceptance attitudes toward immigrants with high level of education in the five European countries *** p<.001, ** p<.01, * p<.05 UK Germany France Italy Spain Gender (female=0).315*(.157).089(.143).057(.146).125(.156).114(.150) Age -.001(.001)-.004(.005).000(.001).000(.001)-.009(.006) Education.145(.089).191***(.052).120(.068).225**(.076)-.035(.072) Government management in immigration.272*(.106)-.040(.107).142(.106)-.002(.111).274**(.100) Foreign-born friends (none=0) A few.024(.171).366*(.168).138(.177).301(.167).251(.184) Many.538*(.265).187(.233).552*(.252).438(.269).595*(.272) Employment (low occupation=0) High occupation.224(.219)-.049(.197).245(.227).327(.242)-.062(.202) Not employed.257(.207).053(.164).271(.165).026(.166).011(.180) Household financial situation.116(.082).090(.087).103(.089).008(.096).084(.091) Nation’s economy (same=0) Better -.143(.360).001(.163).869(.497).118(.609).223(.578) Worse -.361(.211).171(.181).243(.192).059(.262).537*(.230) Immigrants should act like locals.008(.081)-.247**(.094)-.179(.094)-.087(.087)-.003(.102) Enriches culture (negative=0).617***(.184).590**(.186).399*(.180).552**(.190).280**(.182) Take jobs away -.234**(.087)-.184(.106).007(.101)-.402***(.099)-.413(.093) Help fill jobs.283***(.082).288**(.102).178*(.088).002(.096)-.067*(.079) Help create jobs.363***(.089).298***(.100).376***(.088).355***(.092).195(.092) Bring down the wages.013(.080)-.236**(.088)-.275**(.085).005(.082)-.003(.087) Social service burden -.192(.094)-.046(.099)-.290**(.094)-.199*(.091)-.020(.092) Cutting point 1 2.825 -2.192 -.609 -2.987 -2.134 Cutting point 2 3.871 -.683.726 -1.495 -.974 Cutting point 3 6.298 1.939 3.043 1.017 1.383 Pseudo R 2.1920.1020.1013.1175.0616 N657 790 703 662 669

16. 16 Table 6: Acceptance attitudes toward immigrants with low level of education in the five European countries *** p<.001, ** p<.01, * p<.05 UK Germany France Italy Spain Gender (female=0) -.445*(.186)-.344*(.152).191(.157)-.199(.161)-.243(.151) Age -.030***(.007)-.002(.005).001(.002)-.001(.001)-.003(.006) Education -.047(.103).134*(.053)-.003(.071).205**(.077)-.008(.072) Government management in immigration.417***(.118).356**(.114).125(.110)-.016(.116).246(.101) Foreign-born friends (none=0) A few.111(.207).103(.176).356(.188).227(.167).147(.183) Many.183(.293).467(.240).632*(.261).467(.275)-.044(.269) Employment (low occupation=0) High occupation.473(.254)-.311(.206)-.338(.236).396(.250)-.239(.202) Not employed.782*(.318)-.160(.214)-.325(.276)-.412(.302)-.625*(.300) Household financial situation.248**(.094).052(.093).006(.093)-.086(.098).073(.091) Nation’s economy (same=0) Better -.812(.423)-.180(.169).547(.481)-1.181(.686).976(.605) Worse.015(.239).056(.188).191(.201)-.065(.274).263(.227) Immigrants should act like locals -.090(.094)-.378***(.097)-.257*(.100)-.238**(.088)-.147(.102) Enriches culture (negative=0).362(.203).309(.192).726***(.193).635**(.195).354*(.180) Take jobs away -.127(.103)-.133(.112)-.043(.107)-.193(.102)-.392***(.094) Help fill jobs.243*(.100).504***(.106).250**(.094).152(.098)-.008(.079) Help create jobs.253*(.105).145(.101).439***(.091).404***(.093).375**(.092) Bring down the wages -.134(.092).008(.091)-.203*(.089)-.037(.083)-.071(.086) Social service burden -.595***(.106)-.677***(.104)-.554***(.097)-.372***(.092)-.312***(.089) Cutting point 1 -.923 -1.705 -1.967 -2.920 -3.495 Cutting point 2.933.858 -.102 -1.055 -1.587 Cutting point 3 2.835 3.078 2.484 1.612.510 Pseudo R 2.1920.1523.1678.1488.1253 N657 778 695 652 667

17. Results Immigrants: enriching culture→ ＋ high educated immigrants, all five ＋ low educated immigrants, France, Italy and Spain as a burden of social service→ － high educated immigrants, France and Italy － low educated immigrants, all five bringing down the wage→ － high educated immigrants, Germany and France － low educated immigrants, France taking their jobs away→ － high educated immigrants, UK and Italy － low educated immigrants, Spain creating jobs→ ＋ high educated immigrants, all five except Spain ＋ low educated immigrants, all five except Germany filling in jobs→ ＋ high educated immigrants, UK, Germany and France ＋ low educated immigrants, UK, Germany and France － high educated immigrants, Spain 17

18. 18 Table 7: Classism toward immigrants Individual perception of immigrants Welcome high educated immigrants Welcome low educated immigrants UK Enriches culture (negative=0).617***(.184).362(.203) Take jobs away-.234**(.087)-.127(.103) Help fill jobs.283***(.082).243*(.100) Help create jobs.363***(.089).253*(.105) Bring down the wages.013(.080)-.134(.092) Social service burden-.192(.094)-.595***(.106) Germany Enriches culture (negative=0).590**(.186).309(.192) Take jobs away-.184(.106)-.133(.112) Help fill jobs.288**(.102).504***(.106) Help create jobs.298***(.100).145(.101) Bring down the wages-.236**(.088).008(.091) Social service burden-.046(.099)-.677***(.104) France Enriches culture (negative=0).399*(.180).726***(.193) Take jobs away.007(.101)-.043(.107) Help fill jobs.178*(.088).250**(.094) Help create jobs.376***(.088).439***(.091) Bring down the wages-.275**(.085)-.203*(.089) Social service burden-.290**(.094)-.554***(.097) Italy Enriches culture (negative=0).552**(.190).635**(.195) Take jobs away-.402***(.099)-.193(.102) Help fill jobs.002(.096).152(.098) Help create jobs.355***(.092).404***(.093) Bring down the wages.005(.082)-.037(.083) Social service burden-.199*(.091)-.372***(.092) Spain Enriches culture (negative=0).280**(.182).354*(.180) Take jobs away-.413(.093)-.392***(.094) Help fill jobs-.067*(.079)-.008(.079) Help create jobs.195(.092).375**(.092) Bring down the wages-.003(.087)-.071(.086) Social service burden-.020(.092)-.312***(.089) *** p<.001, ** p<.01, * p<.05 Notes: 1. This table is partially drawn from Table 4 & 5. 2. stands for attitude differences between high and low educated immigrants.

19. Results No classism: Individual perceptions of economic and cultural impacts of immigrants do not cause a different attitude between high and low educated immigrants. Only residents in France do not hold classism. All other four European countries do but in various patterns. 19

20. Results EU’s classism in immigration policy:  High educated immigrants are preferred more than low educated immigrants. Interesting findings of this research:  High educated immigrants bring some negative effects. UK and Italy taking jobs away from natives Germany and France bringing down the wages Spain filling jobs where there are shortages of workers  Low educated immigrants bring some positive effects. All except Germany help create jobs as they set up new businesses France, Italy and Spain enrich local culture more than the high educated immigrants. 20