No abstract

The paper explores the role of radical right parties in the politicization of immigration. In scholarly literature, radical right parties are viewed as the owners of the immigration issue and as drivers of its politicization. Against this prevalent view, we argue that the significance of radical right parties in politicizing immigration is overrated: (1) Radical right parties only play a subordinate role in the politicization of immigration, whereas the contribution of mainstream parties to raising issue salience has been underestimated; (2) the politicization of immigration is not related to radical right strength in the party system. The findings are based on media data from a comparative project on public claims-making on immigration in Western European countries (SOM, Support and Opposition to Migration). We discuss our findings in comparison to the relevant literature and suggest avenues for further research.

Despite disadvantageous conditions, various forms of protest by ordinary citizens have emerged in Austria to stop the expulsion of asylum seekers. How can protest activities in favor of refugees be explained? Empirically, this article relies on a protest event analysis (PEA) of media articles and an emotion analysis (EA) of protest material. Following the emotional turn, this study emphasizes that personal ties and closely related affective emotions—friendship and solidarity—between deportees and protesters account for the most relevant resources of protest. Moreover, activists strategically use reactive/moral emotions—fear, outrage, and shame—to mobilize broader support. Protesters are mostly recruited from the personal environment of the potential deportees, and the most salient argument expressed against deportation is that well-integrated people deserve to remain in the country. The article concludes that social ties and emotions are useful in explaining not only the emergence and spread of protests but also certain limitations inherent in them with regard to policy change.

No abstract

No abstract

Theoretically embedded in the migration/social policy nexus, this paper investigates cooperation with return (CWR) as a policy tool to remove practical deportation barriers for third-country nationals pending removal. Based on legal and policy documents and expert interviews with stakeholders in Austria and the Netherlands, the paper asks how CWR is implemented and what influence it has, both on migration control aims and on access to social rights. We argue that the politicization of the issue and diverging interests between policy networks of welfare and migration affect the regulation and implementation of the tool. By comparing the use of CWR within two country contexts, the analysis presented here adds valuable insights on features of governmental instruments in response to the “deportation gap”. The paper further adds to the literature on sanction-oriented, personalized migration policies.

This paper investigates how immigration and concerns over integration are changing established modes of cooperation between church and state in Austria. Focusing on the relationship between officially recognised Muslim and Eastern Orthodox organisations and the state, we examine how the mounting politicisation of immigrant integration has led the state to collaborate with minority religious organisations as representatives of immigrants and is increasing the opportunities for such religious groups to be visible and express voice in the public sphere. Based on interviews, policy documents and literature, we analyse how the modes of cooperation between religious organisations and the state are moving from a narrow and institutionalised collaboration on policy issues exclusively related to religion to a broader but more fluid and uncertain form of symbolic cooperation. We argue that, within this modified setting, recognised minority religious organisations are gradually assuming the function of political entrepreneurs who speak for the entire immigrant community. This, in turn, creates tensions within and between religious groups, and risks overstating religion as a factor in the integration of immigrants. Our comparison between Muslim and Eastern Orthodox religious organisations shows that, notwithstanding the greater salience of Islam, they both benefit from the new role of religion in integration issues.

No abstract