A ‘civic turn’ in Scandinavian family migration policies? Comparing Denmark, Norway and Sweden

Abstract

Family migration policy, once basing citizens and resident foreigners’ possibilities to bring in foreign family members mainly on the right to family life, is increasingly a tool states use to limit immigration and to push newcomers to integrate into civic and economic life. The family migration policies of Denmark, Norway and Sweden range widely – from more minimal support and age requirements to high expectations of language skills, work records and even income levels. While in Denmark and increasingly in Norway growing sets of requirements have been justified on the need to protect the welfare state and a Nordic liberal way of life, in Sweden more minimal requirements have been introduced in the name of spurring immigrants’ labor market integration even as rights-based reasoning has continued to dominate. In all three countries, new restrictions have been introduced in the wake of the refugee crisis. These cases show how prioritizations of the right to family life vis-à-vis welfare-state sustainability have produced different rules for family entry, and how family migration policies are used to different extents to push civic integration of both new and already settled immigrants.

Family Migration as a Class Matter

“…The emphasis on emancipation and independence, which is to be achieved through the labour market, remains strong (Eggbø, ). A satisfying family life is based on women working and independently earning their own income (Bech et al., ). In the Netherlands too civic integration has come to be defined increasingly in terms of paid labour (van Walsum, : 8), and consequently family migration policies have developed according to the ability to earn a sufficient income at a level not to require any support from the state.…”

“…The total number of new family‐related permits given to third country nationals decreased slightly from 12,900 in 2011 to 12,500 in 2012. Criticisms on grounds of gender inequality were made (an increase in gender difference in acceptance rate which, by 2011, was 60% for women and 79% for men), but, except for an easing of conditions for Norwegians who had worked abroad, including women who had not worked whilst abroad or those who had been students, further changes have not been made (Bech et al., ).…”

Studying Public Policy through Immigration Policy: Advances in Theory and Measurement

“…Policies can also be collected at the subnational level (Kraal & Vertovec, ), including across cantons (Manatschal & Stadelmann‐Steffen, , ), regions (Strazzari, ), and cities (Caponio, ). Further still, applicable rules exist in different policy domains, including establishing legal status (Borevi, Jensen, & Mouritsen, ; Goodman, ), family reunification (Bech, Borevi, & Mouritsen, ; Bonjour, ) but also welfare (Boucher, ), and other social policies (Baldi & Goodman, ). As researchers rely on different sources to assemble integration policy across these many domains, including myriad ministries—from the Home Office to Justice and Welfare—as well as, typically, the use of country experts as coders (e.g., the Immigration Policies in Comparison project, or IMPIC), there is a pressing need to establish external validity of unique measures.…”

In a New Land

“…The study was undertaken in Sweden because of the Swedish migration policy of permitting migrants to live in Sweden and attend school whilst going through the process of applying for residence [e.g. 3,7]. This policy enabled us to work in a further education college setting where we could recruit participants who were at different stages of their resettlement journey, ranging from those who were still waiting to be granted asylum, those who were granted temporary right to remain, and those who had been granted residence.…”