Explaining the immigration policy mix: Countries' relative openness to asylum and labour migration

Abstract

Western democracies have developed complex policies to manage migration flows. Much of the scholarly literature and political discourse assume that countries have become increasingly selective and that they prioritise economic intakes. Despite clear efforts by policymakers to distinguish between refugees and migrant workers, we know surprisingly little about how countries combine different policy dimensions and which factors shape their relative openness to different target groups. In this article, we shed light on how countries combine two of the main admission channels, asylum and labour migration, by introducing the concept of the 'immigration policy mix'. A comparative analysis of 33 OECD countries between 1980 and 2010 examines the pattern and drivers behind their immigration policy mix: does the policy mix follow a pattern of convergence, is it subject to political dynamics or is it path-dependent? The results reveal that despite a shift in political sympathies from asylum to labour migration, countries' immigration 1 The article has benefited substantially from generous feedback by Tobias Eule, Marc Helbling, Luzia Helfer, Elif Naz Kayran and Lea Portmann. We also thank the colloquium participants at the University of Geneva. The two anonymous referees helped with their valuable comments to improve the article.

I'm Keeping My Baby: Migrant Domestic Worker Rights at The Intersection of Labour and Immigration Laws

“…Wright and Clibborn 2020) and target different groups of people, including migrant workers and refugees (e.g. Schultz et al 2020). Such analyses enable a better understanding of both the intention and consequences of our immigration systems; however, analysis about how those systems operate to achieve their objectives is missing.…”

“…Schultz et al . 2020). Such analyses enable a better understanding of both the intention and consequences of our immigration systems; however, analysis about how those systems operate to achieve their objectives is missing.…”

Why do states admit refugees? A comparative analysis of resettlement policies in OECD countries

“…Political opposition to refugees has been increasingly nourished by radical-right populist parties that have gained substantial electoral strength in many democratic countries. Despite waning political sympathies for refugees, a clear and persistent left-right divide in political parties' asylum positions sees the left as more welcoming than the right (Akkerman, 2015;Bernhard and Kaufmann, 2018;Schultz et al, 2021). Left-wing parties' ideological core-universalist values of social solidarity-naturally leans toward a more permissive stand on refugee admission.…”

“…Recently, OECD countries have become increasingly active in refugee resettlement, with more countries introducing resettlement programs and a growing number of refugees gaining admission through this channel (Perrin, 2013). This growth has taken place despite states' attempts to prevent asylum seekers' arrival and despite fading political sympathies for refugees (Schultz et al, 2021). Indeed, countries have continuously tightened border controls and expanded remote control policies to deter asylum seekers (de Haas et al, 2015;Fitz Gerald, 2019;Lavenex, 2018;Lutz et al, 2020;Thielemann and Hobolth, 2016).…”

Numbers, Selectivity, and Rights: The Conditional Nature of Immigration Policy Preferences

“…We also extend recent research which suggests governments face immigration policy trade-offs. This work highlights the compromises that policymakers must find to pass comprehensive immigration policies (de Haas et al, 2015;Schultz et al, 2020), in processes that engage multiple organized stakeholders (Boswell & Geddes, 2011;Hampshire, 2013). Moreover, research suggests governments are aware of societal trade-offs as they calculate options for different dimensions of immigration policies (Ruhs, 2013(Ruhs, , 2018.…”