Immigration is an extremely divisive political issue in Western Europe and North America. We examine whether immigration policy preferences are more nuanced than commonly understood. Too often, analyses of immigration policy preferences only consider the number of people allowed into the country. Yet, immigration policy must also address which people are allowed into the country and what rights they can have. We present results from a series of original surveys conducted in Germany between April 2020 and August 2022. We find preferences about policies governing immigration flows are conditional on policies governing entrance criteria and rights eligibility. Respondents who oppose immigration in general are willing to compromise and allow more immigration if entrance criteria become more selective. Respondents who support immigration are willing to compromise and accept less immigration if rights become more generous. Our findings have implications for understanding divides over immigration as well as policy debates more generally.
AdamsonF. B. (2006). Crossing borders: International migration and national security. International Security, 31(1), 165–199. https://doi.org/10.1162/isec.2006.31.1.165
2.
BansakK.HainmuellerJ.HangartnerD. (2017). Europeans support a proportional allocation of asylum seekers. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(7), 0133. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0133
3.
BantingK.KymlickaW. (Eds.), (2006). Multiculturalism and the welfare state: Recognition and redistribution in contemporary democracies. Oxford University Press.
4.
BantingK.KymlickaW. (Eds.), (2017). The strains of commitment. The political sources of solidarity in diverse societies. Oxford University Press.
5.
BellA.HolmanD.JonesK. (2019). Using shrinkage in multilevel models to understand intersectionality. Methodology, 15(2), 88–96. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241/a000167
6.
BlackD. (1958). The theory of committees and elections. Kluwer.
BoswellC.GeddesA. (2011). Migration and mobility in the European union. Palgrave Macmillan.
9.
CarejaR.HarrisE. (2022). Thirty years of welfare chauvinism research: Findings and challenges. Journal of European Social Policy, 32(2), 212–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/09589287211068796
10.
CernaL. (2014). Attracting high-skilled immigrants: Policies in comparative perspective. International Migration, 52(3), 69–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.12158
11.
CitrinJ.GreenD. P.MusteC.WongC. (1997). Public opinion toward immigration reform: The role of economic motivations. The Journal of Politics, 59(3), 858–881. https://doi.org/10.2307/2998640
12.
ClarkeH.GoodwinM.PaulW. (2017). Brexit: Why britain voted to leave the European union. Cambridge University Press.
13.
DegenD.KuhnT.van der BrugW. (2019). Granting immigrants access to social benefits? How self-interest influences support for welfare state restrictiveness. Journal of European Social Policy, 29(2), 148–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928718781293
14.
de HaasH.NatterK.VezzoliS. (2015). Conceptualizing and measuring migration policy change. Comparative Migration Studies, 3(15), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40878-015-0016-5
15.
de WildeP.KoopmansR.MerkelW.OliverS.ZürnM. (Eds.), (2019). The struggle over borders: Cosmopolitanism and communitarianism. Cambridge University Press.
16.
DoomernikJ.KoslowskiR.LaurenceJ.MaxwellR.MichalowskiI.DietrichT. (2009). No shortcuts: Selective migration and integration. Transatlantic Academy.
17.
DrouhotL. G.PetermannS.SchönwälderK.VertovecS. (2021). Has the covid-19 pandemic undermined public support for a diverse society? Evidence from a natural experiment in Germany. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 44(5), 877–892. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2020.1832698
18.
FavellA. (2008). Eurostars and eurocities: Free movement and mobility in an integrating Europe. Blackwell Publishing.
19.
FitzGeraldD. S.Cook-MartínD.GarcíaA. S.ArarR. (2018). Can you become one of us? A historical comparison of legal selection of ‘assimilable’ immigrants in Europe and the americas. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44(1), 27–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183x.2017.1313106
20.
GeddesA.ScholtenP. (2016). The politics of migration and immigration in Europe. Sage Publications.
21.
GelmanA.HillJ. (2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge University Press.
22.
GelmanA.HillJ.YajimaM. (2012). Why we (usually) don’t have to worry about multiple comparisons. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 5(2), 189–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2011.618213
23.
GhitzaY.GelmanA. (2013). Deep interactions with MRP: Election turnout and voting patterns among small electoral subgroups. American Journal of Political Science, 57(3), 762–776. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12004
24.
GoodmanS. W. (2012). Fortifying citizenship: Policy strategies for civic integration in western Europe. World Politics, 64(4), 659–698. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0043887112000184
25.
GoodmanS. W. (2014). Immigration and membership politics in western Europe. Cambridge University Press.
26.
GuzmánR. A.BarbatoM. T.SznycerD.CosmidesL. (2022). A moral trade-off system produces intuitive judgments that are rational and coherent and strike a balance between conflicting moral values. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(42). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2214005119
HainmuellerJ.HopkinsD. J. (2015). The hidden American immigration consensus: A conjoint analysis of attitudes toward immigrants. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 529–548. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12138
29.
HampshireJ. (2013). The politics of immigration. Contradictions of the liberal state. Polity Press.
30.
HansenJ. M. (1998). Individuals, institutions, and public preferences over public finance. American Political Science Review, 92(3), 513–531. https://doi.org/10.2307/2585478
31.
HeizmannB.ZillerC. (2020). Who is willing to share the burden? Attitudes towards the allocation of asylum seekers in comparative perspective. Social Forcess, 98(3), 1026–1051. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soz030
32.
HelblingM.BjerreL.RömerF.ZobelM. (2017). Measuring immigration policies: The IMPIC database. European Political Science, 16(1), 79–98. https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2016.4
33.
HelblingM.KriesiH. (2014). Why citizens prefer high- over low-skilled immigrants. Labor market competition, welfare state, and deservingness. European Sociological Review, 30(5), 595–614. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcu061
34.
HelblingM.LeblangD. (2019). Controlling immigration? How regulations affect migration flows. European Journal of Political Research, 58(1), 248–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12279
35.
HelblingM.MaxwellR.TraunmüllerR. (2023). Replication data for: Numbers, selectivity and rights: The conditional nature of immigration policy preferences. Harvard Dataverse. https://doi.org/10.7910-DVN-RCVA0X
36.
HelblingM.SimonS.SchmidS. D. (2020). Restricting immigration to foster migrant integration? A comparative study across 22 European countries. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 46(13), 2603–2624. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183x.2020.1727316
37.
HenleyJ.DuncanP. (2020). European support for populist beliefs falls, YouGov survey suggests (26). The Guardian.October.
38.
HessS.KasparekB. (2017). Under control? Or border (as) conflict: Reflections on the European border regime. Social Inclusion, 5(3), 58–68. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v5i3.1004
39.
HixS.KaufmannE.LeeperT. J. (2021). Pricing immigration. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 8(1), 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1017/xps.2020.6
40.
HoogheL.MarksG. (2018). Cleavage theory meets Europe’s crises: Lipset, Rokkan, and the transnational cleavage. Journal of European Public Policy, 25(1), 109–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1310279
41.
HoriuchiY.SmithD. M.YamamotoT. (2018). Measuring voters’ multidimensional policy preferences with conjoint analysis: Application to Japan’s 2014 election. Political Analysis, 26(2), 190–209. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2018.2
42.
JeannetA.-M.AdemmerE.RuhsM.TobiasS. (2019). What asylum and refugee policies do Europeans want? Evidence from a cross-national conjoint experiment. EUI RSCAS Working. Paper No. 73.
43.
JoppkeC. (1999). Immigration and the nation-state: The United States, Germany, and great britain. Oxford University Press.
44.
KolbeM.CrepazM. M. L. (2016). The power of citizenship: How immigrant incorporation affects attitudes towards social benefits. Comparative Politics, 49(1), 105–123. https://doi.org/10.5129/001041516819582937
45.
KolbeM.KayranE. N. (2019). The limits of skill-selective immigration policies: Welfare states and the commodification of labour immigrants. Journal of European Social Policy, 29(4), 478–497. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928718819609
46.
KoopmansR.MichalowskiI.WaibelS. (2012). Citizenship rights for immigrants: National political processes and cross-national convergence in western Europe, 1980-2008. AJS; American Journal of Sociology, 117(4), 1202–1245. https://doi.org/10.1086/662707
47.
KoopmansR.PaulS.GiugniM.PassyF. (2005). Contested citizenship: Immigration and cultural diversity in Europe. University of Minnesota Press.
48.
KoopmansR.VeitS.YemaneR. (2019). Taste or statistics? A correspondence study of ethnic, racial and religious labour market discrimination in Germany. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 42(16), 233–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2019.1654114
49.
KriesiH.GrandeE.DolezalM.HelblingM.HöglingerD.HutterS.BrunoW. (2012). Political conflict in western Europe. Cambridge University Press.
50.
KuklinskiJ. H.QuirkP. J.JeritJ.RichR. F. (2001). The political environment and citizen competence. American Journal of Political Science, 45(2), 410–424. https://doi.org/10.2307/2669349
51.
KustovA. (2021). Borders of compassion: Immigration preferences and parochial altruism. Comparative Political Studies, 54(3–4), 445–481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414020938087
52.
KustovA. (2022). ‘Bloom where you’re planted’: Explaining public opposition to (e)migration. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 48(5), 1113–1132. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183x.2020.1754770
53.
LacyD. (2001). A theory of nonseparable preferences in survey responses. American Journal of Political Science, 45(2), 239–258. https://doi.org/10.2307/2669339
54.
MagniG. (2022). Boundaries of solidarity: Immigrants, economic contributions, and welfare attitudes. American Journal of Political Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12707
55.
MahfudY.BadeaC.VerkuytenM.ReynoldsK. (2018). Multiculturalism and attitudes toward immigrants: The impact of perceived cultural distance. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49(6), 945–958. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022117730828
56.
MargalitY.SolodochO. (2022). Against the flow: Differentiating between public opposition to the immigration stock and flow. British Journal of Political Science, 52(3), 1055–1075. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123420000940
57.
MaxwellR. (2012). Ethnic minority migrants in britain and France: Integration trade-offs. Cambridge University Press.
58.
MaydaA. M. (2006). Who is against immigration? A cross-country investigation of individual attitudes toward immigrants. Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(3), 510–530. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest.88.3.510
59.
McLarenL. M. (2003). Anti-immigrant prejudice in Europe: Contact, threat perception, and preferences for the exclusion of migrants. Social Forces, 81(3), 909–936. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2003.0038
60.
MuddeC. (2019). The far right today. Polity Press.
RuhsM. (2013). The price of rights. Regulating international labor migration. Princeton University Press.
63.
RuhsM. (2018). Labor immigration policies in high-income countries: Variations across political regimes and varieties of capitalism. The Journal of Legal Studies, 47(S1), 89–127. https://doi.org/10.1086/694000
64.
SchmidS. D. (2021). Stagnated liberalization, long-term convergence, and index methodology: Three lessons from the CITRIX citizenship policy dataset. Global Policy, 12(3), 338–349. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12903
65.
SchultzC.LutzP.SimonS. (2020). Explaining the immigration policy mix: Countries' relative openness to asylum and labour migration. European Journal of Political Research, 60(4), 763–784. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12422
66.
SobolewskaM.GalandiniS.Lessard-PhillipsL. (2017). The public view of immigrant integration: Multidimensional and consensual. Evidence from survey experiments in the UK and The Netherlands. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 43(1), 58–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183x.2016.1248377
67.
SolodochO. (2021). Regaining control? The political impact of policy responses to refugee crises. International Organization, 75(3), 735–768. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818321000060
68.
Stadelmann-SteffenI.DermontC. (2020). Citizens’ opinions about basic income proposals compared – a conjoint analysis of Finland and Switzerland. Journal of Social Policy, 49(2), 383–403. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047279419000412
69.
ThijssenL.van TubergenF.CoendersM.HellpapR.JakS. (2022). Discrimination of black and muslim minority groups in western societies: Evidence from a meta-analysis of field experiments. International Migration Review, 56(3), 843–880. https://doi.org/10.1177/01979183211045044
70.
WagenaarC. C. L. (2020). Lessons from international multi-option referendum experiences. The Political Quarterly, 91(1), 192–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-923x.12823
71.
WrightM.LevyM.CitrinJ. (2016). Public attitudes toward immigration policy across the legal/illegal divide: The role of categorical and attribute-based decision-making. Political Behavior, 38(1), 229–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-015-9311-y
72.
YoungH. P. (1988). Condorcet’s theory of voting. American Political Science Review, 82(4), 1231–1244. https://doi.org/10.2307/1961757
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
