Search

We investigate whether the attitudes of the Israeli majority toward migrants reflect the double standard embedded in Israel's immigration regime, differentiating Jewish from non-Jewish migrants. We compare attitudes toward ethnic migrants (Jews), non-ethnic migrants (non-Jews), and asylum seekers, considering three explanations: values, collective vulnerability, and perceived threat. Our findings show that perceived vulnerability increases threat due to immigration. Values play an important role in predicting opposition to both Jewish and non-ethnic immigrants. Perceptions of threat are more relevant for the explanation of opposition to non-ethnic immigrants than to that of Jewish immigrants. We discuss our findings in light of existing theories.

We investigate whether the attitudes of the Israeli majority toward migrants reflect the double standard embedded in Israel's immigration regime, differentiating Jewish from non-Jewish migrants. We compare attitudes toward ethnic migrants (Jews), non-ethnic migrants (non-Jews), and asylum seekers, considering three explanations: values, collective vulnerability, and perceived threat. Our findings show that perceived vulnerability increases threat due to immigration. Values play an important role in predicting opposition to both Jewish and non-ethnic immigrants. Perceptions of threat are more relevant for the explanation of opposition to non-ethnic immigrants than to that of Jewish immigrants. We discuss our findings in light of existing theories.

We investigate whether the attitudes of the Israeli majority toward migrants reflect the double standard embedded in Israel's immigration regime, differentiating Jewish from non-Jewish migrants. We compare attitudes toward ethnic migrants (Jews), non-ethnic migrants (non-Jews), and asylum seekers, considering three explanations: values, collective vulnerability, and perceived threat. Our findings show that perceived vulnerability increases threat due to immigration. Values play an important role in predicting opposition to both Jewish and non-ethnic immigrants. Perceptions of threat are more relevant for the explanation of opposition to non-ethnic immigrants than to that of Jewish immigrants. We discuss our findings in light of existing theories.

We investigate whether the attitudes of the Israeli majority toward migrants reflect the double standard embedded in Israel's immigration regime, differentiating Jewish from non-Jewish migrants. We compare attitudes toward ethnic migrants (Jews), non-ethnic migrants (non-Jews), and asylum seekers, considering three explanations: values, collective vulnerability, and perceived threat. Our findings show that perceived vulnerability increases threat due to immigration. Values play an important role in predicting opposition to both Jewish and non-ethnic immigrants. Perceptions of threat are more relevant for the explanation of opposition to non-ethnic immigrants than to that of Jewish immigrants. We discuss our findings in light of existing theories.

We investigate whether the attitudes of the Israeli majority toward migrants reflect the double standard embedded in Israel’s immigration regime, differentiating Jewish from non-Jewish migrants. We compare attitudes toward ethnic migrants (Jews), non-ethnic migrants (non-Jews), and asylum seekers, considering three explanations: values, collective vulnerability, and perceived threat. Our findings show that perceived vulnerability increases threat due to immigration. Values play an important role in predicting opposition to both Jewish and non-ethnic immigrants. Perceptions of threat are more relevant for the explanation of opposition to non-ethnic immigrants than to that of Jewish immigrants. We discuss our findings in light of existing theories.

The current study examines the following questions: (1) the extent to which individual basic human values are linked with attitudes towards immigration; (2) whether symbolic threat by immigration mediates this relation; and (3) whether cultural values moderate the relations between individual values, threat, and attitudes towards immigration. The empirical analysis relies on the 2014/2015 data from the immigration module of the European Social Survey (ESS) for West and East European countries. We find that universalistic individuals expressed lower threat due to immigration and higher support of immigration while conservative individuals displayed the opposite pattern. Symbolic threat mediated the association between values and immigration attitudes, but in most countries the mediation was partial. The associations between values, symbolic threat, and attitudes towards immigration were stronger in countries characterised by higher levels of intellectual and affective autonomy and weaker in countries characterised by higher levels of cultural embeddedness. The findings provide support for the centrality of human values in the formation of threat and attitudes towards immigration.

In this study, we focus on attitudes towards asylum seekers in two countries: Denmark and Israel. Both serve as interesting cases through which to study public sentiment of host populations for people seeking refuge. We examine the role of three core dimensions that have been relatively overlooked in previous studies: social contact with asylum seekers, the role of support for humanitarian policies and perceptions of legitimacy of the asylum seekers' claims. We also gauge the way perceptions of threat mediate the effect of these core dimensions on individuals' willingness to share their national benefits with those looking for refugee status in the two countries. For the analysis, we use multiple group structural equation modelling. On the descriptive level, findings suggest that respondents are considerably more hostile in Israel than in Denmark, although the mechanisms leading to the formation of exclusionary attitudes are partly similar. We conclude with some limitations of the study and closing remarks about similarities and differences across the two countries.

In this study, we focus on attitudes towards asylum seekers in two countries: Denmark and Israel. Both serve as interesting cases through which to study public sentiment of host populations for people seeking refuge. We examine the role of three core dimensions that have been relatively overlooked in previous studies: social contact with asylum seekers, the role of support for humanitarian policies and perceptions of legitimacy of the asylum seekers? claims. We also gauge the way perceptions of threat mediate the effect of these core dimensions on individuals? willingness to share their national benefits with those looking for refugee status in the two countries. For the analysis, we use multiple group structural equation modelling. On the descriptive level, findings suggest that respondents are considerably more hostile in Israel than in Denmark, although the mechanisms leading to the formation of exclusionary attitudes are partly similar. We conclude with some limitations of the study and closing remarks about similarities and differences across the two countries.

In this study, we focus on attitudes towards asylum seekers in two countries: Denmark and Israel. Both serve as interesting cases through which to study public sentiment of host populations for people seeking refuge. We examine the role of three core dimensions that have been relatively overlooked in previous studies: social contact with asylum seekers, the role of support for humanitarian policies and perceptions of legitimacy of the asylum seekers' claims. We also gauge the way perceptions of threat mediate the effect of these core dimensions on individuals' willingness to share their national benefits with those looking for refugee status in the two countries. For the analysis, we use multiple group structural equation modelling. On the descriptive level, findings suggest that respondents are considerably more hostile in Israel than in Denmark, although the mechanisms leading to the formation of exclusionary attitudes are partly similar. We conclude with some limitations of the study and closing remarks about similarities and differences across the two countries.

'Die Schwerpunkte dieses Artikels sind (1) Einstellungen, Normen und Wertschätzung gegenüber Wanderarbeitern von außerhalb Israels sowie (2) die Abhängigkeit der Einstellungen von demografischen wie sozioökonomischen Merkmalen israelischer Bürger. Die Daten weisen darauf hin, daß Israelis deutlich negative Einstellungen gegenüber Arbeitsmigranten äußern. Diese werden in kultureller, sozialer und politischer Hinsicht ausgegrenzt. Die soziale Ausgrenzung manifestiert sich in sozialer Distanz und der Unterstützung diskriminierenden Verhaltens (besonders wenn es zu einem Eindringen in die Privatsphäre kommt). Darüber hinaus werden die Gastarbeiter häufig nicht nur als Konkurrenten auf dem Arbeitsmarkt gesehen, sondern auch als eine Bedrohung in anderen sozialen Bereichen wie Wohlstand, Ausbildung, Gesundheit und Wohnen. Steigender Wettbewerb um knappe Ressourcen führt zu einer größeren Fremdenfeindlichkeit. Die meisten Israelis scheinen Einwanderern soziale und politische Rechte vorenthalten zu wollen. Ein Teil der verwendeten Items dieser Untersuchung wurde aus dem ALLBUS 1996 übernommen.' (Autorenreferat), 'The major goal of the present paper(l) is to describe attitudes, norms and values toward migrant workers, and (2) to evaluate the extent to which attitudes toward migrant workers are related to demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the citizens of Israel. The data indicate that Israelis have substantial negative attitude toward labor migrants. These are perceived as outsiders in the cultural, social and political spheres. The social exclusion is manifested through feelings of social distance and the support for discriminating behavior (especially when it comes to intrusion in citizens'private lives). Furthermore, foreign workers are often viewed not only as competitors in the labor market but as a threat in other social realms (welfare, education, health and housing). Increased competition over scarce resources, generates greater hostility toward outgroup members - the foreign workers. Most Israelis seem to be willing to deny them social and political rights. Part of the items was taken from the ALLBUS 1996.' (author's abstract)

In this article we test the effects of national attachments (patriotism and chauvinism) and perception of threat on citizens' willingness to concede citizenship rights to immigrants in France, Germany (West and East), the USA and Israel. Our findings show that despite marked differences in countries' migration policies and conceptions of nationhood, no significant differences were found in attitudes towards the allocation of citizenship rights to immigrants. Furthermore, our analysis suggests that contrary to our expectations, 1) the effects of both chauvinism and patriotism on willingness to grant citizenship rights to immigrants were rather low in Germany and Israel — the two ethno-national states, and strongest in France and the USA — which stand for republican and multicultural models of incorporation, respectively; 2) the effects of threat on exclusion of immigrants from citizenship rights was weaker in Israel (ethnic democracy) but stronger in the liberal democratic countries. In the conclusion, we suggest possible explanations for these rather intriguing and paradoxical findings.