Search

Immigration policies serve a number of functions for states. Governments may use policies as instruments of foreign policy, economic growth, population growth, and/or national security. In this post-September 11, 2001 global environment, integration policies have become more assimilationist and immigration restrictions toward nationals from Muslim countries of origin have increased in the name of national security. While this trend is common among many Western states, Britain's immigration stance toward Muslim migrants remains unchanged. What explains the radical reforms in the Netherlands, Germany, and France while British immigration policy remained unchanged? This study examines change in immigration policies in Netherlands, Germany, France, and the absence of this change in the UK, towards migrants from predominantly Muslim countries of origin. Based on a comparative case study analysis using process tracing, findings indicate that Dutch immigration/integration policy choices influence government policy changes in other West European countries. Governments experiencing similar sociopolitical 'problems' and observe overlapping societal responses to them, optimize in creating policy alternatives by using short-cuts and adopting policies implemented in comparable states and situations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I propose to analyze recent immigration legislation in Germany, France, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom in regards to the legislations? focus on attracting the ?best and the brightest? or the high-skilled to these countries? labor markets. I plan on answering three questions:1. Are immigration laws that focus on attracting the high-skilled simply the reverse side of restrictive immigration practices that severely narrow the rights of asylum-seekers, refugees, and illegal immigrants? In other words, has a new ?first world? (high-skilled from developed world), ?second world? (high-skilled from less developed world), and ?third world? (everyone else) been created with selective migration practices?2. Does competition for the highly-skilled immigrants among EU member states (specifically Germany, France, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom) create divisions which negatively affect the single market? In other words, does this competition make a charade out of the idea of a European single market and effect the future integration of the European Union?3. What is the probability of these selective migration policies being effective? (A short comparison with similar policies applied for longer periods of time in Australia and Canada may be helpful in this section). Can these European states effectively control who gains residency and entry into their country? What does this bifurcation (restrictive for low-skilled, open for high-skilled) of migration mean for the future integration of Europe? ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]