Search

• We examine the multidimensional character of migration policy preferences, and whether humanitarian values matter for these preferences. • We conducted a pre-registered conjoint experiment in Colombia in 2021 (N = 2,508), a major host of forced migrants globally. • Colombians favor fewer restrictions on Venezuelans' right to work, healthcare access, family reunification, or location within Colombia. • There is support for placing some restrictions on the number of Venezuelans entering the country and the length of their residence in Colombia. • Respondents holding stronger humanitarian preferences favor fewer restrictions in domains addressing core needs of health, family, and work. What migration policies do people in receiving countries prefer, and to what extent do humanitarian concerns matter for these preferences? Despite sustained scholarly attention to migration attitudes in high-income countries, much less work examines public policy preferences—particularly in low- and middle-income countries that receive most forced migrants globally. While legislators can propose and implement migration policies involving multiple domains that differ in restrictiveness, their choices partly rely on public support that may vary depending on the policy area at stake. This makes understanding preferences for realistic migration policies in a multidimensional manner theoretically and empirically important. In response, we conducted a pre-registered conjoint experiment (N = 2,508) fielded in Colombia, the country that has received the largest share of Venezuelan emigrants who themselves currently comprise one of the world's largest migratory flows. Colombians prefer more open policy options that place either some or no restrictions on Venezuelan migrants' labor market access, ability to bring family members, access to public healthcare, or freedom to choose where they live within Colombia. However, there is support for restrictions on the overall number of Venezuelans allowed to settle in the country, as well as the length of time that Venezuelans are allowed to stay in Colombia. Moreover, respondents holding higher levels of humanitarianism prefer less restrictive policies towards Venezuelans relative to those holding stronger economic and material values—particularly in domains addressing core needs of health, family reunification, and employment. Our study contributes novel and timely evidence of multidimensional migration policy preferences from a highly-impacted case, while also showing how altruistic values relating to humanitarianism selectively matter for these preferences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When and how does press coverage maintain independence from governments’ preferred language? Leading scholarship argues that elites shape media content, especially in foreign affairs settings where journalists rely on official sources. But do media push back in domestic policy contexts? Focusing on immigration in Britain, we find press coverage exhibits signs of autonomy that rely on the state’s administrative branches. Our evidence comes from automated linguistic analysis of 190,000 items of migration coverage in nineteen national British newspapers from 2006 to 2015, and press releases published by the U.K. Home Office between 2010 and 2015. We show that the press increasingly portrayed immigration in terms of its scale. Then, by comparing the dynamics of a key government policy—lowering “net migration”—in press and Home Office rhetoric, we illustrate the limits of the government to insert its desired language into the press. Finally, we argue routine press interactions with the nonpolitical Office for National Statistics enabled coverage that diverged from politicians’ preferred lines. Our study contributes to press-state theory by providing evidence of media semiautonomy in a domestic policy arena, and highlighting the often-overlooked role of routine, bureaucratic procedure in supporting that autonomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Civil society organisations increasingly mediate the creation and exchange of evidence in their activities with policy-makers and practitioners. This article extends knowledge on evidence in policy-making settings to civil society contexts. As an exploratory and qualitative study, it shows how nine UK-based organisations working on issues including migration and social welfare hold different perceptions of evidence and its usefulness. A range of related factors involving individuals, organisations, sectors, and issue areas emerge as contingent contributors to these variations. The results suggest that researchers and practitioners seeking to engage with civil society using evidence should consider context-specific values, skills, motivations, and timeliness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]