Search

A study on the state of the literature on migration since the West European Politics special issue on migration was published in 1994 is illustrated. Among the themes explored in the 1994 volume were the supra-nationalization of policy-making, the transformation of former emigration countries into receiving states, the conflation of immigration and asylum, and the role of the immigration issue in party politics.

The literature on immigration has been divided with regard to the constraints, particularly of public opinion, on EU policy cooperation. Analysts have suggested that there is a disjuncture between public opinion and policy developments and that liberal immigration policies have emerged because negative public opinion is not factored into elite decision making or institutional developments. Comparing public opinion data derived from Eurobarometer surveys with demographic trends and EU initiatives, this article questions the 'disjuncture' premises by evaluating the nature of mass attitudes and its impact on policy harmonization in the EU. In bridging the attitudinal-policy gap, the article assesses (a) the extent to which publics are ignorant or informed and (b) the distinct effects of personal versus general societal conditions as they motivate immigration attitudes and policy preferences. The conclusions have implications for immigration cooperation in the European Union, with policy outcomes that are more compatible with public attitudes. Keywords: immigration; asylum; public opinion; public policy; European Union

The ability of European nation-states to control migration has been at the forefront of the immigration debate. Some scholars have argued that international human rights and the freedom of circulation required by a global economy and regional markets are the two sides of a liberal regime that undermine the sovereignty of nation-states. Others have gone even further and declared the double closure of territorial sovereignty and national citizenship to be outmoded concepts. This article inscribes itself in that debate by answering the following questions: (a) To what extent do international legal instruments constrain the actions of national policy makers? and (b) How have nation-states reacted to international constraints and problems of policy implementation? Focusing on Council of Europe's jurisprudence, the authors assess the extent to which national courts have incorporated European norms and governments take them into account. The article examines ways that national policy makers have responded by shifting the institutional locations of policy making. In evaluating state responses, the article identifies the devolution of decision making upward to intergovernmental for a, downward to local authorities, and outward to nonstate actors.

The role of the state in immigration control is changing in Europe. Other parties, namely local, private and international bodies, have an increasing part in state regulation. European national governments are seeking to share the burden of an increased commitment to immigration control with these other parties through a process of devolution and privatization. The motivation behind these moves is cost-sharing rather than a desire to abdicate sovereignty and new forms of regulatory control are emerging, but the change could lead to a diversity of local situations., Abstract This article examines the theoretical framework of the debate over sovereignty in the European Union and the state's powers of immigration control, adopting a neo-corporatist approach to assess the [...]

Immigration has become one of the most dynamic and challenging issues facing policy-makers in a Europe of changing boundaries. While the divisions in the immigration debate have been elusive, there have been contending views about the viability of traditional political alignments. This article assesses the relevance of ideological orientations and party affiliations in structuring elite attitudes towards the immigration issue. Using survey questionnaires (n = 168) and in-depth interviews with 54 members of the European Parliament, the study identifies traditional party and national affinities and evolving transnational allegiances. The findings suggest that although nation-specific factors, European institution-building and the promotion of a common European identity affect traditional sources of attitude polarizations, the left-right construct has been reinvented in the emergent Europe. Ideological and party constraints on immigration remain significant in Europe after the Union.

Utilizing data from our surveys of Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) in 1992u93 and 2003u04, this article samples MEP opinion on immigration-related questions. Its central purpose is to discover if the positions of MEPs on immigration issues have evolved substantially over time and, if so, whether the direction of change supports the supposition that national and partisan orientations are gradually yielding to a consensual and European orientation on immigration-related issues. Our comparative and longitudinal analysis partially confirms that MEP opinion is becoming more consensual. Yet, despite the robust interest of MEPs in forging a common immigration policy, their support for communitarization continues to lag. Specifically, we find that, even as immigration-related issues have become more salient, a preference for having national governments regulate immigration policy has increased, particularly among MEPs from the traditional immigration-receiving countries.