Gallya Lahav

A Reappraisal of the State Sovereignty Debate The Case of Migration Control

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 Europes 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 fora, downward to local authorities, and outward to nonstate actors.

Immigration and politics in the new Europe : reinventing borders

With almost a quarter of the world’s migrants, Europe has been attempting to regulate migration and harmonize immigration policy at the European level. The central dilemma exposed in this book is how liberal democracies can reconcile the need to control the movement of people with the desire to promote open borders, free markets, and liberal standards. Gallya Lahav’s book traces public opinion and elite attitudes toward immigration cross-nationally and over time to show how and why increasing EU integration may not necessarily lead to more open immigration outcomes. Empirical evidence reveals that support from both elite and public opinion has led to the adoption of restrictive immigration policies despite the requirements of open borders. Unique in bringing together a rich source of original data on European legislators and national elites, longitudinal data on public opinion, and institutional and policy analyses, this study provides an important insight into the processes of European integration, and globalization more broadly.

Public Opinion Toward Immigration in the European Union Does It Matter

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.

Actors and venues in immigration control: Closing the gap between political demands and policy outcomes

This account reviews the state of the literature on migration since the West European Politics special issue on migration was published in 1994. Particular attention is dedicated to the theme of immigration control and the critical question of policy gaps between immigration policy goals and outcomes. Regarding policy gaps, we identify three dimensions of this thesis that are addressed in some form by the contributors to the volume. These include: the disjuncture between public opinion and policy elites at the decision-making and implementation stages; the relationship between principals (states) and agents; and the dynamic between international and domestic arenas of policy-making. Offering a comparative analytical framework to empirically map the variations that exist across countries and policy stages and levels, this essay disaggregates the various components and actors involved in migration policy-making. It suggests that in order to test the gap thesis, a more nuanced empirical analysis of an expanded migration policy field composed of multiple actors and venues is warranted.

Immigration and the state: The devolution and privatisation of immigration control in the EU

Abstract This article examines the theoretical framework of the debate over sovereignty in the European Union and the states powers of immigration control, adopting a neo‐corporatist approach to assess the role of the state and its mterlocutors in migration regulation. It provides an overview of three sets of third party agents incorporated in migration regulation by EU member states: international, private and local actors. In focusing on the institutional structures and norms that have emerged ‐or rather been reinvented ‐ in the 1990s, the analysis connects with the broader questions raised in this special issue: namely, to what extent do these institutional forms open up new channels and opportunities for state regulation over migration? The dynamics behind these processes are briefly examined, particularly from the view of the state. What are the incentives/constraints and costs/benefits that keep these processes in motion? Finally, the conclusions draw implications for both state control and migrati...

Ideological and Party Constraints on Immigration Attitudes in Europe

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.

The Limits of a European Immigration Policy: Elite Opinion and Agendas within the European Parliament

Utilizing data from our surveys of Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) in 1992-93 and 2003-04, 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. Copyright 2005 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

The effect of perceived cultural and material threats on ethnic preferences in immigration attitudes

This paper shows that cultural and material threats exist side by side, serving different psychological functions, and that they manifest in differential attitudes towards immigrants from different ethnic or racial origins. While culturally threatened individuals prefer immigrants akin to themselves, as opposed to those from different races and cultures, the materially threatened prefer immigrants who are different from themselves who can be expected not to compete for the same resources. We test our hypotheses using multilevel structural equation modelling, based on data from twenty countries in the 2002 wave of the European Social Survey. The disaggregation of these two types of perceived threat reveals responsiveness to the race of immigrants that is otherwise masked by pooling the two threat dimensions.

Immigration, Hypernationalism, and European Security

Contemporary population movements resulting from disparate prosperity and international instability pose a complex new global challenge as they raise questions about the economic, social and political stability of individual nations and the international system. This chapter examines trends in European immigration and the implications of these trends for European security. Massive population flows may threaten the host country, the country of origin or the bonds between those countries by altering domestic political stability, the internal stability of other nations, and the tenor of relations among those nations, even to the point of political violence.