Broad and Detailed Agreement: Public Preferences for German Immigration Policy

IF 2.3 1区 社会学 Q1 DEMOGRAPHY International Migration Review Pub Date : 2023-12-07 DOI:10.1177/01979183231216076
Marc Helbling, Felix Jäger, Rahsaan Maxwell, Richard Traunmüller
{"title":"Broad and Detailed Agreement: Public Preferences for German Immigration Policy","authors":"Marc Helbling, Felix Jäger, Rahsaan Maxwell, Richard Traunmüller","doi":"10.1177/01979183231216076","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Immigration policy is often considered one of the most divisive issues in Western Europe and North America. We explore whether that debate has been oversimplified. We start from the position that immigration is a complex issue comprising many specific policy choices. We then investigate whether preferences are consistently open or closed across a range of immigration policy criteria. We analyze an original survey with a nationally representative sample of Germans. Our results suggest that preferences are not consistently open or closed on immigration, integration, and naturalization regulations. Overall, the German public would prefer to be open on some aspects of immigration policy and closed on others. In addition, population subsets who are either “pro-” or “anti-” immigration in general have the same preferences for whether to be open or closed on specific immigration policies. Our findings promote a more detailed approach to studying immigration preferences, which adds nuance to the idea of immigration as a grand societal conflict. In doing so, we highlight how future studies can refine expectations about when policy preferences are more permissive or restrictive.","PeriodicalId":48229,"journal":{"name":"International Migration Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Migration Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01979183231216076","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DEMOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Immigration policy is often considered one of the most divisive issues in Western Europe and North America. We explore whether that debate has been oversimplified. We start from the position that immigration is a complex issue comprising many specific policy choices. We then investigate whether preferences are consistently open or closed across a range of immigration policy criteria. We analyze an original survey with a nationally representative sample of Germans. Our results suggest that preferences are not consistently open or closed on immigration, integration, and naturalization regulations. Overall, the German public would prefer to be open on some aspects of immigration policy and closed on others. In addition, population subsets who are either “pro-” or “anti-” immigration in general have the same preferences for whether to be open or closed on specific immigration policies. Our findings promote a more detailed approach to studying immigration preferences, which adds nuance to the idea of immigration as a grand societal conflict. In doing so, we highlight how future studies can refine expectations about when policy preferences are more permissive or restrictive.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
广泛而详细的一致意见:公众对德国移民政策的偏好
移民政策通常被认为是西欧和北美最具分歧的问题之一。我们将探讨这场辩论是否被过于简单化了。我们的出发点是,移民是一个复杂的问题,包括许多具体的政策选择。然后,我们调查了在一系列移民政策标准中,偏好是否始终是开放的还是封闭的。我们分析了一个具有全国代表性的德国人样本的原始调查。我们的研究结果表明,在移民、融合和归化法规方面,偏好并不总是开放或封闭的。总体而言,德国公众倾向于在移民政策的某些方面持开放态度,而在其他方面持封闭态度。此外,总体而言,“支持”或“反对”移民的人口子集对于是否开放或关闭特定的移民政策具有相同的偏好。我们的发现促进了一种更详细的方法来研究移民偏好,这为移民作为一种重大社会冲突的观点增添了细微差别。在这样做的过程中,我们强调了未来的研究如何改进对政策偏好何时更宽松或更严格的预期。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
7.90%
发文量
69
期刊介绍: International Migration Review is an interdisciplinary peer-reviewed journal created to encourage and facilitate the study of all aspects of sociodemographic, historical, economic, political, legislative and international migration. It is internationally regarded as the principal journal in the field facilitating study of international migration, ethnic group relations, and refugee movements. Through an interdisciplinary approach and from an international perspective, IMR provides the single most comprehensive forum devoted exclusively to the analysis and review of international population movements.
期刊最新文献
The Glaring Gap: Undervalued and Unrecognized Knowledges and Expertise in International Migration Research Ain’t I a Migrant?: Global Blackness and the Future of Migration Studies The Struggle Over Mobility Narratives: How Senegalese Activists use Alternative Information Campaigns to Contest EU Externalization Infrastructures of Social Reproduction: Migrant Survival and Economic Development at the Thailand-Myanmar Border Book Review: ‘Am I Less British?’
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1