Working Paper
This paper develops and tests the most important idea of my dissertation.
Abstract
Many scholars assume that, in democracies, the openness of immigration regimes and the inclusiveness of citizenship regimes trade off. Yet, the existing empirical evidence for this negative correlation is inconsistent. In this article, I argue that the politicization of immigration in democratic elections can explain this inconsistency. It does so by unifying or separating the underlying logics of immigration and citizenship policymaking. Whereas immigration regime openness correlates negatively with citizenship regime inclusiveness when politicization is low (unified market logic), the two correlate positively when politicization is high (unified identity logic). At medium politicization levels, the correlation is null (separate logics). I test this hypothesis across 23 Western democracies 1980-2018 using mixed-effects models and qualitative case illustrations. The results support but also qualify the hypothesis and bear important implications for long-standing normative and empirical debates on democratic boundary regime making.
Many scholars assume that, in democracies, the openness of immigration regimes and the inclusiveness of citizenship regimes trade off. Yet, the existing empirical evidence for this negative correlation is inconsistent. In this article, I argue that the politicization of immigration in democratic elections can explain this inconsistency. It does so by unifying or separating the underlying logics of immigration and citizenship policymaking. Whereas immigration regime openness correlates negatively with citizenship regime inclusiveness when politicization is low (unified market logic), the two correlate positively when politicization is high (unified identity logic). At medium politicization levels, the correlation is null (separate logics). I test this hypothesis across 23 Western democracies 1980-2018 using mixed-effects models and qualitative case illustrations. The results support but also qualify the hypothesis and bear important implications for long-standing normative and empirical debates on democratic boundary regime making.