Although ambivalence characterizes the stance of scholars toward the desirability of close opinion-policy linkages in general, it is especially evident with regard to immigration. The controversy and disagreement about whether public opinion should drive immigration policy are among the factors making immigration one of the most difficult political debates across the West. Leading international experts and aspiring researchers from the fields of political science and sociology use a range of case studies from North America, Europe and Australia to guide the reader through the complexities of this debate offering an unprecedented comparative examination of public opinion and immigration. part one discusses the socio-economic and contextual determinants of immigration attitudes across multiple nations part two explores how the economy can affect public opinion part three presents different perspectives on the issue of causality – do attitudes about immigration drive politics, or do politics drive attitudes? part four investigates how several types of framing are critical to understanding public opinion and how a wide range of political factors can mould public opinion, and often in ways that work against immigration and immigrants part five examines the views of the largest immigrant group in the U.S. – Latinos – as well as how opinions are shaped by contact with and opinions about immigrants in the U.S. and Canada. An essential read to all who wish to understand the nature of immigration research from a theoretical as well as practical point of view.

"The book shows how four defining facets of the liberal state--representative democracy, constitutionalism, capitalism and nationhood--generate conflicting imperatives for immigration policymaking, which in turn give rise to paradoxical, even contradictory policies."--Page 4 of cover.

The unprecedented arrival of more than a million refugees, asylum seekers, and migrants – plus the political, public, and policy reactions to it – is redefining Europe. The repercussions will last for generations on such central issues as security, national identity, human rights, and the very structure of liberal democracies. What is the role of the news media in telling the story of the 2010s refugee crisis at a time of deepening crisis for journalism, as “fake news” ran rampant amid an increasingly distrustful public? This volume offers students, scholars, and the general reader original research and candid frontline insights to understand the intersecting influences of journalistic practices, news discourses, public opinion, and policymaking on one of the most polarizing issues of our time. Focusing on current events in Greece, Austria, and Germany – critical entry and destination countries – it introduces a groundbreaking dialogue between elite national and international media, academic institutions, and civil society organizations, revealing the complex impacts of the news media on the thorny sociopolitical dilemmas raised by the integration of hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers in EU countries.

Public perceptions and media coverage are powerful forces in shaping the immigration debate. Understanding public opinion on immigration, how it impacts the political debate, and how it affects reform prospects is critical when designing a strategy to advance thoughtful, rational, and effective immigration and integration policy. This volume analyzes how the public perceives immigration and immigrants--from their effects on the job market to their impact on culture and society to their prospects for integration. The authors assess the forces that shape how we perceive immigration and immigrants. The book also highlights patterns and trends in how political leaders speak about immigration. Focusing on three case studies, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany, the volume includes chapters analyzing public opinion and media coverage of immigration issues in each country. Additional chapters propose strategies for unblocking opposition to thoughtful, effective immigration-related reforms. In collaboration with the Migration Policy Institute

What does a nation of immigrants think and feel about immigration? Recent accounts of immigration policy routinely cast Americans as divided into two warring camps – one fueled by threat to livelihoods and way of life, the other by a fervent cosmopolitanism that sees the nation-state as passé. This counter-intuitive book shows that these accounts miss the mark. First, almost all Americans hold a mix of ""pro-"" and ""anti-immigrant"" opinions. Their views are pragmatic and flexible rather than dead-set. Second, opinions about immigration are more powerfully influenced by liberal values and concerns about the well-being of American society as a whole than by identity politics. Third, the assimilation Americans demand from immigrants matches patterns of integration that Hispanic and Asian immigrants overwhelmingly follow. Finally, American attitudes toward immigrants are ""exceptional"" for their openness and respect for cultural pluralism. In Citrin, Levy, and Wright's view, long-elusive comprehensive immigration reform can win in the court of public opinion – but only if leaders heed their constituents rather than the polarized activists who claim to speak on their behalf. This expert analysis rethinks the role of public opinion in immigration matters: its insights will be welcomed by all interested in immigration debates and public policy.

The United States is once again experiencing a major influx of immigrants. Questions about who should be admitted and what benefits should be afforded to new members of the polity are among the most divisive and controversial contemporary political issues. Using an impressive array of evidence from national surveys, The Politics of Belonging illuminates patterns of public opinion on immigration and explains why Americans hold the attitudes they do. Rather than simply characterizing Americans as either nativist or nonnativist, this book argues that controversies over immigration policy are best understood as questions over political membership and belonging to the nation. The relationship between citizenship, race, and immigration drive the politics of belonging in the United States and represents a dynamism central to understanding patterns of contemporary public opinion on immigration policy. Beginning with a historical analysis, this book documents why this is the case by tracing the development of immigration and naturalization law, institutional practices, and the formation of the American racial hierarchy. Then, through a comparative analysis of public opinion among white, black, Latino, and Asian Americans, it identifies and tests the critical moderating role of racial categorization and group identity on variation in public opinion on immigration.

While undocumented immigration is controversial, the general public is largely unfamiliar with the particulars of immigration policy. Given that public opinion on the topic is malleable, to what extent do mass media shape the public debate on immigration? In Framing Immigrants, political scientists Chris Haynes, Jennifer Merolla, and Karthick Ramakrishnan explore how conservative, liberal, and mainstream news outlets frame and discuss undocumented immigrants. Drawing from original voter surveys, they show that how the media frames immigration has significant consequences for public opinion and has implications for the passage of new immigration policies. The authors analyze media coverage of several key immigration policy issues—including mass deportations, comprehensive immigration reform, and measures focused on immigrant children, such as the DREAM Act—to chart how news sources across the ideological spectrum produce specific “frames” for the immigration debate. In the past few years, liberal and mainstream outlets have tended to frame immigrants lacking legal status as “undocumented” (rather than “illegal”) and to approach the topic of legalization through human-interest stories, often mentioning children. Conservative outlets, on the other hand, tend to discuss legalization using impersonal statistics and invoking the rule of law. Yet, regardless of the media’s ideological positions, the authors’ surveys show that “negative” frames more strongly influence public support for different immigration policies than do positive frames. For instance, survey participants who were exposed to language portraying immigrants as law-breakers seeking “amnesty” tended to oppose legalization measures. At the same time, support for legalization was higher when participants were exposed to language referring to immigrants living in the United States for a decade or more. Framing Immigrants shows that despite heated debates on immigration across the political aisle, the general public has yet to form a consistent position on undocumented immigrants. By analyzing how the media influences public opinion, this book provides a valuable resource for immigration advocates, policymakers, and researchers.