Hi Alexander, thanks for the piece! I liked it and agree with most of what you write! In one point I disagree though and I thought it may be worthwhile highlighting this:
A number of studies and polls indicate that people actually have no problem with admitting people for humanitarian, as opposed to economic, reasons. Take, for example, the study by Czymara & Schmitdt-Catran 2017, where they find that respondents are significantly more willing to admit people fleeing persecution over people arriving for economic reasons - even if economic migrants already have a job secured and are therefore likely to contribute more to the economy.
The problem with humanitarian immigration appears to be much more the close association with irregular immigration. The latter is what most people - even many who are open to immigration in general - disapprove of and what gives them the impression of being exploited. This recent Ipsos poll shows that large majorities are in favor of granting refugees protection in principle - but believe that Most "foreigners who want to get into my country as a
To conclude: I believe the key reason that immigration is more popular in Canada than in Sweden is that humanitarian immigration in Canada is largely based on orderly refugee resettlement - rather than irregular asylum immigration.
Curious to hear your (or others') thoughts on this.
Regarding Canada and Sweden: while I agree that Canada relies more on resettlement (largely through private sponsorship, which I’ll discuss in my next Substack post), I don't think it is fair to say that most humanitarian immigration in Sweden is irregular under standard definitions. Besides, the more important distinction, in my view, is that humanitarian immigration makes up a much larger share of total immigration in Sweden than in Canada.
I also agree that voters evidently don't like it when someone tries to claim asylum when they are an economic migrant (and the prevalence of this phenomenon can both vary and be much exaggerated by populists depending on the context).
However, it looks like I'm much more skeptical than you that the idea of *increasing* humanitarian immigration levels can be popular in today's democracies. I will make sure to write a post on this soon, and I'm happy to keep an open mind, but my sense is that the evidence from conjoint experiments (like Czymara & Schmitdt-Catran 2017) is not very convincing. In these experiments, people are basically forced to choose between two immigrants, and then surely they tend to pick the one who is more vulnerable, but it is not a good measure of people's *immigration policy* preferences for admitting large numbers of migrants. When people are asked simply or directly about whether they want to increase or decrease various immigrant groups, humanitarian admissions are usually the least popular (https://www.moreincommon.org.uk/media/fqobhfmr/lpc-migration-slides.pdf#page=10).
Hi Alexander, hope you don't mind me continuing this a bit further, I find this really fruitful!
It's great you're citing the More in Common study. Just recently, I saw a similar study from More in Common, which also shows the low popularity for refugee immigration (https://www.moreincommon.de/publikationen/zusammenhalt-migration/). My reading of this though is that when asked about refugee immigration, most people (at least in Europe) will think of asylum immigration* - rather than more orderly forms of refugee immigration such as community sponsorship or UNHCR resettlement or the like. This then results in a widespread sense that it is actually often the wrong people who benefit from the protection the government grants.
What I found interesting in the German study (which is available unfortunately only in German) is that there is much more support for controlling rather than reducing immigration (p. 18, fig. 5). This aligns with qualitative data I collected earlier this year on reasons for dissatisfaction with the existing asylum system (if you like, I'll let you know once a working paper is out).
That said, I agree that there are limits to humanitarian immigration even if it was all orderly and well-managed, etc. - and these limits are probably lower than for (well-managed) labor immigration. If you want to maximize public acceptance for refugee admissions though, I believe a shift towards more orderly pathways is probably the most powerful tool available - yet it too has limits.
Looking forward to your future post on the matter!
*To quickly clarify: I referred to asylum immigration as an irregular form of immigration because the process of border crossing itself typically occurs without authorization - which I think is key for creating an impression among citizens that this kind of immigration is "out of control". Yet, it is of course correct that once in the country, asylum seekers have a right to apply for asylum and do not have irregular status.
Totally agree with your piece! Proponents of immigration often frame letting in newcomers as an act of compassion or a commitment to universal values, but have neglected to highlight the benefits of immigration to native born citizens.
Hi Alexander, thanks for the piece! I liked it and agree with most of what you write! In one point I disagree though and I thought it may be worthwhile highlighting this:
A number of studies and polls indicate that people actually have no problem with admitting people for humanitarian, as opposed to economic, reasons. Take, for example, the study by Czymara & Schmitdt-Catran 2017, where they find that respondents are significantly more willing to admit people fleeing persecution over people arriving for economic reasons - even if economic migrants already have a job secured and are therefore likely to contribute more to the economy.
The problem with humanitarian immigration appears to be much more the close association with irregular immigration. The latter is what most people - even many who are open to immigration in general - disapprove of and what gives them the impression of being exploited. This recent Ipsos poll shows that large majorities are in favor of granting refugees protection in principle - but believe that Most "foreigners who want to get into my country as a
refugee really aren't refugees". https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2024-06/Ipsos-World-Refugee-Day-2024-Global-Report-PUBLIC_0.pdf). In my own research I elaborate this point more in depth and find a widespread openness for refugee immigration through orderly pathways (https://unu.edu/merit/article/reforms-welcome-where-germans-agree-refugee-and-asylum-migration).
A recent study even suggests that humanitarian arguments are more likely to win over people for admitting refugees than utilitarian arguments are (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/01979183251353452).
To conclude: I believe the key reason that immigration is more popular in Canada than in Sweden is that humanitarian immigration in Canada is largely based on orderly refugee resettlement - rather than irregular asylum immigration.
Curious to hear your (or others') thoughts on this.
Best,
Tobias
Regarding Canada and Sweden: while I agree that Canada relies more on resettlement (largely through private sponsorship, which I’ll discuss in my next Substack post), I don't think it is fair to say that most humanitarian immigration in Sweden is irregular under standard definitions. Besides, the more important distinction, in my view, is that humanitarian immigration makes up a much larger share of total immigration in Sweden than in Canada.
Thanks, Tobi, I appreciate this! I agree that most of the so-called voter backlash to immigration is really about the backlash to irregular or otherwise mismanaged immigration, and not humanitarian or general economic immigration in particular (https://migrationpolicycentre.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/7th_Dilemma_1st_Contribution.pdf).
I also agree that voters evidently don't like it when someone tries to claim asylum when they are an economic migrant (and the prevalence of this phenomenon can both vary and be much exaggerated by populists depending on the context).
However, it looks like I'm much more skeptical than you that the idea of *increasing* humanitarian immigration levels can be popular in today's democracies. I will make sure to write a post on this soon, and I'm happy to keep an open mind, but my sense is that the evidence from conjoint experiments (like Czymara & Schmitdt-Catran 2017) is not very convincing. In these experiments, people are basically forced to choose between two immigrants, and then surely they tend to pick the one who is more vulnerable, but it is not a good measure of people's *immigration policy* preferences for admitting large numbers of migrants. When people are asked simply or directly about whether they want to increase or decrease various immigrant groups, humanitarian admissions are usually the least popular (https://www.moreincommon.org.uk/media/fqobhfmr/lpc-migration-slides.pdf#page=10).
Hi Alexander, hope you don't mind me continuing this a bit further, I find this really fruitful!
It's great you're citing the More in Common study. Just recently, I saw a similar study from More in Common, which also shows the low popularity for refugee immigration (https://www.moreincommon.de/publikationen/zusammenhalt-migration/). My reading of this though is that when asked about refugee immigration, most people (at least in Europe) will think of asylum immigration* - rather than more orderly forms of refugee immigration such as community sponsorship or UNHCR resettlement or the like. This then results in a widespread sense that it is actually often the wrong people who benefit from the protection the government grants.
What I found interesting in the German study (which is available unfortunately only in German) is that there is much more support for controlling rather than reducing immigration (p. 18, fig. 5). This aligns with qualitative data I collected earlier this year on reasons for dissatisfaction with the existing asylum system (if you like, I'll let you know once a working paper is out).
That said, I agree that there are limits to humanitarian immigration even if it was all orderly and well-managed, etc. - and these limits are probably lower than for (well-managed) labor immigration. If you want to maximize public acceptance for refugee admissions though, I believe a shift towards more orderly pathways is probably the most powerful tool available - yet it too has limits.
Looking forward to your future post on the matter!
*To quickly clarify: I referred to asylum immigration as an irregular form of immigration because the process of border crossing itself typically occurs without authorization - which I think is key for creating an impression among citizens that this kind of immigration is "out of control". Yet, it is of course correct that once in the country, asylum seekers have a right to apply for asylum and do not have irregular status.
Totally agree with your piece! Proponents of immigration often frame letting in newcomers as an act of compassion or a commitment to universal values, but have neglected to highlight the benefits of immigration to native born citizens.