The Impact of Migration Policies in Europe

Abstract

This panel aims to address the aims and the impact of migration policies regarding different types of migration, including high skilled migration, forced migration, and migrant integration. So far scholars working on migration policies have focused on the effectiveness on migration policies in the area of migration control and have come to mixed results. While some find a significant effect of restrictive migration policies (e.g. visa policies) as a deterrent for migrants even before they start their journeys, others have argued that restrictive policies rather lead to deflection into irregularity than minimising migration inflows. Other questions on the impact of migration policies, including the impact on politics or migrant integration have not been addressed so far. This panel seeks to close this gap. Costerdine and Hampshire analyse whether policies towards some types of migrants are more restrictive than those directed towards other types to deter ‘unwanted’ migrant groups and attract those that are considered ‘beneficial to host states’. Helbling and Simon address the popular statement that more restrictive immigration policies and policies of accession could allow for better integration of those migrants that are already in the country. Fernández-Huertas Moraga et al. also address common perceptions in the public by assessing whether Germany’s policies can indeed (as often suggested in the media) explain why the country was the top recipient (in total numbers) of refugees during the 2015 Syrian refugee crisis. Ripoll Servent investigates how EU policies on asylum and immigration matters impacted on politics, especially in the Central Eastern Member States, especially during and since the 2015. Thus, she aims to explain what led to the significant backlash against EU measures in these countries since 2015. These countries so far have mainly been recipients of EU migration policies, which, as scholars have shown, have had little experience with immigration and have also had little impact on EU policies themselves. In line with recent findings that EU asylum law has significantly liberalized asylum policies and strengthened the rights of refugees on paper but suffers from a significant implementation deficit, Zaun demonstrates that the focus on restrictiveness and openness of migration policies neglect the fact that another dimension, namely the institutional and bureaucratic capacity is crucial to ensure that migrants receive the rights in practice that they have been granted on paper.