Differences in Member States' economic development and national social protection systems can translate into significant differences in the substantive social rights of EU migrant citizens. The substantive rights of economically inactive EU migrant citizens are dependent on the 'export' of social rights from their country of origin to the Member State of destination, in particular during the initial phase of their residence in a new Member State as a jobseeker or a pensioner. This paper demonstrates that EU citizens' social rights are substantively stratified, not only by economic status, but also according to the Member State of origin and destination. Stratified social rights, it is argued, generate unequal opportunities to free movement and eo ipso challenge the very concept of EU citizenship. The paper concludes with a proposal for a European Minimum Income Scheme to at least partially overcome the shortcomings of existing EU citizenship.

Growing social and economic inequalities, and consequently, unfulfilled life aspirations trigger the migration intentions of millions, if not billions of people around the world. Surveys by Gallup World Poll suggest that more than 750 million adults would like to migrate if they had the chance to do so (Esipova et al., 2018). Hence, globally ‘only’ one in eight adults express a desire to migrate. This is a surprisingly small fraction given the fact that a much larger but unknown number of people would have good reasons to migrate in order to realise economic, professional, political, or social opportunities elsewhere. At the same time, only small fractions of those who aspire to migrate are actually able to realise it.

Firms in the USA rely on highly skilled immigrants, particularly in the science and engineering sectors. Yet, the recent politics of immigration marks a substantial change to US immigration policy. We implement a conjoint experiment that isolates the causal effect of nativist, anti-immigrant, pronouncements on where skilled potential-migrants choose to immigrate to. While these policies have a significantly negative effect on the destination choices of Chilean and UK student subjects, they have little effect on the choices of Indian and Chinese student subjects. These results are confirmed through an unobtrusive test of subjects’ general immigration destination preferences. Moreover, there is some evidence that the negative effect of these nativist policies are particularly salient for those who self-identify with the Left.

Environmentally induced migration and mobility receives high attention in politics, media, and academia, even though non-migration is of much greater scale and probably the less understood phenomenon. The decision to leave or to stay put in an environmentally stressful region is a decision taken in the context of personal needs and aspirations, and uncertain survival and livelihood opportunities elsewhere. Information and expectations about migratory options and challenges are always incomplete, and whether migration, or rather non-migration, turns out as the personally more beneficial option depends on circumstances that are ex ante unknown and ex post not fully under control of the potential out-migrant. We argue that—despite exposure to severe environmental stress in a region—voluntary non-migration can be a viable outcome of a conscious but sometimes biased cognitive process. By highlighting the role of some relevant search and decision heuristics, we discuss why people around the globe decide to stay put in an environmentally stressful home region—despite favorable migratory options and sufficient resources for realizing opportunities elsewhere.