No abstract

In recent years, the number of immigrants reaching the EU has grown dramatically. The migration crisis and its political repercussions have been felt with different intensity across Europe. In this critical situation, EU-level coordination has proved problematic due to the nested interests of the member states. This article addresses the problem of public support for an integrated EU immigration policy. Using data from the EUENGAGE project, we explore citizens' attitudes towards EU-level coordination of immigration, and we introduce a set of theoretical arguments that aim to explain their attitudes. We show that those subjects who are more frightened by immigrants and who demand stricter policy and greater protection from unwanted migration are keener to delegate policy competence to the EU in this field.

No abstract

No abstract

While the EU was still recovering from the Great Recession, the refugee crisis polarized and mobilized national and European political spaces, inducing governments to revise their immigration policies. Scholars are presently engaged in academic debate over whether these revisions can be explained by reference to grand theories of European integration. In this context, we ask the following questions. If public opinion favoured ‘constraining’ EU integration, can public concern over the refugee crisis prompt political elites to stand against a regulative solution that would replace the Dublin System? How do these trends align with the grand theories of EU integration? By analysing longitudinal surveys of elites, general public and experts, we show that public rejection of immigrants relates to elites' opposition to a supranational prevalence of EU institutions for setting immigration quotas, thus inhibiting integration on extra‐EU migrants' resettlement.