▪ Abstract  With nearly one in ten residents of advanced industrialized states now an immigrant, international migration has become a fundamental driver of social, economic, and political change. We review alternative models of migratory behavior (which emphasize structural factors largely beyond states' control) as well as models of immigration policy making that seek to explain the gaps between stated policy and actual outcomes. Some scholars attempt to explain the limited efficacy of control policies by focusing on domestic interest groups, political institutions, and the interaction among them; others approach the issue from an international or “intermestic” perspective. Despite the modest effects of control measures on unauthorized flows of economic migrants and asylum seekers, governments continue to determine the proportion of migrants who enjoy legal status, the specific membership rights associated with different legal (and undocumented) migrant classes, and how policies are implemented. These choices have important implications for how the costs and benefits of migration are distributed among different groups of migrants, native-born workers, employers, consumers, and taxpayers.

What happens when the normative goal of granting asylum to applicants in need conflicts with US strategic interests? Asylum represents a critical case for the norms-versus-interests debate, because the protection of vulnerable individuals is a quintessential humanitarian project, but may entail strategic costs. In this article, a general theoretical framework for weighing the importance of norms and interests is developed and tested in the case of US asylum enforcement with respect to 42 countries of origin during and after the Cold War. Both norms and interests influence asylum decisions, and when they prescribe similar actions in regard to asylum cases, state agents face no difficulty in making choices. When human rights norms and state interests prescribe contradictory actions, however, analysts know little about the relative importance of each factor. The findings in this article suggest that the ways in which norms and interests affect asylum enforcement have changed over time. Normative admissions were primarily a function of procedural democracy during the 1980s, and substantive human rights have been increasingly influential since then. Second, enforcement reflected security and diplomatic considerations during the 1980s, but these concerns gave way during the 1990s to goals of maintaining good relations with trade partners and preventing undocumented migration. Finally, there is no evidence that the importance of norms relative to interests has increased over time, contrary to the predictions of some constructivists.

What explains variation in U.S. asylum approval rates across countries of origin? Previous research has found that humanitarian factors and diplomatic relations play an important role in shaping asylum decisions. This article examines the impact of domestic politics. The authors find that media and congressional attention play an important role in influencing how the executive branch makes enforcement decisions. Popular attention to asylum increases the importance of humanitarian concerns relative to instrumental factors. The effect of congressional attention depends on whether asylum is seen as an enforcement or humanitarian issue. The importance of these factors has also changed over time.

In its final months, the Pinochet regime engineered a number of institutional reforms with the intent of bolstering the right side of the spectrum and of promoting centripetal political competition once democratic procedures were reinitiated in 1989. One of the most important reforms created 60 double-member districts for elections to the lower house. Although some analysts have claimed that the new system does in fact promote centrist position taking, using game theory and spatial modeling, the authors demonstrate that the incentives of the Chilean electoral system encourage politicians to take noncentrist positions along a left-right spectrum. The combination of double-member districts with the d'Hondt seat allocation method and open-list voting creates a Rival Partners Game, creating perverse incentives for Chilean candidates. The authors' theoretical results help clarify the debate about the effects of post-authoritarian institutional reforms in Chile and should encourage empirical research on the same issues.

Do Caribbean Basin states influence U.S. immigration policy? Although the terrorist attacks of September 2001 eventually derailed migration talks, before that time Mexico and the United States appeared poised to negotiate a major bilateral agreement, largely on Mexico's terms. Drawing on 88 detailed interviews conducted with Mexican and other Caribbean Basin elites, this article examines sending‐state preferences for emigration and their capacity to influence policy outcomes. The informants considered migration to be the most problematic issue on the bilateral agenda, but also saw migration policy as relatively open to source‐state influence. A case study of Mexican emigration policymaking details the national and transnational changes that make migration increasingly an inter‐mestic policy issue.