Against the Flow: Differentiating Between Public Opposition to the Immigration Stock and Flow

Abstract

Vast research on immigration lumps together native citizens' attitudes toward two different groups: theimmigrant stockof non-naturalized resident aliens, and theimmigrant flow, that is, the future arrival of foreigners seeking to enter and live in the country. Does popular opposition to immigration distinguish between the two, and if so, how? This article analyzes theoretically the reasons the stock and flow might induce different views among natives, and presents experimental evidence from the United States showing that natives are systematically more accepting of the former. The analysis indicates that this ‘stock premium’ partly stems from a sense of moral obligation toward people residing in the country. Replicating two widely cited experiments, the study shows that the stock–flow distinction has important implications for the interpretation of earlier findings on immigration attitudes, and for understanding voter preferences regarding policies designed to curtail immigration.

Do Anti-immigration Voters Care More? Documenting the Issue Importance Asymmetry of Immigration Attitudes

“…Finally, future studies can examine the qualitative underpinnings of the attitudinal issue importance asymmetry, including its behavioral manifestations and the possible “sub-issue” differences in the priorities within the domain of immigration . For instance, it is possible that while pro-immigration actors are relatively more (behaviorally or cognitively) concerned with helping existing immigrants, or “stocks,” anti-immigration groups and voters care more about preventing future immigration, or “flows” (see, for example, Margalit and Solodoch 2021).…”

A review of experimental evidence of how communication affects attitudes to immigration

“…Conversely, Blinder and Schaffner (2020) show that providing individuals with information about immigration flows-"Approximately 1.2 million legal immigrants came to the US in 2016"-make preferences for legal immigration more negative, particularly for Democrat voters, while information about Donald Trump policy proposals-"President Trump has endorsed a plan that would set levels of legal immigration to 540,000 per year "-make preferences for legal immigration more negative, particularly for Republican voters. Notably, Margalit and Solodoch (2022) show that presenting immigration information in terms of stocks rather than flows results in more positive immigration policy preferences, which they argue is the result of the sense of moral obligation elicited towards those already in one's country.…”

Numbers, Selectivity, and Rights: The Conditional Nature of Immigration Policy Preferences

“…Questions about selectivity and rights might be considered secondary considerations to be solved after the question of how much change people can expect to the size of their society (Kustov, 2022). Research suggests that people feel more obligation to migrants already in the country, as opposed to potential future migrants (Margalit & Solodoch, 2022). This implies that the biggest policy hurdle could be getting people to agree on how many people to admit.…”

“…Similarly, existing work on preferences for migrants’ rights eligibility has largely been framed as a matter of "integration policy" and been analyzed separately from immigration policies (Degen et al, 2019; Kolbe & Crepaz, 2016). One exception is Margalit and Solodoch (2022), which broadly explores how policies governing the flow of migrants relate to preferences for policies governing migrants already in the country. We extend that work with a more detailed analysis of how preferences for migration flows are conditional on selectivity and rights policies.…”