Do amnesties pull in illegal immigrants? An analysis of European apprehension data

Wehinger, Frank

doi:10.1504/ijmbs.2014.066312

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, we do not know what would have happened in what social scientists call the counterfactual scenario: if Spain had not enacted the 2005 legalization, would there have been no such attempt by migrants to reach Spanish territory? Beyond our inability to play out the social world in two parallel scenarios, researchers are also hindered by poor data in counting undocumented migrants (Kaneshiro 2013;Wehinger 2014) and uncertainty about the temporal period in which we should see incentive effects, whether immediately after a law is enacted, in the next couple of years, or even a decade after legalization.…”

Section: Assessing the Rule Of Law Arguments Against Legalizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…leave their origin countries (Amuedo Dorantes and Puttitanun 2016) -. In the European context, FrankWehinger (2014) attempts to model the 'pull' effect of amnesty on clandestine migration and finds a statistically significant but substantively very small positive pull. After European countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea enacted amnesties, the numbers of migrants living in these countries ballooned, but push factors in sending countries, geographic proximity, and weaker bureaucratic capacity in receiving countries-both to process and enforce immigration laws-appears to play a much bigger role in the growth of clandesinte migration as compared to migrants' belief of their chances at legalization.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Immigrant legalization: A dilemma between justice and the rule of law

Song¹,

Bloemraad

2022

Migration Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Immigrant legalization policies pose an ethical dilemma between justice and the rule of law. On the one hand, liberal democracies aspire to the principles of individual liberty and equality. Building on liberal ideals of justice, compelling arguments have been made for granting legal status and a path to citizenship to unauthorized migrants by virtue of the social ties they have developed, their contributions to the host society, and their vulnerability to exploitation. On the other hand, legalization poses a challenge to another important value, the rule of law, which requires government to operate within a framework of law in accordance with well-established public norms. Immigrant legalization programmes are said to undermine the rule of law because they reward lawbreaking, allow queue-jumping, and incentivize further unauthorized migration. This article clarifies each horn of the dilemma, focusing on rule of law arguments. We offer a critical reappraisal of immigrant legalization policies by reflecting on the normative meaning of the rule of law and by examining empirical evidence assessing the effects of legalization. Our central contention is that legalization policies can enhance the rule of law. We offer five rule of law arguments in support of legalization, which help to mitigate the dilemma between justice and the rule of law. We conclude by discussing some policy implications of our analysis.

show abstract

Section: Assessing the Rule Of Law Arguments Against Legalizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Immigrant legalization: A dilemma between justice and the rule of law

Song¹,

Bloemraad

2022

Migration Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, we do not know what would have happened in what social scientists call the counterfactual scenario: if Spain had not enacted the 2005 legalization, would there have been no such attempt to reach Spanish territory? Beyond our inability to play out the social world in two parallel scenarios, researchers are also hindered by poor data in counting undocumented migrants (Kaneshiro 2013;Wehinger 2014) and uncertainty about the temporal period in which we should see incentive effects, whether immediately after a law is enacted, in the next couple of years, or even a decade after legalization.…”

Section: Assessing the Rule Of Law Arguments Against Legalizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similarly, the establishment of the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program had a limited effect on the migration of unaccompanied minors compared to the effects of violence and economic conditions in motivating migrants to leave their origin countries (Amuedo-Dorantes and Puttitanun 2016). In the European context, Frank Wehinger (2014) attempts to model the 'pull' effect of amnesty on clandestine migration to Europe and finds a statistically significant but substantively very small positive pull. Since the European countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea enacted amnesties, the numbers of migrants living in these countries have ballooned, but push factors in sending countries, geographic proximity, and weaker bureaucratic capacity in receiving countries-both to process and enforce immigration laws-appear to play a much bigger role than migrants' belief of their chances at legalization.…”

Section: Assessing the Rule Of Law Arguments Against Legalizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Immigrant Legalization: A Dilemma between Inclusion and the Rule of Law?

Song

Bloemraad

2021

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Immigrant legalization policies pose an ethical dilemma for liberal democracies. On the one hand, liberal democracies aspire to respect the basic equality of all persons. Compelling moral arguments have been made for granting legal status and a path to citizenship to unauthorized migrants by virtue of the social ties that they have developed, their contributions to the host society, and their vulnerability to exploitation and subordination. On the other hand, legalization poses a challenge to another important value, the rule of law, which requires government to operate within a framework of law in accordance with well-established public norms, not in an arbitrary or ad hoc manner. Immigrant legalization programs are said to undermine the rule of law because they reward lawbreaking, allow queue-jumping, and incentivize further unauthorized migration. This article clarifies each horn of the dilemma, focusing on rule of law arguments since less has been written about them. We assess both the empirical assumptions and normative interpretations embedded in rule of law arguments. We concentrate on the United States but also give some attention to legalization in other countries. We acknowledge that some of the rule of law objections to legalization have merit, but we argue that there are also rule of law arguments that support legalization, which help to mitigate, although not eliminate, the dilemma. We conclude by discussing the implications of our analysis and considering how liberal democratic states might better manage the dilemma.

show abstract

Do amnesties pull in illegal immigrants? An analysis of European apprehension data

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Immigrant legalization: A dilemma between justice and the rule of law

Immigrant legalization: A dilemma between justice and the rule of law

Immigrant Legalization: A Dilemma between Inclusion and the Rule of Law?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About