ABSTRACT
Comparative immigration policy research typically proceeds along two paths. The first looks for nationally distinct approaches to managing migration flows and their political consequences. Research in this vein rests on two plausible claims: (1) that states have idiosyncratic general styles and approaches to making public policy (Richardson et al. 1982; Freeman 1986) and (2) that specific situational and historical factors shape the migration experience of countries and influence their contemporary responses (Brubaker 1992; Hollifield 1997, 2004; Hansen 2002). In this perspective, states develop national models that entail characteristic general approaches to diverse kinds of migration flows. The second strategy looks for evidence that immigration policies across countries are converging as their governments grapple with common problems. In practice, most serious studies involve some mixture of these two approaches, asking how diverse countries deal with common immigration problems (Soysal 1994; Brochmann and Hammar
1999; Cornelius et al. 2004). What they have in common is a tendency to speak of immigration policy and politics writ large. An alternative approach disaggregates immigration policy into analytically
distinct components to test the proposition that different types of migration flows, and the policies developed to manage them, tend to produce distinctive modes of politics, regardless of the country involved. In this view, migration policy type trumps national models of policymaking.1 Although many studies recognise that various kinds of migrants – guest-workers, family members, asylum seekers, and illegal migrants – create different problems and opportunities and are perceived in different lights by both citizens and policymakers, there is little in thewayof theoretical treatments of thesematters. The most common distinction, following the lead of Tomas Hammar (1985), separates immigration policy – the management of cross-border flows – from immigrant policy – themanagement of newcomers once they are inside the host society (Geddes 2003: 19-25; but see Meyers 2004). The essential distinction here isbetweenstagesofpolicy rather than typesofmigrationflowsandpolicies. My central premise is that we need to supplement the perspective that
focuses on national models of immigration policymaking with that which emphasises variation across types of immigration policy. Both approaches are valuable. Rather than forcing a choice between national models or policy types, we should place the investigation of their interaction at the centre of comparative immigration research.
