ASTK18243U Forced and Unforced Immigration – What are the Policy and Attitudinal Consequences?
Bachelor student (2017 programme curriculum): 7.5 ECTS
Master student: 7.5 ECTS
Notice: It is only possible to enroll for one course having a 3-day compulsory written take-home assignment exam due to coincident exam periods.
Since the refugee crises, the discussion about how to regulate immigration has reached a new height in international discussions as well as on the political agenda. Moreover, we seemingly observe an increasingly negative perception of ethnically diverse groups by the population as well as the state. This political and attitudinal development continuously challenges social cohesion in Western democracies and, in particular, the European Union. With respect to this, the issue of immigration, its regulation, as well as anti-immigrant attitudes, received a lot of attention in both the academic and societal sphere.
The elective aims at addressing this complex nature and different dimensions of immigration issues from a comparative perspective. The course is divided into two larger parts: The first addressing questions of immigration and integration policies and the second looking at the question of the origins and consequences of negative sentiments towards immigrants.
Students will be able to understand and critically reflect different concepts of immigration and integration policies
They should gain the ability to identify and critically evaluate the relationships between the individual as well as contextual characteristics and anti-immigrant sentiments
Students will be able to critically reflect empirical texts
Students will be able to analyze specific cases and evaluate the empirical, concrete and complex challenges within the field of immigration research.
Students will be able to address the general problem of anti-immigrant attitudes and critically reflect on its origins, consequences and potential cures
Students will be able to weigh the opportunities and challenges of specific immigration and integration policies in the European context.
A week-by-week reading list will be provided on the syllabus. The reading mainly consists of academic texts as well as newspaper articles and podcasts.
Apart from this, each session students will be encouraged to select an additional text that will be presented in no more than 5 minutes (impulse presentation).
Exemplary literature (not final!)
Bartram, David, Maritsa Poros, and Pierre Monforte. 2014. Key Concepts in Migration. London, UK: Sage Publications. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/kbdk/detail.action?docID=4531662. (access via library)
Freakonomics: Is Migration a basic human right? http://freakonomics.com/podcast/is-migration-a-basic-human-right/
Schewel, Kerilyn. 2019. “Understanding Immobility: Moving Beyond the Mobility Bias in Migration Studies.” International Migration Review 1 (1):
Geddes, Andrew and Peter Scholten 2016. The politics of migration and immigration in Europe, 2nd edition, London: Sage. Chapter 1: Analysing the Politics of Migration and Immigration in Europe (pp. 1-21)
Docquier, Frédéric, Giovanni Peri, and Ilse Ruyssen. 2014. “The Cross-Country Determinants of Potential and Actual Migration.” International Migration Review 48 (1_suppl): 37-99.
Hooghe, Marc, Ann Trappers, Bart Meuleman, and Tim Reeskens. 2008. “Migration to European Countries: A Structural Explanation of Patterns, 1980-2004.” International Migration Review 42 (2): 476-504.
Migrant Crisis: What else could Europe learn?
Metcalfe-Hough, V. 2015. ‘The migration crisis? Facts, challenges and possible solutions’ ODI policy brief. https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odiassets/publications-opinion-files/9913.pdf
Geddes, Andrew and Peter Scholten 2016. The politics of migration and immigration in Europe, 2nd edition, London: Sage (Chapter 7: Towards common EU migration and asylum policies? pp. 144-172)
Boswell, Christina and Andrew Geddes 2011. Migration and mobility in the European Union, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan (Chapters 1-3: 1-75)
Messina, Anthony M. 2014. “Securitizing Immigration in the Age of Terror.” World Politics 66 (3): 530-59.
Grande, Edgar, Tobias Schwarzbözl, and Matthias Fatke. 2018. “Politicizing Immigration in Western Europe.” Journal of European Public Policy, 1-20.
Hopkins, Daniel J. 2010. “Politicized Places: Explaining Where and When Immigrants Provoke Local Opposition.” American Political Science Review 104 (1): 40-60.
Lutz, Philipp. 2019. “Variation in Policy Success: Radical Right Populism and Migration Policy.” West European Politics 42 (3): 517-44.
Helbling, Marc, and David Leblang. 2018. “Controlling Immigration? How Regulations Affect Migration Flows.” European Journal of Political Research 82 (2): 671
Koopmans, Ruud, and Ines Michalowski. 2016. “Why Do States Extend Rights to Immigrants? Institutional Settings and Historical Legacies Across 44 Countries Worldwide.” Comparative Political Studies.
Die Klassen: How Syrians adapt to Life in Germany: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03k38t5
Harder, Niklas, Lucila Figueroa, Rachel M. Gillum, DOMINIK HANGARTNER, David D. Laitin, and Jens Hainmueller. 2018. “Multidimensional Measure of Immigrant Integration.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 115 (45): 11483-88.
Ager, A., and A. Strang. 2008. “Understanding Integration: A Conceptual Framework.” Journal of Refugee Studies 21 (2): 166-91
Zuber, Christina I. 2019. “Explaining the Immigrant Integration Laws of German, Italian and Spanish Regions: Sub-State Nationalism and Multilevel Party Politics.” Regional Studies 18:1-12.
Joppke, Christian. 2017. “Civic Integration in Western Europe: Three Debates.” West European Politics 69 (9): 1-24.
Filindra, Alexandra, and Anita Manatschal. 2019. “Coping with a Changing Integration Policy Context: American State Policies and Their Effects on Immigrant Political Engagement.” Regional Studies, 1-12.
Goodman, Sara W., and Matthew Wright. 2015. “Does Mandatory Integration Matter? Effects of Civic Requirements on Immigrant Socio-Economic and Political Outcomes.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 41 (12): 1885-1908.
Rapp, Carolin. 2018. “National Attachments and the Immigrant Participation Gap.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 7 (2): 1-23.
Hainmueller, Jens, and Daniel J. Hopkins. 2014. “Public Attitudes Toward Immigration.” Annual Review of Political Science 17 (1): 225-49.
HANGARTNER, DOMINIK, ELIAS DINAS, MORITZ MARBACH, KONSTANTINOS MATAKOS, and DIMITRIOS XEFTERIS. 2019. “Does Exposure to the Refugee Crisis Make Natives More Hostile?” American Political Science Review 113 (2): 442-55. doi
Bansak, K., J. Hainmueller, and D. Hangartner. 2016. “How Economic, Humanitarian, and Religious Concerns Shape European Attitudes Toward Asylum Seekers.” Science.
Czymara, Christian S., and Alexander W. Schmidt-Catran. 2017. “Refugees Unwelcome? Changes in the Public Acceptance of Immigrants and Refugees in Germany in the Course of Europe’S ‘Immigration Crisis’.” European Sociological Review 33 (6): 735-51.
Simonsen, Kristina B. 2017. “Does Citizenship Always Further Immigrants’ Feeling of Belonging to the Host Nation? A Study of Policies and Public Attitudes in 14 Western Democracies.” Comparative Migration Studies 5 (1).
Schlueter, Elmar, Bart Meuleman, and Eldad Davidov. 2013. “Immigrant Integration Policies and Perceived Group Threat: A Multilevel Study of 27 Western and Eastern European Countries.” Social Science Research 42 (3): 670-82.
Heizmann, Boris, and Conrad Ziller. 2019. “Who Is Willing to Share the Burden? Attitudes Towards the Allocation of Asylum Seekers in Comparative Perspective.” Social Forces 84 (2): 901.
McLaren, Lauren, Hajo Boomgaarden, and RENS VLIEGENTHART. 2017. “News Coverage and Public Concern About Immigration in Britain.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research.
Matthes, Jörg, Desirée Schmuck, and Christian von Sikorski. 2019. “Terror, Terror Everywhere? How Terrorism News Shape Support for Anti-Muslim Policies as a Function of Perceived Threat Severity and Controllability.” Political Psychology 20 (2): 459.
Czymara, Christian S., and Stephan Dochow. 2018. “Mass Media and Concerns About Immigration in Germany in the 21st Century: Individual-Level Evidence over 15 Years.” European Sociological Review 34 (4): 381-401. doi:10.1093/esr/jcy019.
Bleich, Erik, and A. M. van der Veen. 2018. “Media Portrayals of Muslims: A Comparative Sentiment Analysis of American Newspapers, 1996-2015.” Politics, Groups, and Identities 15:1-20.
Hainmueller, Jens, and DOMINIK HANGARTNER. 2013. “Who Gets a Swiss Passport? A Natural Experiment in Immigrant Discrimination.” American Political Science Review 107 (01): 159-87.
Thomann, Eva, and Carolin Rapp. 2018. “Who Deserves Solidarity? Unequal Treatment of Immigrants in Swiss Welfare Policy Delivery.” Policy Studies Journal 46 (3): 531-52.
Hemker, Johannes, and Anselm Rink. 2017. “Multiple Dimensions of Bureaucratic Discrimination: Evidence from German Welfare Offices.” American Journal of Political Science 61 (4): 786-803.
Dahl, Malte, and Niels Krog. 2018. “Experimental Evidence of Discrimination in the Labour Market: Intersections Between Ethnicity, Gender, and Socio-Economic Status.” European Sociological Review 34 (4): 402-17.
SIMONOVITS, GÁBOR, GÁBOR KÉZDI, and PÉTER KARDOS. 2018. “Seeing the World Through the Other's Eye: An Online Intervention Reducing Ethnic Prejudice.” AmericanPoliticalScienceReview 112 (1): 186-93.
In order to achieve the goals and to be prepared for the final exam, each participant will be strongly encouraged to hand-in a weekly critique/policy brief. Moreover, the each participant is encouraged to take part in/prepare a short impulse presentation (5 minutes) as well as conduct a short session summary (both these activities are conducted in small groups)
Criteria for achieving the goals
Grade 12: Mastering conceptual and theoretical approaches concerning immigration/integration policies
Grade 7: Decent understanding conceptual and theoretical approaches concerning immigration/integration policies
Grade 2: Sufficient understanding of conceptual and theoretical approaches concerning immigration/integration policies
The sessions will be a combination of teacher-led and interactive discussions of the basic course readings. Moreover, the session will include short impulse presentations by student groups on a self-chosen additional text to broaden the perspectives of the sessions.
The overarching teaching aim is to create a dynamic, constructive, and relaxed environment to guarantee that the intended learning goals are reached.
- Class Instruction
- 7,5 ECTS
- Type of assessment
- Written assignment3-day compulsory written take-home assignment
- Marking scale
- 7-point grading scale
- Censorship form
- No external censorship
- For the semester in which the course takes place: 3-day compulsory written take-home assignment
- For the following semesters: Free written assignment
Criteria for exam assesment
- Grade 12 is given for an outstanding performance: the student lives up to the course's goal description in an independent and convincing manner with no or few and minor shortcomings
- Grade 7 is given for a good performance: the student is confidently able to live up to the goal description, albeit with several shortcomings
- Grade 02 is given for an adequate performance: the minimum acceptable performance in which the student is only able to live up to the goal description in an insecure and incomplete manner