“Most people don't consistently favour liberal or restrictive immigration policies”

If you follow the German debate on migration, it often gives the impression of two camps irreconcilably opposed to each other. On the one hand, there is a camp that advocates an immigration policy with as few entry restrictions as possible, and a camp that wants to limit all forms of immigration, on the other. Does empirical evidence support this perception?

Of course, there are groups that invariably have a very positive attitude towards migration and other groups that are against any form of migration. At the same time, we need to assume that there are many people whose preferences lie between these extremes, and who adopt a more positive stance towards certain groups or regulations and a more negative one towards others. In many cases, though, we cannot know for sure because opinion polls do not always sufficiently differentiate or examine in detail under which circumstances people are in favour of, or against, migration, or which aspects of immigration they tend to advocate or reject. In some cases, distinctions are made, for instance, when questions are posed about different groups of migrants or their characteristics. We know, for example, that political refugees are viewed more positively than those who come for economic reasons and preference is given to the well-educated over the less educated. The question about which migration policy meets with approval has not been sufficiently analysed to date, however.

You address precisely this question in your studies. Your research indicates that, despite opposing positions, public attitudes to various migration policy measures are more nuanced than is often assumed. How did you get to this conclusion?

Firstly, in a study, we asked more specifically whether the implementation of a number of different regulations would be supported or not. This revealed that many people are not always categorically in favour of a liberal or restrictive policy. Rather, certain principles can be identified that are particularly important to the various camps. For instance, people on the right-wing spectrum place particular emphasis on border control and selectivity in access, whereas aspects such as participation rights and equal opportunities are of great importance on the left-wing spectrum. This weighting plays a decisive role in the assessment of political measures.

To what extent does this create room for compromise?

For example, people on the right-wing spectrum are willing to allow more immigration if there is stricter control over who enters the country and under which circumstances, whereas those on the left are prepared to restrict immigration, if, in turn, participation rights are strengthened. Above all, there is consensus with regard to integration requirements. Both the left- and right-wing camps support clear guidelines on language acquisition or participation in integration courses. When it comes to integration into working life, both camps also agree that immigrants with the prospect of staying should be given appropriate opportunities on the labour market.

Faced with the arrival of many refugees once again, more people in Germany are worried about the impact on the welfare state, the housing market, and education system. Scepticism has increased even among those who are generally in favour of immigration – various opinion polls tell us that a majority is calling for greater order and control in immigration policy.

We know that immigration is primarily viewed as a problem when large numbers of people arrive in a very short space of time. This gives rise to a feeling of being overwhelmed, both on a personal level and with respect to the infrastructure. We witnessed this a decade ago following the 2015 refugee crisis and again recently in the wake of the Russian war of aggression and the refugee movement from Ukraine. The system then becomes severely overwhelmed; at least in the short term. It is understandable that a tense situation on the labour and housing market can lead to a change in attitudes. Immigration highlights underlying issues and may exacerbate problems, even if it is not the cause.

These worries should be taken seriously. Having said that, greater calls for more restrictions and controls on entry are not necessarily synonymous with a more restrictive stance towards all aspects of migration and integration. A large group of people are still fundamentally in favour of immigration and aware that crucial infrastructure sectors, such as construction or care, would not function without immigration. It is therefore not always clear whether the goal is to allow fewer entries overall, or to better control who enters the country under what circumstances.

Do you think that this differentiation is sufficiently accounted for in the public debate?

If we critically examine public discourse, it unfortunately becomes clear that there are far too many generalisations and the political debate, in particular, constantly lumps the different types of immigration together. Over the past few years, we have predominantly witnessed this in the asylum debate, where, for instance, the distinction made between those seeking protection and those illegally residing in the country is not sufficient, even though people may have entirely different attitudes towards the respective groups. That quickly gives rise to a simple categorisation into the for or against camp, but this does not always reflect reality. For example, there is still widespread acceptance of taking in politically persecuted people. War and displacement are seen as legitimate reasons for entry, while economic reasons are deemed less legitimate. At the same time, this rather abstract support might also diminish when a large number of people come at once.

What takeaways can be drawn for the outlines of an immigration policy based on consensus?

First of all, it is important to recognise that opinions differ and that we must distinguish between different forms of immigration and dimensions of migration policy. Over the past decade, a large number of people have arrived from outside the EU for humanitarian reasons. This shapes the picture, and reinforces the impression that immigration is uncontrolled. Refugees are also the most politicised. Yet, attitudes towards migration are strongly dependent on context. If, after events such as the attacks in Solingen or Aschaffenburg, there are increasing calls for restrictions and deportations, these demands do not invariably have to relate to all aspects of migration policy. Current legislation may be considered to be sufficiently restrictive, with deficits seen primarily in its implementation. At the same time, liberalisations in other areas, such as the immigration of skilled workers, could continue to meet with approval. It is precisely these positive aspects of migration, which are crucial for the economy and society and where there is public consensus, that should be emphasised more strongly.