Convergence or Divergence: How Has Immigration Policy Changed in the Last Decade?

Anti-immigrant sentiment in public opinion, and the increase in support for radical right political parties, have corresponded to a convergence in several aspects of public policy in the US and Europe.  Recent studies have documented a hardening of entry and integration policies over the past decade that has generally corresponded to the securitization of immigration policy and a concern about job security since terrorist attacks and the Great Recession.  

Nevertheless, in this paper we argue that this emphasis on convergence has been overgeneralized – to all aspects of immigration among western countries.  This trend tends to obscure important patterns of continuing divergence, both within Europe and between European countries and the United States. This divergence is particularly evident in a critical, foundational component of immigration policy: that of the requisites for and patterns of legal entry.  We offer two paired comparisons. The first is between France and the UK. Both have now become more exclusionary, but in markedly different ways. The second is between the US and the UK. In the US, in contrast to the UK, legal entry has remained remarkably open and consistent.  Indeed, there appear to be prospects for expansion, even as barriers to entry of undocumented immigrants have been strengthened.   Although much of the literature would anticipate that the liberal and multicultural UK and US’ policies would converge, this has not been the case. National institutions, laws and, above all, political dynamics have been most important in formulating this most important component of immigration policy.