Drawing on documentary evidence and on 110 interviews conducted in 14 EU countries and at European level in 2012-2014, largely with city, regional and national officials, it identifies within an agenda-setting framework the problem, political and policy factors that lead to divergence between city, regional and national framing and policy responses.
Finding that pragmatic, problem-oriented responses dominate policy justification at the local level, where the consequences of exclusion of irregular migrants are most keenly felt, and that advocacy and litigation by local and regional authorities have at times led to national policy reform, it argues that the contrasting local and national responses to irregular migrants illustrate the trade-offs in migration policy making. As at the national level, the competing integration priorities of local and regional authorities effectively, on occasion, trump those of immigration control.
Finding that decisions in this policy field are often taken in low visibility settings, the article contextualises the ‘shadow politics’ of migrants’ rights and some of the consequences to which this gives rise: in the framing of the problem, in the decision making process (or non decision) and in modes of service provision, including the funding of arms-length provision of services through non-governmental organisations.
