Since the 1990s, immigration has become an increasingly salient issue in European politics. Public opinion towards immigration ranges from sceptical to hostile, and populist radical right parties have successfully mobilised anti-immigrant sentiment in a number of countries. Even where the populist radical right has not achieved notable success, there are few electoral dividends for opening up to immigration. Yet this is precisely what several European countries have done during this period. This panel explores how and why some European governments, but not others, have liberalised their immigration policies in such unfavourable circumstances. The apparent contradiction between illiberal inputs and relatively liberal policy outputs is well-established in the migration literature. The papers in this panel seek to move beyond earlier accounts that emphasise the role of pro-immigration interest groups in driving more expansive policies than public opinion would suggest, by examining governmental logics for liberalising (or not) immigration controls. Across a range of cases, the papers examine the factors that have led to selective liberalisation, including the changing political ideologies and strategies of centre parties, processes of social learning, and the role of policy legacies, as well as the factors that lead in some cases to retrenchment after initial liberalisation attempts. The papers draw on evidence from a range of cases, including Austria, Germany, Spain, Sweden and the UK.