Working Paper
This paper develops and tests the most important idea of my dissertation.
Abstract
Many scholars assume that in democracies the openness of immigration regimes and the inclusiveness of citizenship regimes trade off. Yet, the existing empirical evidence for this negative correlation is inconsistent. In this article, I argue that that the politicization of immigration in democratic elections can account for this inconsistency. Whereas immigration regime openness correlates negatively with citizenship regime inclusiveness when politicization is low, they correlate positively when politicization is high. At medium politicization levels, they do not correlate. I test this hypothesis quantitatively across 23 Western democracies from 1980 to 2018. The results support but also qualify the hypothesis and bear important implications for long-standing normative and empirical debates on democratic boundary regime making.
Many scholars assume that in democracies the openness of immigration regimes and the inclusiveness of citizenship regimes trade off. Yet, the existing empirical evidence for this negative correlation is inconsistent. In this article, I argue that that the politicization of immigration in democratic elections can account for this inconsistency. Whereas immigration regime openness correlates negatively with citizenship regime inclusiveness when politicization is low, they correlate positively when politicization is high. At medium politicization levels, they do not correlate. I test this hypothesis quantitatively across 23 Western democracies from 1980 to 2018. The results support but also qualify the hypothesis and bear important implications for long-standing normative and empirical debates on democratic boundary regime making.