Comparing The Gap Between Rhetoric And Reality In Migration Policies

There is often a gap between rhetoric and reality in migration policies. Generally this is explained through the inconsistency between the demands of citizens and long term political and strategic interests. There are three theoretical explanations for the prevailing gap between theory and practise in migration policies. The first suggests the outcomes of migration policy are best explained through the political economy approach. Policy outcomes are a result of the deliberation between rational actors who attempt to reach their desired outcome subject to the influence of state interests. The second is the liberal institutional approach which suggests that the state is constrained by societal interests built upon liberal norms. The third transnational …show more content…
Hollifield (2004) is primarily concerned with the political interests that drive migration policy in the face of liberalism. ‘[S]overeignty requires a degree of territorial closure’, which the liberal state increasingly calls into question: ‘the economic logic of liberalism is one of openness, but the political and legal logic is one of closure’ which results in a liberal paradox (Hollifield, 2004: 888). Migration and trade are fundamentally linked. Yet, migrants are more difficult to regulate than goods – they entail political risk (Hollifield, 2004). Migrants become a political interest group, as despite contestation, highly skilled migrants are accepted on the premise they will yield positive economic impacts for society. Their acceptance appeases liberal economic and political norms can help explain the gap - political interests are motivated by paradoxical liberal …show more content…
Immigration presents a crucial tension in this network – it becomes a site of renationalising discourses in politics – but also reveals the contradictory role of the state through denationalisation of borders (Sassen: 1996). Paradoxically the international governance institutions which established inalienable human rights of the individual rely on the state to enforce them. Yet, Sassen suggests the rise of international institutions has reduced the autonomy of the state to create immigration policy, eroding national sovereignty (Sassen, 1996: 98). The erosion of sovereignty could help explain the gap, as individual states do not have the power to control immigration in the face of de- and re- nationalising discourses. Thus, ‘the ability [of the state] to control migration has shrunk as the desire to do so has increased’ (Bagwhati: