Switzerland

"Theoretical background and objectives This project considers two common assumptions that arise in the empirical literature on xenophobia—namely that xenophobic attitudes are found mostly among the poorly educated, and that xenophobia mainly concerns immigrants from low social classes and from geographically and culturally disparate nations. These arguments are discussed in the context of the migration of high-skilled Germans to Switzerland, a phenomenon that has increased markedly in the last few years, leading to major controversies. One might expect that the Swiss do not perceive Germans as a cultural threat as they are, at least at first sight, culturally similar. This argument can however be questioned in two ways. We first have to differentiate between objective similarity and subjectively perceived dissimilarity. As it turns out, the cultural difference between Germans and Swiss-Germans is considered to be very large in Switzerland. Second, some argue that boundaries between groups that are culturally very close are not necessarily less fragile. In a second step we question the common generalisation that working class people are more often xenophobic because they fear that immigrants take their jobs. As we are confronted in the case at hand with highly educated immigrants, it might be that in this case well-educated people in high positions feel threatened by the new arrivals. This would disconfirm the argument according to which better-educated people are more tolerant as they are more open-minded and have more cognitive capacities for differentiated perceptions. Research design, data and methodology To investigate our arguments both quantitative and qualitative data are analysed. In a first step, data from a survey conducted in the city of Zurich between October 1994 and March will be analysed. This is so far the only survey that includes relevant questions about German immigrants. More recent data on this topic will be collected in the context of the 2011 Swiss electoral survey (see project 2.5 above). Moreover, data from five focus group interviews with Swiss and Germans will be analysed. On the one hand, this allows us to better understand which arguments Swiss use to justify attitudes towards Germans and which aspects they dislike/criticise for which reasons. On the other hand, we will be in the position to study how Germans think about Swiss, why Germans migrated to Switzerland and how they feel abroad. Findings It turned out that German immigrants put in danger Swiss characteristics as much as immigrants from the Balkans. Socio-economic factors turned out to be relevant, too. Contrary to many other studies I found that education does not improve attitudes towards Germans. At the same time, I found that people who are young and seek to improve their job position are significantly more Germanophobic than those who are satisfied with their current job situation and are already established. It appears that as much as low-skilled workers fear that poorly educated immigrants take their jobs, well-educated Swiss consider German immigrants as competitors on the job market."

The study is implemented parallel to the EU-wide project "Health Care in Nowhereland-Improving Services for Undocumented Migrants in the EU" (funded by DG SANCO and coordinated by the Danube University Krems), which analyses the regulatory frameworks, health care practices and migrant strategies in 27 EU countries. The results of the Swiss study will be integrated into the EU project. Objectives • To situate the Swiss case in the wider European context • To work out the main similarities and differences between the respective national health care systems and practices at the intersection of welfare and irregular migration Outcomes • Analysis of the national regulatory and financial framework to which the respective health care institutions dealing with “undocumented” migrants are bound to act • Collection of data on different practices of administrations and health care institutions providing health care to "undocumented" migrants • Identification of transferable best practice models • Overview of the various health problems “undocumented” migrants show and how these migrants manoeuvre in order to get the medical assistance needed

The database consists of data on the political opportunity structure (POS) in 7 Western European countries (Austria, Belgium, Ireland, Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, and United Kingdom) between 1990 and 2009. A number of indicators are included to cover generic and issue-specific political opportunity structures (immigration-related). The data were collected as part of the FP7-funded project Support and Opposition to Migration.

Recent trends in migrants' flows and stocks 2005, 2010, 2015, 2016, 2017 Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.

In Switzerland, preliminarily admitted individuals should in principle leave the country. Their departure may however not be enforced for a range of reasons. Although preliminary admission does not attribute a residence status in a legal sense, more than 20.000 persons are to remain in that condition until the moment the reasons impeding their return are no longer applicable. During this time, however, individuals are not supposed to integrate economically, socially and politically, thus have to rely on public support. Despite their dependence on social benefits, persons subject to preliminary admission are expected to rely upon such benefits as little as possible – regardless of the fact that, in principle, constitutional guarantees safeguard their access to subsistence. Access to benefits in turn, is strongly connected with language acquisition and economic participation, which are enhanced via integration measures. Against this background, thousands of persons are kept in between these two opposing objectives. In the past few years, the number of preliminary admissions has even outgrown the number of those granted asylum protection. The majority of individuals remain in that legal limbo situation for more than seven years, until eventually a right to remain may be granted by the respective canton of residence. The present study aims to elaborate options to reform the legal institution of preliminary admission in Switzerland. In particular, it looks into ways to secure compliance with international protection standards without losing sight of the possibility of return, while simultaneously taking into account the ongoing integration processes entailed by long-term stay and, deeply connected with that, pressing questions on residential security. Based on the assessment of legal frameworks addressing that issue in comparable European states, the study not only explores the question of residence status acquisition and criteria relevant to its accession, but also addresses the legal position of persons, admitted via the current framework of preliminary admission in Switzerland. Objectives The study explores the situation of persons: • Who are in need of protection according to international conventions, but were neither granted asylum nor temporary protection; • Who cannot be incited to leave the country on humanitarian grounds but at the same time cannot obtain a residence permit; • Whose return decision cannot be enforced for technical reasons which lie outside of the area of influence of the person concerned; • Whose return decision cannot be enforced for reasons lying outside the area of influence of the person concerned; • Whose return decision is already in force and whose respite for departure was postponed on multiple occasions over a longer time-span, but who were neither granted preliminary admission nor a residence status, consequently leaving them in a vulnerable position.

Beim JobMob-Survey handelt es sich um ein auf europäischer Ebene international vergleichendes Projekt, in dessen Fokus die Verbreitung sowie die Ursachen und Konsequenzen beruflich bedingter räumlicher Mobilität in Europa stehen. Eine erste Erhebung fand im Jahr 2007 in den sechs Ländern Belgien, Frankreich, Spanien, Schweiz, Polen und Deutschland statt. Insgesamt wurden 7.220 zufällig ausgewählte Personen befragt. Realisiert wurde die von der EU geförderte Studie im Rahmen eines Kooperationsnetzwerkes von Wissenschaftlern in den beteiligten Ländern. Ziel der ersten Erhebungsphase war die Beschreibung der gegenwärtigen Verbreitung berufsbedingter räumlicher Mobilität, wie tägliches Fernpendeln, Geschäftsreisen oder berufsbedingte Umzüge, in ausgewählten Ländern Europas auf Basis repräsentativer Daten. Darüber hinaus sollten detaillierte Erkenntnisse über die Ursachen und Entstehungszusammenhänge berufsbedingter räumlicher Mobilität ebenso wie über die Folgen von Mobilität für das subjektive Wohlbefinden, das Familienleben sowie für die soziale Teilhabe gewonnen werden. Das Projekt befasst sich dazu in einer integrierenden Perspektive mit einem breiten Spektrum unterschiedlicher Erscheinungsformen beruflich bedingter räumlicher Mobilität. Grundlegend lassen sich die diversen Mobilitätsformen danach unterscheiden, ob Mobilität singulär (Umzugsmobilität) oder wiederholt (zirkuläre Mobilität) auftritt. Als eine Form der Umzugsmobilität wurden die so genannten Recent Relocators identifiziert, die aus beruflichen Gründen innerhalb der letzten drei Jahre vor dem Befragungszeitpunkt der ersten Welle über mindestens 50 Kilometer hinweg umgezogen sind. Darüber hinausgehend wurden folgende zirkulären Mobilitätsformen identifiziert: Fernpendler sind beim Pendeln zur Arbeit hin und zurück mindestens 120 Minuten unterwegs und pendeln mindestens dreimal pro Woche. Übernachter (Overnighter) haben berufsbedingt während der letzten 12 Monate mindestens 60 Nächte außer Haus verbracht. Die Gruppe der Übernachter lässt sich in die folgenden drei Untergruppen differenzieren: Shuttlers verfügen berufsbedingt über einen festen Zweitwohnsitz am Arbeitsort. Der Hauptwohnsitz wird normalerweise am Wochenende aufgesucht. Fernbeziehungen unterhalten zwei eigenständige Haushalte. Die Fernbeziehung ist eine Folge beruflicher Mobilitätserfordernisse. Die Pendeldauer zwischen den Haushalten beträgt mindestens 60 Minuten. Varimobile üben einen Beruf aus, dessen Anforderungsprofil explizit oder implizit Mobilität voraussetzt. Sie sind beruflich viel unterwegs (zum Beispiel auf Geschäftsreisen) und müssen deshalb relativ häufig auswärts übernachten. Multi-Mobile sind in mindestens zwei der beschriebenen Formen zugleich mobil. Um detaillierte und weiterführende Analysen zu ermöglichen, wurde die Studie in Deutschland im Jahr 2010 sowie in Frankreich, der Schweiz und in Spanien in den Jahren 2011 und 2012 um eine zweite Erhebungswelle erweitert. Neben einer Wiederholungsbefragung (n=1.735) von Personen, die bereits 2007 befragt wurden (Panelstudie), ergänzt eine Zusatzbefragung räumlich hochmobiler Personen, die in den Ländern Frankreich und Deutschland erhoben wurde, den Datenbestand (n=499). Diese zweite Erhebungswelle bietet neben umfangreichen retrospektiv erhobenen Informationen zu räumlicher Mobilität, Erwerbstätigkeit, Familie und Partnerschaft auch Informationen zu neuen Themengebieten wie soziale Integration, bürgerschaftliches Engagement und soziale Mobilität. Die Querschnittsdaten der ersten Welle können unter der Studiennummer ZA 5065 und die Längsschnittdaten der zweiten Welle unter der Studiennummer ZA5066 bei GESIS angefordert werden.

The Swiss Federal Office for Migration (BFM) has commissioned the ICMPD to undertake a comparative study of asylum procedures in Switzerland, Denmark and United Kingdom regarding claims of particularly Iraqi, Somali and Eritrean asylum seekers. Objectives The study aims to comparatively describe current developments in asylum policies and practices in the selected countries and to relate them to: • changes in the number of asylum claims submitted by the target group • changes in the perception of attractiveness of the destination countries: CH, DK, UK Outcomes • Comparative analysis of asylum and return policies in CH, DK, UK. • Statistical analysis on asylum claims of Iraqi, Somali and Eritrean asylum seekers submitted in CH, DK, UK.

"The project explores protest against the deportation of rejected asylum seekers in Austria, Switzerland and Germany. Deportation has become a central element of immigration control, particularly of asylum seekers whose application has been rejected. At the same time, it can be seen as contradicting the intention of human rights obligations for individuals in need of protection, which raises normative questions related to justice and universal norms vis-à-vis state sovereignty and policy implementation adopted by lawful means. This tension is reflected by the fact that certain sections of the population and the public have become sensitive towards the forcible expulsion of non-citizens from the state territory. Such feelings of unease and moral outrage manifest themselves in various forms of protest that are directed against the most coercive measure a sovereign state can take. The central aim of the project is to explore and explain the goals, form and degree of diverse anti-deportation protest activities across countries and time (1995-2010). In particular, the project seeks to answer the following research questions: 1.What shapes the trajectories of protest against the deportation of asylum seekers and what is characteristic and even distinct about anti-deportation protest? 2. How can we explain variation in the goals, forms, and degree of anti-deportation protest, both across countries and over time? The project develops an innovative and integrated perspective by combining different theoretical approaches (political opportunity structure approach and resource mobilization perspective) and considering emotional processes into the analysis. Empirically, the study will be based on newspaper articles about deportation, protest material produced by protest groups and interviews with protesters. In methodological terms, the project combines quantitative and qualitative text analysis with a series of in-depth case studies on individual deportation cases that triggered protest. The project will make an important contribution to the literature on migration and social movements. More specifically, we will assess (a) the role of structural factors vis-à-vis agency and resources and (b) the motivational and strategic functions that emotions play in protest. "

L’Europe du XIXe siècle voit l’institutionnalisation de l’exil comme forme de mobilisation. L’augmentation du nombre d’opposants chassés de leur pays pour des motifs politiques a induit de profondes transformations des politiques migratoires adoptées en Grande-Bretagne, en France, en Belgique, en Suisse, dans le Piémont-Sardaigne et en Espagne, principaux pays concernés par l’asile politique entre le congrès de Vienne et les années 1870. Le programme AsileuropeXIX s’emploie à reconstituer le lexique utilisé pour qualifier les exilés et réfugiés, prêtant attention aux catégories ainsi élaborées. Un second pan de nos recherches collectives concernant l’accueil qui leur était réservé porte sur les contrôles des exilés aux frontières, étudiés à partir de sources administratives et policières et d’archives personnelles. L’analyse des dispositifs d’accueil, qui est menée à la fois par le haut et par le bas met en évidence les points de comparaison entre les six pays d’asile étudiés. Le programme AsileuropeXIX s’intéresse enfin au contrôle migratoire a posteriori des migrations politiques, qui s’appuyait sur les mesures d’expulsion mais aussi sur les incitations au départ vers les colonies européennes.

The International Migration Policy And Law Analysis (IMPALA) Database is a cross-national, cross-institutional, cross-disciplinary project on comparative immigration policy. The pilot database version covers 10 years and 9 country cases including Australia, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and the United States of America. It covers The focus is admission policy, although the authors include also acquisition of citizenship, which is generally understood as being part of ‘immigrant policies’, namely what happens after admission. The project classifies and measures tracks of entry associated with five migration categories: economic migration, family reunification, asylum and humanitarian migration, and student migration, as well as acquisition of citizenship. It is the product of an international collaboration between researchers from George Mason University, Harvard University, London School of Economics and Political Science, Paris School of Economics, University of Amsterdam, University of Luxembourg, and University of Sydney.

"In this project, we investigate the (sometimes unintended) consequences of policies that have been implemented to regulate immigration and to subsequently facilitate the socio-economic integration of newly arrived immigrants. (1) Networks: First, we exploit a natural experiment in Switzerland, where asylum seekers are randomly assigned to cantons. This immigration policy can be regarded as a transparent and neutral way of distributing refugees across a country to “share a burden”. At the same time, such restrictions regarding free movement within a country come with hefty consequences for the persons affected. On the one hand, a large share of jobs are found through referrals within social networks: in the US, for instance, around 30-60% (Bewley, 2007). At least since Granovetter (1973), a rich theoretical literature has rationalized this fact by modelling networks as non-market institutions that help overcome information frictions inherent in the labor market. From workers' perspective, networks grant their members preferential access to information on high-quality job openings, e.g. as in Calvo-Armengol and Jackson (2004). On the firm side, networks may help alleviate the asymmetric information problem in hiring leading potentially to a better job-match, e.g. as in Beaman and Magruder (2012). In our study, we focus on the value of social networks from the perspective of workers. Swiss asylum policy provides a unique natural experiment to study the effects of social networks on labor market outcomes. Because of the truly exogenous placement, long horizon over which the policy was in place and the large sample size, we can delve deeper into the mechanisms of how social networks affect labor market integration than previous studies have done and look at network structure beyond simply its size. Our findings will enable us to distinguish among a large set of theoretical models of the value of networks from the point of view of individual job seekers. (2) Maternity: At the same time, such immigration policies also affect the social integration of immigrants and, in our case, individual health and wellbeing. Specifically, we exploit the same unique setting to assess the relevance of information on infants' health. Random allocation of asylum seekers in Switzerland allows us to first, study the spatial differences in health care provision across the country. Further, by exploiting that French-speaking refugees are randomly placed in French- or non-French-speaking regions, we can credibly identify the language-match-health-gap, based on refugees that do not speak French as a control group and placed on either side of the language border (in a Difference in Differences framework). By extending the language to a novel (continuous) measure of language distance, we are able to factor out country of origin effects using bi-lateral regressions. A second strand of policies targets the (economic) integration of immigrants and generally of persons outside the labor market. A common approach is to provide measures, so-called Active Labor Market Programs (ALMP) that enhance a jobseeker’s employability (e.g., through additional human capital) or that keep a person close to the labor market through occupational programs. (3) Access Bias: Some measures, however, can negatively affect labor market outcomes, such as unemployment duration and post-unemployment wages, because of factors such as human capital deprivation or lock-in effects. Based on encompassing registry data that allow researchers to control for usually unobserved employability variables, we find evidence of a systematic access bias whereby caseworkers in Switzerland assign unemployed immigrants to activation measures based on what we call a competition logic that is mainly driven by and conforms to an economic rationale and the job center’s performance evaluation. From the perspective of immigrants’ labor market integration, this may be problematic because it results in an overrepresentation of immigrants in measures with little efficacy rather than in measures that could compensate for (some of) their employability disadvantages. Conversely, we find that Swiss citizens are relatively advantaged in the ability to access more measures that promote human capital enhancement (compensation logic) and that have been shown to be successful tools for labor market reintegration. It is plausible that a stronger reliance on the competition logic by caseworkers and the consequential overrepresentation of migrants in low-efficacy measures amplifies migrants’ general labor market disadvantages. (4) Priming: This rather negative stance on integration measures in the form of ALMPs is further advanced by a study where we present indications that ALMP participants are pushed into lower paying jobs compared to equally qualified non-participants. In this study on the effect of subjective beliefs on employment outcomes we find that the employment chances one year after the start of unemployment increase for both ALMP participants and non-participants when self-control and employment beliefs are high. In contrast, higher initial reservation wages increase employment chances for non-participants but substantially reduce them for ALMP participants. Previous studies have shown that beneficial effects of activation measures are often abrogated by lock-in effects, human capital deprivation, and/or negative signals to prospective employers, all of which are particularly harmful for highly skilled workers and higher-paying jobs. We argue that these detrimental effects ultimately push ALMP participants into jobs below their expected salary, where the negative consequences of activation measures are less pronounced. (5) Heterogeneity: A related aspect that is crucial from an integration perspective is whether such effects of ALMPs differ across groups, that is, whether the participation of “natives” turns out to have different consequences for their labor market performance compared to participating immigrants. In this study, we argue that effect heterogeneity between native and migrant participants can provide information about the type of discrimination that migrants face in the labor market. Using encompassing administrative data from Switzerland, we observe all registered jobseekers in 2004 and follow their monthly labor market trajectories over 10 subsequent years. Our findings are consistent with earlier evaluations of ALMPs in Switzerland and elsewhere, which find that participation effects of ALMPs are limited and sometimes even negative. However, findings show that employers value the additional productivity-related information of ALMP participation more if participants have a foreign nationality. We infer that labor market discrimination against migrants is dominated by statistical reasoning on the part of prospective employers. (6) LM-Index: Eventually, we provide a meta-analytical study where we argue that comparative assessments of integration policies fail to properly take confounding factors into account. That is, immigrant groups exposed to integration policies in different countries differ in their characteristics because immigration policies and migrants’ destination choice induce an ex-ante bias. To circumvent this limit to comparative analyses, we aspire to collect and generate data on all existing policy dimensions and subsequently provide a comparative analysis of immigrants’ labor market integration in industrialized countries."

"The theoretical background and objectives The project EURISLAM provides an encompassing view of the integration of Muslim immigrants in six West European countries by linking information on the institutional status of Islam and religious rights for Muslims, public debates on Muslims and Islam in the mass media, and individual attitudes, behavioural patterns, and interethnic contacts of both Muslim immigrants and native populations. Using an institutional and discursive opportunity structure perspective, the project investigates to what extent cross-national differences in religiosity, socio-economic position, interethnic contacts, and identification of Muslims vary as a function of the way in which Islam has been incorporated in different countries and to what extent they are affected by differences in the salience and content of public debates on Muslims and Islam. Similarly, we ask how such contextual conditions affect the ways in which majority populations see and interact with Muslims. Research design, data and methodology The study combines several types of data: indicators of Muslim rights, content analyses for the period 1999-2008, a new survey among four groups of Muslims (Turks, Moroccans, Pakistani and ex-Yugoslav Muslims) and a comparison group of native non-Muslims, and finally focus groups with members of ""transnational families"", of which members have migrated to different countries. This part of the project is quasi-experimental in nature because it compares groups with a very similar background before migration (namely members of the same family) who have ended up in different immigration countries. Findings Our findings show that Muslims have been able to gain the most religious rights in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom and the least in France and Switzerland, which are both strongly influenced by a laicist tradition of church-state relations. Germany and Belgium occupy intermediary positions. A first analysis shows that these different opportunity structures have important consequences for the nature of public debates about Muslim rights. In order to compare the debates across countries, we distinguish between claims on rights within and outside public institutions, claims asking for parity with existing regulations for Christians (and sometimes also Jews) versus those that refer to special arrangements for which there is no direct Christian equivalent, and finally those that refer to mainstream (e.g., mosques or headscarves) or minoritarian (e.g., the burqa) Muslim practices. We find evidence that accommodation of Muslim rights leads to a process of claim shift, as it encourages both Muslim groups and their opponents within the public domain to shift attention from private, parity, and mainstream issues to more “obtrusive” issues. In line with the expectations of the political opportunity perspective we find that this tendency is strongest in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, where much of the debate refers to special rights in the context of public institutions, which are often related to religious practices of small groups of orthodox Muslims. In the other countries, and especially in France and Switzerland, more basic religious rights, referring to practices such as mosques, minarets, and headscarves dominate the debate, which are not important as issues of controversy in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. These results indicate that although the incorporation of Islam is highly controversial in all countries, the terms of the debate vary starkly, and do so largely in line with national integration policy and state-church traditions. In that sense the debate about Islam is, in spite of highly visible international events around Islam in the period of study, not genuinely transnational. For the moment, the incorporation of, and controversies about Islam largely follow national paths."

The Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX) is a unique tool which measures policies to integrate migrants. The MIPEX aims to address this by providing a comprehensive tool which can be used to assess, compare and improve integration policy. The index is a useful tool to evaluate and compare what governments are doing to promote the integration of migrants in all the countries analysed. The tool allows you to dig deep into the multiple factors that influence the integration of migrants into society and allows you to use the full MIPEX results to analyse and assess past and future changes in policy. The MIPEX includes 38 countries in order to provide a view of integration policies across a broad range of differing environments. Countries included are all EU Member States, Australia, Canada, Iceland, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey and the USA. 167 policy indicators have been developed to create a rich, multi-dimensional picture of migrants’ opportunities to participate in society. MIPEX addresses 8 policy areas of integration: Labour Market Mobility, Family Reunion, Education, Political Participation, Long-term Residence, Access to Nationality, Anti-discrimination and Health. Thanks to the relevance and rigor of its indicators, the MIPEX has been recognised as a common quick reference guide across Europe. Policymakers, NGOs, researchers, and European and international institutions are using its data not only to understand and compare national integration policies, but also to improve standards for equal treatment.

The dashboard of indicators for measuring policy and institutional coherence for migration and development (PICMD) is a user-friendly tool that has been developed by the KNOMAD Thematic Working Group on Policy and Institutional Coherence. The dashboard aims to measure the extent to which public policies and institutional arrangements are coherent with international best practices to minimise the risks and maximise the development gains of migration, and can be used by domestic policy makers and other stakeholders such as researchers, civil society and international organisations. For policy makers, the dashboard should serve as a particularly useful tool during the policy formulation, evaluation and adjustment process. Indicators are organised around the following five policy dimensions: promote institutional coherence, reduce the costs of migration, protect the rights of migrants and their family, promote reintegration, enhance the development impact of migration. There are two distinct dashboards – one from the perspective of countries of origin and the other from the perspective of countries of destination – with separate indicators except in the area of institutional coherence. Any given country can be considered both a country of origin and a country of destination. The Thematic Working Group is currently operationalising the dashboard in 15 pilot countries: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cabo Verde, Germany, Jamaica, Kenya, Moldova, Morocco, the Philippines, Portugal, the Netherlands, Serbia, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, and Trinidad and Tobago.

This report is a study of different European countries´ practices and experiences in tracing the parents or other caregivers of separated minor asylum seekers. The term "unaccompanied minor asylum seekers" (UMAs) refers to children under the age of 18 who are separated from their caregivers, and who apply for asylum in a foreign country. The increase in the numbers of UMAs arriving in Europe from 2000-2003, along with an understanding of UMAs as particularly vulnerable, formed the point of departure for the Norwegian Directorate of Immigration to initiate this study. Our main source of data has been an electronic, web-based survey. The questionnaire was sent to Denmark, Finland, France, Hungary, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovakia, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. None of these countries have a separate tracing unit within the organization responsible for tracing UMAs´ families. All the countries co-operate with NGOs, mostly with the national offices of the Red Cross on an ad hoc basis.Some countries make use of their embassies or other diplomatic missions in the UMAs countries of origin. Our findings show that tracing work is both difficult and resource-demanding, and the success rate generally low. Furthermore, not all successful family tracing leads to family reunification. In most cases, if the countries do not succeed in their tracing attempts or adequate care is not available in the country of origin or a third country, the minor is given temporary or permanent residence in the receiving country.

"This project circles around three core questions: Does assimilation work? Does discrimination vary with exposure to competition? Do public attitudes directly translate into immigrant disadvantage? (1) Assimilation Proofs: Initially, we analyze whether the origin of immigrants and/or their level of assimilation to the host country (birth and naturalization) can explain labor market trajectories. Among the manifold domains in which individuals with a migration background may face disadvantages, we focus on labor market re-integration because it has been proven to be a key factor in fostering long-term social integration into the host country. Although empirical evidence for discriminatory practices by employers is generally difficult to provide with registry data, our design minimizes potential alternative explanations. Our study benefits from a unique dataset combining registry and survey data, which were collected in the Swiss Canton of Vaud among all newly unemployed individuals between February and April 2012. The findings are based on real labor market behavior and show that when controlling for encompassing information on human and social capital and other employability criteria, individuals whose provenience is from outside the European Union face periods of unemployment that are up to 50% (or 3 months) longer than those of Swiss natives. Surprisingly, observable assimilation proofs in the form of naturalization or birth in the host country do not improve labor market re-integration. We explain this finding by employers’ discriminatory hiring behavior. (2) Assimilation Signals: In a related study, we test whether HR managers’ discrimination against candidates with a nonnative background can be counteracted by these candidates signaling assimilation into the host society. In our study, HR managers evaluate descriptions of fictitious CVs in which we vary the nationality of the candidates and different signals of cultural attachment to their migration background or to the host country. The findings reveal that candidates with Polish- and Turkish-sounding names are evaluated worse than candidates with Swiss- or Spanish-sounding names. More interestingly, however, participating in civic engagement within a traditional Swiss volunteering organization increases the opportunities given to individuals with Polish and Turkish backgrounds, while participating in an organization connected to their origin dramatically damages their evaluation by prospective employers. We also show that candidates with Polish or Turkish backgrounds who adjust their CVs to appear native by indicating fluency in only the local language (either German or French) fare much better than those who reveal a language attachment to their country of origin. We conclude that there are limited opportunities to ameliorate the evaluation of a CV by signaling assimilation into the host country; conversely, non-adapted CVs and CVs that convey multiple signals of attachment to one’s culture of origin are heavily sanctioned in the assessment by HR managers. (3) Competition: Subsequently, we want to examine whether the prevalence of ethnic discrimination varies with a discriminator’s exposure to competition. First, we use a representative online survey experiment in Germany in order to ask participants to take over the role as a football manager and to rate players in three different tasks. First results show that participants on average prefer White (rather than Black) and Western (rather than non-Western) players, especially when they need to choose between two candidates. We conclude that discrimination likely occurs when there is pressure to select. (4) Housing: In a related study, we examine ethnic discrimination in the housing market. The progressive increase of housing prices and the depletion of affordable dwellings in Swiss urban centers have brought attention to the population's housing conditions and residential mobility. Recent studies have shown that some precarious groups have a more difficult access to adequate housing, especially lower-income households and foreign-born populations. In Switzerland, where the majority of individuals live in rental units, landlords and rental agencies act as gatekeepers and play an important role in the spatial distribution of precarious populations across neighborhoods and to what type of dwelling they have access to. As a result of the landlords’ decisions, ethnic minorities might have limited choices as for where they live. They might be stuck in more deprived housings or neighborhoods, access relatively overpriced dwellings, experience higher rates of crowding, etc. Consequently, our study proposes to investigate mechanisms of discrimination that might take place in the Swiss housing market amongst landlords, professional agencies, and private persons (renters), each of whom potentially having different incentives to discriminate. (5&6) Attitudes: Do public attitudes directly translate into immigrant disadvantage? We aspire to answer this question with two original studies on the effect of public referenda in Switzerland. Such regularly occurring votes are also directly referring to the country’s position vis-à-vis the international community and immigration and usually are heatedly debated prior to the referendum. We exploit such immigration-related referenda by linking salient public discourses to economic and political outcomes of foreigners living in Switzerland. Concretely, we investigate whether such debates, everything else equal, affect the propensity to find a new job during the months of the most heated public exchanges. We hypothesize that a group being pushed into the spotlight by a referendum experiences detrimental effects on its aggregated re-integration chances. Similarly, we expect local politicians with a foreign-sounding name to have a harder stand if the local election falls in the period prior to such a public controversy. (7) Perception: Eventually, we seek to shed light on the mechanisms of perceived discrimination: Who, among recent immigrants, is more likely to feel discriminated against and report it when asked in a survey? Social scientists typically define discrimination as an observable and unjust difference in the treatment of distinct groups. In order to personally feel discriminated against, people must be aware of the differential treatment and perceive it as unjust. We show that reporting discrimination when asked in a survey depends substantially upon individual traits, including aspects that shape whether discrimination is accepted and whether immigrants feel attached to the host society. Although respondents report less discrimination if their job situation has improved after migration, people more likely report discrimination when they originate from countries in which the national legislature represents ethnic minority groups relatively well. Earlier difficulties related to the migration process and the lack of supporting networks continue to affect the perception of unfair treatment. Moreover, we show that individuals distinguish to a surprising degree between discrimination in and outside the work environment. For instance, when they are proficient in the local language, respondents often report discrimination in the workplace but not in a public environment. This distinction between discrimination in the workplace and discrimination in public also depends strongly upon the immigrant’s origin. We conclude that contemporary individual-level measures and policy recommendations merely approximate discriminatory patterns; we urge future research to consider factors that affect individual perception of discrimination."

Das Projekt untersucht die transnationale Arbeitsvermittlung von meist weiblichen migrantischen Pflegekräften durch Home Care Agencies als sogenannte live-ins in Privathaushalte. Auf der Ebene der Global Cities Frankfurt a.M., Wien und Zürich wird die 24h-Pflege in den Zielländern Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz erforscht, wo ein Trend zur Formalisierung der Kommodifizierung und Transnationalisierung von Care und Care-Arbeit besteht. Die 24h-Pflege entwickelt sich zu einem sozialstaatlich akzeptierten Weg, Sorgelücken dort zu füllen, wo der demographische Wandel neue Herausforderungen stellt und vormalige Sorge- und Arbeitsarrangements, beispielsweise in der Familie, zwischen den Generationen und zwischen den Geschlechtern erodieren. Die These ist, dass unter gegebenen Arbeits- und Beschäftigungsbedingungen Anforderungen und Ansprüche an gute Sorge und gute Arbeit latent oder manifest in Widerspruch zueinander stehen und dass die Art und Weise, wie die Beteiligten diese Widersprüche bearbeiten, die Ausgestaltung der transnationalen Home Care Arrangements in den drei Sozialstaaten prägt.Im Anschluss an die mobile Ethnographie folgt das Projekt den Home Care Agencies bei ihrer Arbeitskräfterekrutierung in die Sendeländer und den migrantischen 24-Stunden-PflegerInnen in die Haushalte. Mit ExpertInneninterviews, episodischen Interviews und teilnehmender Beobachtung wird erforscht, wie transnationale Home Care Agencies, die PflegeempfängerInnen, deren Angehörige, und die betreuenden MigrantInnen mit Ansprüchen an gute Sorge und gute Arbeit umgehen, wie zwischen den Akteursgruppen Care- und Arbeitsanforderungen sowie Arbeitsleistungen ausgehandelt werden, welche Widersprüche und Konflikte auftreten und wie die Care- und Arbeitsarrangements begründet, legitimiert und hinterfragt werden.Erstmalig werden hier international etablierte Erkenntnisse der Geschlechter-, Migrations- und Careforschung zu Sorge-/Pflegearbeit im Privathaushalt mit Forschungsansätzen aus der Institutional Logics-Perspektive, der französischen pragmatischen Soziologie und der arbeits- und industriesoziologischen Gerechtigkeits- und Legitimitätsforschung verbunden. Ebenfalls erstmalig wird erforscht, welche Aushandlungsprozesse zwischen den beteiligten Akteursgruppen in dem mobilen Feld der transnationalen Home Care Arrangements, zwischen Sende- und Zielländern, zwischen Care Agencies und Privathaushalten, stattfinden. Ziel ist es, Aufschluss über die transnationalen Home Care Arrangements zu gewinnen, deren Einbettung in die Sozialstaatlichkeit der drei Zielländer zu verstehen, sie auf ihre Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede hin zu vergleichen und zu analysieren, welche Anforderungen und Ansprüche an gute Sorgearbeit hier zum Tragen kommen, verletzt werden bzw. dieses Arrangement insgesamt in Frage stellen.

MiTSoPro focuses on the link between migration and welfare across different European and non-European countries. The first part of the project closely examines migrants’ access to welfare in home and host countries. In doing so, the project adopts a top-down analytical approach of the concept of Transnational Social Protection from above, thus aiming to provide answers to the following research questions: Do migrants have access to social protection in Europe and beyond? What kind of social benefits can they access in their countries of residence and what type of social protection entitlements can they export from their countries of origin? Do some migrant groups benefit from an easier formal access to welfare benefits than others? Do some countries offer more inclusive social protection regimes for immigrants and emigrants alike? The first part of the project provides an in-depth analysis of eligibility conditions for accessing welfare entitlements across 40 countries. The project thus includes all EU Member States and 12 non-EU sending countries distributed across different continents, whose nationals represent an important share of the migration inflows towards European countries (the 12 non-EU countries included in the project are: Argentina, China, Ecuador, India, Lebanon, Morocco, Russia, Senegal, Serbia, Switzerland, Tunisia and Turkey). For each country, we systematically analyse migrants’ access to social benefits across five core policy areas that are closely examined via a broad range of indicators (i.e. specific types of social benefits in kind and cash): 1) Health care (benefits in kind and cash in case of sickness and invalidity benefits); 2) Unemployment (covering both unemployment insurance and unemployment assistance); 3) Old-age pensions (including contributory and non-contributory pensions); 4) Family benefits (maternity, paternity, parental, and child benefits); 5) Guaranteed minimum resources (social assistance programmes aiming to provide a “safety net” aiming to protect individuals from severe poverty). The data collection process was conducted between April 2019-January 2019, based on a survey with national experts across all country analysed. The survey included standardized questions, thus ensuring comparability across the different countries analysed, despite their different political settings and migration histories. The project covers national legislations in place in 2019. This first dataset on migrants’ access to welfare entitlement is complemented by a second one that examines the programmes and initiatives led by home countries authorities to respond to the social protection needs of their non-resident nationals. Covering the same 40 countries, this second dataset highlights the role of three key actors (consulates, diaspora institutions and home country ministries/agencies responsible for specific social policy areas) through which sending states interact with their nationals abroad across the five policy areas previously mentioned. The data collection of this second dataset is based on another survey conducted between April 2018-January 2019 with national experts across the 40 countries analysed in the project.

"Theoretical background and objectives This project explores how policies regarding immigrant rights and welfare state regimes have affected the socio-economic integration of immigrants. Most of the literature on immigrant integration assumes that the granting of easy access of immigrants to citizenship rights and government recognition and support for cultural diversity promote the socio-economic integration of immigrants. At the same time, existing work (e.g., Borjas, van Tubergen) has shown that immigrants with low human capital resources tend to migrate preferably to countries with equal income distributions and extensive social security protection. This raises the question whether immigrant integration policies that grant easy access to citizenship rights, and thus also full access to welfare state rights, might have the unintended consequence that they produce a high rate of dependence of immigrants on welfare state arrangements and attendant socio-economic marginalisation in other domains. If integration policies in addition do not demand cultural assimilation (e.g., in the domain of language) the risk of lower-skilled immigrants to become dependent on welfare benefits may further increase. This hypothesis of an interaction effect between integration policies and welfare state regimes is confronted with cross-national data on labour market participation, residential segregation, and imprisonment of immigrants. Where possible, these comparisons are controlled for cross-national differences in the composition of immigrant populations by drawing on comparative data for particular ethnic groups. The analysis includes eight West European countries that have turned into immigration countries at roughly the same time in the 1960s and early 1970s, where institutions have therefore had several decades to affect integration outcomes. They vary both strongly regarding integration policies (including the highest, Sweden, and the second lowest scoring country, Austria, in the 2007 Migrant Integration Policy Index) and regarding welfare state regimes (with Sweden and the United Kingdom at the extremes). Research design, data and methodology The study relies on various indicators of immigrant rights, prevalent typologies and indicators of welfare state regimes, and data from the European Labour Force Survey, International Prison Statistics, as well as results from a large number of previous studies on immigrants' labour market participation, residential segregation and imprisonment. To control for composition effects, the labour market data refer to immigrants from non-EU countries, and for specific country contrasts specific ethnic groups (Turks and ex-Yugoslavs). Residential segregation data refer to a few dozen European cities, partly referring to specific ethnic groups (e.g., Turks, Maghrebians, Caribbeans, Pakistani) and partly to more general categories (Muslims, foreigners, immigrants). Findings Across the three domains of socio-economic integration a consistent cross-national patterns is found (with the exception of residential segregation in the United Kingdom) in which the gap or the degree of segregation between immigrants and the native population is largest in the countries that combine easy access to citizenship rights and a large degree of accommodation of cultural differences with a relatively encompassing and generous welfare state (Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium). Both the United Kingdom, which combines inclusive integration policies with low welfare state provision levels, and the three Germanophone countries (Germany, Austria, Switzerland), which combine restrictive policies with – at least in the German and Austrian cases – moderately strong welfare states, show relatively small gaps between immigrants and natives. These findings are confirmed for contrast comparisons for specific ethnic groups. For instance, compared to the native population, Turks in the Netherlands have much lower rates of labour market participation than German Turks, and similarly ex-Yugoslavs in Austria perform much better than those in Sweden. Because the results are mostly based on aggregate data – although some of the studies that are used do control for individual-level variables – they need to be further tested by taking individual and local context data more systematically into account. This will be one of the aims of the analyses in the context of project 6.3 further below."

The Statelessness Index is a comparative tool that assesses European countries’ law, policy and practice on the protection of stateless people and the prevention and reduction of statelessness, against international norms and good practice. It is a tool created for civil society, government, researchers, the media and other interested individuals. The Index was developed and is maintained by the European Network on Statelessness (ENS). The Index allows users to quickly understand which areas of law, policy and practice can be improved by states and which can be looked to as examples of good practice in addressing statelessness. The Index is the first to provide comprehensive and accessible comparative analysis of European countries’ efforts to address statelessness. The Index assesses how countries in Europe perform against international norms and good practice for the protection of stateless people and the prevention and reduction of statelessness. A country’s performance is assessed against a set of benchmarks drawn from international and regional human rights standards, soft law, relevant reports, and consultation with experts. The index covers 18 countries for the period 2017-2019. It consists of 23 indicators sorted in 5 strands: International and regional instruments; Statelessness Population Data Availability; Statelessness Determination and Status; Detention; Prevention and Reduction. The country data is gathered through a detailed survey, structured around the themes and subthemes. The surveys are completed by country experts (researchers, lawyers, NGOs and other civil society actors), referenced with links to sources, reviewed by a second country expert, and then returned to the ENS Secretariat for analysis.

The Commitment to Development Index focuses policies that benefit people living in poorer nations. It ranks 27 of the world’s richest countries (for the period 2003-2018) on these policies. The Index comprises seven components: aid (both quantity, as a share of gross national income, and quality), trade, finance, migration, environment, security, and technology. Each component is underpinned by a series of indicators of policy effectiveness in these areas. A country receives points for policies and actions that support poor nations in their efforts to build prosperity, good government, and security. The scores across these seven components are averaged for a final score. The migration component related to migration policy is composed of: 1) an indicator on international conventions 2) indicator on integration policies taken from the Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX), developed by the Migration Policy Group (MPG). The indicator on international conventions assesses the extent to which countries have ratified international conventions aiming to protect migrants. Three conventions are considered: 1949 Convention concerning Migration for Employment (No. 97); 1975 Convention concerning Migrations in Abusive Conditions and the Promotion of Equality of Opportunity and Treatment of Migrant Workers (No. 143); 2000 Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children.

Outflows of foreign population from selected OECD countries

The MACIMIDE Global Expatriate Dual Citizenship Dataset charts the rules that existed in near all states of the world since 1960 with regard to the loss or renunciation of citizenship after a citizen of a respective state voluntarily acquires the citizenship of another state. The central variable of the Dataset is the dualcit_cat variable. This is a categorical variable whose values may be used to interpret, in broad lines, the position of a country with regards to the expatriate dual citizenship. The dualcit_cat variable reflects what consequences the legislation and legal practice of a country attaches to the voluntary acquisition of a foreign citizenship. The value of this variable depends on a number of criteria, including whether a citizen of the reference country who voluntarily obtains a foreign citizenship automatically loses – in principle – the citizenship of the origin country, and whether a citizen of the reference country can renounce that citizenship. The value assigned to dualcit_cat reflects the position of the country on the 1st of January of the reference year. Any subsequent changes in legislation will be reflected in the dualcit_cat value of the following year and included in updated versions of the Dataset. The dualcit_binary variable is a recoding of the dualcit_cat variable. This variable can be used for broad comparisons of the dual citizenship positions around the world. The possible values reflect whether the legislation of a country, in a given reference year, provides for the automatic loss of the origin citizenship (1) or not (2). All data have been centrally collected and refer to specific provisions in national law.

Outflows of foreign population from selected OECD countries

CITLAW indicators address citizenship laws (acquisition and loss of citizenship) in Europe. Basic indicator scores are calculated on the basis of a list of substantive and procedural requirements for each mode of acquisition or loss using both additive and weighting formulas. CITLAW indicators are also aggregated at different levels in order to analyse more general features of citizenship laws. The 6 highest level CITLAW indicators that are calculated using all 45 basic indicators are: ius sanguinis, ius soli, residence-based ordinary naturalisation, naturalisation on specific grounds, voluntary renunciation and withdrawal/lapse. CITLAW indicators have been calculated for 42 European states for 2011 and 2016. Coding of CITLAW indicators is based on an assessment of legal provisions in national citizenship laws.

Since the mid-1970s, the World Population Policies Database, last updated in 2015, provides comprehensive and up-to-date information on the population policy situation and trends for all Member States and non-member States of the United Nations. Among several areas, the database shows the evolution of government views and policies with respect to internal and international migration. The migration strand covers internal migration, immigration, emigration, and return. The Database is updated biennially by conducting a detailed country-by-country review of national plans and strategies, programme reports, legislative documents, official statements and various international, Inter-governmental and non-governmental sources, as well as by using official responses to the United Nations Inquiry among Governments on Population and Development.

The authors created an overall index of migration policies, taking into account 38 countries in the period 1996-2014. They constructed an indicator of the restrictiveness of immigration entry policy across countries as well as a more comprehensive indicator of migration policy that also accounts for staying requirements and regulations to foster integration. Specifically, they estimate a Bayesian-state space model to combine all publicly available data sources that are informative on migration policy. Therefore, starting from some of the previously-created indexes, and from a database of over 250 indicators of migration policy, they created three sub-indexes that correspond to three categories traditionally distinguished in migration policy: (1) entry policies (including family reunification); (2) stay policies (permanent as opposed to temporary migration); and (3) integration policies (including migrant rights). They constructed three different migration policy indexes, MPIE; MPIS and MPII, of respectively entry, stay, and integration policies, that asses the restrictiveness of each of these sub-fields of migration policy, as well as a comprehensive indicator MPIC reflecting the overall stance of migration policy.

This the Citizenship Regime Inclusiveness Index (CITRIX) mainly builds on selected and partly modified indicators of the Migration and Integration Policy Index (MIPEX) strand on the Access to Nationality. It also uses the citizenship indicators of Fitzgerald et al. (2014) as well as the resources offered by DEMIG and GLOBALCIT as further cornerstones for data collection. Covering a total of 23 OECD countries from 1980 to 2014 (805 country-year observations), CITRIX zooms in on four fundamental components of citizenship regimes relating to the acquisition of nationality by immigrants and their children: (1) the residence duration requirement for ordinary naturalization; (2) the toleration of dual citizenship in naturalization; (3) further naturalization requirements, namely language and citizenship tests as well as economic and criminal record condition; and (4) the strength of jus soli.

DEMIG POLICY tracks more than 6,500 migration policy changes enacted by 45 countries around the world mostly in the 1945-2013 period. The policy measures are coded according to the policy area and migrant group targeted, as well as the change in restrictiveness they introduce in the existing legal system. The database allows for both quantitative and qualitative research on the long-term evolution and effectiveness of migration policies. DEMIG POLICY was compiled between 2010 and 2014 as part of the DEMIG project (Determinants of International Migration: A Theoretical and Empirical Assessment of Policy, Origin and Destination Effects). It tracks 6,500 migration policy changes (both immigration and emigration) in 45 countries, most of them enacted in the 1945-2013 period. DEMIG POLICY assesses for each policy measure whether it represents a change towards more restrictiveness (coded +1) or less restrictiveness (coded -1) within the existing legal system. Besides this main assessment of change in restrictiveness, every policy change is also coded according to the policy area (border control, legal entry, integration, exit), policy tool (recruitment agreements, work permit, expulsion, quota, regularization, resettlement, carrier sanctions, etc.), migrant group (low- and high-skilled workers, family members, refugees, irregular migrants, students etc.) and migrant origin (all foreign nationalities, EU citizens, specific nationalities etc.) targeted. The database has been compiled by the DEMIG team, in particular by Katharina Natter, Simona Vezzoli and Hein de Haas, and reviewed by national migration policy experts.

The Immigration Policy Index builds on and expands the dataset constructed by Peters (2015). It analyses the immigration policies of 29 countries from 1783 to 2013. The immigration policy index is a factor score based on 12 dimensions of immigration openness. Each dimension takes a score ranging from 1 to 5, with the latter indicating a more liberal policy stance toward immigrants. The final factor score covers a variety of immigration regulations and laws that seek to control immigration flows by screening potential immigrants

EUDO Citizenship Implementation Indicators measure on a 0 to 1 scale the formal aspects of naturalisation procedures: promotion activities, documentation requirements, administrative discretion, bureaucratic procedures, and review and appeal options. CITIMP indicators allow for comparisons of the specific steps in the procedure across countries. CITIMP indicators have been calculated for 35 European states, as well as for three German federal provinces. CITIMP indicators are an output of the research project 'Access to Citizenship and its Impact on Immigrant Integration (ACIT). = The project was financially supported by the European Fund for the Integration of Third Country Nationals, administered by DG Home Affairs. CITIMP indicators were computed on the grounds of self-collected information: questionnaires on implementation of citizenship policies were filled out by country experts.

Cerna’s index measures openness and restrictiveness of migration policies targeting high-skilled migrants. The index covers 2007 and 2012 and provides information on 20 countries. Countries are selected on the basis of different migration histories and experiences and levels of (economic) interest groups’ involvement in policy-making. The index is disaggregated into admissions mechanism and work permit rights (made up of six indicators: numerical caps, labour market test, labour protection, employer portability, spouse’s work rights and permanent residency rights). Scores are assigned to each of the six categories from 3 (=highly restrictive), 2 (=moderately restrictive), 1 (=minimally restrictive) to 0 (=highly open). All policies are ranked on the same criteria. The individual points for the six categories are then added and converted into an index, where the most restrictive country receives a value of 100.

The authors carry out a cross-country assessment of policies aimed to attract and select high-skilled workers. To capture immigration policy systems, they choose nine policy elements that collectively capture many of the key differences between destination countries’ policy stances. These instruments reflect policy categories comprising skill-selective admission policies (shortage lists, job offer requirements, labor market tests, PBS), and post-entry policy instruments (permanency rights, financial incentive schemes). Methodologically, the authors adopt a set of statements against which a 0 or 1 can be assigned to ensure consistency when coding our policy variables.

The Multiculturalism Policy Index assesses the government commitment to the multicultural accommodation of newcomers. It is designed to monitor the evolution of multicultural policies across 21 Western countries. The Multiculturalism Policy Index is distinctive in focusing exclusively on multicultural policies designed to recognize, accommodate and support the cultural differences of minority groups. To capture change over time, the Index provides all three indices at three points in time: 1980, 2000 and 2010. Multicultural Policy Index is based on eight indicators: (i) constitutional, legislative or parliamentary affirmation of multiculturalism, at the central and/or regional and municipal levels; (ii) the adoption of multiculturalism in school curriculum; (iii) the inclusion of ethnic representation/sensitivity in the mandate of public media or media licensing; (iv) exemptions from dress codes, either by statute or by court cases; (v) allowing of dual citizenship; (vi) the funding of ethnic group organizations to support cultural activities; (vii) the funding of bilingual education or mother-tongue instruction; (viii) affirmative action for disadvantaged immigrant groups On each indicator, countries are scored as 0 (no such policy), 0.5 (partial) or 1.0 (clear policy). The scores are then aggregated, with equal weighting for each area (‘recognition’ (Indicators 1–3), ‘accommodation’(Indicators 4–5) and ‘support’ (Indicators 6–8), and producing a country score ranging from 0 to 8.

The author developed a set of indicators on immigration policies. Data covers 19 countries from the late 18th century through the early 21st century. This is one of the few datasets on immigration policy and is the only one to cover the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries. Immigration policy is an amalgam of several policies, including policies that regulate who gains entry to the state (border regulations), what rights immigrants receive (immigrant rights) and how the border is enforced (enforcement). Within each of these three categories, states have used numerous policy substitutes, that can be sorted in 12 dimensions. Eight of the dimensions regulate entrance to the state, of which four, work prohibitions, family reunification, refugee and asylee policy, could also be considered rights; two cover immigrant rights and two cover enforcement. Each dimension was coded from 1 to 5, with greater restrictions taking lower values. To combine these different policies into a single measure, the author used principal components analysis. The analysis revealed that these dimensions created two different factors: immigration policy and rights of immigrants. The first factor, immigration policy, places more weight on nationality, skill, recruitment, quotas, enforcement and deportation policies than the second, rights of immigrants, which places more weight on family reunification, refugee, asylee, citizenship, rights and work prohibition policies.

The author has developed a nationalist immigration and integration policy index to measure legislative changes with regard to immigration and integration policy. The index measures to what extent the legislative output on immigration and integration of governments in 9 countries has a (radical) right-wing signature. The analysis covers the period 1996–2010. The index focuses on policy changes on citizenship, asylum, illegal residence/regularisation, family reunion and civic integration (language requirements and tests, etc.). The index analyses policy changes based on a series of requirement indicators on requirements (e.g., years required for citizenship acquisition). In order to assess optimally the range and substance of changes implied in new legislation, varying sources have been used. Apart from scrutinising primary legislative sources, expert reports, articles and books have been consulted for contextual information.

Es soll analysiert werden, was die subjektive Lebensqualität – definiert als Lebenszufriedenheit – von Migranten in Europa bedingt und inwieweit bestimmte Länder für bestimmte Zuwanderergruppen in dieser Hinsicht besonders günstige, für andere demgegenüber eher ungünstige Bedingungen bieten. Die Lebenszufriedenheit wird als das Ergebnis der Evaluation der konkreten objektiven Lebensbedingungen durch die Akteure modelliert, bei welcher sie einen individuellen Bewertungsmaßstab heranziehen. Dieser Bewertungsmaßstab hängt u.a. von der kulturellen Prä¬gung, dem Vergleich mit signifikanten anderen und den individuellen Präferenzen ab. Somit kann die Lebenszufriedenheit zwischen Bevölkerungsgruppen auch bei vergleichbaren objektiven Lebensbedingungen variieren, wenn der Bewertungsmaßstab gruppenspezifisch variiert. Die direkten Lebensbedingungen der Migranten werden wiederum durch die strukturelle und kulturelle Ordnung der jeweiligen Gesellschaft beeinflusst: z.B. durch die Ausgestaltung wohlfahrtstaatlicher Leistungen oder die allgemeinen Einstellungen gegenüber Einwanderern. Vor dem Hintergrund zunehmender internationaler Konkurrenz um Fachkräfte kann das geplante Projekt dabei helfen, die Attraktivität von Standorten differenzierter zu bewerten. Für die Analysen soll zunächst auf international vergleichende Datensätze und für differenziertere Auswertungen anschließend auf geeignete nationale Daten zurückgegriffen werden.

The Immigration Policies in Comparison (IMPIC) database includes data on migration policies for 33 OECD countries and the period 1980-2010. The IMPIC defines immigration policy as “government’s statements of what it intends to do or not do (incl. laws, regulations, decisions, or orders) in regards to the selection, admission, settlement and deportation of foreign citizens residing in the country”. The index covers: 1) labour migration; 2) family reunification; 3) refugees and asylum; 4) co-ethnics (e.g., easy access to co-ethics -e.g., children of emigrants). A total of 69 indicators are identified for the four policies fields. Indicators are coded between 0 (more liberal policies) and 1 (more restrictive polices) capturing the extent to which ‘a regulation limits or liberalises the rights and freedoms of immigrants.

The Inquiry gathers critically important data for monitoring the implementation of the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development and other international agreements, including the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The Inquiry, mandated by the General Assembly in its resolution 1838 (XVII) of 18 December 1962, has been conducted by the Secretary-General at regular intervals since 1963. The Twelfth Inquiry consists of multiple-choice questions, organized in three thematic modules: Module I on population ageing and urbanization; Module II on fertility, family planning and reproductive health; and Module III on international migration. In 1994, Member States attending the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) in Cairo agreed that “population-related goals and policies are integral parts of cultural, economic and social development” and recommended that actions be taken “to measure, assess, monitor and evaluate progress towards meeting the goals of its Programme of Action”. The year 2019 will mark the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Cairo conference and adoption of the ICPD Programme of Action, which continues to provide crucial guidance for addressing the fundamental development challenges facing the world today. Population issues are also at the core of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development adopted in 2015. The United Nations Inquiry among Governments on Population and Development (the “Inquiry”) gathers critically important data for monitoring the implementation of the ICPD Programme of Action and other international agreements, including the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The Inquiry, mandated by the General Assembly in its resolution 1838 (XVII) of 18 December 1962, has been conducted by the Secretary-General at regular intervals since 1963. The most recent Inquiry, the Eleventh, was implemented in 2014.

The index addresses the legal rights (civil and political, economic, social, residency, and family reunion rights) granted to migrant workers admitted under labour immigration programs in high- and middle-income countries to admitting migrant workers. Labor immigration programs are defined as policies for regulating the number, skills, and rights of migrants who are admitted for the primary purpose of work. It includes 104 programmes in force for the year 2009. Migrant rights refer to the legal rights (defined here as the rights granted by national laws and policies) granted to migrant workers on admission under a particular labour immigration program. So the indicators measure rights “in laws and regulations” rather than “in practice”. The dataset includes all high-income countries with a population exceeding two million, and, to ensure broad geographic coverage, a selection of upper- and lower- middle-income countries. In total, the sample comprises 46 countries including 34 high-income countries.

The index analyses naturalization policies in twenty-six Western immigrant-receiving democracies in order to show how different countries deal with newcomers (year of reference: 2009). The index looks at five aspects of a country’s citizenship and naturalization policies. First, it considers whether a country grants automatic citizenship only to children of citizens (ius sanguinis) or only to those who are born within the country’s border (ius soli). Second, every naturalization policy stipulates that immigrants have to have lived at least a certain number of years within the borders of the country before they can apply for citizenship. Third, it looks at whether passing a language test is part of the naturalization requirements. These tests vary significantly in difficulty. Fourth, in some countries immigrants cannot be naturalized without passing a citizenship test, while in other countries such a test does not exist. Moreover, these tests vary in nature. Fifth, and finally, it includes whether immigrants are required to give up their former nationality or nationalities before they can become citizens. These five scores are combined in an index that ranges from 0 to 15. Overall, this summary score should give a valid indication of the exclusiveness, or ‘ethnicness’, of a country’s naturalization policy.

The index is based on three types of entry visa restrictions: visa required, visa not required for short stays and visa not required. The author identifies country pairs which changed their visa regime during 1998–2010. This immigration policy index is constructed for all countries and territories in the world for both March 1998 and November 2009. This index is heterogeneous across destination and origin countries as well as over time.

While integration policies as such are not new, and in some countries date back to the 1980s and beyond, there have been important shifts in the debates on integration and in related re-configurations of integration policymaking in the past decade or so. In particular, there has been an increasing linkage of integration and admission policy and a related shift of focus towards integration of newcomers. Against this background, the PROSINT project has set out to • Evaluate the impact of admission related integration policies on the integration of newcomers • Analyse the different logics underlying integration policy making • Investigate the main target groups of compulsory and voluntary integration measures. Altogether, the study covered 9 countries (AT, CH, CZ, DE, ES, IT, NL, SE, UK). Project partners: Multicultural Centre Prague (CZ); European Forum for Migration Studies (efms) (DE); International and European Forum of Migration Research (IT); Erasmus University Rotterdam and School of Management and Governance, Social Risks and Safety Studies, University of Twente (NL); University of Barcelona (ES); Social Policy Research Centre, University of Middlesex (GB); Department of Politics, University of Sheffield (GB)

The Index addresses the factors shaping the granting of rights of individual equality and recognition of cultural differences by nation-states to immigrants. The index considers rights in the eight thematic fields of nationality acquisition, family reunification, expulsion, anti-discrimination, public-sector employment for non-nationals, political rights for non-nationals, cultural rights in education, as well as other cultural and religious rights. Theoretically, these rights for immigrants are classified according to two dimensions that partly cross-cut the eight thematic fields. The first dimension captures the inclusiveness of a country's understanding of citizenship. The second dimension shows how countries deal with cultural and religious diversity. The index is based on 44 policy indicators, 21 pertaining to the individual equality dimension and 23 to the cultural difference dimension. All indicators are coded on a scale running from -1 (most restrictive) to +1 (most inclusive), and the same, therefore, also holds for the averaged scores. The project is based on original data drawn from policy documents, legal texts, secondary literature, internet websites, and expert information. The qualitative information from these sources is transformed into ordinal codes, classifying policies as more or less restrictive in terms of the extent and accessibility of rights for immigrants. In the first phase of the project data have been gathered for ten North-Western European countries for four measurement years: 1980, 1990, 2002, and 2008. In a second phase, data was collected for four classical anglo-saxon settler countries as well as for additional Eastern and Southern European countries, Middle Eastern, East Asian, African and South American countries. As a result, data is now available for 29 countries for the year 2008.

Based on review of documentary sources on state-emigrant relations, the dataset reviews how 64 states relate to their diasporas. It shows how states constitute various extra-territorial groups as members of a loyal diaspora, through a diverse range of institutions and practices. Three higher-level types of diaspora engagement policy are identified: 1 - capacity building policies, aimed at discursively producing a state-centric ‘transnational national society’, and developing a set of corresponding state institution; 2 - extending rights to the diaspora, thus playing a role that befits a legitimate sovereign, and 3 - extracting obligations from the diaspora, based on the premise that emigrants owe loyalty to this legitimate sovereign.

The Index captures citizenship rights in eighteen OECD countries. The index is based on four indicators: allowance of dual citizenship; acceptance of birthright citizenship; absence of a language requirement; number of years required prior to naturalization. The index is constructed as follows. first, authors created three categories for the residency requirement coded 0 for countries that require more than ten years, 1 for countries that require between five and ten years, and 2 for countries that require fewer than five years. Then they created an additive index as residency+2*dual citizenship+2*citizenship by birth+2*no language requirement

Western Union commissioned the Economist Intelligence Unit to compile a migration index that ranks 61 countries by how attractive and accessible they are for migrants (the Global Migration Barometer), with a separate assessment of their need for migrants. The Economist Intelligence Unit developed the methodology behind the index, collected the data and scored the countries, with input from Western Union and an independent panel of migration experts. The index has been produced for 61 developed and emerging markets using a standard analytical framework. The model used to generate the index employs indicators that reflect the standard of living and economic development of a country, legislative policy and attitudes towards migration, and demographics and social welfare commitments. Many of the 32 indicators used to generate the index are based on quantitative data and have been drawn from national and international statistical sources. The others are qualitative in nature and have been produced by the Economist Intelligence Unit. Each of the indicators has been adjusted and weighted to produce a score of 0 to 100, where 100 represents the highest attractiveness, accessibility or need for migrants.

The Asylum Policy Index addressed the change in the nature (restrictiveness) of policies for asylum seekers in 19 OECD countries. It focuses on the changes in asylum and related policies in these countries between 1999 and 2006. The index is based almost entirely on legislation rather than on general impressions about the toughness of asylum policy. Taking 1997 as a baseline, the score decreases by -1 if the policy adopted is open to asylum seekers, or increases by 1 if the policy is restrictive. It is important to stress that this is a crude measure of policy change that does not reflect differences across countries in the finer details of policy change or in its enforcement. Nor is it an absolute measure of toughness but merely the difference in policy stance as compared with the beginning of 1997. The 15 components of policy are divided into three groups, each consisting of five components. Those representing the ability of asylum seekers to gain access to the country’s territory are labelled access; those representing the toughness of the country’s refugee status determination procedure are labelled processing; and those relating to the welfare of asylum seekers during and after processing are labelled welfare. The asylum policy index discussed in the text was constructed from annual country reports on policy developments given in three sources. These are: the OECD’s annual publication International Migration Outlook (Paris: OECD) (formerly Trends in International Migration), the country reports of the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (2006), and the country reports of the US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants.

Ortega and Peri focus on the tightness of immigration reforms over time, and they provide quantitative measures of immigration policy restrictions (or tightness) along several dimensions’. By analyzing policy change, Ortega and Peri classify laws based on whether they tighten the requirements of entry or stay in the country, separating laws that concern asylum seekers from laws dealing with other types of immigrants’. The authors analyse policies linked to both ‘asylum’ and ‘non-asylum’. While the authors main interest is on immigrants’ admission, they also include ‘stay’. Ortega and Peri build three separate indices of ‘tightness’ of immigration law reforms. The first index includes only those measures tightening or loosening the entry of non-asylum immigrants, while the second includes measures tightening or relaxing provisions concerning the entry and/or the stay of non-asylum immigrants. The third is an index that includes changes in immigration policy concerning the entry and/or the stay of asylum seekers only.

The Barrier to Naturalization Index focuses specifically on the naturalization process and jus soli. It takes twelve requirements of the naturalization process into account: (1) good conduct, (2) willingness to integrate, (3) language skills, (4) dual nationality, (5) application complexity, (6) application fees, (7) state discretion in granting citizenship, (8) residency requirements, (9) jus sanguinis laws preventing jus soli naturalization of children, (10) jus sanguinis concerning children of parents born in country (double jus soli), (11) women allowed to maintain citizenship after marrying a foreigner, and (12) mothers when married to a foreigner being able to transfer citizenship to their children. It purposely excludes entry requirements, unemployment, and other variables. Data were taken from the naturalization laws of each country and reports from foreign country consulates in the United States. For the index, components were grouped into four categories with a weighing scheme. The total index was constructed as a percentage of the maximum score of the highest-scoring country, so it varied from 0 to 1.

The Deterrence Index addresses the extent to which policies are a deterrence for asylum seekers. The Index seeks to quantify cumulatively the resulting mix of countries’ changing asylum rules. Five key deterrence measures have been considered from three areas: Three sets of instruments are included: (1) access control policy, which refers to the rules and procedures governing the admission of foreign nationals and its instruments include visa policy, regulations for carriers, safe third country provisions, etc. In this area, the deterrence measure refers to the introduction of so-called ‘safe third country’ provisions, which mean that persons seeking asylum in country A will be refused entry into that country, if on their way to country A, they have travelled through state B, a country which country A regards as a ‘safe country’ and in which the asylum seeker could have applied for asylum. (2) asylum determination procedures. Rules concerning determination procedures relate to entry into a country's refugee recognition system, appeal rights, and rules concerning protection that is subsidiary to the rather narrowly defined Geneva Convention criteria for full refugee status. In this area, the deterrence measure refers to rules concerning the granting of subsidiary protection status which allow asylum seekers to remain in a country of destination even though their application for full refugee status under the Geneva Convention is refused. (3) migrant integration policy. policy is concerned with rights and benefits given to asylum seekers inside a country of destination. Here measures are: freedom of movement vs. a compulsory dispersal policy; cash welfare payments vs. a system of vouchers; and third, the right to work under certain conditions vs. a general prohibition to take up employment as an asylum seeker. Policy-makers can introduce changes in the regulations in these three areas in an attempt to raise the deterrence effect of their policy, which in turn is expected to make their country less attractive to asylum seekers in relative terms. The dataset includes scores for 17 OECD countries for 1985 and 2000. To calculate the index, the researcher analysed two sets of annual yearbooks, the OECD’s ‘Trends in International Migration’ (SOPEMI) and the US Committee for Refugees’ ‘World Refugee Survey’ for the years 1985–2000. For each of the five measures, Thielemann creates a dummy variable (value 1 value whether a measure was in operation in a country). The aggregation is additive, with no weighting applied.

Mayda’s index addresses migration policies in 14 OECD countries (Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Japan, Luxembourg, Norway, Netherlands, Sweden, Swizerland, United Kingdom, United States) between 1980 and 1995. Rather than addressing the overall policy situation for each year, the index focuses on changes in destination countries’ migration policies. The index increases by one if in that year the destination country’s immigration policy became less restrictive, decreases by one if it became more restrictive, and zero if there was no change Based on paper documents, the authors addressed the main characteristics of the migration policies of the destination countries in the sample and the timing (after 1980) of changes in their legislations. A dataset of destination countries’ migration policy changes, between 1980 and 1995, was constructed on the basis of the information in this appendix and used in the empirical analysis

The LOI-index measures the Legal Obstacles to the Integration of Immigrants. The goal of the index is to condense information on integration policies and to evaluate the liberality or restrictiveness of legal systems governing the integration of immigrants. The focus of the index is the legal frameworks governing the integration or settlement of migrants in eight European countries in 1995. 80 different items are included concerning the legal regulation of integration in the countries investigated. These items are aggregated into five main dimensions: (1) residence; (2) access to the labour market; (3) family reunification; (4) naturalisation; (5) second generation. Authors used two kinds of indicators: binary ones to measure whether a certain legal rule exists in a country or not, and temporal indicators to measure waiting periods or other relevant time periods. They standardised these time measures on a scale between 0 and 1 by relating them to minimum and maximum standards: the minimum standard in each case, for example for a waiting period, is what we consider to be a reasonable and acceptable period. The maximum standard, in contrast, is the score above which it seems to us any other score will not add further to the restrictiveness of the regulation in question in terms of legal disintegration. Weights were assigned to the particular items and aggregate constructs. Weights are inevitable when building an index. In this case it was necessary to decide which legal regulations are more and which are less important. The strongest weights were generally assigned to waiting periods to reflect the centrality of the principle of consolidation of residence.