Open Access
Debating anti-immigrant backlash
Loading...
Files
RSC_2025_19.pdf (480.61 KB)
Full-text in Open Access
License
Attribution 4.0 International
Cadmus Permanent Link
Full-text via DOI
ISBN
ISSN
1028-3625
Issue Date
Type of Publication
LC Subject Heading
Other Topic(s)
EUI Research Cluster(s)
Initial version
Published version
Succeeding version
Preceding version
Published version part
Earlier different version
Initial format
Author(s)
Citation
EUI; RSC; Working Paper; 2025/19; DILEMMAS
Cite
BAUBÖCK, Rainer, MOURAO PERMOSER, Julia, RUHS, Martin, SCHMID, Lukas Nepomuk (editor/s), Debating anti-immigrant backlash, EUI, RSC, Working Paper, 2025/19, DILEMMAS - https://hdl.handle.net/1814/92971
Abstract
This working paper combines Zsolt Kapelner’s article “Anti-immigrant backlash: the Democratic Dilemma for immigration policy” with three critical responses as well as a rejoinder by the author. Kapelner begins from the observation that anti-immigrant backlash has in many countries emerged as a considerable threat to democracy, and asks whether policymakers should try to avert this threat by implementing more restrictive immigration policies. He argues that any answer to this question reveals a Democratic Dilemma: If they do so, they may expose immigrants to unjust exclusion, and if they do not, they may risk democratic dysfunction, even democratic failure. Kapelner goes on to propose an analytic and evaluative framework for assessing policy responses to this Democratic Dilemma. Alexander Kustov’s response critically interrogates the empirical evidence underlying Kapelner’s argument, suggesting that counterproductive backlash to freer immigration is possible, but only applies to some limited immigration types and policies. He concludes that the backlash argument is not a good justification for most existing immigration restrictions. Laura Santi Amantini’s contribution suggests that focusing on a purported choice between saving democracy and pursuing immigration justice leads to a dead end, arguing that following illiberal and undemocratic political forces down the path of unjust immigration policies would be both unethical and ineffective. Daniel Thym’s essay probes the potential of solving the Democratic Dilemma in ways overlooked by Kapelner. Addressing the legality and morality of ‘pushbacks’, where potential asylum seekers are turned away without access to an asylum procedure, Thym uses a thought experiment to explore new ways of transcending the binary contrast between openness and closure. The working paper concludes with a rejoinder, in which Kapelner discusses the contributors’ key points and puts some pressure on the idea that the Democratic Dilemma is not, after all, as ‘hard’ as he suggests.