Debating anti-immigrant backlash

Debating anti-immigrant backlash

dc.contributor.editor	BAUBÖCK, Rainer
dc.contributor.editor	MOURAO PERMOSER, Julia
dc.contributor.editor	RUHS, Martin
dc.contributor.editor	SCHMID, Lukas Nepomuk
dc.date.accessioned	2025-07-04T09:57:16Z
dc.date.available	2025-07-04T09:57:16Z
dc.date.issued	2025
dc.description.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.
dc.format.mimetype	application/pdf
dc.identifier.issn	1028-3625
dc.identifier.uri	https://hdl.handle.net/1814/92971
dc.language.iso	en
dc.orcid.putcode	1814/80997:187276033
dc.orcid.putcode	1814/81053:187276034
dc.orcid.putcode	1814/79712:187276036
dc.orcid.putcode	1814/80004:187276037
dc.publisher	European University Institute
dc.relation.ispartofseries	EUI
dc.relation.ispartofseries	RSC
dc.relation.ispartofseries	Working Paper
dc.relation.ispartofseries	2025/19
dc.relation.ispartofseries	DILEMMAS
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rights.license	Attribution 4.0 International	en
dc.rights.uri	http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subject	Anti-immigrant backlash
dc.subject	Immigration justice
dc.subject	Democratic dilemma
dc.subject	Protecting democracy
dc.subject	Pushbacks
dc.title	Debating anti-immigrant backlash
dc.type	Working Paper
dspace.entity.type	Publication
person.identifier.orcid	0000-0003-2336-7414
person.identifier.orcid	0000-0003-3635-310X
person.identifier.orcid	0000-0001-6376-2414
person.identifier.orcid	0000-0003-0746-1195
person.identifier.other	31459
person.identifier.other	32295
person.identifier.other	42877
person.identifier.other	44367
relation.isEditorOfPublication	817b581a-8979-45b1-bab1-b592fd634729
relation.isEditorOfPublication	ee019f89-c5e0-4f21-b09e-4ffc5e11a9db
relation.isEditorOfPublication	edf8cbb6-2c9a-4ddf-9b1e-39b5477d5aaf
relation.isEditorOfPublication	e3bcc95d-7d11-4c4b-828f-246ec22b1dba
relation.isEditorOfPublication.latestForDiscovery	817b581a-8979-45b1-bab1-b592fd634729