Enhanced descriptions from Syndetics:

With almost a quarter of the world's migrants, Europe has been attempting to regulate migration and harmonize immigration policy at the European level. The central dilemma exposed is how liberal democracies can reconcile the need to control the movement of people with the desire to promote open borders, free markets and liberal standards. Gallya Lahav's book traces ten years of public opinion and elite attitudes toward immigration cross-nationally to show how and why increasing EU integration may not necessarily lead to more open immigration outcomes. Empirical evidence reveals that support from both elite and public opinion has led to the adoption of restrictive immigration policies despite the requirements of open borders. Unique in bringing together original data on European legislators and national elites, longitudinal data on public opinion and institutional and policy analyses, this 2004 study provides an important insight into the processes of European integration, and globalization more broadly.

Table of contents provided by Syndetics

• List of figures and tables
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Introduction
• 2 Toward a Peoplea's Europe: an institutional analysis of immigration policy in the European Union
• 3 An attitudinal portrait of a Peoplea's Europe: a comparative overview of public opinion and elite preferences
• 4 Immigration politics and the New Europe: organizing competing interests
• 5 The `European Factora': institutional and psychological constraints on immigration attitudes
• 6 Conclusions: the construction of a European immigration regime?
• Appendices
• Bibliography
• Index

Reviews provided by Syndetics

CHOICE Review

Lahav (SUNY at Stony Brook) discusses the opinions, attitudes, and policies of western Europeans on the need to control the number of immigrants into their countries, while the European Union has been promoting open borders, free markets, and liberal standards. The book traces public opinion and elite attitudes toward immigration--cross-nationally and over time--and argues that the increasing integration of the EU may not result in more open immigration and that harmonization of immigration policy has not been hurried. Opinion of the public and of elites has favored adoption of restrictive immigration policies, despite requirements of open borders. The study used data from interviews with members of the European Parliament (1989-1994), national politicians and EU bureaucrats, and also survey research and longitudinal data on public opinion, and institutional and policy analyses. Lahav concludes that public opinion is not too diffuse to influence policy and the European elite is not necessarily likely to have liberal, open opinions on immigration; rather, both public and elite opinion have favored a restrictive policy. ^BSumming Up: Recommended. Upper-division undergraduates and above. Especially appropriate for European specialists. M. Curtis emeritus, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick