Immigration: Intractable Policy Problem or Symbolic Politics?

On 30 March 2022, professors James Hollifield, Nonna Mayer, and Virginie Guiraudon, came together to discuss the issue of immigration in our current political context. This cross-cultural discussion hosted by Sciences Po's Centre for European Studies and Comparative Politics (CEE) and School of Public Affairs (EAP) was the opportunity to discuss the political framing of immigration and its construction within the current political discourse.

As the event Chair Virginie Guiraudon, CNRS Research Director at Sciences Po’s CEE noted in her introductory statements, “immigration is an ideological marker”, yet the question remained: is it indicative of real voting behaviors? In an increasingly polarized political context in which abstention rates have reached unprecedented levels, the experts discussed this question in an attempt to make sense of the current political climate and its relationship to the topic of immigration.

The Political Framing of Immigration

As one might expect, the framing of the topic of immigration varies drastically between parties and political affiliations. Yet what’s more, the importance of the topic itself to voters—according to James Hollifield, Ora Nixon Arnold Professor in International Political Economy and Director of the Tower Center at Southern Methodist University (SMU) in Dallas, Texas and Visiting Professor at the Paris Institute for Advanced Study (IAS) and Nonna Mayer, CNRS Research Director Emerita at Sciences Po’s CEE—may not be as significant as its portrayal in the media would lead one to believe. During the discussion, Nonna Mayer analysed the French political context when it comes to immigration, saying that “the political supply and political demand” for discussions on this topic “are completely at odds”, pointing out the ways in which the political system is out of touch with the interests of voters. To her, the most important issue for French people is far removed from that of immigration. As she noted, “Purchasing power is the main problem, followed by health. Immigration comes much later.”

James Hollifield agreed with this idea, noting that this trend is not particular to French culture. According to him, from the perspective of the United States, “immigration does not make the top ten issues for voters”, rather, the economy and healthcare tend to garner much of the U.S. voter’s attention. Indeed, as both speakers pointed out, the only group for whom immigration is the most important issue is the right, and especially the far right.

Yet if immigration is not one of the most important topics to the average voter, why does it remain one of the most discussed subjects surrounding the election? According to Nonna Mayer, the problem is “the framings of the right and the far right” in the media. As she noted, “one doesn’t hear the left and the framing of the left”, which has led to a skewed coverage when it comes to the elections. The fact that the right has more reach in the media has led to a growing impression that immigration is one of the most important issues for the election, whereas the statistics used throughout the event suggested the contrary.

“The imagined immigration question”

The idea of an “imagined immigration question”, brought forward by Nonna Mayer, points towards the ways in which political discourses have tapped into economic and cultural fears to create a specter of immigration that haunts the political sphere. Although it may be imagined, according to Nonna Mayer, “the imaginary threat is as important as the real threat”, in that it still has influence on opinions and political discourses. Indeed, as event moderator Virginie Guiraudon noted, “migration narratives impact attitudes, opinions, and sometimes even electoral behavior”.

Then what exactly is at the root of this imaginary threat? According to Nonna Mayer, a possible answer is that “the right present themselves as the defenders of the losers of globalization”, drawing upon economic concerns (“they’re taking our jobs”) and cultural fears (“they’re taking over”), all framed through the conservative political discourse. James Hollifield further developed this idea by adding the perspective of the United States, employing Durkheim’s idea of anomie to get at the reasons for the rise of far-right candidates. As he noted, “In societies today, we are seeing very high levels of anomie, especially among working class people, because the lives that they knew were gone”. To him, the statement often employed within the United States’ working class, “this is not my country anymore'' is an expression of this anomie, which consists in feeling that, in his words, “your world has been turned upside down and inside out”.

This growing sense of alienation has been increasingly taken up by the far-right to be used for political purposes. James Hollifield referenced Trump’s rise to power, saying that the politician “knew how to tap into this anomie”, pointing to “rising inequality, the feeling of being left behind”, the sensation that, “there is no one speaking for me” that were at play in the 2016 election. As Hollifield noted, “there is no doubt that Trump filled a political void”—a void which he attempted to fill by stigmatizing immigrants. In the same way, as Nonna Mayer notes, in France “Zemmour and Le Pen are weighing on the election”, giving the impression that France is fixated on immigration issues, whereas in reality, it is predominantly the far-right that is rallying around this issue.

A Trend Toward Tolerance

As Nonna Mayer noted, according to the Baromètre racisme de la CNCDH (FR), “opinion on immigrants and minorities has improved over time”. Drawing upon statistics throughout the event, she illustrated that this tolerance is linked to generational replacement, meaning that “every new cohort is more tolerant than the cohort that was born before”, as well as to voters’ education levels. Statistically, generational renewal and a society that is becoming more progressive are two factors that contribute to increasing the index of tolerance; as she notes, “France has become a more multicultural society”, which also plays a large role in the shift that is being seen.

When it comes to the context of the United States, the situation seemed to be remarkably similar. As James Hollifield noted, “the U.S. is not as upset about immigration as one might think”. This apparent divide between public opinion and political discourses, as the two experts suggested, points to a crisis within political parties themselves. As Nonna Mayer emphasized, “political elites are at odds with public opinion and voter demands”.

In the current political context, four out of every ten French people still don’t know who they will vote for, which, as Virginie Guiraudon noted, is a record high. Yet when it comes to the immigration issue, statistics show that there is a progressive shift to a higher rate of tolerance and that immigrants are becoming more accepted. As France moves closer to choosing its new president, therefore, it may be useful to keep in mind that what is portrayed in the media does not always reflect voter opinions.

The Sciences Po Editorial Team

Find out more

• About Sciences Po's School of Public Affairs
• About the Centre for European Studies and Comparative Politics