From right to earned privilege? The development of stricter family immigration rules in Denmark, Norway and the United Kingdom by Anne Staver A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Political Science University of Toronto © Copyright by Anne Staver 2014 From right to earned privilege? The development of stricter rules for family immigration in Denmark, Norway and the UK Anne Staver Doctor of Philosophy Political Science University of Toronto 2014 Abstract Family immigration is the most important immigration flow to Europe, but the existing immigration literature pays little attention to it. This dissertation is concerned with explaining family immigration policy development in Denmark, Norway and the United Kingdom between 1997 and 2012. In addition to addressing a broad and consequential trend of spreading restrictions on family immigration, the dissertation seeks so explain why this trend has manifested itself differently in these three countries. In Denmark, dramatic reforms in 2002 led to the introduction of an age limit for spouses and a so-called attachment requirement, measuring ‘attachment’ to Denmark. The two other countries considered measures inspired by Denmark, but instead adopted a high income requirement for sponsors. By examining these restrictive family immigration changes in light of the immigration control literature, we can demonstrate how policymakers are much more free from ‘constraints’ on their action than has been assumed until now. I develop a model of political agency focused on what I, drawing on the theoretical literature, call ‘debate limitation’, combining analyses of policy venues and policy frames with a focus on the contextual variable of time and the mediating variable of expert knowledge. When policymakers successfully limit debate, they may push through restrictive changes and overcome ii constraints. The analysis relies on qualitative data gleaned from interviews, policy documents, records of parliamentary debates and secondary literature. The two most consequential findings of this dissertation are that (a) the constraints on the liberal state have been exaggerated with regard to family immigration control, and that (b) recently, a selective logic of migration management has seeped into family immigration policy. iii Acknowledgments While a doctoral dissertation is in many ways a lonely pursuit, there are many who deserve thanks for helping me reach the finishing line. First of all, I would like to thank my supervisor, Randall Hansen. He has made me think and provided constructive, relevant and useful feedback all along (although we haven’t always agreed), and he is also to thank for helping to make it possible for me to combine thesis writing with other professional pursuits. While he is a man of strong opinions, he is also of an open mind, and sometimes I have made him think again, too. I would also like to thank my committee members, Phil Triadafilopoulos and Audrey Macklin, for supportive and constructive comments on chapter drafts as they became ready and for generally being enthusiastic about my project. Thanks as well to Joe Carens for important support during the early stages of the PhD, including writing a letter for me to Canadian immigration when I was dealing with my own family reunification issues! I have also been lucky to receive feedback from and discuss family immigration with Helena Wray, Eleonore Kofman, Rikke Wagner, Saara Pellander, Saskia Bonjour, Albert Kraler and various other colleagues at conferences that I have attended during these past few years. At the institutional level, I would like to thank both the Department of Political Science at the University of Toronto and especially the Institute for Social Research in Oslo for having taken me in and supported me throughout this project both materially and personally. Mari Teigen, here’s looking at you. Working during these years at the institute with Vigdis Vevstad and Jan-Paul Brekke has been an inspiration and a joy. Thank you. Thanks also go out to Anja Bredal, Anniken Hagelund and Hilde Lidén. There are many friends and colleagues that deserve thanks both in Toronto and in Oslo. I made a lot of friends in the grueling years of coursework at the beginning of the PhD, and I would in particular like to mention Dragana Bodruzic, Ethel Tungohan, Kiran Banerjee, Evan Rosevear, Craig Damian Smith, Paul Thomas and Nikola Milicic (especially for some key practical assistance at the very end!), although there are many more that should probably be mentioned! In Oslo, I was lucky to be part of a small group of PhD students in the basement of the Institute. I’ve really appreciated our communal lunches and sharing of triumphs and hard times. Thanks go to Marjan Nadim, Arnfinn Midtbøen, Julia Orupabo, Håkon Dalby Trætteberg, Kristine von Simson, Kjersti Misje Østbakken, Monica Five Aarset and Ingrid Lønrusten Rogstad (I so appreciated our yoga and study sessions, Ingrid!). iv There are, of course, many more people to thank outside of academia – first and foremost my husband Álvaro who has given me pep talks when called for and made my life outside of the thesis so much better. I could not have done it without you. A shout-out, as well, to Ingeborg, my partner in crime of so many years, Siri and the other Lyon girls, Elizabeth, Alice, Stephanie, Eva Kristin and Anna. Finally, thanks to Olav and my mother for their unwavering support. v Table of Contents Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................................... iv Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... vi List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. xi List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. xiii List of Appendices ....................................................................................................................... xiv List of Acronyms .......................................................................................................................... xv Chapter 1 ......................................................................................................................................... 1 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 The relevance of family immigration .................................................................................. 2 1.1.1 Immigration control and the sheer importance of numbers .................................... 2 1.1.2 Thinking about motivations for control .................................................................. 8 1.1.3 The emergence of family immigration as an object of immigration control ........ 11 1.2 Three cases of family immigration restrictions ................................................................. 21 1.2.1 Denmark and the achievement of control ............................................................. 21 1.2.2 Norway’s circuitous path to the income requirement ........................................... 22 1.2.3 Managing the courts and managing migration in Britain ..................................... 23 1.2.4 Similarities and differences ................................................................................... 23 1.3 Research questions ............................................................................................................ 26 1.4 Argument .......................................................................................................................... 26 1.5 Plan of the dissertation ...................................................................................................... 28 Chapter 2 ....................................................................................................................................... 30 2 Constraints and how politicians overcome them ...................................................................... 30 2.1 Family migration policy as an object of study .................................................................. 31 2.1.1 Definitions ............................................................................................................. 31 2.1.2 The literature on family immigration and its policies ........................................... 34 vi 2.2 Constraints on policymakers in the liberal state ............................................................... 41 2.2.1 International constraints ........................................................................................ 42 2.2.2 Domestic constraints ............................................................................................. 49 2.2.3 Summing up .......................................................................................................... 55 2.3 Policymakers’ strategies for overcoming constraints ....................................................... 56 2.3.1 The analysis of preferences and objectives ........................................................... 57 2.3.2 Controlling and limiting the policy debate ........................................................... 58 2.4 Practicalities .....................................................................................................................