Illiberal policies in liberal societies: some remarks on Hollifield's thesis of the immigration dilemma in liberal societies

In: Internationale Migration und freiheitliche Demokratien, S. 87-100

Abstract

"Two major points can be raised regarding which I consider it to be necessary to reconsider Hollifield's thesis concerning the dilemma of liberal democracies in Controlling immigration. Both are based on the thesis that there is less continuity with respect to how the issue of immigration is politically dealt with and institutionalized in policy initiatives. Regarding the developments in Germany of the 1990th it is questionable to still speak about a dominant liberal consensus with a distinct commitment to human and civil rights in the field of immigration policy. The first argument is that processes of social exclusion have notably changed the legal rights for immigrants regarding both the formal requirements for immigration and the social and political rights that are granted to them once they have set foot into Germany. In particular, the dramatic drop in the figures of asylum seekers and immigrants of German origin over the last two years clearly shows that the nation-state still disposes of effective means to restrict immigration. These figures make manifest that at least to a considerable degree liberal states are able to regulate and control immigration. The basic mechanism by which the extremely rigid approach to immigration and political asylum is legitimized is the re-definition of the boundaries between members and non-members of the community. Today we are witnessing a new attempt to define the boundaries between the We and the Other both at the national and at the European level. The configuration of immigration politics and policy will not remain untouched by this development. In the 1990th this has created a consequential process of social exclusion of ethnically defined groups from equal access to societal resources and life chances. This aspect often escapes a perspective which primarily focuses on the policy debate and the resulting legal decisions. At least regarding a certain fraction of immigrants and asylum seekers this logic of exclusion has also become dominant in different policy areas and increasingly shapes the legal conditions and administrative restrictions under which these groups live in German society. This brings me to my second point regarding to which I think Hollifield's thesis of the stability of the liberal consensus needs to be revisited. There is a growing fraction of immigrants and asylum seekers that are systematically excluded from the liberal realm of humanitarian and civic rights. Manifestly, the liberal consensus does not refer to all immigrant groups and asylum seekers equally. Defining them by the status of being illegal this group is radically exempted from this consensus. In spite of the humanitarian rhetoric, the daily practice of dealing with immigrants shows that a right-based politics presupposes the decision of who is considered to be entitled to claim even the most fundamental rights." (extract)