4.3 Article

Suppression, Spikes, and Stigma: How COVID-19 Will Shape International Migration and Hostilities toward It

期刊

INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION REVIEW
卷 55, 期 3, 页码 640-659

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0197918320968754

关键词

COVID-19; anti-immigrant sentiment; international migration

资金

  1. Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation [MMW 2014.0019]
  2. Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare [FORTE 2016-07177]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Border closures in response to COVID-19 have long-term consequences for international migration, potentially leading to increased support for restricting immigration and reinstating migration policies. Additionally, extended suppression of migration may trigger migration spikes in OECD countries and Russia.
Border closures associated with COVID-19 constitute a response to an exogenous shock unrelated to migration. In this IMR Dispatch, we argue that the impact of policies initially implemented to halt movement and curb the spread of the disease will nonetheless have medium- and longer term consequences for international migration. Specifically, we argue that these initial border restrictions have set in motion demographic and sociological processes that are likely to culminate in greater support for restricting future migration. Based on demographic evidence, we posit that after extended suppression of migration, OECD countries and Russia will see a migration spike, akin to a baby boom for fertility rebounds. Drawing on sociological theory and research, we hypothesize that these spikes in migration will increase anti-immigrant sentiment among native-born residents in destination countries and mobilize political support for reintroducing restrictive migration policies - triggering a feedback loop. In an effort to help facilitate future research and empirical tests of our model, we identify key concepts, processes, and data sources for the analysis of the pandemic's impact on international migration over time.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据