Résumé

Research on immigration policy preferences in Western democracies finds near consensual support for prioritizing highly educated immigrants working in high-skill occupations. This consensus, we argue, is in large part an artifact of Western democracies’ institutional context, one in which all immigrants receive similar rights irrespective of their skill profile (e.g., right to family reunification, access to schools for children, pathway to permanent residency, etc.) and where social spending is broadly redistributive. In this context, high-skilled immigrants are more likely than low-skilled immigrants to be perceived as net contributors to the country’s socio-economic well-being. To examine this conjecture, we revisit what has been called the "immigration consensus" in a city-state, Singapore, were rights are only extended to high-skilled immigrants. In this context, we hypothesize, the ranking that underpins results in Western democracies should be reversed, with high-skilled immigrants more likely to be portrayed as a net burden than low-skilled immigrants. Using a two-wave survey, we test this hypothesis and its implications for anti-immigrant sentiment in Singapore. In addition to providing an out-of-sample test of theories of anti-immigrant sentiment developed in the Western context, this study also contributes to our understanding of native-immigrant resource competition in an urban context and the mediating role played by institutional design.

Référence

Charlotte Cavaillé, « The Immigration Consensus Revisited: The Case of Singapore », IAST Lunch Seminar, Toulouse : IAST, 21 novembre 2025, 12h45–13h45, salle Auditorium 4 (first floor - TSE building).