Restrictive or selective? The faces of Norwegian Immigration Policy.
Norwegian immigration policy is increasingly selective, not only restrictive: asylum and family migration are both restricted, while non-EEA labor migration is facilitated. Norway is part of an international race for talent and a race to the bottom on asylum. The article examines policy development and the decoupling of labor migration policy at different levels. It ends with a discussion of normative implications.
Who deserves exceptions in times of crisis? A comparison of policy responses to mitigate negative consequences for unemployed people and immigrants during the COVID-19 pandemic
In this article, we compare the policy responses for 1) unemployed people and 2) immigrants during the COVID-19 pandemic in Norway form 2020–2022. We ask: Who deserves exceptions in times of crisis? Whereas extensive relief packages were introduced for unemployed persons, no such exceptions were made from income rules for immigrants.
Towards a More Residual Welfare State Model: Restricted Access to Social Rights for Migrants After 2015
In the wake of the 2015 refugee crisis, migrants’ access to social rights in Norway were restricted through a series of legal changes. This was the first time the Social Security Act was changed solely based on immigration policy concerns. In this article, we analyse these policy changes, drawing on Carol Lee Bacchi’s (2009) WPR approach to policy analysis. We investigate underlying problem representations, and how problem representations from immigration policy have influenced social policy. The analysis reveals ongoing processes of exclusion and differentiation that are far more complex than the concept of dualization processes would indicate. Different groups of migrants are included and excluded from different social policy programs in ways that may be difficult to comprehend. Excluded groups are subject to processes of re-commodification and re-familialisation, potentially making migrants more dependent on the labour market and the family. In this way, Norwegian social policy is being taken away, step by step, from the principles of universalism and egalitarianism associated with the Nordic welfare state regime.
Follow the Money: Income Requirements in Norwegian Immigration Regulations
Following the 2015 refugee crisis, Norwegian politicians introduced proposals to extend a family reunification income requirement to refugee sponsors and to introduce an income requirement for permanent residence. This chapter seeks to explain why one of the income requirements was implemented and the other not. It harnesses CBacchi’s approach to policy analysis, asking, ‘What is the problem represented to be?’ in a close reading of relevant documents.
Do integration requirements undermine egalitarianism?
For decades, policy makers have expressed concerns about immigration potentially undermining the welfare state. In this chapter, we examine a new income requirement for obtaining permanent residence. We argue that this requirement that was meant to rescue the fiscal sustainability of the welfare state may upon closer scrutiny create and exacerbate both socioeconomic and political inequalities, paradoxically resulting in the undermining of the egalitarian principle of the welfare state.
Collective analysis of immigration policy: Feminist research methods in practice
This Norwegian-language article explores how to work with collective qualitative analysis in combination with the «What is the problem represented to be?» approach to policy analysis. It is based on the group analysis workshops carried out in the REMIMO project, and draws broader lessons on how to create good group processes.
Everything but the Marriage Certificate: Unmarried Partners in Norwegian Immigration Regulation
We examine Norwegian family immigration regulation for unmarried partners from the 1980s onwards. We investigate three sites of contestation where appeals are made to intimacy norms to argue for admission of unmarried partners: The Liberal party’s “love visa” proposal, sponsors’ statements in case files, and protests from same-sex couples (who face a particular obstacle from income rules if they cannot prove a pre-existing relationship). Even in “cohabitation land,” these appeals come up against immigration control.
‘It must be really difficult for the less privileged’. How class affects the legal consciousness of immigrants in Norway.
There has been a notable shift in permanent residence policies, with European countries placing increasing emphasis on integration requirements. This article focuses on monetary requirements by exploring how immigrants perceive the income requirement for permanent residence through 29 interviews conducted with a diverse group of immigrants in Norway. A striking finding in our material is that most interviewees view the income requirement as unjust or illegitimate, and rather than providing motivation, it instead adds an extra layer of concern. Additionally, the requirement fosters a sense of being less valued compared to the majority population and of being unwanted. Although most interviewees are against the income requirement, suggesting that class has no explanatory value for understanding the legal consciousness of the participants, we identified at least three distinct narratives within their opposition that appear to be class-based. Thus, we advocate for ‘bringing class back in’ to legal consciousness studies.
