Positive Effects Of Migration

Migration policies affect the economic incorporation of immigrants in three main ways. First, migration policy can affect the economic integration of immigrants through the distribution of the various visa types by means of which immigrants enter the host country. Some countries use point-based systems to select immigrants on the basis of human capital or skills, and others use quota systems to recruit less skilled workers for specific jobs or economic sectors. Both systems imply some level of selectivity of the immigrant workforce. However, the admission of migrants via ‘noneconomic’ immigration grounds (mainly family reunification, refugees and students) also shapes the migrant workforce, as these categories of immigrants are generally entitled

Migration policies assign different types of residency and work permits which carry different rights. These may pertain to the duration of the permit and possibility of its renewal, access to the labor market, and the possibility of applying for permanent residency or citizenship. It has been found that immigrants enjoy positive returns to citizenship of the host country (e.g., Steinhardt, 2012; Steinhardt and Wedemeier, 2012; Gathmann and Keller 2014; Bevelander and Pendakur, 2012), implying that more liberal naturalization laws may have a positive impact on immigrants’ labor market integration.

Finally, different categories of immigrants are entitled to different integration policies that are designed to tackle specific dimensions of migrant integration, such as language courses, vocational training courses, recognition of qualification obtained abroad, as well as specific requirements for naturalization (Cangiano, 2014). The effect of these integration policies on the economic assimilation of immigrants is inconclusive. While some studies have found a positive effect on selected indicators of economic integration (Kogan, 2003), others did not (Cebolla-Boado and Finotelli,

with regard to the migration factors that Wanner (2011) stressed as important for immigrants’ economic integration, major differences emerge. While the U.S. has high levels of net migration relative to Sweden, Sweden has a higher share of refugees relative to its population, and a high percentage of naturalized immigrants. In addition, the U.S. uses an annual quota system as well as a skill selection process, while in Sweden there are no such practices. Both countries allow entry on the basis of family reunification, but today the Swedish definition of family is narrower than in the U.S. (although not restricted to married couples). In the U.S. the definition includes also parents, siblings and others. These characteristics have contradictory consequences for immigrants’ assimilation. On the one hand, high naturalization rates and a narrow definition of family should facilitate the integration of immigrants in Sweden. On the other hand, a lower percentage of refugees and a more selective migration system should do the same in the