Policy preferences in response to large forced migration inflows

Abstract

What migration policies do people in receiving countries prefer, and to what extent do humanitarian concerns matter for these preferences? Despite sustained scholarly attention to migration attitudes in high-income countries, much less work examines public policy preferences—particularly in low- and middle-income countries that receive most forced migrants globally. While legislators can propose and implement migration policies involving multiple domains that differ in restrictiveness, their choices partly rely on public support that may vary depending on the policy area at stake. This makes understanding preferences for realistic migration policies in a multidimensional manner theoretically and empirically important. In response, we conducted a pre-registered conjoint experiment (N = 2,508) fielded in Colombia, the country that has received the largest share of Venezuelan emigrants who themselves currently comprise one of the world’s largest migratory flows. Colombians prefer more open policy options that place either some or no restrictions on Venezuelan migrants’ labor market access, ability to bring family members, access to public healthcare, or freedom to choose where they live within Colombia. However, there is support for restrictions on the overall number of Venezuelans allowed to settle in the country, as well as the length of time that Venezuelans are allowed to stay in Colombia. Moreover, respondents holding higher levels of humanitarianism prefer less restrictive policies towards Venezuelans relative to those holding stronger economic and material values—particularly in domains addressing core needs of health, family reunification, and employment. Our study contributes novel and timely evidence of multidimensional migration policy preferences from a highly-impacted case, while also showing how altruistic values relating to humanitarianism selectively matter for these preferences.