The Distinction between Refugees and Immigrants: Philosophical Arguments, International Law, and Citizens’ Attitudes in 26 Countries

Abstract

International law obliges states to admit refugees while allowing discretion in accepting voluntary immigrants. This study, based on a 26-country survey, examines citizen attitudes towards these groups. With reference to the debate in political philosophy, the authors distinguish between different attitudinal groups: Nationalists, who advocate for border control; Cosmopolitans, who support unrestricted immigration rights; Legalists, who align with international law by supporting state discretion for voluntary immigrants but mandating refugee acceptance; and Inconsistents, who believe the state should have the right to reject refugees but not voluntary immigrants. The findings reveal that most citizens do not differentiate between refugees and voluntary immigrants, challenging the legal distinction in international law. Nationalists make up 44% of respondents, Cosmopolitans 31%, Legalists 15%, and Inconsistents 9%. Nationalists and Cosmopolitans have clear social profiles based on structural and cultural characteristics, while Legalists and Inconsistents do not.