Recent decades have transformed migration into one of the central political and social questions shaping democratic societies. Debates surrounding migration have long focused on its demographic, socio-economic, and cultural dimensions. Increasingly, however, migration also raises broader political questions concerning democratic inclusion, political belonging, political participation, and political representation. Questions concerning who should be allowed to vote, who is perceived as legitimately belonging to the political community, or how migration becomes framed as a public problem are now deeply connected to wider tensions surrounding democracy, nationalism, social cohesion, and political conflict.

These questions are particularly relevant in the Romanian context. Romania remains one of Europe’s largest emigration countries, with millions of citizens living abroad and actively participating in homeland politics. At the same time, Romania is increasingly becoming a destination country for immigration, including growing numbers of third-country nationals employed in precarious and low-paid sectors of the economy, such as construction and platform work. This dual position creates an important setting for examining how migration reshapes social relations, public attitudes, political participation, and broader democratic boundaries.

The workshop is intended as an interdisciplinary exchange among scholars of migration, bringing together perspectives from sociology, political science, political theory, migration studies, and communication studies. It engages with research on youth attitudes toward immigrant and emigrant enfranchisement, comparative public attitudes toward immigration, diaspora representation and emigrant voting, homeland politics, attitudes toward return migrants, transnational parenthood and anti-system resentment, as well as public discourse and anti-immigration backlash. Bringing together both empirical and theoretical perspectives, the workshop explores how migration-related tensions are perceived, framed, politicized, and contested, particularly in Romania and within broader European debates surrounding migration and democratic inclusion.

The event is open to all those interested in contemporary debates on migration, social cohesion, and democratic inclusion. We welcome questions, discussion, and critical perspectives.

*

PROGRAM

10.00–10.10 Opening Remarks

10.10–11.30 Session I: Democratic Inclusion and Public Opinion

10.10–10.50 | Natalia C. Malancu
Ameropa Fellow | The National University of Political Studies and Public Administration | ‘Lucian Blaga’ University of Sibiu
Where to Draw the Line? Youth Views on Expanding versus Constraining the Franchise for Immigrants and Emigrants

Abstract

In recent decades, many countries have adopted policies allowing emigrants (non-resident citizens) to vote in home-country elections from abroad, while efforts to extend the same rights to immigrants (resident non-citizens) have largely stalled. This asymmetry is controversial: enfranchising non-resident citizens allocates political influence to those less exposed to electoral outcomes, whereas denying resident non-citizens a vote silences those directly affected. Despite a lively and active theoretical debate on the “boundaries of democratic inclusion,” we know relatively little about citizens’ own views on these practices. Romania—Europe’s leading emigration country and a recent immigration destination—provides a relevant context for exploring how young nationals think about the franchise. Focusing on 18–24-year-olds centers attention on attitudes still in formation, at the early stages of political socialization. We combine a survey with clarifying focus groups in four Romanian cities. Both components include items that directly compare resident citizens’ evaluations of enfranchising resident non-citizens with their views on external (non-resident) citizens. This side-by-side comparison is crucial for understanding how democratic inclusion is perceived from both sides of the border.

10.50–11.30 | Claudiu Tufiș
University of Bucharest
How important is the immigration issue across the EU? Evidence from a 2025 comparative survey

Abstract

This presentation uses comparative survey data collected in 2025 across all EU member states to examine how Europeans think about immigration, focusing on two main dimensions: the perceived importance of managing immigration in the country and satisfaction with the government’s performance in this area. The presentation is descriptive and exploratory in nature, aiming to map the contours of public opinion rather than test a fully specified causal model. I will discuss mainly how immigration governance is embedded in broader patterns of political evaluation, social position, and democratic values. Particular attention will be given to the groups for whom immigration is especially salient, the groups most dissatisfied with government performance, and the extent to which these attitudes reflect country-level contexts or within-country social and political cleavages. By identifying where concerns about immigration governance are concentrated, the presentation seeks to contribute to a broader discussion about migration, citizenship, political participation, and the capacity of democratic institutions to respond to contested policy issues in contemporary Europe.

11.30–11.40 Coffee Break

11.40–13.00 Session II: Social Tensions and Political Resentment

11.40–12.20 | Anatolie Coșciug
The West University of Timișoara | Center for Comparative Migration Studies
Strangers at Home: Attitudes towards Romanian National Return Migrants During Covid-19

Abstract

Scholars have long acknowledged the importance of understanding public attitudes towards immigrants and refugees but less has been researched on non-migrants’ attitudes towards co-national return migrants. This article draws on readers’ comments posted in reaction to news articles addressing the unprecedented Romanian return migration at the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic. Comments–with negative ones being particularly inflammatory–revealed that attitudes were largely shaped by migrants’ perceived skill level, political values, and social proximity. The article argues that these factors stigmatize returnees and highlight intragroup tensions exacerbated by return migration. Such tensions disproportionately affect precarious returnees, such as low skilled migrants and historically marginalized ethnic Roma.

12.20–13.00 | Bogdan Voicu
‘Lucian Blaga’ University of Sibiu | University of Bucharest National | University of Science and Technology POLITEHNICA | Bucharest Romanian Academy
Do anti-system parties feed the resent generated by transnational parenthood?

Abstract

In societies in which high uncertainty prevails, people tend to retreat towards more traditionalistic stances (Inglehart & Baker, 2000; Voicu, 2005) . Societal uncertainty also tends to create leverage for anti-system parties, that start to attract more voters (Corbetta, Colloca, Cavazza, & Roccato, 2018; Hanson, 1998; Hopkin, 2020) . We search for an extension of this argument, asking whether personal uncertainty could also create a higher propension towards sympathizing with anti-system parties. To test, we consider a rather atypical case, but charged with high personal uncertainty, namely the state of being in transnational parenthood (Carling, Menjívar, & Schmalzbauer, 2012; Ducu, Nedelcu, & Telegdi-Csetri, 2018).Transnational parenthood implies a high stress at the level of family relations, and may result in frustration and blaming the political system for this personal state. We hypothesize that anti-system parties, which typically voice the miscontent with the existing political and societal setup (Capoccia, 2016; Zulianello, 2019) may offer food to feed such resentment, and attract the transnational parents. A set of in-depth interviews with Romanian transnational parents allows us to explore the field and to depict mechanisms that may explain the vote for anti-system parties in most recent elections.

13.00–14.00 Lunch Break

14.00–15.20 Session III: Diaspora Representation and Homeland Politics

14.00–14.40 | Alexandru Volacu (online)
University of Bucharest
How Should We Electorally Include the Diaspora? The Problem of Constituency Design

Abstract

The wide majority of countries around the world allow citizens who emigrate to retain their right to vote in at least some types of elections (Collyer: 2014; IDEA: 2021). But while the question of how emigrants should be able to vote (e.g. exclusively in the home country, in-person abroad, through postal ballot, or through e-voting tools) has sometimes been addressed in the literature on electoral rights (Germann: 2021; Peltoniemi et al.: 2022), less attention has been paid to how emigrant votes should be counted. I start the discussion by outlining and rejecting the most influential arguments against emigrant voting, due to Lopez-Guerra (2005) and Rubio-Marin (2006), which, if successful, would undercut the problem of electoral design for the diaspora at its roots. I then draw on Spiro’s (2006) distinction between discrete and assimilated representation in external voting, defending the former over the latter. Subsequently, I argue in favour of a more precise model of constituency design for emigrants, which can be called unequal discrete representation, maintaining that there are both principled reasons to advocate for this model, as well as empirically contingent ones, such as – for example – the size of the diaspora in proportion to the home population.

14.40–15.20 | Daniela Vintilă
University of Liège | IMISCOE
The Link between Diaspora and Homeland Politics: Evidence from Spain and Perspectives for Future Research

Abstract

Over the past decades, diasporas’ engagement in homeland elections has become a highly salient issue, especially given the widespread implementation of enfranchisement policies for citizens living abroad. Spain constitutes a particularly relevant case within the European context due to its long-standing history of emigration, sizeable population abroad, shifting party dynamics following the rise of challenger parties, and important external voting reforms. Yet, little is known so far about the voting patterns of non-resident Spaniards or the way in which Spanish parties address emigration-related matters. This project seeks to address this gap by conceptually integrating theories of diaspora political engagement, electoral geography, issue salience, and party politics. It investigates the evolution of the diaspora–homeland political nexus in Spain over the past three decades through a dual analytical approach. First, it examines patterns of electoral (non)alignment between resident and non-resident voters using official data on turnout and party preferences. Second, it analyses parties’ stances on emigrants’ rights, based on electoral manifestos and interviews with leaders of party branches abroad. The project further aims to expand its scope through comparisons with other European countries with sizeable diasporas, as well as through a comparative examination of patterns of political participation and representation in connection to both emigrant and immigrant populations.

15.20–15.30 Coffee Break

15.30–16.50 Session IV: Public Discourse and Backlash

15.30–16.10 | Camelia Beciu
University of Bucharest | Romanian Academy
Migration as a public problem. Discourses and engagement practices in the Romanian public sphere

16.10–16.50 | Adelin Dumitru
National University of Science and Technology POLITEHNICA Bucharest
Citizen mobilization, anti-immigration backlash, and militant democracy redux

Abstract

Citizen apathy has traditionally been hailed as a hallmark of a moribund democracy. Conversely, citizen engagement has been appreciated as a steppingstone of a flourishing civic life, which in turn has been conceived as indispensable for healthy democracies (Putnam, Leonardi and Nonetti: 1993). In distinct fields, one can find seemingly disparate worries regarding citizen mobilization. In the literature on affective polarization, it has been argued that “it is mainly negative affect that fosters mobilization (Wagner: 2024; see also Mason: 2018). The concept of “bonding social capital” has also been employed to showcase the perils of social ties that reinforces antagonism towards the outgroup (Portes and Landolt: 2000, Putnam: 2000). Defenders of militant democracy (Loewenstein: 1937, Sajo: 2012) have expressed worries about how emotionally activated citizens could be used in anti-democratic ways (Malkopoulou: 2023). The present paper aims to bring together these various considerations and to make a case for a skeptical view regarding the democratic credentials of citizen mobilization. I focus mostly on the (still) recent anti-immigration backlash, marked by cases where citizens have formed anti-migrant vigilante groups. I argue that such instances of citizen mobilization are problematic from the standpoint of inclusive conceptions of democracy and pose a challenge for democratic theorists. More specifically, the anti-immigration backlash raises the question of whether to narrow down our understanding of democracy, or instead to embrace a militant form of democracy that restricts actions aimed at limiting the demos, be those actions conducted by political parties or regular citizens.

16.50–17.15 Final Discussion & Closing Remarks

*

This workshop is organized within the framework of the AMEROPA Fellowships program at New Europe College, supported by Ameropa Switzerland.