중앙-지방 협력적 이민정책을 위한 이민법 체계의 정합성 확보 방안

최철영,노영돈 강원대학교 비교법학연구소 2025 강원법학 Vol.78 No.-

이민정책에 있어 지역의 역할 확대와 이민 전담 행정기관으로서 이민청의 신설을 포함한 외국인 이주자 지역 정주 유도에 대한 수요가 강력하게 요구되고 있다. 우리나라가 직면해 있는 세계에 유례가 없는 급격한 인구감소와 이로 인한 지방소멸 그리고 국가 지속성 위기 때문이다. 하지만 현재 우리나라의 이민 법제는 국가의 개방성과 국가 구성원의 다양성을 실현하기 위한 정책으로서 이민정책의 원칙과 방향에 대한 입법적 합의가 없이, 단일민족국가의 정체성에 기초한 중앙정부의 국가적 관리기능에 방점을 두고 있어 외국 이주민의 적극적 유치 및 지역사회 정주를 유도하는 이민정책의 전환에 충분히 대응하기 어렵다. 새로운 이민정책 환경과 수요에 대응하기 위해서는 현재의 외국인 이주자 단기순환원칙을 이주자 정주화원칙으로 접근관점을 전환하고, 이민정책에서 지역의 역할이 확대‧강화될 수 있도록 제도화하는 이민법 체계의 전면적 정비가 필요하다. 특히 지역의 이민정책 역량을 높이고 지역 중심 이민정책을 실효성 있게 추진하기 위해 광역지방자치단체에 이민 전담 조직을 설치하도록 하고 중앙-지방 이민정책 협의체를 신설하도록 하는 등 이민의 전 과정에 대응하는 입법체계의 재정비가 요구된다. 이 글에서는 우리나라 이민정책 환경의 근본적 변화 현실과 현행 이민 관련 법제의 법적 쟁점을 검토하였다. 이를 통해 외국인 정책이 아닌 이민정책의 입법적 수용, 이민정책의 목적과 원칙 확립, 지방자치단체의 이민정책 관련 권한 확대, 중앙-지방 이민정책 협의체의 신설을 포함하는 ‘(가칭)외국인 및 이민기본법’의 입법 필요성을 제시하였다. 또한 이민 전 과정의 각 단계에 대응하는 법제를 국가기능 중심의 국경관리법제, 지방자치단체 기능 중심의 외국인이주자체류법제, 중앙정부와 지방자치단체의 기능적 협력을 확대하는 다문화사회통합법제 등으로 구분하는 이민 법제의 새로운 입법체계 구축 방향을 제시하였다. There is an urgent need for an immigration policy that induces local settlement of foreign migrants, including the expansion of the role of local government in immigration policy and the establishment of an immigration agency. This is due to the rapid population decline unprecedented in the world facing South Korea, resulting in local disappearance and national sustainability crisis. However, as a policy to realize national openness and diversity of national members, there is no legislative agreement on the principles and direction of immigration policy, and the current immigration legislation, which focuses on the central government's national management function based on the identity of a single ethnic state, cannot adequately respond to the shift in immigration policy that induces active attraction of foreign migrants and settlement in local communities. In particular, it is necessary to establish a legislative system to respond to the entire process of immigration, such as establishing an immigration organization in local governments and establishing a central-local immigration policy consultative body to enhance regional immigration policy capabilities and effectively promote regional-oriented immigration policies. This article reviewed the reality of major changes in the immigration policy environment and the legal issues of the current immigration-related legislation. Through this, the basis for the legislative necessity of the Foreigners and Immigration Act, which includes the legislative acceptance of immigration policies, the purpose and principles of immigration policies, expansion of immigration policy-related authority of local governments, and the establishment of a central-local immigration policy consultative body, was presented. It also suggested the direction of establishing a new legislative system for immigration legislation, such as a national function-oriented border management law, a local government function-oriented foreigner stay law, and a multicultural social integration law which is centered on functional cooperation between the central government and local governments.

경계분석을 활용한 이민정책 구조화에 관한 연구: 이민정책 연구에 나타난 정책문제 및 정책과제를 중심으로

이혜경 중앙대학교 국가정책연구소 2020 국가정책연구 Vol.34 No.3

The purpose of this study is to attempt structuring by extracting arguments expressing the problem situation from previous studies on immigration policy and drawing boundaries. The elements of the arguments on the policy issues and the policy tasks raised for this purpose were converted into meta-data to establish boundaries for each area. Subsequently, a policy was proposed in comparison with the current policy. As a result of the structuring analysis, policy promotion is required to approach tourism and investment, immigrant human rights, Koreans policy, and refugee policy from the perspective of immigration policy. The implications derived by comparing the structuring result of the immigration policy with the current policy are as follows. First, the budget for ‘integration’ of central administrative agencies should be significantly increased. Second, there is a need to raise interest in ‘supporting settlement by immigration stage and fostering healthy members of society’. Third, it is necessary to lay the foundation for ‘the expansion of immigrants' participation in the local community’. Fourth, there is a need for an ‘immigration administration organization’ that will oversee the policies distributed in each ministry. Fifth, interest in ‘improving the immigration law system’ and ‘establishing a vision for immigration integration’ is required. 본 연구는 이민정책에 관한 선행연구에서 문제상황 표현 주장을 추출하여 경계를 분류하고 구조화하는 데 목적이 있다. 이를 위해 제기된 정책문제 및 정책과제에 대한 주장의 요소들을 메타 자료화하여 영역별 경계를 설정하였다. 이어서 현재 추진되고 있는 정책과 비교하여 정책 제안하였다. 구조화 분석 결과 관광·투자, 이민자 인권, 동포정책, 난민정책 등을 이민정책 관점에서 접근하도록 정책 홍보가 요구된다. 이민정책 문제 구조화 결과를 현행 정책 내용과 비교하여 도출된 시사점은 다음과 같다. 첫째, 중앙행정기관의 ‘통합’ 관련 예산규모를 대폭 늘려야 한다. 둘째, ‘이민단계별 정착 지원 및 건전한 사회구성원 양성’에 대한 관심 제고가 필요하다. 셋째, ‘이민자의 지역사회 참여 확대’ 추진의 제도기반 조성이 요구된다. 넷째, 각 부처에 분산된 정책을 총괄할 ‘이민행정조직 정비’가 요구된다. 다섯째, ‘이민법 제도 개선’, ‘이민통합 비전 구축’에 대한 관심이 요구된다.

이민정책의 법제와 헌법적 과제

김병록 미국헌법학회 2020 美國憲法硏究 Vol.31 No.2

Since 2000 there has been a global trend towards a policy shift towards expansion and inclusion in immigration policy. South Korea is no exception to these global changes. This paper examines 3 different periods in immigration policy in the last 20 years in Korea. Ministry of Justice has taken a key role on immigration policy. Ministry of Foreign Affairs has taken a key role on public diplomacy. But immigration policy and public diplomacy are two different things. A joint between immigration policy and public diplomacy is a new idea in Korea. Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Foreign Affairs decided to break with the long tradition and try something new. And this joint is quite without precedent. Immigration policies study that make up the type of membership and the legal status in multicultural society. therefore, it is necessary to study the macroscopic at the level of social integration. The government's immigration policy problems began in earnest after the 2006 immigration policy and a variety of other programs actively developed multicultural society. Also, It’s social integration policies the installation such as social integration support measures of immigrant women family, mixed race and immigrant support measures, limiting the treatment of foreigners, Multicultural Family Support Center. Thus, immigration policy and the multicultural reality of domestic support policies should be determined by considering the level. In addition, the overall understanding of multicultural factors for the disorder should be considered highly and immigration policy by setting a clear direction and goals of the system and must go step by step. So, this paper asks whether international migration can reverse or at least slow anticipated aging trends in Korea. This paper deals with the relationship between pro-natalist policy and international migration policy in Korea, international migration trends around Korea, replacement migration in future Korea, and current issues of international migration policy of Korea. 2000년대 이후 전 세계적으로 이민정책이 확대와 포섭의 방향으로 전개되고 있다. 우리의 경우도 예외는 아니어서, 2004년 고용허가제 그리고 2007년 방문취업제 및 재한외국인 처우 기본법의 시행 등으로 한국의 이민정책도 확대와 포섭의 방향으로 나아가고 있다. 흔히 ‘다문화 정책’이라는 용어가 많이 사용되고 있지만, 한국의 공문서에서는 한글로는 ‘외국인 정책’, 영어로는 ‘immigration policy’가 사용된다. 그리고 법무부는 국적법을 고려하여 ‘이민정책’이라는 용어를 사용하고, 여성가족부 등 다수의 중앙부처에서는 관례적으로 ‘다문화 정책’이라는 용어가 사용된다. 이처럼 용어도 통일되지 않은 상태에서 정책이 추진되고 있고, 온정주의에 기초한 지원에 치중하는 반면 사회통합의 역할은 제대로 수행하지 못하는 것이 현실이다. 특히 다양성의 증가가 필연적으로 사회통합을 약화시킨다는 사실을 간과하고 있다. 즉 사회통합을 가져오는 것은 다양성의 양적 증가가 아니라 다양성을 인정하는 개방적 태도의 질적 증가이다. 다문화 시대의 이민정책은 국가를 구성하는 구성원의 유형과 법적 지위에 대한 연구에 해당하기 때문에 사회통합 차원에서의 거시적인 접근이 필요하다. 우리 정부는 다문화사회의 이민정책이라는 문제가 본격적으로 시작된 2007년 이후 각종의 이민정책과 다양한 프로그램들을 적극적으로 개발하였고, 여성 결혼이민자 가족의 사회통합 지원 대책, 혼혈인 및 이주자 지원방안, 재한외국인 처우개선, 다문화가족지원센터 설치 등의 사회통합정책을 시행하고 있다. 이민정책 및 다문화 지원정책을 실시하기 위해서는 국내의 실태를 고려하여 그 수준을 결정해야 하고, 체류 외국인의 인권을 국제적 수준으로 보장하는 문제를 포함하여, 다문화가정에 대한 전반적인 이해를 토대로 장애 요인들을 적극 고려하여 이민정책의 방향과 목표를 명확히 설정한 후 체계적이고 단계적으로 나아가야 한다. 이 논문에서는 한국에서 이민이 인구 고령화의 충격을 해소할 수 있는가, 아니면 적어도 그 추세를 늦출 수 있을 것인가를 염두에 두고, 인구 고령화에 대한 대책으로서 이민정책의 여러 가지 문제를 고찰한다. 그리고 한국에서 발생하는 국제인구이동의 규모와 추이를 파악하고, 그에 관한 정부의 이민정책을 전반적으로 평가하여 제도 개선을 위한 헌법적・법제적・정책적 제안을 하고자 한다.

특집2: 우리나라의 이주법제 현황과 문제점 및 개선방안 : 한국의 이민정책과 이민정책 총괄기구 설치에 관한 논의와 과제

유의정 ( Eui Jung Yo ) 건국대학교 법학연구소 2013 一鑑法學 Vol.0 No.26

Current immigration policy in Republic of Korea can be divided into foreigner influx policy and social integration policy combining foreigners and local citizens. Visa system improvement and toleration on dual citizenship among those policies are in progress in order to attract foreign human resources. However, such immigration control policy alone is circumscribed to attract talented foreigners into the country. In order to lure them, social environment development, which allows foreigners to live together, along with other aspects of governmental support, such as children education, social welfare, and tax benefit is more important. For immigrant workers, who are technical posts of production, they have been contributing to produce industrial manpower, by working in labor section most Koreans avoid getting into. On the other hand, the control cultivation to prevent illegal immigration along with accurate analysis on proper demand of manpower would have to be preceded due to the fact that an indiscreet influx of foreign simple technical posts of production could increase social cost in a long run. In light of social integration policy, multicultural policy on immigrants is blamed for being in progress competitively overlapping among the branches of government. Enactment of fundamental law systematically integrating diffuse individual laws and establishing further individual law for immigration policy need to be considered in order to coordinate the interministerially overlapping elements and to establish interface system. Moreover, encouraging conducting more efficient immigration policy, by expanding and reorganizing foreigner immigration bureau to ‘immigration?multicultural office(an assumed title)’ could be under consideration. Establishing the conception of immigration policy and medium and long term policy including new organization considering immigrants` percentage of the current population, by integrating ‘immigration policy committee in Korea(committee person Prime Minister)’, ‘foreign human resources policy committee(committee person Minister of the Prime Minister`s Office)’, and ‘multicultural family policy committee(committee person Minister of the Prime Minister`s Office)’, which are currently divided as individual committees under the Prime Minister in order to control appropriate influx of foreign professionals and technical posts of production, illegal immigrants, and social integration of marriagebased immigrants need to be seriously considered as a monitoring committee taking a role as a control tower for immigration policy.

한국 이민정책의 통합적 작동을 위한 조건탐색

김태환 ( Taehwan Kim ) 성균관대학교 국정전문대학원 2017 국정관리연구 Vol.12 No.1

The Korea`s immigration policy that has approximately 15 years of history is now at a turning point. The Korean government has launched its immigration policy since around the year 2000 in full force. A policy literally means that a central or local governments set up an official plan with specific goals for the general public, but in fact, the Korea`s immigration policy is regarded to have a shorter history in this sense. In 2016, the immigration policy in Korea in force is dominated by the central government. The department in the central government, which has the most influential power is the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family in charge of marriage-based immigrant women. The problem lies on that the multicultural family policy takes up too large portion in budget of the entire immigration policy. It does not simply mean that it occupies far more manpower, organizations and budget than other immigrant groups or multicultural groups. The critical problem is how the entire general public in Korea think of the immigration policy and immigrants, and how they perceive the issue of multiculturalism, multicultural society, and multicultural policy. The Korea`s immigration policy leads people to fix their mislead conception about it, rather than helping them to have well-balanced perception, due to differences in target groups and goals among the central and local governments. The gap has gone so far now that we cannot neglect it. Thus, this study has reinterpreted the reality of the Korea`s immigration policy, dividing it into three categories, `excessive focus on multicultural family policy`, `growing inequality among immigrants by separating target groups`, and `deepening perception gap among people`, with a view to redefining conditions necessary for integrated operation of the policy. Within the framework, this study has suggested `new placement of government organizations`, `enactment of integrated immigration act` and `setup of long-term immigration and multicultural education system` as conditions for integrated operation of the immigration policy, in order to integrate immigrants and domestic people in the Korean society.

이민정책 이론에 관한 시론(時論)과 방향

이혜경 대한정치학회 2019 대한정치학회보 Vol.27 No.1

This study aims to suggest the direction of theoretical research to support the promotion of future immigration policy through analysis and typification of domestic and foreign prior research on immigration policy theory on the premise that it is necessary to discuss the immigration policy. The implications of the analysis results are as follows: First, neoclassical political economics theory confirms that immigration policy demand is determined by the benefits and costs incurred by immigration opening. Second, in the theory of new institutionalism, it was revealed that the state, international norms, and self-restricted sovereignty are the main determinants of immigration policy. Third, in the immigration policy paradox theory, inherent paradoxes related to national security, intrinsic value, border management, cultural diversity, and national interests are factors affecting public perception. Fourth, immigration policy change factors in the punctuated equilibrium theory are environmental factors, key factors, immigration policy orientation and purpose, and policy changes. Fifth, in a multidimensional perspective, economic efficiency related to immigration policy, distribution structure, socio-cultural aspect, social safety and public order affect the countries that accept immigrants. Sixth, in the immigration type decision theory, labor policy, integration policy, and settlement policy are determined according to the type of state accepting immigration. Seventh, the theory of social integration policy emphasized the active immigrant integration policy of countries that accept immigrants. The direction of the Korean immigration policy study should be multilayered and multidimensional as well as macroscopic and microscopic dimensions, and the approach of interaction perspective should be considered. 본 연구는 이민정책 공론화 논의가 필요함을 전제로 이민정책 이론에 관한 국내・외 선행연구 분석 및 유형화를 통해 향후 한국 이민정책 추진을 뒷받침할 이론 정립 연구의 방향을 구하여 제시하고자 하였다. 분석 결과의 시사점은 다음과 같다. 첫째, 신고전주의 정치경제학 이론에서는 이민개방으로 인해 발생하는 이익과 비용에 의해 이민정책 수요가 결정됨을 확인하였다. 둘째, 신제도주의 이론에서 국가, 국제규범, 자기제한적 주권이 이민정책 결정의 주체임이 드러났다. 셋째, 이민정책 패러독스 이론에서 국민안전, 고유가치, 국경관리, 문화다양성, 국가이익과 관련된 내재된 패러독스가 국민 인식에 영향을 미치는 요인이다. 넷째, 단속평형이론에서 이민정책 변동 영향요인은 환경적 요인, 핵심 변동요인, 이민정책 지향 및 목적, 정책변화 정도이다. 다섯째, 다차원적 관점 접근에서 이민정책과 관련된 경제적 효율성, 분배구조, 사회문화적 측면, 사회안전과 공공질서가 유입국에 영향을 주는 요인이다. 여섯째, 이민유형 결정 이론에서 국가가 이민을 수용하는 유형에 따라 노동정책, 통합정책, 정주정책이 결정된다. 일곱째, 사회통합정책 이론에서 유입국의 적극적인 이민자 통합정책이 강조되었다. 한국 이민정책 이론 연구의 방향은 거시적, 미시적 차원만이 아니라 다층적, 다차원적이어야 하며, 상호작용 관점의 접근도 고려되어야 한다.

이민정책 거버넌스 현황과 발전방안 연구: 조직과 제도를 중심으로

이성순 중앙대학교 문화콘텐츠기술연구원 2024 다문화콘텐츠연구 Vol.- No.49

Among the demographic factors such as birth, death, and international migration, birth and death policies are effectively discussed through the overall organization called the low birth rate and aging society committee, while immigration policy is lacking in establishing governance for systematic and comprehensive immigration policy promotion due to fragmentation by department, overlapping policy targets, inefficiency in execution, and absence of coordination mechanisms. As a way to develop immigration policy governance, first, a control tower for unifying immigration-related work is required, and through this, basic immigration policy plans and implementation plans should be established and promoted through substantial consultation with not only central administrative agencies but also local governments. Second, the immigration-related policy committee under the Prime Minister should be integrated and the committee should be granted substantial deliberation and resolution authority. Third, since immigration-related laws are enforced as individual laws by each ministry, there are issues such as unclear subjects of application, inconsistency between laws, and lack of consultation between ministries, and therefore, enactment of an integrated immigration law is required. Fourth, a coordination mechanism based on local government laws and regulations is required for the implementation of regional immigration policies. Lastly, there is a need to improve policies on how immigration-related work of central government ministries should be transferred to the Immigration Office and promoted, and to establish a system for collecting public opinion and monitoring local governments when establishing immigration policies.

다문화주의에서 시민통합으로: 네덜란드의 이민자 통합정책

설동훈,이병하 한국정치외교사학회 2013 한국정치외교사논총 Vol.35 No.1

This paper aims to examine immigrants integration policy in the Netherlands, which has been paid attentions when the key political leaders in Europe recently declared the failure of multiculturalism. Studying the Dutch case is worthwhile because the Netherlands was a pioneer who took initiatives in shifting the basic direction of immigrants integration policy from multiculturalism to civic integration. The idea of civic integration claims that the basic knowledge of language, history, and institution for receiving countries is indispensable to immigrant integration. We investigate the legal status of marriage-migrants, which indicates tougher restrictions on family migration. We also explore the current implementation system for social incorporation policy which includes the contents, programs, and implementation system for social incorporation policy as well as its governance system. Social integration policies for immigrants are covered by the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations and the Immigration and Naturalization Service in cooperation with the Ministry of Security and Justice, the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. While the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations establishes immigration policy, the Immigration and Naturalization Service implements that policy. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs issues visas, and the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport is in charge of welfare policy and family policy. The Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment takes responsibility of labor market policy. The Ministry of Education, Culture and Science is responsible for education policy. Since the 1990s, neoliberal ideas that emphasized personal responsibility were reflected on immigration policies. As immigration controls have been strengthened, the social integration policies for immigrants have been in decline. 최근 유럽의 정상들이 다문화주의의 실패를 선언하면서 네덜란드의 이민자 사회통합정책이 주목받고 있다. 왜냐하면 유럽의 이민자 사회통합정책이 다문화주의 모델에서 시민통합 정책으로 선회하고 있는데 이를 가장 먼저 주도한 국가가 네덜란드이기 때문이다. 시민통합 정책은 이민자들이 수용국 사회의 언어, 역사, 제도에 대한 기본적 지식을 습득하는 것이 이민자 통합에서 필수적임을 강조하고 있다. 본 연구는 네덜란드의 변화된 이민자 사회통합정책에서 중요한 요소인 가족이민의 조건 강화 중 특히 결혼이민자의 법적 지위, 이민자 사회통합정책의 추진체계를 분석하고, 이민자 사회통합정책을 두 가지로 나누어 이민자 대상 사회통합정책과 시민 대상 사회통합정책으로 나누어 살펴보고자 한다. 네덜란드의 이민자 사회통합 관련 업무는 내무·왕국관계부와 이민·귀화청이 법무부, 보건·복지·스포츠부, 사회·고용부, 교육·문화·과학부, 외무부 등과 협조 관계를 맺으며 추진한다. 내무·왕국관계부에서는 이민정책 수립 기능을 맡고, 이민·귀화청에서는 이민정책의 집행기능을 맡는다. 외국인의 입국 관리, 불법체류자 단속과 강제 퇴거 업무는 범무부에서 담당한다. 외무부는 사증업무, 보건·복지·스포츠부는 복지정책과 가족정책, 사회·고용부는 노동시장 정책, 교육·문화·과학부에서는 교육정책을 다룬다. 1990년대 이후 ‘개인의 책임’을 강조하는 신자유주의 정책이 이민정책에도 투영되면서, 네덜란드의 이민자 사회통합정책은 이민통제를 강화하는 정책들에 밀려 퇴조하였다.

적녹연정(1998-2005)의 이민정책 - 이민법 제정을 둘러싼 정당간의 논쟁을 중심으로

한국독일사학회 2008 독일연구 Vol.- No.15

<P>This study describes the alien and immigration policy of Germany"s Red-Green Alliance(1998-2005) with a critical viewpoint by analyzing related legislation processes and debates among German political parties. In particular, Gr?eand SPD"s positions on immigration issues and policy intentions are reviewed and compared with those of other parties, and social implications of the immigration law that Red-Green Alliance formulated and enacted are analyzed.</P><P> In the 1990s, Germany"s immigration policy maintained a political rhetoric of not allowing immigration legally and officially. In reality, however, a paradoxical phenomenon happened and various forms of immigration took place. German political parties had difficulty in solving immigration issues rationally and realistically because they used alien issues as political tools to maintain or recover political power.</P><P> The immigration policy shown in “Immigration Law”, which was enacted in 2004, focused on social integration for aliens. Yet it failed to bring a transition of paradigm in the field of labor immigration that could increase new immigrants. Germany"s immigration policy allows the influx of alien labor power within limited categories of labor market policy, but it puts policy priority on encouraging aliens to stay in Germany for a short period of time and return to their countries rather than giving them citizenship and allowing them to stay for a long period of time.</P><P> The German government"s social integration policy did not recognize the cultural difference of aliens. It regarded integration as aliens" adjusting to the German culture and value standards. The German government promotes an integration principle of “support and demand” and implements a double strategy of “selecting” or “excluding” aliens.</P>

Between Global Norms and Domestic Institutions: Postwar Immigration Policy-making in Canada and the United States

Phil Triadafilopoulos 서울대학교 미국학연구소 2008 미국학 Vol.31 No.1

Although both Canada and the United States are self-declared immigration countries, their means of regulating admissions are quite different. Whereas the United States privileges family reunification, Canada’s “points system” grants policymakers greater flexibility in tailoring immigration flows to meet changing economic needs. This paper explores the origins of these distinct approaches. I argue the two states’ policies have similar roots: In the post-World War II era, changing norms pertaining to race, ethnicity, and human rights cast longstanding discriminatory policies in Canada and the United States in a highly critical light. Opponents of racial discrimination in immigration policy took advantage of this new normative context to highlight the lack of fit between Canada and the United States’ commitment to liberal norms and human rights and their extant policy regimes. This pressure set in motion comparable processes of policy “stretching” and “unraveling,” which culminated in policy “shifting” in the mid-1960s. Processes of policy change were, however, subject to quite different political dynamics. Canada’s institutional configuration granted the executive branch and bureaucracy a high degree of autonomy; policy change therefore accorded to models of elite learning. Conversely, the greater openness of the American political system and the pivotal role of Congressional committees led to a more politicized process. As a result, the executive branch’s efforts to recast immigration policy in economic terms, as in Canada, failed. The result was a patchwork policy that aimed to mollify distinct and conflicting interests. Thus, while Canada and the United States both replaced discriminatory policies with more liberal alternatives, the objectives of their respective policies were quite different. Although both Canada and the United States are self-declared immigration countries, their means of regulating admissions are quite different. Whereas the United States privileges family reunification, Canada’s “points system” grants policymakers greater flexibility in tailoring immigration flows to meet changing economic needs. This paper explores the origins of these distinct approaches. I argue the two states’ policies have similar roots: In the post-World War II era, changing norms pertaining to race, ethnicity, and human rights cast longstanding discriminatory policies in Canada and the United States in a highly critical light. Opponents of racial discrimination in immigration policy took advantage of this new normative context to highlight the lack of fit between Canada and the United States’ commitment to liberal norms and human rights and their extant policy regimes. This pressure set in motion comparable processes of policy “stretching” and “unraveling,” which culminated in policy “shifting” in the mid-1960s. Processes of policy change were, however, subject to quite different political dynamics. Canada’s institutional configuration granted the executive branch and bureaucracy a high degree of autonomy; policy change therefore accorded to models of elite learning. Conversely, the greater openness of the American political system and the pivotal role of Congressional committees led to a more politicized process. As a result, the executive branch’s efforts to recast immigration policy in economic terms, as in Canada, failed. The result was a patchwork policy that aimed to mollify distinct and conflicting interests. Thus, while Canada and the United States both replaced discriminatory policies with more liberal alternatives, the objectives of their respective policies were quite different.