The B.E.Journal of Economic Analysis Policy,Vol.7 [2007],Iss.I (Advances),Art.62 tion for the US,Hanson,Scheve and Slaughter(2005)establish similar evidence and conclude that labour market pressures of immigration are an important determinant of public opinion on immigration restrictions. Labour market competition may,however,not be the only economic con- cern which forms preferences over immigration.According to Borjas (1999a. p.105),the second economic issue in the historical debate over immigration policy in the United States is whether immigrants pay their way in the welfare system.He argues that in the US,immigrants receive a disproportionately large share of the welfare benefits distributed.Borjas(1999a)draws attention to the possible impact of immigration on dependency ratios and the conse- quent effects on the cost of the benefit and social security systems.Since, under progressive taxation,any implied tax burden will bear more heavily on richer households,this provides a possible reason for greater concern among those with higher incomes. There is evidence that public opinion is guided by the view that more immi- grants are an additional burden on the welfare system.Simon(1989)provides a history of anecdotal evidence on public opinion towards further immigration, where both welfare considerations and labour market fears are the two major concerns.Dustmann and Preston (2005),investigating the determinants of the economic impact of immigration,find that welfare considerations are the largest single factor of concern,and more important than labour market con- cerns.3 Using cross-state variation in the US,Hanson,Scheve and Slaughter present evidence that exposure to immigrant fiscal pressure reduces support for immigration in particular among the more skilled.Facchini and Mayda (2006)study welfare-state determinants of individual attitudes towards immi- grants.Based on cross-country data,they report attitudinal responses which they argue make sense in the context of a redistributive fiscal system. In addition to these two economic determinants,there are also non-economic channels through which preferences over further immigration may be shaped. Opposition to immigration may be motivated by reasons which relate to the cultural and ethnic difference of the immigrant population.Opposition may be fueled by a fear of loss of national characteristics and identity,or a taste for cultural homogeneity.Cultural and ethnic distance may severely hinder the social integration process,and this may be considered to induce social ten- sions and costs.There is ample evidence that deeply rooted hostility exists towards immigration groups with largely different cultural and ethnic back- 3Dustmann and Preston's analysis focusses on responses to a question about the economic consequences of immigration.not on whether immigration regulations should be tightened. as do most of the other papers cited. http://www.bepress.com/bejeap/vol7/iss1/art62 2tion for the US, Hanson, Scheve and Slaughter (2005) establish similar evidence and conclude that labour market pressures of immigration are an important determinant of public opinion on immigration restrictions. Labour market competition may, however, not be the only economic con￾cern which forms preferences over immigration. According to Borjas (1999a, p.105), the second economic issue in the historical debate over immigration policy in the United States is whether immigrants pay their way in the welfare system. He argues that in the US, immigrants receive a disproportionately large share of the welfare beneÖts distributed. Borjas (1999a) draws attention to the possible impact of immigration on dependency ratios and the conse￾quent e§ects on the cost of the beneÖt and social security systems. Since, under progressive taxation, any implied tax burden will bear more heavily on richer households, this provides a possible reason for greater concern among those with higher incomes. There is evidence that public opinion is guided by the view that more immi￾grants are an additional burden on the welfare system. Simon (1989) provides a history of anecdotal evidence on public opinion towards further immigration, where both welfare considerations and labour market fears are the two major concerns. Dustmann and Preston (2005), investigating the determinants of the economic impact of immigration, Önd that welfare considerations are the largest single factor of concern, and more important than labour market con￾cerns.3 Using cross-state variation in the US, Hanson, Scheve and Slaughter present evidence that exposure to immigrant Öscal pressure reduces support for immigration in particular among the more skilled. Facchini and Mayda (2006) study welfare-state determinants of individual attitudes towards immi￾grants. Based on cross-country data, they report attitudinal responses which they argue make sense in the context of a redistributive Öscal system. In addition to these two economic determinants, there are also non-economic channels through which preferences over further immigration may be shaped. Opposition to immigration may be motivated by reasons which relate to the cultural and ethnic di§erence of the immigrant population. Opposition may be fueled by a fear of loss of national characteristics and identity, or a taste for cultural homogeneity. Cultural and ethnic distance may severely hinder the social integration process, and this may be considered to induce social ten￾sions and costs. There is ample evidence that deeply rooted hostility exists towards immigration groups with largely di§erent cultural and ethnic back- 3Dustmann and Prestonís analysis focusses on responses to a question about the economic consequences of immigration, not on whether immigration regulations should be tightened, as do most of the other papers cited. 2 The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, Vol. 7 [2007], Iss. 1 (Advances), Art. 62 http://www.bepress.com/bejeap/vol7/iss1/art62