How Shared Values Shape Modern Immigration Policies

Introduction: Immigration Beyond Borders

Immigration policy has long been viewed through economic and security lenses—will newcomers contribute financially, and do they pose threats? Yet as 2025 unfolds, a third dimension increasingly shapes how nations approach immigration: cultural compatibility. The question is no longer simply whether immigrants can work or integrate linguistically, but whether they embrace fundamental values that define host societies.

This shift reflects recognition that successful immigration requires more than administrative efficiency or economic calculation. Russian shared values visa, which has attracted over 1,100 applicants since its August 2024 launch, exemplifies this trend by making ideological alignment the primary selection criterion. Yet Russia represents just the most explicit expression of a broader pattern—values increasingly shape immigration policy worldwide, from Canada's emphasis on "shared values and way of life" to European integration contracts requiring commitment to democratic principles.

Understanding how shared values influence modern immigration policies reveals fundamental tensions in contemporary governance: between openness and cohesion, diversity and unity, universal human rights and particular cultural traditions.

The Evolution of Immigration Policy Thinking

Immigration policy has evolved through distinct phases, each reflecting different assumptions about what matters most in selecting newcomers.

The early 20th century emphasized ethnic and national origins, with policies explicitly favoring certain racial groups. The United States' national origins quotas, Canada's "White Canada" policy, and Australia's "White Australia" policy all reflected belief that cultural compatibility correlated with ethnicity—a premise now universally rejected as discriminatory.

Post-World War II reforms dismantled explicitly racial criteria, replacing them with ostensibly neutral frameworks emphasizing skills, family connections, and humanitarian obligations. Points-based systems in Canada and Australia quantified applicants' economic potential through education, language proficiency, and work experience. This approach treated immigration as primarily an economic transaction—nations imported human capital much as they imported other production factors.

By the 21st century, however, policymakers increasingly recognized that economic metrics poorly predicted integration success. Research demonstrated that employment and language proficiency—while important—didn't guarantee social cohesion or prevent parallel societies where immigrants remained culturally isolated despite economic participation.

The 2015 European migration crisis crystallized these tensions. Millions arriving from Syria, Afghanistan, and elsewhere possessed varied skills and education levels, but debates centered less on economic contribution than cultural compatibility: Would predominantly Muslim refugees embrace secular democracy, gender equality, and religious pluralism? Could European nations maintain social cohesion while absorbing populations holding substantially different values?

These questions drove policy evolution toward explicit values consideration. Integration requirements expanded beyond language to include civic education covering national values. Citizenship tests increasingly assessed not just historical knowledge but commitment to democratic principles. By 2025, the logic had extended further: rather than trying to instill values post-arrival, why not select immigrants who already hold compatible worldviews?

What Do "Shared Values" Mean in the Context of Immigration?

In immigration policy, shared values meaning encompasses fundamental beliefs about how societies should organize themselves and how individuals should relate to communities, governments, and each other.

Shared values examples vary by context but typically include attitudes toward:

Democratic governance: Do applicants accept electoral democracy, rule of law, and peaceful power transitions? Or do they prefer authoritarian alternatives?

Gender equality: Do they support women's equal participation in public life, education, and employment? Or do they hold traditional hierarchical views?

Religious freedom: Do they accept religious diversity and secular governance? Or do they expect religious law to govern public life?

Individual rights: Do they prioritize individual liberties, or do they emphasize collective obligations and community harmony?

Different nations emphasize different values. Canada highlights multiculturalism, diversity, and inclusiveness. Russia emphasizes traditional family structures, religious values, and rejection of progressive social policies. Germany focuses on constitutional democracy, human dignity, and Holocaust remembrance.

Shared human values like honesty, respect, and responsibility exist across cultures, but their application varies dramatically. "Respect" might mean accepting others' lifestyle choices in Amsterdam or conforming to community norms in more traditional societies. These differences make values assessment complex—universal principles manifest through culturally specific expressions.

Case Studies and Examples

Canada's Value-Conscious Approach

Canada's 2025 Immigration Report explicitly references attracting people "drawn to our shared values and way of life." While maintaining points-based economic selection, Canada increasingly emphasizes civic integration. The country reached 7.2% French-speaking admissions outside Quebec in 2024, exceeding targets—demonstrating how values (linguistic-cultural preservation) shape numerical goals.

Canadian citizenship tests assess knowledge of democratic values, human rights, and gender equality. Applicants must understand that "Canada's openness and generosity do not extend to barbaric cultural practices" like forced marriage or honor killings. This language explicitly frames certain values as non-negotiable Canadian identity markers.

Germany's Integration Requirements

Germany's enhanced 2023 Skilled Immigration Act (expanded in 2025) combines economic criteria with strong integration support emphasizing value alignment. Integration courses cover not just language but Wertevermittlung (values transmission)—teaching democratic principles, gender equality, and religious freedom as foundational German values.

The approach assumes that economic contribution alone doesn't guarantee successful immigration; newcomers must embrace constitutional values to fully participate in German society. This represents sophisticated understanding that sharing values facilitates both individual wellbeing and social cohesion.

European Integration Contracts

The Netherlands pioneered "participation contracts" requiring newcomers to engage in civic education and language learning during their first year. Similar models across Europe mandate learning about national values, legal systems, and cultural expectations.

These contracts reflect belief that successful integration requires active commitment to shared core values rather than passive tolerance. Research from the Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX) demonstrates that countries with comprehensive integration policies—including explicit values components—achieve better long-term outcomes than those focusing solely on labor market access.

United States' Shifting Approach

U.S. policy changes in 2025 include Executive Order 14161 requiring assessment of programs promoting "loyalty to U.S. laws, values, and founding principles." While less explicit than other nations, this signals growing American emphasis on civic integration and values alignment beyond economic contribution.

The proposed framework emphasizes that immigration should "reflect our American values" while creating pathways for those with "long ties to the U.S. to earn citizenship." This language suggests that demonstrated values commitment over time matters alongside formal qualifications.

Russia's Explicit Values-Based Selection

Russia's program represents values-based immigration's most explicit form. By waiving language tests and quotas for applicants rejecting "destructive neoliberal ideologies," Russia makes philosophical alignment the primary criterion—an approach unprecedented in modern immigration history.

Benefits of Value-Driven Immigration Policy

Values-conscious immigration policies offer several advantages over purely economic frameworks.

Enhanced Integration Outcomes: Research from USC Dornsife demonstrates that even modest integration requirements—employment, language proficiency, basic values alignment—dramatically increase public support for immigration, particularly among conservatives where support rose 15 percentage points. More importantly, immigrants selected partly for values compatibility integrate faster and more completely.

Social Cohesion: When newcomers genuinely share the same values as receiving communities rather than merely coexisting, social trust increases. This reduces friction, minimizes parallel society formation, and strengthens national unity—benefits that extend far beyond economic metrics.

Sustainable Public Support: Immigration systems that ignore values concerns risk populist backlash that threatens entire programs. By acknowledging culture's legitimate role in immigration, values-conscious policies build broader coalitions supporting continued mobility.

Improved Migrant Wellbeing: Individuals relocating to societies genuinely aligned with their shared values and beliefs experience greater satisfaction, stronger community connections, and better mental health than those in culturally incompatible environments.

Challenges and Ethical Considerations

Despite benefits, values-based immigration raises serious concerns.

Measurement Difficulties: Assessing sincere values commitment proves extraordinarily challenging. How do officials distinguish genuine belief from strategic performance? Unlike verifiable credentials, philosophical commitments resist objective evaluation, creating opportunities for bias and discrimination.

Diversity Trade-offs: Immigration nations have historically derived strength from bringing together people with different perspectives. Values-based selection prioritizing ideological homogeneity may sacrifice innovative tension that drives social and economic dynamism.

Human Rights Concerns: When does legitimate values assessment become discriminatory belief testing? International human rights frameworks protect freedom of thought and conscience—values-based immigration potentially conflicts with these protections by selecting based on beliefs rather than actions.

Implementation Inconsistencies: Different officials may interpret values criteria differently, creating arbitrary outcomes. Without clear standards, values assessment risks becoming a vehicle for prejudice masked as legitimate cultural concern.

Exclusion of Refugees: Values-based frameworks sit uncomfortably with humanitarian obligations. Asylum seekers fleeing persecution cannot be expected to already hold destination country values—yet they deserve protection regardless of philosophical compatibility.

Conclusion: Toward a Values-Based Future

The integration of shared values into immigration policy reflects mature recognition that culture matters profoundly for integration success. Purely economic frameworks that treat immigrants as interchangeable production units ignore psychological and social dimensions essential to both individual wellbeing and community cohesion.

Yet values-conscious immigration requires careful calibration. Legitimate concern for cultural compatibility must not become a pretext for discrimination or retreat from diversity's benefits. The challenge facing policymakers in 2025 and beyond involves developing frameworks that honor culture's importance while preserving openness, protecting human rights, and maintaining the cosmopolitan dynamism that has made immigration nations prosperous.

Programs like the shared values visa represent experiments in this calibration—attempts to explicitly address cultural questions that traditional policies left implicit. Whether these experiments succeed in creating more sustainable immigration systems or simply codify exclusion under philosophical veneer will determine immigration policy's trajectory for decades to come.