Legalisation cannot be fully explained by interest politics. If that were the case, the attitudes towards legalisation would be expected to be based on objective interests and actual policies in France and Germany would be expected to be more similar. Nor can it be explained by institutional agency, because there are no hints that states struggle with different normative traditions. Rather, political actors seek to make use of the structures that already exist to guar-antee legitimacy for their actions. If the main concern of governmental actors really is to accumulate legitimacy, as stated in the introduction, then politicians have a good starting position in the case of legalisation of illegal foreigners. Citizens" negative attitudes towards legalisation cannot be explained by imagined labour market competition; income effects play only a secondary role. The most important explanatory factor is the educational level of each individual. Objective interests do not trigger attitudes towards legalisation, but rather a basic men-tal predisposition for or against illegal immigrants who are eligible for legalisation. Politics concerning amnesties are thus not tied to an objectively given structure like the socio-economic composition of the electorate, but are open for political discretion. Attitudes on legalising illegal immigrants can be regarded as being mediated by beliefs and perceptions, which can be used by political agents or altered by political developments. However, politicians must adhere to a national frame of legitimating strategies that cannot be neglected without consequences. It was evident in the cross-country comparison of political debates that there are national systems of reference that provide patterns of interpretation. Legalisation is seen and incorporated into immigration policy in a very specific way that differs from one country to the next. In both countries investigated in this study, there are fundamental debates about which basic principles apply to legalisation and which of these should be held in higher esteem: a legal system able to work, humanitarian rights, practical considerations, etc. The results suggest that legalisation is "technicized" in France by describing it as an unusual but possible pragmatic instrument for the adjustment of the inefficient rule of law. In Germany, however, legalisation is discussed at a more normative level. Proponents of conservative immigration policies regard it as a substantial infringement on the rule of law, so that even defenders of a humanitarian solution for illegal immigrants are not able to challenge this view without significant political harm. But the arguments brought to bear in the debate on legalisation are not necessarily sound because they are not irrefutable facts, but instruments to generate legitimacy, and there are enough possibilities for arguing and persuading because socio-economic factors play a minor role. One of the most important arguments, the alleged pull effect of legalisation, has been subjected to an empirical investigation. In the political debate, it does not make any dif-ference whether this is true or not, insofar as it is not contested by incontrovertible findings. In reality, the results suggest that amnesties indeed exert a small attracting influence on illegal immigration, which has been contested by immigration friendly politicians in the French par-liament. The effect, however, is not large; therefore, some conservative politicians may put too much stress on this argument. Moreover, one can see legalisation as an instrument to restore legitimacy that has slipped away from immigration politics because of a high number of illegally residing foreigners. This aspect explains some of the peculiarities in the French debate on legalisation, e.g. the idea that the coherence of the law is secured by creating exceptional rules for legalising illegal immigrants. It has become clear that the politics of legalisation are susceptible to manipulation by introducing certain interpretations into the political debate, which become predominant and supersede other views. In this study, there are no signs of a systematic misuse of this constellation by any certain actor. However, the history of immigration policy is full of examples of symbolic politics in which a certain measure has been initiated while the actors are totally aware of its lack of effect. Legalisation has escaped this fate so far because it is a specific instrument that is the result of neglecting populist mechanisms rather than an ex-ample of a superficial measure. This result does not apply to policies concerning illegal immi-gration in general, both with regard to concealing a lack of control and flexing the state- muscles.