This book examines a broad range of issues in order to better understand if, how, and why immigration policies and practices have changed in the US, Western Europe, and Commonwealth countries in response to the threat of terrorism.
"A thorough exploration of and compassionate solutions to current U.S. immigration policy. Although the United States is a nation founded by immigrants, Alberto Gonzales and David Strange believe that national immigration policy and enforcement over the past thirty years has been inadequate. This failure by federal leaders has resulted in a widespread introduction of state immigration laws across the country. Gonzales and Strange assert that the solution to current immigration challenges is reform of federal immigration laws, including common sense border control, tougher workplace enforcement, minor (but significant) changes to the Immigration and Nationality Act, and a revised visa process that discourages overstaying the duration of a visa. Gonzales and Strange embrace many provisions of current pending legislation, but are sharply critical of others. Their proposals call for an expansion of the grounds of inadmissibility to foster greater respect of law and to address the problem of visa overstays, while also calling for a restriction on grounds of inadmissibility in other areas to address the large undocumented population and increasing humanitarian crisis. They explore nationality versus citizenship and introduce a pathway to nationality as an alternative to a pathway to citizenship. This immigration policy blueprint examines the political landscape in Washington and makes the argument that progress will require compromise and the discipline to act with compassion and respect. Most significantly, it illuminates how following this blueprint can enhance national security and improve the economy in the United States in ways that is consistent with the rule of law"--
Since 1965 the foreign-born population of the United States has swelled from 9.6 million or 5 percent of the population to 45 million or 14 percent in 2015. Today, about one-quarter of the U.S. population consists of immigrants or the children of immigrants. Given the sizable representation of immigrants in the U.S. population, their health is a major influence on the health of the population as a whole. On average, immigrants are healthier than native-born Americans. Yet, immigrants also are subject to the systematic marginalization and discrimination that often lead to the creation of health disparities. To explore the link between immigration and health disparities, the Roundtable on the Promotion of Health Equity held a workshop in Oakland, California, on November 28, 2017. This summary of that workshop highlights the presentations and discussions of the workshop.
This text is a systematic, comparative, multidisciplinary study of immigration policy and policy outcomes in nine industrialized democracies: the United States, Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Spain, and Japan. It has two central theses. The first, the convergence hypothesis, is that there is a growing similarity in immigration policy, results, and public reaction within these nine countries. The second thesis, the gap hypothesis, argues that the gap between the goals of immigration policy and its outcomes is wide and growing wider. Beyond testing these hypotheses against new evidence, the book seeks to explain the declining effectiveness of immigration control measures in todays labour-importing democracies. In each of the country profiles, the author explains why certain measures were chosen, and why they usually failed to achieve their stated objectives.
The fourth edition of this classic work provides a systematic, comparative assessment of the efforts of major immigrant-receiving countries and the European Union to manage migration, paying particular attention to the dilemmas of immigration control and immigrant integration. Retaining its comprehensive coverage of nations built by immigrants—the so-called settler societies of the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand— the new edition explores how former imperial powers—France, Britain and the Netherlands—struggle to cope with the legacies of colonialism, how social democracies like Germany and the Scandinavian countries balance the costs and benefits of migration while maintaining strong welfare states, and how more recent countries of immigration in Southern Europe—Italy, Spain, and Greece—cope with new found diversity and the pressures of border control in a highly integrated European Union. The fourth edition offers up-to-date analysis of the comparative politics of immigration and citizenship, the rise of reactive populism and a new nativism, and the challenge of managing migration and mobility in an age of pandemic, exploring how countries cope with a surge in asylum seeking and the struggle to integrate large and culturally diverse foreign populations.
Few issues on the American political agenda are more complex or divisive than immigration. There is no shortage of problems with current policies and practices, from the difficulties and delays that confront many legal immigrants to the large number of illegal immigrants living in the country. Moreover, few issues touch as many areas of U.S. domestic life and foreign policy. Immigration is a matter of homeland security and international competitiveness, as well as a deeply human issue central to the lives of millions of individuals and families. It cuts to the heart of questions of citizenship and American identity and plays a large role in shaping both America's reality and its image in the world. Immigration's emergence as a foreign policy issue coincides with the increasing reach of globalization. Not only must countries today compete to attract and retain talented people from around the world, but the view of the United States as a place of unparalleled openness and opportunity is also crucial to the maintenance of American leadership. There is a consensus that current policy is not serving the United States well on any of these fronts. Yet agreement on reform has proved elusive. The goal of the Independent Task Force on U.S. Immigration Policy was to examine this complex issue and craft a nuanced strategy for reforming immigration policies and practices.
Written from a pan-European perspective, this book examines the decision-making processes in immigration and integration policies in Europe across decades, focusing on several key moments of Europe’s postwar history. The analysis of factors taken into consideration by states in key moments of immigration policy (re)formulation shows that Europe is moving away from rational, economic arguments towards more political ones. This book contributes to the theoretical and practical debate regarding immigration and integration policies by arguing that – contrary to assumptions – immigration policy should not be treated as having precedence before integration policy. It also reflects on the growing anti-immigration sentiments as well as the securitisation and criminalisation of migration issues that are fuelled by right-wing politics. This book will be of key interest both to students and scholars of migration, the European Union, European integration, social policy, public policy, international relations, European studies, law, economics, sociology and to professionals, policy-makers, think tanks and associations in NGOs, the EU and other IOs. The Open Access version of this book, available at: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/e/9780429263736, has been made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 license.
In the past few years, liberal and mainstream outlets have tended to frame immigrants lacking legal status as "undocumented" (rather than "illegal") and to approach the topic of legalization through human-interest stories, often mentioning children. Conservative outlets, on the other hand, tend to discuss legalization using impersonal statistics and invoking the rule of law. Yet, regardless of the media's ideological positions, the authors' surveys show that "negative" frames more strongly influence public support for different immigration policies than do positive frames. For instance, survey participants who were exposed to language portraying immigrants as law-breakers seeking "amnesty" tended to oppose legalization measures. At the same time, support for legalization was higher when participants were exposed to language referring to immigrants living in the United States for a decade or more.