Search results

The paper traces the development of UK 'state of emergency' legislation through three 'scenes of emergency': the introduction of the Emergency Powers Act in 1920, a revision to the Act in 1964, and discussion within government departments about possible changes to emergency powers in 1973. Through these scenes, and contra to existing work on the state of emergency as an occasion for the intensification of sovereignty, I show how the introduction of and revision to 'state of emergency' legislation were occasions for a double concern – with the excessiveness of the state, as per Foucault's analysis of liberalism, but also for the excessiveness of events. In 'scenes of emergency' a specific 'state effect' was dis/re-assembled: the promise of the providential state that protected life through control of events. As emergency legislation was subject to deliberation and contestation, other versions of the state surfaced: beginning with the interested, classed, state and the tyrannical state as emergency powers were introduced and ending with the anxious state that loses faith in the efficacy of emergency powers in a world of changing events. As well as arguing that work on governing emergencies should be orientated to 'scenes of emergency' in which that which governs relates to excess, the paper suggests that assemblage approaches to the state should be concerned with dis/re-assembly.

This paper reconsiders Stephen Castle's classic paper Why Migration Policies Fail. Beginning with the so-called 'migration crisis' of 2015 it considers the role of numbers is assessing success or failure. It argues that in the UK public debates about immigration changed with EU Enlargement in 2004, when the emphasis shifted from concerns about asylum to concerns about EU mobility. Concerns were exacerbated by the government's failure to meet its promise to reduce net migration. This policy is hampered by the general problem of definition of 'migrant' and the gap between statistical measures and popular usage in which 'migration' signifies problematic mobility. In fact, concern about migration has become a placeholder for concerns about globalisation and democratic accountability. A new politics of migration must make connections between migrants and citizens, but also between migration and other global processes, particularly outsourcing and the exploitation of labour and resources in the global south.

In 2015 more than one million people entered the European Union, many fleeing wars in the Middle East. There was a strand of hostile media coverage that represented migrants as vermin or insects. This paper examines the context of this representation and argues that that association of vermin – waste, numbers and threats to the home –provides useful insights into the anxieties underpinning negative responses to asylum seekers. Analysing these representations offers insights into the kinds of political questions that must be tackled in struggling for more positive responses.

In public debates support for migrants' rights has generally taken two approaches: the migrant as "Good Worker" or the migrant as "Poor Slave". This paper will constructively critique these approaches by considering the case of a U.K. campaign demanding a specific visa for migrant domestic workers and how they drew on the Good Worker/Poor Slave. It describes the campaign's initial focus on domestic workers as workers and how this required demanding special rights as migrant workers on the basis of the specific conditions in the private household, at the same time as calling for paid domestic work to be recognised as a job like any other. The campaign was initially successful, but the right to change employer was withdrawn in 2012. The revived campaign was this time situated within the debates about "modern slavery" and the paper will consider some of the ways in which the U.K. government has responded to this. It will argue for the importance of not reifying the difference between "migrant" and "citizen", thereby recognising connections between national and non-national workers, and also between commodified and non-commodified reproductive labour. Given the low level of public debate at the moment this may not be possible for campaigners but academics must continue in attempts to raise the level of public debate.

Everyone is talking about immigration. The impacts of migration on the social, the economic and the political are perceived as multifarious and profoundly disruptive. The proportion of people that move internationally, approximately 3 per cent of the world's population has long been stable but the meaning, significance and constitution of mobility have changed. The story is one of unparalleled movement and huge demographic change. This is analysed as presenting a direct threat to sovereignty and generating costs and benefits that must be traded off, posing a 'tragedy of commons', particularly in Europe, for national welfare states.

Domestic work in private households in Europe is the main area of employment for migrant women, particularly the undocumented. Demand has recently increased because of an aging population & the need for care for the elderly, the increase in female employment outside the home, & the need for child care & housekeepers. Racist tones underlie discourse about domestic migrant workers. Third World workers are cheap & prepared to do work that nationals do not accept. Some Europeans consider that they are doing migrants a favor by their offer to include them as "part of the family." However, workers who live in are more vulnerable to abuse & exploitation than those who live out; undocumented workers can be fired with impunity & no issue of contracts or legal rights. M. Pflum

THE AUTHOR QUESTIONS THE VISION OF A NEW PEACEFUL WORLD ORDER. HE FOCUSES ON THE PROBLEMS OF MINORITY COMMUNITIES IN A WORLD WHERE THE ECONOMIC DEMAND FOR MIGRANT LABOR HAS NOT BEEN MATCHED BY THE DEVELOPMENT OF A TOLERANT, OPEN POLITICAL CULTURE AND WHERE THE DANGERS OF INSTABILITY AND MILITARISM ARE GROWING.