Suchergebnisse

This paper uses survey data on employment immigrants in Australia and the United States to identify the main determinants of the size and skill composition of employment immigrants to developed countries. Our approach emphasizes the key roles of world prices of skills and country proximity. Our empirical results are consistent with the view that these factors, rather than the nuances of selection systems, dominate. There are five main findings: (1) Higher skill prices in sending countries decrease the number of immigrants but increase their average schooling. (2) More-distant countries send fewer but more skilled immigrants. (3) Given skill prices and proximity, countries with higher income send more immigrants, of lower skill. (4) Within a sending country, Australia attracts less total but higher-skill migrants than does the United States. This can be attributed, however, to the fact that the skill price in Australia is lower than the U.S. skill price, so that immigration gains are greater from immigrating to United States. (5) The estimated coefficients determining migration flows to Australia and the United States are the same for both countries. We conclude that geography thus matters in the sense that who a country's neighbors are, in terms of their level and type of development, has a significant effect on the size and skill composition of employment migrants. There is no evidence that the differences in the selection mechanism used to screen employment migrants in the two countries play a significant role in affecting the characteristics of skill migration.

Several studies in recent years have examined the question of mass issue voting in the United States and have found that people vote more frequently on the basis of policy questions than has heretofore been thought. It would seem to be useful for the study of comparative politics to explore mass policy voting in other democratic countries. The colored immigration issue in Britain is a particularly appropriate one to examine because of the controversy surrounding its impact on voting behavior, especially in the 1970 election. Are the policy preferences of the electorate related to their voting behavior? This question is examined longitudinally through a secondary analysis of the Butler-Stokes election surveys of 1964,1966, and 1970 for England.After utilizing controls for a large number of variables, one finds that theimmigration issue had no significant impact on electoral behavior in 1964 and 1966. In the 1970 election, however, the Conservatives gained an estimated increment of 6.7 percent in votes because many people perceived them to be the party more likely to keep immigrants out and voted in accordance with that perception. This impact can be attributed to Enoch Powell's associating the Conservative party with restrictive immigration control in the public mind.

Large-scale population surveys have been an important source of data for the study of migration, and in many countries provide the only widely accessible data on migrants' characteristics and outcomes after they arrive. For immigration policymakers, however, official survey data have some important limitations. Nonresponse to surveys is particularly likely to affect newly arrived migrants, biasing analysis toward more settled populations who have different characteristics (e.g., different fiscal costs), and hindering analysis of how integration outcomes evolve after arrival. Survey data are not well suited to capturing the dynamics of a mobile population, particularly among groups of migrants who spend substantial periods outside the country. And perhaps most importantly, official survey data usually identify migrants by country of birth and nationality (and sometimes self-reported reason for migration) but rarely include information on a person's legal status either at arrival or at the time of data collection. This significantly limits the possibilities for evaluating policy and the impacts of policy changes: the characteristics of migrants coming for different reasons can vary enormously, so policymakers should be cautious about assuming that aggregate evidence on migrants or migration will be relevant to the specific routes on which they are taking decisions. This article illustrates some of these problems in practice showing how official survey data in the United Kingdom have been unable to answer one of the key questions facing the government, namely how many and which EU citizens need to apply to secure their residence rights after Brexit.

Changes to U.S. immigration policy have implications for social work, owing to the ethics-based foundation of the profession. The twin purposes of this mixed-methods case study are to describe the detainment and deportation processes, and their implementation at the Stewart Detention Center in Lumpkin, Georgia (notorious for its disparately high rate of deportation); and, to discuss social work's ethical role in relation to immigrant populations and immigration policy issues. To achieve analysis, we collected data at the Stewart Detention Center, directly observing a sample of 39 immigration court hearings across 4 separate time points between June and September of 2018. We use univariate statistics to describe the sample in terms of hearing duration, demographics of detained persons, characteristics of judge and attorney interactions, removability charges, and hearing outcomes. Our analysis includes mappings of 2 courtrooms and a thick and rich narrative description of our first trip to the Stewart Detention Center in June, 2018. Identified themes across court observations include: (a) lack of uniformity in process, (b) adoption of criminal justice norms and procedures without inclusion of protective factors, (c) layers and barriers to communication that present as isolating, and (d) a seeming emphasis placed on the voluntary departure option. We conclude with a discussion of implications for social work and respective recommendations for engagement.

Are Donald Trump's supporters authoritarian, anti-establishment, or both? In new research into who supports The Donald, Bert Bakker, Matthijs Rooduijn and Gijs Schumacher find that Trump's supporters are those who score low on the personality trait of agreeableness (they are more likely to support politicians who criticize the establishment), and those who are more authoritarian (they are more likely to vote for politicians who push for more restrictive immigration policies). They also find that Trump's authoritarian supporters are likely to support other Republicans who are restrictive on the issue of immigration, such as House Speaker Paul Ryan, while the low agreeable are dismissive of such establishment figures.

Surveys conducted across multiple countries show that most people view seeking lower immigration to help maintain the majority group's population share as a sign of racial self‐interest—as opposed to racism. We investigated whether the belief that it is not racist to want immigration restrictions for cultural reasons is associated with ingroup identification (a positive attachment to and solidarity with one's group) or collective narcissism (a conviction that the ingroup is exceptional and deserves special treatment). We argue that if this belief reflects concern for the ingroup, it should be linked to ingroup identification. However, if it is a defensive justification of the ingroup's privileged position, it should be linked to collective narcissism. Across four studies, national (Study 1: United Kingdom, N = 467; Study 2: Poland, N = 1,285) and ethnic (Study 3a: United States, N = 2,000; Study 3b: United States, N = 2,938) narcissism emerged as predictors of the belief that ethnoculturally motivated immigration restrictions are racial self‐interest (vs. racism). This belief was also associated with justifying collective violence against migrants (Study 2) and supporting the alt‐right (Studies 3a–3b). We found less consistent evidence for an association between ingroup identification and immigration‐restriction beliefs. We discuss implications for intergroup relations and political extremism.

Die sprachliche Integration von Jugendlichen aus Einwandererfamilien mit ihren spezifischen familialen, schulischen und gesellschaftlichen Voraussetzungen steht im Mittelpunkt der Analyse von Norbert Heimken. Für die Beurteilung der realen Sprachkompetenzen und ihrer spezifischen Bedingungen werden in der Studie eigene Kompetenzmessungen verwendet. Die aktualisierte und erweiterte Untersuchung stützt sich auf Auswertungen von etwa 1000 Sprachkompetenztests, die bei Jugendlichen mit und ohne Migrationshintergrund in verschiedenen Schulformen durchgeführt wurden. Korrelationen zu Bildungshintergrund, Freizeitaktivitäten und familialem Sprachverhalten werden dabei im Blick auf Integrationskonzepte und pädagogische wie gesellschaftliche Handlungsperspektiven untersucht. Der Inhalt Sprachintegration und Mehrsprachigkeit in Deutschland Verbindungen von Bildungssozialisation und Sprachkompetenzentwicklung Stellenwert von Schulen und Kindergärten bei der Sprachintegration Die Zielgruppen Dozierende und Studierende der Soziologie mit den Schwerpunkten, Migration, Jugend-, Familien- und Bildungssoziologie Lehramtsstudierende, Lehrerinnen und Lehrer, Erzieherinnen und Erzieher Der Autor Dr. Norbert Heimken ist wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter am Institut für Soziologie der Universität Münster. Zu den Schwerpunkten seiner Forschungs- und Lehrtätigkeit gehören u. a. die Bereiche Migration, Jugend-, Familien- und Bildungssoziologie

Sozialstrukturen und Bildungssystem als Ursachen von Bildungsungleichheiten -- Rolle des Elternhauses und seiner Kontexte -- Bildungsungleichheit im Primar- und Sekundarbereich -- Berufliches Ausbildungssystem und Arbeitsmarkt -- Hochschulen und berufliche Weiterbildung -- Konsequenzen für Politik und Forschung -- Maßnahmen für den Chancenausgleich.