Suchergebnisse

Introduction / Steffen Angenendt -- Asylum and migration in the EU member states: structures, challenges and policies in comparative perspective / Steffen Angenendt -- Austria / Heinz Fassmann -- Belgium / Antonio Cruz -- Denmark / Jan Hjarn(c)ı -- Finland / Olavi Koivukangas -- France / Steffen Angenendt and Peter Pfaffenroth -- Germany / Steffen Angenendt -- Greece / Ross Fakiolas -- Ireland / Khalid Koser and Melisa Salazar -- Italy / Michele Contel and Rosaria De Biase -- Luxembourg / Antonio Cruz -- The Netherlands / Jeroen Doomerik -- Portugal / Maria Beatriz Rocha-Trindade and Manuel Armando Oliveira -- Spain / Walter Actis, Miguel (c)ngel de Prada and Carlos Pereda -- Sweden / Birgitta Ornbrant -- United Kingdom / Khalid Koser and Melisa Salazar

Discusses the situation in various regions with emphasis on the humanitarian ideals vs. potential problems related to creation of a new minority in the host country.

Les obstacles à la citoyenneté : immigration et naturalisation en République Fédérale d'Allemagne.
Jurgen FIJALKOWSKI
Le nombre et la concentration d'étrangers en RFA amènent à l'émergence de nouvelles « minorités ethniques ». L'article met l'accent sur les obstacles présentés par la loi allemande à l'acquisition de la citoyenneté par les étrangers, même ceux qui sont installés depuis plus de dix ans. Toute acquisition de la nationalité passe par la naturalisation, soumise à la libre décision du gouvernement et elle n 'est accordée que si le candidat remplit des conditions d'intégration économique, sociale et culturelle. Cette dernière exigence renvoie à la conception historique du peuple allemand, comme communauté ethno-culturelle. L'auteur suggère que soient harmonisées les législations européennes sur les étrangers et la citoyenneté, dans un sens plus libéral que la législation allemande.

A partir de una encuesta sobre el imaginario migratorio en la población marroquí en relación con el consumo de los medios de comunicación, se profundiza en el uso de los diferentes circuitos comunicativos, en el uso de las redes y en su contribución a las ideas democráticas. ; From a survey on migratory imaginary in the Moroccan population in relation to the consumption of media, this article deals in depth with the use of different communication channels and their contribution to the democratic ideas. ; 95-104

Unaccompanied child asylum seekers are amongst the world's most vulnerable populations, and their numbers are increasing. The intersection of their age, their seeking asylum, and separation from their parents creates a specific and acute triple burden of vulnerability. Their precariousness has long been recognised in international human rights law. Yet, human rights-based responses have been subordinated to progressive global securitisation of irregular migration through interception, interdiction, extraterritorial processing and immigration detention. Such an approach necessitates an urgent paradigm shift in how we comprehend their needs as children, the impact of punitive border control laws on them, and the responsibility of States to these children when they arrive at their borders seeking asylum. This book reconceptualises the relationship between unaccompanied child asylum seekers and States. It proposes a new conceptual framework by applying international human rights law, childhood studies and vulnerability theory scholarship in analysing State obligations to respond to these children. This framework incorporates a robust analysis of the operation and impact of laws on vulnerable populations, a taxonomy for articulating the gravity of any consequent harms and a method to prioritise recommendations for reform. The book then illustrates the framework's utility using Australia's treatment of unaccompanied children as a case study. This book illuminates key learnings from human rights law, childhood studies and vulnerability theory and transforms them into a new roadmap for law reform. As such, it will be a valuable practice-based resource for practitioners, non-government organisations, advocates, policymakers and the general public interested in advocating for the rights of vulnerable populations as well as for academics, researchers and students of human rights law, refugee law, childhood studies and vulnerability studies.

In the European Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) is affected by multiple asymmetries arising from the need for flexibility in the integration strategy with respect to those matters connected with the hard core of State sovereignty. This "variable geometry" has a signifcant impact on the development of a coherent status for third country nationals through a genuine Common Immigration Policy. The particular situation of Gibraltar is very illustrative in this respect, because here, the specifcities of its status both in relation to EU law and international law converge with a differentiated approach to the Schengen acquis, and with an opt-out to the Common Migration Policy. This article discusses some of the disruptions caused by variable integration in the AFSJ, in light of the particular example of the situation of Moroccan workers in Gibraltar, in relation to which this amalgam of legal specifcities has resulted in a situation of reduced mobility and isolation from some positive legal developments in the feld of the Common Migration Policy. ; El Espacio de libertad, seguridad y justicia (ELSJ) está afectado por múltiples disimetrías que emanan de la necesidad de flexibilidad en la estrategia de integración con respecto a aquellas materias vinculadas al núcleo duro de la soberanía estatal. Esta situación de geometría variable tiene un impacto muy relevante en la elaboración de una aproximación coherente al estatuto de los nacionales de terceros estados a través de una auténtica política de inmigración común. Las particularidades de la situación de Gibraltar son muy ilustrativas a este respecto, ya que aquí, las especifcidades de su estatuto tanto en relación con el derecho de la UE como con el derecho internacional convergen con una aproximación diferenciada al acervo de Schengen y con un opting-out de la política migración común. Este artículo se centra en algunas de las disrupciones causadas por la integración diferenciada en el ELSJ, a la luz del ejemplo particular de la situación de los trabajadores marroquíes en Gibraltar, en relación a los cuales, esta amalgama de especifcidades jurídicas ha resultado en una situación de movilidad reducida y de aislamiento de los desarrollos jurídicos favorables en el ámbito de la política de inmigración común. ; L'espace de liberté, de sécurité et de justice (ELSJ) est affectée par des asymétries découlant de la nécessité de souplesse dans la stratégie d'intégration à l'égard des questions liées à la souveraineté de l'État. Cette géométrie variable a un impact signifcatif sur le développement d'un status cohérent pour les ressortissants d'États tiers par le biais d'une véritable politique commune d'immigration. La situation particulière de Gibraltar est très illustrative à cet égard, étant donné que la spécifcité de sa situation par rapport au droit de l'Union et au droit international converge avec une approche différenciée vis-à-vis de l'acquis de Schengen et avec un opt-out concernant la politique d'immigration commune. Cet article vise certaines des perturbations causées par l'intégration différenciée dans l'ELSJ à la lumière de l'exemple particulier de la situation des travailleurs marocains à Gibraltar. En effet, cet amalgame de spécifcités juridiques a abouti à une situation de mobilité réduite et à l'isolement des évolutions juridiques dans le domaine de la politique commune de l'immigration.

This article attends to the lived experience of binational families subject to the 2012 family immigration rules (FIR). It seeks to enrich the pre-existing discussions of family migration within the European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom, focusing on the 'micro-political' experiences of those whose lives have been adversely affected by their introduction. It draws on the life writings of binational families, suggesting that a micro-political focus reveals an ongoing neuropolitical experience that traditional accounts of moral agency are ill-equipped to negotiate. The article suggests an unorthodox interpretation of agency premised on storytelling, while probing the tensions that emerge when this lived experience is framed in such a manner. It concludes by positing a series of questions relating to the value of a neuropolitical labelling of the subject and suggests a need to further engage with traumatic interpretations of harm at the intersection of citizenship rights and mobility rights.

Irregular immigration has become a globally important topic. While there have been some studies on public opinion toward irregular immigration, virtually no studies have examined how audiences evaluate the media coverage of this issue. There is also a lack of comparative research. The aims of this article are to provide survey data on public opinion toward irregular immigration in the United States, France, and Norway as well as a comparative analysis of public perceptions of the news coverage. Findings suggest that irregular immigration remains a highly salient issue in public opinion in all three countries. Furthermore, public opinion is generally critical and skeptic toward irregular immigration and immigrants, and differences between countries regarding the coverage of the issue in national mainstream media do not necessarily seem to be mirrored in public opinion. The survey data also suggest that citizens in all three countries tend to believe that the negative aspects of irregular immigration such as crimes or border control receive too little coverage whereas perspectives more positive to irregular immigration receive too much. Implications for further comparative research on public opinion and media coverage are discussed.

Within the politically charged immigration system in the United States, Congress mandates the entry of in absentia removal orders against immigrants who fail to appear for immigration court hearings. Statutory guidance similarly constrains the ability of appellate courts to overturn those in absentia orders. In this article, we examine how federal circuit court judges make decisions in the review of in absentia orders when faced with discretion-revoking congressional statutory language pitted against a highly politicized area of law where policy preferences sit at the forefront of judges' minds. Using an original dataset of U.S. Courts of Appeals cases decided from 2001 to 2020, we find that pro-immigrant decisions are rare, as intended by the governing statute. We also find, however, that judicial policy preferences predict the degree to which federal judges support the petitioning immigrant through statutory factors related to the adequacy of government notice and the presence of exceptional circumstances to justify nonappearance.

Library's copy imperfect: lacks cover. ; Includes index. ; Mode of access: Internet.

How can deliberative democracy contribute to our understanding of political misperceptions? Findings from the field of political sophistication suggest that misperceptions are difficult to change and corrective measures often fail. However, this field of research has paid little attention to deliberation as a mechanism to reduce political misperceptions. Using a deliberative experiment on immigration where participants engaged in either mixed or likeminded group discussions, we find some evidence of deliberation's corrective potential, especially in mixed groups, i.e. groups where individuals with different opinions on the matter discuss these with each other. By conducting the first exploratory study on deliberative democracy's potential for reducing misperception, we hope to advance the empirical discussion on the precise function of deliberation in the age of disinformation.