Search results

"The Border Crossed Us explores efforts to restrict and expand notions of US citizenship as they relate specifically to the US-Mexico border and Latina/o identity. Borders and citizenship go hand in hand. Borders define a nation as a territorial entity and create the parameters for national belonging, but the relationship between borders and citizenship breeds perpetual anxiety over the purported sanctity of the border, the security of a nation, and the integrity of civic identity. In The Border Crossed Us, Josue David Cisneros addresses these themes as they relate to the US-Mexico border, arguing that issues ranging from the Mexican-American War of 1846-1848 to contemporary debates about Latina/o immigration and border security are negotiated rhetorically through public discourse. He explores these rhetorical battles through case studies of specific Latina/o struggles for civil rights and citizenship, including debates about Mexican American citizenship in the 1849 California Constitutional Convention, the 1960s Chicana/o civil rights movements, and modern-day immigrant activism. Cisneros posits that borders--both geographic and civic--have crossed and recrossed Latina/o communities throughout history (as reflected in the popular activist chant from which the book derives its title, "We didn't cross the border; the border crossed us!") and that Latina/os in the United States have long contributed to, struggled with, and sought to cross or challenge the borders of belonging, including race, culture, language, and gender. The Border Crossed Us illuminates the enduring significance and evolution of U.S. borders and citizenship, and provides programmatic and theoretical suggestions for the continued study of these critical issues"--

Considers some persistent quandaries for the Right on immigration in the 1990s. Among the unresolved questions are concerns about the proper role of the state: in regulating the flow of cheap labour across borders, in acting to redress economic inequality versus letting people fend for themselves, and in preserving cultural homogeneity and the supremacy of white, native-born citizens.

There is lively debate on the question if states have legitimate authority to enforce the exclusion of (would-be) immigrants. Against common belief, I argue that even non-cosmopolitan liberals have strong reason to be sceptical of much contemporary border authority. To do so, I first establish that for liberals, broadly defined, a state can only hold legitimate authority over persons whose moral equality it is not engaged in undermining. I then reconstruct empirical cases from the sphere of international relations in which what I call 'colonial norms' continue to play significant structuring roles. I argue that it is sometimes only by unveiling these colonial norms and the roles they play that we can understand how some states today culpably contribute to undermining the moral equality of persons over whom they will come to claim immigration-related authority. I thus contend that paying attention to colonial norms distinctly enables us to reveal a set of instances in which all liberals should agree that states forfeit legitimate authority over would-be immigrants.

This book analyzes the intersections of gender, sexuality and migration in the South African context. It takes the form of a series of empirically-informed reflections on the ways that these issues have come together, and analyses the place that South Africa holds in increasingly global, and globally constrained, discourses around migration. This means that it is not just about gendered movement, or abuses faced by sexual minorities; it is about the ways in which gendered notions, which may or may not map onto different bodies, function in conversations on migration. The author challenges assumptions about what and who migrants are and the nature of their genders and sexualities, which have circumscribed the fierce debates about migration that are currently raging in the country. This does not mean, however, that it this is simply a book about South Africa. Rather, the author argues that global and local imperatives are constantly being negotiated as South Africa goes through a period of socio-political transition. This thought-provoking work will appeal to students and scholars of migration studies, gender studies and race studies, as well as disciplines such as sociology, psychology and political studies.

Anti-immigrant disinformation plays a central role in populist and far-right discourses, but it remains a complex object of study. In addition to the definitional challenges posed by disinformation, populism and far-right extremism, it can be difficult to disentangle the intricate overlap of factors that enable the promotion of anti-immigrant disinformation and render audiences receptive to it. To understand these dynamics, this chapter outlines disinformation as a process that engages different actors, platforms, and audiences. It provides an up-to-date analysis of the diverse range of actors who promote anti-immigrant disinformation, explores how platform structures enable anti-immigrant manipulation tactics, and, finally, it contextualises audience receptivity in terms of attitudes towards immigrants and social change. Ultimately, we suggest that efforts to counter anti-immigrant disinformation require multiple overlapping actions that reduce exposure to disinformation while also addressing more deep-seated issues surrounding the crisis of legitimacy within democracy and declining trust in institutions.

AbstractAs a strategy of immigrant inclusion, official multiculturalism in Canada is based on the premise that national integration is possible, even preferable, without assimilation. This article considers whether such an approach can be successful. Drawing on a qualitative study of Lao immigrants in Ontario, it is suggested that newcomers can in fact be disposed to high levels of political commitment, specific mechanisms of political assimilation aside, as a result of the process of immigration itself. At least in the short term, though perhaps mainly in the short term, the Canadian political order does not seem to suffer for lack of an assimilative emphasis.