Suchergebnisse

Tema diplomskog rada je politika SAD-a prema ilegalnim migrantima iz Latinske Amerike. Promatrano je razdoblje nakon Drugog svjetskog rata kada je krenuo masovni priljev emigranata iz Latinske Amerike u Sjedinjene Američke Države. Tada imigracijska politika prema ilegalnim imigrantima postaje jedna od prioritetnih politika Sjedinjenih Američkih Država. U promatranom razdoblju daje se prikaz imigracijske politike američkih predsjednika, počevši sa Zakonom o reformi i kontroli imigracije (Immigration Reform and Control Act-IRCA) predsjednika Ronalda Reagana (1981. - 1989.). Vrata ilegalnoj imigraciji iz Latinske Amerike pokušao je zatvoriti predsjednik Bill Clinton (1993. - 2001.) Zakonom o reformi ilegalne imigracije i imigrantskoj odgovornosti (Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act-IIRIA), dok je namjere predsjednika Georgea W. Busha (2001. - 2009.) spriječio teroristički napad na Sjedinjene Američke Države 11.9.2001 godine. Njegov nasljednik predsjednik Barack Obama (2009. - 2017.) iskoristio je svoje predsjedničke ovlasti i autorizirao provođenje programa DACA (Deffered Action for Childhood Arrivals) i DAPA (Deffered Action for Parents of Americans) koji su pogodovali djeci ilegalnih imigranta, uz istovremeno provođenje brojnih uhićenja i deportacija ilegalnih imigranata. Rad završava prikazom dosadašnje politike predsjednika Donalda Trumpa koji ilegalne imigrante smatra prijetnjom nacionalnoj sigurnosti Sjedinjenih Američkih Država. ; The subject of the graduate thesis is policy of the USA towards illegal migrants from Latin America. Observed period is the period after World War II, starting with the mass flow of emigrants from the Latin America to the United States of America. This is the period when immigration policy of the United States towards illegal immigrants became one of the priorities of the United States. Presented are american president's immigration policies, beginning with the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) presented by the president Ronald Reagan (1981. – ...

U radu se na temelju arhivskih izvora, stručne literature i onovremenoga tiska analizira povratak jugoslavenskih iseljenika iz Argentine i ostalih dijelova Južne Amerike u prvim godinama nakon Drugoga svjetskog rata. Prati se priprema, organizacija, brojnost, transport, dolazak, smještaj i razmještaj iseljenika u domovini. Analizira se i stručna, nacionalna i spolna pripadnost iseljenika povratnika. Posebna pozornost posvećena je odnosima dviju država, Jugoslavije i Argentine, u ovom pitanju. ; Diplomatic, consular and economic relations between the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia and the Republic of Argentina were established on 16 September 1946. The agreement was signed by General Ljubo Ilić, chief of the Yugoslav diplomatic mission in South America, and Juan Atilion Bramuglia, Argentinian Minister of Foreign Affairs and Religion. In the first decade after World War II, the two states had some open problems and unresolved issues such as the question of commercial agreements, Yugoslav political emigration in Argentina, especially the Ustasha movement, Argentine nationalised property in Yugoslavia, visas for entering Argentina etc. Following World War II, Argentina became the country with the most emigrants of Yugoslav origin in the entire Latin America. The major part of those were Croats and Slovenes, while emigrants from Montenegro and Serbia made up a smaller proportion. The issue of Yugoslav immigrants in Argentina was of the greatest importance in the relations between two countries. In the late 1940s, the interests of Yugoslavia and Argentina in this matter were opposed. Both sides wanted to use a qualified work force for building their own country. Yugoslavia tried to recruit immigrants to come back and take part in fulfilment of the Five-Year Plan established in 1947. Argentina on the other hand, wanted to keep able-bodied people for building its own industry. The Yugoslav government sent ships for immigrants and organised housing and jobs for them upon their return. The majority of them were construction, agriculture, and textile workers. The peak of the repatriation was 1948, when 83% of Yugoslav immigrants returned from Argentina. There was another problem, and that was the different treatment of immigrants with dual citizenship, which especially referred to the children of Yugoslav immigrants who were born on Argentine soil. According the law, they were Argentine citizens, but Yugoslav authorities still thought of them as their own. According to official data, of all the people to return in Yugoslavia in the 1946–51 period, a total of 1,748 arrived from Argentina, which was 10.84% of the total number of returning Yugoslav citizens. Only France was ahead of Argentina in this period in terms of numbers of returns, with 3,914, while Canada was behind, with 1,727.

The essay first highlights certain basic features of the attitude of European immigrant countries toward the new (migrant) ethnic minorities in their midst, the attitude that at the same time is indicative of the existence of various forms of ethnicity in the development of the European nation-states. The differences in individual "national responses" regarding the existence of new ethnic communities reflect differences in understanding of the ethnic/national identity of individual countries. The author then addresses specifically the presence of the Muslim population in West European countries, the population that -- perhaps more than any other group of "aliens" -- is torn between the West European practice of racial & increasingly cultural discrimination & a universal Western belief in the tradition of liberalism, pluralism, & democracy. In connection with this, the role of Islam & the "Muslim" identity in the Muslim communities in West European countries are analyzed. 15 References. Adapted from the source document.

The essay first highlights certain basic features of the attitude of European immigrant countries toward the new (migrant) ethnic minorities in their midst, the attitude that at the same time is indicative of the existence of various forms of ethnicity in the development of the European nation-states. The differences in individual "national responses" regarding the existence of new ethnic communities reflect differences in understanding of the ethnic/national identity of individual countries. The author then addresses specifically the presence of the Muslim population in West European countries, the population that -- perhaps more than any other group of "aliens" -- is torn between the West European practice of racial & increasingly cultural discrimination & a universal Western belief in the tradition of liberalism, pluralism, & democracy. In connection with this, the role of Islam & the "Muslim" identity in the Muslim communities in West European countries are analyzed. 15 References. Adapted from the source document.

Focuses on the ethnic structure & the system of protecting the rights of national minorities in an ethnically plural Slovenia. According to the 1991 census, 87.8% of the country's population is Slovenian, & the rest are Croats, Serbs, Muslims, Italians, Hungarians, Romanies, members of other smaller ethnic groups, ethnically uncommitted persons, & individuals with regional identities. The Slovenian Constitution guarantees to all individuals, not only to Slovenian citizens, the right to expression & protection of ethnic identity. In line with the Constitution, the author distinguishes several basic categories of ethnic communities: the Slovenian people, the autochthonous minorities (Hungarians & Italians), the Romanies, the nonautochthonous (immigrant) minority groups whose members are Slovenian citizens, &, finally, the members of immigrant groups who are not Slovenian citizens. The Slovenian concept of the protection of autochthonous minority communities guarantees to the members of these minorities collective & individual rights. Their political representation in the Slovenian national parliament is guaranteed. The ethnic community of Romanies enjoys a high level of protection of their minority rights, allowing for a number of specific features of their social structure & taking into consideration their territorial dispersion & a low level of organization. The rights of the nonautochthonous ethnic communities are protected in a somewhat lesser degree. The author concludes that in Slovenia the constitutional & legal protection of ethnic minorities & their members is exemplary & can serve as a model to other countries. 1 Table, 17 References. Adapted from the source document.

Focuses on the ethnic structure & the system of protecting the rights of national minorities in an ethnically plural Slovenia. According to the 1991 census, 87.8% of the country's population is Slovenian, & the rest are Croats, Serbs, Muslims, Italians, Hungarians, Romanies, members of other smaller ethnic groups, ethnically uncommitted persons, & individuals with regional identities. The Slovenian Constitution guarantees to all individuals, not only to Slovenian citizens, the right to expression & protection of ethnic identity. In line with the Constitution, the author distinguishes several basic categories of ethnic communities: the Slovenian people, the autochthonous minorities (Hungarians & Italians), the Romanies, the nonautochthonous (immigrant) minority groups whose members are Slovenian citizens, &, finally, the members of immigrant groups who are not Slovenian citizens. The Slovenian concept of the protection of autochthonous minority communities guarantees to the members of these minorities collective & individual rights. Their political representation in the Slovenian national parliament is guaranteed. The ethnic community of Romanies enjoys a high level of protection of their minority rights, allowing for a number of specific features of their social structure & taking into consideration their territorial dispersion & a low level of organization. The rights of the nonautochthonous ethnic communities are protected in a somewhat lesser degree. The author concludes that in Slovenia the constitutional & legal protection of ethnic minorities & their members is exemplary & can serve as a model to other countries. 1 Table, 17 References. Adapted from the source document.

Autor u tekstu analizira utjecaj migracijske krize na Europsku uniju kroz sigurnosnu i politološku dimenziju, te recepciju tog diskursa kod političkih elita i građana. Pritom posebno naglašava humanitarnu, ali i sigurnosnu dimenziju percepcije imigranata, izbjeglica i tražitelja azila kao nekih novih "umjetnih" manjina u Europskoj uniji. S druge strane, takvi procesi sve se više izražavaju kao prijetnja sigurnosti oličena u povećanju ksenofobije i razisma, dok pojedine političke elite u Uniji imigrante percipiraju kroz prizmu "antigrađana". Nadalje, u tekstu se analizira proces sekuritizacije identiteta izbjeglica, koji se kroz govorni akt u pojedinim zemljama članicama EU karakteriziraju kao prvenstveno sigurnosna ugroza, što za posljedicu ima povećanje nasilja nad manjinama i negativno se reflektira na unutarnju koheziju Europske unije te njezinu sposobnost da upravlja migracijskom krizom. Na kraju, polazeći od određenih teorijskih i empirijskih postavki, autor želi ponuditi sveobuhvatan pregled migracijske krize na europskom tlu u cilju smanjenja negativne reverzibilnosti na ostvarivanje prava manjina u Europskoj uniji. ; In this article author is analyzing influence of migration crisis on the European Union through security and political dimension, and reception of these discourses among political elite and citizens. Author's special attention is on humanitarian, but also on security dimension of perception of immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers as "new" artificial minorities in the European Union. On other hand, such processes are increasingly being portrayed as a security threat, embodied in the increase of xenophobia and racism, whereby some political elites in the EU perceive immigrants as "anti-citizens". Author also analyzes the securitization of refugees' identity, which is being presented (through the speech acts) as the security threat in some EU member states. The consequence of such developments is the increase of violence against minorities and the negative impact on the inner cohesion within the EU, as well as its capacities to manage the migration crisis. Finally, starting from theoretical and empirical assumptions, the author offers a comprehensive review of the European migration crisis in order to reduce the negative reversibility on achieving minority rights in the EU.

The essay discusses the orientations for preventing the slide toward apartheid States. Beginning with the phenomenology of present mass displacements, it asks: are non-citizens people, and what are the limits of popular sovereignty? Is freedom possible if a good part of denizens is a partly free group? Five concatenated axioms are posed: that 1. the right to hospitality (eventually, citizenship) is a central human right); 2. each State -- or analogous community -- should give all its denizens the maximum possible of citizen rights; 3. our value focus ought to be on immigrant policy and on integration; 4. the status of "unfree labourers" refuses the principle of "one person, one vote"; 5. "no taxation without representation." The long-run alternative is wars and terrorism or civil cohabitation. This would include a foreign economical policy of "co-development", and no participation in wars (except in a present aggression against Europe). If capitalism today condemns a growing majority of humans to psycho-physical misery and premature death, then we may be facing apartheid and global civil wars. Adapted from the source document.

The essay discusses the orientations for preventing the slide toward apartheid States. Beginning with the phenomenology of present mass displacements, it asks: are non-citizens people, and what are the limits of popular sovereignty? Is freedom possible if a good part of denizens is a partly free group? Five concatenated axioms are posed: that 1. the right to hospitality (eventually, citizenship) is a central human right); 2. each State -- or analogous community -- should give all its denizens the maximum possible of citizen rights; 3. our value focus ought to be on immigrant policy and on integration; 4. the status of "unfree labourers" refuses the principle of "one person, one vote"; 5. "no taxation without representation." The long-run alternative is wars and terrorism or civil cohabitation. This would include a foreign economical policy of "co-development", and no participation in wars (except in a present aggression against Europe). If capitalism today condemns a growing majority of humans to psycho-physical misery and premature death, then we may be facing apartheid and global civil wars. Adapted from the source document.

Već se duže vrijeme govori o neuspjehu multikulturalizma. Štoviše, izjave su vodećih europskih političara zapravo potvrdile ono u što se sumnjalo. Kada to postane stav država članica zajednice koja svojim temeljnim dokumentima zagovara 'jednakost u različitosti', to postaje zabrinjavajuće. Kao antitezu neuspjehu odnosno smrti multikulturalizma stavljamo život Mediterana, iz više razloga. Prvi je razlog taj što se za Mediteran uvijek konstatira multikulturalnost. Mediteran je po sebi multikulturalan i on je rasadište kulturnog pluralizma u Zapadnoj Europi. Drugi je razlog mediteranska ruta kojom veliki broj imigranata pokušava doći u Europsku uniju, upravo sada kada je ona proglasila neuspjeh multikulturalizma. Odnos između Europske unije i Mediterana povijesno je duboko složen. Duboko povezan i duboko razdvojen. U ovom ćemo se radu dotaknuti samo djelića tog složenog odnosa. ; The failure of multiculturalism has been talked about for quite some time now. Moreover, the statements of leading European politicians have confirmed what was suspected. When this becomes the view of the member states of the community that advocates "equality in diversity" in its essential documents, it becomes worrying. As the antithesis to the failure, or death, of multiculturalism, we place the life of the Mediterranean for many reasons. The first reason is that multiculturalism is connected with the Mediterranean. The Mediterranean is multicultural in itself, and it is the root of cultural pluralism in Western Europe. The second reason is the M0editerranean route by which a large number of immigrants are trying to reach the European Union, in times when member states have declared the failure of multiculturalism. The relationship between the European Union and the Mediterranean is historically profoundly complex. Deeply connected and deeply separated. In this paper, we will touch only on a fraction of this complicated relationship.

Masovne i nekontrolirane migracije, gledajući s pozicije tranzitnih i zemalja odredišta, predstavljaju veliki, često i izuzetno teško savladiv izazov kojeg mnogi akteri promatraju na bitno različite načine, čime se stvara nepotpuna slika o samoj pojavi. Njih danas uzrokuju mješoviti push i pull faktori – od kombinacije ratnih razaranja, etničkih netrpeljivosti, nedostatka javne sigurnosti, klimatskih promjena, neimaštine do traženja svega suprotnog u odnosu na njihovo postojeće stanje i sredinu. Premda države članice Europske unije zbog demografske obnove i nedostatka radne snage trebaju velik broj useljenika, te države, kao ni Unija u cjelini, nemaju spremne učinkovite i provedive strateške planove, razvijene sposobnosti ni kapacitete za prihvat velikog broja migranata, čemu smo bili svjedoci tijekom 2015. i početkom 2016. godine. U ovom radu predmet istraživanja i analize su migracijske politike i odnosi spram migranata od razine Europske unije, preko pojedinih značajnih država članica do zemalja na tzv. Balkanskoj ruti. ; From the position of transit and destination countries, mass and uncontrolled migrations present large and very often insurmountable challenge, which is observed in fundamentally different ways by different actors. Such situation helps creating an incomplete picture of the phenomenon itself. Today, mass migrations are caused by mixed push and pull factors – from the combination of war, ethnic intolerance, the lack of public security, climate change and poverty to those (pull) factors which signify just the opposite to their (migrants') current situation and environment. Although EU member states need large number of immigrants due to demographic and labor shortages, these countries (and the EU) do not possess available, effective and feasible strategic plans, developed skills or the capacity to accommodate a large number of migrants, as we have already witnessed during 2015 and early 2016. The subject of research and analysis in this paper are migration policies and relations towards migrants at the EU level, the level of certain important member states and countries of the so-called Balkan route.