Suchergebnisse

The contemporary refugee crisis has sparked a global debate about the shared responsibility to take in refugees – and ways to keep them out. Protecting "national sovereignty" became the battle cry throughout the Western world when sympathy for people fleeing violence quickly turned to panic over uncontrolled borders. Western states have invoked their right to self-governance and autonomy as the justification for rejecting migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers as well as refusing the interference of international institutions like the United Nations or European Union. The European refugee crisis has inspired a renewed effort to halt immigration to the West by encouraging states in the Middle East to control and contain their refugee populations. While Western sovereignty is foundational to political sociology and the sociology of international immigration, the sovereignty of developing states that host most of the world's refugees is neglected in the sociological literature.How do developing countries in the Global South – those that host 85% of the world's 24.5 million refugees – maintain their sovereignty? I examine how Jordan protect its sovereignty in the face of porous borders and the interference of international institutions and foreign states. Jordan hosts 2.7 million refugees in a total population of 9.5 million people. Jordan provides shelter, education, health care, and protection to millions of refugees, challenges that are exacerbated as citizens face high unemployment and strained social institutions including overcrowded hospitals and underperforming schools. I show that sovereignty is a relational process enacted through quotidian practices not only from the top-down—by government and international officials—but also from the bottom-up through the daily decisions of refugees and citizens. I conducted an ethnography of the state and in-depth, semi-structured interviews in Arabic and English, triangulating 175 total interviews with Syrian refugees, Jordanian citizens, and UN, NGO, and government officials. I triangulate interviews to explore the social construction of sovereignty. I find that sovereignty practices are leveraged against one another, which is often done to secure financial and other kinds of support from the international community. However, when state security is in jeopardy, Jordanian officials will strictly maintain final authority over refugee populations.

AbstractWhile scholars have described vertical nation‐building narratives that genealogically anchor a specific group to a specific territory (Smith 1981; Eriksen 2002), I argue that, in addition to vertical strategies, expressions of international solidarity constitute horizontal nation‐building strategies. Expressions of international solidarity can be used to maintain local ethnic boundaries and reinforce local divisions. By adopting an ally, expressions of international solidarity also designate an adversary, making the boundary between the two a possible incentive for solidarity. In Northern Ireland, some Unionist and Nationalist political entrepreneurs rely on expressions of international solidarity with Israelis or Palestinians, respectively, to make adversarial ethno‐national claims to the nation‐state. This study examines flags, graffiti, murals and political speech on display in Northern Ireland that advocate for either Israelis or Palestinians. Through the concept of 'borrowed legitimacy', I acknowledge the strategic use of the ethnic boundary in expressions of international solidarity.

We sat on suitcases filled to the brim in the living room of my aunt's house, waiting for an uncle to take us along the scenic airport road to the imminent Delta flight awaiting. My mother turned to me and said, "Don't forget what I have been telling you". I acknowledged her comment with an, "I knnnnnnnow, Mom". Picking up on my dismissive attitude, my mom began to unhook three delicate bracelets from her wrist.

Most of the world's 25.4 million refugees have been displaced for five or more years. A sharp curtailment in refugee arrivals to the United States, then, isn't just a national decision, but a global disruption.

Theorization in the sociology of migration and the field of refugee studies has been retarded by a path-dependent division that we argue should be broken down by greater mutual engagement. Excavating the construction of the refugee category reveals how unwarranted assumptions shape contemporary disputes about the scale of refugee crises, appropriate policy responses, and suitable research tools. Empirical studies of how violence interacts with economic and other factors shaping mobility offer lessons for both fields. Adapting existing theories that may not appear immediately applicable, such as household economy approaches, helps explain refugees' decision-making processes. At a macro level, world systems theory sheds light on the interactive policies around refugees across states of origin, mass hosting, asylum, transit, and resettlement. Finally, focusing on the integration of refugees in the Global South reveals a pattern that poses major challenges to theories of assimilation and citizenship developed in settler states of the Global North.