Suchergebnisse

Dit boek gaat over hoe Nederlandse politici en ambtenaren in de afgelopen vijftig jaar de regels hebben vastgesteld voor gezinsmigratie. Het reconstrueert de termen waarin het beleidsdebat gevoerd werd en het verloop van de besluitvorming. Waar de discussie in de jaren vijftig en zestig draaide om de overkomst van gezinnen van gastarbeiders, ging het in de jaren zeventig en tachtig over gelijke behandeling van mannen en vrouwen, homoseksuele en heteroseksuele relaties, en migranten en Nederlanders, en vanaf de jaren negentig over beperking van de instroom, eigen verantwoordelijkheid en de plaa

The impact of the judiciary on immigration policies has been simultaneously overestimated and underestimated. Migration scholars broadly assume that courts have forced liberal states to admit unwanted migration. Based on an analysis of family migration policy making in the Federal Republic of Germany (1975‐90), I show that the direct policy impact of court rulings was limited, as courts were reticent to impinge upon democratic sovereignty. However, the indirect impact of the courts was substantial. Political actors amplified the implications of rulings by interpreting the jurisprudence selectively and expansively. Thus, they turned speaking of rights into a powerful political resource.

http://www.editions-universite-bruxelles.be/fiche/view/2669 ; Le fichier attaché à cette référence, version publiée de l'œuvre, est librement accessible, sans embargo, en accord avec les Editions de l'Université de Bruxelles ; info:eu-repo/semantics/published

For more than 15 years, there has been a lively debate among migration scholars in Europe and North America about how to explain "why liberal states accept unwanted migration." This paper assesses existent hypotheses in the "most-likely" case of the making of Dutch family migration policies. This empirical test raises serious doubts as to the validity of the broadly shared assumption that national policy makers have lost the power to regulate migration flows. Accounts that focus on the mechanisms of domestic politics do yield valuable insights, but fail to capture the crucial role of immaterial values in the decision-making process.

Both the Netherlands and France have recently introduced civic integration abroad policies, which stipulate that family migrants are to learn about the language and customs of the host society, before being admitted to the country. The Dutch program however is much more stringent than the French. While France requires only participation in an evaluation and course that are organised and financed by the French state, the Dutch government has made entry conditional upon passing a test and does not offer courses. In this article, I propose two explanations for the significant differences between the modalities of the Dutch and French civic integration abroad programs. The first is related to party politics, that is to the positions adopted by political parties and the relations between them; the second to the different judicial constraints that weigh upon family migration policies in France and in the Netherlands. ; info:eu-repo/semantics/published

AbstractMonitoring and evaluation (M&E) is a form of expert knowledge that is central to migration governance. This article analyses M&E of the EU Trust Fund for Africa (EUTF), created in 2015 to 'fight the root causes of migration'. Combining institutionalist accounts with practice theory, we examine whether M&E knowledge production served the instrumental purpose of assessing policy impact or mainly legitimated particular policy actors and positions. We find that M&E did not produce evidence on whether the EUTF met its objectives. However, in the context of the EU's multiple crises, M&E knowledge production served to seek legitimacy not only for the EUTF, but also for the further fusion of development and migration policies, and for the EU as a competent and transparent actor. Our analysis highlights that knowledge use and knowledge production are connected, and that M&E knowledge politics allow for the legitimation of both actors and policies.