Suchergebnisse

Defended in Leiden on 16 September 2021 ; Emigrants can vote from abroad for about 120 territories and immigrants can vote in about 50 countries. Many international migrants can vote or abstain in both the origin and residence countries, making four distinct types of migrant electoral behavior: immigrant, emigrant, and dual transnational voting, as well as abstention. Migrant political participation affects democratic decision-making and electoral outcomes in two polities, reasons for which both migrant enfranchisement and migrant voting merit scholarly research. My goal is to unpack why migrants decide to vote or abstain in either the origin or residence country, in both, or in neither. I conducted surveys and interviews in Chile and Ecuador, likely cases in which to find individuals with national-level voting rights in two countries. I argue that political resocialization helps to explain individual-level migrant voter turnout. I posit resources combined with ties to people or places in one or both countries constitute a necessary condition and resources with a motive to vote serves as a sufficient condition for migrant voting. Rather than a trade-off of replacement, over time migrants change their positioning and motives to vote in one country or both countries. The case studies shed light on the legal and normative origins of migrant enfranchisement over the last century, differences among migrant voting variants, and how political (re)socialization processes help explain why migrants vote and change voting behavior over time.

This article analyses democracy in post-communist Croatia 1990–1999 and 2000–2011. During the first decade, political stagnation occurred under a competitive authoritarian regime. This ended abruptly and there was a critical juncture, during which a free and fair election marked the start of Croatian democracy in 2000. I first propose a causal chain to explain the election results, suggesting that the occurrence of the election, combined with other necessary factors, revealed the population's underlying preference for democracy. Internally, this preference then served as a positive feedback mechanism throughout Croatia's rapid increase in democracy as it became a candidate for European Union membership and finalized accession negotiations. Externally, the European Union influenced democratic progress, particularly via conditionality policies. This historical comparative analysis aims to explain which factors allowed for a rapid increase in democratic quality, positioning the 2000 election results as the main influence.

During the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, (im)mobility policies affected individuals' citizenship rights and movement within countries and across international borders. Prior to the pandemic, the mobility regime in South America was relatively open for regional migrants, bolstered on free residence and equal rights. In this analysis, we focus on human mobility and citizenship rights in South America by examining local and national government responses to Covid-19 between March and August 2020. Using databases, newspaper columns, government websites, and legislation, we outline the region's travel restrictions and exceptions, closures and militarization of borders, internal movement procedures, and economic subsidies to ease Covid-19's impact. While the regional mobility regime had already been under stress since 2015, exceptions to border closures and internal mobility further stratified people based on legal and economic statuses. Deeply affecting individual-state relations, access to mobility and citizenship rights such as labor, housing, and healthcare varied between nationals and non-nationals and between regular and irregular migrants. Reactions may have longer term effects, especially for Venezuelans, since the crisis created new inequalities and contradictions within the regional mobility regime, originally aimed at reducing them.

During the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, (im)mobility policies affected individuals' citizenship rights and movement within countries and across international borders. Prior to the pandemic, the mobility regime in South America was relatively open for regional migrants, bolstered on free residence and equal rights. In this analysis, we focus on human mobility and citizenship rights in South America by examining local and national government responses to Covid-19 between March and August 2020. Using databases, newspaper columns, government websites, and legislation, we outline the region's travel restrictions and exceptions, closures and militarization of borders, internal movement procedures, and economic subsidies to ease Covid-19's impact. While the regional mobility regime had already been under stress since 2015, exceptions to border closures and internal mobility further stratified people based on legal and economic statuses. Deeply affecting individual-state relations, access to mobility and citizenship rights such as labor, housing, and healthcare varied between nationals and non-nationals and between regular and irregular migrants. Reactions may have longer term effects, especially for Venezuelans, since the crisis created new inequalities and contradictions within the regional mobility regime, originally aimed at reducing them.

Despite the extensive spread of external voting across the world, exceptions remain as some countries have not passed such regulations (e.g., Uruguay) or have passed them but lag implementation (e.g., Nicaragua). Others still took a long time to join the trend, possibly presenting a pushback to the commonly accepted notion of norm diffusion to explain migrant enfranchisement. We examine a latecomer by asking why Chile took so long to enfranchise emigrants. Classified as a liberal democracy with a century of legal history of foreign-resident voting, it repeatedly rejected proposed bills on external voting since 1971. Chile enacted external voting only in 2014, regulated it in 2016, and applied it in 2017. Through legal historical content analysis, we identify which political actors proposed the bills, when, and why each failed. Left and right-leaning actors gave normative, legal, and procedural reasons that resulted in rejection and stagnation at various institutional stages. This latecomer's constitutional tradition, strongly focused on territory and territorial links, potentially sheds light on dozens of other country cases of late adoption of the external franchise.

Historical extra‐regional emigration patterns have shaped South America's focus on a human‐rights approach to migration. Concern for emigrants permeates debates at the annual South American Conference on Migration (SACM), yet national legislation emphasises immigration rather than emigration. Comparing national legislation to SACM documents between 2000 and 2021, we show that countries fail to reflect the same priorities as regional agreements in their laws. The interlevel discrepancies reveal that – despite prominent roles for regional cooperation, international organisations, and global migration governance – when it comes to migration legislation in South America over the last two decades, we find sovereign law‐making within national territories trumps regional agreements.

Contemporary liberal democracies have employed exclusive or restrictive language, such as promising stricter border control, to ease domestic concerns about increased immigration, while simultaneously maintaining inclusive outcomes by accepting immigrants to support labor markets or to concur with global norms. Dynamic changes in migration flows disrupt this exclusive–inclusive balance known as the policy gap. Aligned with the South American shift since 2016 to more restrictive migration measures, in 2018, Chile's new administration proposed legislation to replace the migration law, started a regularization process, and issued two executive decrees to change nationality‐specific visa procedures. We analyze the language, timing, and implementation of the decrees as units of analysis, juxtaposing their apparent versus actual purposes. Since Chile positions restrictive measures as protective of immigrants, this case of migration governance inverses the policy gap debate; now, inclusive language disguises exclusive outcomes.

First published online: 01 April 2021 ; Objective/Context: Latin American democracies in the 21st century are torn between "protecting" state sovereignty by increasing restrictiveness in immigration legislation versus adhering to more liberal international agreements advocating human rights and mobility. Increases intraregional migration, especially from Venezuela, have pushed some South American countries to limit rights and freedoms previously included in immigration policies. Our objective is to further examine this shi to restrictiveness by empirically evaluating legislative intentions in Chile. Methodology: Since 2018 the Chilean government has implemented various measures aimed to achieve "orderly" and "regular" immigration, as well as proposed a law project to replace the Migration Law of 1975, adopted during the civic-military regime. We apply the Immigration Policies in Comparison (IMPIC) index using Chile's law proposal 8970-06 and its refugee Law 20.430. Conclusion: e Chilean administration's legislative intentions indicate tightening restrictions constraining human mobility, especially for labor immigration and family reuni cation. Originality: is article extends the IMPIC index from 2010 to 2019, applying it for the rst time to legislative intentions of an incumbent government, to shed light on how countries, as migration states, change strategies over time.