Suchergebnisse

This study confronts the double paradox of state-regulated labor migration: while markets benefit from open borders that allow them to meet the demand for migrant workers, the boundaries of citizenship impose a degree of limitation on cross-border migration. At the same time, the exclusivity of citizenship requires closed membership, yet civil and human rights undermine the state's capacity to exclude foreigners once they are inside the country. By considering how Malaysia and Spain have responded to the demand for foreign labor, this book analyzes the unavoidable clash of markets, citizenship, and rights.This truly comparative book will become a standard work in the field. It opens new research venues, with major implications for a state migration control theory that has too long been Atlanto-centred. Leo Lucassen, Leiden University

State regulation of labour migration is confronted with a double paradox. First, while markets require a policy of open borders to fulfill demands for migrant workers, the boundaries of citizenship impose some degree of closure to the outside. Second, while the exclusivity of citizenship requires closed membership, civil and human rights undermine the state's capacity to exclude foreigners once they are in the country. By considering how Malaysia and Spain have responded to the demand for foreign labour, this book analyses what may be identified as the trilemma between markets, citizenship and rights. For though their markets are similar, the two countries have different approaches to citizenship and rights. We must thus ask: how do such divergences affect state responses to market demands and how, in turn, do state regulations impact labour migration flows? And what does this mean for contemporary migration overall? - De overheid wordt in de regulering van arbeidsmigratie geconfronteerd met een dubbele paradox. Ten eerste: terwijl markten een op en grenzenbeleid vereisen om aan de behoefte van arbeidsmigranten en de marktvraag tegemoet te komen, leggen de grenzen die inherent zijn aan burgerschap een zekere afsluiting van de buitenwereld op. Ten tweede: terwijl de exclusiviteit die burgerschap met zich meebrengt een gesloten lidmaatschap vergt, ondermijnen burgerschap- en mensenrechten de mogelijkheid van de staat om buitenlanders uit te sluiten zodra zij zich in het land bevinden.

State regulation of labour migration is confronted with a double paradox. First, while markets require a policy of open borders to fulfill demands for migrant workers, the boundaries of citizenship impose some degree of closure to the outside. Second, while the exclusivity of citizenship requires closed membership, civil and human rights undermine the state's capacity to exclude foreigners once they are in the country. By considering how Malaysia and Spain have responded to the demand for foreign labour, this book analyses what may be identified as the trilemma between markets, citizenship and rights.

En los últimos años, a pesar de un mayor control migratorio, la inmigración irregular ha crecido tanto en España como en Malasia y Estados Unidos. Este incremento de la inmigración irregular ha sido explicado principalmente en relación a factores socioeconómicos. Sin embargo, si bien estos factores explican la presencia de flujos migratorios hacia estos países, no logran explicar por qué parte de estos flujos se da de forma irregular. Para ello tenemos que tomar en consideración el Estado y sus políticas de inmigración. Partiendo de esta premisa, esta investigación analiza hasta qué punto, cómo y por qué las políticas de inmigración en España, Malasia y Estados Unidos producen "ilegales". Esto significa analizar no sólo cómo y por qué las políticas de inmigración contribuyen a incrementar el número de inmigrantes irregulares, sino también cómo y por qué, negando sus derechos y a menudo su existencia, crean la figura del "ilegal". Como se demuestra en esta nota de investigación para el caso de Malasia, la inmigración irregular no es a pesar de las políticas de inmigración, sino como consecuencia de ellas

In this book, experts on integration processes, integration policies, transnationalism, and the migration and development framework provide an academic assessment of the 2011 European Agenda for the Integration of Third-Country Nationals, which calls for integration policies in the EU to involve not only immigrants and their society of settlement, but also actors in their country of origin. Moreover, a heuristic model is developed for the non-normative, analytical study of integration processes and policies based on conceptual, demographic, and historical accounts. The volume addresses three interconnected issues: What does research have to say on (the study of) integration processes in general and on the relevance of actors in origin countries in particular? What is the state of the art of the study of integration policies in Europe and the use of the concept of integration in policy formulation and practice? Does the proposal to include actors in origin countries as important players in integration policies find legitimation in empirical research? A few general conclusions are drawn. First, integration policies have developed at many levels of government: nationally, locally, regionally, and at the supra-national level of the EU. Second, a multitude of stakeholders has become involved in integration as policy designers and implementers. Finally, a logic of policymaking-and not an evidence-based scientific argument-can be said to underlie the European Commission's redefinition of integration as a three-way process. This book will appeal to academics and policymakers at international, European, national, regional, and local levels. It will also be of interest to graduate and master-level students of political science, sociology, social anthropology, international relations, criminology, geography, and history. A great source for studying fundamental issues and policies of migrant integration in Europe. Professor Friedrich Heckmann, Director of European forum for migration studies, University of Bamberg F. Heckmann Historically grounded, thought-provoking in its conceptualisation of integration and ground breaking in its emphasis on the impact of countries of origin, exploring questions of vital importance to scholars and to policy makers from a local to European level. Sarah Spencer Director, Global Exchange on Migration and Diversity, COMPAS, Oxford. If you want a succinct, comprehensive, and insightful summary of scholarship on the polit ...

Migration; Statistics for Social Science, Behavorial Science, Education, Public Policy, and Law

Despite their rhetorical emphasis on enforcement, contemporary governments have overseen a process of formal semi-inclusion of irregular migrants. This chapter calls for a clearer conceptual distinction between sovereignty and governmentality to argue that simultaneous exclusion and inclusion does not primarily result from a gap between law in the books and law in practice, nor from external constraints imposed on the state, but rather follows from contradictory public rationalities in the realm of migration management. Those contradictions result in a messy, multidimensional, and continuous citizenship regime that cannot not be fully grasped through reified dichotomies such as formal vs informal, structure vs agency, or legal exclusion vs performative acts of inclusion, as the latter ironically rely on an overly homogenous and self-consistent picture of the modern state. We hypothesize that the structural imperatives of governmentality, which require embracing the population as it is, may account for the relative stability of forms of incorporation over time while moral and legal justifications for it come and go in a more fluctuating way. These structural concerns— public health, public education, public safety, economic and urban planning — could turn out to be of deeper long-term relevance to contemporary states than more superficial or "ideological" considerations such as human rights compliance or humanitarian compassion.

Cilj je ovoga rada razmotriti komparativno istraživanje integracijskih politika europskih gradova. Prva dva dijela daju analitički okvir za istraživanje imigrantskih integracijskih procesa i politika čija je namjera upravljati takvim procesima. U trećem se dijelu izlaže kako su se razvile lokalne integracijske politike u odnosu na nacionalne politike i integracijske politike Europske unije, posebice nakon 2003. U četvrtom i glavnom dijelu analiziraju se oblikovanje i sadržaj integracijskih politika europskih gradova promatrajući njihovu različitost u pravnoj/političkoj dimenziji, zatim u društvenoekonomskoj dimenziji – uključujući područja rada, stanovanja, obrazovanja i zdravlja – kao i kulturnoj, religijskoj i etničkoj dimenziji. Autori zaključuju da postoji strukturna konvergencija u smislu da u složenoj strukturi višerazinskog upravljanja migracijama i integracijom gradovi zauzimaju sličnu poziciju razvijanjem horizontalnih odnosa suradnje i razmjene. Gradovi koji razvijaju izrazite integracijske politike skloni su to učiniti obuhvatnijim i pragmatičnijim uobličavanjem nego nacionalne politike i politike Europske unije. Istodobno postoji velika razlika u tome što gradovi zapravo čine: oblikovanje, namjere i mjere jako se razlikuju u pravnim/političkim i kulturnim/religijskim dimenzijama, dok je u društvenoekonomskoj dimenziji ta razlika manja kada je riječ o području djelovanja, ali je veća po jakosti političke intervencije. ; This article aims to review the comparative study of integration policies of European cities. The first two sections present an analytical framework for the study of immigrants' integration processes and the policies that intend to steer such processes. The third section outlines how local integration policies have developed in relation to national policies and EU integration policies, particularly after 2003. The fourth and main section analyses the framing and content of integration policies of European cities, looking at their diversity in the legal/political dimension, the socio-economic dimension – including the domains of work, housing, education and health – and the cultural, religious and ethnic dimension. It is concluded that there is a structural convergence, in the sense that in the complex structure of multilevel governance of migration and integration, cities do take a similar position, developing horizontal relations of cooperation and exchange. Cities that develop explicit integration policies tend to do this from a more inclusive and pragmatic framing than national and EU-policies. At the same time, there is great variation in what cities actually do: in the legal/political and in the cultural/religious dimensions, framing, intentions and measures do vary greatly; in the socio-economic dimension this variation is less when it comes to the domains of activity, but more in the intensity of policy intervention.

AbstractOver the last two decades, research on unauthorized migration has departed from the equation of migrant illegality with absolute exclusion, emphasizing that formal exclusion typically results in subordinate inclusion. Irregular migrants integrate through informal support networks, the underground economy, and political activities. But they also incorporate into formal institutions, through policy divergence between levels of government, bureaucratic sabotage, or fraud. The incorporation of undocumented migrants involves not so much invisibility as camouflage – presenting the paradox that camouflage improves with integration. As it reaches the formal level of claims and procedures, legalization brings up the issue of the frames through which legal deservingness is asserted. Looking at the moral economy embedded in claims and programs, we examine a series of frame tensions: between universal and particular claims to legal status, between legalization based on vulnerability and that based on civic performance, between economic and cultural deservingness, and between the policy level and individual subjectivity. We show that restrictionist governments face a dilemma when their constructions of "good citizenship" threaten to extend to "deserving" undocumented migrants. Hence, they may simultaneously emphasize deservingness frames while limiting irregular migrants' opportunities to deserve, effectively making deservingness both a civic obligation and a civic privilege.