Suchergebnisse

AbstractIn reviewing the articles in this special issue on the migration/policy/anthropology nexus, my comments will be in three parts: first, presenting a rough framework by which we might look at public policy in a way that bridges the academic and the practical; second, considering the actual cases presented in this special issue; and third, considering more broadly what the anthropological contribution might be to this complex and often acrimonious issue of migration policy. Throughout, the attempt is to search for a way of looking at migration policy that balances the inevitable academic critiques of public policy with a recognition of what public policy can and inevitably must be as a tool of societal discussion, planning, and progress.

Introduction: humanity on the move -- The United States and immigration -- A world of migrants, a nation of immigrants -- The reopening of the United States : refugees and immigrants -- Migration policies and politics -- Immigrants and the United States -- To live : moving forward but looking back -- To work : great opportunities but heavy costs -- To believe : hopes, dreams, and commitments -- To belong : assimilation, adaptation, and accommodation -- Epilogue: beyond immigration -- Timeline: U.S. immigration contexts, events, and legislation -- Further sources -- Index

"A concise yet comprehensive guide to cultural anthropology using a materialist approach. This revised and updated edition exposes students to the cultural detail and personal experiences that lie in the anthropological record and extends their anthropological understanding to contemporary issues"--Provided by publisher

In his masterful study of the relationship between refugees and the United States, covering seven decades of immigration history, David Haines shows how both the refugees and their new communities have struggled with national and ethnic identities, and also the effect that this struggle has had on US institutions and attitudes.

The end of the Second World War in Europe left millions of people out of place, including Jews left in concentration camps, forced laborers in the huge Nazi work camp system, and many Germans as well. For roughly a million of these people, no immediate return to their home countries was possible, and the United States—although very slowly—ultimately resettled the largest number of them. One important thread in these US efforts was the intent to make the resettlement program a fully national one. Those efforts are seen most clearly in states that would not at that time have been obvious destinations for displaced persons, or at least not obvious destinations for relatively large numbers of them. This article examines three states—North Dakota, Minnesota, and Mississippi. The resettlement program may not have been fully coherent in policy goals, including veering sharply at times from the original humanitarian intent. Yet the program worked well on its own terms and set a new standard for state and local involvement in resettlement that has continued through the major surges of refugees to the United States since then, including recent efforts on behalf of those from Afghanistan and Ukraine. This US experience of refugee resettlement through a flexible federal/state/local system, with strong involvement from both public and private sectors, remains a crucial experiment in resettlement and a reminder of the ways refugee and immigration policies and programs are intertwined.