Suchergebnisse

The new immigration federalism: the great divergence -- Party, polarization, and place: the sources of state immigrant policies -- States in the changing landscape of American immigration -- Policy divergence in immigrant-rich states: California and Texas -- Grassroots restriction in new gateway states: Arizona and North Carolina -- "Dreamers" versus "Illegals:" voting behavior in state legislatures -- The disequilibrium of immigration federalism.

"In recent years, Republicans and Democrats have drifted toward polarized immigration policy positions, forestalling congressional efforts at comprehensive reform. In this book Gary M. Reich helps explain why some states have enacted punitive policies toward their immigrant populations, while others have stepped up efforts to consider all immigrants as de facto citizens. Reich argues that state policies reflect differing immigrant communities across states. In states where large-scale immigration was a recent phenomenon, immigrants became an electorally-enticing target of restrictionist advocates within the Republican party. Conversely established immigrant communities steadily strengthened their ties to civic organizations and their role in Democratic electoral and legislative politics. Reich contends that these diverging demographic trends at the state level were central to the increasing partisan polarization surrounding immigration nationally. He concludes that immigration federalism at present suffers from an internal contradiction that proliferates conflict across all levels of government. As long as Congress is incapable of addressing the plight of unauthorized immigrants and establishing a consensus on immigration admissions, state policies inevitably expand legal uncertainty and partisan wrangling. The Politics of Immigration Across the United States will appeal to scholars and instructors in the fields of immigration policy, social policy, and state government and politics. The book will also encourage public policy practitioners to reflect critically on their work"--

We examine patterns of county participation in immigration enforcement across the Obama and Trump administrations and responses to the Trump administration's efforts to mandate local compliance with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) directives. We focus on the policy that directly speaks to local discretion in enforcing federal law—namely, the willingness of local officials to render immigrant detainees to ICE. We find that underlying patterns of detainee transfers from counties to ICE were largely consistent between the Obama and Trump administrations. Nonetheless, the rate of detainee transfers increased during the Trump administration, an outcome associated with county support for Trump in the 2016 election. The findings suggest that partisanship is an entrenched source of diverging county enforcement practices, increasing intergovernmental conflict and undermining the "steam valve" potential of immigration federalism.