Suchergebnisse

Cover -- Half Title -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Table of Contents -- Acknowledgements -- Introduction -- 1 The Context of Welfare -- 2 Perspectives on the Modern British State -- 3 Approaches to Welfare -- 4 The Development and Functions of Social Work -- 5 State, Welfare and Social Work -- 6 Sociological Imagination and the Practice of Social Work -- 7 Sociology and Social Welfare: Problems and Prospects -- Bibliography -- Index

Cover -- Half Title -- Title -- Copyright -- Contents -- Acknowledgements -- Introduction -- Part 1 Contexts of social policy -- 1 Social, economic and political contexts -- Features of the post-war British state -- Economic policy 1945-75 -- Social policy 1945-75 -- The demise of welfare statism? -- Prelude: the early 1970s -- 2 Social policy in the 1980s and 1990s -- 1979-93: the new Conservative experiment -- Social policy and new Conservatism: an appraisal -- Part 2 Understanding the state and social policy -- 3 Understanding the modern British State -- The erstwhile orthodoxy: social democracy and the state -- Marxist views of the state -- Marxism and the state: the oil-shock economy -- Radical right views on the state -- Ideas about the state in the 1980s and 1990s -- Conclusion -- 4 Understanding welfare: Pre-Thatcherite social policy -- The social democratic orthodoxy: welfare and bureaucratic collectivism -- Radical challenges to social democracy: the capitalist state and social policy -- Radical challenges to social democracy: social policy and the radical right -- 5 Understanding social policy: Radical challenges to social democracy in the 1980s and 1990s -- The neo-liberal revival? Radical rightism, politics and social policy in the 1980s and 1990s -- Intentions and outcomes -- The objectives of Conservative social policy -- The development of Conservative social policy -- Health policy -- The NHS and the internal market -- Education policy -- Other social policy areas -- Some conclusions -- The new Labourism: the 'citizen' returns -- 6 Changing social services: A study of the demise of old-style social democracy -- Prelude: social work before the welfare state -- The inception of state social work -- The reorganisation of state social work -- Personal social services in the post-war period.

AbstractExit restrictions are viewed with suspicion in the literature related to migration, citizenship, and human rights. The international human rights project is devoted to defending the minimal proposition that a person should be able to leave their own country, with few exceptions. Public health emergencies constitute one of the few limits on this mobility right in Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Here, I offer a limited legal and normative defence of pandemic travel restrictions, with a focus on Australia's COVID‐19 exit control measures. I argue that public health emergency exit controls do not constitute a violation of a traveller's mobility rights, so long as they are temporary, narrowly tailored, and proportionate to the health risk posed by the traveller in question. They should be lifted when alternative measures become widely available, such as vaccination and testing requirements.

This article draws from the lessons of the Mexican-American labour movement's internal conflict during the twentieth century about how to respond to new co-ethnic migration to consider what new immigrants and citizens owe to one another as workers in the current US immigration reform debate. For much of the twentieth century, Mexican-Americans were divided about how the US government should respond to new unauthorized and temporary legal immigration from Mexico. Though their class interests diverged, Mexican-American business and union leaders joined forces to lobby for border security and increased immigration enforcement. During the same period, progressive Mexican-American labour leaders advanced a countervailing message of transnational solidarity between newcomers and their settled immigrant compatriots. They further demanded that all Americans recognize the earned citizenship of immigrants who contributed to their families, communities and adopted nation through their labour.

In this article, I make a policy argument in defense of family and relationship-based immigration preferences in U.S. immigration law that accounts for economic objections and calls for solidarity among socioeconomically disadvantaged U.S. residents on this issue. I begin with a historical account of policy arguments for limiting family-based immigration. I challenge the view that family-based immigration is a fiscal burden on the nation as a whole and acts against the interests of disadvantaged native-born workers. Then, I present and respond to perception-based objections to family-based immigration by disadvantaged citizens who believe that they are suffering from competition with mixed-skilled immigrants, including those sponsored by family members. Advocates of family unity in immigration policy are fighting the perception of zero-sum competition between immigrants and disadvantaged citizens by organizing together for improvements in wages and working conditions, leveraging arguments from the U.S. civil rights struggle to advocate for inclusive immigration policies.