Suchergebnisse

Frontmatter -- Contents -- List of Tables and Figures -- Acknowledgments -- CHAPTER ONE. Introduction -- CHAPTER TWO. The Politics of Immigration Control: Understanding the Rise and Fall of Policy Regimes -- CHAPTER THREE. Immigrant Voters in a Partisan Polity: European Settlers, Nativism, and American Immigration Policy, 1776–1896 -- CHAPTER FOUR. Chinese Exclusion and Precocious State-Building in the Nineteenth-Century American Polity -- CHAPTER FIVE. Progressivism, War, and Scientific Policymaking: The Rise of the National Origins Quota System, 1900–1928 -- CHAPTER SIX. Two-Tiered Implementation: Jewish Refugees, Mexican Guestworkers, and Administrative Politics -- CHAPTER SEVEN. Strangers in Cold War America: The Modern Presidency, Committee Barons, and Postwar Immigration Politics -- CHAPTER EIGHT. The Rebirth of American Immigration: The Rights Revolution, New Restrictionism, and Policy Deadlock -- CHAPTER NINE. Two Faces of Expansion: The Contemporary Politics of Immigration Reform -- CHAPTER TEN. Conclusion -- APPENDIX. The Sample of Interviewees -- Notes -- Index

The recent outpouring of work on executive power during emergencies, inspired by the post-9/11 era, has significantly enhanced our legal and theoretical understanding of this crucial subject. A key flaw in this literature, however, is that it is historically un-rooted, either dismissing or ignoring important analytical and empirical insights from presidential research and from APD and historical-institutionalist perspectives. In this article, I argue that we can better explain patterns and variations in the use of presidential emergency power by paying careful attention to shifting historical set points for executive choice and action during security crises. In particular, the findings here underscore the episodic growth of new precedents, resources, and expectations for the White House in perilous contexts. The development of presidential emergency power reflects the potential for early executive choices to be repeated and legitimated over time, laying dormant as a "loaded weapon" to be used by future executives in similarly urgent circumstances.

Few issues have proven more contentious in American politics during recent decades than immigration. Although there is wide agreement that the existing immigration system is "broken," major policy reform poses enormous political perils for presidents and congressional leaders. The internal conflicts within the Republican and Democratic Parties are at least as great as those between rival partisans. The obstacles to reform are especially daunting when focused on illegal immigration and the status of unauthorized immigrants. This article explains why immigration policymaking is so politically divisive, and how illegal immigration in particular makes even basic problem definition difficult, focusing on the role of rival ideas and interests, elusive coalition-building, widespread cynicism over past implementation failures, an expanded scope of conflict, and flawed policy alternatives. It also illuminates how the Clinton and Bush administrations formulated strategic responses to pressures for immigration reform. The implications of recent immigration reform politics are striking: Whereas Clinton translated its lethargy and defensive opportunism on immigration policy into consequential electoral gains for the Democrats among Latinos and Asians, Bush's vigorous advocacy produced a rebellious and unmanageable party base and further eroded support for the Republican Party among new immigrant voters and kindred ethnics. Significantly, the Obama administration is almost certain to have far fewer degrees of freedom on immigration than its recent predecessors.

Few issues have proven more contentious in American politics during recent decades than immigration. Although there is wide agreement that the existing immigration system is "broken," major policy reform poses enormous political perils for presidents and congressional leaders. The internal conflicts within the Republican and Democratic Parties are at least as great as those between rival partisans. The obstacles to reform are especially daunting when focused on illegal immigration and the status of unauthorized immigrants. This article explains why immigration policymaking is so politically divisive, and how illegal immigration in particular makes even basic problem definition difficult, focusing on the role of rival ideas and interests, elusive coalition-building, widespread cynicism over past implementation failures, an expanded scope of conflict, and flawed policy alternatives. It also illuminates how the Clinton and Bush administrations formulated strategic responses to pressures for immigration reform. The implications of recent immigration reform politics are striking: Whereas Clinton translated its lethargy and defensive opportunism on immigration policy into consequential electoral gains for the Democrats among Latinos and Asians, Bush's vigorous advocacy produced a rebellious and unmanageable party base and further eroded support for the Republican Party among new immigrant voters and kindred ethnics. Significantly, the Obama administration is almost certain to have far fewer degrees of freedom on immigration than its recent predecessors. Adapted from the source document.

The practical and ethical challenges posed by unauthorized immigration in the United States have a long history. In this article, which serves as the basis of discussion in this issue's Up for Debate section, Daniel Tichenor demonstrates how the immigration debate defies the usual liberal/conservative divide of U.S. politics and illustrates the different ways that distinct ideological camps define the problem of illegal immigration. He then shows how American immigration reform, because of the contentious politics it inspires, has been propelled over time by compromises among strange bedfellows. The legislative result for almost a century has been a series of Faustian bargains over porous borders and access to cheap, low-skilled labor. Equally important, the capacity and will of the national state to enforce its immigration laws have long been beleaguered by a tradition of inadequate resources, erratic leadership, and poor oversight. While the political spotlight usually trains on legislative wrangling over immigration reform and its legal outcomes, the devil often can be found in the details of enforcement. In addition to these significant historical patterns, however, are important new forces in the politics of immigration reform. These include the fresh political mobilization and growing influence of new immigrant groups as well as the shifting role of organized labor in immigration policy making.
In their generally sympathetic responses to Tichenor, economist Barry Chiswick stresses the costs of the modern-day welfare state as an additional consideration affecting political discussion in recent years, Nancy Foner expands the political dimension to encompass the diversity of state and local polities, while David Gutiérrez suggests that older, static ideas of "social membership" are being upended by the presence and uncowed activism of "noncitizens" in an era of global economic realignment.

Examines ideological support for the changes in immigration laws and the ambiguous and often conflicting policy that resulted.