Suchergebnisse

Migration ist ein jahrhundertealtes Thema, das die Gesellschaften der Vergangenheit und Gegenwart beschäftigt. Seine Darstellung erfolgt jedoch häufig eindimensional: Gegenwärtig ergreifen vor allem Migrationspessimisten der unterschiedlichsten politischen Richtungen wie Paul Scheffer, David Goodhart, Christopher Caldwell, Bernard Lewis und Thilo Sarrazin das Wort, um die öffentliche Diskussion anzufachen und zu polarisieren. Oft geschieht dies unter Bezugnahme auf die Vergangenheit.Die Autoren dieses Buches werfen einen differenzierteren Blick auf das Thema Migration und hinterfragen die schwarzseherischen Prognosen. Vor allem aber wollen sie herausfinden, ob man Erkenntnisse aus den vergangenen Migrationsphasen ziehen und für die gegenwärtige Situation nutzbar machen kann. Den historischen Fakten und wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnissen soll in der Diskussion ein größeres Gewicht zukommen, um die Behauptungen der Migrationspessimisten ihrem tatsächlichen Wert nach beurteilen zu können.Die Untersuchungen beziehen sich vor allem auf das Beispiel der Niederlande, die in Verbindung mit den Namen Pim Fortuijn, Theo van Gogh, Ayaan Hirshi Ali und Geert Wilders weltweit Aufmerksamkeit gefunden haben. Die Debatte wird jedoch auf internationales Gebiet ausgeweitet, um den westeuropäischen Kontext miteinzubeziehen.

1: Old migrants -- The religious threat: Irish migrants in Britain (1840-1922) -- A threat to the nation: Poles in Germany (1870-1940) -- A threat to the native workers: Italians in France (1870-1940) -- Old threats, new threats: conclusion and preview -- 2: New migrants -- The discomfort of color: Caribbean migrants in Great Britain (1948-2002) -- Foreigners within? Turks in Germany (1960-2002) -- Islam and the colonial legacy: Algerians in France (1945-2002)

Wat hebben rederijkerskamers van Zuid-Nederlandse migranten, de Lutherse kerk, Duitse zangverenigingen, informele netwerken van illegalen en Ghanese kerken met elkaar gemeen? Welke functie hebben migrantenorganisaties vervuld in de integratie van nieuwkomers in Nederlandse steden, in het bijzonder in Amsterdam? Fungeerden organisaties vooral als bastion of eerder als bindmiddel? Het zijn dit soort vragen die centraal staan in deze bundel en die bovendien licht werpen op een algemenere problematiek, namelijk in hoeverre integratieprocessen in het heden afwijken van die in het verleden? Is het z

AbstractThis article asks under what historical conditions people who consider themselves as belonging to the ingroup resort to collective violence against free labour migrants. Based on cases in the North Atlantic, and largely limited to the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, it offers a starting point for a more global approach. By using the concept of boundary work, I conclude that once ethnic boundaries are in place they need maintenance, through discourse, legislation, and surveillance. Migrants defined as outsiders, who did not accept their inferior role and thus became direct competitors for such key resources as jobs and houses, were bound to evoke irritation, protest, and, in extreme cases, mob violence. The latter occurred a number of times in early modern England, but such incidents occurred especially in the period 1860–1880 (US and Australia), 1880–1900 (Western Europe), and on both sides of the Atlantic around World War I. In all these cases, boundary-making (through heightened nationalism, imperialism, and embedded racial hierarchies) was prominent, while, at the same time, the state was unable or unwilling to protect its citizens against competition on the labour market and to provide a welfare safety net. This lack of actual boundary maintenance could lead to mob violence, especially when authorities were unwilling or unable to intervene. Moreover, it is striking that violence was directed especially against outsiders who were considered racially or culturally inferior. These included the Chinese and African-American internal migrants in the United States and colonial migrants in the United Kingdom.

How can we explain the demise of the new postwar moral framework of anti-racism and equality and the subsequent rise of integration pessimism in Western Europe in the 1980s, a pessimism that led to the widely accepted idea, from left to right, that "multiculturalism" has failed? And how does this square with the simultaneous establishment of an extraordinary free migration regime within Europe that enables EU citizens to move and pick up work in any other member state? Answers to these questions can be found in three very different, yet complimentary studies that help us to understand more deeply the current alarmist public view of migration and integration, as well as its historical roots:The Crisis of Multiculturalismby Rita Chin, based in Ann Arbor;The European Migration Regimeby Emmanuel Comte, from Berkeley; and Steven Jensen's (Danish Institute for Human Rights)The Making of International Human Rights. The studies by Chin and Comte offer a representative gauge of the blossoming field of migration studies and, in particular, show how this specialist niche can enrich insights into much broader (political, cultural, economic, and social) postwar developments in Europe and beyond. Jensen's innovative and critical book on the postwar "humanitarian turn" is highly relevant for migration studies, as it places the establishment of the United Nations (UN) and a number of its institutions, such as UNHCR and UNESCO, in a new light. Although many more books have been published on these topics in recent years, these three complement each other and provide a useful building block for a new understanding of the emergence of the postwar European migration regime, its paradoxes and consequences. In this review, I will first sketch the wider context and then detail the three books and how they relate to each other.

This paper asks a simple question: why did Western and other European politicians become so alarmed and, in some cases, downright apocalyptic at the rise of asylum seekers in 2014–16, especially compared to the previous refugee crisis in the 1990s? This paper argues that in 2014/2015, a "perfect storm" developed, bringing together factors that in the past had been largely unrelated and then converged with new ones. Peeling the onion of societal discontent with migrants and refugees has revealed five necessary and sufficient conditions: (1) discomfort with immigration and integration of colonial and labour migrants from North Africa and Turkey (1970–80s); (2) growing social inequality and widespread pessimism about globalization (1980s–); (3) A growing discomfort with Islam (1990s–); (4) Islamist terrorism (2000s–) and (5) the rise of radical right populist parties (2000s). KEYWORDS: Refugees, migration, social inequality, populism, islamophobia, terrorism

SummaryThis article compares theories and social policies of social democrats and other representatives of the left-wing political spectrum in six European countries to explain why, in certain countries such as Sweden, Norway, and Switzerland, weak social groups became the target of illiberal and negative eugenic policy, especially isolation and sterilization, while elsewhere left-wing politicians and theorists were far less radical. One striking feature that emerges is the difference between acommunitarian-organicand aclass-boundform of socialism. Following Zygmunt Bauman, Michel Foucault, and James C. Scott, the article discerns a first variant of citizenship that is conditional and intended only for those with the right social attitude. Eugenics was perfectly consistent with such a view, since it offered a diagnosis and at the same time a cure. Prominent representatives of this approach were the Webbs in Britain and the Myrdals in Sweden. Such an organic-medical approach was less likely, however, in a more class-dependent variant of socialism embedded in a strong civil society. As long as social democrats and other leftist politicians believed social problems such as inequality and poverty were caused primarily by an unjust capitalist system, there was little cause for a eugenicist solution.