Suchergebnisse

Tema diplomskog rada je politika SAD-a prema ilegalnim migrantima iz Latinske Amerike. Promatrano je razdoblje nakon Drugog svjetskog rata kada je krenuo masovni priljev emigranata iz Latinske Amerike u Sjedinjene Američke Države. Tada imigracijska politika prema ilegalnim imigrantima postaje jedna od prioritetnih politika Sjedinjenih Američkih Država. U promatranom razdoblju daje se prikaz imigracijske politike američkih predsjednika, počevši sa Zakonom o reformi i kontroli imigracije (Immigration Reform and Control Act-IRCA) predsjednika Ronalda Reagana (1981. - 1989.). Vrata ilegalnoj imigraciji iz Latinske Amerike pokušao je zatvoriti predsjednik Bill Clinton (1993. - 2001.) Zakonom o reformi ilegalne imigracije i imigrantskoj odgovornosti (Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act-IIRIA), dok je namjere predsjednika Georgea W. Busha (2001. - 2009.) spriječio teroristički napad na Sjedinjene Američke Države 11.9.2001 godine. Njegov nasljednik predsjednik Barack Obama (2009. - 2017.) iskoristio je svoje predsjedničke ovlasti i autorizirao provođenje programa DACA (Deffered Action for Childhood Arrivals) i DAPA (Deffered Action for Parents of Americans) koji su pogodovali djeci ilegalnih imigranta, uz istovremeno provođenje brojnih uhićenja i deportacija ilegalnih imigranata. Rad završava prikazom dosadašnje politike predsjednika Donalda Trumpa koji ilegalne imigrante smatra prijetnjom nacionalnoj sigurnosti Sjedinjenih Američkih Država. ; The subject of the graduate thesis is policy of the USA towards illegal migrants from Latin America. Observed period is the period after World War II, starting with the mass flow of emigrants from the Latin America to the United States of America. This is the period when immigration policy of the United States towards illegal immigrants became one of the priorities of the United States. Presented are american president's immigration policies, beginning with the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) presented by the president Ronald Reagan (1981. – ...

The author contends that it is, in principle, legitimate to talk about global justice/fairness. Everybody has the right to humane living conditions, irrespective of borders & places of birth. However, we cannot expect the emergence of a world state, not even in the form of a world federation: namely, there is no analogy between the individual's natural state & the states' natural state. States are already an established legal state. This means that any association of states, any federation, even a world state, can come into being only by means of an agreement, which is not very likely. The question is how much the existing borders can & should be open? Is there a universal right to the freedom of movement, the freedom of entering a country, the freedom of employment & immigration? According to the author, the universal moral expectation that every person has exactly the same, unlimited rights in these respects founders over the ethical limitations of universalism. In modernity, the universalistic moral & the ethics of closeness, ie, the responsibilities towards people as such & the responsibilities towards one's own solitary community, have been at variance. To live in modernity means that we cannot apply only one criterion as there are at least two & they allow for the prevalence of one perspective over the other only on a case by case basis, but not generally. Adapted from the source document.

The essay discusses the orientations for preventing the slide toward apartheid States. Beginning with the phenomenology of present mass displacements, it asks: are non-citizens people, and what are the limits of popular sovereignty? Is freedom possible if a good part of denizens is a partly free group? Five concatenated axioms are posed: that 1. the right to hospitality (eventually, citizenship) is a central human right); 2. each State -- or analogous community -- should give all its denizens the maximum possible of citizen rights; 3. our value focus ought to be on immigrant policy and on integration; 4. the status of "unfree labourers" refuses the principle of "one person, one vote"; 5. "no taxation without representation." The long-run alternative is wars and terrorism or civil cohabitation. This would include a foreign economical policy of "co-development", and no participation in wars (except in a present aggression against Europe). If capitalism today condemns a growing majority of humans to psycho-physical misery and premature death, then we may be facing apartheid and global civil wars. Adapted from the source document.