Search

The "Safe Third Country" principle in international refugee law refers to a State's ability to reject a person's asylum application if they have already been granted protection by another country in compliance with the 1951 Refugee Convention. However, asylum seekers face higher risks Of human trafficking because of their transient and vulnerable circumstances, and some of the most frequently implicated Safe Third Countries are consistently ranked in Tier 2 or below in the US State Department's annual Trafficking in Persons Report; this ranking indicates that they are not in full compliance with the minimum standards provided in the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. This Comment argues that asylum seekers who have experienced human trafficking throughouttheir migration journey should be exempted from Safe Third Country agreements with States that rank in Tier 2 or below. It will survey Greece, Turkey, and the Northern Triangle as examples of States often deemed to be Safe Third Countries, yet have recurring difficulties prosecuting human trafficking violations and protecting victims; this Comment will ultimately propose a solution as to how these exemptions can be implemented in practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The United Kingdom (UK) introduced the Nationality and Borders Bill (2021) to address illegal immigration. This article argues that the UK’s historical asylum policies have contributed to marginalising asylum seekers through a process of “othering.” It demonstrates how policy language and symbols, combined with media discourse, frame asylum seekers as security threats. The power dynamics among public officials and humanitarian agencies further legitimise refugees as the “other.” The article suggests a bottom-up approach involving civil society organisations to incorporate refugee voices in challenging dominant narratives and policymaking. By sharing refugee narratives, this article reveals that refugees are conscious of being marginalised and advocate for policy change. This approach not only empowers them but also helps expose existing stereotypes and power imbalances within mainstream immigration policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Migration and security are two complex and interconnected concepts, which have become increasingly relevant and discussed in the context of the continuous development of the globalization phenomenon and at the same time, in the current geopolitical context on the international stage, in which the political situation in certain states becomes critical and conflictual. The phenomenon of international migration from the non-EU area has materialized more and more frequently in recent years, in terms of waves of refugees and illegal migrants arriving in the European Union, reaching the highest figures recorded in 2015. In this respect, the issue of migration, refugees and asylum seekers has become in the last decade a topic included on the European security agenda of the European Union and at the same time a main topic of discourses by European leaders and research dealing with the issue of "securitization of migration". Starting from the hypothesis according to which the migration phenomenon known as the "refugee crisis of 2015", by the way it unfolded and by the management proposed by the institutions of the European Union, produced a division at discursive level among European leaders, the purpose of this thesis is to demonstrate that migration from the European Union has been catalogued and perceived at a discursive level, in 2019-2021 a threat to European security. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The United States treats asylum as exceptional, meaning that asylum is presumptively unavailable and is offered only in rare cases. This exceptionality conceit, combined with an exclusionary apparatus, creates a problematic cycle. The claims of asylum seekers arriving as part of wide-scale refugee flows are discounted, and restrictive policies are adopted to block these claims. When asylum claims nonetheless continue to mount, the United States asserts "crisis" and deploys new exclusionary measures. The problems created by the asylum system are not addressed but are instead deepened. This Article encourages a turn away from policies that have led down the same paths once and again. This Article first describes the development of the modern U.S. asylum system, highlighting data that demonstrates the extent to which exceptionality is a basic feature of the system. In doing so, this Article reconsiders an assumption underlying much scholarship and commentary--that the U.S. asylum system is fundamentally generous even if it has sometimes failed to live up to its promise. This Article then establishes that the emphasis on exceptionality has led to an exclusionary asylum process. Most asylum claims are adjudicated within deportation proceedings, and policymakers have imposed layers of additional procedural barriers. Next, this Article presents the problems created by the system. It documents how the system places genuine asylees in danger while causing violence at the border. Further, embedded bias in the system, resulting from the focus on exceptionality, favors asylum claims from far-flung nations such as China over commonly arising claims from nearby troubled countries. This bias creates a legitimacy problem. The system also violates U.S. law and international human rights and refugee law. This Article concludes by offering suggestions for more stable, effective, and humane policies to address asylum seekers in the United States. In addition to eliminating many existing substantive restrictions on asylum, the system should incorporate group-based eligibility for applicants from designated nations or situations that are sending significant refugee flows. Finally, the United States should adopt a specialified non-adversarial asylum system for all cases, apart from the deportation system and with genuine independent review of denials of asylum. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Sociologia, Problemas e Práticas is the property of Centro de Investigacao e Estudos de Sociologia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Cuadernos de Trabajo Social is the property of Universidad Complutense de Madrid and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Soziologische Revue is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Public Security & Public Order / Visuomenes Saugumas ir Viesoji Tvarka is the property of Mykolas Romeris University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This Article develops a framework for understanding the emergence and evolution of structural and substantive norms in asylum narratives over time. First, I offer a historical framework which shows how these norms evolve as a result of combined legal, political, cultural, and institutional changes. Institutional norms are infused with politics. Due to this politicization, they undergo processes of bureaucratization and change in response to imperatives and opportunities presented by social and cultural shifts in the way asylum is framed. Second, drawing on a sample of 120 affirmative asylum claims filed between 1989 and 2018, I offer an empirical analysis which reveals the rise of a contemporary system in which competing demands on asylum stories severely limit how those seeking protection can communicate about their experiences. The result is a legal and institutional environment in which asylum seekers must respond to demands for increasing conformity to institutional expectations about how experiences are narrated by adhering to a progressively more formalized, legally, and institutionally legible structure for narrating experiences of persecution or fear. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this study, we contribute to scholarly work on European Union (EU) legitimacy with regard to migration and asylum policy. We do so through an in-depth exploration of the relationship between attitudes towards the EU and migration among the Czech public. Even though there is a body of literature focusing on this topic, there is a gap when it comes to understanding its complexities, especially concerning ‘pro-immigrant’ and ‘pro-European’ positions. We bring a cultural-sociological perspective on meaning-making processes into conversation with theories on the legitimacy of the EU, an analytical move that helps us reveal the nuances in attitudes towards the EU and migration. Our results unpack the narratives surrounding the EU and migration and highlight the apparent cleavage between the ‘pro-immigrant’ and ‘anti-immigrant’ discourses that underpin migration attitudes among the Czech public. We find that notwithstanding some divisiveness, there exists considerable convergence along the three dimensions of legitimacy: input, output and throughput. Indeed, both camps challenge EU legitimacy, but they do so for different reasons and focus on different dimensions. The output aspect of EU legitimacy is the most problematic and criticised within both types of discourse. The input dimension is problematic only within the ‘anti-immigrant’ discourse, and the throughput dimension of EU legitimacy is rather neglected within both discourses. In empirical terms, these findings imply that, in the eyes of the Czech public, the EU—even for those who accept it as a legitimate actor with regard to asylum and migration policy—fails to deliver satisfactory results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the turn of the century, there has been an exponential rise in forcibly displaced persons and human rights violations. This rise has coincided with a series of acts that have removed the United States as a global leader in the fight for human rights. When President Biden took office, he stated his goal of returning the United States to being the global moral authority leader. To achieve this goal, the Biden Administration implemented a plan to address the human rights violations in Central America that are driving forcibly displaced persons to the U.S.-Mexico border seeking asylum. The plan, however, focuses on governance and development efforts in the region. While these efforts are important, this approach has proven ineffective time after time in the past. This Note explains why the Biden Administration should add prosecuting human rights violators domestically as a primary focus. It presents Germany's use of universal jurisdiction and a war crimes unit that carries out structural investigations as a blueprint that the United States should copy. It also acknowledges the unprecedented levels of polarization in U.S. politics and the various viewpoints on sovereignty and immigration that conflict with the notion of universal jurisdiction. Thus, it presents impact jurisdiction as a more realistic alternative that caters to all political viewpoints coupled with a war crimes unit that carries out structural investigations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Against a political backdrop where 'security' is increasingly associated with crime prevention rather than social security and welfare - and where refugees have come to be seen more as a threat to security than in need of security - this article examines asylum seeking refugees' sense of security in Sweden. The article is based on an interview study with Syrian asylum-seeking refugees who arrived in Sweden during the 'refugee crisis' that culminated in 2015. The refugees' stories often portrayed Sweden as a safe country, but their own lives were marked by insecurity in relation to -- in particular -- the asylum process, their economic and housing situation, and their social relations. The article also describes policy changes made before and after the interview study was conducted. These changes are expected to reduce asylum migration, which in turn is expected to reduce crime-related insecurity. At the same time, they lead to increased insecurity for asylum seekers and refugees. The article concludes by questioning whether increasing the insecurity of an already vulnerable group can really make a society more secure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In US refugee policy, and foreign affairs in general, the Executive branch has an enlarged role in determining the law. While there are concurrent US constitutional powers between the Executive and Congress in foreign affairs, often, the US Supreme Court abdicates to the Executive. In particular, Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc. highlights this division Of Power in US foreign affairs. In Sale, the US Supreme Court ruled that the US president's discretion in foreign affairs, based on a generalized delegation of power from Congress, outweighed any international or domestic obligations to provide asylum applicants status determination proceedings. Additionally, the Court made this ruling despite congressional acts that required determination proceedings for asylum applicants. These policies Of interdiction seen in Sale remain largely intact in modern US foreign policy and continue to plague Haitian migrants into 2022. With this in mind, this Note analyzes potential extraterritorial application Of the US Constitution ("the Constitution"), namely rights to procedural due process. Following this analysis, this Note then highlights the ways that applying the Constitution to asylum applicants abroad can act as a safeguard to ensure that the United States upholds important international and domestic obligations despite the US Supreme Court's tendency to defer to the Executive in foreign affairs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In many parts of the Global North, the imagined (and often illusionary) "whiteness" of rural societies has been both exposed and contested by the transnational movements of racialised migrant workers, refugees, asylum seekers and other immigrants. Such dynamics have prompted a renegotiation of ideas of race and rurality, with both reactionary responses of white populism and more progressive responses that assert a "rural cosmopolitanism" that evokes associations with hospitality, solidarity and community in rural culture. To explore these themes, this paper discusses evidence from three rural towns in Ireland and Wales with recent settlement of refugees or asylum seekers. The paper examines the articulation of a discourse of cosmopolitanism in the towns, the roles that are scripted within these discourses, both for migrants and for established residents, and the performance of these expectations. It reveals gaps between discourse and practice, with "actually existing cosmopolitanism" in the towns being characterized by ambivalence and precarity. The paper argues that both the discursive construction and the partial practice of cosmopolitanism are embedded in the rural, non-metropolitan settings of the towns and informed by place-specific palimpsests of migration and colonialism. • Refugee and asylum seeker resettlement in rural areas has increased yet analysis is limited compared to urban cases. • Previous studies identify both economic contributions and issues around limited access to housing, jobs and support networks. • Case studies show positive local responses to refugee resettlement, articulating discourses of rural cosmopolitanism. • Rural cosmopolitanism in practice may depart from expectations, through ambivalence and dissent, producing precarity. • The discourse and practice of cosmopolitanism are embedded in place and informed by palimpsests of migration and colonialism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Relações Internacionais is the property of Relacoes Internacionais and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper examines the labour experiences of Pacific Islander people living in the Greater Shepparton Region in south-eastern Australia, and the forms of both intergenerational belonging and exclusion that are produced at the intersection of racialised labour and place-making in the settler-colonial state. Shepparton's Pacific Islander community, which has been resident in the area for over thirty years, is heavily involved in seasonal horticultural labour, forming part of an industry workforce that also includes workers from other settled migrant-background communities, refugees and asylum seekers, as well as large number of temporary migrant workers. Nevertheless, Pacific Islanders in the region often feel themselves, and their labour, unrecognised within the context of established narratives that discursively construct localness as white. Here, we pay particular attention to the experiences of Pasifika youth who, in reflecting on the labour of their parents, offer potent perspectives on the kinds of precarious belonging this labour produces. These contrast sharply with the celebrated forms of intergenerational belonging and claims to place that adhere to the labour of white farmers, and that have their origins in the colonial dispossessions on which the region's industry is founded. Still, Pasifika people in the region do make place for themselves and for their youth, both through the waged labour they perform as well as through diverse forms of community labour that also situate them in relation to, and with, Indigenous community. Attention to these diverse forms of labour expands the terms through which the work and labour experiences of migrant and other non-white people are usually figured, and highlights the complex, intergenerational entwining of colonialism and racialisation in white-majority rural places. • Pasifika workers' labour produces rural landscapes within which they are marginalised. • Racialized imaginaries in Australian rural places construct local-ness as white. • Pasifika youth value the labour of their parents in ambivalent terms. • Understandings of work should expand to encompass diverse forms of place-making. • Labour in rural Australia reflects the entwining of racialisation and colonisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the risks that artificial intelligence may incur for the enjoyment of the fundamental right to asylum. It examines at a theoretical level how understandings of digitally acquired data produce vulnerability in the asylum procedure. The EU Commission's draft AI Act has been criticised for having a weak understanding of fundamental rights, although this regulation aims to minimise risks to such rights when AI systems are used. The paper attempts to provide the missing understanding of the negative implications that AI can have for the right to asylum. This analysis is pivotal if we want to implement the safeguards proposed in the AI Act in a meaningful way. The paper argues that the way of giving meaning to digitally acquired data is something of an implicit and collective practice that is characterised by overconfidence in such data. This may in practice lead to a heightened burden of proof on the asylum applicant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Myanmar internally displaced persons are not allowed to enter into China as refugees or seek asylum status in China. • The Chinese state allows these persons to enter into China for trade or jobs as border residents. • Border is a site of both empowerment and disempowerment to Myanmar internally displaced persons. • Long-term livelihood improvement is needed for displaced persons, although humanitarian relief is necessary. Recently, forcefully displaced persons, including refugees and asylum seekers, have received increasing critical scrutiny in the literature. Little has been written about how those displaced persons adopt necessary tactics to improve their livelihood with or without external help, hindering important insights into their agency to negotiate with their harsh surroundings. To address these lacunae, this article examines Myanmar's internally displaced persons (IDPs) at the border between Myanmar and China and how they cross the border for new livelihood opportunities. Our major finding is twofold. First, Myanmar IDPs are not allowed to enter into China as refugees or seek asylum status in China. While the door of refugee registration is closed, another door opens to allow these IDPs to explore opportunities of cross-border trade and jobs for livelihood improvement. Second, the Chinese state seems to stay away from direct control of these IDPs' cross-border movement, but deploys a localized model of border control to shift IDPs' subjectivity from refugees to border residents. This article contributes to the emerging literature on forcefully displaced persons, arguing that an analysis of livelihood improvement in northern Myanmar generates new insights into the geopolitics and biopolitics of border control. Conceptually, we offer cross-border livelihood as a valuable concept through which to analyze various tactical means used by displaced persons to achieve a relatively good life. Cross-border livelihood is a mode of survival that works through living with cross-border networks based on place- based differentials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper highlights the aspects of human migration and explores the underlying factors that contribute to voluntary or involuntary displacement into a different country. This research elucidates the political, social, economic and legal status of migrants and provides a strategic overview of the probable reasons leading to unplanned migration. Pakistan, like others, has hosted an overabundance of inhabitants consequently restructuring national and provincial protocols for maximum societal accommodation of foreigners as refugees and asylum seekers. This paper reveals the efforts undertaken by the Pakistani law enforcement agencies to administer and curtail existing and potential unrest subsequently due to refugee saturation. Moreover, it sheds light on the policy recommendations, socio-political frameworks and preventative measures taken by the indigenous government and law enforcement divisions to establish a coalition with the displaced citizens for better governance and rule of law. The research methodology used to conduct this research is doctrinal being based on document analysis. However, the research method used is qualitative employing inductive approach and exploratory philosophy. This paper explores the actions taken by Pakistan in order to address probable glitches and challenges arise as a result of migration. The recommendations and findings of this paper would contribute meaningfully in the existing literature and would have significant theoretically and practical implications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Intercultural Mediators play a key role within the reception system for refugees and asylum seekers. Although they are required to deal with a well-known humanitarian emergency, their status is still weak and not yet fully formalized. This article is based on the results of a study conducted within the Erasmus + Project ReCULM - Upskilling Cultural Mediators. The contribution starts by presenting the most salient points of the theoretical debate on intercultural mediation in Italy, and then focusses on mediators who work with refugees and asylum seekers. The aim is to analyse the mediators' role, their identity and their views about the problems and challenges they face in their daily work, and how they facilitate the processes of inclusion of forced migrants. In the conclusions we discuss whether, how and to what extent issues raised in the theoretical debate on mediation can be better specified and addressed by looking at everyday mediation practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Refugees and asylum seekers often suffer from migration stressors and related psychopathology. However, providing this population with psychological treatment has a number of barriers (e.g., culture and language differences), which are widely thought to hinder the success and continuation of treatment. Objective: The current systematic review and meta-analysis aims to provide first comprehensive evidence on the prevalence and predictors of dropout in treatment provided for refugees and asylum seekers. Method: We synthesized the existing evidence on dropout from psychological and psychosocial interventions provided to adult refugees and asylum seekers resettled in high-income countries. Specifically, we meta-analyzed the prevalence of dropout from treatment and explored the factors that predict dropout. Our database search in Pubmed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and PTSDpubs identified 28 eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs; 2,691 participants; 39 active treatment conditions), published up to January 31, 2021. Results: Results showed a weighted average dropout rate of 19.14%, 95% confidence interval [14.66, 24.60] across studies and treatment conditions. Subgroup analyses and meta-regressions revealed no statistically significant predictors for dropout. However, several refugee-specific variables (e.g., longer mean duration in country of resettlement, lower rate of insecure asylum status) may merit closer attention in future research. Conclusions: These findings suggest that, in contrast to widespread assumption, the estimated average dropout rate is comparable to those reported in nonrefugee populations. However, more research is needed to establish the underlying mechanisms of dropout, which may differ across populations. What is the public health significance of this article?: This study suggests that about 20% of refugees and asylum seekers prematurely terminate psychological or psychosocial treatment. Contrary to the widespread assumption about the difficulty retaining refugees in psychological treatment, this rate is comparable to dropout rates found in nonrefugee populations. Although the variables that influence the dropout rate remain unclear, our analyses point to the importance of refugee-specific variables (e.g., asylum status) while identifying no influence of the other sociodemographic variables (e.g., diagnosis, age) on dropout. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

THIS PAPER EXAMINES THE SPECIFIC WAYS IN WHICH IMMIGRANTS, ESPECIALLY SEASONAL WORKERS, REFUGEES AND ASYLUM SEEKERS HAVE BEEN AFFECTED BY THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC AND PRESENTS A VARIETY OF MEASURES TAKEN IN HOST COUNTRIES TO PREVENT AND MITIGATE THE EFFECTS OF THE PANDEMIC. IN THIS CONTEXT, WE WILL ANALYZE SPECIFIC SITUATIONS IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES, FOCUSING ON SOME WORRYING SITUATIONS FACED BY THESE CATEGORIES OF PEOPLE. OUR ATTENTION IS DRAWN TOWARDS THE ENTRY RESTRICTIONS IN SOME COUNTRIES THAT PREVIOUSLY ACCEPTED ASYLUM SEEKERS, AS WELL AS THE OBVIOUS AND HIDDEN FORMS OF EXCLUSION OF MIGRANTS FROM THE LABOR MARKET DUE TO RISING UNEMPLOYMENT AND THE EMERGENCE OF NEW FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Collected Papers of the Faculty of Law in Split / Zbornik Radova Pravnog Fakulteta u Splitu is the property of Split Faculty of Law and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Two Homelands / Dve Domovini is the property of Scientific Research Centre of Slovenian Academy of Sciences & Arts and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

As the Trump administration placed ever-new categorical limits on asylum, its opponents countered that asylum decisions have to be made on an individualized basis. The government, they claimed, cannot categorically exclude groups, like former gang members or victims of gender-based violence, from protection against persecution. Successful as this insistence on case-by-case adjudication has recently been, it stands in tension with past cases in which groups such as nuclear families or gay men were categorically deemed eligible for asylum. The litigation and rulemaking currently reshaping asylum law suggest that neither side in this debate fully understands whether, when, and why case-by-case rather than categorical decision-making is required. In fact, it turns out that what at first seems like confusion over procedure actually stems from unclarity about the substantive tests being adjudicated: the "social distinction" and, even more, the "particularity" requirements that are currently (mis)used as the primary reason for denying asylum claims, especially those brought by the tens of thousands of refugees fleeing gang- and gender-related violence. Properly understanding these tests allows for a better understanding of whether they can be categorically applied-either to bar asylum claims or, perhaps in the Biden administration, to make them possible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of BMS: Bulletin de Methodologie Sociologique (Sage Publications Ltd.) is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

After September 11, 2001, a large-scale overhaul of existing US immigration infrastructure fused immigration with the country's national security apparatus. Enhanced national security efforts became characterised by increased immigration enforcement and were purportedly justified by government officials' rhetoric portraying newcomers as a threat to public safety. The Trump Administration employed inflammatory anti-immigrant rhetoric to shore up popular support for harmful immigration policies, precluding the United States from fulfilling obligations to refugees and asylum-seekers under international law. This Note argues that the United States shares virtually none of the geopolitical challenges preventing certain country from compliance with treaty obligations; however, rhetoric conflating immigration and national security result in immigration policy damaging to 'refugees and asylees seeking protection in the United States. This Note argues that the United States must work towards compliance with its international commitments by dismantling needlessly punitive immigration enforcement policies and abolishing xenophobic rhetoric, and by providing fair and full protection for the growing number of individuals displaced around the globe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Society & Social Work is the property of Journal of Society and Social Work and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Much contemporary research on precarious mobility starts from the perspective that people moving across borders will seek out opportunities for legal protection, if these are available to them. However, this is not always the case, as some migrants who would qualify for asylum or refugee status choose not to seek legal recognition of their status. This paper is an ethnographic exploration of people who refuse to seek asylum. I examine how such refusals are narrated and made sense of from the vantage point of Juba, South Sudan. Taking seriously these refusals as agentive decisions, the paper explores how men who have the informational and material resources to chart paths that bypass juridical protection narrate refusal through their own grammars of masculinity. Thinking with refusal is generative in two important ways. First, refusal refocuses attention away from the specificities of particular power geometries and towards the underlying juridical orders and assumptions on which these geometries rely. Second, refusal offers a window into the social constellation and relations in which such migrants actively invest. Building on work that explores the intersection between masculinity and mobility, I show how gendered ideologies shape not just the decision to embark on a new migration project, but also inform how migrants evaluate the legal status-destination dyad as they plot their futures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Society & Social Work is the property of Journal of Society and Social Work and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Pursuant to its obligations to the international community, the United States provides asylum to individuals fleeing persecution "on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion." For decades, both the Board of Immigration Appeals and federal courts recognized that individuals could obtain asylum based on a fear of persecution at the hands of nonstate actors, so long as the applicant demonstrated that their government was "unable or unwilling" to control the persecution. As part of a wide-ranging attack on asylum, the Trump administration has sought to eliminate asylum based on nonstate actor persecution. In June 2018, the Attorney General ("AG") issued a sweeping decision, Matter of A-B-, vacating a 2014 decision in which the Board of Immigration Appeals had held that those fearing domestic violence could obtain asylum relief. Among other things, the decision heightened the nonstate actor standard, requiring that applicants not only show that their governments were "unwilling or unable" to control the persecution, but also that the governments "condoned" or were "completely helpless" to stop the persecution. After Matter of A-B-was decided, federal courts have disagreed as to which standard to apply, or, indeed, whether the two tests differ at all. Courts in some circuits found the two standards to be different and held that the change to heighten the nonstate actor test was arbitrary and capricious. Other courts held that the condoneor-completely-helpless formulation was merely a permissible interpretation of the familiar unwilling-or-unable standard. In response, on January 14, 2021, the Acting AG issued Matter of A-B-II, redoubling the defense of the condone-or-completehelplessness articulation and evoking the agency's Chevron and Brand X authority to combat decisions from the courts of appeals that had rejected Matter of A-B-I. The Acting AG claimed that the condone-or-complete-helplessness articulation was not a departure from the older unable-or-unwilling test, but he argued that even if it was a change in policy, it constituted a reasonable construction of the ambiguous statutory term "persecution." In his elaboration of the condone-or-complete-helplessness standard, however, the Acting AG revealed that the new test is vastly more difficult to satisfy. He concluded that any state effort to protect victims--including even the most minimal effort--is sufficient to deny asylum protections. This Article provides the first systematic analysis of the impact of the heightened nonstate actor test in cases before both the Board of Immigration Appeals and federal courts. We argue that the two tests are, in fact, different by analyzing the plain language they employ as well as the divergent case outcomes they have produced. Then, rather than ground the nonstate actor standard in the term "persecution," we anchor the standard in the statutory language defining refugees as those who are "unable or unwilling to avail [themselves]. . . of [state] protection," a strangely ignored part of the U.S. asylum statute and international treaty. This novel theory has yet to be considered by the courts, but it demonstrates that the unwilling-or-unable test is the correct one. The heightened condoneor-complete-helplessness standard, by contrast, is antithetical to the protections afforded by the statute and treaty and poses an insurmountable hurdle for many of the world's most vulnerable refugees. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Two Homelands / Dve Domovini is the property of Scientific Research Centre of Slovenian Academy of Sciences & Arts and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In this article, I examine the different constructions of deserving subjects in the new Sanctuary Movement and how sexuality, gender, whiteness, and class create an ostensibly inclusionary agenda that produces ghostly others. Punitive anti-immigrant legislation in the United States has incited mass protests to defend the rights of undocumented migrants. In 2007 this proimmigrant movement sought to deploy the sanctuary strategy as practiced in the Central American Sanctuary Movement of the 1980s. Using the case of Sulma Franco, a Guatemalan lesbian who was granted Sanctuary by the First Unitarian Universalist Church in Austin, I illuminate the limitations of deservingness under sanctuary religious discourses. Such constructions rely on a particular “tellability” scripted to bearing witness, evoking empathy from faith-based audiences and conforming to heteronormative or homonormative ideas of gender and sexuality. Therefore, I use Maria Lugones theory of the coloniality of gender to expose how sanctuary constructions of deserving subjects lack decolonial and intersectional lenses of race, gender and sexuality liberation. I draw on two stories that were not tellable under sanctuary discourses to demonstrate how constructing the Guatemalan lesbian as the new deserving refugee erases indigeneity because the U.S. only recognizes gender when embodied by a non-indigenous, middle class, educated woman like Franco. It is imperative to use Franco's story to critique the restructuring of LGBTQ identity politics that evoke empathy and repackage essentialist logics of deserving sanctuary. If left uninterrupted these new constructions of deserving sanctuary will further disappear those ghostly others such as indigenous men and women, whose subjectivities and narratives are already in the shadows. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Family Research (JFR) is the property of University of Bamberg Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Journal of Family Research (JFR) is the property of University of Bamberg Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Attaining visual literacy is becoming of growing importance, and iconography is an approach that allows people to become visually literate. Globalisation and technological advancements have transformed the way people communicate and understand the social and political realities that inform their everyday lives. The generation of information that guides these realities has become progressively more visual and accessible to a global audience. People's visual worlds have expanded to incorporate those that are not part of their environments. The increasing interconnectedness of the world and the rapid dissemination of information through visual mediums make visual literacy important and iconography relevant. This article explores the use of iconography to understand images and provides a framework for exploring their meaning. To accomplish this goal, iconography is discussed alongside the issue of migration to the European Union and the image of Alan Kurdi. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Society & Social Work is the property of Journal of Society and Social Work and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Language practices represent significant barriers to engagement in higher education for many learners from traditionally underrepresented backgrounds. In Australia, such students may be Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander learners, students from rural and remote locations, learners who are the first in their family to access higher education, from non-English speaking backgrounds, learners with interrupted schooling due to refugee or asylum seeker experiences, or first language speakers of English dialects that vary from the dominant forms privileged in the academy. While subject-specialist language and engagement with text can present ongoing challenges for many learners, such linguistic barriers--and the practical implications for academics engaged in teaching--often receive limited attention in institutional policy. This article reports on research that sought to critically examine how ten academics from different disciplines and university contexts perceive their role in the linguistically diversified academy, particularly but not exclusively, in relation to students from traditionally underrepresented backgrounds. The experiences of the ten academics who contributed to this research offer a useful vantage point from which to consider the various ways in which language may be conceptualized in higher education, the possibilities for embedding linguistic support in content area instruction, and the need to ensure tailored and responsive language assistance for learners throughout their studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses articles in the issue on topics including the U.S. asylum system, the possible repercussions of the Dobbs decision on abortion reporting and police exploitation of copyright law to curb accountability.

On the night between 13 and 14 July 1912, a major riot broke out inside the criminal ward of the Royal Mental Hospital of Turin, at the Collegno branch. Through the analysis of direct sources – such as the autobiographical memory of one of the rioters, the files of the trial and of the sentence, the minutes of the Board of Directors of the Royal Mental Hospital of Turin and articles of Turin newspapers – it was possible to investigate the causes and circumstances of the uprising. The studied documents clearly indicate that the real purpose of the riot was to denounce the abuse that took place inside the asylum, perpetrated by some of the nurses. Faced with these accusations, the administration of the asylum showed self-absolution and dismissed the fact as one of the many attempts to escape. The newspapers, which could have instrumental to publicly expose the abuse, did nothing more than report the news without investigating the causes or demanding an explanation from the administration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Conflict & Communication is the property of Verlag Irena Regener and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)