Search

Taken together these essays reveal both synergies and contradictions between and within immigration and welfare policies. Several common themes emerge. Firstly, while access to the welfare state is an important signifier of membership, in practice claiming certain state benefits is accompanied by suspicion, surveillance and stigma. The good citizen is a worker citizen. Secondly, the importance of the welfare state in putting the nation into the nation-state: the normative national community imagined as the rightful subject of welfare states is racialised and classed. Thirdly, deservingness functions in both welfare states and immigration regimes to prioritise victimhood rather than rights and redistribution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent studies of immigration have questioned assumptions about the effectiveness of government controls. In her work on illegal Jewish immigration to the United States, Libby Garland argues that official immigration quotas may not reflect actual numbers of immigrants and critiques historians for being too ready to take immigration laws at face value. Mae Ngai's work on the racialisation of "illegal aliens" in the United States also documents the failure of legislation to curb illegal immigration. Situating her study within this historiography, Sheila Fitzpatrick has re‐examined Australian measures that aimed to limit the entry of Holocaust survivors and concluded that the number of arrivals was substantially higher than previously recognised, in part because migrants and their sponsors found ways around restrictions. In substantiation, Fitzpatrick drew on the archives of the International Refugee Organization and the Australian Government, and the papers of the country's first Minister for Immigration, Arthur Calwell. This article revisits Fitzpatrick's sources, as well as the records of Jewish organisations she did not consult. It establishes that the Australian government effectively limited Jewish immigration and the estimates of earlier scholars were substantially correct. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Building on aspirations and capabilities models in migration studies, this paper explores the utility of this approach for elucidating long-term integration processes. Aspirations as individual constructions of what one's life should look like in the future are a concept used by scholars to study migrants' motives to migrate. However, neither are aspirations an often applied analytical category, nor a sufficiently examined theoretical subject in the area of long-term migration. This paper addresses this gap and applies the category of aspirations and capabilities to the study of long-term adaptation processes of Polish emigrants of the 1980s in three European countries: Austria, Italy and Sweden. The case study illustrates the aspirations/capabilities model's usability for studying integration processes and proves that aspirations and capabilities should be a subject of inquiry throughout migrants' lives. As a contribution to the debate, an analytical framework along with a schema depicting live long migration processes is proposed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Article is about violence in the administration of our nation's immigration laws. More specifically, it focuses on the types of agency actions that might be characterized as "violent," a key concept in separating legitimate and illegitimate agency actions. In this context, violence is commonly defined in terms of the use or threat of force against immigrants and immigrant communities--i.e., through apprehension, detention, and removal. This Article develops and defends a related theory of violence, what I call "administrative violence," which focuses on benefits programs that offer relief from removal. Although these programs are often described in inclusive terms, this Article argues that they help normalize and reaffirm the legitimacy of enforcement programs most directly responsible for the use and threat of force. Notably, these benefits programs foist the burden of seeking relief on migrants; obfuscate the realities that relief is temporary, limited, and hard to get; and draw attention away from the ways that relief programs are intertwined--politically, legally, and administratively--with the enforcement programs most responsible for egregious harms in the immigration context. The theory of administrative violence makes two contributions. First, it provides descriptive clarity on the range of illegitimate harms experienced by migrants at the hands of both field agents wielding quasi-police power as well as bureaucrats processing papers in anonymous office buildings. Second, it provides a basic vocabulary for pushing forward current conversations about violence in the administrative state, a dynamic that is attracting increasing scholarly attention, but which remains overly narrow. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Article surveys cases from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit from January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023, in which immigration law was a central focus of the case.1 During this time, the Eleventh Circuit decided several of these cases. As such, the cases discussed herein are those that explore jurisdictional boundaries of the Eleventh Circuit's appellate review of immigration cases, and those that interpret standards that impact an immigrant's ability to obtain relief. This Article discusses (1) removal cancellation, including the court's jurisdiction to review such decisions, the standard for removal cancellation, and the constitutionality of denying such applications; and (2) other important immigration issues, including asylum petitions and the ability of state governments to impact federal immigration policy. Finally, it concludes with recent developments in immigration law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Estudios sobre el Mensaje Periodistico 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.)

This paper reviews historical, economic and social reasons for working people to migrate from five Central Asian Republics (CARs) to Russia in the early 21st Century. Relationships between Russia and the five Central Asian States changed dramatically after the USSR collapse and in the ensuing three decades, large numbers of workers from Central Asia migrated to Russia. It became imperative for migrating workers to learn Russian to mingle socially and gain economic benefits. Russian-speaking workers amalgamated well in Russia and their remittances improved the GDPs of their home states. However, with greater numbers of migrating workers, Russia imposed new migration laws that required better competence in Russian, which resulted in new difficulties and challenges for migrants and those who aspired to move to Russia for work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Dilemas Contemporáneos: Educación, Política y Valores is the property of Dilemas Contemporaneos: Educacion, Politica y Valores 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.)

The article "Migrant Labour and the Reshaping of Employment Law", edited by Bernard Ryan and Rebecca Zahn, analyzes how migrant labor affects employment legislation worldwide. It highlights a case in Ireland where an irregular migrant was denied a social security benefit due to working in violation of immigration law. The book shows how migration can redefine the principles of labor law and advocates for adequate protection of migrant workers. [Extracted from the article]

Ableism forms the scaffolding of our immigration laws, policies, and practices, but the operation of this pervasive form of exclusion has been grossly unacknowledged and understudied until now. In 1882, Congress first codified the exclusion of defective bodies by declaring that, "any lunatic, idiot, or any person unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge," was unworthy of admission onto U.S. shores. These ability-based hierarchies remain in today's immigration system which rewards productivity, educational attainment, and high-skilled labor with regularized immigration status, an array of public benefits, work authorization, and other advantages. We argue that immigration legal and policy frameworks must be reimagined in order to decouple the process of migration from this system of body valuation. This Article is the first to argue that dismantling ableism must be a core imperative of the movement for immigration abolition, and that the principles of disability justice can serve as a tool for identifying the radical changes necessary to achieve this transformation. We begin by interrogating abolitionist scholarship. We observe the limited acknowledgment of the role that ableism has played in erecting systems of oppression and the consequent absence of anti-ableist strategies to achieve a vision of abolition that eliminates the categorization and stratification of bodies. We then look more closely at the immigration system and the ways in which it creates categories of exclusion based on perceptions of worth and productivity. We also illuminate how ableism has fueled the erection of access barriers for disabled immigrants, and the resulting disempowerment of these individuals as they navigate complex immigration procedures. We contend that decoupling migration from ableism and advancing access as a pathway to power and self-determination for immigrant communities must become a part of the abolitionist vision. This approach encourages the exploration of new solutions drawn from the lessons of the disability rights and disability justice movements. We then explore three specific ways in which ableism operates in the modern immigration system. We posit that ableism: (1) undergirds the construction of disabled immigrants as unworthy burdens; (2) robs disabled immigrants of agency and self-determination; and (3) invisibilizes the experiences of disabled immigrants navigating immigration processes and the advocacy ecosystem. We look to the ten principles of disability justice to propose transformative solutions to address these systemic problems. We argue that accounting for ableism as an intrinsic and formative component of the existing immigration system will augment existing efforts to achieve change. We hope that this reframing is only the beginning for new lines of scholarly and empirical exploration. Our goal is to reimagine migration for disabled people, and, in turn, for all bodies that cross borders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Interpretive doctrines rarely spawn whole cottage industries, but the major questions doctrine is an exception. Given the ferment that the doctrine has inspired among scholars, an examination of the doctrine's relevance to immigration law is overdue. This Article provides that assessment. The major questions doctrine works best as a shorthand label for the traditional tools of statutory interpretation that the Supreme Court has recently invoked in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Those tools, which this Article calls the "congruence canon," include statutory text, structure, history, and implementation. Trouble starts for the major questions doctrine when its convenience as an interpretive label obscures the relevance of these traditional tools. The Supreme Court's June 2023 decision in Sackett v. EPA restricting wetlands protection is an ominous sign that application of the doctrine is going astray. In immigration, the congruence canon can clarify analysis of current issues, including the legality of President Biden's new border rule and advance parole program; the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) initiative; and a recent substantial expansion of authorized work for holders of student (F-1) visas. Assessment of each of these important policies benefits from a rigorous look at text, structure, history, and implementation. Examination of statutory structure reveals problems with the Biden border and advance parole initiatives, despite their commendable policy innovations. In contrast, past practice validates DACA and F-1 visas' practical training expansion. The congruence canon is a productive approach because it prioritizes engagement with interpretive method and rejects interpretive labels' insidious convenience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As the only agency charged with enforcing the Immigration Reform and Control Act's antidiscrimination provisions, the Immigrant and Employee Rights ("IER") section of the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division plays an important role in protecting worker rights. Yet over the past decade, IER has moved from worker protection to immigration enforcement: a phenomenon this Article terms "immigration enforcement creep." This observation is based on ten years of data collected from IER's settlement agreements, complaints filed, and telephone interventions. The data show that rather than protect noncitizen workers from unlawful discrimination, IER has moved its focus to enforcing immigration laws against employers who hire workers on temporary work visas. IER's enforcement choices lead to underenforcement of the antidiscrimination provisions Congress charged it with enforcing. This Article ultimately concludes that this immigration enforcement creep goes against IER's role as a worker protection agency and suggests principles of equitable enforcement that should guide its exercise of authority instead. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the concept and practice of sanctuary jurisdictions in the United States, including its secularization through its codification in state and local laws. It traces the political and legal battles that involve the contentious dynamics in the development and expansion of such jurisdictions. The article will highlight and examine California's Senate Bill 54 (SB-54), also known as the California Values Act. SB-54 was the first state bill to establish a statewide sanctuary jurisdiction expanding the 'geographies of sanctuary' beyond cities and counties. It was a bill enacted in response to the most anti-immigrant policies in contemporary U.S. history under the Trump administration. I will argue that the expansion of 'geographies of sanctuary' through state laws fosters more inclusive immigration federalism, directly challenging the enforcement of today's immigration laws considered by many as unfair and inhumane. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the past ten years, the language of crisis has become increasingly common in discourse about migration governance at the European Union (EU) level, and policy responses have been oriented by an emergency rationale that prioritizes short-term solutions over long-term planning. EU migration and asylum law incorporates several crisis response mechanisms, and the addition of a new set of instruments has recently been proposed. This paper offers a critical legal mapping of what counts as a "crisis" in EU migration and asylum law, and the mechanisms for responding to such crises. It exemplifies a complex system in which the tension between the imperative to address threats purportedly arising from unwanted migration is intricately intertwined with the necessity of granting Member States flexibility to respond to contingencies without compromising the integrity of the common EU asylum and migration system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this piece, I examine the immigration enforcement and adjudication system as a whole from the perspective of life and death. Drawing upon social theory frames as well as legal scholarship, I look to how doctrines and laws continually devalue and risk noncitizens' lives. Although scholarly work has examined how differing aspects of immigration law and enforcement take lives--e.g., via detention, cross-border shootings, and deportation--explorations have yet to consider the system as a whole from this perspective. My contribution illuminates how laws as well as legal doctrines serve as mechanisms for assigning differential value to human life, ultimately taking immigrants' lives. They do so in part by normalizing death as the inevitable cost of upholding the rule of law. And yet, there is nothing normal or inevitable about the myriad policy choices, statutory provisions, and evacuations of constitutional protection that undergird immigration law and enforcement. These choices form an architecture that, in the words of Achille Mbembe, "subjugate(s) life to the power of death."1 I consider death by design, death by enforcement, death by denial, and death by expulsion--then show how jurisprudence and laws accept and contribute to these deaths. In the final sections of my paper, I consider how we might dismantle the assumptions, laws, doctrines that devalue and take noncitizen life throughout our immigration system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article highlights the importance of Migration to another country, which evolves around the process of shifting to another state legally permanently, and the impediments faced by the applicants due to the unlimited processing period. The World Population Review's survey reveals that the United States of America has the highest number of migrations globally is 50.6 million just in 2020 (Review, 2024). This paper will discuss the immigration procedure, complexities, and approval ratio of different visa categories specifically the United States of America's Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) ( U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 2019). There is a need to curtail the unnecessary and hectic processing time of immigration petitions for the easement of applicants, due to unpredictable and lengthy processing time, many of the applicants expire or get demotivated to adapt to a new phase of life at later ages, while other opt for illegal migration by adopting a death trap route. Furthermore, in Pakistan, there is an enormous need for a well-equipped and widespread knowledge of migration procedures and inclusion of immigration laws at an academic level that evolves around the paramount changes in national curriculums to make it a subject leading to curtail the illegal emigration flow. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With 'Stop the Boats' high on the government agenda, legislation has come into force to try and uphold this pledge. However, the methods the government is deploying to bring about this stated aim are highly controversial and potentially unlawful. In the latest government attempt to halt the crossings, the Illegal Migration Act 2023's central provision places a duty on the Home Secretary to remove those who arrive in the UK by irregular means 'as soon as reasonably practicable'. However, the section of the Act that places this duty on the Home Secretary has not yet come into force. This is largely because the Home Secretary does not currently have a lawful agreement with any third country to remove people to. The so-called 'Rwanda asylum deal' that the duty in the Act relies upon to operate was ruled unlawful by the Court of Appeal in June 2023. This article will consider the enforceability of the duty outlined at s.1(2)(a) of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 in light of developments in the ongoing litigation regarding the lawfulness of the UK government's Rwanda asylum deal and the broader motivation and implications of pursuing such a policy to address the so-called 'small boats crisis'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy PointsInclusive state immigrant policies that expand rights and resources for immigrants may improve population health, but little is known about their local‐level implementation.Local actors that have anti‐immigrant attitudes can hinder the implementation of state policies, whereas the persistent influence of anti‐immigrant federal policies reinforces barriers to accessing health and other resources granted by state policies.Local actors that serve immigrants and support state policy implementation lack the resources to counter anti‐immigrant climates and federal policy threats. Context: In the United States, inclusive state‐level policies can advance immigrant health and health care access by extending noncitizens' access to public benefits, workplace rights, and protections from immigration enforcement. Although state policies carry promise as structural population health interventions, there has been little examination of their implementation at the local level. Local jurisdictions play multiple roles in state policy implementation and possess distinct immigration climates. Examining the local implementation of state immigrant policy can address challenges and opportunities to ensure the health benefits of inclusive policies are realized equitably across states' regions. Methods: To examine the local implementation of state immigrant policies, we selected a purposive sample of California counties with large immigrant populations and distinct social and political dynamics and conducted and analyzed in‐depth interviews with 20 community‐based organizations that provided health, safety net, and other services. Findings: We found that there were tensions between the inclusionary goals of state immigrant policies and local anti‐immigrant climates and federal policy changes. First, there were tensions between state policy goals and resistance from local law enforcement agencies and policymakers (e.g., Board of Supervisors). Second, because of the ongoing threats from federal immigration policies, there was a mismatch between the services and resources provided by state policies and local community needs. Finally, organizations that served immigrants were responsible for contributing to policy implementation but lacked resources to meet community needs while countering local resistance and federal policy threats. Conclusions: This study contributes knowledge regarding the challenges that emerge after state immigrant policies are enacted. The tensions among state immigrant policies, local immigration climates, and federal policy changes indicate that state immigrant policies are not implemented equally across state communities, resulting in challenges and limited benefits from policies for many immigrant communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article describes several refugee cases, prepared by the Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law in Sydney, New South Wales. In CCU21 v. Minister for Home Affairs, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia reviewed the cancellation of the appellant's Safe Haven Enterprise visa. In DMQ20 v. Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs, the Full Court dismissed a petition for judicial review of the appellant's protection visa application.

The article examines the principles of family law in the U.S. and the state of Idaho and how they can be reconciled and coordinated to better protect children in custody cases. Also cited are how immigration law can help protect the children in said cases, and how judges usually determine custody arrangements of said children.

Understanding the role of external actors is essential to understanding the United Kingdom's (UK) securitization agenda in the field of asylum. Whilst the internal dynamics of securitization in migration and asylum and its links to the Brexit referendum have been extensively analysed, the externalization of asylum and its connection to the so-called 'hostile environment' policy have received less attention. This article addresses this gap, and focuses on how the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 and the UK–Rwanda Memorandum of Understanding for the relocation of asylum seekers advance the externalization of asylum post-Brexit. It examines how these reforms reinforce the securitization that characterizes the UK's asylum and migration policy and evaluates how they exclude asylum seekers from access to basic human rights, in violation of the 1951 Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Across European Union (EU) labour markets, immigrant and native populations exhibit disparate labour market outcomes, signifying widespread labour market hierarchies. Despite the considerable investment in migration and integration policies, it remains unclear whether these contribute to or alleviate labour market hierarchies between natives and immigrants. Using a longitudinal model based on individual-level EU LFS and country-level DEMIG POLICY and POLMIG databases, we explore variation in changes of immigration and integration policies across Western EU member states to study how they are linked to labour market hierarchies in terms of unemployment and employment quality gaps between immigrant and native populations. Our findings suggest that designing less restrictive immigration and integration policies could aid in reducing existing labour market disadvantages for immigrants, enabling them to realise their full potential and reduce the immigrant-native labour market hierarchies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2021, an estimated 3.95 million foreign nationals resided in South Africa, with no data available on numbers of displaced persons or undocumented migrants residing without legal or valid immigration status. Surveillance data on immigration detention are scant. We present a socio-legal account of the historical evolution of South African immigration detention regulation in post-apartheid timeframes, with a view to providing a legal realist assessment of the socio- and politico-legal dimensions pertinent to human rights assurances of immigration detainees in South Africa. The realist focus is on scrutinizing South Africa's progress in upholding the rights of immigration detainees and illustrating the contemporary complexities in ensuring due process in the (co)application of the Immigration Act (and Refugees Act) explicitly regarding immigration detention processes and practices. We present the applicable international and regional African human rights treaties, domestic regulations, and relevant jurisprudence to the rights of immigration detainees in South Africa. The generated realist narrative is cognizant of the contextual forces of migration into South Africa, securitization agendas, and violations of basic human rights and due process, and illustrates various gaps in the application of domestic laws, policies, and standards of care regarding immigration detention when evaluated against the rule of law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What happens when an administrative burden regime targets third-party brokers? This article describes the experiences of legal aid immigration attorneys during the Donald Trump administration, which made hundreds of changes to immigration law, policy, and processes. Through interviews with attorneys representing thirty-eight nonprofit legal services organizations, I document the learning, compliance, and psychological costs they incurred during this regime. The resulting consequences of these costs to attorneys’ caseload size and composition have implications for immigrants’ access to free legal services. I argue that targeting administrative burdens at third-party actors on whom people rely for access to government resources and recognition is an effective deterrent and a mechanism for exacerbating unequal outcomes. Future research should examine the impact of administrative burdens on a range of third-party actors who broker people’s access to government institutions and resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research Summary: This research asks whether jail‐based immigration enforcement leads to the profiling of Hispanics by municipal police. I leverage a natural experiment to examine the effects of 287(g) jail partnerships on traffic stops and arrests by municipal police in North Carolina in the late 2000s. I find that stops of Hispanic drivers fell in the wake of 287(g) agreements, and show that this fall was driven by changes in Hispanic road use. While I cannot unambiguously disentangle police and driver behavior, I find no evidence that municipal police officers increased pretextual stops and arrests of Hispanic drivers. Policy Implications: While there is existing evidence of racial profiling under 287(g) agreements by sheriff's deputies, this behavior does not appear to have extended to nonsignatory municipal police agencies. Despite this, the signing of 287(g) agreements appears to have prompted Hispanic outmigration and changes in driving behavior, adding to a growing body of evidence on the ripple effects of local‐federal immigration enforcement partnerships in Hispanic communities. This serves as a reminder that changes in demographic composition of the immigrant population may mediate the effects of immigration enforcement efforts on other outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aside from the case of refugees under international law, are non-citizen outsiders morally justified in unlawfully entering another state? Recent answers to this question, based on a purported right of necessity or civil disobedience, exclude many cases of justified border-crossing and fail to account for its distinctive political character. I argue that in certain non-humanitarian cases, unlawful border-crossing involves the exercise of a remedial moral right to resist the illegitimate exercise of coercive power. The case accepts, for the sake of argument, two conventional assumptions among defenders of immigration restrictions: that states have a 'right to exclude' and that migrants have a prima facie duty to respect borders. Nonetheless, where immigration law is racist or otherwise discriminatory, it violates the egalitarian standards at the core of any authority it can plausibly claim over outsiders. In such cases, it may be resisted even where the law is facially non-discriminatory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Central Americans with irregular migratory status in transit through Mexico heading toward the United States experience immigration containment by both the U.S. and Mexican governments. This article uses official and pro-migrant organization sources to argue that during the 2020-2021 sars-cov2 pandemic, and in the context of Mexico's northern border, both spatial and socio-demographic changes took place in the processes of detention and deportation of Central American migrants. The author maintains that, beyond the simple exercise of Mexican immigration law, detentions and deportations are a central part of the national and regional migratory containment strategies in the framework of the U.S. anti-immigrant agenda. The article's contribution is to show that the northern border, as a territory that concentrates detentions and deportations, acts as a national regional space to de-articulate Central American migration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research on the external dimension of EU migration governance has focused on the EU's interests, preferences, and policy efficiency and coherence. Little attention has been paid to the myriad ways both partner and third countries react to the union's external action. We explore the European influence on immigration and refugee policy liberalisation in South America, a region not directly targeted by extra-regional migration governance. Based on the analysis of 130 original interviews with government officials and NGO and IO representatives in eight South American countries we show that - although South American policymakers generally regard the EU as a model of 'efficiency', in terms of the EU's intra-regional mobility regime – the remarkable legislative liberalisation in the region took place in the context of both political and moral opposition to restrictive shifts in EU extra-regional migration governance. The paper contributes to the literature on the EU external migration governance, policy diffusion, and Latin American migration policies by uncovering some of the unintended consequences of European migration governance in South America. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EU's response to the European 'refugee crisis' has involved parallel efforts to strengthen the EU's capacity for external migration management in the domains of CSDP and AFSJ. To provide a swift response to the 'refugee crisis' in 2015, EU member states decided to utilise existing operational CSDP capabilities as a short-term foreign policy tool. Simultaneously, we have seen an impressive strengthening of the mandate and capabilities of ASFJ actors in external migration governance. Although institutional links between civilian CSDP and AFSJ have existed for over two decades, the parallel task expansion has created new demands for inter-institutional coordination between the two policy areas. Combining neofunctionalist theory with insights from research on inter-institutional overlap, this article argues that responses to neofunctionalist spillover pressures may trigger inter-institutional dynamics, which can involve both cooperation as well as conflict. Empirically, we find that these inter-institutional interactions have had important implications for integration in both policy areas, which cannot be fully understood by studying these policy domains in isolation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper makes an innovative contribution to studies on the local governance of migration by considering the role played by Third Sector actors in three small municipalities in northern Italy: a mountain village, a rural village, and a town located at the edge of the great Milanese conurbation. The cases shed light on the implications that a small size can have for understanding the policy outputs and challenges of migration governance at the local level. Building on comparative qualitative data, the paper describes common features that can be observed in the local policy arena of small municipalities, such as the reduced number and limited heterogeneity of Third Sector actors, ease of access to local decision-makers, and blurred boundaries between politics and administration. It shows that such features can be associated with specific inclusionary and/or exclusionary policies that can be explained by local associational ecologies and local governments' political orientation, despite the (often) limited human and economic resources available, but also by the activation of policy entrepreneurs and supra-local networks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is a dire need for bail reform in the immigration detention system. Scholars have suggested a variety of recommendations to improve the manner in which immigration detention decisions are made. All of these recommendations have rested on the assumption that there is a finite pool of decisionmakers: Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the immigration judge, and, in certain cases, a federal district court judge deciding detention issues in habeas corpus proceedings. In this article, the author proposes the introduction of a new decisionmaker in the immigration detention system: the criminal court judge. This proposal is a JRAD redux--instead of a judicial recommendation against deportation ("JRAD"), as previously existed in immigration law, it is a judicial recommendation against immigration detention ("JRAID"). To provide a normative defense of this proposal, the article builds off of literature examining immigration detention as punishment, procedural justice, and the relationship between states and the federal government in immigration enforcement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The US immigration court system seeks to "fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly administer and interpret US immigration laws" (DOJ 2022a). It represents the first exposure of many immigrants to due process and the rule of law in the United States, and occupies an integral role in the larger US immigration system. Yet it labors under a massive backlog of pending cases that undermines its core goals and objectives. The backlog reached 1.87 million cases in the first quarter of FY 2023 (Straut-Eppsteiner 2023, 6). This paper attributes the backlog to systemic failures in the broader immigration system that negatively affect the immigration courts, such as: Visa backlogs, United States Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) application processing delays, and other bottlenecks in legal immigration processes. The immense disparity in funding between the court system and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agencies that feed cases into the courts. The failure of Congress to pass broad immigration reform legislation that could ease pressure on the enforcement and court systems. The lack of standard judicial authorities vested in Immigration Judges (IJs), limiting their ability to close cases; pressure parties to "settle" cases; and manage their dockets. The absence of a statute of limitations for civil immigration offenses. Past DHS failures to establish and adhere to enforcement priorities and to exercise prosecutorial discretion (PD) throughout the removal adjudication process, including in initial decisions to prosecute. The location of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), which oversees US immigration courts, within the nation's preeminent law enforcement agency, the Department of Justice (DOJ). The misconception of many policymakers that the court system should primarily serve as an adjunct to DHS. A past record of temporary judge reassignments and government shutdowns. The paper supports a well-resourced and independent immigration court system devoted to producing the right decisions under the law. Following a short introduction, a long section on "Causes and Solutions to the Backlog" examines the multi-faceted causes of the backlog, and offers an integrated, wide-ranging set of recommendations to reverse and ultimately eliminate the backlog. The "Conclusion" summarizes the paper's topline findings and policy proposals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Supreme Court's 2012 decision, Arizona v. United States, turned back the most robust and brazen state regulation of immigration in recent memory, striking down several provisions of Arizona's omnibus enforcement law. Notably, the Court did not limit preemption inquiries to conflicts between the state law and congressional statutes. The Court also based its decision on the tension between the state law and Executive Branch enforcement policies. The landmark decision seemed to have settled the Court's approach to immigration enforcement federalism. Yet, a scant eight years after Arizona, in Kansas v. Garcia, the Court upheld Kansas's prosecutions of noncitizens who used stolen identities to procure employment in violation of federal immigration law. In so doing, the majority opinion took aim at Arizona's central premise, rejecting the relevance of presidential enforcement in immigration preemption. This Article provides an urgently needed reappraisal of immigration preemption in the wake of Kansas. My primary claim is that immigration preemption requires a framework that accounts for the diminishing relevance of formal law, the discretionary enforcement options available to federal authorities, and the inherent liabilities associated with unauthorized status. I argue that presidential enforcement practices--as a distillation of competing statutory values, congressional appropriations, executive policy preferences, and allocation of agency resources--limn federal policy for immigration preemption purposes. In defending this claim, this Article recasts immigration preemption decisions from the past fifty years, revealing a long-standing judicial concern for federal enforcement practices. Second, this Article critiques Kansas for discounting federal enforcement practices, and defends a return to Arizona-like jurisprudence. Finally, it argues that this approach will not unduly aggrandize judicial or executive power, or imbalance federal-state authority over criminal enforcement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In September 2020, the EU Commission published the New Pact on Migration and Asylum in order to offer 'fresh start' for EU migration law and policy. Complementary pathways for admission to EU territory were among the proposals set out in the Pact. This article takes stock of the different measures suggested by the Commission to create such complementary pathways. It suggests that the aim of creating complementary pathways remains to a large extent declaratory, it is devised in discretionary operational measures with loose grounding in EU law, and reproduces systemic deficiencies that have characterized EU asylum law in the past decades. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This research aimed to understand legal and bureaucratic intricacies couples from Turkey and the Netherlands had to face in their marriage migration processes during the COVID‐19 pandemic by analyzing the role of a virtual community in developing coping strategies of multiple agents (partners, as well as lawyers and moderators as third parties). Background: The restrictive requirements for family migration in the Netherlands, which reflect a nation‐state–centered point of view, had consequences on the marriage migration of Turks. Methods: Legal and policy analysis between the years 2004 and 2021 and a netnography covering March 2021 through April 2022 are used. Dutch and EU case law analysis, participant observation in the Facebook group "Hollanda Aile Birleşimi/Gezinshereniging" (The Netherlands Family Reunification), and semistructured interviews with the members of the group are employed. Results: The interactions in the Facebook group went beyond simple information dissemination and led to the emergence of a virtual community. It served for the development of intimacy and informal expertise and constituted a venue for developing strategies to cope with bureaucratic, legal, and personal hurdles. Conclusion: During COVID‐19, the virtual community enabled individuals involved in marriage migration to counter the legal and policy framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article uses the concept of holes rather than borders to articulate the space that US immigration policing engenders. In contradistinction to borders--lines or zones that can be mapped, walled, or policed to delimit sovereign bodies--holes are strategic exceptions to mappable sovereignties. Rather than fixed, mappable boundaries, holes are mutable and in flux, thriving on the shifting potential to appear or disappear and to make people disappear as legal subjects. If US immigration policing operates, to a large extent, through holes distributed across borders and long-distance spaces, then any mapping of this power that centers national borders or bounded nation-states alone is insufficient. I show how the policing of Venezuelan migration centers the distribution of holes from South and Central America to spaces within the US that are far from "the border." Against a discursive focus on "the border" and the border wall in US rhetoric on immigration, I argue that the actual practices of impeding flows of immigration or channeling them through spaces of death have increasingly operated through holey space. If holy space has been defined in studies of religion as a sacred space set apart from mundane rules, then the hol(e)y spaces of immigration are set apart from fixed conceptions of "the rule of law." A focus on holes shows how the legal order of immigration depends more on exceptions, personalized or arbitrary power, and the instability of interim extra-legal executive orders than a dichotomy of legal/illegal. Despite their necropolitical power, holes do not create an entirely striated, hierarchical space. Holes are also rings of connection and passageways, highlighting the creativity and agency of asylum seekers in forging dignity under extremely difficult conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article uses a 1958–1962 strike at the Peyton Packing Company in El Paso, Texas, to examine how labor unions in the U.S.–Mexico borderlands used racial stereotypes and Cold War paranoia to influence the adoption of a more rigorous labor certification standard for those applying for a visa to enter the United State. Ultimately, labor unions and Mexican American workers sought to end the practice of border commuting by adopting and advancing the language of immigration restriction deployed by many Mexican American civil rights leaders of the era. This rhetoric ignored pleas for improving the minimum wage laws and protections and overlooked the fact that many border commuters wanted to migrate to the United States, but were often prevented from doing so by existing immigration laws. This case study forces historians of immigration and labor to reassess the role that labor unions played in helping to make the 1965 Hart-Cellar Act more exclusionary than previously thought. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Functional limit theorems are established for continuous-state branching processes with immigration (CBIs), where the reproduction laws have finite first moments and the immigration laws exhibit large tails. Different regimes of immigration are identified, leading to limiting processes that are either subordinators, CBIs, extremal processes, or extremal shot noise processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For Indonesia, international migration was an interesting phenomenon in overcoming labor problems of the employment crisis. In addition, to obtain benefits of remittance from sending productive-age workers abroad, the Government can solve the problem of unemployment. Based on the classification, the encouraging factors for laborers to migrate were divided into three categories, including demand-pull, supply-push, and network factors. Indonesian workers in Malaysia, however, did not comply with the immigration law, that required them to arrange for work permits to be allowed to work in Malaysia, which they did not make, or the validity period was not extended. As a consequence, they became illegal. But due to the high demand for workers needed by Malaysian capital owners, they asked the Government to issue an amnesty, so that their businesses would not stop or go out. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Mexico, the phenomenon of irregular migration has gained strength in recent years, reinforcing in the public discourse a position of defense of the human rights of people in the context of mobility and at the same time, implementing a policy of containment justified in the idea of national security. Given this scenario, it is worth asking: what are the consequences of defining migration as a matter of national security and what implications does it generate for the migrants? These are some of the questions that I will address in this text, in which we start from the premise that defining migration as a matter of national security entails violations of the rights of migrants. The general objective of the work is to analyze the consequences of defining migration as a matter of national security from a poststructuralist epistemological perspective and an analysissynthesis methodology with an analytical and descriptive approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Foreign workers holding H‐1B visas gained recourse to federal employment rights under the Immigration & Nationality Act (INA) for the very first time when Congress passed the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT90). This paper examines H‐1B employment rights enforcement under the INA as it has intersected with broader features of the American legal system: what political scientists call judicial retrenchment and the quasi‐judicial state. I first show how H‐1B rights, already limited by the domestic politics that shaped the IMMACT, became subject to judicial retrenchment when the federal courts confined H‐1B disputes under the INA to the quasi‐judicial state at the Department of Labor (DOL). I then use published data on DOL investigation outcomes, published and unpublished administrative case records, and judicial cases reviewing agency action to examine the extent to which and how H‐1B workers can use the quasi‐judicial state to solve workplace problems. My empirical findings contribute to a new understanding of the relationship between rights retrenchment, the judiciary, and the rise of alternatives to court in immigration and employment law and point to possible fine‐grained changes for future immigration reform. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the impact of the legal rhythms and temporalities of migration on the specific temporalities of family life, under conditions of enforced temporariness. It apprehends enforced temporariness as a mode of governance infused with chronopolitics, which – by producing specific experiences of time – deprives migrants of the right/capacity to lead their family lives according to their plans and aspirations. Through a focus on highly qualified third-country nationals holding temporary visas in Belgium, it shows that these experiences of time result from the friction between the institutional timescale of administrative procedures and policies, and migrants' everyday and biographic timescales. Starting from the administrative timescales of highly-skilled migrants, the paper describes the existing Belgian migration legislation, with a focus on administrative procedures. It then explores the specific experiences of time those procedures generate, by highlighting different kinds of friction migrants experience as well as their effects. It presents some of the ways these migrants cope with them, and concludes by highlighting the fruitfulness of applying a friction lens to the study of intersecting timescales. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This case study centers on the narrative accounts of a lesbian couple in a binational relationship (i.e., two women from different countries) who left the United States (U.S.) at a time when immigration laws did not recognize their union. Given that they could not legally stay in the U.S. together, they immigrated to the Netherlands and subsequently to Canada. When DOMA was overturned and the couple was eligible to apply for immigration to the U.S., they opted to remain in Canada, in part due to the strain of multiple migrations. This concept has been described as the complex process that accompanies more than one immigration experience and the cumulative effect that this can have on couples and families over time, particularly when multiple resettlements have taken place. A descriptive case study methodology was employed to investigate the perceptions of multiple migrations of this lesbian binational couple, focusing mainly on their experiences in Canada. Specifically, individual interviews were conducted with each woman to explore their lived experiences of multiple migration and the impact this has had on various aspects of their lives, including those occurring at the intersection of privilege and oppression. A description of each woman is presented, followed by the significant themes that emerged from this study, including immigration difficulties and the centrality of relationship. Implications for psychological training, practice, research, policy were presented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]