Search

In response to the rise in terrorism after the turn of the millennium, multiculturalist countries such as Australia, Britain and Canada introduced policies that make it easier to revoke the citizenships of dual nationals. These policies primarily target naturalized immigrants and their descendants. Ongoing debates indicate that more countries plan to follow suit. Some scholars argue that easy revocation policies create two-tiered political communities, where one group of citizens have a stronger status security than the other. This study builds on their perspectives, and argues that majority members should be more likely to hold anti-immigrant attitudes in countries where state policies discriminate against citizens in terms of status security. To test this hypothesis, this study employs multilevel regression analysis. Data come from European Values Study (2008), European Social Survey (2014), and Eurobarometer (2015), and cover thirty European countries. Findings offer support for the proposed hypothesis. In countries where immigrants have low status security, majority members are more likely to have negative attitudes toward immigrants. The results hold not only for immigrants in general but also for Muslim immigrants in particular. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For many Japanese people, the 49th parallel was only a line on a map, yet there were differences for the Japanese residents in the United States and Canada. The two nations had different concepts of citizenship and constitutions but, in what has been called “hemispheric orientalism,” prejudice knew no border. Both countries severely restricted immigration from Japan. In the United States, immigrants, the Issei, were aliens ineligible for citizenship. Thus, states could deny their access to commercial fishing and the right to own or lease land. Because the American constitution bestows full citizenship on the native-born, their American-born children, the Nisei, could vote and acquire land, but experienced discrimination especially in employment. On paper, the Canadian Issei had more civil rights since they could become naturalized but this provided few advantages apart from the rights to own land and to fish commercially. The Canadian Nisei had no more rights than their parents. In British Columbia, where 95 percent of the Japanese lived, they could not vote and provincial laws and customs denied their access to many occupations. During the Second World War, both nations required all the Nikkei to leave the Pacific Coast, incarcerated some, severely restricted the mobility of others, and proposed to “repatriate” many of them to Japan. Drawing mainly on the previous scholarship which has examined specific themes, time periods, or comparisons, this article offers an overview of how between the 1890s and the 1940s the effects of prejudice varied more in detail and timing than in principle even though formal consultation between the two nations was sporadic. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Canada has the second highest rate of immigration in the world and retains a very high rate of conversion of new immigrants into citizens. But naturalization rates are now beginning to fall at a time when the federal government approach both to the operation of multicultural policies and to the funding of civil society has been subject to a profound restructuring of welfare institutions that has downplayed group claims to civic entitlements and emphasized the insertion of immigrants into the labour market. This article draws on documentary evidence and interviews with chief executives of immigrant serving organizations in an Ontario city to show how these changes have affected the role of civil society in immigrant settlement. It argues that the Canadian case provides strong support for the view that the impact of civil society on immigrant political integration is governed by opportunities and constraints in the political environment in which it operates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the production of temporariness in Canada, and its implications for the citizenship rights of migrants. It investigates the production of temporariness within three policy fields that are typically not examined together – security, work and settlement. Within these three fields, it considers public policies concerning: (1) security of presence; (2) access to paid employment for spouses of migrants; and (3) eligibility for settlement services. It argues that temporariness is being institutionalized in new ways, producing a hierarchy of categories of migrants ranging from the temporarily temporary to the permanently temporary and temporarily permanent, shaped by entry category, legal residency status and socially recognized skills. The paper advances a multidimensional conception of temporariness, and contends that the temporary-permanent divide is constructed through the enforcement of different entry categories and forms of legal residency status, which create ‘paper borders’ that are made up of the increasing number and range of restrictions, limits and containments regarding legal residency status, access to employment and settlement services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of International Migration & Integration is the property of Springer Nature 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.)