Search

The U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) has functioned as a partnership between the federal government and a number of nonprofit partners for more than four decades. Yet resettlement is dependent on more than these particularly visible actors, and also includes states, municipalities, and a range of other organizations. In this paper I look at one part of the resettlement assemblage in the United States—ethnic community-based organizations (ECBOs)—from my own perspective as a researcher who has collaborated with one such entity over a number of years. Focusing on the shifting sands of refugee resettlement and drawing on research with staff at this agency, I examine some of the possibilities and pitfalls of engaging in praxis-oriented refugee research, especially at the local level. I suggest that the particular nuances and context of the ECBO is central to our understanding of contemporary resettlement practice in the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Online education is becoming an increasingly popular venture for postsecondary institutions. It is an often controversial undertaking with proponents lauding the possibilities of technological advancements to increase access to education, while critics question the value and form of pedagogy on offer. This paper examines the potential and problems of online learning with reference to global geographic education. Drawing on the emergent literature on technology and education, it examines issues of design, interactivity, access, and mode, and focuses on a collaborative project between international partners to introduce the study of South Asia through an online suite to a range of students.

The world is today in the grip of the worst forced migration crisis since the end of the Second World War, with tens of millions driven from their homes by conflict. Yet the global system meant to provide protection to the displaced continues to privilege the interests of nation-states rather than those of refugees and has resulted in less willingness by many countries to accept refugees for resettlement. The arrival – actual or potential – of large numbers of refugees and asylum seekers continues to spur a backlash against them, fuelled by fears of security threats, economic costs, and a lack of integration of newcomers. This situation has combined with xenophobia, racism, and broader cultural anxieties and led to a rising tide of nativist populism and even less welcome for those seeking sanctuary. Whereas by the late 1990 s the dominant logic governing refugee protections – at least in name if not in practice – was centred on multilateralism and humanitarian obligations, today there is a more explicit prominence of national interests in refugee policies. In this paper I argue that the continued dominance of nation-state centric priorities is indicative of the fragility of the global refugee regime. I use the example of Canadian and US responses to the Syrian refugee crisis and interviews with officials in each country to illustrate the primacy of national interests rather than international agreements and norms. The US chose to limit and eventually bar most Syrians from resettlement whereas Canada chose to accept a large number over a short period of time. I argue that both cases reveal similar patterns and logics, if not outcomes and an increasing alignment between border controls and immigration policy. I consider what this means for the future of refugee resettlement in North America and for the global refugee regime more broadly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]