Citizenship,identity and transnational migration: Arab immigrants to the United States

The aim of this paper is to evaluate the changing relationships between identities, citizenship and the state in the context of globalisation. We first examine the ways in which scholars discuss changes in the ways in which citizenship and political identity are expressed in the context of international migration. We argue that much of the discussion of transnationalism and diaspora cling to an assumption that citizenship remains an important—though not defining—element of identity. Our position, by contrast, is that migration is one of a number of processes that transform the relationship between citizenship and identity. More specifically, we argue that it is possible to claim identity as a citizen of a country without claiming an identity as ‘belonging to’ or ‘being of’ that country, thus breaking the assumed congruity between citizenship, state and nation. We explore this possibility through a study of Arab immigrants in the US. Our findings, based on interviews with activists and an analysis of Arab American websites, suggest that concerns with both homeland and national integration are closely related to each other and may simultaneously inform immigrants' political activism. These findings indicate a need to identify multiple axes of political identification and territorial attachment that shape immigrants' sense of political membership. We argue for the importance of thinking about transnationalism as a process—and perhaps a strategy—as migrants negotiate the complex politics of citizenship and identity.     

Performing the Nation: Contesting Same-Sex Marriage Rights in the United States

Public opinion polls, Supreme Court decisions, and changes in federal and state law suggest that the United States is witnessing a support for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights today that few would have predicted five years ago. This article offers a critical assessment of that growth as it is manifest in the context of marriage equality. It shows that efforts to advance same-sex marriage rights, while offering an important challenge to oppositional arguments, actually rely on norms quite similar to those of marriage equality opponents. Both advocates and opponents envision and enact the kind of citizenship appropriate to national health and identity in surprisingly similar ways. Both reinforce a set of norms, laws, and practices that make the right to marriage almost synonymous with family and responsible parenting. Such a consolidation of repronormativity may have troubling consequences for efforts to advance LGBT rights at home and abroad.     

Federalism, Political Structure, and Public Policy in the United States and Canada

Two of the three large countries on the North American continent—the United States and Canada—share a number of similarities that often make it difficult for the untrained observer to differentiate between the two nations. On the surface, the two are structured similarly as federal systems that, by definition, exhibit shared power between the national government and provincial or state political entities.Although there are other important social and economic characteristics of the two countries that help explain differences in policy processes and outcomes, it is the contention of this article that one gets the clearest sense of what Elazar has called thinking federal by utilizing an analytical approach that joins questions related to federalism with some conceptual frameworks of the public policy field. Two frameworks undergird the argument in this article—the Lowi typology of different types of policies and Deil Wright's typology of different models that describe the American inter-governmental system.In both countries, policies must be sensitive to the greater interdependencies between units of government as well as to linkages between policy areas. The mechanisms or instrumentalities for dealing with policy issues are intrinsically complex. It is also clear that the intergovernmental networks that exist in both the U.S. and Canada are composed of an array of actors. The differing political structures of the systems do impact the types of intergovernmental policies that have emerged in the two countries. The executive dominance so imbedded in Canadian governments has contributed to their ability to adopt and implement certain controversial redistributive policies, such as a national health insurance program. By contrast, the fragmentation of the U.S. system makes redistributive policies more difficult.     

Symbolic Citizenship,Nationalism and the Distant State: The United States Congress in the 1996 Debate on Immigration Reform

Using a framework which is based on T. H. Marshall's Citizenship and Social Class , the article analyzes concepts of citizenship as they emerged in the 1996 debates of the United States Congress which resulted in the passage of important welfare and immigration reform laws. The discussions revealed that a majority of congressional politicians supported a citizenship ideal that relied primarily on an individuals' status as taxpayer, worker and member of a nuclear family and remained relatively distant to the nation state. The legislation passed as a result of these debates represents the attempt to use state power to maintain immigrants' distance from the state.     

Feminism and Contemporary Liberal Citizenship: The Undecidability of 'Women'

Liberal citizenship has been seen as posing a dilemma for feminists. Either women are taken to be equal to men, in which case their specific capacities as women are unrecognised and their citizenship is substantively unequal; or else women are taken to be different, with the consequent risk that the rights citizenship allows and the obligations it imposes will again be substantively unequal. On this view, women cannot simply be included in liberal citizenship because the meaning of the liberal public sphere is constructed in opposition to the private sphere of natural feminine care and women's subordination to male heads of household. Using Derridean deconstruction to examine three significant moments in liberalism, this paper argues that the term 'women' is more productively seen as 'undecidable' in this tradition, working both to construct the binary opposition between public and private on which it depends but also to disrupt it. While the feminist critique of liberalism is important to analysing the logic by which women have been positioned outside full citizenship rights, in practice feminists have made some gains by reconfiguring the terms of liberalism around this undecidability. The aim of the paper is to carry out something like a genealogy of contemporary liberalism in order to discern its multiple origins and contingent development; we will then be in a better position to understand the practical possibilities for women's citizenship in Britain today.     

Policy Preferences and Political Distrust: A Comparison of Norway, Sweden and the United States

Many modern democracies have experienced a decrease in citizen support for government in recent decades. This article examines attitudes toward public policy as a plausible theoretical explanation for this phenomenon. The connection between public policy and support for the political regime has received considerable academic attention in the United States. Yet very little comparative work has examined whether citizens' policy preferences are related to a decline in diffuse support across different political systems. This article offers a clearer, more concise theoretical specification of the hypothesized relationship between public evaluations of policy outputs and support for the political regime. After specifying the theoretical concerns more succinctly, the article analyzes data from Norway, Sweden and the United States for the quarter century from the late 1960s to the early 1990s. The analysis reveals that shifts in evaluations of foreign policy and race-related policies help explain change in political trust for all three countries despite differences in the political systems. Moral issues, such as abortion, however, have no impact on political trust in any of the countries.     

Jewish Religiosity and Political Attitudes in the United States and Israel

Does religious commitment have a common political impact across national frontiers? To date, that question has been explored empirically only for Roman Catholics, who might be expected to behave similarly because of centralizing resources in their tradition. This article explores the extent of transnational political attitudes among Jews in the United States and Israel, two groups with less centralized authority structures and radically different religious situations. Parallel surveys of Jews in the United States and Israel, analyzed by OLS regression with the slope dummy approach, indicate that Jewish religiosity has a common influence on most political issues but often has much sharper effects in one society than the other. Given our expectation that Jews would exhibit lower levels of transnational similarity than Roman Catholics, the findings reinforce scholars who perceive religion as a potent transnational political factor.     

Intolerance and Political Repression in the United States: A Half Century after McCarthyism

What consequences for political freedom arise from high levels of political intolerance among the American public? Comparing surveys from 1954 to 2005, I document the level of perceived freedom today and consider how it has changed since the McCarthy era. Levels of intolerance today and in 1954 are also compared. Next assessed is whether restrictions on freedom are uniformly perceived or whether some subsections of the population are more likely to feel repressed than others. I find that while intolerance may have declined somewhat since 1954, perceived constraints on individual freedom have actually increased. These findings produce telling consequences for the subtheory of pluralistic intolerance. During McCarthyism, intolerance focused on the Left; today, many groups are not tolerated, so the loss of freedom is more widespread. Heretofore, many thought that pluralistic intolerance tended to be benign. At least in the case of the contemporary United States, it seems not to be.     

Political efficacy: A comparative study of the United States, West Germany, Great Britain and Australia

Abstract. Although political efficacy is a key concept in theories of political participation and democratic governance, different studies have conceptualised and operationalised efficacy in different ways. Using comparable survey data from the United States, West Germany, Great Britain and Australia, this study builds upon previous research in an attempt to clarify our understanding of the dimensions of political efficacy and their relationship to socio-demographic factors. The results suggest that 'internal efficacy' and 'external efficacy' are distinct attitudinal dimensions which are comparable in all four nations, and that each is related to certain socio-demographic characteristics.     

Political Communication and Disagreement Among Citizens in Japan and the United States

Patterns of interdependence among and between citizens add an additional level of complexity to a comparative analysis of democratic politics. In this article we examine communication and disagreement among citizens in Japan and the United States. We argue that a majoritarian bias in political communication operates in both settings, but it tends to perpetuate a system of one-party dominance in Japanese politics. Comparative studies of democratic citizenship have focused generally on the variation across national contexts in the political beliefs and values held by individuals. Our argument is that citizenship and the alternative cultures of democratic politics have less to do with the idiosyncratic beliefs and values that individuals carry with them and more to do with the contextually embedded nature of political communication. We address these issues using two community-based studies, one conducted in South Bend, Indiana, in 1984 and the other in Bunkyo Ward, Tokyo, in 1997.     

Human Rights in the United States: The Unfinished Story of Political Prisoners and Cointelpro

For many years, black nationalists have tried to reopen the investigation into the FBI's COINTELPRO (COunter-INTELligence PROgram), which served to disrupt and destroy the black liberation movement and other progressive movements in the US. On September 14, 2000 in Washington, DC, Congressional Representative Cynthia McKinney (D-Georgia) convened a "brain trust" on this subject as part of the Congressional Black Caucus' Legislative Conference, a yearly series of forums and panel discussions on issues of importance to the communities represented by the Caucus. The title of the McKinney panel was "Human Rights in the United States: The Unfinished Story of Political Prisoners/Victims of COINTELPRO." Six panelists presented information on the history of COINTELPRO and its relevance to the cases of the approximately 100 + political prisoners in US custody at this moment. Some of these prisoners have served 30 or more years; all have exceedingly long sentences. While the US government denies that it holds any political prisoners, the facts of the cases—and the connection of many cases to COINTELPRO operations—indicate otherwise. Several current and past political prisoners, most notably Jalil Muntaqim (Anthony Bottom) and Dr. Mutulu Shakur, along with released political prisoner Herman Ferguson, have consistently urged that the illegalities committed under COINTELPRO be examined further, and that compensation be made to the victims of these acts. The panel presentations excerpted below all point to the necessity of such an examination—and of releasing all of the US-held political prisoners in order to redress the crimes committed against progressive political movements under the aegis of COINTELPRO and other FBI counterintelligence programs. The significance of this issue to the community was illustrated by the tremendous crowd that gathered and participated in the discussion following the panel.     

Governance, the World Bank and Liberal Theory

We examine the recent debates about governance, focusing particularly on the World Bank and identify certain factors which have in recent years moved the Bank's thinking beyond narrowly economic notions of development. Our account is tentative and we suggest further avenues of research. We try to connect the Bank's thinking systematically with key features of liberal discourse and suggest that thiscan do much to illuminate practice. We illustrate this with a discussion of the growing relationship between the Bank and NGOs, to contribute to forms of analysis which go beyond the ideas vs. interests polarities that still inform so much of contemporary social and political theory.     

Impact of Political Structures and Informal Political Processes on Health Policy: Comparison of the United States and Canadab

A number of factors, including cultural, social, economic, political, and historical, influence policy. United States and Canada's health care systems are the conscious and subconscious outcomes of formal political structures and informal political processes. The Canadian parliamentary political system encourages centralized, organized, planned policy in health care. However, this is accomplished at the risk of leaving some individuals—physicians in this case—quite frustrated. American constitutional features, the presidential system, weak political parties, and the tireless participation of interest groups in the political process all function to discourage the formation of highly rational and efficient policy. While few special interests are ever completely satisfied with the legislation produced, seldom is any organized group completely thwarted. Therefore, it is no surprise that a tightly integrated national program of universal health insurance was not adopted by Congress in 1993–1994. Political structures and processes discourage effective, comprehensive health care reform in the United States.     

Devolution in the United Kingdom: Statehood and Citizenship in Transition

The United Kingdom evolved as a "state of unions," in whichgovernment arrangements were territorially varied in line withthe particular circumstances of the sequence of acts of unionbetween the core state territory of England and Wales, Scotland,and Ireland. The recent devolution reforms have built on thatterritorial nonuniformity, embedding a number of idiosyncrasiesinto the devolved UK state: a lopsidedness that leaves the biggestand wealthiest part of the United Kingdom—England—governedcentrally wihle the non-English nations have devolved government,devolved government arrangements for those nations that aremarkedly asymmetrical, and an underdeveloped system of intergovernmentalrelations connecting United Kingdom—level and devolvedpolitical arenas. Together these issues pose important questionsof whether the devolution reforms amount to a coherent overallpackage, whether the reforms are stable, and whether they erodea common UK citizenship.