Immigration Reform and the Latino Small Service Sector

Immigration reform is a policy of particular concern within the low-wage service sector and among self-employed ethnic entrepreneurs. This study uses U. S. Census microdata to show that Latino entrepreneurs differ in earnings by nativity and industry. Although foreign-born entrepreneurs usually have lower earnings than native-born Latino entrepreneurs, the situation reverses itself among restaurateurs and small retailers. The study then uses data from the "Six-City Study" to examine nativity and industry as variables affecting attitudes toward IRCA. High levels of support toward IRCA are reported, but the expected variations by nativity and industry emerge.     

Many Borders to Cross: Is Immigration the Exclusive Responsibility of the Federal Government?

In a period when many policymakers in Washington are attemptingto push an unprecedented number of programs and functions backto state and local jurisdictions, immigration stands out asa policy area that is universally regarded as the exclusivedomain of the federal government. This article challenges thispervasive understanding of policies toward legal as well asillegal immigrants. It does so by examining the historical evolutionof state-federal responsibilities in this area and then by scrutinizingcontemporary evidence of state and local efforts to influenceimmigration flows. Finally, the unique political dynamics ofimmigration will be explored to explain why—in the faceof so much evidence to the contrary—this one-sided viewof state-federal responsibilities persists in this increasinglyvolatile policy domain.     

The Ethics of Immigration

This review essay examines recent work in political theory on the ethics of immigration admissions. It considers arguments put forward by Michael Walzer, Peter Meilaender and David Miller, among others, for state control of borders. Such arguments tend to appeal to the value of political communities and/or the exclusion rights of democratic associations, and I argue that neither of these are successful. Turning to work by Joseph Carens, Phillip Cole, Michael Dummett and others who advocate open or much more open borders, the article considers various arguments that would support this stance, including appeals to freedom of movement, utilitarianism and social justice. I argue that rights to immigration need embedding in global principles of resource redistribution. In the conclusion I sketch a cosmopolitan approach to immigration by which impartial criteria such as population density and gross domestic product would determine how many migrants states have a duty to admit.     

Policy Legacies,Visa Reform and the Resilience of Immigration Politics

Comparative scholarship tacitly assumes immigration politics to be relatively rigid. A state's immigration policy legacy is said to institutionalise policy preferences, thereby making it difficult to implement lasting reforms that are inconsistent with that legacy. This presents difficulties for states with restrictionist legacies wanting to implement liberal reforms in response to the emergence of labour shortages or demographic problems. The supposed rigidity of immigration politics is scrutinised in this article through a systematic process analysis of developments in the United Kingdom over the past decade, where the Blair government confounded the UK's characterisation as a ‘reluctant immigration state’ to implement various liberal work visa reforms. The uncoordinated nature of policymaking and implementation, and the limited involvement of state and societal institutions in the reform process, reflect the UK's historical experience with restrictionist policies, and help to explain the subsequent reintroduction of strict visa controls. The case demonstrates that policy legacies indeed play a significant role in defining the character of the policymaking institutions that shape a state's immigration politics.     

Examining the Link Between Issue Attitudes and News Source: The Case of Latinos and Immigration Reform

This paper explores whether an individual’s news source can explain their attitudes on immigration. We focus on the Spanish-speaking population in the U.S., since they have the option of accessing their news in English, Spanish or in both languages. Our audience influence hypothesis predicts that Spanish-language news will cover immigration in a more positive and informative manner than will English-language news. Thus, Latinos who use Spanish-language news may have a higher likelihood of possessing pro-immigrant sentiments than Latinos who only use English-language news. Content analysis of Spanish and English-language television news segments reveals variations in the tone and substance of these news outlets. Analysis of Latino survey respondents indicates that immigration attitudes vary by news source. Generational status also influences Latinos’ immigration attitudes, though its impact is not as great as one’s news source.

The Moral Community and Immigration

In “Which American Dream Do You Mean?” David Stoll never justified his assumption that Guatemalans who want to immigrate to America have a moral claim on our attention. The “conversation” he describes really involves only Americans as only they are held responsible for immigration. Some advocates justify immigration on the basis of rights while others appeal to compassion, but both assign all responsibility to rich Americans and none to the sending societies. A huge moral asymmetry separates the West, which is assumed capable of achieving civic values from the non-West, which is not. Americans hunger for a more candid conversation about how to distribute the responsibility for immigration. That is essential to legitimizing immigration policy and preserving the civic character of American society.     

The Politics of Immigration and Public Health

The Conservative party's recent proposal to introduce compulsory medical examinations for immigrants should it win the upcoming election marks a departure in the politics of immigration and public health. For many years, the public health impact of immigration was kept out of party competition and successive governments pursued a voluntaristic approach to health checks. In this article, I outline the political history of immigration and public health, and consider the implications of attempts to raise the subject onto the public agenda. I argue that recent developments militate against a calm and balanced approach to the genuine public health concerns associated with immigration, which threatens not only to stigmatise immigrants and stoke anti-immigrant popular opinion, but also prevent the development of effective policies. In particular, the introduction of compulsory examinations may create perverse incentives for migrants to circumvent legal channels and thereby actually increase public health risks.     

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.     

政府规制改革与有效防治腐败

国外一些学者用“规制俘虏”理论和“合谋理论”来解释政府规制与腐败的内在联系。本文认为,政府规制与腐败之间的联系有三个链条:其一,政府规制干预市场所形成的大量的寻租机会,产生了贿赂官员的动机。其二,政府规制基准模糊,掌握市场准入资格认证权的官员自由裁量权过大,强化了争相贿赂官员的心理。其三,政府规制程序复杂、不透明,只有用贿赂作为润滑剂才可以提高政府办事效率。因此,从中国实际出发,应该把对腐败现象控制的重点前移,从注重对腐败现象的事后控制,转到事前控制上来,要充分利用市场机制的作用,最大限度地减少政府对市场的干预。     

区别革命党与执政党的四个维度

革命党与执政党到底有什么区别?这是我们正确认识革命党与执政党问题,以执政党思维来加强党的执政能力建设的逻辑起点。区别革命党与执政党的四个维度是:党政关系的维度、党法关系的维度、党群关系的维度和党内关系的维度。从党政关系的维度看,革命党与执政党的区别在于与政权的关系不同、与政治体制的关系不同、与政府的关系不同、党的政治任务的不同、作用于政权和政治体制的方式不同。从党法关系的维度看,区别在于法律地位不同、对法统的态度和行为不同、党的政策与国家法律的关系不同、对法的重视程度不同。从党群关系的维度看,区别在于群众概念的外延不同、脱离群众的危险程度不同、分析群众的方法论不同、判断群众政治上先进落后的标准不同。从党内关系的维度看,区别在于对党员和干部的要求不同、党内的领导方式不同、党的建设方式的不同、党的活动方式不同。     

Facets of nativism: a heuristic exploration

ABSTRACT

Contemporary radical right-wing populism is an ideational compound of anti-elite populism and nativism, the latter encapsulated in the notion that ‘the own people’ should come first. Like populism, nativism has proven to be a rather elusive concept, particularly when it comes to its relationship to related concepts, such as patriotism, nationalism and particularly racism. Originally developed to analyse anti-immigrant sentiments in the United States and Canada, the term ‘nativism’ has recently been increasingly used to understand the success of the radical populist right in Europe and elsewhere. In this article, Betz present three facets of nativism: economic nativism, centred on the notion that jobs should be reserved for native citizens; welfare chauvinism, based on the notion that native citizens should be accorded absolute priority when it comes to social benefits; and symbolic nativism, advancing the notion that government should do everything to defend the cultural identity of a given national society. Whereas, in the past, economic considerations, including concerns about the viability of the welfare state, were central to anti-immigrant sentiment, in recent years, symbolic nativism, grounded in a defence of national cultural identity, is central to the success of radical right-wing populist mobilization.     

Partisan Influence on Immigration: The Case of Norway

Do governments decide the size of immigration? This article analyses partisan impact on refugee immigration to Norway. The first part maps party positions on refugee immigration and demonstrates that the views of Norwegian parties are far from consensual. The second part tests whether the number of refugees admitted has been affected by changes of government by way of a panel analysis covering the period 1985–2005 and 143 sending countries. Controlling for other determinants of immigration both in receiving and sending countries, the analysis suggests that that the number of refugees admitted to Norway has been significantly lower during Conservative rule. Among parties with government experience, the Conservative Party also has adopted the most restrictive stand in its manifestoes. No significant differences between Labour Party and centre governments were found, even though the centre parties express more liberal preferences.