Just a Shadow? The Role of Radical Right Parties in the Politicization of Immigration, 1995–2009

Reviewed by: Terrorizing Latina/o Immigrants: Race, Gender, And Immigration Politics in The Age of Security by Anna Sampaio Francisco Delgado TERRORIZING LATINA/O IMMIGRANTS: Race, Gender, And Immigration Politics in The Age of Security. By Anna Sampaio. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. 2015. Anna Sampaio's Terrorizing Latina/o Immigrants: Race, Gender, And Immigration Politics in the Age of Security provides a comprehensive and engaging analysis of how Latina/o immigrants exist in a paradox: in that, they are portrayed as terrorists by a nation that in fact terrorizes them. [End Page 123] While steeped in contemporary concerns about the enforcement policies of such agencies as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS), the book effectively links these phenomena with the nation's history of dealing with Latina/o persons, beginning with the Guadalupe Hidalgo Treaty, which created the U.S.-Mexico border we know today, up until the DREAM Act. In the process, Sampaio successfully links the experiences of immigrants with the plight of other immigrant groups that endured exclusionary legislation fueled by racism, such as the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act and the Immigration Act of 1917. Thus, while the book is primarily concerned with the issues faced by Latina/o communities, its conscious efforts to link these issues with those endured by other communities will fascinate students and scholars of ethnic American history, culture, literature, and film. Sampaio also successfully shows how race and gender intersect in the persecution—or, to paraphrase her title, the terrorizing—of Latina/o communities. This is especially evident in the second chapter, in which Sampaio argues that the nation's security discourses rely on rhetoric of "masculine protectionism, demonization, and de-Americanization in ways that constitute Latina/o immigrants as foreign and threatening, positioning them as potential terrorists" (21). In other words, the United States positions itself as the masculinized protector, thus relegating its own citizens (as well as women and children abroad) as feminized dependents, while demonizing and de-Americanizing Latina/o immigrants. The author's analysis of the intersectionality of race and gender continues in chapter 6 through its three case studies of Jose Padilla, Yaser Hamdi, and John Walker Lindh. In one of its most compelling arguments about how racism operates in the treatment of individuals accused of treason, she points out that of the three individuals examined here, Lindh in fact was the only one "who admitted to working on behalf of the Taliban [and] to fighting against the United States" (127), yet "retained the rights of political agency of a citizen" (113) due to his status as a white, middle-class man. The author uses critical race studies, feminist theory, and intersectional analysis to complement her background in political science, thus differentiating her work from preexisting scholarship, which Sampaio writes "leaves unexamined the way that racialization and gendering processes have operated in tandem to construct Latina/o immigrants as potential terrorists and to legitimize their terrorization via restrictive state practices" (8). In addition to these methodologies, Sampaio also uses newspaper articles in her study. While some may criticize her reliance on newspapers, the author strategically explains that her use of such sources stems from the lack of documentation by the DHS, ICE, and the CIS. By drawing our attention specifically to this lack of documentation from government agencies, Sampaio highlights the dangers of the restrictive legislation and practices of the U.S. and state governments towards Latina/o populations, including natural born citizens as Sampaio shows in chapter 6. For students and scholars seeking a carefully-researched and nuanced study on the issues facing Latina/o immigrants, Sampaio's book is worthwhile reading. Francisco Delgado University of New Haven Copyright © 2018 Mid-America American Studies Association

Relevance. Sustainable development is now an increasingly important topic on the global agenda, which received much attention in connection with the adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Research objectives. The article aims to contribute to the understanding of sustainability expansion and SDGs achievement in Europe by comparing the differences between Western and Eastern European countries. Data and methods. The study relies on descriptive statistics and comparative analysis of sustainable development results in Western (18) and Eastern European (21) countries. The parametric Student's t-distribution test and non-parametric U Mann-Whitney test were used to examine the significance of the differences between Western and Eastern European countries. Results. Sustainable development in Eastern and Western European countries is affected by various economic, social and environmental processes. The SDGs in Western European countries is achieved mostly in the social and economic spheres while in the Eastern European countries, in social and environmental spheres. Although Europe leads globally on sustainability, it still faces significant challenges in reaching the SDGs. Conclusions. European countries are compared in order to identify the main SDGs directions and constraints in the current state of sustainability achievement. Research findings can be useful for adjustment of the integrated sustainable development strategy at the global and national levels.

When it comes to immigration policy, nation-states generally have the power to exclude, admit, or expel noncitizens from their territories. On the other hand, subnational jurisdictions have more often been given the task of formulating and implementing immigrant policy, which entails the incorporation of immigrants into local communities. This division of labor has recently come under intense scrutiny. The local and state politics of immigration and immigrant integration in the United States has been documented in the scholarly literature, focusing on topics such as California’s Proposition 187, the disparity between the national benefits and local costs of immigration, and the increasing role played by nongovernmental organizations and other nonstate actors in the integration of immigrants at the local scale. Four categories of local immigrant and immigration policy have been studied: policies that arise from the devolution of select powers over noncitizens; grassroots policies on areas such as education and human trafficking; policies that are more explicitly about a politics of immigration control; and policies that engage with a politics of immigrant integration. However, there are still avenues that require further investigation so as to better understand the growing involvement of subnational governments in the formulation and implementation of immigrant and immigration policy. For example, more research is needed in which policy outcome is taken as the dependent variable and to document and understand the dynamics of local immigrant integration and immigration policy formation in developing countries.

Reviewed by: The Walls Within: The Politics of Immigration in Modern America by Sarah Coleman Kathryn Schumaker (bio) The Walls Within: The Politics of Immigration in Modern America. By Sarah Coleman. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2021. Pp. 272. $35.00 cloth; $35.00 ebook) Historians of immigration in the twentieth-century United States have long noted how restrictive policies created a class of unauthorized people who lived in the shadow of the law. At the same time, the 1960s spurred a revolution in individual rights, expanding the scope of claims all persons—including noncitizens—could make through the Fourteenth Amendment. Sarah Coleman's The Walls Within: The Politics of Immigration in Modern America examines the people caught in between these two important developments, exploring the battles over the rights of unauthorized immigrants. This well-written and thoroughly researched book tells an often-surprising story that reveals how the states—and not the federal government—were frequently the laboratories of restrictive immigration policies in the late twentieth century. Coleman begins with Plyler v. Doe (1982), a landmark United States Supreme Court case that questioned the constitutionality of a Texas state law that allowed school districts to charge tuition to students who could not prove their legal status. The Supreme Court had ruled a decade earlier that the Fourteenth Amendment did not include a constitutional right to education. Could Texas charge tuition to unauthorized families or exclude them from public schools entirely? The first two chapters examine how these questions vexed the Carter and Reagan administrations, where officials saw unauthorized children as sympathetic figures, but also recognized that immigration [End Page 449] was a hot-button issue with voters. Though unauthorized immigrants were a convenient political target for members of state legislatures—especially in their inability to respond at the ballot box—officials were wary of punishing children. The Supreme Court eventually ruled the law unconstitutional in 1982. But the concerns about childhood that restrained some policymakers and judges in Plyler did little to deter efforts by state legislatures to target adults. Amid press warnings that linked rising unemployment rates to unauthorized workers, states passed laws criminalizing the employers who hired them. The next two chapters examine how this issue scrambled traditional partisan divides. The Chamber of Commerce and many Republicans opposed a federal law because it targeted business owners. Latino advocacy groups recognized that the law risked the possibility that, fearful of prosecution, employers could refuse to hire any identifiably Latino person. Ultimately, these concerns contributed to the passage of the 1986 federal immigration law that included (largely unenforceable) sanctions for employers, but also prohibited discrimination on the basis of alienage and national origin in hiring. The final chapters focus on the 1990s, when both political parties lurched rightward on immigration. The fifth chapter examines how immigration again came to the fore amid an economic downturn, culminating in Clinton-era welfare reform that ended the ability of noncitizens to access public benefits, including cash assistance and food stamps, regardless of their legal status. The final chapter explains how states paved the way for new restrictive immigration policies, leading Congress to ultimately buttress the authority of state and local officials to carry out immigration enforcement in the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. The Walls Within is a story of lawyers, judges, policy advisers, senators, and other elites as they made immigration law and policy in courtrooms and offices. Unauthorized immigrants existed abstractly for these people, especially for politicians who sought to use [End Page 450] immigration policy to woo conservative white voters (in the case of Clinton) or appeal to Latino voters (as Reagan did). The book, therefore, has less to say about how these legal and policy changes affected immigrants' everyday lives. Nonetheless it offers a clear policy and legal history of the fraught issue of immigrants' rights in the modern United States, especially in its contributions to the growing scholarship on federalism and immigration. [End Page 451] Kathryn Schumaker KATHRYN SCHUMAKER is a historian at the University of Oklahoma. She is the author of Troublemakers: Students' Rights and Racial Justice in the Long 1960s and is at work on a new book project about interracial families in...

Why are migration policies sometimes heavily contested and high on the political agenda? And why do they, at other moments and in other countries, hardly lead to much public debate? The entrance and settlement of migrants in Western Europe has prompted various political reactions. In some countries anti-immigration parties have gained substantial public support while in others migration policies have been hardly controversial. The Politicisation of Migration examines the differences between seven Western European countries by developing a conceptual framework to empirically explain patterns of politicisation and de-politicisation. The analyses show that over the past decade immigration has been increasingly defined in socio-cultural terms and that it has been receiving less political attention since the economic crisis started in 2007.

Changing Claims and Changing Frames in the Politics of Migration in Western Europe, 1995-2009

Immigration is among the most transformative experiences of postwar Europe. It has reoriented political parties, restructured the European party system, and given birth to new political parties, namely far-right exclusionary populist parties. Alongside these political changes, immigration presents innumerable social and economic challenges that have forced political elites to face hard questions about national belonging, economic growth, and demographic realities in aging nation-states. Reflecting the scale of this challenge, there are several branches of scholarship that strive to understanding and contextualize immigration in the European political landscape. There are three, general areas of immigration-related fields: immigration policy, immigration politics, and migrant politics. Immigration policy studies examine the rules and procedures that facilitate the entry, settlement, integration, and citizenship of a migrant. This is an admittedly maximalist definition—one can reserve the term “immigration policy” merely to the process and dynamics of admission. Yet, the reality of immigrant-related policy design and implementation shows policies as joined-up, aligned, and mutually reinforcing. As such, “immigration policy” incorporates all policies that address the condition of and consequences of migration. This body of work traditionally examines political, economic, and social determinants of policy and the effects of immigration policy on a variety of attitudinal and behavior outcomes, among both immigrant and native populations. The second group of scholarship looks at immigration politics. This body of work considers how political parties and elections structure and mobilize around immigration issues and saliency. Work within this strand may range from studying public opinion and electoral data to interviews that capture elite or other stakeholder (e.g., firm) preferences. This strand stretches across multiple levels of analysis, from the very local—like neighborhoods and city blocks, to regions, to national politics, to the supranational European Union. A final strand of literature looks at migrant politics. These are studies that look specifically at the formation of political identity, migrant political behavior, and migrant representation. Of course, these three strands of immigration studies are not mutually exclusive and often overlap, e.g., studies on how policies affect immigrant political behavior. Immigration politics is a critical factor shaping domestic politics and foreign policy alike. As immigration continues to fundamentally transform the European political space—immigration from both within Europe and without—we identify a number of critical pieces that help shape our understanding of this transition here to which scholars that seek to understand European politics today ignore at their own peril.

While clear evidence indicates that restrictive immigration policies are motivated by fears of potential support for anti-immigration movements, there is also evidence from Austria and Switzerland showing that such policies fail to diminish opposition to immigration. This chapter analyses the seemingly inconsistent relationship between changes in immigration policy and the level of politicization of immigration. Using political claims data from seven Western European countries between 199 S and 2010, the chapter concludes that, whereas the politicization of immigration policies is somewhat responsive to changes in immigration policy, the politicization of integration policies is significantly more responsive to changes in integration policy. The chapter also indicates that these effects are conditional on the perceived position of the party implementing the policy change.

This Special Issue...is devoted to an analysis of how immigration has emerged as a political issue how the politics of immigration have been constructed and what have been the consequences of this construction for politics in Western Europe. The 10 papers included examine several aspects of this migration including labor migration asylum-seekers undocumented migrants and resident aliens emphasizing the different political implications of each type of migration. (EXCERPT)

This article is part of a series commissioned by the International Epidemiological Association, aimed at describing population health and epidemiological resources in the six World Health Organization (WHO) regions. It covers 32 of the 53 WHO European countries, namely the Western European countries, the Balkan countries and the Baltic countries. The burdens of mortality and morbidity and the patterns of risk factors and inequalities have been reviewed in order to identify health priorities and challenges. Literature and internet searches were conducted to stock-take epidemiological teaching, research activities, funding and scientific productivity. These countries have among the highest life expectancies worldwide. However, within- and between-country inequalities persist, which are largely due to inequalities in distribution of main health determinants. There is a long tradition of epidemiological research and teaching in most countries, in particular in the Western European countries. Cross-national networks and collaborations are increasing through the support of the European Union which fosters procedures to standardize educational systems across Europe and provides funding for epidemiological research through framework programmes. The number of Medline-indexed epidemiological research publications per year led by Western European countries has been increasing. The countries accounts for nearly a third of the global epidemiological publication. Although population health has improved considerably overall, persistent within- and between-country inequalities continue to challenge national and European health institutions. More research, policy and action on the social determinants of health are required in the region. Epidemiological training, research and workforce in the Baltic and Balkan countries should be strengthened. European epidemiologists can play pivotal roles and must influence legislation concerning production and access to high-quality data.

The structure of the Italian party system pushes the mainstream right and left to adopt different strategies on immigration in spite of a certain ideological and definite policy convergence. First, in a context of bipolar competition, the mainstream right prefers to cooperate, rather than compete, with the anti-immigrant radical right. Second, while the mainstream left dominates the centre-left coalition, the mainstream right has found itself subject to and torn by the populist tendencies of the centre-right coalition leader Silvio Berlusconi. The analysis shows that the mainstream left has endorsed concerns over security and border control, while remaining open to the social, cultural and (to a lesser extent) political integration of immigrants. In contrast, the mainstream right has appeared increasingly split between a component ‘contaminated’ by Berlusconi, which makes some concessions to the radical right; and a moderate component, which is more sensitive to liberal ideas and/or to the solidaristic remarks of the Catholic Church. The reality of the Italian welfare system and labour market would appear to create more favourable conditions for the ideological approach of the mainstream left. However, the mainstream right has benefited from its alliance with the radical right as it has constantly owned the immigration issue.

This comparison study of the implementation of energy-saving projects in buildings was conducted in order to consider the diversity of experiences between Western European countries, which have experience and expertise in this area, and those countries in Eastern Europe that are in the beginning stages. The goal of this paper is to analyze obstacles and incentives for investment in energy conservation in buildings by comparing European countries with a diverse landscape of institutional and economic developments, social-cultural values, and environmental framework conditions in order to understand if these differences are influencing the implementation of energy saving measures and how this can be used to overcome the existing obstacles. The study is based on survey results received from experts in Eastern and Western European countries. The main value of the research is that it offers an overview of the potentials and constraints (barriers) to energy efficiency in Europe, based on data from a sample of western and eastern European countries. Among the most important incentives that were implemented to stimulate energy-saving measures are costs savings and the need to meet regulatory requirements. The main obstacles that still restrict the number of already implemented projects in Europe are a lack of proper financial incentives and that many Eastern countries are still struggling to develop the market of Energy Saving Services (ESS) and to operate better energy waste control systems. The paper concludes with the successful incentives that were implemented to stimulate the energy-saving measures and the main obstacles that still restrict the number of already implemented projects in Europe. Additionally, a set of indicators related to the environmental friendliness and social significance of energy-saving measures was proposed for evaluation of the project results. These were used based on the fact that they may be measured and cater for comparisons. This paper can help improve policy-makers’ selections in order to improve economic instruments appropriate to energy-saving policy objectives and specific national contexts.

Introduction The roots of the Lithuanian party system can be traced back to the Lithuanian ‘Singing revolution’ of 1988-1991. The longstanding monopoly of the Lithuanian Communist Party was broken in 1988 when the Lithuanian liberation movement Sąjūdis was formed. It was a broad umbrella-type organization which played a crucial role in the process of democratic transformation in Lithuania and which later gave birth to several influential Lithuanian parties. The main ideological adversary of Sąjūdis was the Lithuanian Communist Party (later transformed into the Lithuanian Democratic Labour Party), even though the positions of the two forces were quite similar regarding some issues. During the first free elections in 1990 both Sąjūdis and the Lithuanian Communist Party were in favour of more political and economic sovereignty for Lithuania. The position of Sąjūdis, however, was much more determined than that of the Communist Party. After the declaration of independence on 11 March 1990, the main division between the two political forces was regarding the question of the speed at which economic and political reforms should be introduced, and relations with Russia. The Lithuanian Communist Party advocated a step-by-step reform policy and good relations with Russia, while Sąjūdis aimed at forcing events and increasing political and economic distance between Lithuania and the former Soviet Union. Before the early parliamentary elections of 1992, Sąjūdis began disintegrating as some of its activists created their own parties. The bigger party, led by Vytautas Landsbergis, the main architect of Lithuanian independence, continued to exist under the label of Sąjūdis, and later transformed into the Homeland Union (Lithuanian Conservatives). Although the party lost the elections, a two-block structure of the party system was maintained with the ex-communist Labour Democrats on the left of the party spectrum and the Homeland Union (Lithuanian Conservatives) on the right. The other two parliamentary parties with a much smaller share of seats were the Lithuanian Christian Democrats on the right and the Lithuanian Social Democrats on the left. This simple structure of the Lithuanianparty system continued to exist after the 1996 elections and this relative stability allowed some scholars to conclude that the process of structuring the Lithuanian party system was over (see Žeruolis, 1998). Even though electoral volatility was quite high in comparison with Western European countries, low fragmentation and a bipolar pattern of party competition remained irrespective of somewhat successful attempts of the Centre Union to change the dominant conflict axis by forming a ‘third force’. The parliamentary elections of 2000, however, destroyed that apparent stability as two new players – the New Union (Social Liberals) and the Lithuanian Liberal Union – emerged on the political scene, expelling the Christian Democrats and the Centre Union from the political game. As it appeared later, this was only the beginning of the decay of the ‘traditional parties’. Despite the growth of the economy and the consolidation efforts of the main parliamentary parties (especially the merger of the Labour Democrats and Social Democrats), turmoil in the Lithuanian party system has been increasing as the elections to the European Parliament (EP) and the parliamentary elections of October 2004 have demonstrated. Three new parties managed to cross the threshold and win seats in the European Parliament and in the new parliament, including the Labour Party, which was founded only eight months before the European Parliament elections. The Labour Party, led by a businessman of Russian origin, was able to win about 30 per cent of the votes in the European Parliament elections and 28 per cent of the votes in the subsequent national parliamentary elections. Recent elections have revealed that the Lithuanian party system is undergoing a dramatic structural change, as ex-communist and ex-Sąjūdis parties have lost their dominant positions, party system fragmentation is increasing and electoral volatility is growing with every election. Therefore, the development of the Lithuanian party system must be divided into two stages: (1) formation of the party system in 1989-1998, and (2) destabilization of the party system, apparent since 2000. Consequently, the intention is not only to describe the development and characteristics of the Lithuanian party system, but also to analyse the destabilization of the Lithuanian party system in the last consecutive elections. The Formation of the Lithuanian Party System The first parties (apart from the Lithuanian Communist Party) emerged in postSoviet Lithuania in 1989. Most of theses new organizations claimed to be the descendants of pre-war Lithuanian parties (e.g., Social Democrats and Christian Democrats). In fact, however, the continuity is only symbolic because the leaders, the organization and the electorate of the parties have changed beyond recognition. The first free elections to the Supreme Soviet of Lithuania in 1990 were dominated by Sąjūdis and the Lithuanian Communist Party. Most candidates of new parties, as well as some reform-orientated Communist Party members and independents, were supported by the Sąjūdis. In the elections, Sąjūdis candidates won theabsolute majority and formed the government. Soon after the declaration of independence, the huge economic problems of the country and internal political disagreements disrupted the unity of the Sąjūdis and the Supreme Soviet. This invoked the second wave of creating parties, mainly on the basis of parliamentary groups. Finally, the fragmentation of the Supreme Soviet had become so high that it had to dissolve itself and to declare early elections. Before the elections, an agreement on a new Constitution and a new electoral law was reached among the main political forces. As a compromise, a semipresidential institutional design with a directly elected, though rather weak president, was adopted. Furthermore, a mixed electoral system combining singlemember districts and multi-member districts was introduced. Under the law, 71 members of the Seimas (the parliament of Lithuania) are elected in single-member districts by a majority system and 70 members are elected by proportional representation. This kind of a mixed system was in fact favourable to the largest parties, as was the national threshold of 4 per cent, which was later increased to five.1 The parliamentary elections of 1992 and the presidential elections of 1993 were successful for the ex-communist Lithuanian Democratic Labour Party (LDDP). By gaining about 43 per cent of the votes in multi-member districts, the LDDP won the absolute majority of seats in parliament (see Table 4.1) and could form a single-party government. Moreover, the leader of the party, Algirdas Brazauskas, won the presidential elections. Sąjūdis (later reorganised into the Homeland Union/Lithuanian Conservatives) remained the second largest party in the parliament, despite the defeat, and returned to power in 1996 by winning 70 seats in the parliament. Rather than forming a single-party government, the Conservatives created a governing coalition with the Christian Democrats, often regarded as the ‘younger sister’ of the Homeland Union. The Democratic Labour Party and Social Democrats formed a leftist opposition, while the Centre Union put itself in a vague position vis-a-vis the government. Destabilization of the Party System after 2000 The parliamentary elections of 2000 were a turning point in the development of Lithuania’s party system. The combined number of seats of the Homeland Union and the Democratic Labour Party decreased from 72.5 in 1992 to 42.6 in 2000 (Jurkynas, 2003), while the newcomers, the New Union (Social Liberals) and the Liberal Union, received almost 45 per cent of the seats in parliament. Moreover, the Lithuanian Christian Democratic Party and the Centre Union failed to cross the threshold and get seats in the multi-member districts.

Overcoming resistance.

This article assesses the impact of populist radical right parties on national party systems in Western Europe. Has the emergence of this new party family changed the interaction of party competition within Western European countries? First, I look at party system change with regard to numerical and numerical–ideological terms. Second, I evaluate the effect populist radical right parties have had on the different dimensions of party systems. Third, I assess the claim that the rise of populist radical right parties has created bipolarizing party system. Fourth, I look at the effect the rise of the populist radical right has had on the logic of coalition formation. The primary conclusion is that, irrespective of conceptualization and operationalization, populist radical right parties have not fundamentally changed party systems in Western Europe.