Revisiting The New Politics of Immigration

This review of Catherine Dauvergne's The New Politics of Immigration and the End of Settler Society summarizes the contribution of the book to the changing global migration landscape. The review outlines the three shifts observed by Dauvergne in the new politics of immigration in a post-post-colonial era. There is a tie-in between Dauvergne's thoughts on the impact of the fear of Islamic fundamentalism connected to immigration politics and the Trump administration's evolving stance on immigration. Dauvergne's foresight is commendable.

Using Catherine Dauvergne's The New Politics of Immigration and the End of Settler Society (2016) as a starting point, this article explores subnational policy dynamics in Canada, Australia and the United States. It considers whether the trends associated with legalization, two‐step programmes, rapid policy changes and economic discourses are present in Canadian provinces as well as in U.S. and Australian states. It shows that the forces described by Dauvergne contribute to a further rescaling of policymaking and to the emergence of subnational migration states. However, this article also demonstrates that this common movement varies in its consequences and identifies two central subnational policy responses typical of the new politics of immigration: 1) the “economic subnational migration state” (Canada and Australia) and 2) the “access subnational migration state” (United States). The models and the global trends described in this article have implications for immigration policymaking in federations.

Over the past decade, a global convergence in migration policies has emerged, and with it a new, mean-spirited politics of immigration. It is now evident that the idea of a settler society, previously an important landmark in understanding migration, is a thing of the past. What are the consequences of this shift for how we imagine immigration? And for how we regulate it? This book analyzes the dramatic shift away from the settler society paradigm in light of the crisis of asylum, the fear of Islamic fundamentalism, and the demise of multiculturalism. What emerges is a radically original take on the new global politics of immigration that can explain policy paralysis in the face of rising death tolls, failing human rights arguments, and persistent state desires to treat migration as an economic calculus.

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)

In The New Politics of Immigration, Professor Catherine Dauvergne proposes that as migration policies converge at the global level, the traditional difference between settler societies and former European colonies is becoming irrelevant. To test this argument, this article addresses the impact of externalization, militarization, detention and deportation on unaccompanied migrant children along the southern Spanish and US borders. I conclude that the combined used of these strategies is designed to keep all unwanted migrants away from the physical border of the state, regardless of their background, and prevents children from accessing specific protections. Current border policy in these two countries shows the primacy of national security concerns over human rights and supports Dauvergne’s argument that distinctions between former colonies and settler societies are disappearing. The evidence considered here points towards an increasingly restrictive and punitive global border regime, but one with regional variations.

The demise of settler society values and the departure from twentieth-century patterns in Europe together ground the new politics of immigration and point to its future directions. This politics is front and center in prosperous Western liberal democracies, filling the headlines and parliaments. But its effects reach every corner of the globe as these states dominate the global policy arena by virtue of being both the world's most sought after migration destinations and the traditional terrain of migration mythology. The transformation in the values that former settler states and former colonial masters are now pursuing in immigration leads to the competitive migration convergence that has been evident for at least a decade. Increasingly, the immigration laws and policies enacted by Western liberal democracies look alike. This is true whether those states were once settler societies or whether they are among the new nations of immigration in Europe. This truth in and of itself is a challenge to our immigration imagination – to conclude that immigration operates socially and politically the same way in the United Kingdom or Germany as it does in Australia or the United States is significant as it has never been true in any earlier era. The convergence is competitive – all of these states want to attract the same highly skilled workers, and the same agile economic actors, as permanent migrants. All of these states want to keep asylum seekers at arm's length, and to impose limits on family reunification. These goals are broadly shared, even if they are pursued with differing tactics, or alongside some diminishing vestiges of ethnic kinship preferences. In part, the competitive convergence results from taking a “non-discriminatory” posture toward immigrants. The emergence of points systems as the preferred model for economic immigrant selection in Western liberal democracies demonstrates a commitment to ignore cultural, ethnic, and even racial values, and to instead embrace a quasi-scientific or at least “neutral” selection method. This method ensures that the same individuals will end up being top choice immigrants across a range of states. Points systems were invented by settler states seeking to break with their racialized immigration histories. The systems, however, do not remove discrimination, they simply deploy it differently. People who come out at the top of points systems are well educated, multi-lingual, economically successful, and young.

In reading this special issue we gain a remarkably insightful glimpse of the important role that immigration policy has played, and will continue to play, in several important aspects of contemporary American life. After eight years of the Bush Administration, a new immigration policy is poised to rise again from the ashes of the infamous Sensenbrenner Bill.1 A fresh political and economic context ensures this.

The politics of immigration in liberal democracies exhibits strong similarities that are, contrary to the scholarly consensus, broadly expansionist and inclusive. Nevertheless, three groups of states display distinct modes of immigration politics. Divergent immigration histories mold popular attitudes toward migration and ethnic heterogeneity and affect the institutionalization of migration policy and politics. The English-speaking settler societies (the United States, Canada, and Australia) have histories of periodically open immigration, machineries of immigration planning and regulation, and densely organized webs of interest groups contesting policies. Their institutionalized politics favors expansionary policies and is relatively immune to sharp swings in direction. Many European states (France, Britain, Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Belgium) experienced mass migration only after World War II and in a form that introduced significant non-European minorities. Their immigration politics is shaped by what most see as the unfortunate consequences of those episodes and are partially institutionalized and highly volatile and conflictual. European states until recently sending countries (Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Greece) deal with migration pressures for the first time in their modern histories, under crisis conditions, and in the context of intensifying coordination of policies within the European Union. We should expect the normalization of immigration politics in both sets of European states. Although they are unlikely to appropriate the policies of the English-speaking democracies, which should remain unique in their openness to mass immigration, their approach to immigration will, nevertheless, take the liberal democratic form.

Book Review: The New Politics of Immigration and the End of Settler Societies

It has been 7 years since the Institute of Medicine (IOM) issued its report, entitled From Cancer Patient to Cancer Survivor: Lost in Transition, and a similar interval since Journal of Clinical Oncology published a special series issue on cancer survivorship. Since that time, much has occurred to address the 10 recommendations of the IOM report that were highlighted in the JCO series and explicated among the articles in that special issue. Of particular note, many of the articles in the JCO special issue were prepared by members of the IOM study committee; others were from leaders in the emerging field of survivorship care. These individual articles largely examined specific issues and recommendations that were raised in the IOM report, such as monitoring the health of survivors, care planning, models of care delivery, and enhancing research on cancer survivors, as a call to action and reinforcement of the recently issued report. This special series issue of JCO reflects the maturation of the field of cancer survivorship clinical care and health care delivery, with an array of articles that examine many of the untoward immediate, persistent, and late effects of cancer treatment. Some of these problems can be considered preventable or addressable given high-quality survivorship care, such as fertility preservation (see article by Ruddy and Partridge) or lymphedema (see article by Paskett et al). Other outcomes go with the territory of using potentially carcinogenic agents to treat and cure cancer (see article by Wood et al on second malignancies). The risk-adapted therapies that are currently employed, including avoidance of the use of radiation therapy when possible, and tailoring therapy to the severity of disease, may reduce these outcomes in the future. Other common health problems and survivorship concerns that were addressed in this issue include bone health (Lustberg et al), troublesome and frequent symptoms and their management (see articles by Pachman et al and Ahles et al), sexuality concerns (articles by Bober and Sanchez Varela and Higano), and cardiac complications in survivors (Lenihan and Cardinale). Although many other organ systems and toxicities could be reviewed, these areas were chosen because of their frequency or severity among survivors as well as the robustness of the literature and evidence base. Other articles in this issue provide in-depth examination of survivorship outcomes in patients with a high likelihood of survival, such as those with germ cell tumors of the testes and adult survivors of hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (Haugnes et aland Syrjala et al). These two patient/survivor groups represent the extremes of outcomes, with relatively limited sequelae among the survivors of testes cancer compared with the extreme physical and psychological impairments that are noted among survivors of transplantation. Both articles suggest models of care that are useful for consideration. The remaining articles in this issue focus on health promotion and care coordination, both of which were highlighted in the earlier JCO survivorship issue. The article by Ligibel emphasizes the importance of energy balance, nutritional factors, and obesity as potential risk factors for cancer recurrence in survivors of cancer; these issues are even more salient given our societal obesity epidemic. Regular physical activity is highlighted as a strategy for cancer recurrence prevention as well as weight control. Addressing smoking and alcohol use in survivors is discussed; lifestyle recommendations and guidelines for survivors are also provided. Finally, Earle and Ganz address the challenges of implementation of survivorship care planning, which was the second recommendation of the IOM report. This topic has been the most problematic for the oncology community and is still in need of practical and cost-efficient solutions, but progress is being made. As the authors note, we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good in trying to deliver coordinated survivorship care. The perfect models for delivery of survivorship care to the millions of survivors of cancer worldwide is still a work in progress, and will probably require additional evolution and refinement, as well as the information technology infrastructure to make it feel seamless. Absent from this issue is a focus on the psychosocial needs and concerns of survivors of cancer, which is an essential component of high-quality cancer care, as described in two IOM reports. Fortunately, an entire recent issue of JCO focused on these issues, and we call your attention to an article by Stanton that reviews the special concerns for survivors and provides an update on an article written for the 2006 JCO issue on cancer survivorship. In addition, in the current special series issue, we do not review employment and insurance issues, which remain an important concern for survivors of cancer and were previously discussed by Short and Vargo. Employment and health insurance concerns are by no means diminished for survivors and have probably been intensified by the worldwide financial crisis. In the United States, where health care finance and reform have held center stage for the last 3 years, lack of universal access to health insurance still remains a problem. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY S P E C I A L S E R I E S O V E R V I E W VOLUME 30 NUMBER 30 OCTOBER 2

Next article FreeEditor's NoteDemocracy and DissatisfactionCyrus Ernesto ZirakzadehCyrus Ernesto Zirakzadeh Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreAcross the globe, common citizens sign petitions, march through city streets, occupy buildings, support general strikes, and, if they can vote, elect representatives to draft laws. One sees examples of popular politics in Germany, Japan, and Egypt. Many of these collective actions are episodic and local. Almost all are prompted by dissatisfaction and frustration, over either social conditions or government behavior.The articles in this issue of Polity explore the channeling of people's grievances through political institutions and processes, and the dangers and promises of popular participation in politics.Katrina Gamble launches the conversation about democracy and dissatisfaction by looking at how members of the United States Congress articulate the concerns of a historically marginalized and socially disadvantaged population. She finds that African American legislators support policies that most African American citizens desire. But while doing so, these legislators eschew rhetoric that could be depicted as narrow advocacy for African American communities. In fact, during legislative mark-up sessions, they mention the needs and desires of African American constituencies less often than do legislators who are Democrats but who are not African American.Why the apparent avoidance of explicit references to African American communities when working with colleagues? Gamble offers a functionalist and tactical interpretation. She conjectures that to gain clout within the American political system, African American political leaders try to assuage fears and suspicions about their alleged dogmatism and special pleading. They gain political weight in Congress (and acquire key positions within the committee system) by acting as though their thinking is disconnected from local communities and constituencies. Gamble leaves the reader with a potentially troubling paradox: perhaps policymakers can best serve relatively powerless citizens by appearing to act autonomously of constituencies’ wishes. Stated more baldly, inside government circles, African American legislators may need to fake amnesia about racism in order to help African American voters.John Holzwarth momentarily turns our attention away from the surprising silence of elected leaders and focuses, instead, on the ability of people to act independently of leaders. He studies the writings of Ralph Waldo Emerson because, Holzwarth argues, Emerson confronts head-on arguments by twentieth-century anti-democrats about the dangers of conformity and dogmatism among the masses, and about the inevitable differences in the innate intellectual abilities of people. According to Holzwarth, Emerson recognizes kernels of truths in such arguments and bemoans the failure of many people to reason for themselves about public matters, including interpersonal ethics. Nonetheless, Emerson also continually sees potential in all persons for “self reliance” (a complicated notion that, according to Holzwarth, includes an individual's capacity to assess competing values).Holzwarth contends that Emerson's insistence about humans’ potential for self-reliance is much more than an expression of private faith. It is rooted in provocative and often original views about the nature of ideas and about the origins of intellectual virtues. If we recall Emerson's line of reasoning (argues Holzwarth), we will realize how our dismissive judgments about people's capabilities rest on questionable premises about the nature of intellect, ideas, and virtue. Furthermore, if we take to heart Emerson's thoughts about epistemology, ontology, and developmental psychology, we will be prompted to contemplate social reforms, including changes in educational practices, that can lead to a more independent citizenry with unexpected depth of intellect and capacity for wise political judgments.Holzwarth's essay leaves the reader with hopes that rule by everyday people is possible and desirable despite current pressures toward conformity, dogmatism, and narrow-mindedness. Neil Andrew Englehart's article may make readers less certain about people's capacity for self-rule. He begins by contending that many writers today exaggerate the amount of harmony within civil society and neglect the amount of violence (or what he calls “predation”) that typically occurs between organized groups. Englehart at one point conjectures that scholars’ faith in civil society might be prompted by the atypical nature of the Eastern European transitions from single-party authoritarian rule. Perhaps this unwarranted extrapolation leads to a Pollyanna-ish faith that if authoritarian states are dismantled, a free and equal political system will spontaneously arise via habits and norms within civil society.Inspired by Immanuel Kant's writing and made circumspect by the history of Somalia, Englehart urges readers to be more skeptical about what can occur when a state becomes weak. The result need not be the spontaneous freedom and harmony that defenders of “regime change” often prognosticate. Adversarial and exploitative relations among organized social groups theoretically can occur (and historically have occurred). Englehart warns that the result of a political vacuum can be far more bloody and oppressive than advocates of democratization admit. In his opinion, strong states are needed, at least sometimes, to insure enough peace and protection for healthy social relations to evolve in countries with plural and clashing goals and interests.Unlike Englehart, Taylor Dark III is not interested in dampening social and political conflict. He is, instead, interested in contemporary scholars’ fear of organized partisanship in the United States. He notes that during the past two decades, many well-known scholars in the United States who advocate for social equality and economic justice have called for a dilution, if not an abandonment, of party-based politics. They argue that well-oiled party organizations help groups with right-wing agendas and hinder progressive groups. Dark finds the recent critique of strong parties with explicit ideologies puzzling. After all, a half-century ago many influential political scientists in the United States were advocating for more centralized, disciplined, and ideologically coherent parties as a method for increasing the rights of economically vulnerable and disadvantaged groups and for checking corporate power. Have past arguments by learned social scientists been found wanting in light of more recent historical experience? Dark says “no.” The reasons that scholars in the 1950s and 1960s gave for more responsible parties remain compelling today.In his opinion, most criticisms of the original responsible-party thesis rest on misunderstandings and a misreading of the original responsible-party argument. He therefore breaks down the argument into segments and assesses the persuasiveness of each step. He also reviews a series of policy decisions that have adversely affected working-class citizens. By means of doctrinal analysis and policy history, Dark defends strong parties as tools with which to check corporate power. He closes his article by inviting scholars who desire a more egalitarian America to recall the wisdom of earlier advocates of strong parties and to embrace partisanship, not shun it.In her review essay, Emily Zackin also looks at political history to reconsider an empirical claim that, for the moment, seems to have become undisputed among most students of U.S. politics. The claim is that the American political system has become dramatically more centralized since the New Deal, and that states today are little more than implementers for the federal government's goals. There is (many scholars argue) no longer a tug-of-war between rival centers of political power: the federal government purportedly hulks over a set of weaklings.Zackin reminds us that a few scholarly mavericks have advanced a counter argument. Furthermore, they have amassed data (in the form of both statistics and case studies) showing that states for many decades have cajoled and co-opted the federal government. Local interests subtly and routinely enter policy discussions at the federal level. Zackin advises scholars to study the tactics and incentives of state leaders and the goals of mid-level federal bureaucrats, and to note patterns of alliance building. This will give us a better sense of how policymaking really works in America and of how allegedly “weak” local groups, from environmentalists to promoters of regional commerce, in fact exercise power at the federal level.Zackin's essay, which ends this issue of Polity, echoes many insights and themes found in Gamble's opening essay about congressional committees. Both authors contend that the American political system is more institutionally oblique and more culturally complex than scholars tend to report. Older social divisions and conflicts of interest persist, even if political institutions shape how those divisions and conflicts are articulated and addressed.So, what is politics in America really like? The articles in the next issue of Polity will tackle that topic. Next article DetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Polity Volume 43, Number 3July 2011Democracy and Dissatisfaction The Journal of the Northeastern Political Science Association Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1057/pol.2011.7 Views: 71Total views on this site Copyright © 2011, Northeastern Political Science AssociationPDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

Europe is a continent of extraordinary variety and diversity geographically, ethnically, nationally, culturally, economically and politically. Yet at the same time all its parts are and always have been so deeply linked by their destiny that this continent can accurately be described as a single albeit complex political entity. Anything crucial in any area of human endeavour occurring anywhere in Europe always has had both direct and indirect consequences for our continent as a whole. The history of Europe is, in fact, the history of a constant searching and reshaping of its internal structures and the relationship of its parts. Today, if we talk about a single European civilization or about common European values, history, traditions, and destiny, what we are referring to is more the fruit of this tendency toward integration than its cause.

Introduction: The Space Between @ Gender Politics and Immigration Politics in Europe Jacqueline Andall Part I: Gender, Ethnicity and Migration 1. Gendered Actors in Migration Annie Phizacklea 2. Hierarchy and Interdependence: The Emergence of a Service Caste in Europe Jacqueline Andall 3. Migrant Women in Spain: Class, Gender and Ethnicity Carlota Sol and Snia Parella Part II: Gender, Ethnicity and Political Mobilization 4. South Asian Women and Collective Action in Britain Ravi K. Thiara 5. Women Migrants and Political Activism in France Cathie Lloyd Part III: Gender, Ethnicity and Islam 6. Shifting Meanings of Islam and Multiple Representations of Modernity: The Case of Muslim Women in Italy Ruba Salih 7. 'Nowadays Your Husband is Your Partner': Ethnicity and Emancipation as Self- Presentation in the Netherlands Joke van der Zwaard 8. Gendered and Racialized Experiences of Citizenship in the Life Stories of Women of Turkish Background in Germany Umut Erel Part IV: Gender, Ethnicity and Identity 9. Mother Russia: Changing Attitudes to Ethnicity and National Identity in Russia's Regions Anne White 10. Westenders: Whiteness, Women and Sexuality in Southall, UK. Raminder Kaur Index Contributors Jacqueline Andall is Lecturer in Italian Studies at the University of Bath. Her research interests are on migration, domestic work, gender and youth. She has recently published a monograph, Gender, Migration and Domestic Service: The Politics of Black Women in Italy (Ashgate 2000). Her current research is on the emergence of a second generation in Italy. Umut Erel completed her PhD in Cultural Studies at Nottingham Trent University. Her thesis was on 'Subjectivity and Agency in the Life Stories of Migrant Women from Turkey in Britain and in Germany'. Her research interests are on gender, ethnicity, migration and racism, citizenship and cultural theory. She is currently co- editing a book on gender and migration with Mirjana Morokvasic and Kyoko Shinozaki entitled Gender on the Move! Crossing Borders Shifting Boundaries. Raminder Kaur, is Lecturer in Anthropology at the University of Manchester. She is the co-editor of Travel Worlds: Journeys in Contemporary Cultural Politics (1999) and author of A Trunk full of Tales: Performative Politics and Hinduism in Western India (forthcoming). Cathie Lloyd is Senior Research Fellow at the International Development Centre, University of Oxford. She is working on the relationship between conflict and globalization with particular reference to North Africa, and has published on antiracism. Her most recent publications are Rethinking Antiracism (co-edited with Floya Anthias, Routledge) and a special issue of Oxford Development Studies on 'The Global and the Local: The Cultural Interfaces of Self-Determination Movements'. Snia Parella is Assistant Lecturer in Sociology at the Universitat Autnoma de Barcelona (Spain). Her PhD thesis on immigrant women and domestic service in Spain will be published by Ed. Anthropos-Barcelona. She is also researcher at CEDIME (Centre d'Estudis sobre Migracions i Minories tniques) and has published several articles and book chapters on migration. Annie Phizacklea is Professor of Sociology at Warwick University. Her main research interests are on migration, gender and work. Recent publications reflecting this are Transnationalism and the Politics of Belonging (with Sallie Westwood) and Gender and International Migration in Europe (with Eleonore Kofman, Pavartic Raghuram and Rosemary Sales) both Routledge. Carlota Sol is Professor of Sociology at the Universitat Autnoma de Barcelona. She has published 23 books

In This Issue

Paths to Healthier Eating: Perceptions and Interventions for Success