The Immigration Crisis in Europe and the U.S.-Mexico Border in the New Era of Heightened Nativism

In The Immigration Crisis in Europe and the U.S.-Mexico Border in the New Era of Heightened Nativism, Victoria Cartycompares the immigration crises in the European Union and the United States. Beginning in 2014, the Arab Spring upheavals and failed states in Northern Africa and the Middle East overwhelmed many European countries which the European Union system was not prepared for. In the Americas, failed states in Central America such as Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador also led to an unexpected influx of immigrants to the United States, many of them unaccompanied minors, fleeing gangs, violence and poverty. In The Immigration Crisis in Europe and the U.S.-Mexico Border, Carty studies theories of immigration, social movements, and critical race theory to provide a better understanding of the current immigration crises in Europe and the United States. Carty shows that the high volume of immigration in both the EU and the United States has led to a resurgence of nativist sentiments and white supremacy groups.

The article analyzes the impact of the European immigration crisis on disintegration processes in the European Union. After the presentation of the genesis and development of the immigration crisis in Europe after 2015 author, attempts to show the existing differences between countries in the context of the current immigration crisis. The final part of the study shows the source of the existing differences between the Member States. An attempt was also made to assess the consequences for the European Union of further intensification of disintegration processes.

The animated debate surrounding an apparent migrant problem of the Western world, manifesting itself in either the immigration crisis in Europe or the progressing tendencies to isolationism both in Europe and in the United States of America, provides a good case to investigate the media representation of immigrants in the American context. The sometimes biased portrayal of immigrant communities in the contemporary American media, especially those with right-wing inclination, has been given a higher profile in the U.S. public discourse and bears a striking resemblance to the anti-Irish sentiment and press coverage that dominated in the U.S. in the 19th century. It is in the purview of the following paper to examine the media rhetoric and representation strategies that were used at that time and that are harnessed currently. The idea warrants discussion since the United States also prides itself for its multicultural and multiethnic heritage, which proves to highlight the polarized public opinion. In the author’s estimation, the anti-immigrant attitudes are a recurring theme in the American culture and have always divided the public.

In Suffer the Little Children, Anita Casavantes Bradford, Associate Professor of Chicano/Latino Studies and History at the University of California, Irvine, examines the United States’ unaccompanied child migration policy from 1930 to 2020. Through a transnational, comparative, and relational approach, Casavantes Bradford addresses how governmental and non-governmental actors operating in different domestic and international contexts developed responses to a range of child migrants, including European Jewish and Protestant children; Hungarian youth; Cuban evacuees; Southeast Asian unaccompanied minors; former child soldiers; and Haitian, Mexican, and Central American children. Across seven chapters (and an epilogue) Casavantes Bradford articulates how “the United States’ response to unaccompanied child migrants has been consistently driven by a ‘geopolitics of compassion’ that selectively highlights U.S. benevolence toward suffering people outside the nation's borders while simultaneously prioritizing foreign policy and domestic political objectives over asylum seekers’ best interests” (p. 3). While acknowledging that Gil Loescher and John Scanlan as well as Carl Bon Tempo have previously noted this connection, Casavantes Bradford convincingly establishes the need to understand child migrants’ distinct treatment and experiences (pp. 3–4).Using clear and engaging prose, Casavantes Bradford's work is grounded in an extensive amount of research in federal archives, international and voluntary organization papers, university collections, and periodicals and government publications. The text also evinces the range of personnel involved in unaccompanied child migrant policy. Of note is an emphasis on adult, state perspectives, rather than those of children, which Casavantes Bradford deems necessary to underscore “the predominant role of the state in shaping the experiences of forced migrants of all ages” but particularly of children (p. 11). However, she is also careful to detail voluntary agencies’ contributions and the entrenchment of a “‘public-private’ bureaucratic infrastructure”—as well as child migrants’ role in this development (p. 7).One of Casavantes Bradford's strongest interventions is her discussion of unaccompanied child migrants as “individual rights-bearing subjects” who need specific protections (p. 9). This focus further distinguishes her argument from previous work on refugee policy and relates to her exploration of the concepts of “refugee” and “child” (contributions which will surely also be helpful for scholars of childhood). Adding yet more rigor to her analysis, Casavantes Bradford interrogates: “how did changing notions of refugees and children's rights interact with Americans’ shifting understandings of race, ethnicity, religion, national origin, class, gender, and age over time?” (p. 9). She ultimately concludes that the failure to acknowledge children in this way “played a powerful and persistent role in shaping” the United States’ “treatment of unaccompanied minors” (p. 10).Especially important to this analysis is Chapter 6, “The Most Difficult Type of Refugee: Southeast Asian Unaccompanied Minors and the Reinvention of U.S. Refugee Policy, 1975–1989,” which addresses, in part, how this status came to be imperfectly recognized under law and in practice. Casavantes Bradford focuses here on unaccompanied Southeast Asian minors, including Vietnamese and Cambodian children who fled to countries of first asylum in the late 1970s. Connected to her discussion of these populations is the passage of the 1980 Refugee Act. Specifically, the Act provided for the formation of an unaccompanied refugee minor program under the purview of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (located within the Department of Health and Human Services), which “reflected and reinforced the belief that unaccompanied refugee minors were entitled to priority admissions as well as specific forms of care and protection” (pp. 185–86). However, the Act was flawed in guaranteeing this protection: it did not create child-specific standards “for determining whether children qualified for refugee status”; defined “‘unaccompanied’ . . . narrowly”; and did not “establish procedures for dealing with unaccompanied minors who arrived as part of a major refugee influx entering the country without pre-authorization” (p. 186). In practice, these factors, as well as the racist categorization of unaccompanied minors as “anchors” who enabled family migration, limited resettlement (pp. 188–89). In the epilogue, Casavantes Bradford contends that the United States must act further to reassess its treatment of asylum seekers and “codify the internationally accepted principle of children's best interests in . . . immigration law” (p. 225).Suffer the Little Children is a rich contribution to the literature on unaccompanied child migration and complements scholarship by Laura Briggs, Arissa Oh, and Allison Varzally. This text will certainly “serve as a catalyst and foundation for further studies” on child migrants, especially those centering child voices (p. 11). Future research could engage with the “politics of childhood” and unaccompanied minors’ politicization and political capacity—a concept Casavantes Bradford developed in her first monograph The Revolution Is for the Children: The Politics of Childhood in Havana and Miami, 1959–1962 (2014). Suffer the Little Children will certainly appeal to scholars of immigration, political, and foreign relations history, childhood studies, critical refugee studies, and critical migration studies, as well as individuals wanting an explanation of the United States’ unaccompanied child migration policy.

The sociological study of gender and social movements is relatively new. Until the 1970s, scholarship on social movements largely neglected questions of feminism and gender, and the fields of gender and social movements consisted of separate literatures. As a result, the major theories of social movements failed to take into account the impact of gender on the emergence, nature, and outcomes of social movements. But as mass feminist activism flourished in the United States and around the globe, so too did scholarship on gender and social movements. The earliest work in this area focused on women’s movements, both feminist and antifeminist, and applied the concepts and perspectives of social movement theory without explicitly taking into consideration the impact of gender. These studies, along with research on men’s movements, brought gender to the attention of social movement scholars by acknowledging women’s participation in political protest and men’s political experiences in gender movements, which had been ignored by mainstream social movement theory. But this body of work failed to consider systematically the effects of gender on political activism. By the 1990s, a new wave of research began to reconceptualize the relationship between gender and social movements by attending not only to how gender affects social movement structures and processes, but how social movements, in turn, affect gender. Many social movements have targeted the structures, cultural practices, and interactional norms that sustain gender inequality. Further, movements that are not oriented specifically around gender issues are also shaped by gender as a central feature of social structure, culture, and everyday life. Scholarship at the intersection of the fields of gender and social movements has had a significant impact on the cultural turn in social movement research, as well as on mainstream theories of social movements. Examining social movements through a gender lens has advanced several areas of social movement inquiry: (1) collective identity and intersectionality, (2) collective action frames, (3) movement leadership and organizations, (4) political and cultural opportunity structures and constraints, (5) movement tactics and strategies, and (6) movement outcomes. The research in this subfield and, correspondingly, this article, focuses primarily—but not exclusively—on the United States. The literature on gender and social movements has exposed many underexplored dimensions of social activism and has been foundational for the development of intersectional approaches to social movements. There is still much to learn by applying an intersectional approach that considers how power structures such as race, class, gender, and nationality intersect and the implications for social movement processes.

Retorno:Salvadoran Repatriation and the Landscape of Memory Interview with Mark Menjivar Tatiana Reinoza (bio) INTRODUCTION The Blue Star Contemporary Art Museum in San Antonio recently commissioned a multi-media installation by the Borderland Collective, a loosely-knit group of Texas-based artists and educators who produce socially engaged projects.1 Their installation, Northern Triangle (2014), takes its name from the geographic region, one of the most violent in the world, as well as the trade agreement that binds the countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.2 Led by artists Mark Menjivar (b. 1980), Jason Reed, and art historian Erina Duganne, Northern Triangle responds to the recent wave of unaccompanied Central American minors apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border. On the occasion of the project's initial debut, I sat down with Menjivar to discuss Retorno, a series of photographs made in collaboration with a community of former refugees in El Salvador that figures prominently in the installation, and the complicated relationship that continues to shape politics between Central America and the United States. In 2014, authorities apprehended about 68,000 minors fleeing the violence of the Northern Triangle. Once in custody, immigration officers placed the children in the newly constructed private prisons that dot the South Texas landscape. The detention centers became their temporary dwelling prior to facing deportation proceedings, a remarkable shift in policy given the region's former reputation as an entry-point to the Sanctuary Movement, a religious and political movement that provided safe-haven to Central Americans fleeing war-torn countries in the 1980s. As an example of the current migrant crisis that characterizes our time, and parallels the Syrian refugee crisis in Europe, these Central American minors transformed into what legal historian Mae Ngai calls "impossible subjects." Their presence poses a problem, not only for enforcing the boundaries of the nation-state, but also for visual modes of representation. Taking the refugee crisis as a point of departure, Borderland Collective embarks on a conceptual project that problematizes the violence of the Northern Triangle as a schema long in the making. Inspired by the New York-based art collective, Group Material, and their curatorial mediations, particularly, Timeline: A Chronicle of U.S. Intervention in Central and Latin America (1984), Borderland Collective places art objects in conversation with historical documents from the Library of Congress, the National Archives, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, news footage, human rights cases, and personal documents. Reed and Menjivar contribute photographs, while Duganne establishes a research-based approach to the display and accompanying wall text. Several invited artists, including Adriana Corral, Vincent Valdez, and Ricky Yanas, extend this dialogue to create open-ended works that question the constructed nature of mainstream images of the crisis. The result is a provocative and disquieting installation that doubles as a history museum and classroom. One critic commented that the installation "functions as a kind of puzzle."3 Viewers move through the space slowly (Fig. 1), connecting images with historical narratives, approaching three-dimensional objects such as an empty blue water barrel that signals the stakes as bodies, not much different from our own, traverse geopolitical borders. The work on display Click for larger view View full resolution Fig 1. Installation shot of Northern Triangle (2014–) at Blue Star Contemporary Art Museum, San Antonio. Courtesy of Borderland Collective. [End Page 181] Click for larger view View full resolution Fig 2. Installation shot of Northern Triangle (2014–) with Mark Menjivar's View from Santa Marta on the left. Courtesy of Borderland Collective. deconstructs "the language of colonization and power," as one Artforum critic put it, in order to unsettle our assumptions about a region whose violent history is often shaped by outside forces.4 It is within this diverse range of objects, discourses, and texts that viewers get acquainted with Menjivar's luscious photographs. (Fig. 2) Born in Richmond, Virginia, to a Puerto Rican mother and a Salvadoran-American father, Menjivar is a military brat, whose unusual upbringing took him overseas to Honduras, Panama, and El Salvador during the 1980s, an intense period of U.S. intervention in Central America. While many viewed the surge in unaccompanied Central American children at the border...

ABSTRACTCrisis, subjectivity and the polymorphous character of immigrant family detention in the United States. Territory Politics Governance. This article expands on research into the politics of ‘immigration crises’ by bringing feminist insights to bear on how one understands the political unfolding of immigration crises. In order to do so, it draws on ethnographic research and media and policy analysis to trace the 2014 ‘immigration crisis’ surrounding unauthorized family immigration and detention in the United States. In doing so, it is argued that in order to understand the shifting spatialities and mechanisms of border enforcement we must also attend to the way in which these processes play out in relation to different forms of subjectivity; cultural and legal frameworks surrounding precisely who can be detained and how detention can play out shapes the legal and practical options available to policy-makers and border enforcement agencies. Moreover, in examining both the proliferation of brick-and-mortar family detention centres as well as the adoption of geographically unfixed enforcement strategies, this article illustrates the constantly evolving and polymorphous character of immigrant family detention in the United States.

The “Invisible Children”: Uncertain Future of Unaccompanied Minor Migrants in Europe

This paper is in two sections. The first briefly outlines some relevant lessons from the Latin American debt crises for the current European financial crisis. The second part deals with the European crisis, discussing pan-European measures to promote growth as well as exploring options for reducing and/or postponing debt servicing in European countries with difficulties for market access, with a view to opening greater space for national growth-oriented strategies within them. It then examines the possibility of less fiscal consolidation in European countries with market access, and shows in some detail, using the example of the UK, how such a policy would lead to far higher output and employment.

The U.S. Immigration Crisis and a Call for the Church's Lifeworld Politics: Why Should Hauerwas Collaborate with Habermas on the U.S. Immigration Crisis? Ilsup Ahn Introduction: Saying “No” to the State's Biopolitics Against the Undocumented Migrants According to the recent survey report published by the Washington, D.C.‐based Public Religion Research Institute, throughout 2013, there has been consistent bipartisan and cross‐religious support for creating a path to citizenship for immigrants living in the United States. While 14 percent percent of Americans support allowing undocumented immigrants to become permanent legal residents but not citizens, 63 percent favor providing a way for immigrants who are currently living in the United States without legal documentation to become citizens provided they meet certain requirements. They also discovered that nearly two‐thirds of Americans believe that the U.S. immigration system is either completely broken (34 percent) or mostly broken but working in some areas (31 percent). The report also shows that 41 percent of Americans believe immigration policy should be an immediate priority for President Obama and Congress, while roughly as many (42 percent) say it should be a priority during the next couple of years. Interestingly enough, only 14 percent of Americans say it should not be a priority at all. Despite the majority of the U.S. citizens favor some sort of comprehensive immigration reform, the Congress has failed to pass a comprehensive immigration overhaul to date largely due to the House Republican leaders, who recently unveiled their principles for an overhaul for the nation's immigration laws. These principles, however, do not clarify whether most undocumented immigrants would ever be able to become legal residents or U.S. citizens, while they would require tighter border security and more interior immigration enforcements. These principles seem to reiterate the problematic anti‐immigration mantra to continuously militarize our borders as well as to criminalize undocumented immigrants. The Obama administration has been increasingly criticized in regard to the inhumane deportation of many undocumented people, especially those parents whose children are U.S. citizens. Critiques argue that President Obama has overseen record levels of deportations, with ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) repatriating about 2 million undocumented people since he took office in January 2009 (roughly 400,000 a year or 1,100 per day). Amid the increasing political turmoil relating to the immigration reform, the public media begin to notice that the real winners in immigration control are the prison industry. The Atlantic, for example, reports that since 2003, when ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) was created and government crackdowns on undocumented aliens increased, private prisons have gained business, with industry profits more than doubling. Damon Hininger, CEO of CCA (Corrections Corporation of America), said during a conference call with investors in May 2010 that between 2007 and 2009, when earnings for the S&P dropped by 28 percent, the company's earnings drew by 18 percent. According to The Atlantic, the government spends more than $2 billion a year on immigration detention, while spending only $72 million on alternatives to detention. It also reports that the private prison industry, such as CCA, has spent more than $1 million on lobbying. Although private prisons say that their lobbying efforts are aimed at promoting their services, not shaping immigration policy, immigrant advocates argue that the private prison industry is always lobbying for more detention beds. Given that the cost of detaining an immigrant averages $159 a day and half of 34,000 beds are operated by private prison corporations, it is not difficult to see the connection between the interests of the private prison corporations such as CCA and the Geo Group and the criminalization of undocumented migrants. According to Lee Fang of The Nation, the controversial Arizona SB1070 was developed in consultation with private prison lobbyists through a group called the American Legislative Exchange Council. Unfortunately, as Aubrey Pringle reports, several pending immigration bills would increase the number of incarcerated immigrants even more. The ongoing political struggles related to the increasing border militarization, the widespread criminalization of undocumented migrants, and the massive deportation of undocumented parents are the explicit exemplification of what philosophers Michel Foucault and Giorgio Agamben call the...

PERFORMING MORAL OPPOSITION: MUSINGS ON THE STRATEGY AND IDENTITY IN THE GÜLEN MOVEMENT

In this paper I briefly consider what I see as the standard conceptions of curricular formation in us post-secondary education: demographic faculty and institutional responses to changes in student populations ; faculty as professional and scholarly actors who shape curricula according to the logic of their fields or disciplines; faculty and institutions responding to broad technological and economic changes. I suggest variations in these standard interpretations that attend to social movements, class structures and political and economic forces. When I use social movement theory, draw on Foucault and give special attention to professorial pleasures of analysis'. When I examine the political economy of higher education, I draw on the rich literature that addresses funding patterns and power structures in business and industry, and us government mission agencies with an interest in higher education. I point out how these theories might provide us with a more complete understanding of curricular formation in post-secondary education.

One of the consequences of the influx of refugees and immigrants to the European continent is the rise of anti-immigration sentiments. These translate, among other things, into the emergence of anti-immigrant social movements. The subject of consideration will be their activity in our country. They have intensified due to the immigration crisis, which has been de facto unnoticeable in Poland so far. In contrast, now, when Poland is facing an unprecedented influx of refugees and immigrants from Ukraine, anti-immigrant movements are of marginal significance. The study will show anti-immigration movements in Poland from the pe rspective of selected theories from the social sciences. Then, the factors influencing the development of this type of social activity in Poland will be discussed. The last part will present the previous activity of anti-immigration movements in our country. The central hypothesis is based on the assumption that factors potentially conducive to developing anti-immigrant movements have emerged in Poland. They took the form of an influx of immigrants and refugees on a previously unprecedented scale and under the conditions of watershed moments, including the migration crisis in Europe, the COVID-19 pandemic, the immigration crisis on the Polish-Belarusian border, the war in Ukraine and the deteriorating economic situation. On the other hand, a group of factors led by the political situation, which has so far effectively limited the growth of these movements on a broader scale, has emerged.

How can theories of social movements and revolutions help us understand the rise of collective action, their tactical and strategic choices, and their prospects for succeeding? By reviewing past and recent developments in the literature of social movements and revolutions, I argue that in comparison with social movements scholars, structuralists of revolutions more accurately used theories of threat and breakdown in understanding what triggers revolutions and revolutionary situations. Nevertheless, because scholars of revolutions usually distinguish types of revolutions based on outcomes after supposed clear endings, they have missed important insights from the literature on movement continuity that might guide us towards new understandings of revolutions. Moreover, both fields have followed similar paths in terms of contributions and gaps in the study of emotions, spontaneity, tactics, and repression in collective action.

In spite of emphasizing on a market by economic liberalism, most experts believe that market failure caused the deepest global crisis after Great Depression (1929) to happen. Although we cannot ignore the importance to the role of attendance of government to the economy, we believe that sometimes governments are the reason behind the problems in economic situation. Factors like the lack of political integration between European governments and cooperation of national government, the absence of mighty government to make decision and policy and undisciplined financial plans, as well as, loss of proper rules and low, which are occasions of bad government.