The Right to Exist: Resisting the Necropolitical Dehumanisation of Undocumented Migrants Through Social Work

The UN Decade for Human Rights Education began in 1995, and since that time many nations have reported activities and programs in line with the decade (United Nations 1998; UNHCHR 2005). While 1995 was a pivotal year in the history of human rights education, the curricular movement neither began nor ended with the UN Decade. Human rights education has been developing for several decades, and efforts to introduce human rights into formal school curricula have included diverse and ongoing activities by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), and dedicated individuals throughout the world. Beyond advocating for human rights education in schools, the actors involved in promoting human rights education also have been involved in creating and developing a curricular movement. This article builds on previous comparative education research by analyzing the current discourse surrounding this emerging education model— human rights education. The first section provides a brief history of human rights education in formal education. The second section reviews research on international reforms, emphasizing analyses of processes in global diffusion and variation at national or local levels. Closely related, the third section discusses linkages and relational and associational processes that spread ideas and construct new models such as human rights education. The fourth section focuses on the current state of human rights education, ex-

They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade union...

For the past several years, considerable public attention has been paid to what has now commonly been referred to as the immigration debate. The immigration debate can be conceptualized as a social dialogue regarding the legal status of undocumented people living in the United States, and what should be done about future undocumented immigrants. The total number of undocumented people is unknown, although an estimated 12 million undocumented people are currently living and working in this country (Pew Hispanic Center [PHC], 2006). Undocumented residents come from dozens of countries, yet primarily from Latin America, in particular Mexico and Central America. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (2005) noted that 92 percent of the 1.2 million foreign nationals apprehended by immigration officials were from Mexico. Whether this number represents an actual proportion of the number of undocumented citizens, or whether Mexican nationals are more likely profiled, is unclear. We have observed that there is paucity of discussions in the social work literature regarding the needs and concerns of undocumented residents. Perhaps reflecting the ambivalence of society in general, social work has not been as involved, as it has been historically, in debates that affect undocumented people. This may, in part, be a result of the unresolved conflict social workers face between the increasing legal sanctions against providing services to undocumented people and the social justice values of the profession. The purpose of this article is to briefly present key lessons for social workers that have been brought to the forefront by this debate. Although the social discourse regarding the immigration debate may be complex, controversial, and challenging, active engagement in this discourse may provide social workers an opportunity for careful reexamination of our professional values, mission, and aims. THE IMMIGRATION DEBATE Clarifying Our Values The recent immigration debates have challenged social workers to explore their own sense of values about the clients that we serve. Over the past several decades, social workers have been moving toward an increased alignment with the medical model and its focus on pathology and disease. Consequently, empowerment and advocacy have become less prominent in social work discourse. This is evidenced by the decline in the number of social work programs offering macro practice sequence in schools of social work, as well as the paucity of social work jobs in advocacy. The immigration debate can help social workers to recommit to the protection and care of those who are vulnerable and in need of support. For instance, Furman and his colleagues (2007) found that social workers confront many ethical dilemmas in the face of legislation that limits the manner in which social workers can provide services to undocumented Latino immigrants. These ethical dilemmas included having to choose between professional ethics and legal mandates, protection of the disadvantaged and oppressed populations and protection of the agency, protection of vulnerable populations and devotion to veracity, among others. Reassessing Our Mission and Our History The early roots of the social work profession can be found in the stories of social workers who advocated for the rights of the most disenfranchised people in society. Early social workers fought alongside other social reformers to protect children and other workers from difficult and dangerous work and life conditions. Today, the mission of social work has shifted more toward the amelioration of psychosocial ailments versus social change, human rights, and justice. Social work's focus on clinical-oriented services as opposed to advocacy is evidenced by the fact that a majority of social workers today provide psychotherapy or are employed in other types of clinical or individually oriented services. The immigration debate focuses on a group of people who often experience difficult work and life conditions, not because of personal deficiencies, but because of structural forces that demand cheap labor and simultaneously restrict legal means for citizenship (Organista, 2007). …

Comparative and International Education: A Bibliography (2008)

In a recent issue of The International Journal of Human Rights (1/2 Summer 1997) Professor Chris Brown, a scholar distinguished particularly for his integration of the disciplines of international relations and political theory, launched a forceful attack on the idea of universal human rights. This response argues that Professor Brown's attack has three targets ‐ human rights activists, the idea of human rights and the philosophy of liberal universalism ‐ and that it fails in each case. It attacks human rights activists unsuccessfully because it caricatures their beliefs. It fails to undermine the idea of universal human rights because its own ethical theory requires some version of that idea. And it fails to refute liberal universalism because its own supposed alternative is implicitly both liberal and universalist. This article concludes by affirming that the very importance and contested character of the idea of universal human rights entails that serious critiques should be welcomed, and that Professor Brown's attack, though unsuccessful, has opened up an important space for dialogue.

The twentieth anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act marked the end of an era of uncertain progress. Despite dramatic victories in constitutional litigation and the visibility of group-based struggles, civil rights strategies had limited success in initiating major economic and social change.' The limited progress has prompted a new sense of realism among groups who experience discrimination-a sense of how little the situation has changed even though overt prejudice may be less prevalent. The modest progress of the civil rights movement has not made "rights-focused" struggles unattractive, however; in fact, there is a proliferation of civil rights strategies

The article examines the general theoretical characteristics of universal human rights. It is noted that human rights are an integral part of human dignity, they define the essence of humanity, and represent the limits of state power in relation to the individual. It is emphasised that today there is no single approach to substantiating the theory of human rights. The article emphasises that every person is endowed with universal, inalienable and inalienable rights, which are called human rights. It is established that the universality of human rights is clearly enshrined and recognised in numerous international legislative acts. The author emphasises that the universal nature of human rights and freedoms enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is beyond doubt. A number of approaches to the understanding of human rights are investigated. It is determined that the universality and full observance of human rights is an ongoing process that requires constant attention and global cooperation. It is noted that human rights are an integral part of human dignity; they are the fundamental principles which define the essence of humanity and apply to every individual. These rights are conditioned by the universal principles of justice and dignity, which must be protected and guaranteed by the State. The author establishes that universal rights are inalienable, since a person cannot be deprived of them without violating the basic principles of justice. These rights create the limits of state power, emphasising that the state must protect and respect the rights of every individual. In essence, human rights cover a wide range of aspects, such as the right to life, liberty and security of the person, freedom of thought and expression, the right to education, work and an adequate standard of living. These rights are the basis for the development of a just and humane society. It is noted that human rights are universal and inalienable in any cultural or geographical context. Ensuring their respect and observance is the responsibility of both the individual state and the international community. Violations of human rights not only violate the basic principles of justice, but can also lead to serious social and political consequences.

Human rights issues have become an interesting debate in the dynamics of the current world political arena. Western countries use human rights issues as a political instrument against other countries, especially Muslim countries. The reality of the concept of universal human rights comes from natural law. Long before the declaration of universal human rights, the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) had issued the charter of Medina, which was full of human rights values. The formulation of universal human rights and Islamic human rights is hardly different. In fact, it can be said to be complementary. This paper uses a descriptive-analytical method, namely, by explaining the description of the data found and analyzing it so that the results and findings of this paper can be holistic, concise, and philosophical, and can be scientifically proven based on existing reality. This paper finds that in the Islamic world, the concept of human rights aims at the benefit (maqāṣid al-sharī'ah). However, there are differences between Universal and Islamic human rights, such as the concept of women's freedom and heritage. This difference has an impact on the concept of specific human rights or relative human rights, which are limited by the culture and sociology of certain societies, especially religions that cannot be equated. The Islamic world's response to universal human rights conceptually considers that universal human rights are different from Islamic human rights principles, universal human rights are not based on religious (secular) values. Some Muslim countries are against directly rejecting and using Islamic human rights completely, such as in Iran and Saudi Arabia; and some of them accommodate universal human rights. In the Islamic world, the implementation of human rights is influenced by global political factors with the imposition of Western double standards on Muslim countries, accompanied by economic, military and media forces to pressure Muslim countries. This causes the human rights problem in Muslim countries to be not completely resolved and gives rise to a strong resistance movement to Western human rights (Islamic fundamentalism).

The relevance of the study is conditioned by the necessity of establishing the degree of interaction of universal rights and freedoms of the individual in civil and international law, as well as the possibility of limiting state sovereignty in the implementation of international obligations to ensure and protect human rights. The purpose of the paper is to investigate the international experience of legal regulation of universal human rights in order to develop ideas for their implementation in the legal framework of countries in transformation, including Ukraine. The leading methods of the study included the analysis of international and European practices of consolidating universal human and civil rights, modelling of legal structures acceptable to Ukraine. As a result of the study, it was concluded that the restriction of state sovereignty is possible only in favour of the individual based on the priority of human rights. The research materials can be useful for lawyers and government officials performing draft law activities, teachers of law schools, as well as officials and public administration officials who seek to apply the standards and practices of international regulation of universal human and civil rights in individual management cases.

This article outlines Public Social Services’ encounters with irregular migrants in Sweden from the perspectives of institutional and street-level bureaucrats. Staff and executive considerations are influenced by a de jure exclusion of irregular migrants, which is an element of the control of migration. Staff face contradictory demands concerning international and national regulations, which leads to legal ambiguities open to discretionary powers. The aim is to explore the handling of such cases, experiences and considerations with an interest in the values that are invoked when enacting discretion and to discuss implications of the unclear legal situation. The material was obtained using web-based questionnaires. A tentative analysis confirms that the Public Social Services encounter irregular migrants and that handling differs greatly. It suggests that different approaches and the contradictory legal framework endanger the rule of law. Differing reference points appear to be invoked when enacting discretion: some related to social work and others to controlled migration. The social work values invoked by some respondents might imply an appreciation of a right to services and control of migration as independent processes and jurisdiction related to human rights that are applicable beyond the nationally framed legal status and not subordinated to policies of migration.

Political Science QuarterlyVolume 122, Issue 3 p. 359-383 The Rhetoric of Genocide in U.S. Foreign Policy: Rwanda and Darfur Compared ERIC A. HEINZE, ERIC A. HEINZE ERIC A. HEINZE is an assistant professor of political science and international studies at the University of Oklahoma. His scholarly articles have most recently appeared in the Journal of Human Rights, Parameters, the Journal of Military Ethics, Polity, and the International Journal of Human Rights. His book, Waging Humanitarian War: The Ethics, Law and Politics of Humanitarian Intervention, is forthcoming with SUNY Press.Search for more papers by this author ERIC A. HEINZE, ERIC A. HEINZE ERIC A. HEINZE is an assistant professor of political science and international studies at the University of Oklahoma. His scholarly articles have most recently appeared in the Journal of Human Rights, Parameters, the Journal of Military Ethics, Polity, and the International Journal of Human Rights. His book, Waging Humanitarian War: The Ethics, Law and Politics of Humanitarian Intervention, is forthcoming with SUNY Press.Search for more papers by this author First published: 15 February 2013 https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-165X.2007.tb00602.xCitations: 11 AboutPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume122, Issue3Fall 2007Pages 359-383 RelatedInformation

Editor's Note: One of the missions of the Journal of Human Rights is to foster interdisciplinary understanding of human rights. In recent years, scholars have shown a renewed interest in the relationship between psychoanalysis and human rights. In this issue, we present an article by Simon Clarke which examines psychoanalytic dimensions of human rights. They are prefaced by this short piece by Lewis S. Feuer which is reprinted from the Handbook on Human Rights , published by the Academy of Human Rights in Zurich from 1956 to 1962. This essay appeared as 'Number 9' in the series in 1961. Professor Feuer, University Professor Emeritus at the University of Virginia, was a pioneer in the psychoanalytic study of social and philosophical issues and felt that psychoanalysis, with its focus on understanding human strivings for happiness, had much to offer the study of human rights. This essay contains the kernels of a theory of human rights (which appear in more detailed form in his classic work, Psychoanalysis and Ethics (Feuer 1955)), which argues that natural rights are the articulation and externalization of unconscious and repressed human aspirations. The strength of this essay lies in its argument that natural rights are both universal and relative at the same time. That is, there will always be expressions of desires and aspirations in the form of the language of rights, but the particular times and places in which such desires are expressed decisively influence the language of rights that emerges. Thus, we can examine rights as historically and socially contingent products, but which reflect universal aspirations for freedom, autonomy and self-actualization. The essay is, thus, a contribution to both the philosophy and sociology of human rights. With the republication of this essay, the Journal of Human Rights begins a tradition of reprinting classic essays on human rights in the hope that they will generate discussion and debate about current issues and problems.

Many recent arguments for rights or exemptions for religious or other cultural groups that may not themselves be liberal are based on liberal premises—whether the central liberal value be individual autonomy or tolerance for diversity of ways of life. Any consistent defense of group rights or exemptions that is based on liberal premises has to ensure that at least one individual right—the right to exit one’s group of origin—trumps any group right. What this entails will be explored later, but for several reasons, the claim itself seems prima facie incontrovert-

When Christine Flynn Saulnier and I started our tenure as the coeditors of Affilia in fall 2006, we declared our intention to build upon the vision of the founding mothers of Affilia within the context of global changes that were occurring during the first decade of the 21st century. That vision was a journal that would provide space for feminists in the academy to examine the serious challenges that women were facing. Women academicians found that they could not get their manuscripts on feminist issues, such as unequal pay, tenure, and promotion; the glass ceiling; and violence against women published in social work journals. The voices of feminist social work practitioners and academicians who examined the challenges that women face in their day-to-day lives at home and in the workplace and who interpreted their research from feminist perspectives were absent in professional journals. Therefore, the founding mothers developed their vision to encourage scholarship, to enable the publication of articles on social work practice and social welfare from feminist lenses, and to promote theories that helped gain an understanding of and advance women’s causes in racial, ethnic, professional, geographic, and sexual orientation matters. Christine and I noted in 2006 that although there had been changes in social work professional and publication networks in the first years of the 21st century, many of the problems that motivated the founders still remained. Thus, we made a commitment to publish articles that would reflect the vision of the founding mothers, including the first group that served on the editorial board of Affilia and the first five editors in chief (see Table 1). We also sought to foster a broader concept of globalization that seemed limited for social work to (1) international social work, (2) comparative analyses of social work practices and social welfare policies among nations, and (3) comparative analyses of women’s positions and women’s concerns in different nations. The emerging broader concept encompasses challenges that women and feminist practice face, including the impact of globalization on social work, transnational and multilateral social work, translocal networks, the impacts of global changes on women’s lives, the need for global regulation, and hybrid forms of practice that combine elements from the private and public sectors and result in opportunities as well as challenges for women. Transnational social work requires investments in research, practice, and analyses of institutional functions, as well as intricate connections of international and local organizations and advocacy at all levels. Transnational social work also calls for an understanding of the challenges facing women who migrate—within their

In the twenty-first century, after more than 60 years of development1 since its rise to prominence worldwide, the modern human rights system has become a common, even popular, public and policy dis...