Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
22 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Huntington: Erosion of American National Interests
|
In the post-Cold War era, America is having difficulty defining its national interests because it can barely define its national identity. With no enemy and a system based on multiculturalism, it is hard to define a foundation for national identity. Therefore, it should use a policy of restraint in foreign affairs instead of supporting particular countries/ethnicities.
|
|
|
Nelkin and Michaels: BIOLOGICAL CATEGORIES AND BORDER CONTROLS: THE REVIVAL OF EUGENICS IN ANTI-IMMIGRATION
RHETORIC |
• Conclusion: Why are anti-immigration arguments these days turning to scientific justification?
o Michael Lind suggests that the appeal of eugenics among mainstream conservatives has to do with the larger transformation of American conservatism. It has turned from economics to culture. o The author suggests that a broader tendency to view human traits through genetics and the differential status of racial groups is a natural consequence of immutable biological traits. o Also, the government can use genetic reasoning for limiting certain types of immigration and try to prevent certain people from coming who will likely be burdens of the State. o Extremists have clothed racist arguments in “scientifically rational arguments”. |
|
|
Erik Bleich, Race Politics in Britain and France
|
• Frames are the most influential factors to policy outcomes. Frames are identifiable and durable
• Interpretive analysts suggest that individual policy makers and society as a whole come to acquire their frames principally through socialization, a process through which “norms and ideals are transmitted from one party to another.” |
|
|
How is Britain handling Racial integration?
|
By eliminating racism on the Institutional level (through public sectors
|
|
|
How is France handling racial integration
|
By pushing people to fight against discrimination (ex: "dirty jew" = bad, no first ammendment)
|
|
|
Chapman: A Tale of Two Countries: The Politics of Color-Blindness in the US and France
|
France = Colorblind. America = Not
• In the US, advocates of affirmative action and other group-sensitive policies had (and still have) multiply political venues in which to pursue their aims and multiple points where deftly applied pressure can produce results that appear to defy legally enshrined color-blindness. • In France, by contrast, the political configuration of anti-discrimination policy and of the French state has provided no purchase for similarly inclined policy advocates, who could neither convince policymakers in a centralized legislative system to alter settled policy nor find sufficiently powerful levers elsewhere to shift policy any other way. |
|
|
LAURENCE AND VAISSE, INTEGRATING ISLAM
|
Ch 8: No such thing as the Muslim Vote
Ch 9: the New Anti-Semitisim is a result of lack of socio-economic integration Ch 10: Association of Islam and Terrorism makes integration much harder |
|
|
Faist: Intl Migration before and after Sept 11
|
The secruization of migration is only making more problems.
|
|
|
Klausen: Islamic Challenge
|
Muslims are just a new constitutency. Problems include integration issues, human rights
|
|
|
Geddes, Immigration and European Integration
|
The SEA marked progress in the development of cooperation at the EC level on immigration and asylum policy and the establishment of connections between institutionalized free movement and nascent immigration and asylum cooperation. However, EC member states elaborated a policy of control through intergovernmental restraints on the constitutionalisation and institutionalisation of a supranational immigration and asylum policy. In this way, a small group of EC member states cold limiting the range of policy outcomes.
|
|
|
Hansen and Weil, Dual Nationality, Social Rights and federal Citizenship in the United States and Europe, Chs.
|
EU citizenship has emerged as the transnational embodiment of dual citizenship
|
|
|
The Question of Nationality within a Federation – Olivier Beaud
|
Europe = federalism?
Federation: citizenship is by definition dual citizenship (federations are inseparable from the notion of common status among inhabitant of member states) o Nationality poses a problem for the Federation to the extent that there exists a dual nationality: federal nationality and sub-national citizenship |
|
|
Guiraudon, European Integration and Migration Policy
|
Internationalization of migration control has turned it vertical (upwards to the EU)
|
|
|
Lahav, Immigration and Politics in the New Europe,
|
The European movement toward integration and the character immigration have created a practical need for transnational regulation and standardized policy-making. The expansion of policy sectors of the EU to include immigration and asylum policies has generated increasing institutional cooperation among member states, but restrictive policy outcomes. Despite some progress toward a common immigration policy, EU member states still resist in many respects
|
|
|
(Lahav) First Phase of EU activity on integration:
|
1970s- for economic reasons
|
|
|
(Lahav) Second Phase of EU activity on integration
|
1980s -marked by a mood for more rapid European integration. There were two trends: a momentum toward a common immigration policy coincided with more limited rights for migrants. More power was given to community institutions, such as the EC. The commission also inherited legal competence to make procedural decisions relating to immigration. This phase was marked first by an initial proliferation of intergovernmental groups reflecting national efforts to control immigration through coordinator measures, Schengen initiative further narrowed the possibilities for free movement
|
|
|
(Lahav) Third phase of EU activity on integration
|
1990s - marked by more serious attempts to bring immigration under EU jurisdiction and to make Union decision-making bodies more central to the debate. The Maastricht Treaty introduced the concept of European Citizenship and formally recognized the need for a serious common immigration policy
|
|
|
Maastricht’s Justice and Home Affairs Pillar (Geddes
|
The Maastricht Treaty was a significant development in the sense that it marked
the formalization of cooperation on immigration and asylum policy and allows us to sketch the parameters of an emergent EU immigration policy framework. Policy was skewed towards control and security, with few measures dealing with aspects of immigrant integration policy |
|
|
The Amsterdam Treaty (Geddes
|
The Amsterdam Treaty did not communitarize immigration and asylum policy,
nor was this likely, given the impediments imposed by unsympathetic national policy preferences in key member states. British objections could be managed through provisions for flexibility, but opposition from the German government to QMV severely constrained the scope for supranationalization. However, relatively stable policy preferences—largely centered around convergence on the perceived necessity for control of the numbers of immigrants—are likely to continue to shape EU policy for the foreseeable future (as they have done in post-Maastricht period). |
|
|
Representing Migrants’ Interests (Geddes
|
The Amsterdam Treaty did extend the anti-discrimination provisions of the
Maastricht Treaty and could be construed as a breakthrough. This indicates that supranational lobbying can chime with national lobbying strategies that seek to influence member states’ policy preferences. Note the importance of NGOs building alliances with supranational institutions. The chances for success of these alliances will depend upon the legal resources that are available and the configuration of responsibility at EU level. |
|
|
Migration and Welfare in an Integrating Europe (Geddes
|
Although the EU does not and is not likely to have a welfare state, it does have a
social dimension, which TCNs are largely excluded. he fact that nationality of the country of residence is not a necessary criterion for entitlement in the member states but is at EU level has led to the argument that a certain illogicality pervades the EU social entitlement provisions and that legal resident TCNs should receive equal treatment. |
|
|
The European Politics of Migration? (Geddes
|
states will
prefer to externalize their controls because this frees them from some of the legislative and judicial constraints that they face at national level. While the welfare state-related perceptions of migration and migrants will remain strongly national, because welfare states remain national and there is no supranational alternative in view, the understanding of international migration and migrants from the perspective of economically developed European countries has been, is and will continue to be influenced in shape, form and content by European integration. |
