Editorial: The Impact of the Trump Administration on Families in the United States

2018 ◽  
Vol 57 (3) ◽  
pp. 589-593 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jay L. Lebow
2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 205630512092851
Author(s):  
Megan Ward

Vigilante groups in the United States and India have used social media to distribute their content and publicize violent spectacles for political purposes. This essay will tackle the spectacle of vigilante lynchings, abduction, and threats as images of vigilante violence are spread online in support of specific candidates, state violences, and election discourse. It is important to understand the impact of not only these vigilante groups, but understand the communicative spectacle of their content. Using Leo R. Chavez’s understanding of early 2000s vigilante action as spectacle in service of social movements, this essay extends the analysis to modern vigilante violence online content used as dramatic political rhetoric in support of sitting administrations. Two case studies on modern vigilante violence provide insight into this phenomenon are as follows: (1) Vigilante nativist militia groups across the United States in support of border militarization have kidnapped migrants in the Southwest desert, documenting these incidents to show support for the Trump Administration and building of a border wall and (2) vigilante mobs in India have circulated videos and media documenting lynchings of so-called “cow killers”; these attacks target Muslims in the light of growing Hindu Nationalist sentiment and political movement in the country. Localized disinformation and personal video allow vigilante content to spread across social media to recruit members for militias, as well as incite quick acts of mob violence. Furthermore, these case studies display how the social media livestreams and video allow representations of violence to become attention-arresting visual acts of political discourse.


Author(s):  
Dora Schriro

The United States has long struggled with the practice of detaining immigrant families and over time, most reform efforts have flagged, if not failed. This paper examines the impact of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) through an exploration of the evolution of the family residential center (FRC) for families in immigration custody, established prior to the 9/11 terrorist attack by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), and expanded by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in its aftermath. The paper provides an inside look at how policymakers, at various points in the Obama administration, sought to roll back its most infirm practices and the fate of those efforts. It begins with a brief history of family detention in the United States, continues with a summary of the reforms undertaken both early and late in the Obama administration, and examines the significant challenges it faced and the less progressive positions it adopted during its first and second terms in office.The paper concludes with a discussion of reasons for the rapid reversal of its previous reforms and provides recommendations to achieve a civil, civil system of immigration enforcement for families and all others, which means nothing less than the transformation of the immigrant detention system from a criminal to a civil paradigm, consistent with the population and legal authorities.[1] The need for such an effort is all the more urgent in light of executive actions taken in the early days of the Trump administration and their initial outcomes. Among those thwarting admissions are  orders to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to seal the US borders, shun refugees fleeing from war-torn regions until “extreme vetting” measures are put into place, and reassess others who have already been issued visas.  Additional orders issued to ICE expanded and expedited the removal of persons whose conduct could result in charges or convictions as well as those with criminal charges or convictions, resulting in a 38 percent increase in arrests by ICE agents within the first 100 days of the Trump administration (Dickerson 2017b; Duara 2017).        [1] For further discussion of the concept of a civil, civil system of immigration enforcement, see Schriro (2009).


2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 452-480 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dora Schriro

The United States has long struggled with the practice of detaining immigrant families and over time, most reform efforts have flagged, if not failed. This paper examines the impact of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) through an exploration of the evolution of the family residential center (FRC) for families in immigration custody, established prior to the 9/11 terrorist attack by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), and expanded by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in its aftermath. The paper provides an inside look at how policymakers, at various points in the Obama administration, sought to roll back its most infirm practices and the fate of those efforts. It begins with a brief history of family detention in the United States, continues with a summary of the reforms undertaken both early and late in the Obama administration, and examines the significant challenges it faced and the less progressive positions it adopted during its first and second terms in office. The paper concludes with a discussion of reasons for the rapid reversal of its previous reforms and provides recommendations to achieve a civil, civil system of immigration enforcement for families and all others, which means nothing less than the transformation of the immigrant detention system from a criminal to a civil paradigm, consistent with the population and legal authorities.2 The need for such an effort is all the more urgent in light of executive actions taken in the early days of the Trump administration and their initial outcomes. Among those thwarting admissions are orders to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to seal the US borders, shun refugees fleeing from war-torn regions until “extreme vetting” measures are put into place, and reassess others who have already been issued visas. Additional orders issued to ICE expanded and expedited the removal of persons whose conduct could result in charges or convictions as well as those with criminal charges or convictions, resulting in a 38 percent increase in arrests by ICE agents within the first 100 days of the Trump administration (Dickerson 2017b; Duara 2017).


2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 187-210 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Amiti ◽  
Stephen J. Redding ◽  
David E. Weinstein

We examine conventional approaches to evaluating the economic impact of protectionist trade policies. We illustrate these conventional approaches by applying them to the tariffs introduced by the Trump administration during 2018. In the wake of this increase in trade protection, the United States experienced substantial increases in the prices of intermediates and final goods, dramatic changes to its supply-chain network, reductions in availability of imported varieties, and the complete pass-through of the tariffs into domestic prices of imported goods. Therefore, the full incidence of the tariffs has fallen on domestic consumers and importers so far, and our estimates imply a reduction in aggregate US real income of $1.4 billion per month by the end of 2018. We see similar patterns for foreign countries that have retaliated with their own tariffs against the United States, which suggests that the trade war has also reduced the real income of these other countries.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amrit Parhar

This major research paper examines the impact of the Canada- U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement relating to the current refugee crisis, especially with the current American presidential administration with Donald Trump. The Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and the United States was implemented on December 29th, 2004 and will be examined in terms of its relations to state security and human security in the current refugee context. The paper provides context to the current refugee crisis with the Safe Third Country Agreement under the Trump Administration. The paper examines the theory of criminalization in relation to the unintended consequences of the Safe Third Country Agreement. The paper also provides a policy analysis and a critical analysis of the Safe Third Country Agreement. The paper also provides possible solutions and recommendations to either suspend or abolish the Safe Third Country Agreement. Key Words: Safe Third Country Agreement, Criminalization, Refugees, Non-Refoulement


2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 543-557 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graham K Wilson

The unexpected victories of Donald Trump in the United States 2016 Presidential campaign and of the Leave campaign in the British referendum on membership in the European Union have important similarities in terms of campaign strategy, rhetoric and social bases of support. They are exemplars of a wave of right-wing populism that has swept across advanced democracies. The triumph of Brexit also raises questions about the future relationship between the United Kingdom and United States. While it is too early to be certain about either the impact of Brexit or the future direction of the Trump Administration, and despite ties between the Trump Administration and British politicians who campaigned for or subsequently supported Brexit, the United Kingdom could become much less useful as a diplomatic and economic partner to the United States after leaving the European Union.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amrit Parhar

This major research paper examines the impact of the Canada- U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement relating to the current refugee crisis, especially with the current American presidential administration with Donald Trump. The Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and the United States was implemented on December 29th, 2004 and will be examined in terms of its relations to state security and human security in the current refugee context. The paper provides context to the current refugee crisis with the Safe Third Country Agreement under the Trump Administration. The paper examines the theory of criminalization in relation to the unintended consequences of the Safe Third Country Agreement. The paper also provides a policy analysis and a critical analysis of the Safe Third Country Agreement. The paper also provides possible solutions and recommendations to either suspend or abolish the Safe Third Country Agreement. Key Words: Safe Third Country Agreement, Criminalization, Refugees, Non-Refoulement


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document