scholarly journals The problem of refugees in migration policy as a factor of Latin American region: political-geographic analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-45
Author(s):  
Oleg Tkach ◽  
Аnatoly Tkach ◽  
Anastasiia Shtelmashenko
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Research Methods ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Immigration Policy ◽  
System Analysis ◽  
Public Information ◽  
The United States ◽  
Border Security ◽  
Immigration Reform ◽  
Latin American Region

Formulation of the problem: evolutions of immigration policy, you can trace the history of the United States, since immigration policy is inextricably linked with the domestic and foreign policy of the country, as well as with most of the critical issues facing society. In January, 2018, President Donald Trump announced a "Framework on Immigration Reform and Border Security" which proposed replacing DACA with a "path to citizenship for approximately 1,8 million individuals". Purpose of the research: рrosperity аgenda is policy analysis тhe global struggle with Illegal migration, imigration reform, рolicy сoherence for development, мigration in an interconnected world: new directions for action, politics of мigration: Obama’s.мanaging оpportunity, сonflict and сhange Research methods: The following research methods were used to address the issues set in the article: general scientific methods - descriptive, hermeneutic-political, systemic, structural-functional, comparative, institutional-comparative; general logical methods – empirical, statistical, prognostic modeling and analysis; special methods of political science. The preference was given to the method of political-system analysis, by which the common and distinctive characteristics of the basic components of immigration policy strategies were identified, reflecting existing political, public, information and other challenges for international relations and global development. The article of analysis. This proposal has been met with a mixed reception, but immigration featured prominently in the president’s 2018 State of the Union speech. In the United States of America, immigration reform is a term widely used to describe proposals to maintain or increase legal immigration while decreasing illegal immigration, such as the guest worker proposal supported by President George W. Bush, and the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization or "Gang of Eight" bill which passed the U.S. Senate in June 2013.

Immigration Policy

2020 ◽  
pp. 370-390
Author(s):  
Daniel J. Tichenor ◽  
Kathryn Miller
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Immigration Policy ◽  
National Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Immigration Reform ◽  
States Immigration ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Immigration Reforms ◽  
The Right

Although the United States is a nation shaped by vast waves of immigration over time, Americans have been fighting over policies governing immigrant admissions and rights since the earliest days of the republic. Rival nativist and pro-immigration movements and traditions have yielded marked shifts across U.S. history among national policies designed to stimulate or discourage immigration. The federal government only gradually took control of regulating immigrant flows over the course of the nineteenth century. Since then, national policy has assumed both restrictive and expansive forms. Whereas the creation of an “Asiatic Barred Zone” and national origins quotas in the 1920s imposed draconian barriers to immigration, immigration reforms after 1965 helped fuel the nation’s fourth major wave of immigration dominated by unprecedented numbers of Latin American and Asian newcomers. As underscored by recent battles over family separation and efforts to build a southern border wall, the politics of immigration reform today, as in the past, remain deeply polarizing, as border hawks on the Right and immigrant rights advocates on the Left clash over unauthorized immigration and the future of millions of undocumented immigrants living in the country. The United States’ immigration policy will continue to reflect these competing interests and ideals.

scholarly journals Immigration and the War on Crime: Law and Order Politics and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrisia Macías-Rojas
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Immigration Policy ◽  
Democratic Party ◽  
Illegal Immigration ◽  
Mass Incarceration ◽  
The United States ◽  
Immigration Enforcement ◽  
Immigration Reform ◽  
War On Crime ◽  
Policy Arena

The 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) was a momentous law that recast undocumented immigration as a crime and fused immigration enforcement with crime control (García Hernández 2016; Lind 2016). Among its most controversial provisions, the law expanded the crimes, broadly defined, for which immigrants could be deported and legal permanent residency status revoked. The law instituted fast-track deportations and mandatory detention for immigrants with convictions. It restricted access to relief from deportation. It constrained the review of immigration court decisions and imposed barriers for filing class action lawsuits against the former US Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). It provided for the development of biometric technologies to track “criminal aliens” and authorized the former INS to deputize state and local police and sheriff's departments to enforce immigration law (Guttentag 1997a; Migration News 1997a, 1997b, 1997c; Taylor 1997). In short, it put into law many of the punitive provisions associated with the criminalization of migration today. Legal scholars have documented the critical role that IIRIRA played in fundamentally transforming immigration enforcement, laying the groundwork for an emerging field of “crimmigration” (Morris 1997; Morawetz 1998, 2000; Kanstroom 2000; Miller 2003; Welch 2003; Stumpf 2006). These studies challenged the law's deportation and mandatory detention provisions, as well as its constraints on judicial review. And they exposed the law's widespread consequences, namely the deportations that ensued and the disproportionate impact of IIRIRA's enforcement measures on immigrants with longstanding ties to the United States (ABA 2004). Less is known about what drove IIRIRA's criminal provisions or how immigration came to be viewed through a lens of criminality in the first place. Scholars have mostly looked within the immigration policy arena for answers, focusing on immigration reform and the “new nativism” that peaked in the early nineties (Perea 1997; Jacobson 2008). Some studies have focused on interest group competition, particularly immigration restrictionists’ prohibitions on welfare benefits, while others have examined constructions of immigrants as a social threat (Chavez 2001; Nevins 2002, 2010; Newton 2008; Tichenor 2009; Bosworth and Kaufman 2011; Zatz and Rodriguez 2015). Surprisingly few studies have stepped outside the immigration policy arena to examine the role of crime politics and the policies of mass incarceration. Of these, scholars suggest that IIRIRA's most punitive provisions stem from a “new penology” in the criminal justice system, characterized by discourses and practices designed to predict dangerousness and to manage risk (Feeley and Simon 1992; Miller 2003; Stumpf 2006; Welch 2012). Yet historical connections between the punitive turn in the criminal justice and immigration systems have yet to be disentangled and laid bare. Certainly, nativist fears about unauthorized migration, national security, and demographic change were important factors shaping IIRIRA's criminal provisions, but this article argues that the crime politics advanced by the Republican Party (or the “Grand Old Party,” GOP) and the Democratic Party also played an undeniable and understudied role. The first part of the analysis examines policies of mass incarceration and the crime politics of the GOP under the Reagan administration. The second half focuses on the crime politics of the Democratic Party that recast undocumented migration as a crime and culminated in passage of IIRIRA under the Clinton administration. IIRIRA's criminal provisions continue to shape debates on the relationship between immigration and crime, the crimes that should provide grounds for expulsion from the United States, and the use of detention in deportation proceedings for those with criminal convictions. This essay considers the ways in which the War on Crime — specifically the failed mass incarceration policies — reshaped the immigration debate. It sheds light on the understudied role that crime politics of the GOP and the Democratic Party played in shaping IIRIRA — specifically its criminal provisions, which linked unauthorized migration with criminality, and fundamentally restructured immigration enforcement and infused it with the resources necessary to track, detain, and deport broad categories of immigrants, not just those with convictions.

scholarly journals Separated Families: Barriers to Family Reunification after Deportation

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 401-416 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deborah A. Boehm
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Immigration Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Family Reunification ◽  
Ethnographic Research ◽  
Transnational Families ◽  
Immigration Reform ◽  
Humanitarian Crisis ◽  
Mixed Status ◽  
Legal Barriers

This paper outlines the complexities — and unlikelihood — of keeping families together when facing, or in the aftermath of deportation. After discussing the context that limits or prevents reunification among immigrant families more generally, I outline several of the particular ways that families are divided when a member is deported. Drawing on case studies from longitudinal ethnographic research in Mexico and the United States, I describe: 1) the difficulties in successfully canceling deportation orders, 2) the particular limitations to family reunification for US citizen children when a parent is deported, and 3) the legal barriers to authorized return to the United States after deportation. I argue that without comprehensive immigration reform and concrete possibilities for relief, mixed-status and transnational families will continue to be divided. Existing laws do not adequately address family life and the diverse needs of individuals as members of families, creating a humanitarian crisis both within and beyond the borders of the United States. The paper concludes with recommendations for immigration policy reform and suggestions for restructuring administrative processes that directly impact those who have been deported and their family members.

Book Reviews

2011 ◽  
Vol 49 (2) ◽  
pp. 456-457
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Immigration Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Immigration Reform ◽  
New Era ◽  
Mcgill University

Jennifer Hunt of McGill University reviews “Beside the Golden Door: U.S. Immigration Reform in a New Era of Globalization” by Pia M. Orrenius and Madeline Zavodny. The EconLit Abstract of the reviewed work begins “Presents an alternative immigration policy for the United States that focuses on admitting the workers most valued by the market in a way that minimizes adverse effects on U.S. workers and funnels migration gains to U.S. taxpayers. Discusses the challenge--picking up the pieces; the goal--pro-growt….”

OIL AND GAS FACTOR IN THE FOREIGN POLICY OF LATIN AMERICA

2019 ◽  
pp. 27-33
Author(s):  
O. Tkach ◽  
V. Tsvykh ◽  
M. Khylko ◽  
O. Batrymenko ◽  
D. Nelipa
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Latin America ◽  
Research Methods ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
The United States ◽  
Energy Resources ◽  
Latin American Countries

Formulation of the problem. The authors analyze the current state and prospects for the development of the oil and gas complex and their role in the foreign policy of the Latin American states, policies of the use of oil and gas resources as a tool for enhancing influence in the region, as well as the functioning of multilateral oil supply agreements. The possibilities of realization of joint energy projects in Latin America are analyzed. The presence of oil and gas in the region has always been used as a political tool. The United States' reliance on Middle Eastern oil and the carbon emissions produced by the surging demand for fossil fuels in Asia tend to dominate discussions about the role of energy in U.S. foreign policy. But in recent years, the energy relationship between the United States and Latin America has perhaps become more important than other issues, as the largest share of the United States international trade and investment in the energy sector has occurred within the Western Hemisphere. Purpose of the researchis to study the role of the oil and gas complex in the foreign policy of Latin American countries. The oil and gas complex plays an important role in the foreign policy of Latin American countries. The Latin American energy market is quite attractive to transnational energy companies due to the huge volumes of cheap energy resources, the consumer market with growing energy demand. The energy markets of the Americas are deeply integrated. Despite the shale boom, which led to a sharp increase in U.S. oil production and a drop in imports, the United States still relies on Latin America for more than 30 percent of the oil it buys from abroad. The gas and gas complex part of the geological section is characterized by a similar lithological composition and the underlying rocks, containing oil and gas in industrial volumes. Research methods: The following research methods were used to address the issues set in the article: general scientific methods – descriptive, hermeneutic-political, systemic, structural-functional, comparative, institutional-comparative; general logical methods – empirical, statistical, prognostic modeling and analysis; special methods of political science. The preference was given to the method of political-system analysis, by which the common and distinctive characteristics of the basic components of immigration policy strategies were identified, reflecting existing political, public, information and other challenges for international relations and global development. The article of analysis. Latin America, a growing importer of U.S. natural gas and the largest market for U.S., makes refined petroleum products, such as gasoline. American oil companies and utilities are big investors in Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and Venezuela, helping to develop the energy resources of all those countries. In Brazil, the United States direct investment in oil and gas extraction reached $2,4 billion in 2015; in Mexico, the figure was $420 million. Washington's financing and technical cooperation programs have further helped the development of new energy resources in the region. U.S. institutions and funds back up clean energy investments and provide regulatory and technical guidance to tap the region's shale fields.

Liberalism and the Limits of Inclusion: Race and Immigration Law in the Americas, 1850–2000

2010 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Cook-Martín ◽  
David FitzGerald
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Racial Discrimination ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Immigration Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Immigration Law ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Immigration Laws ◽  
Racial Exclusion

Most scholars argue that the global triumph of liberal norms within the last 150 years ended discriminatory immigration policy. Yet, the United States was a leader in the spread of policy restrictions aimed at Asian migrants during the early twentieth century, and authoritarian Latin American regimes removed racial discrimination from their immigration laws a generation before the United States and Canada did. By the same token, critical theorists claim that racism has not diminished, but most states have removed their discriminatory laws, thus allowing significant ethnic transformation within their borders. An analysis of the immigration policies of the twenty-two major countries of the Americas since 1850 reveals that liberal states have been discriminatory precisely because of their liberalism and elucidates the diffusion of international legal norms of racial exclusion and inclusion.

scholarly journals Moving beyond Comprehensive Immigration Reform and Trump: Principles, Interests, and Policies to Guide Long-Term Reform of the US Immigration System

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 541-576 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald Kerwin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Immigration Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Immigrant Integration ◽  
Immigration Policies ◽  
Immigration Reform ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Immigration

This paper introduces a special collection of 15 papers that chart a course for long-term reform of the US immigration system. The papers look beyond recent legislative debates and the current era of rising nationalism and restrictionism to outline the elements of a forward-looking immigration policy that would serve the nation's interests, honor its liberal democratic ideals, promote the full participation of immigrants in the nation's life, and exploit the opportunities offered by the increasingly interdependent world. This paper highlights several overarching themes from the collection, as well as dozens of proposals for reform. Together, the papers in the collection make the case that: • Immigration policymaking should be embedded in a larger set of partnerships, processes, and commitments that respond to the conditions that force persons to migrate. • The US immigration system should reflect liberal democratic values and an inclusive vision of national identity. • It is incumbent on policy and opinion makers to publicize the broad national interests served by US immigration policies. • Policymakers should, in turn, evaluate and adjust US immigration policies based on their success in furthering the nation's interests. • The United States should prioritize the gathering and dissemination of the best available evidence on migration and on the nation's migration-related needs and programs, and should use this information to respond flexibly to changing migration patterns and new economic developments. • Immigrant integration strengthens communities and represents an important, overarching metric for US immigration policies. • The successful integration of the United States' 43 million foreign-born residents and their progeny should be a national priority. • An immigration federalism agenda should prioritize cooperation on shared federal, state, and local priorities. • An immigration federalism agenda should recognize the federal government's enforcement obligations; the interests of local communities in the safety, well-being and participation of their residents; the importance of federal leadership in resolving the challenges posed by the US undocumented population; and the need for civil society institutions to serve as mediators of immigrant integration. • Immigration reform should be coupled with strong, well-enforced labor standards in order to promote fair wages and safe and healthy working conditions for all US workers. • Fairness and due process should characterize US admission, custody, and removal decisions. • Family unity should remain a central goal of US immigration policy and a pillar of the US immigration system. • The United States should seek to craft “win-win” immigration policies that serve its own interests and that benefit migrant-sending states. • US immigration law and policy should be coherent and consistent, and the United States should create legal migration opportunities for persons uprooted by US foreign interventions, trade policies, and immigration laws. • The United States should reduce the size of its undocumented population through a substantial legalization program and seek to ensure that this population never again approximates its current size.

The Tlatelolco regime and nonproliferation in Latin America

1981 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 103-134 ◽  
Author(s):  
John R. Redick
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Latin America ◽  
Latin American ◽  
The United States ◽  
Careful Consideration ◽  
Free Zone ◽  
Legal Traditions ◽  
American States ◽  
Latin American Region ◽  
Latin American Countries

The regime established by the Treaty of Tlatelolco is supportive of peace and security in the Latin American region and global nonproliferation efforts. Circumstances leading to the creation of the nuclear-weapon-free zone include careful preparations and negotiations, individual leadership, existence of certain shared cultural and legal traditions of Latin American countries, and the temporary stimulus of the Cuban missile crisis. Lack of overt superpower pressure on Latin America, compared with more turbulent regions, has permitted continued progress toward full realization of the zone. Tlatelolco's negotiating process, as well as the substance of the Treaty, deserve careful consideration relative to other areas.The Treaty enjoys wide international approval, but full support by certain Latin American States (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Cuba) has been negatively affected by the failure of the U.S. Senate to ratify Tlatelolco's Protocol I. Nuclear programs of Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico are expanding rapidly and these nations are forming linkages with West European countries, rather than the United States. The May 1980 Argentine-Brazilian nuclear agreement foresees significant cooperation between the two nation's nuclear energy commissions and more coordinated resistance to the nuclear supplier countries. Argentine-Brazilian nuclear convergence—and the response accorded to it by the United States will have significant implications for the future of the Tlatelolco regime and nonproliferation in Latin America.

scholarly journals Latin America as a region of the contradiction of the USA and Germany interests during the First World War

2018 ◽  
pp. 6-14
Author(s):  
Gennady Kazakov
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Latin American ◽  
The United States ◽  
First World War ◽  
American Continent ◽  
World War ◽  
Latin American Region ◽  
The First World War ◽  
The Usa ◽  
First World

In the article, the author considers the issues of the collision of interests of the United States of America and Germany in the Latin American region during the First World War. The confrontation had a diplomatic character and consisted in refusing to “penetrate” German capital and the physical presence of German troops in the countries of the Latin American region. According to the official American political ideology of pan-Americanism, there was a tacit agreement that the United States did not interfere in the affairs of Europe, and Europe, in turn, did not try to penetrate the American continent, leaving it in the sphere of the USA influence. With the beginning of the First World War, the German presence in the region increased. Moreover, the American government, on the contrary, proposed to close the American continent for citizens of European states. The main issue caused to controversy between the USA and Germany was the use of Latin American ports as temporary parking, as well as the strengthening of trade relations between the countries of South America and Germany. In the course of such actions by the American administration, Germany lost the Latin American market. The above events led to tweaking German agents, government of countries from this region against the United States. This was particularly evident in the Mexican issue, where the German government supported the opposition bloc, and then tried to persuade Mexico to declare war on the United States. The conduct of the Pan-American Conference strengthened the role of the United States in the countries of the region and led to the displacement of Germany from the region. While writing the article we come to the conclusion that the contradictions arose in the region became one of the most important reasons for the declaration of war against Germany by the USA government.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document