Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Here are a few new immigration articles from the Social Science Research Network (www.ssrn.com):
"Explaining Immigration Unilateralism" Northwestern University Law Review, Vol. 104, No. 3, 2010 JENNIFER GORDON, Fordham University - School of Law. ABSTRACT: Classical economists have long argued that trade and labor migration are functionally the same. Global wealth is maximized, they assert, when both goods and labor move freely across borders. There indeed similarities between the movement of people and the movement of goods, but in many ways the disparities between the two are far more apparent. If labor migration and trade are so alike, why have many developed nations maintained high barriers to migration even as barriers to trade have fallen sharply? The contrast between the weak global patchwork governing the movement of people and the strong framework governing the movement of goods is another sign of those distinctions. Why has the United States aggressively pursued multilateral, regional, and bilateral agreements on trade while remaining stubbornly unilateral in its approach to labor migration? This essay contends that the consistent story of factor mobility told by economists misses three key differences. First, the flow of human beings has political, social, and economic impacts on developed nations that differ from the flow of goods. Second, trade is reciprocal while migration is generally a one-way flow. Both of these facts reduce the incentive of developed nations to accept increased migration. Finally, the benefits developed nations do receive through migration are, unlike the benefits of trade, almost always available through unilateral action rather than through negotiation with developing countries. The essay concludes by suggesting how we might better approach labor migration in order to maximize wealth and distributive justice on a global scale. [PROFESSOR GORDON'S WORK IS ALWAYS WORTH READING.]
"Humanising Non-Citizens: The Convergence of Human Rights and Human Security" HUMAN SECURITY AND NON-CITIZENS: LAW, POLICY, AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, A. Edwards and C. Ferstman, eds., Chapter 1, Cambridge University Press, 2010 ALICE EDWARDS, Refugee Studies Centre, Oxford University. ABSTRACT: The past decades have seen enormous changes in our perceptions of 'security', the causes of insecurity and the measures adopted to address them. Threats of terrorism and the impacts of globalisation and mass migration have shaped our identities, politics and world views. This chapter analyses these shifts in thinking and, in particular, critically engages with the concept of 'human security' from legal, international relations and human rights perspectives. We consider the special circumstances of non-citizens, such as refugees, migrants, and displaced and stateless persons, and assess whether, conceptually and practically, 'human security' helps to address the multiple challenges they face.
"Alienated: A Reworking of the Racialization Thesis" American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law, Forthcoming MING CHEN, University of California, Berkeley. ABSTRACT: This article revises widespread application of the racialization thesis to Arabs, Muslims, and South Asians following September 11. It suggests in its place an “alienation thesis” to describe the formation of an alien identity for those perceived and treated as noncitizens. This thesis draws on Asian American and critical race scholarship to re-interpret sociological understandings of the post-September 11 response to Arabs, Muslims, and South Asians. The article concludes that shifting conceptions of this phenomenon is critical to reforming “alienating” practices that function not only to cause harm to their intended targets, but also to distort the legal requirements of immigration law and equality jurisprudence. [MING CHEN IS PURSUING SOME FASCINATING AVENUES OF SCHOLARSHIP.]