Friday, November 13, 2009
We have a number of great new immigration articles from the Social Science Research Network (www.ssrn.com):
"Offshoring, Immigration, and the Native Wage Distribution" WILLIAM W. OLNEY, University of Colorado at Boulder. ABSTRACT: While workers in developed countries have become increasingly concerned about the impact offshoring and immigration have on their wages, the available evidence on the link between offshoring, immigration, and wages remains mixed. This paper presents a simple model that examines the impact of offshoring and immigration on wages and tests these predictions using U.S. state-industry level data. According to the model, the productivity effect causes offshoring to have a more positive impact on low skilled wages than immigration, but this gap is decreasing with the workers’ skill level. The empirical results confirm these predictions and thus provide the first evidence of the productivity effect. Furthermore, the impact of offshoring and immigration on wages differs depending on the income level of the foreign country, which may explain the mixed results in the literature.
"Loving Across the Miles: Binational Same-Sex Marriages and the Supreme Court" in LOVING IN A POST-RACIAL WORLD: RETHINKING RACE, SEX AND MARRIAGE, K. Maillard, R. Cuison Villazor, eds., Cambridge Univ. Press, 2010 Penn State Legal Studies Research Paper No. 23-2009 VICTOR C. ROMERO, The Pennsylvania State University Dickinson School of Law. ABSTRACT: In this book chapter, I explore the connections between the obstacles to both marriage and freedom of movement experienced by binational same-sex couples because of both anti same-sex marriage and immigration laws, and those encountered by Richard and Mildred Loving and other interracial couples as a result of anti-miscegenation laws. As I explain more fully below, the Lovings’ story is a story of migration. It’s a border-crossing story that parallels and sheds light on the struggles of binational same-sex partners today who face barriers to marriage and the attendant benefits and privileges of such marriages. Specifically, I argue that the hardships faced by gay and lesbian couples who want to legitimize their relationships through state-recognized marriage mirror the struggles of interracial couples during the heyday of the Civil Rights Movement. Both race and sexual orientation function as barriers to freedom to marry and the law uses these traits to limit free movement. Ultimately, it is this freedom of movement – this migration or immigration – that’s the focus of this chapter, with particular attention paid to the Supreme Court’s role in assessing this freedom. Loving reveals the extent to which the Court affirmed the couple’s desire for free physical, legal, and cultural movement – to break barriers erected by the law that restricted their physical movement (they could not live in Virginia, their home state), their legal movement (they could not legally wed within Virginia), and their cultural movement (they could not wed outside of their respective races). Forty years later, Richard Adams and Tony Sullivan, as well as Austin Naughton and his unnamed Spanish partner, face similar physical, legal, and cultural restrictions on their movement because of their sexual orientation. Describing the current difficulties posed by his relationship with Richard Adams, Tony Sullivan aptly put it: “We would have been able to travel. …” I will discuss these three aspects of movement – the physical, legal, and cultural –barriers to movement that parallel the hardships the Lovings endured under Virginia’s antimiscegenation statute. I will round out this migration trilogy by exploring the ways in which the Court has addressed the cultural migration that has occurred within sexual orientation discourse. While progress had been made on the issue of gay rights as evidenced by the Court’s rulings in Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, their most recent decision, Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (“FAIR”), should give gay rights advocates pause, suggesting that race and sexual orientation may be doomed to follow separate, and hardly ever analogous, paths. I conclude the chapter by offering some thoughts on pending Congressional legislation designed to unite same-sex partners and their families, situating the discussion within the context of the Obama administration’s professed commitment to individual rights and the recent same-sex marriage gains among the states.
"‘I’m a Muslim, But I'm Not a Terrorist’: Victimization, Risky Identities and the Performance of Safety" The British Journal of Criminology, Vol. 49, Issue 6, pp. 736-754, 2009 GABE MYTHEN, affiliation not provided to SSRN SANDRA WALKLATE, Manchester Metropolitan University - Department of Sociology. FATIMA KHAN, affiliation not provided to SSRN. ABSTRACT: Since the events of 11 September 2001, Muslim minority groups have been subjected to pervasive scrutiny in the United Kingdom. The 7 July 2005 attacks have led to young Muslims’ being party to intensified modes of monitoring, surveillance and intervention by crime and security agencies. The introduction of multiple forms of counter-terrorism regulation by the state has been underpinned by discourses of (in)security, which have defined British Muslims en bloc as a risky, suspect population. Against this wider backdrop, this paper presents the findings from a study investigating the effects of these processes on young British Pakistanis in the North-West of England. Giving voice to these young people, we explore their responses to risk-victimization and articulate the impacts of legal and cultural regulation both on the management of Muslim identities and performances of safety in the public sphere. characteristics explain almost fully the gap in the EU countries, they are of little help in others.
"Race, Religion and Nationality in Immigration Selection: 120 Years after the Chinese Exclusion Case" Constitutional Commentary, Forthcoming LIAV ORGAD, Interdisciplinary Center Herzliyah. TED RUTHIZER, Columbia Law School. ABSTRACT: In May 1889, in the Chinese Exclusion Case, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that Congress has the power to exclude people of Chinese descent from U.S. territory. 120 years have since passed: is this case a relic from another era or still good law? In this article, the authors discuss the question whether race, religion and nationality still matter in the process of immigration selection. They demonstrate how official and central racial classifications remain in current immigration policy. The authors then consider a normative question: is the use of race, religion and nationality in immigration selection legally permitted? They analyze this question under the lens of three normative disciplines: constitutional law, international law and moral philosophy. They show that under each of these disciplines, some forms of race-based criteria are generally permitted in the process of immigrant selection. Focusing on protecting national security as a case study, the authors nevertheless challenge the use of racial immigration criteria based on utilitarian grounds. They show how the use of race in immigrant selection often lacks statistical correlation, is not cost-effective, and is likely to be over-inclusive and far in excess of its potential contribution due to cognitive biases and heuristic judgment. They conclude by suggesting four alternative methods for selecting immigrants: universal selection, positive selection, random selection and racial selection with just compensation.