Search

The geographical (im)mobility of immigrants in host countries is a significant issue due to its strong links with the integration process. This is particularly evident in Italy, a country with a long history of emigration, where the foreign resident population has now become a structural element of society. Using original data sources and adopting a (pseudo) longitudinal and multiscale approach, this paper provides new insights into the stability and types of internal migration among the main 20 foreign communities residing in Italy in 2011 and in 2018. Significant heterogeneity emerges not only among the different foreign groups but also between metropolitan contexts in the north and centre-south of the country. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractNew global multi-directional migration flows are decentering extant analyses of White expatriate migration. As migration becomes more diversified, new lines of intellectual inquiry are surfacing about the experiences of middle-class non-white expatriates. This paper uses the case study of China, which with the rise in immigration, has an increasingly diverse ‘expatriate’ population. While the visibility of White expatriates in non-white-majority host countries may compel them to adopt lifestyles segregated from the local population, expatriates of Chinese heritage in China have the (dis)advantage of blending in with the local population. This paper examines the experiences of Singaporean-Chinese migrants in China where their ethnic proximity to the Chinese can be both a boon and a bane. We present our findings in three sections addressing: first, how ethnic proximity can enable mobilities including motility and a mobile sense of belonging; second, how mobilities can condition ethnic proximity as experiences of privilege but also reminders of non-belonging; and third, how participants’ change in life phases i.e. temporalities shift meanings of proximity, mobility and mobile belonging. Through highlighting the multidimensional nature of mobilities – proximity, motility, temporalities – this paper contributes to studies of middling migration, (ethnic) proximity and mobilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Federal law authorizes the reinstatement of a prior removal order when a noncitizen "reenter[s] the United States without authorization after having already been removed." It further provides an "expedited process" for doing so, denying to such noncitizens the right to contest before an immigration judge their removability or inadmissibility. The question whether a noncitizen is removable is thus definitively settled immediately upon reinstatement. But the question to where the noncitizen will be removed is less certain. This is because noncitizens subject to reinstated orders of removal retain the right to pursue "withholding-only" relief, which precludes removal to the noncitizen's home country when extreme dangers await them there. This lag--between when removability, on one hand, and the country of removal, on the other, are determined--has exposed an ambiguity in the statute providing for judicial review of a "final order of removal," 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Specifically, § 1252(b)(1) requires that a noncitizen file a petition for review within thirty days of the final order of removal. But when does a reinstated order of removal become final? Specifically, does finality attach when the prior removal order is reinstated (such that removability is determined) or when the administrative process for adjudicating claims for withholding-only relief has concluded (such that the country of removal is determined)? On this question, the courts of appeals are divided. This Comment contends that the soundest construction of § 1252 deems reinstated orders of removal final when withholding-relief proceedings conclude. Such a construction is consistent with Supreme Court precedent, is more faithful to the statutory text, and better comports with the framework established by § 1252. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Article advances the conceptual framework of "citizenism" to describe how citizenship is mobilized and weaponized to sustain structural racism. Citizenism transcends formal citizenship status because the construction of whiteness underwrites it as the only presumptively legitimate racial category for citizenship. A focus on citizenism provides a new framework for understanding an underlying layer of white supremacy that defines access to and shapes the civil and political rights of people of color. Citizenism is premised on the normative presumption that noncitizens should be excluded from full legal protections. Although their labor sustains economies across the globe, they are criminalized and dehumanized. In a racial state like the United States, this constructed illegality, in turn, further diminishes the rights of citizens of color who are racialized as presumptively "illegal." Citizenism functions as a legalized system of discrimination that uses citizenship status to perpetuate racialized outcomes for communities of color. Specifically, law and immigration enforcement make legally permissible presumptions about citizenship based on race, which delimits the fundamental rights of citizens of color. The legally constructed concepts of "speaking like an illegal" and "looking like an illegal" have reproduced a subordinate status that leads to unequal treatment under the law for both noncitizens and citizens of color. Citizenism, this Article posits, helps us understand how the intersection of race, Indigeneity, class, immigration, and citizenship status conspires to maintain and further exacerbate the existing racial order. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses highlights of a lecture presented by law professor Rose Cuison-Villazor at the "Wetern New England Law Review" journal's annual symposium held on October 13, 2023. Topics included intersection of immigration, citizenship and race in alien land laws enacted in U.S. states and their influence on the racial and citizenship makeup of the U.S., alien land laws of the 1920s and cases that challenged them, and Florida's alien land law that prohibits the Chinese from owning land.

In 2021, the Department of Homeland Security issued immigration guidelines that de-emphasized detention and removal of non-citizens who, aside from being undocumented, are otherwise contributing members of communities across the United States. However, Arizona, Montana, Ohio, Texas, and Louisiana challenged these guidelines, launching a nuanced legal dispute that concerned states standing under Article III, prosecutorial discretion, and nationwide preliminary injunctions. In United States v. Texas, the Court ruled 8-1 that the states lacked standing and reversed the Fifth Circuit's nationwide injunction, but the majority opinion failed to address the other legal issues that are pressing on a rife debate about the role of states in federal immigration enforcement. This note contends that permitting states to meddle with federal immigration enforcement could lead to perilous outcomes and erode the integrity of the entire immigration system. Thousands of non-citizens, particularly those emigrating from Central and South America, are affected by the decision of the Supreme Court, and they require a more protective answer to the questions raised in United States v. Texas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When a noncitizen in an expedited removal proceeding has a colorable claim to delay their deportation for fear of torture in their home country, a special review process occurs. Certain noncitizens face an especially stringent procedure-the reasonable fear review hearing, where a noncitizen must navigate a complex legal argument before an immigration judge to show that they meet specific statutory and regulatory criteria for relieffrom or delay of deportation. Congress has specified that noncitizens are entitled to access counsel at this reasonable fear review hearing: yet, all too often, the hearing takes place without anorneys present who were already retained or were willing to represent that noncitizen. In nearly half of all federal circuit courts, this absence ofcounsel before the immigration judge is of no legal significance. This Comment urges the view endorsed by the other half of federal circuits: noncitizens in reasonable fear review hearings are statutorily guaranteed the right to access counsel, and that statutory right is elfectively denied when pro se noncitizens are required to prove prejudice from their lack of representation. While other scholars have argued for the presumption of prejudice when access to counsel is denied in other immigration proceedings, this Comment breaks new ground by extending that presumption to the reasonable fear review hearing noncitizens face in expedited removal with a felony conviction or a reinstated removal order. Presuming prejudice in this context ensures that all noncitizens have the reasonable opportunity to access counsel for reasonable fear review hearings, animating Congress's statutory mandate. This Comment proposes a uniquely administrable safeguard, borrowed from well-settled criminal law: immigration judges should be required to obtain a knowing and voluntary waiver of representation when a noncitizen appears unrepresented. Presuming prejudice upon review where (1) the noncitizen was not represented by counsel and (2) no valid waiver was obtained will impress upon immigration judges the seriousness of the right at issue with only minimal changes to current procedure and even a likely increase in judicial efficiency. Ultimately, this Comment provides additional support for the waiver requirement by exploring the real-world circumstances and consequences of denying access to counsel in a reasonable fear review hearing, the last chance for relief for noncitizens fearing torture upon return to their home country. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on recent Supreme Court and eight Circuit rulings impacting immigration and visa issues. It highlights the Supreme Court's decision that a U.S. citizen does not have a constitutionally protected interest in a noncitizen spouse's visa application, emphasizing the doctrine of consular nonreviewability. It also covers the Court's ruling that initial notices lacking hearing details do not invalidate subsequent notices if they are properly issued.

This article aims to unpack discourses of 'race' and racializations associated with White Western foreign residents in China amid pandemic politics. China's proposal to loosen visa regulations for non‐citizens during the pandemic (February 2020) sparked many racist and nationalistic sentiments online. Since then, exposés of the 'special treatment' foreigners apparently demand during quarantine in China have met significant online backlash. Anti‐foreigner sentiments are at a new high and not only against African migrants, who have been the focus of extant studies. COVID‐19 hit the world at a time of vast international migration into China and China's growing power, and the revival of existing racializations and the ignition of new ones are intricately linked with these phenomena. This article proposes that understanding the conditioning contexts of Chinese postcoloniality and state‐led patriotism can enable valuable insights into the emerging racialization of White Westerners in pandemic‐era China. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following Brazil's "great migration" period (1880–1930) came Getúlio Vargas's rise to power, marking a radical historical rupture. From 1930 onwards, we observed the construction of a framework of restrictive rules aimed at controlling the entry and stay of foreigners in the country, including an ethnically differentiated management of flows. This article sought to cross-reference the new migratory policy, aimed at both new entries and immigrants already present in the territory, with the issue of race. To this end, it dealt with two groups of immigrants whose flows were directly impacted by the new policies (and by racism), but not in the same way: Japanese and Jews. The reflection also turned to the different experiences in each of the two groups between the candidates for immigration—in the face of the new barriers imposed on entry and those already living in Brazil in the face of the assimilationist measures adopted. Brazilian migration policies and state actions have been studied more often than the agency of immigrants. In this sense, the existing studies have focused more on the management of new flows than on the experience of immigrants already settled in the territory. The text, therefore, assumed a change of perspective, opting for a look "from below" in order to focus on both sides of the scales and the border. Finally, it examined the historiography that dealt with migration policy during the Vargas era and, more specifically, that which focused on Jewish and Japanese immigration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Oikos: Lithuanian Migration & Diaspora Studies is the property of Lithuanian Emigration Institute and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article examines cinematic portrayals of immigrant integration in Naples, Italy particularly through documentaries. It emphasizes the complexity of the integration process, exploring emotional dimensions and challenges faced by immigrants in a dynamic societal landscape. It highlights the role of select films in capturing diverse narratives, shedding light on the struggles and cultural clashes experienced by migrants.

The 2013 class action lawsuit Franco-Gonzalez v. Holder in the Central District of California was the single most important advancement in the rights of noncitizens with mental health disabilities facing deportation. The court's decision in that case brought much-needed protections in the form of government-appointed counsel, bond hearings, and other procedural safeguards to a uniquely vulnerable population. To date, no other immigrant group has won this right. Amplifying Franco's importance was that, for the first time, immigration judges had a standardized, precise test for evaluating mental competence and supportive tools such as forensic competency evaluations to assist them where a person's mental condition was unclear. Immigration enforcement and detention apparatuses, for their part, were ordered to engage in mental health information-gathering, mental health screenings, record keeping, and reporting. Ten years after Franco, however, the case and its namesake federal program are failing tens of thousands of immigrants with serious mental health challenges. These individuals are excluded from Franco's ambit for various reasons: some fall outside the case's narrowly defined scope, while others are trapped in the shadowy extra-legal universe of removal proceedings where many noncitizens find themselves. Still other noncitizens fall squarely within Franco's reach but endure extremely prolonged detention times as a direct result of the mental competency process Franco created. Poor training of immigration judges and identification failures by the Department of Homeland Security compound the problems. This Article is the first scholarly piece to criticize Franco. It is also the first to conduct a deep, nuanced analysis of Franco: both the limits of the court's decision, and the failings of the federal program created to implement Franco's mandates. The analysis includes a granular examination of internal government documents obtained from two Freedom of Information Act requests that reveal how the competency "conveyor belt" intersects with detention periods. Finally, this Article offers two possible solutions that would ameliorate some of Franco's harms in attainable ways while offering immediate gains for noncitizens with mental health disabilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of European Review of Public Law is the property of European Public Law Organization and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

For young immigrants who are also college students, the sense of belonging impacts not only their integration in the host society, but their school community as well. Group membership has been associated with the sense of belonging, which in turn impacts the sense of self. Self-esteem, defined as a feeling of self-worth and self-respect, is considered to be fundamental to psychological well-being. This study explores feelings of belonging and membership of noncitizen students and the impact on their mental well-being. Data were drawn from 137 participants across multiple undergraduate campuses across the City University of New York (CUNY) system. Initial findings of the CUNY Belonging Study indicate that, consistent with existing research, noncitizen students' immigration status impacts their ability to form a sense of belonging, and belonging and membership is related to the level of institutional support they receive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2023, the Biden Administration announced its plan to enhance the use of summary removals, which are administered and completed by lowlevel immigration officers without further process unless there is an articulated fear of return by the noncitizen. This fear articulation triggers a fear interview with an asylum officer who determines whether the noncitizen has a credible or reasonable fear of return—a process that the Biden Administration further shortened while effectively imposing a higher fear standard through a recent finalized rule. A negative fear determination results in immediate removal unless the noncitizen requests review by an immigration judge. In 2019, only 15,476 migrants subject to the fear screening process requested review of their negative fear determinations. In most of these reviews, 74.3 percent, the immigration judge affirmed the asylum officer’s negative fear determination, resulting in the humanitarian relief seeker’s deportation as the decision in these reviews is not subject to appeal or further review. This Article seeks to highlight how the lack of clear process in an immigration judge’s review of an asylum officer’s negative fear determination under 8 C.F.R. § 208.30(g) and 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(g) leads to an unchecked judicial discretion that can serve as a barrier to justice and humanitarian relief for those fleeing severe harms in their countries of origin or removal. This Article presents the first sustained examination and critique of the immigration judge review process that grounds decisions to expeditiously return migrants. After a review of the literature on this corner of our immigration system, I present some rare insights into this immigration judge review process based on descriptive data collected from an accompanying national survey of immigration advocates with direct experience in these proceedings. I then argue that that the fear screening process in its current form is in violation of the United States’ international and domestic obligations and should be dismantled. The lack of clearly defined procedures and meaningful standards, and the vast discretion afforded to immigration judges in these proceedings result in egregious failures of both process and substance. In the current process, expediency is championed over accuracy—belying the pretense of humanitarianism and charity that cloaks the entirety of our system of humanitarian protection. Lastly, I present some suggestions for reform to minimize the risk of erroneous fear determinations and ensure a fairer process for all migrants— not just those who win the adjudication lottery by being assigned to an immigration judge who approaches review of asylum an officer’s negative fear determination as the migrant’s legitimate opportunity to be heard and questioned. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Supreme Court's landmark 1971 decision in Graham v. Richardson, which declared noncitizens to be a "discrete and insular minority" under the Equal Protection Clause, catalyzed an extraordinary era of litigation in support of the civil rights of noncitizens. Noncitizens and their attorneys succeeded in overturning hundreds of discriminatory laws through court challenge or legislative lobbying, drawing directly on a tradition of Black civil rights advocacy. They transformed the doctrine of equal protection, convincing courts that aliens should be protected from invidious state discrimination. Yet after just a few years, the inclusion of noncitizens in equal protection doctrine took a surprising turn, as the Court backtracked from expansive protections and created an exceptional "dual standard" for alienage discrimination. As a result, noncitizens were pushed outside the fold of robust Fourteenth Amendment protection. Today, states continue to bar immigrants -- both documented and undocumented -- from a wide range of professions, economic activities, and forms of political engagement, based on their lack of citizenship. This article is the first legal history to examine equal protection doctrine as it relates to noncitizens during this pivotal era. Drawing on extensive primary source material from the archives of advocacy organizations, the papers of Supreme Court Justices, and more, the article looks at the development of doctrine from the standpoint of the litigants and lawyers who made the movement. In so doing, it provides crucial context for understanding the history of the Equal Protection Clause and the continued struggles for immigrant rights today. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite their prominent role in the Return Directive and the constitution of the common European border regime, entry bans and their role in the governance of unwanted mobility remain largely unexamined in migration research. Entry bans accompany removal decisions for non-compliant or criminalised non-citizens, applying by default in the whole Schengen area, excluding EU citizens and legally residing third-country nationals, who receive national bans. In this article, drawing from my research on the immigration detention system in Finland, I discuss how entry bans sanction and irregularise movement mainly inside Europe, complicate non-citizens' regularisation, and affect their mobility strategies. Despite also being intertwined with crime control in Finland, national entry bans seem largely ineffective in preventing unwanted mobility inside the Schengen area: many Estonian citizens, in particular, are detained and removed from Finland several times a year. Notwithstanding the Europe-wide effect intended in the Return Directive, national entry bans issued alongside Schengen bans reintroduce borders inside Europe. Furthermore, by prolonging the duration of removal orders for years, entry bans establish individual borders that may be faced in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista de Derecho Penal y Criminologia is the property of Editorial UNED and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Hungary has a unique role in international migration. The research introduces the facts and figures about foreign-born population in Hungary, focusing on migrants arriving to Hungary from the Carpathian Basin and their geographical networks, revealing the source areas of migration. The analysis interprets those involved in international migration in broad terms; as such, it is not focused solely on the movements of foreign citizens, but rather examines the effects of migration together with the naturalized Hungarians born abroad. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Due to the decreasing population growth rate, some cities have struggled to increase their populations, and attracting foreigners as residents may be considered an alternative solution to this problem. The present study aims to investigate the relationships among the city image as a tourism city, place identity, quality of life domains, overall life satisfaction, and intention to recommend short- or long-term overseas migration to a city while controlling for respondent characteristics. Using a data set obtained from a foreign resident survey conducted by the metropolitan government of Seoul, South Korea, this study finds that despite differences in the influences of the explanatory variables, the intention to recommend overseas migration is most strongly related to place identity, followed by city image. Of the quality of life domains, the influence of the social environment is the strongest and positive, while residential environment and educational environment are negatively related. The theoretical and practical implications for attracting foreign migrants to a city are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the transformations in the frameworks of reflection and action that promoted territorial documentation policies, developed in coordination between the National Direction of Migration and the provincial and municipal governments in the southern area of Greater Buenos Aires, Argentina. Based on an ethnographic approach to the activities of a local office, the Dirección de Entidades y Colectividades de La Plata, and interviews with its main managers, we focus on the interrelation between documentation policies and the visibility (and production) of the electoral potential of foreigners that crystallized during the implementation of these programs. Unlike the literature that focuses on the analysis of the intentions (explicit or implicit) of the laws and projects, and on the difficulties encountered in achieving the purposes stated in them, the originality of the article is given by its monitoring of positions, relationships, languages, and objects that were produced (to some extent unexpectedly) during their implementation. This strategy reveals that the documentary programs and the officials who carry them out have gradually become part of the networks of the so-called territorial policy, in which the relevance assigned to foreigners has increased. The fundamental shift in this dynamic is the progressive recognition of its electoral potential and the conceptualization of the migration issue as an area of strategic dispute for local and provincial political life. Thus, the main conclusion is that throughout the implementation of these programs, migration policy became politicized; that is, it acquired a "political" status in the consideration of different relevant actors. This recognition lasted even after document operations were discontinued in 2016 and was part of their reinstatement in 2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this article is to analyse the Polish legislature's activity during the state of emergency in the field of curbing illegal migration. The thesis of the article states that the introduction of the state of emergency on the Polish-Belarusian border facilitated the legal changes aimed at reducing the scale of illegal migration on the border and their implementation. The proposed changes brought about new solutions that provided, for example, for the obligation to immediately leave the territory of Poland, issuance of a decision obliging a foreigner to return when he/she crossed or attempted to cross the border illegally, or construction of a wall on the Polish-Belarusian border. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Do discriminatory US immigration policies affect foreign public opinion about Americans? When examining negative reactions to US actions perceived as bullying on the world stage, existing research has focused either on US policies that involve direct foreign military intervention or seek to influence foreign countries' domestic economic policy or policies advocating minority representation. We argue that US immigration policies – especially when they are perceived as discriminatory – can similarly generate anti-American sentiment. We use a conjoint experiment embedded in a unique survey of Nigerian expatriates in Ghana. Comparing respondents before and after President Trump surpisingly announced a ban on Nigerian immigration to the United States, we find a large drop (13 percentage points) in Nigerian's favorability towards Americans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent times, many mainland Chinese are taking up employment or immigration opportunities outside China. With the accumulation of personal wealth in China, more of such movement of human capital can be expected. However, at the same time, the Chinese tax authorities are increasing their attempts to enforce Chinese law on Chinese working outside mainland China by requiring them to report overseas income and comply with China's Individual Income Tax Law. The threat of "double taxation" will inevitably affect the decisions of those who are looking for overseas employment opportunities and those who are currently working abroad. This article examines the tax consequences of both outbound and inbound cross-border employment from China's perspective. By comparing the income tax rules applicable to different groups of cross-border employees, the article will highlight the discriminatory treatment of Chinese cross-border employees and propose measures to better facilitate the cross-border movement of human resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the status of unlawful conditions of confinement in U.S. immigration detention. Topics discussed are protection of detained noncitizens from punitive detention conditions under the Fifth Amendment due process clause, lack of civil rights remedies for addressing unconstitutional conditions of confinement of noncitizens and alternative vehicles including injunctive relief, Administrative Procedure Act and complaints via the Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman.

This research addresses the portrait of happiness of the American and European migrant from the cinematographic point of view. 2019 exceeded 271 million migrants in the world, 3.5% of the global population, according to the Migration Data Portal. This study aims to provide data for reflection on the reception of foreigners in receiving countries. Some of the main films on immigration have been selected for this work, that met the four criteria that we required for our sample: current films (21st century or very close to it), well received by the public, focused on the American or European migratory experience and directed by well-known. The concept of happiness has been investigated, a dissertation that crystallizes in the elaboration of an analysis sheet, to examine, according to the cinematographic representation, the happiness of the immigrant. The first conclusions suggest that both the European and American immigrant shown on the screen enjoy little happiness, since both America and Europe are closed to helping the foreigner with migratory policies represented by the cinema as cruel and inhumane. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective of the article is to describe the living conditions of the international migrant population and their practices of use of urban public spaces in the city of Temuco, Chile. Under a nonexperimental, exploratory-descriptive and quantitative design, a survey was applied to a sample of Temuco's foreigner residents (n = 200), using descriptive statistics for the analysis. The results indicate that the local real estate market shows incipient signs of exclusion, while low rates of use of urban spaces are observed. These evidences are probably related to the recent nature of migratory flows in the city. The article contributes to the discussion about the relationship between urban space and migration from a statistical approach to the intermediate cities of southern Chile, still understudied. It is concluded that it is necessary to analyze the specific realities of neighborhoods to arrive at more conclusive answers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on Domingo Faustino Sarmiento's perspective on Italian immigration to Buenos Aires between 1880-1888, particularly highlighting his concerns about the significant Italian presence and their potential to form a "State within the State" and a "Italian Homeland in Buenos Aires." Sarmiento sees the Italians, who maintain their foreign status, as a danger to the political, media, and educational spheres, expressing worries about their reluctance to naturalize.

Copyright of Revista Digital de Derecho Administrativo is the property of Universidad Externado de Colombia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Several academic fields study how immigrants choose their place of residence when moving to, or within destination countries. Existing studies, however, focus on isolated factors, and we do not know whether political factors matter once we have accounted for well-established determinants. This paper examines the extent to which political factors, such as voting rights for foreign citizens, citizenship policies and popular support for right-populist parties, influence internal mobility decisions of newly-arrived immigrants, relative to other variables. We draw on a 2020 conjoint experiment in Switzerland (N = 1596 participants) in the context of a larger survey of foreign citizens who arrived in Switzerland in the preceding 15 years. The conjoint experiment provides data on the causal effects of contextual factors on mobility decisions, allowing us to assess their relative importance. We show that inclusive political reception contexts constitute a pull factor for immigrants. Exploratory analysis indicates that the size of the effect of the political reception context on residential location choice depends on educational achievement, income, legal status, a feeling of belonging to Switzerland and social networks. We conclude that studies of immigrant location choice should routinely consider political factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Noncitizens in immigration proceedings are often subject to civil detention pending a final decision on their case. Transgender individuals in immigration detention are at high risk for physical and sexual assault, cruel and degrading treatment, denial of necessary medical care, and protective isolation. The well-documented harms caused to transgender individuals in detention violate Fifth Amendment substantive due process. This Article documents the harms of immigration detention specific to the transgender community, reviews substantive due process jurisprudence in the civil detention context, and analogizes Eighth Amendment claims for transgender prisoners to substantive due process claims. Immigration detention is predicated on the government's interest in noncitizens app earing for their hearings. The Article concludes by exploring alternatives to detention that are effective enough to safeguard the government's interest while promoting the fair application of our immigration laws and safeguarding the rights of transgender noncitizens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses court cases on refugees and international refugee law. In BHL19 v. Commonwealth of Australia, the Federal Court of Australia referred to section 198 of the Migration Act to remove an non-citizen from Australia. In FCZ20 v. Minister for Home Affairs, the court ruled that it is not obliged to conduct a non-refoulement assessment under the Migration Act. In Plaintiff M1/2021 v. Minister for Home Affairs, the court denied relief to a South Sudanese citizen.

This article discusses how administrative practices shape immigration detention policies, addressing both administrative discretion in detention orders and their judicial supervision. Due to vaguely formulated legal criteria and ineffective ex‐post judicial supervision, the authorities have considerable discretionary powers in ordering detentions for noncompliant and criminalized noncitizens. Instead of being a measure of last resort, immigration detention is used in a routine manner, with little individual assessment, for the enforcement of removals and the prevention of irregular migration, as well as extensively for crime prevention. The findings demonstrate the role of the police as the main actor in the detention system in Finland, with significant implications for the formation of detention policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Immigrant integration is a key concern in migration research. Yet, recent critiques argue that "immigrant integration" amounts to a neo-colonial form of governance and that scholarship needs to study the discourse of integration, rather than operationalize integration as analytical tool. Drawing on ethnographic research in Nairobi, this article engages and develops these critiques in two ways. It discusses how the notion "integration" is used as a "category of practice" in relation to privileged migrants, so-called expats, in ways that reflect personal anxieties and aspirations, uneven power relations and structural inequalities. Further, the article suggests "provincializing" integration as a way forward: (re)visiting "integration discourse" from its constitutive objects, others, and silences. This requires placing more centrally the voices of those assumedly in need of integration and examining how integration is formulated, practized and contested also in relation to privileged migration and in the Global South. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We evaluate the complexity of temporary migration schemes in contrast to the longstanding approach to immigration as a key aspect of nation‐building in settler societies. Until the early 1990s, predominantly one‐way, permanent immigration schemes were preferred in settler societies such as Australia. In an increasingly fluid global context, temporary migrants are more susceptible to forms of abuse and exploitation in a host society, with fewer forms of redress due to their status as non‐citizens and non‐permanent residents. Taking a specific focus upon Australia, we contextualize the experiences of temporary migrants both prior to and under the conditions of COVID‐19. Our key argument is that temporary migration schemes are organised and structured not only to favour states, as well as employers and businesses, but that the stripping back of rights to those who enter these schemes is a deliberative aspect of the state approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Vast research on immigration lumps together native citizens' attitudes toward two different groups: the immigrant stock of non-naturalized resident aliens, and the immigrant flow, that is, the future arrival of foreigners seeking to enter and live in the country. Does popular opposition to immigration distinguish between the two, and if so, how? This article analyzes theoretically the reasons the stock and flow might induce different views among natives, and presents experimental evidence from the United States showing that natives are systematically more accepting of the former. The analysis indicates that this 'stock premium' partly stems from a sense of moral obligation toward people residing in the country. Replicating two widely cited experiments, the study shows that the stock–flow distinction has important implications for the interpretation of earlier findings on immigration attitudes, and for understanding voter preferences regarding policies designed to curtail immigration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One important theme that has emerged recently in research concerning exile, migration, and return-migration is the concept of "belonging", a concept that is quickly destabilising the emphasis on identity. This article will demonstrate the heuristic significance of research concerning belonging for Biblical scholars, focusing on the negative stereotypical identity labels, "the foreigner" and "the eunuch" in Isaiah 56:1–8. It will emphasise the crucial importance of using clear and differentiated analytical language and will illustrate how doing so enables us to perceive new nuances and shades of meaning in the Biblical text. We will emphasise the importance of elective attachment in Isaiah 56:1–8 and will emphasise the significance of recognising that identity labels such as "foreigner" are constructed and unstable. The article surveys material concerning belonging and demonstrates its significance for rethinking and reframing the polemic against ethnic entitlement and exclusionary language. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recently, in Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, the Supreme Court upheld 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2), a statutory provision placing restrictions on certain noncitizens from seeking habeas review in the federal judiciary. The Court focused on the Constitution's Suspension Clause, but it also discussed the Due Process Clause, declaring that there was no violation there either. One question which flows from this decision is whether the federal courts will soon be precluded from hearing other types of claims brought by noncitizens. Consider ineffective assistance of counsel petitions, which in the immigration law context are rooted in the Due Process Clause. Some circuit courts of appeals have held that a specific agency within the Department of Justice--the Board of Immigration Appeals--has the sole, final decision-making authority on these claims. Other circuit courts, in contrast, have stated that because IAC petitions are constitutional in nature, noncitizens are entitled to take BIA decisions to Article III appellate courts. As this study shows, statutory text, precedent, and the inscrutability of many of the BIA's rulings support the notion that the federal circuit courts should retain jurisdiction in these cases--even given Thuraissigiam. By creating a unique dataset containing 1,615 cases, this study empirically evaluates those publicly available ineffective assistance of counsel judgments delivered by the BIA. The results reveal that the BIA's holdings often are summarily issued and lack detailed explanation, with the government prevailing in most instances. With the stakes so high, it is imperative that Article III circuit courts are able to independently review these ineffective assistance cases, especially before the finality of a negative immigration order takes effect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]