Audrey Singer – Immigrant Workers, Human Capital Investment and Strengthening Regional Economies

[nggallery id=38]

 

Seminar to be held on Monday, March 4th in ERC 115 at 12:00 pm.

Coming out of the Great Recession, slow economic recovery has U.S. communities seeking strategies that will grow jobs in the short term and improve standards of living over the long term. This talk focuses on immigrants in the labor force and their skills, an especially relevant topic given that debates about immigration policy reform have started.  How geographic regions can invest in the human capital and economic advancement of immigrants who are already living in their jurisdictions, to help boost short- and long-term U.S. economic growth, will be discussed.

Immigrant skills-0025Audrey Singer is a senior fellow at the Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program. Her areas of expertise include demography, international migration, U.S. immigration policy, and urban and metropolitan change. She has written extensively on U.S. immigration trends, including immigrant integration, undocumented migration, naturalization and citizenship, and the changing racial and ethnic composition of the United States. Her co-edited book, Twenty-First Century Gateways: Immigrant Incorporation in Suburban America, focuses on the fastest growing immigrant populations among second-tier metropolitan areas including Washington, DC, Atlanta, Dallas, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Sacramento, and Charlotte.  Other Brookings publications include, “The Geography of Immigrant Skills,” “State of Metropolitan America: on the Front Lines of Demographic Transformation,” “Immigrants, Politics, and Local Response in Suburban Washington,” “The Rise of New Immigrant Gateways,” and “From ‘Here’ to ‘There:’ Refugee Resettlement in Metropolitan America.”  Her articles have appeared in academic journals such as International Migration Review, Demography, Urban Geography, Geographical Review, and Ethnic and Racial Studies and her commentary has appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN.com, Baltimore Sun, Christian Science Monitor, Seattle Times and Vanguardia Dossier.  Prior to joining Brookings, Singer was an associate in the International Migration Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Prior to Carnegie, she held a faculty position in the Department of Demography at Georgetown University, and was a demographic analyst at the U.S. Department of Labor. She was chair of the International Migration Section of the American Sociological Association in 2010.  Singer earned a Ph.D. in sociology, with a specialization in demography, from the University of Texas at Austin. She has an M.A. in sociology also from the University of Texas at Austin and a B.A. in sociology from Temple University. She conducted postdoctoral research at the University of Chicago.

 

Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar – The Political Economies of Immigration Law

[nggallery id=37]

 

Seminar to be held on Monday, January 28th in ERC 115 at 12:00 pm.

A largely dysfunctional American immigration system is only poorly explained by simple depictions of the political economy of lawmaking in this area, blaming functional economic policy-setting, longstanding public attitudes, explicit presidential discretion, or general gridlock. Instead, the structure of immigration law emerges from intersecting effects of three separate political economies – statutory compromises rooted in the political economy of lawmaking, organizational practices reflecting the political economy of implementation, and public reactions implicating the responses of policy elites and the larger public to each other. Together, these factors help constitute an immigration status quo of continuing legal controversies as well as powerful obstacles to change: (1) Particularly since 1986, American immigration statutes have created a legal arrangement essentially built to fail, giving authorities regulatory responsibilities that were all but impossible to achieve under existing law. (2) Implementation has been characterized by organizational fragmentation, with policy changes involving one agency producing externalities not owned by that agency, alongside limited presidential power to change enforcement or implementation. At the same time, (3) the interplay of unrealistic statutory goals, enforcement patterns, and public attitudes engenders a polarizing implementation dynamic, where agencies’ incapacity to enforce existing law tends to spur polarized responses producing legislation that exacerbates agency difficulties in meeting public expectations, without giving interested parties enough of a reason to support an alternative.

The resulting cycle favors expansion in the provision of border enforcement resources, a development supported or at least tolerated by most political actors yet failing to address the core institutional dysfunction in the system, while locking in most other features of the status quo. Beyond what these developments tell us about immigration law, they also reveal much about (a) how statutory entrenchment in the United States is affected by political cycles capable of eroding the legitimacy of public agencies, and (b) how powerful nation-states control, in limited but nonetheless significant ways, the transnational flows affecting their well-being and security.

Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar works at the intersection of law, public policy, and political science.  A member of the Stanford Law School faculty since 2001, he is currently Professor and Deane F. Johnson Faculty Scholar at Stanford Law School, Professor (by courtesy) of Political Science, and the Co-Director of Stanford’s Center for International Security and Cooperation.  His research and teaching focus on administrative law, executive power, and how organizations implement regulatory responsibilities involving public health and safety, migration, and international security in a changing world.  In July 2010, the President appointed him to the Council of the Administrative Conference of the United States, an independent agency charged with improving the efficiency and fairness of federal regulatory programs.  He also serves on the Department of Education’s National Commission on Educational Equity and Excellence, and the Department of State’s Advisory Sub-Committee on Economic Sanctions.

From early 2009 through the summer of 2010, he served as Special Assistant to the President for Justice and Regulatory Policy at the White House.  In this capacity, he led the Domestic Policy Council’s work on criminal justice and drug policy, public health and food safety, regulatory reform, borders and immigration, civil rights, and rural and agricultural policy.  Among other issues, Cuéllar worked on stricter food safety standards, the FDA’s regulatory science initiative, expanding support for local law enforcement and community-based crime prevention, strengthening border coordination and immigrant integration, and the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review.  Before working at the White House, he co-chaired the Obama-Biden Transition’s Immigration Policy Working Group.  During the second term of the Clinton Administration, he worked at the U.S. Department of the Treasury as Senior Advisor to the Under Secretary for Enforcement, where he focused on countering financial crime, improving border coordination, and enhancing anti-corruption measures.  He is on the Board of Directors of the Constitution Project, a non-profit think-tank that builds bipartisan consensus on significant constitutional issues.  He clerked for Chief Judge Mary M. Schroeder of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Chris Haynes – Empathy & Immigration Policy Preferences: The Interactive Pathway for Permissive Change

[nggallery id=36]

 

Seminar to be held on Monday, November 26th in ERC 115 at 12:00 pm

Social psychology research has shown that priming both emotion-giving and perspective-taking empathy can increase positive attitudes towards other groups.  Yet, political scientists have yet to explore the attitudinal implications of this emotional construct in a political context.  However, in a previous pilot study of students,  Chris Haynes finds evidence that empathy can have a permissive effect on people’s immigration policy preferences.  Here, he builds on these insights by presenting the results of two experiments, one laboratory and one online M-Turk, which evaluate the following expectations:  First, he argues that while empathy is multidimensional, empathic effects on immigration policy preferences depend largely on the presence of both emotion-giving and perspective-taking empathy.  Second,  he asserts that these effects will be moderated by the permissive effects of dispositional empathy.    In the first laboratory study of temp agency supplied participants from California, he finds that dispositional empathy moderates permissive change as expected.   In the second national M-Turk study, he finds support for his interactive understanding of empathy in addition to dispositional empathy as a moderator.  He then discusses the implications of these findings.

Chris Haynes is a PhD candidate in Political Science from the University of California, Riverside and CCIS Pre-Doctoral Fellow.  His NSF-funded dissertation examines the effects of empathy in the context of immigration policy preferences.  More broadly, his research includes a book manuscript on the framing effects on public opinion on immigration, working papers on Asian-American co-ethnic linked fate, the implications of ethnic media consumption on the political knowledge of Latinos, Asian-Americans, and African-Americans, and work with the second iteration of the National Asian American Survey.

 

Book Discussion with Stephanie Limoncelli

[nggallery id=34]

 

Book discussion to be held on Monday, October 22nd in ERC 115 at 12:00 pm

The Politics of Trafficking: The First International Movement to Combat the Sexual Exploitation of Women

Sex trafficking is not a recent phenomenon. Over 100 years ago, the first international traffic in women for prostitution emerged, prompting a worldwide effort to combat it. The Politics of Trafficking provides a unique look at the history of that first anti-trafficking movement, illuminating the role gender, sexuality, and national interests play in international politics.

Initially conceived as a global humanitarian effort to protect women from sexual exploitation, the movement’s feminist-inspired vision failed to achieve its universal goal and gradually gave way to nationalist concerns over “undesirable” migrants and state control over women themselves. Addressing an issue that is still of great concern today, this book sheds light on the ability of international non-governmental organizations to challenge state power, the motivations for state involvement in humanitarian issues pertaining to women, and the importance of gender and sexuality to state officials engaged in nation building.

Stephanie A. Limoncelli is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology at Loyola Marymount University and a former Research Associate at the International Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Nadia Y. Flores-Yeffal – Migration-Trust Networks: Social Cohesion in Mexican U.S.-Bound Emigration

[nggallery id=33]

 

Seminar to be held on Tuesday, June 5th in ERC 115 at 12:30 pm

In this research, Professor Nadia Y. Flores-Yeffal uses ethnographic longitudinal data collected in the state of Guanajuato, Mexico as well as the U.S. to introduce the concept of Migration-Trust Networks (MTN) from a transnational perspective. The concept contributes to the existing social capital theories of international migration by defining the particularities that characterize the social networks of migration in which a large number of migrants from Mexico to the U.S. lack legal documentation. She specifies membership requirements to participate in a MTN for those who migrate from rural and urban places of origin. Religion, paisanaje, bounded solidarity, and enforceable trust are among the social mechanisms that influence the behavior of network participants to act collectively, trust one another, and offer mutual support in the challenges of migration. Assisting fellow migrants is expected of MTN members, while reciprocating the assistance is not. Instead, a form of risk pooling occurs in which migrants “return” favors by helping future migrants. The social structure of a MTN and the dependency on relationships of trust among its members allow for collective efficacy to form and serve as a safe haven for those who lack legal documents. Social expectations and social monitoring are maintained in the transnational context using modern technology such as cell phones and the internet. Flores-Yeffal provides a theoretical and empirical proposition of how and why the Migration-Trust Networks are able to expand by absorbing new members in a process she calls “the MTN effect.” She also argues that micro and macro social forces function simultaneously in the transnational context in order to develop, expand and/or transplant Migration-Trust Networks.

Nadia Y. Flores-Yeffal is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology at Texas A&M University. She received her B.A. in Social Science from University of California Irvine, her M.A. in Demography and Ph.D. in Sociology from University of Pennsylvania. Her primary research interests include social capital, segregation, and transnational ties among Latin-American immigrants in the U.S., the role of modern technology in spreading anti-immigrant sentiment in the U.S., as well as the upward mobility of Latinos in the United States. Her research has been supported through her affiliation with the Mexican Migration Project and the Latin-American Migration Project at Princeton University, by the Mellon Foundation, “Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología” (CONACYT), and by the Mexican American and U.S. Latino Research Center at Texas A&M University. Her first book, entitled Migration-Trust Networks: social cohesion in Mexican-U.S. bound emigration, is being published by Texas A&M University Press. She is also currently writing her second book on international migration from El Salvador.

 

Michael Hiscox – The IMPALA Database Project

[nggallery id=32]

 

Seminar to be held on Thursday, May 31st in ERC 115 at 12:30 pm.

Governments adopt a variety of approaches to regulating immigration, and make adjustments to these policies frequently. But currently there exist no comprehensive, cross-nationally comparable data on immigration laws and policies and how they have changed over time. This is a major problem for ongoing research on the determinants and impacts of immigration policies. The project is aimed at addressing this problem by compiling and analyzing comparable data on immigration laws and policies in 26 major recipient countries from 1960 until the present, with annual updates to follow.  The project is examining major categories of immigration law and policy, covering the acquisition of citizenship, economic migration, family reunification, asylum and refugee protection, students, and policies relating to undocumented migration and border control. It will also collect data on policies relating to the integration of immigrants into the host country, including government programs providing assistance and language training. Regulations are coded for each country annually to generate comparable measures along key dimensions, including indexes of the restrictiveness of each country’s laws and policies relating to acquisition of citizenship, economic migration, treatment of asylum seekers and refugees, and border control, and measures of the extent to which regulations favor particular categories of immigrants based upon occupational skills, education, ethnicity, and gender.

Michael J. Hiscox is the Clarence Dillon Professor of International Affairs in the Department of Government in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard University. He is also a faculty associate at the Institute for Quantitative Social Science, the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, and the Harvard University Center for the Environment, and co-leader of the Harvard-MIT Private Governance Research Group. His research focuses on international trade, foreign investment, immigration, development, government accountability, and private sector initiatives and standards for addressing social and environmental issues in global supply chains.


Robbie Totten – Security and United States Immigration Policy

[nggallery id=30]

 

Seminar to be held on Tuesday, May 8th in ERC 115 at 12:30 pm.

What is the relationship between security and immigration to the U.S? How have security objectives factored into U.S. immigration policy? These questions are significant for the U.S. because the volume of international migration has been increasing in recent decades and many analysts argue that without sound policy planning immigration can for America serve as a source of conflict with foreign states, tax the ability of its domestic systems to assimilate diverse peoples without violence, and expose its citizens and immigrants to crime, contagious disease, and terrorism. This talk will address these questions and present the strategic logic for U.S. immigration policy by identifying three general categories of security objectives that American officials have attempted to reach with immigration from the colonial era to the present-day: (1) foreign relations, (2) material and military interests, and (3) domestic security (prevent crime, espionage, and terrorism; epidemics; and ethnic violence). The discussions of the categories will draw from International Relations (IR) and Security Studies theories, primary sources, and works by demographers and historians to specify the relationships amongst the security areas and immigration, identify policy instruments used by leaders to influence immigration for security, and present historical cases of U.S. immigration policies designed for security purposes. The talk will conclude with discussing its implications for immigration research and contemporary policy.

Robbie Totten is a doctoral candidate in the UCLA Department of Political Science and the pre-doctoral fellow here at the CCIS. He received his BA in Political Science from Duke University and he has published articles in the Journal of Interdisciplinary History and Diplomatic History. Totten’s dissertation is titled, “Security and United States Immigration Policy,” and his research interests include, demography and security, foreign relations and state migration policies, nontraditional security threats, geopolitics and international migration, refugee crises, and U.S. immigration policy history.


Research Seminar with Patrick Ettinger & Kelly Lytle Hernandez

[nggallery id=26]

 

Seminar to be held on Tuesday, February 21st in ERC 115 at 12:30 pm.

“`Something there is that doesn’t love a wall’:  Late Nineteenth-Century Border Crossings and the Imperatives of American Border Control”

Federal laws restricting the entry of certain migrants into the United States, initially imposed in the late nineteenth century, unsurprisingly occasioned the first efforts to evade those restrictions.  Among other responses, smugglers and immigrants from around the globe began to make use of routes into the United States that crossed the Canadian and Mexican borders.  American officials responded by attempting to institute border-crossing regulations and border guards.  This, of course, meant determining what exactly an effective border would look like.  This talk considers the visions of proper border enforcement that developed among American immigration officials, policy makers, and the media in the decades before the creation of the U.S. Border Patrol in 1924.

Dr. Patrick Ettinger grew up in southern California and studied in the Great Books Program at the University of Notre Dame, graduating with a B.A. in 1986.  He earned his PhD in History from Indiana University in 2000, where his dissertation research focused on undocumented immigration and early border enforcement efforts on the Canadian and Mexican borders at the turn of the 20th century.  He has given various professional papers and published excerpts from his research in the Western Historical Quarterly. His book, Imaginary Lines:  Border Enforcement and the Origins of Undocumented Immigration, was published by the University of Texas Press in 2009 and named a finalist for the William P. Clements Prize for the Best Non-Fiction Book on Southwestern America.  Currently, he is Professor of History at Sacramento State University, where he regularly teaches courses in American immigration history, the history of the American West, and oral history.  He also serves as the director of his department’s Public History Master’s Program.

“Migra! A History of the US Border Patrol”

Migra! chronicles the untold history of the United States Border Patrol from its beginnings in 1924 as a small peripheral outfit to its emergence as a large professional police force. It is based upon a gold mine of lost and unseen records stored in garages, closets, an abandoned factory, and in U.S. and Mexican archives. Focusing on the daily challenges of policing the borderlands and bringing to light unexpected partners and forgotten dynamics, Migra! reveals how the U.S. Border Patrol translated the mandate for

Kelly Lytle Hernandez is associate professor in the UCLA Department of History and Associate Co-Director of the National Center for History in the Schools. Her research interests are in twentieth-century U.S. history with a concentration upon race, migration, and police and prison systems in the American West and U.S.-Mexico borderlands. Her new book, MIGRA! A History of the U.S. Border Patrol (University of California Press, 2010) is the first book to tell the story of how and why the U.S. Border Patrol concentrates its resources upon policing unsanctioned Mexican immigration despite the many possible targets and strategies of U.S. migration control. Her current research focuses upon exploring the social world of incarceration in Los Angeles between 1876 and 1965.

* Light refreshments will be provided

Jane Junn – How to Study Public Opinion in a Diverse Polity: Political Attitudes on Immigration in the U.S.

[nggallery id=22]

 

Seminar to be held on Tuesday, February 7th in ERC 115 at 12:30 pm.

The study of the contours and antecedents of U.S. public opinion on immigration has been characterized by several strategies: 1) analyzing differences between whites and African Americans only; 2) controlling for race when estimating inferential models by using dummy variables; 3) utilizing models of white opinion to explain attitudes among minority Americans; and 4) analyzing one racial or ethnic group in isolation. Professor Junn argues that these approaches are insufficient to both the descriptive and inferential task facing analysts of public opinion in a diverse American polity. Instead, she advocates a comparative relational approach that considers the opinions of all Americans, and generates hypotheses based on the interactive and historically-grounded experiences of racial groups in the United States. With this approach, she develops a theory of the political context of racial structural positionality and articulate how this context and the development of racialization structures agency  and constraint for Americans classified by race.

Jane Junn is Professor of Political Science at the University of Southern California. She is the author of four books on political participation in the U.S. Her first book, Education and Democratic Citizenship in America (with Norman Nie and Ken Stehlik-Barry, University of Chicago Press, 1996), won the Woodrow Wilson Foundation award from the American Political Science Association for the best book published in political science. She is also the author of Civic Education: What Makes Students Learn (with Richard G. Niemi, Yale University Press, 1998), New Race Politics: Understanding Minority and Immigrant Politics (edited with Kerry L. Haynie, Cambridge University Press, 2008), and Asian American Political Participation: Emerging Constituents and their Political Identities (with Janelle Wong, Karthick Ramakrishnan and Taeku Lee, Russell Sage Foundation, 2011). This most recent book is based on data from the 2008 National Asian American Survey. She is currently at work with Natalie Masuoka on a book on political attitudes in the U.S. entitled Conditional Welcome: Public Opinion on Immigration and the Politics of Belonging.

Jane has been Vice President of the American Political Science Association, a Fulbright Senior Scholar and a recipient of an Outstanding Teacher Award from Columbia University Teachers College. She was a member of the Social Science Research Council National Research Commission on Elections and Voting and a member of the National Academy of Science Committee on the U.S. Naturalization Test Redesign. She was the director of the USC – Los Angeles Times Poll during the 2010 California election.

* Light refreshments will be provided

Erik Bleich – The Freedom to Be Racist? How the United States and Europe Struggle to Preserve Freedom and Combat Racism

[nggallery id=21]

Seminar to be held on Thursday, January 26th in ERC 201 at 12:30 pm.

We love freedom. We hate racism. But what do we do when these values collide? This talk, based on the speaker’s 2011 book of the same title, advances descriptive, explanatory, and normative arguments. It explores policies that the United States, Britain, France, Germany, and other liberal democracies have implemented when forced to choose between preserving freedom and combating racism. Using a comparative historical approach, it reveals that while most liberal democracies have increased restrictions on racist speech, groups, and actions since the end of World War II, this trend has resembled a slow creep more than a slippery slope. Outcomes have varied across time and place, however, and have been less the product of differences in minority mobilization, constitutional law, or culture, than of conjunctures of factors in particular political contexts. From a normative standpoint, it develops a framework for evaluating the extent to which policy responses are proportionate to the level of harm the racism inflicts. It also asserts that the best way for societies to preserve freedom while fighting racism is through processes of public deliberation that involve citizens in decisions that impact the core values of liberal democracies.

Erik Bleich is professor of political science at Middlebury College in Vermont. His most recent book is The Freedom to Be Racist? How the United States and Europe Struggle to Preserve Freedom and Combat Racism (Oxford University Press, 2011). He is also the author of Race Politics in Britain and France: Ideas and Policymaking since the 1960s (Cambridge University Press, 2003), the editor of Muslims and the State in the Post-9/11 West (Routledge, 2010), and the author of articles on race, ethnicity, and policymaking in liberal democracies that have appeared in journals such as Comparative Political Studies, Comparative Politics, the European Political Science Review, Theory & Society, and World Politics.

* Light refreshments will be provided