May 12-18: The Summer Course on Refugee and Forced Migration Issues

The Summer Course on Refugee and Forced Migration Issues is an internationally acclaimed seven-day, non-credit course for academic and field-based practitioners working in the area of forced migration. It serves as a hub for researchers, students, practitioners, service providers and policy makers to share information and ideas.  The Summer Course is housed within the Centre for Refugee Studies, York University. All participants who complete the full course receive a York University Centre for Refugee Studies Summer Course Certificate.

Dates: May 12-18, 2014
Location: York University, Toronto, Canada Course Fee: $1400 CAD +13%HST (until April 1, 2014)

2014 Summer Course topics will include:

  •  Forced displacement: International case studies
  • Legal approaches to refugee studies
  • UNHCR, the Convention and the international refugee regime
  • Humanitarian aid: a comparative perspective
  • Refugee resettlement policy
  • Urban refugees
  • Internally displaced populations
  • Age, gender and diversity mainstreaming in forced migration
  • Sexual minority claims
  • Environmentally-induced displacement
  • Externalization of asylum
  • Transitional justice
  • Detention practices

 

For more information, and to apply, please visit our website at http://crs.yorku.ca/summer/

Angela S. Garcia Publishes Article in the Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies

CCIS Graduate Student and PhD Candidate in Sociology Angela S. Garcia has published an article in the Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies.

The paper, titled “Hidden in Plain Sight: How Unauthorized Migrants Strategically Assimilate in Restrictive Localities in California” (download), shows how the immediate legal contexts of receiving communities of unauthorized Mexican immigrants.

 

 

March 3 – U.S. and Foreign STEM PhD’s: Jobs and Workforce (Mis)Matches – CCIS Seminar

CCIS Winter Seminar Series
U.S. and Foreign STEM PhD’s:
Job Preferences, Job Availability and Workforce (Mis)Matches

 


Please join Michael Roach & discussant Kim Barrett, Dean of Graduate Studies at UCSD for this illuminating seminar on immigration and the state of the STEM PhD workforce.Debates regarding immigration reform have highlighted the widening imbalance between the public and private sector STEM PhD workforce. Some argue that the growing number of STEM PhD’s has made it increasingly difficult for graduates to find desirable jobs, forcing them to pursue temporary postdoctoral positions or employment in the private sector in lieu of more preferred faculty careers.On the other hand, there is a rising chorus from both policy makers and firms over the need for a larger STEM PhD workforce in the private sector, with some looking toward immigration reform as an immediate means to satisfy the growing demand for highly skilled workers through the hiring of foreign-born doctorates.Despite the importance of STEM PhD’s to all sectors of the U.S. economy, there is surprisingly little empirical evidence on the drivers of STEM PhDs’ initial career choices. This talk will present new findings from micro panel survey data on the role of career preferences, ability, and labor market conditions in shaping the career choices of recent STEM PhD graduates. These data not only document the potential (mis)match between PhDs’ preferred careers and their actual career outcomes, but they also provide insights into which individuals may be more responsive to policies encouraging private sector employment.


michael_roachMichael Roach is a Visiting Assistant Professor at Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business. His research investigates the research activities and career choices of science and engineering PhD’s, with a particular emphasis on the role of graduate students and faculty in the commercialization of university research and academic entrepreneurship. He also examines the impact of university research on firm innovation and firm patenting strategies.

 

kim_barretKim Barrett joined the faculty of UCSD School of Medicine in 1985, and rose to her current rank of Professor of Medicine in 1996. Her research interests center on the normal and abnormal biology of the intestinal epithelium and their relevance to a variety of digestive diseases including inflammatory bowel diseases, infectious diarrheal diseases, and peptic ulcer disease. She has received a number of honors for her research, including the Bowditch and Davenport Lectureships of the American Physiological Society, and being awarded the degree of Doctor of Medical Science, honoris causa, by Queens University Belfast. She is also the author or editor of several books and monographs and almost two hundred peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters and reviews. In 2006, she was appointed as Dean of Graduate Studies at UCSD.


*Please feel free to bring a lunch.

All CCIS research seminars are podcasted. Search “center for comparative immigration studies” on iTunes and listen to our seminars on the go!For arrangements to accommodate a disability, contact the Office for Students with Disabilities at deaf-hohrequest@ucsd.edu or (858) 534-9709 (TTY).

John Skrentny Speaking at The Yale Law Journal Symposium

The Meaning of the Civil Rights Revolution

February 28 – March 1, 2014
Yale Law School, Room 129

Fifty years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and with Bruce Ackerman’s We The People: The Civil Rights Revoltion (2014) as a focal point, leading scholars will gather to consider the status of the civil rights revolution in American law.

View Flyer

A full schedule and more information will be available at www.yalelawjournal.org/symposium

Feb. 20 – March 4: Faculty Fellow Chats with Dr. Victoria Ojeda

 

FacultyFellowChatW14“Becoming A Public Health & International Migration Researcher”

Thursday, February 20

1PM in The Great Hall

 

“Current State of Deportation Research on the U.S.-Mexico Border”

Thursday, February 27

12PM in The Great Hall

 

“Lessons Learned in Research with Vulnerable Populations”

Tuesday, March 4

11AM in The Great Hall

U.S. High Skilled Immigration: Problems, Misconceptions, and Solutions – Feb. 19

Ron Hira, Associate Professor of Public Policy, Rochester Institute of Technology

Join Ron Hira  & discussant Peter Gourevitch as they discuss reform of U.S. immigration policy, on the congressional agenda for the first time since 2007.While the most contentious elements of the policy debate surround the 11 million undocumented living in the U.S., the policy proposals for re-shaping high skilled immigration are also controversial. This talk will cover the perceived problems with current high skilled immigration policy. It will also explore common misconceptions that distort the public discussion. High skilled immigration is a source of vibrancy for the U.S., especially in technology and research sectors, so getting the policies correct is of great importance to the nation’s innovation system.Using new government data, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, Dr. Hira will present a clearer picture about how high-skill guest worker visas, such as the H-1B, and legal permanent residence visas are actually used.

Ron Hira is Associate Professor and Acting Chair of the Department of Public Policy at Rochester Institute of Technology. He specializes in policy issues on technological innovation, offshoring, high-skill immigration, and the American engineering workforce. Ron is also a Research Associate with the Economic Policy Institute in Washington, DC.

He is co-author of the book, Outsourcing America (AMCOM, 2nd edition 2008), which was a finalist for best business book in the PMA’s Benjamin Franklin Awards. The Boston Globe called the work an “honest, disturbing look at outsourcing.” The Washington Post described the book as a “thorough and easy to grasp primer on the wrenching outsourcing debate.”In 2007, Ron served as a consultant to the U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Science & Technology helping to organize a series of hearings on the Globalization of Innovation and Research & Development.

Peter A. Gourevitch is Distinguished Professor of Political Science at  UCSD’s School of International Relations and Pacific Studies, of which he is also the Founding Dean.
As a world-renowned expert on international relations and comparative politics, Gourevitch specializes in corporate governance systems in a globalizing world economy, comparing differences in the way countries structure companies and their relationship to shareholders.  His work includes a particular focus on national responses to pressures arising from international trade and economic globalization, trade disputes among countries, and international trade negotiations. Recently he has been working on corporate social responsibility and the relationship between NGO’s, regulation and international institutionsHis books include Politics in Hard Times: Comparative Responses to International Crises (Cornell, 1986) and  Political Power and Corporate Control : The New Global Politics of Corporate Control (Princeton, 2005). Other publications focus on U.S.-Japan relations after the Cold War and international economic relations.  From 1996 to 2001 he co-edited, with David Lake, International Organization, a leading scholarly journal on international relations.


*Please feel free to bring a lunch.

All CCIS research seminars are podcasted.  Search “center for comparative immigration studies” on iTunes and listen to our seminars on the go!

For arrangements to accommodate a disability, contact the Office for Students with Disabilities at  deaf-hohrequest@ucsd.edu or (858) 534-9709 (TTY).

 

Feb. 20 – Beginning Again: Refugees, San Diego and the Politics of Resettlement

IRC-Prospect collab draft 4You are invited to join the International Rescue Committee on February 20, 2014 at 7PM at The Great Hall. Come learn about the large refugee community here in San Diego County and how the International Rescue Committee is working to help them assimilate into American life through practical assistance.

Speakers will share their unique stories of their involvement with the IRC and how you can personally get involved.

Sambusas catered by RED

‘After Civil Rights’ explores ‘racial realism’ in the workplace (Florida Courier)

CCIS co-director John Skrentny’s book “After Civil Rights: Racial Realism in the New American Workplace” is discussed in the Florida Courier.


BY DR. GLENN C. ALTSCHULER
SPECIAL TO THE COURIER

Over two decades ago, Harvard Law Professor Martha Minow described “the dilemma of difference.” When does treating people differently “stigmatize or hinder them on that basis,” she asked. “And when does treating people the same become insensitive to their difference and likely to stigmatize or hinder them on that basis?”

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provided one answer to these questions.  An affirmation of classical liberalism, Title VII declared any action based on an individual’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin that adversely affects the terms and conditions of employment to be unlawful.  Nor does Title VII permit racially motivated decisions driven by business concerns, including the preferences of clients or customers.

Less prominent in law, affirmative action infused race with significance in employment.  Politically charged and controversial, it is tolerated, if at all, as a temporary fix that does not replace color-blind policies – and is confined to situations where imbalances in the composition of the workforce can be authoritatively attributed to past discriminatory practices.

Making assumptions
Both approaches, John Skrentny, a professor of sociology at the University of California, San Diego, points out, are out of sync with actual workplace practices.  In “After Civil Rights,’’ Skrentny demonstrates that in many, many fields, ranging from media to marketing, meatpacking and medicine, employers use perceived or actual racial abilities in recruitment, hiring, and on the job assignments.

“Racial realism,” Skrentny argues, can open doors of opportunity; it can also “freeze in place” racial – and racist – assumptions.  Too widespread to be rolled back, he emphasizes, race-conscious employment dynamics should not “run unchecked as it does today.”

Employment practices
“After Civil Rights’’ makes a compelling case for the pervasiveness of race-conscious employment practices.  Presidents take race into account when making appointments.  Patients express greater satisfaction with the quality of their health care when they are treated by physicians who share their racial or ethnic background.

News organizations hire African-American anchors to attract Black viewers – and assign Latino journalists to cover the Latino community (“the taco beat”).  Retailers admit to race matching sales personnel to their client base.  And many low-skilled jobs go to immigrants because employers deem them more likely to work hard, without complaints and for lower wages, than African-Americans or Whites.

It is by no means clear, however, that “racial realism” in employment produces positive results.  While police officers of different races vary in their knowledge of neighborhoods, Skrentny notes, studies have found little evidence of different behavior.  And a nationwide study showed that the race of teachers did not have an impact on how much students learned.

Mended, not ended
Nonetheless, the advantages of policies based on market realities and employer discretion are obvious.

After all, some would argue, the Harlem Globetrotters and the producers of “Othello’’ should confine their searches to Blacks. And yet, as Skrentny observes, legitimizing race-based BFOQ (“bona fide occupational qualifications”) exceptions to anti-discrimination laws would not only be difficult to draft and expensive, but could be used to defend the preferences of racist customers.

What, then, should be done?  Skrentny suggests that “racial realism” be mended, not ended.  To start the conversation, he advocates multi-cultural training programs in areas where employers believe race is a qualification; interpreting laws to give “breathing room” to initiatives designed to benefit members of minority groups; requiring validation of practices predicated on “racial abilities” and “racial signaling;” and more responsible corporate behavior in locating firms, setting wages, employing immigrants, guaranteeing workplace safety, and taking responsibility for displaced workers.

“After Civil Rights’’ leaves no doubt that current workplace realities – and practices – have diverged from statutes and constitutional interpretations of them.  The “strategic management of racial differences” may or may not always be necessary “to achieve a wide variety of goals in a wide array of contexts.”

But, as Skrentny urges, for now, and for the foreseeable future, we must do a better job of aligning workplace practices “with our values and our laws.”

Dr. Glenn C. Altschuler is the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Professor of American Studies at Cornell University. He wrote this review for the Florida Courier.

Full Article >>

Will 2014 Be the Year of Comprehensive Immigration Reform?

Despite hopes that 2013 would be the year of comprehensive immigration reform, legislation stalled in the House and the year ended without a bill. When the House reconvened on Tuesday, 427 days had passed since the November 2012 elections and 194 days had passed since S.744, the Senate comprehensive immigration reform bill that includes a path to citizenship, passed by a vote of 68 to 32. As immigration remains one of President Obama’s top second-term priorities, many are wondering whether comprehensive immigration reform will happen in 2014?

One way to think about whether 2014 will be the year of comprehensive immigration reform is the question of whether S.744 will ever make it to the floor of the House? After the passage of S.744 in the Senate, reform advocates stepped up their pressure on a number of key Republican Representatives. Comprehensive immigration reform was always going to be an uphill climb and, from the very outset, it was clear that the House was the sticking point. Last Spring, I created statistical models to forecast legislative support and opposition to a comprehensive immigration reform bill that included a path to citizenship. Three months prior to the Senate vote on S.744, my analyses suggested that 67 Senators would vote “yea.” I was off by 1 vote. My analyses for the House, on the other hand, suggested that only 203 Representatives would vote “yea,” which is 15 votes shy of a majority in the 435-member chamber. Showing Republican support for comprehensive immigration reform has thus been one of the strategies advocates have used to convince leadership in the GOP-controlled House to bring S.744 up for a vote. By some counts, as many as 29 Republican Representatives now support a path to citizenship.

But while the votes may very well be there, the political will to bring S.744 up for a vote in the House has not been. Speaker of the House John Boehner has been steadfast in his position that immigration reform legislation should be taken up in a step-by-step manner. Moreover, throughout all of 2013, Boehner continued to adhere to the so-called Hastert rule on the issue of immigration reform legislation – in short, nothing was going to be debated unless it had majority support among House Republicans. Recent events, however, have provided cause for optimism that this political dynamic may be changing. While the preference among Republicans to take a piecemeal approach remains, Boehner’s recent stand against the Tea Party faction within the GOP during the budget debate creates an opening, albeit a small one, for S.744 to survive in the House. The last major legalization of undocumented immigrants in 1986 provides an instructive example.

The history of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), which led to the legalization of nearly 3 million undocumented immigrants, provides a potential blueprint for S.744. Like S.744, IRCA was first introduced and passed in the Senate (it passed by a vote of 69 to 30). The Senate voted on passage of IRCA on September 19, 1985. It was not until October 9, 1986, or 1 year and 20 days later, that the House voted on the bill. The House used what is referred to as a voice vote – do the “yeas” sound louder than the “nays”? This method provides legislators with a sort of cover for how they voted, as no formal roll call is taken. Boehner has stated that the House would not take up a 1,300-page Senate bill (referring to S.744) that “no one had ever read.” Should a voice vote ever becoming a possibility, this particular line of argumentation will be increasingly untenable, as Representatives have already had over 6 months to read the bill and will have more time to do so as each month passes.

Another way to think about whether 2014 will be the year of comprehensive immigration reform is to think about how comprehensive a step-by-step approach can be? In other words, can a piecemeal approach result in a path to citizenship? In addition to Boehner, another key Republican gatekeeper is House Judiciary Committee (HJC) Chairman Bob Goodlatte. As Chairman, he has allowed a series of piecemeal bills to be voted on in the HJC. When combined, these piecemeal bills add up to a package of reforms that appeals to conservative legislators – tougher interior immigration enforcement, mandatory employment verification, more visas for high-skilled immigrants, and an agricultural guestworker program. This package does not include a path to citizenship for the 11 to 12 million undocumented immigrants currently in the country, though discussions continue about a legalization program for undocumented youth (the “Kids Act”).

Because these piecemeal bills appeal to conservative legislators, they are likely to be approved if voted on by the Republican-led House – my own simulations support this. Moreover, because these piecemeal bills do not include a path to citizenship, they are likely to be non-starters for many in the Senate. On this point, some have suggested that a conference committee will eventually lead to a bill that includes a path to citizenship. I am not as convinced as others. First, leadership in the respective chambers selects conference committee participants. Second, what results from a conference committee, called the conference report, ultimately has to be voted on by both chambers. In other words, the House must ultimately vote on what the conference committee decides.

Here is one potential bargaining scenario. In conference, Senate conferees call for a full path to citizenship and House conferees respond with the “Kids Act.” What we have heard from Senator Chuck Schumer is that no compromises will be made to the path to citizenship in the Senate bill. Taking Schumer at his word, this means that no legislation will result. This, as a matter of politics, benefits Republicans as much as it benefits Democrats. Democrats will be in a position to place blame on Republicans. However, Republicans will also be able to counter with the argument that they negotiated with Democrats and that these negotiations included an expedited path to citizenship for undocumented youth. This, in my opinion, is why Goodlatte has expressed support for a “Kids Act” type of bill. Ultimately, what results from this potential scenario is likely to be continued stalemate.

A third way to think about whether 2014 will be the year of comprehensive immigration reform is to look forward to the November 2014 midterm election results. Recent political history suggests that Republicans will gain seats in the House of Representatives. A shift in control of the House from Republicans to Democrats after the 2014 midterm elections is unlikely. The party of the President tends to lose seats during midterm elections. In 15 out of the last 17 midterm elections, the party of the President has lost seats. Political scientists explain this trend, in part, by describing midterm elections as opportunities for those who lost during the previous presidential election to voice their dissatisfaction. Thus, while many Republican representatives may be vulnerable in 2014, there are many Democrats who are also vulnerable.

There are, however, some key races that may impact the future prospects of comprehensive immigration reform. First, Representative Steve King’s (R, IA-4) re-election race should be followed closely. King, perhaps more than any other person, has been the face of anti-reform efforts in the House. King won his seat in 2012 by only 7.9 points (30,593 votes). A successful re-election campaign by King will signal to other Republicans that being anti-immigrant is not political suicide. However, if King loses – and assuming that advocates can make the case that his hard-lined positions on immigration contributed to his loss – then this can go a long way towards propelling reform efforts forward after the midterm elections. Second, Representative Jeff Denham’s (R, CA-10) race is also an important one. In 2012, he won by only 5.4 points (11,331 votes). If he wins, and wins big, Denham and his public support for comprehensive immigration reform – he is one of three Republicans who has signed on as a co-sponsor of H.R. 15 – can be held up as an exemplar for other Republicans. Representative Gary Miller’s (R, CA-31) race is also an important one to watch. Miller has an A+ grade from NumbersUSA, a group that is staunchly opposed to reform efforts that include a path to citizenship. After the latest round of redistricting, Miller finds himself in a district that is overwhelmingly Hispanic/Latino and Asian. Lastly, three Republican Senators who voted for S. 744 are up for re-election in 2014. These are Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Susan Collins (R-ME), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC). Alexander and Graham, in particular, faced Tea Party criticism after the Senate vote. Their respective re-elections can serve to further marginalize the Tea Party on the issue of immigration in two traditionally red states.

Lastly, whether 2014 will be the year of comprehensive immigration reform may hinge on the efforts of reform advocates who are working outside of the realm of D.C.-based politics. These individuals and groups have grown increasingly weary of the political stalemate and legislative inaction that has characterized immigration politics in recent years and have become more vocal in calling on President Obama to use his executive authority to halt deportations. The activism of these individuals and groups may amplify in 2014, particularly around the summer, if legislative solutions are not reached. September 2014 marks the first month that undocumented youth who received temporary relief from deportation via President Obama’s policy of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) will have to renew their DACA status. While these youth knew from the outset that their DACA status had to be renewed every two years, many advocates thought that a permanent solution in the form of legislation would have been reached before we reached this stage. The act of having to renew a temporary status may very well embolden activists to seek new, more creative, and perhaps even more aggressive means to achieve a permanent fix to our nation’s broken immigration system.