The 37th Meeting of the Politics of Race, Immigration, and Ethnicity Consortium (PRIEC)

University of California, San Diego
Friday, May 23, 2014—12:00 pm-7:30 pm
ROOM: The Village at Torrey Pines, 15th Floor

Co-sponsored by: The Center for Comparative Immigration Studies (CCIS),
Department of Political Science, and the Department of Sociology

MEETING AGENDA

12:00-12:20 pm LUNCH AND INTRODUCTION

12:20-2:45 pm PANEL 1

1. David FitzGerald, Culling the Masses: The Democratic Origins of Racist Immigration Policies in the Americas

2. Tom Wong, Mike Nicholson and Nazita Lajevardi, “Immigrants, Citizens, and (Un)Equal Representation”

3. John Griffin, Zoltan Hajnal, Brian Newman, and David Searle, “Understanding Bias in Responsiveness in American Politics”

4. Ben Newman, “Diversity of a Different Kind: Gentrification and Its Impact on Social Capital and Political Participation in Black Communities”

5. Mackenzie Israel-Trummer “Facing a Black Woman: the Irrational Response to Underperforming White Male Incumbents”

6. Jennifer Merolla, Karthick Ramarkishnan and Chris Haynes, “Framing Immigration Reform and Amnesty in News Media and Public Opinion”

3:00-3:15 pm Coffee Break

3:15-5:15 pm PANEL 2

7. Melissa Michelson, Nazita Lajevardi and Marianne Marar Yacobian, “The Unbearable Whiteness of Being Middle Eastern: Causes and Effects of the Racialization of Middle Eastern Americans”

8. Francisco Pedraza, “Political exclusion and the “chilling effect” of immigration enforcement on participation in Medicaid”

9. David Ayon, “Reversal of Fortune: Understanding the Contrasting Paths & Effects of Latino Empowerment in California and Texas”

10. Lucila Figueroa, “Support for Latino Politicians and U.S. Norms”

5:30-7:30 pm Reception at Home Plate Sports Café, UCSD

Mexican Migration to the United States with David FitzGerald — 20 Years After NAFTA — Center for US-Mexican Studies & Osher UCSD

UC San Diego sociologist David FitzGerald explains how recent changes in the economies of the US. and Mexico, along with border enforcement and shifting demographics have led to a stabilization of Mexican migration to the U.S. This is the fourth in a five-part series exploring the impact of NAFTA, sponsored by the Osher Institute for Lifelong Learning and the Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies at UC San Diego.

View the Video »

May 28 – Rainer Bauböck – Territorial and Cultural Inclusion: Comparing Citizenship Policies in Europe

CCIS Spring Seminar

Rainer Bauböck, Professor of Social and Political Theory, European University Institute


Wednesday, May 28, 12:00pm 

Territorial and Cultural Inclusion: Comparing Citizenship Policies in Europe

Comparative analyses of citizenship laws have often suggested that these are shaped either by civic or ethnic conceptions of political community. Yet citizenship laws pursue many different purposes that cannot be captured by a civic-ethnic dichotomy. As Rainer Bauböck  and Maarten Vink  have shown in a 2013 paper, territorial and ethnocultural inclusion are better understood as independent dimensions that generate four different citizenship regimes: those that are either ethnoculturally or territorially inclusive, expansive regimes that combine both types of inclusion and isolationist ones that are restrictive on both. In a new paper (co-authored with Costica Dumbrava),  fuzzy set QCA methodology is used to examine the conditions under which states are likely to fall into one of these four categories.


Rainer BaubockRainer Bauböck holds a chair in social and political theory at the Department of Political and Social Sciences of the European University Institute. He is on leave from the Austrian Academy of Sciences. His research interests are in normative political theory and comparative research on democratic citizenship, European integration, migration, nationalism and minority rights. Together with Jo Shaw (University of Edinburgh) and Maarten Vink (University of Maastricht), he coordinates the European Union Democracy Observatory on Citizenship at http://eudo-citizenship.eu.

NYT, HuffPo, KPBS and others cover work by Tom K. Wong – In Their Own Words: A Nationwide Survey of Undocumented Millennials

Click here to download the survey In Their Own Words: A Nationwide Survey of Undocumented Millennials by Tom K. Wong with Carolina Valdivia The_New_York_Times

Click here to read the NYT Article – “Young Immigrants Growing Disenchanted With Both Parties” by Julia Preston
huffpo

Click here to read HuffPo article “Dreamers Keeping A Close Eye On Immigration To Determine Their Politics” by Elise Foley

LAtin TImes

Click here to read the Latin Times – “DACA News: 70 Percent Of Young Undocumented Began New Jobs After Receiving Deportation Deferral, Says New Survey” by David Iaconangelo

atl journal

Click here to read AJC – “Survey: More young immigrants without papers identify with Democrats” by Jeremy Redmon

 

arizona republic

Click here to read “Survey: 70% of ‘dreamers’ got jobs under Obama work program” by Daniel Gonzalez

fusion

Click here to read Fusion’s “Young Undocumented Immigrants Aren’t Tied to Either Party, Poll Says” by Ted Hesson

kpbs

Click to read the KPBS article “Survey Finds ‘Dreamers’ Are Politically Engaged And Benefitting From Temporary Legal Status” by Jill Replogle

In Their Own Words: A Nationwide Survey of Undocumented Millennials (Working Paper # 191)

 

Tom K. Wong, Assistant Professor of Political Science, UCSD

with Carolina Valdivia, PhD Student, Harvard

About The Survey

In Their Own Words: A National Survey of Undocumented Millennials is one of the largest surveys to date on any segment of the undocumented population in the U.S. The survey provides new insights related to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, life after DACA, and the experience of “coming out” as undocumented, as well as a first-of-its-kind look at the civic engagement and political incorporation of undocumented youth, among several other important topics. Please visit www.undocumentedmillennials.com for more information.

Download Working Paper 191

 

Migration Theory: Talking Across Disciplines (3rd edition) available for pre-order & Fall 2014 course adoption

Edited by Caroline B. Brettell, James F. Hollifield

“During the last decade the issue of migration has increased in global prominence and has caused controversy among host countries around the world. To remedy the tendency of scholars to speak only to and from their own disciplinary perspective, this book brings together in a single volume essays dealing with central concepts and key theoretical issues in the study of international migration across the social sciences. Editors Caroline B. Brettell and James F. Hollifield have guided a thorough revision of this seminal text, with valuable insights from such fields as anthropology, demography, economics, geography, history, law, political science, and sociology.

Each essay focuses on key concepts, questions, and theoretical frameworks on the topic of international migration in a particular discipline, but the volume as a whole teaches readers about similarities and differences across the boundaries between one academic field and the next. How, for example, do political scientists wrestle with the question of citizenship as compared with sociologists, and how different is this from the questions that anthropologists explore when they deal with ethnicity and identity? Are economic theories about ethnic enclaves similar to those of sociologists? What theories do historians (the “essentializers”) and demographers (the “modelers”) draw upon in their attempts to explain empirical phenomena in the study of immigration? What are the units of analysis in each of the disciplines and do these shape different questions and diverse models and theories?

Scholars and students in migration studies will find this book a powerful theoretical guide and a text that brings them up to speed quickly on the important issues and the debates. All of the social science disciplines will find that this book offers a one-stop synthesis of contemporary thought on migration.”

Pre-Order Here

John Skrentny’s Op-Ed in The New York Times

Only Minorities Need Apply

By JOHN D. SKRENTNY   MAY 6, 2014

NewYorkTimesLogo

SAN DIEGO — THIS year is the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, which among other things prohibits the use of race in deciding whom to hire, fire, promote or place in the best and worst jobs.

But while the overt discrimination of 1964 is now rare, a more subtle form of bias is emerging: Both public and private employers increasingly treat race not as a hindrance, but as a qualification — a practice that, unchecked, could undermine the basic promise of the act.

For example, corporations often match African-American, Asian-American and Latino sales employees to corresponding markets because of their superior understanding of these markets, or because customers prefer to see employees of their own race, or both.

This is not affirmative action: Such “racial realism” is not intended to guarantee equal opportunity or compensate injustice, but rather to improve service and deliver profits for employers.

Racial realism is common in many sectors. Hospitals, supported by progressive foundations, racially match physicians and patients to improve health care. School districts place minority teachers in schools with large numbers of minority students because they supposedly understand their learning styles better, and serve as racial role models. Police departments try to reduce crime and police brutality by racially matching officers and neighborhoods.

Film producers manipulate audience reactions by displaying the right races in the right roles. This may be motivated by artistic goals — obviously, a film like “12 Years a Slave” required actors of particular races in particular roles. More often, these are business decisions. Whites in starring roles are thought to generate more box-office revenue, though adding nonwhites can broaden appeal.

Such practices are legally dubious. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, charged with enforcing federal anti-discrimination laws, states that the Civil Rights Act “does not permit racially motivated decisions driven by business concerns.” Nor may race or color ever be a “bona fide occupational qualification.”

Courts have long supported this position. The Supreme Court’s 1986 decision in Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education held that hiring and placing teachers to be racial role models was discrimination, even linking it “to the very system the Court rejected in Brown.”

In 1999, the 11th Circuit Court considered a telemarketing firm that matched employees’ race with those of the customers they called, and ruled that the company’s belief that this produced better responses was based on a stereotype and was “clearly” discrimination.

Meanwhile, the Seventh Circuit rejected Chicago’s contention that minority firefighters were needed for credibility and cooperation in minority neighborhoods; separately, it ruled that hiring black counselors to deal with black disadvantaged youths was illegal because it catered to discrimination by clients and their parents.There are only two areas where courts have authorized racial realism. Some courts have argued that law enforcement creates a compelling interest — “operational needs” — in communication and legitimacy with nonwhites, justifying racial realism in the hiring and placement of police officers. And there have been some exceptions made for artistic license: In 2012, a Tennessee district court, in a case regarding the reality show “The Bachelor,” stated that casting only whites in the lead roles was expression, akin to speech, and protected by the First Amendment.

Not only is racial realism legally unjustified, but it often hurts the people who, in the short term, would seem to benefit from it. Studies by the sociologists Elijah Anderson and Sharon Collins have found that nonwhite employees who are promoted to fill racially defined roles have trouble leaving them.

Moreover in jobs where part of an employee’s salary is based on sales volume, assigning nonwhites to nonwhite market sectors — which tend to be lower income — can mean significantly smaller paychecks. In 2008, Walgreens agreed to pay $24 million to black managers who objected to being placed in black neighborhoods, which typically had lower sales and thus lower compensation.

Nevertheless, racial realism is too slippery, and too widely used, to stamp out completely. And so rather than trying to end racial realism, we need to make sure that it doesn’t block opportunities for minorities. For one thing, we could require more transparency and verification. If employers think race is a legitimate qualification for a job, they must rely on evidence, not stereotypes.

And in cases where racial-realist hiring and placement is justified, like after a series of racially fraught police incidents, there should be opt-outs and time limits.

This was the position of a New York district court when black police officers sued to limit Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani’s ability to force them to work in a dangerous precinct after the 1997 beating of Abner Louima, a Haitian immigrant, by white police officers. Mayor Giuliani argued that the presence of black officers was necessary to ease racial tensions, and the court agreed — but also held that the placements had to be temporary.

America has changed significantly since the Civil Rights Act. But we are still a long way from the day when race no longer plays a role in society. Racial realism may be unavoidable for the time being, but we must still be wary of its excesses, lest it lead us back down the road toward racial discrimination.


John D. Skrentny, a professor of sociology and the director of the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies at the University of California, San Diego, is the author of “After Civil Rights: Racial Realism in the New American Workplace.”

Read the Article »

May 19 – Scott Blinder – A Public of Two Minds: Opposition to Immigration and Support for Extreme Right Parties – CCIS Spring Seminar

Scott Blinder, Director of the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford

Monday, May 19, 12:00pm 
*Lunch will be provided

“A Public of Two Minds: Social Norms, Opposition to Immigration and Support for Extreme Right Parties” The politics of immigration in Europe presents a two-sided puzzle: with anti-immigration sentiments so strong and widespread, why do most anti-immigration parties fail? And, on the other side, why does anti-immigration sentiment persist despite broad acceptance of anti-prejudice norms?  Scott Blinder accouts for these tensions by developing a dual process model of political behavior. Negative socially-shared understandings of “immigrants” shape underlying attitudes, but at the same time internalized anti-prejudice norms provide sharp limits on how far these underlying attitudes can shape political behavior. Supporting evidence comes from original surveys conducted in Britain and Germany, with embedded survey experiments, as well as automated textual analysis of 58,000 articles in British newspapers that mention immigration.

Blinder-migobs Scott Blinder is currently Director of the University of Oxford’s Migration Observatory, a project of COMPAS (Centre on Migration, Policy and Society). In the fall he will take up a faculty position in the Department of Political Science at UMass-Amherst. Blinder’s research focuses mainly on attitudes toward immigration and integration, with a particular interest in how the social norm against prejudice shapes both positive and negative responses to national, ethnic, and religious differences. He also leads a project that monitors and analyzes media coverage of migration, and has conducted work explaining the gender gap in partisanship in the US. His work has appeared in leading academic journals in the US and UK and has been discussed in a wide variety of venues by NGOs, civil servants, and government ministers.