School of Social and Political ScienceUniversity of Edinburgh

Europe and International Migration

Session 2012-2013

Course code: PLIT10068

Course convenor/Tutor: Dr Alistair HunterRoom: 2.13, Chrystal Macmillan BuildingE-mail: Alistair.Hunter@ed.ac.ukOffice hour: TBC

Lecturer/ Tutor: Dr Nur AbdelkhaliqRoom : 1.02, 58 George SquareE-mail: N.Abdelkhaliq@ed.ac.ukOffice hour: TBC

Lecturer: Professor Christina BoswellE-mail: Christina.Boswell@ed.ac.uk

Lecturer: Dr Pontus OdmalmE-mail: Pontus.Odmalm@ed.ac.uk

I. Introduction

The course examines immigration and integration policies in European countries and the EU. While the main focus is on the impact of immigration, the course also charts changing patterns of migration and refugee flows to Europe since the Second World War, and analyses how different states have responded to the challenge of large-scale immigration. Policy responses are dealt with under three main themes: state attempts to control and regulate entry of migrants and their dependents (post-WW2 patterns; current debates and challenges to border control); the supra-national dimension of immigration and asylum (role of the EU; refugee law and human rights); and efforts at integrating immigrants and ethnic minority groups (citizenship; conceptualising integration. The course also explores the party politics of migration and the role that migrants play in the politics and development of their countries of origin. The impact of the global economic crisis on the politics of migration is also examined.

II. Learning Objectives

By the end of the course, students should be able to:

Describe, analyse and explain migration policy responses in Europe.

Apply different theories and concepts from political science, international relations and sociology to migration policy issues.

Use comparative methodology to explain national divergence and convergence in policy and policy change over time.

Understand the supra-national dimension to immigration and asylum.

In addition, students will develop three transferable skills:

(i) the ability to summarise sophisticated theoretical and empirical texts, and make connections with related material; (ii) the ability to convey these ideas concisely as part of an oral presentation; and (iii) the ability to give clear, constructive and relevant feedback to peers.

III. Teaching Methods

The course is taught in the Spring semester 2013 and the teaching format is 1 lecture per week for 10 weeks and 1 tutorial per week for 9 weeks. Detailed reading accompanies each week’s topic (see below).

Lectures will take place on Wednesdays 10.00-10.50 in room 4.01, David Hume Tower.

The first lecture is on Wednesday 16th January 2013.

Tutorials will take place on Thursday mornings (see below for times and venues). Tutorials start in Week 2 (24th January). Students should sign up for their tutorial group via LEARN.

Please note that students who have not signed up for tutorials by the end of week 2 will be deemed to have dropped the course.

IV. Assessment

The course is assessed by a combination of (a) Learning Exercise (15%) + (b) Policy Brief (30%) + (c) Essay (55%).

Deadline for submission of the Policy Brief is Friday 1 st March at 12pm (Week 7).

Deadline for submission of the Essay is Friday 29 th March at 12 pm (Week 11).

Please note: the late penalty takes effect immediately after 12 NOON on the day of the deadline.

A) Learning Exercise (15%)

This assessment contains two components.

i) An individual presentationii) Peer-review

i) Individual Presentation

During weeks 3-11, each student will be asked to give one presentation on one of the ‘Tutorial Readings’ specified in the course handbook. There are two readings for every tutorial. Students will not be allocated a reading to prepare, but instead should come to class prepared to present either reading set for the week in question. The tutor will solicit volunteers to present, but if no volunteers are forthcoming then the tutor will choose a presenter at random. The presentation should not last more than 10 minutes. This mode of assessment will begin in week 3. In week 2, for students’ benefit, there will be opportunities to practise and receive feedback (i.e. ‘mock’ presentations).

The objectives of the presentation are to summarize, make connections, and critically engage with the reading in question.

The presentation will be timed exactly so it is important to work on time management. All presentations will be given a mark (capped at 70%) with accompanying feedback (after the tutorial). The marking indicators are specified in the ‘Presentation Feedback Form’ (see below) but students may also address further issues if relevant (under ‘Further comments’).

The following are the criteria by which the presentation will be marked. However, it is important to note that the overall mark given is a result of a holistic assessment of the assignment as a whole:

a) Is the presentation well delivered? Is it clear and easy to follow? b) Is the presentation delivered within the set time limit? Does the presenter

make good use of the time available?c) Does the presentation identify and accurately summarize the main themes and

arguments of the reading? d) Does the presentation make connections to questions and arguments

encountered in this week’s course material (lecture, tutorial, other readings?e) Does the presentation demonstrate reflexivity and critical thinking in relation

to the arguments and evidence presented in the reading?

Please note: students who fail to give a ‘Presentation’ during weeks 3-11 (e.g. due to illness or absence) will be required to write a 1000 word literature review on the two core readings specified for week 11. The literature review is to be submitted by 12pm on Friday 5 April (week 12) and e-mailed to the tutor. If the literature review is not submitted, a mark of 0 will be awarded for the ‘Presentation’ element. The essay mark is also capped at 70%.

ii) Peer-review

On one occasion during weeks 3-11, each student will be asked to act as a ‘Discussant’ and provide verbal feedback immediately after another student’s presentation, as described above in part A (i). The time for feedback should not last more than 5 minutes. As with part A (i), students will not be allocated a presentation to review, but instead should come to class prepared to review either presentation set for the week in question. The tutor will solicit volunteers to review, but if no volunteers are forthcoming then the tutor will choose a reviewer at random.

The feedback may consist of either comments or questions to the presenter. ‘Comments’ can, e.g., involve suggestions for improvement or other types of constructive criticism. ‘Questions’ can, e.g., relate to asking for clarification or further quizzing the presenters on why and how they arrived at their particular conclusion/s.

The following are the criteria by which peer-review participation will be assessed. However, it is important to note that the overall mark is a result of a holistic assessment of the assignment as a whole:

a. Clarity?- e.g. do the presenters understand the questions/comments? Are they to the point?

b. Quality?- e.g. constructive comments? Simplistic questions?

c. Relevance?- e.g. do the questions/comments relate to the presentation topic?

Marks are capped at 30%.

Please note: students who fail to review a ‘Presentation’ during weeks 3-11 (e.g. due to illness or absence) will be asked to submit a 500 word literature review on one of the core readings for week 11. The literature review is to be submitted by 12pm on Friday 5 April (week 12) and e-mailed to the tutor. If the literature review is not submitted, a mark of 0 will be awarded for the ‘Participation’ element. The mark for the literature review is also capped at 30%.

The final mark for the ‘Learning Exercise’ is calculated in the following way: Presentation [grade] + Participation [grade] x 0.15.

B) Policy Brief (1000 words; 30%)

Deadline: Friday 1st March 2013

The policy brief should be no longer than 1000 words. The upper limit must be observed since anything more than 5% over the word limit will receive a penalty of 5 marks . Essays should be typed using Times New Roman, font 12, with justified text and 1.5 line spacing.

Choose one of the following questions:

i) Immigration Policy in an Independent Scotland ii) Readmission Agreement with Libya / Morocco

Guidelines on writing your policy brief

Choose one of the two tasks outlined below, and prepare a Policy Brief of no more than 1,000 words.

Please note that a ‘Policy Brief’ is different from an ‘essay’, e.g.a) Politicians, civil servants and activists are busy people and will not always

have time to consult references. Therefore, you should only provide a reference when you want to draw particular attention to a topic or fact. This does not mean that you are not supposed to consult academic sources.

b) Policy briefs should primarily provide guidance or suggestions for policy-makers so they can make an informed decision on the issue at hand. The brief should not be an analysis of events or issues.

c) Avoid lengthy discussions (a policy brief should be brief!). Try to present a brief overview of possible options/strategies followed by recommending the most suitable option (or options).

The tasks below are based on more or less hypothetical scenarios, so you may need to use your imagination and commonsense to provide some of the material. Nonetheless, try to make intelligent and informed choices. The guidelines below are by no means all the material you can consult and points you can cover. As regards to an annotated bibliography, please keep it to the material that you are directly referring to. Providing a bibliography is not part of the assessment. The policy brief, although being a hypothetical one, still needs to represent a real brief. As regards making your presentation clear to follow, different layouts may be effective: this is your chance to be creative.

Task 1: Immigration Policy in an Independent Scotland

It is 2016. You are a migration expert and member of the Scottish Migration Advisory Committee (SMAC). Following a referendum in 2014, Scotland has left the United Kingdom and become an independent nation-state. It has subsequently been admitted as a member state of the European Union. Following the global financial crisis, Scotland began to emerge from recession at the end of 2013: economic growth is currently at the long-term average level (just under 2%).

After lengthy negotiations, EU member states voted to admit Albania as a member state of the European Union, with accession taking place on 1 January 2017.

The Scottish Migration Advisory Committee (SMAC) is a non-departmental public body comprised of economists and migration experts that provides transparent, politically-independent and evidence-based advice to the Scottish Government on migration issues. Its composition and functioning are modelled on the UK Government’s Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) (http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/aboutus/workingwithus/indbodies/mac/). The questions the SMAC addresses are determined by the Scottish Government.

The Scottish Government has recently asked the SMAC to consider the following two questions:

“What would be the likely economic, political, social and demographic impacts in Scotland if the Scottish Government decided to abolish or reduce the restrictions on the free movement of labour of Albanian nationals after Albania accedes to the European Union in 2017?”

“Given the projected impacts, which of the following policy options would best meet Scotland’s economic, political, social and demographic interests:

full restrictions? (the status quo) partial restrictions? (if so, which sectors and migrants should be exempt from

restrictions?) no restrictions?

As a member of the SMAC, you are required to draft a policy briefing addressing the two questions above.

The following sources may be useful:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/11/24111237/7

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/02/23154109/0

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/migobs/Commentary-variations%20enigma.pdf

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/aboutus/workingwithus/mac/a2-report/1208/relaxing-restrictions?view=Binary

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/aboutus/workingwithus/mac/-restrictions-worker1/transitional-restrictions.pdf?view=Binary

http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/countries/detailed-country-information/albania/index_en.htm

You are strongly encouraged to draw on resources other than the ones listed here.

Task 2: Readmission Agreement with Morocco

You are an official working for the International Organization for Migration (IOM) in Morocco. You have been requested to draft the IOM’s lobbying position for talks at a consultation meeting with the European Commission, bearing in mind that the IOM is committed to ensuring the best possible outcomes for a variety of actors such as migrants, and receiving, sending and transit countries. The Commission is interested in getting input from the IOM to inform its negotiations with Morocco at the next readmission agreement round of negotiations <http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-05-351_en.htm>. The European Union is keen to conclude a readmission agreement with Morocco so that irregular migrants who have transited through the country can be returned there.

The IOM Office in Rabat manages programmes for Assisted Voluntary Return (AVR) in Morocco and cooperates with the government in managing irregular migration <http://www.iom.int/cms/en/sites/iom/home/where-we-work/africa-and-the-middle-east/middle-east-and-north-africa/morocco.html>. The IOM has expressed its concern at the prospect of irregular migrants being returned to the country in view of the absence of an appropriate framework to deal with them, and the limitations they face in implementing AVR programmes. In addition, the return of irregular migrants could potentially have socio-economic consequences for the country.

Your briefing to the Commission could cover, but does not have to be limited to, the following:

- How EU approaches to readmission agreements relate to the work of the IOM, in particular in relation to AVR programmes.

- Any issues related to the conditions of irregular migrants in Morocco.- Possible consequences of the implementation of the readmission

agreement on the ability of the Moroccan government to manage irregular migration.

- Suggestions of what line the Commission should adopt at the meeting with the Moroccan government (in view of its own agenda on managing migration more broadly).

- Alternatives to how the EU could deal with persons who have transited through Morocco and that have been classified as irregular migrants.

Other useful sources:IOM on Assisted Voluntary Return: http://publications.iom.int/bookstore/free/AVR_EN.pdf StateWatch (an NGO critical of EU policy) has produced useful information:

http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/may/12readmission.htmSee also:The European Commission website for an overview of policies, including return and readmission, and international aspects of migration policy:http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/policies/intro/policies_intro_en.htmAnd an assessment of readmission negotiations to date:http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/news/intro/docs/comm_pdf_com_2011_0076_f_en_communication.pdf

You are strongly encouraged to draw on resources other than the ones listed here.

Marking Criteria for policy brief

The following are the criteria through which the assignment will be marked. However, it is important to note that the overall mark is a result of a holistic assessment of the assignment as a whole.

a. Does the policy brief address the task set, and with sufficient focus?b. Does it show wide-ranging knowledge of the relevant policy context? c. Does the policy brief evaluate policy options in an analytical and concise

manner?d. Does it arrive at a policy recommendation (or recommendations) based on sound

arguments and evidence?e. Is the policy brief well written (spelling, grammar and style), and clearly

presented in terms of layout and referencing?

C) Essay: (2500 words, 55%)

Assignment: EssayDeadline: Friday 29th March 2013

Please note: Essay questions should addressed as is and must not be altered or amended. Any changes to the wording of the question will result in 5% deduction.

ESSAY QUESTIONS

Choose one of the following five questions.

1. “The external dimension of migration policy is only about security.” Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

2. “Multiculturalism is dead” (Daily Mail, 7 July 2006). Discuss with reference to two or more European countries.

3. Are low electoral turnout rates among some ethnic groups a result of ‘ethnic’ or ‘structural’ factors? Answer with reference to two or more European countries.

4. Why have radical right parties had considerable success in some countries but not in others? Answer with reference to the UK and one or more European countries.

5. Do migrants’ transnational activities impede integration in host countries, or facilitate it?

Guidelines on writing your essay

The essay should be no longer than 2500 words. As with the policy brief, the same word length penalties and text formatting applies to the essay as well.

Essays are marked anonymously and come with written feedback.

One hard copy will be returned to the student, the other will be kept so that it is available for the external examiner, who may amend or confirm the mark received.

The following are the criteria by which the essay will be marked. However, it is important to note that the overall mark is a result of a holistic assessment of the assignment as a whole.

a. Does the essay address the question set, and with sufficient focus?b. Does the essay show a wide-ranging grasp of the relevant concepts and

knowledge?c. Does the essay develop a logical and effective pattern of argument?d. Does the essay, if appropriate, support arguments with relevant, accurate and

effective forms of evidence?e. Does the essay demonstrate reflexivity and critical thinking in relation to

arguments and evidence?f. Is the essay correctly presented in terms of referencing and quoting?g. Is the essay well written in terms of spelling, grammar, style and layout?

IMPORTANT: Please see the ‘Honours Handbook’ for further information on submission of coursework; ‘Late Penalty Waivers’; plagiarism; learning disabilities, special circumstances; common marking descriptors, re-marking procedures and appeals.

V. Lecture schedule Week 1 (16 Jan) Introduction to ‘Europe and International Migration’ (AH)

Week 2 (23 Jan) Migration Management in Comparative Perspective (NA)

Week 3 (30 Jan) Asylum and Refugee Policy (CB)

Week 4 (6 Feb) Cooperation on Immigration and Asylum in Europe and Beyond (CB)

Week 5 (13 Feb) The External Dimension of Immigration and Asylum (NA)

Week 6 (20 Feb) INNOVATIVE LEARNING WEEK

Week 7 (27 Feb) Philosophies of Migrant Integration and Citizenship (PO)

Week 8 (6 Mar) Patterns of Political Integration (PO)

Week 9 (13 Mar) Party Politics of Migration (PO)

Week 10 (20 Mar) Diaspora Politics and Transnationalism (AH)

Week 11 (27 Mar) Immigration and integration after the ‘crisis’: challenges to the nation-state? (AH)

TIMES AND VENUES

LECTURE: Wednesdays 10.00-10.50; David Hume Tower 4.01.

TUTORIALS:(1) Thursdays 09.00-09.50; 22 Buccleuch Place; Room 3.3(2) Thursdays 10.00-10.50; 14 Buccleuch Place; Room B.5(3) Thursdays 12.10-13.00; 22 Buccleuch Place; Room 1.2

VI. Textbooks (available for purchase at Blackwells or Amazon.co.uk; second-hand copies may be sourced via a number of online retailers, including Amazon.co.uk and AbeBooks.co.uk):

● Boswell, C. and Geddes, A. (2011) Migration and Mobility in the European Union, Houndmills, Palgrave Macmillan, pp.21-50. (Chapter 2 a vailable via LEARN.)

● Castles, S. and Davidson, A. (2000) Citizenship and Migration. London: Routledge.

● Castles, S. and Miller, A. (2009) The Age of Migration. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. (Multiple editions of this book available in the university library.)

● Favell, A. (1998) Philosophies of Integration: Immigration and the Idea of Citizenship in France and Britain. Basingstoke: Palgrave. (Chapter 3 available via LEARN.)

● Joppke, C. (1998) (ed.) Challenge to the Nation State: Immigration in Western Europe and the United States. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Available as an E-book in the university library.)

● Joppke, C. (1999) Immigration and the Nation-State. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Available as an E-book in the university library.)

VII. Course schedule and Weekly Reading Lists

1. Introduction to ‘Europe and International Migration’

What is ‘migration’? Why study it? Migration is a driver of history. It has been associated with the rise and fall of empires, economic development, and social and cultural change since the dawn of human civilisation. Today, in political terms, migration regularly ranks as one of the top concerns of electorates in democracies throughout the world. A further reason we study migration in this course is because it is an ideal topic for analysis using a comparative methods approach. A key issue for the field has been to agree on what migration means. As more and more people acquire the capacity to cross national borders and live for longer or shorter periods away from their habitual place of residence, diverse new forms of migration have arisen. It is important to define and distinguish between these forms if we wish to understand the policies and politics of international migration in Europe. It is also important to have an understanding of why people move, as well as the factors which block movement. States have a crucial role to play in terms of regulating migration, and may have compelling reasons to seek to limit movement in some circumstances while encouraging migration in others.

NO TUTORIAL

Further Reading

Castles, S. and Miller, M. (2009, 2003, 2000). The Age of Migration. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, Chapter 1. (Multiple editions of this book available in the university library.)

Faist, T. (2000). The volume and Dynamics of International Migration and Transnational Social Spaces. Oxford: Clarendon, Chapters 1 and 2. (Available as an E-book in the university library.)

King, R. (2002) ‘Towards a new map of European migration’, in International Journal of Population Geography , 8:2, pp89-106 .

Koser, K. (2007). International Migration: a very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Massey, D.S, Arango, J, Hugo, G, Kouaouci, A, Pellegrino, A and E. J. Taylor (1993). ‘Theories of International Migration: A Review and Appraisal’, Population and Development Review 19(3): 431-466 .

2. Migration Management in Comparative Perspective

With an ageing Western European population and labour shortages in certain sectors, labour migration has once again become an issue on the political agenda. At the same time, traditional immigration policies in the sense of trying to control the inflow of people have come under scrutiny. Consequently, nation-states have had to re-think how they handle immigration and come up with new approaches. A key here is the development of ‘managed’ migration and a renewed emphasis on temporary and circular migration. This week will cover the debates and rationales behind a managed approach to immigration and to what extent today’s labour migration differs from that of the post-war period up to 1975. The tutorial will analyse the conflicting pressures governments are under (from business interests, electorates, and courts) and the ambivalent approaches to migration control which result: notably, tough rhetoric on migration, combined with de facto toleration of continued inflows of immigrants and asylum-seekers.

TUTORIAL READINGS

Flynn, D. (2005) ‘New Borders, New Management: The Dilemma of Modern Immigration Policies’, Ethnic and Racial Studies 28(3): 463-490.

Freeman, G. P. (1995) ‘Modes of Immigration Politics in Liberal Democratic States’, International Migration Review, 24 (4): 881-902.

Hollifield, J. F. (1999). ‘Ideas, Institutions, and Civil Society: On the Limits of Immigration Control in France’ in Brochmann, G. and Hammar, T. (eds) Mechanisms of Immigration Control: A Comparative Analysis of European Regulation Policies. Oxford and New York: Berg, 59-95. Available via LEARN.

Ruhs, M. (2012) ‘Labour immigration policy: What do we want, and why?’, in Compas Blog , Oxford: Centre on Migration, Policy and Society, 30 October 2012.

Further Reading

Boswell, C. and Geddes, A., (2011) ‘Migration and migration policy in Europe’, in Boswell, C. and Geddes, A., Migration and Mobility in the European Union, Houndmills, Palgrave Macmillan, pp.21-50. Available via LEARN.

Castles, S., Booth, H. and Wallace, T. (eds) (1984) Here for Good: Western Europe's New Ethnic Minorities. London: Pluto Press.

Castles, S. (2004) ‘The Factors that Make and Unmake Migration Policies’, International Migration Review, 38 (3): 852-884.

Castles, S. (2006a) ‘ Guestworkers in Europe: A Resurrection?’, International Migration Review , 40(4):741–766.

Cornelius, W. and Rosenblum, M. (2005) Immigration and Politics, in Annual Review of Political Science, volume 8, pp99-119.

Cornelius, W. A., Martin, P. L., and Hollifield, J. F. (1992) ‘Introduction: The Ambivalent Quest for Immigration Control’, in Cornelius W. A. and P. L. Martin and J. F. Hollifield (eds) Controlling Immigration: A Global Perspective. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 3-41.

Hollifield, J.F. (2004) ‘The Emerging Migration State’, International Migration Review 38(3):885-912.

Joppke, C. (2006) ‘Why Liberal States Accept Unwanted Immigration’, in World Politics , 50:2, pp266-293.

OECD (2012) International Migration Outlook 2012 , OECD Publishing

Piore, M.J. (1979) Birds of Passage: Migrant Labor and Industrial Societies. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ruhs, M. and Martin, P. (2008) ‘Numbers vs. Rights: Trade-Offs and Guest Worker Programs’, International Migration Review , 42(1): 249-265.

Stalker, P. (2002) ‘Migration Trends and Migration Policy in Europe’, International Migration , 40(5):151-179.

Vertovec, S (2007) Circular Migration: The Way Forward in Global Policy? Oxford: International Migration Institute.

3. Asylum and Refugee Policy

Asylum policies in Europe gathered increasing salience in the 1990s, due to increases in asylum seeker applications numbers, the closure of other immigration avenues and the diminished relevance of the refugee convention in the post-Cold War era. Discourse on refugees in Europe turned away from the refugee as a deserving figure to focus on ‘bogus’ asylum seekers and the escalating cost of the asylum process. This week’s material will focus on the pressures on international refugee protection and how these have played out in Europe. We will examine changes in asylum migration into Europe and the policy responses these have generated. European responses to asylum and forced migration more broadly have triggered critique from a number of sides, concerned about the implications for human rights, and the erosion of international commitment to the Geneva Convention. Critics also contend that restriction of asylum systems has led to a burgeoning of irregular migration, including human trafficking and smuggling. European states’ pursuit of non-asylum based responses to the problem of forced migration have further brought into question the relevance and sufficiency of the Geneva Convention. What explains the decline in refugee protection standards in Europe since the 1980s? Do recent European measures to address forced migration support or undermine an asylum based response to refugees?

TUTORIAL READINGS

Betts, A. and Durieux, J-F. (2007) ‘Convention plus as a norm-setting exercise’, Journal of Refugee Studies 20(3):509-535

El-Enany, N. (2008) ‘Who is the New European Refugee?’. LSE Law, Society and Economy Working Papers 19/2007.

Further reading

Alink, F, Boin, A and T’Hart, P. (2001) ‘Institutional crises and reforms in policy sectors: the case of asylum policy in Europe’, Journal of European Public Policy , 8 (2):286-306

Black, R. (2003) ‘Breaking the Convention: researching the 'illegal' migration of refugees to Europe’, Antipode , 35(1): 34-54.

Bloch, A. (2000) ‘A new era or more of the same? Asylum policy in the UK’, Journal of Refugee Studies 13(1):29-42

Boswell, C. (2000) ‘European Values and the Asylum Crisis’, International Affairs , 76(3): 537-57.

Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 1951, Geneva: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

Garlick, M. (2006) ‘Asylum Legislation in the European Community and the 1951 Convention: Key Concerns regarding Asylum Instruments adopted in the ‘first phase’ of harmonization’, in T. Balzacq and S. Carrera (eds), Security Versus Freedom? A Challenge for Europe’s Future. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Guild, E. (2006) ‘The Bitter Fruits of an EU Common Asylum Policy’, in T. Balzacq and S. Carrera (eds), Security Versus Freedom? A Challenge for Europe’s Future, Aldershot: Ashgate.

Gibney, M. J. and Hansen, R. (2003), ‘Asylum Policy in the West: Past Trends, Future Prospects’. UNU Wider Working Paper 2003/68.

Gibney, M. (2004) The Ethics and Politics of Asylum: Liberal Democracy and the Response to Refugees. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gibney, M (2008) ‘Asylum and the Expansion of Deportation in the United Kingdom’. Government and Opposition, 43 (2): 146-167.

Goodwin-Gill, G. (1995) The Refugee in International Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Joly, D. (1999) ‘A New Asylum Regime in Europe’, in F. Nicholson and P. Twomey (eds.), Refugee Rights and Realities Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 336-356. (Available as an E-book in the university library.)

Juss, S. (2005), ‘The Decline and Decay of European Refugee Policy’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies , 25(4): 749-792.

Kelley, N. (2007) ‘International Refugee Protection Challenges and Opportunities’, International Journal of Refugee Law , 19(3): 401-439.

Loescher, G. (1993) Beyond Charity: International Cooperation and the Global Refugee Crisis. New York: O.U.P.

Menz, G. (2009) The Political Economy of Managed Migration: Nonstate Actors, Europeanization, and the Politics of Designing Migration Policies, Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Available as an E-book in the university library.)

Squire, V. (2009) The Exclusionary Politics of Asylum. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Zetter, R. (2007) ‘More Labels, Fewer Refugees: Remaking the Refugee Label in an Era of Globalization’, Journal of Refugee Studies, 20(2): 172-192.

4. Cooperation on Immigration and Asylum Policies in Europe (and beyond)

Cooperation on immigration and asylum is one of the most rapidly growing, but also most controversial, areas of EU cooperation. Cooperation first emerged in the 1980s as a corollary to the new right to free movement of workers, and was codified in the 1993 Maastricht Treaty. Since then, European countries have been adopting common policies and standards on diverse aspects of asylum and refugee policy, combating irregular migration, rights of long-term residents and non-discrimination. More recently, there have been gradual (though controversial) moves to develop common approaches to integration and labour migration policies. What explains the willingness of EU states to cede competence in such a core area of national sovereignty? Some scholars have argued that cooperation stems from the need to coordinate responses to common problems that are inherently transnational in their nature. Others argue that it offers an opportunity to share the ‘burden’ more equitably between states; while another school explains the attempt to ‘go European’ as a means of evading domestic scrutiny and controls on illiberal policies.

TUTORIAL READINGS

Givens, T. and Luedtke, A. (2004) ‘The Politics of European Union Immigration Policy: Institutions, Salience, and Harmonization’, Policy Studies Journal , 32(1): 145- 165.

Guiraudon, V. (2003) ‘The Constitution of a European Immigration Policy Domain: A Political Sociology Approach’, Journal of European Public Policy , 10: 263-282.

Further Reading

Boswell, C. (2003) European Migration Policies in Flux. Oxford: Blackwell, Chapter 5.

Geddes, A. (2002) ‘The politics of migration in an integrating Europe’, in Geddes, A., The politics of migration and immigration in Europe, London, Sage, pp.127-148. Available via LEARN.

Geddes, A., (2008) ‘The Amsterdam Treaty and beyond’, in Geddes, A. Immigration and European integration: beyond fortress Europe?, Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp.111-141. Available via LEARN.

Guiraudon, V. (2000) ‘European Integration and Migration Policy: Vertical Policy-Making as Venue Shopping?’, Journal of Common Market Studies , 38(2): 251-71.

Joly, D. (1996) Haven or Hell?: Asylum Policies and Refugees in Europe. New York: MacMillan Press.

Kostakopoulou, T. (2000) ‘The ‘Protective Union’: Change and Continuity in Migration Law and Policy in Post-Amsterdam Europe’, Journal of Common Market Studies , 38(2) 497-518.

Menz, G. (2009) The Political Economy of Managed Migration: Nonstate Actors, Europeanization, and the Politics of Designing Migration Policies, Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Available as an E-book in the university library.)

Monar, J. (2006). ‘Cooperation in the Justice and Home Affairs Domain: Characteristics, Constraints and Progress’, Journal of European Integration , 28(5): 495-509.

Thielemann, E. (2003) ‘ Between Interests and Norms: Explaining Burden- Sharing in the EU’, Journal of Refugee Studies , 16: 253-273.

Ucarer, E. M. (2003) ‘Justice and Home Affairs’, in Michelle Cini (ed) European Union Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 294-311.

5. The External Dimension of Immigration and Asylum

The so-called ‘external dimension’ of immigration and asylum is one of the most rapidly growing areas of EU cooperation, and an intriguing area of study for political scientists and International Relations scholars. The external dimension refers to a series of initiatives to integrate, or mainstream, EU migration policy goals into relations with third countries. It covers a wide array of measures, including so-called “repressive” measures, such as readmission agreements, pre-frontier control, and supporting migration control in countries of origin and transit; as well as “preventive” measures, targeted to reduce migration and refugee pressures in countries of origin, or to encourage the containment of refugees in regions of origin. The approach has been most developed in EU relations with newly acceding and accession states in Central and Eastern Europe and the Western Balkans; but it is also increasingly a feature of the European Neighbourhood Policy, and even EU relations with countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. This agenda raises a number of questions. First, what is the rationale for focusing on the external dimension, rather than sticking to traditional forms of domestic migration control? How far has it been possible to integrate this agenda into existing EU policies on external relations and development? What are the implications for national security, for migrants, refugee and human rights, as well as relations with third countries and international and non-governmental organisations?

TUTORIAL READINGS

Lavenex, S. (2006) ‘Shifting Up and Out: The Foreign Policy of European Immigration Control’, West European Politics , (29) 2: 329 – 350

Wunderlich, D. (2012) ‘The limits of external governance: implementing EU external migration policy’, Journal of European Public Policy (19)9: 1414-1433

Further Reading

Bigo, D. (2002). ‘Security and Immigration: Toward a Critique of the Governmentality of Unease’, in Alternatives, 27 (Special Issue): pp.63-92. Available via LEARN.

Boswell, C. (2003) ‘ The 'External Dimension' of EU Immigration and Asylum Policy’, International Affairs , 79(3): 619–638.

Boswell, C. (2007). ‘Migration Control in Europe After 9/11: Explaining the Absence of Securitization’, in Journal of Common Market Studies , 45: 3, pp589-610

Geddes, Andrew (2008) Immigration and European Integration: Beyond Fortress Europe, Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp.42-67

Georgi, Fabian, (2010) ‘For the Benefit of Some: The International Organization for Migration and its Global Migration Management’, in Geiger, M. and Pecoud, A. (eds), The politics of international migration management, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.45-72. Available via LEARN.

Gil-Bazo, M. T. (2006) ‘The Practice of Mediterranean States in the Context of the European Union’s Justice and Home Affairs External Dimension. The Safe Third-Country Concept Revisited’, International Journal of Refugee Law , 18(3-4): 571-600.

Haddad, E (2008) ‘The External Dimension of EU Refugee Policy: A New Approach to Asylum?’, Government and Opposition , (43)2: 190–205.

Huysmans, J. (2000). ‘The European Union and the Securitization of Migration’, in Journal of Common Market Studies, 38 (5): pp751-777.

Lavenex, S., Lehmkuhl, D. and Wichmann, N. (2009) ‘Modes of external governance: a cross-national and cross-sectoral comparison’, Journal of European Public Policy, 16(6), pp.813-33.

Lindstrom, C. (2005) ‘European Union Policy on Asylum and Immigration. Addressing the Root Causes of Forced Migration: A Justice and Home Affairs Policy of Freedom, Security and Justice?’, Social Policy and Administration , (39)6: pp. 587- 605.

Monar, J. (2004) ‘The EU as an International Actor in the Domain of Justice and Home Affairs’, European Foreign Affairs Review , 9: 395-415

Neal, A. (2009) ‘Securitization and Risk at the EU Border: The Origins of Frontex’, Journal of Common Market Studies , 47(2): pp.333-356.

Reslow, N. (2012) ‘Deciding on EU External Migration Policy: The Member States and the Mobility Partnerships’, Journal of European Integration (34)3: 223-239

Roig, A. and T. Huddleston (2007) ‘EC Readmission Agreements: A Re-evaluation of the Political Impasse’, European Journal of Migration and Law , 9: 363-387.

Schieffer, M. (2003) ‘Community Readmission Agreements with Third Countries – Objectives, Substance and Current State of Negotiations’, European Journal of Migration and Law , 5: 343-357

Wunderlich, D. (2012) ‘Europeanization through the Grapevine: Communication Gaps and the Role of International Organizations in Implementation Networks of EU External Migration Policy’, Journal of European Integration (34)5: 485-503

6. NO LECTURE – INNOVATIVE LEARNING WEEK

7. Philosophies of Migrant Integration and Citizenship

An area where immigration has had a clear impact is within the realm of citizenship. The debate regarding the benefits of ‘assimilation’; ‘multiculturalism’ and/or ‘ethnic pluralism’ is linked to a renewed interest in ‘citizenship’, particularly as it is reflected in the diverse conceptualisations of nationhood and civic traditions in different West European states. A key area where this debate is usually present concerns questions of naturalisation - should the 2nd (or 3rd) generation become nationals by birth (jus soli) or should citizenship be the reserve of for those who can show a blood lineage (jus sanguinis)? A number of authors have generalised this top-down approach to speak of there being a variety of ‘models’ or ‘philosophies’ of integration in Europe. How far can these approaches be used to understand and/or explain comparative differences in policy on and treatment of migrants and ethnic minorities in Europe? What are the reasons for this renewed interest in citizenship? To what extent has post-war immigration to Western Europe eroded national models of citizenship?

TUTORIAL READINGS

Brubaker, R. (2001) ‘The Return of assimilation? Changing perspectives on immigration and its sequels in France, Germany and the United States’, Ethnic and Racial Studies 24(4): 531-548.

Joppke, C. (2005) ‘Transformation of Citizenship: Status, Rights, Identity’, Citizenship Studies , 11(1): 37-48.

Further Reading

Brubaker, R. (1992) Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press. (Available as an E-book in the university library.)

Castles, S. and Davidson, A., (2000) ‘Theories of Citizenship’, in Castles, S. and Davidson, A., Citizenship and migration : globalization and the politics of belonging, Basingstoke: Macmillan, pp.26-53. Available via LEARN.

Favell, A. (1998) Philosophies of Integration: Immigration and the Idea of Citizenship in France and Britain. London: MacMillan. (Chapter 3 available via LEARN.)

Gans, H. (1997) ‘Toward a reconciliation of ‘Assimilation’ and ‘Pluralism’: the interplay of acculturation and ethnic retention’. International Migration Review 31(4): 875-93.

Grillo, R. (1998) Pluralism and the Politics of Difference. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Available as an E-book in the university library.)

Hansen, R., (2003) ‘Citizenship and Integration in Europe’, in Joppke, C. and Morawska, E. (eds.), Toward assimilation and citizenship: immigrants in liberal nation-states, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, pp.87-109. Available via LEARN.

Heater, D., (1999) "Who are citizens?" from Heater, D., What is citizenship?, Cambridge, Polity Press, pp.80-114. Available via LEARN.

Joppke, C. (1998) ‘Immigration Challenges the Nation State’ in Joppke, C. (ed) Challenge to the Nation State: Immigration in Western Europe and the United States. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 5-46. (Available as an E-book in the university library.)

Karatani, R. (2003) Defining British Citizenship: Empire, Commonwealth and Modern Britain. London: Frank Cass. Chapter 5. (Available as an E-book in the university library.)

Koopmans, R. and Statham, P. (2000) ‘Migration and Ethnic Relations as a field of Political Contention: An Opportunity Structure Approach’ in Koopmans, R. and P. Statham, (eds) Challenging Immigration and Ethnic Relations Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp13-56. (Available as an E-book in the university library.).

Kymlicka, W. (1995) Multicultural Citizenship. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Available as an E-book in the university library.)

Kymlica, W. and Norman, W. (eds) (2000) Citizenship in Diverse Societies, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Marshall, T.H. (1950) Citizenship and Social Class. London: Cambridge University Press.

Miller, D. (1995) On Citizenship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Miller, D. (2000) Citizenship and National Identity. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Oliver, D. and Heater, D. (1994) The Foundations of Citizenship. Hemel Hempstead: Harwester Wheatsheaf.

Oommen, T.K. (1997) Citizenship, Nationality and Ethnicity: Reconciling Competing Identities. Oxford: Polity Press.

Prior, D., Stewart, J. and Walsh, K. (1995) Citizenship: Rights, Community and Participation. London: Pitman Publishing.

Riesenberg, P. (1992) Citizenship in the Western Tradition: Plato to Rousseau. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Rumbaut, R. (1997) ‘Assimilation and its discontents: between rhetoric and reality’, International Migration Review , 31(4): 923-60.

Soysal, Y. (1994) ‘Toward a Postnational Model of Membership’, in Soysal, Y., Limits of citizenship: migrants and postnational membership in Europe, Chicago, University of Chicago Press. pp.136-162, 204-208. Available via LEARN.

8. Patterns of Political Integration

In many of the receiving EU countries, issues of migrant political participation and representation were for a long time not considered to be important topics. Migrants were often expected to return, not to settle and participate in the structuring of collective affairs in. However, once settlement became a reality, many countries were faced with the dilemma of how to make these migrants into full citizens, enjoying both rights and responsibilities. Political participation is furthermore the active aspect of citizenship and entails the ways in which individuals can take part in society. One distinguishing feature between citizens and non-citizens is e.g. the right to vote in national elections and to occupy certain public office positions. In this sense, the state can exercise control over who has access to deciding on political matters by having a more inclusive or more exclusive understanding of citizenship. However, there are a number of political acts one can engage in which are available regardless of citizenship status. The increasingly looser connection between being a citizen and participation raises interesting questions relating to the state, society and citizen relationship. To what extent are ethnic networks successful channels of mobilisation? Why do migrants in some countries seem more likely to be politically active than in other countries?

TUTORIAL READINGS

Just, A. and Anderson, Christopher J. (2012) ‘Immigrants, citizenship and political action in Europe’, British Journal of Political Science 42(3): 481-509.

de Rooij, Elaine A. (2012) ‘Patterns of immigrant political participation: explaining differences in types of political participation between immigrants and the majority population in Western Europe’, European Sociological Review 28(4): 455-481.

Further Reading

Bousetta, H. (1997) ‘Citizenship and political participation in France and the Netherlands’, New Community 23(2): 215-231. Available via LEARN.

Castles, S. and Miller, M., (2009) ‘Migrants and Politics’, in Castles, S. and Miller, M., The age of migration : international population movements in the modern world, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, pp.277-298. Available via LEARN.

Fennema, M. and Tillie. J. (1999) ‘Political participation and political trust in Amsterdam: civic communities and ethnic networks’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies , 35(4): 703-726.

Ireland, P. (1994) The Policy Challenges of Ethnic Diversity: Immigrant Politics in France and Switzerland (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

Jacobs, D. (1998) ‘Discourse, Politics and Policy: the Dutch Parliamentary Debate about Voting Rights for Foreign Residents’, International Migration Review , 32(2): 350-73.

Joppke, C. and Lukes, S. (1999) (eds) Multicultural Questions (Oxford. Oxford University Press). (Available as an E-book in the university library.)

Joppke, C. (2000) ‘Mobilization of culture and the reform of citizenship law: Germany and the United States’, in Koopmans, R. and Statham, P. (eds) Challenging Immigration and Ethnic Relations Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 145-161. (Available as an E-book in the university library.)

Koopmans, R. and Statham, P. (2000) Challenging Immigration and Ethnic Relations Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press). (Available as an E-book in the university library.)

Lien, P. (1994) ‘Ethnicity and political participation: a comparison between Asian and Mexican Americans’, Political Behaviour 16(2):237-264.

Messina, A., (2005) ‘The Political Incorporation of Immigrants in Europe: Trends and Implications’, in Messina, A. & Lahav, G. (eds), The migration reader: exploring politics and policies, Boulder, Colo: Lynne Rienner, pp.470-493. Available via LEARN.

Putnam, R.D et al. (1993) Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy (Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press).

Soininen, M. and Bäck, H. (1993) ‘Electoral participation among immigrants in Sweden: integration, culture and participation’, New Community, 20(1): 111-130. Available via LEARN.

Solomos, J. (3rd edition, 2003) Race and Racism in Britain. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. (especially Chapter 9 and 10).

Statham, P. (1999) ‘Political mobilisation by minorities in Britain: a negative feedback of race relations’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 25(4): 597-626.

Zapata-Barrero, R. and Gropas, R. (2012) ‘Active immigrants in multicultural contexts : democratic challenges in Europe’, in Triandafyllidou, A., Modood, T., Meer, N. (eds.), European multiculturalisms: cultural, religious and ethnic challenges, Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press, pp.167-191. Available via LEARN.

9. Party Politics of Migration

Immigration is one of the key issues of contestation in contemporary European politics. Anti-immigrant parties have more or less successfully mobilised around it, some parts of the media are similarly obsessed with it, and many voters feel just as strongly. Yet the extent to which immigration plays a part in electoral competition varies considerably, especially when it comes to the use made of the issue by parties generally considered mainstream rather than extreme. But when, and why, does ‘the immigration issue’ become an ‘issue’? And what can explain the seemingly contradictory nature of immigration’s high electoral saliency level and anti-immigrant party success but low level of mainstream party interest? Under what circumstances do mainstream parties adopt the policy positions of far-right parties? What are the potential costs and benefits to mainstream parties of doing so?

TUTORIAL READINGS

Bale, T. (2003) ‘Cinderella and her ugly sisters: the mainstream and extreme right in Europe's bipolarising party systems’, West European Politics , 26:3, pp67-90

Boswell, C. & Hough, D. (2008) ‘Politicizing migration: opportunity or liability for the centre-right in Germany?’, Journal of European Public Policy , 15:3, pp331-348

Further Reading

Green-Pedersen, C. and Krogstrup, J. (2008) ‘Immigration as a political issue in Denmark and Sweden’, European Journal of Political Research 47(5), pp. 610–634.

Kitschelt, H. and McGann, A.J., (1995) The Radical Right in Western Europe. A Comparative Analysis. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Koopmans, R. and Statham, P. (2000) ‘Migration and ethnic relations as a field of political contention: an opportunity structure approach’ in Koopmans, R. and Statham, P. (eds.) Challenging Immigration and Ethnic Relations Politics: Comparative European Perspectives, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 13-56. (Available as an E-book in the university library.)

Marthaler, S. (2008) ‘Nicolas Sarkozy and the politics of French immigration policy’, Journal of European Public Policy , 15:3, pp382-397

Meguid, B. (2005) “Competition Between Unequals: The Role of Mainstream Party Strategy in Niche Party Success”, American Political Science Review ,90(3), 347-359.

Mudde, C. (2004) ‘The Populist Zeitgeist’, Government and Opposition , 39(4), 541- 563.

Norris, Pippa (1995) Radical Right: Voters and Parties in the Electoral Market, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Odmalm. P (2011) 'Political parties and 'the immigration issue': issue ownership in Swedish parliamentary elections 1991-2010',   West European Politics, 34 (5): 1070- 1091.

Rydgren, J. (2005) ‘Is extreme right-wing populism contagious? Explaining the emergence of a new party families’, European Journal of Political Research 44(3): 413-437.

Smith, J. (2008) ‘Towards consensus? Centre-right parties and immigration policy in the UK and Ireland’, Journal of European Public Policy , 15:3, pp415-431

Van Spanje, Joost (2010) ‘Contagious Parties: Anti-Immigration Parties and Their Impact on Other Parties’ Immigration Stances in Contemporary Western Europe’, Party Politics 16(5): 563-586.

10. Diaspora Politics and Transnationalism

Much of the course thus far has been about the consequences of immigration for receiving countries. This week we examine the relationship between countries of origin and their migrant communities abroad, also referred to as diasporas or transnational communities. Such ties may be economic, socio-cultural or political. The sheer magnitude of financial transfers from migrants to homelands has seen remittances emerge as key focus for policymakers. Remittances may also be social, insofar as the transfer of ideas may lead to changes in social practices in places of origin. Political manifestations of transnationalism can also lead to transformations of institutions and citizenship – both in sending and receiving countries – such as the growing tolerance of dual nationality. Sending states can have strong reasons for seeking to engage with expatriates abroad, but exiles may equally exacerbate homeland conflicts, or be a source of political opposition to regimes. Finally, there are a number of normative and empirical questions which migrant transnationalism raises: should absent citizens have voting rights in homeland elections? Are transnational activities a transitory phenomenon of importance only to first generation migrants, or do they extend to subsequent generations? Do migrants’ transnational practices impede integration in host countries, or facilitate it?

TUTORIAL READINGS

Bauböck, R. (2003) ‘Towards a Political Theory of Migrant Transnationalism’, International Migration Review , 37:3, pp700-723

Brand, L. (2006) ‘Morocco: expatriates as subjects or citizens?’ in Brand, L., Citizens abroad: emigration and the state in the Middle East and North Africa, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp.45-91. Available via LEARN.

Further Reading

Adamson, Fiona B., (2002) ‘Mobilising for the transformation of home: politicised identities and transnational practices’, in Al-Ali, N and Koser, K., (eds.), New approaches to migration? Transnational communities and the transformation of home, London: Routledge, pp.155-168. Available via LEARN.

Avci, G. (2005) ‘Religion, Transnationalism and Turks in Europe’, Turkish Studies , 6:2, pp201-213

Bommes, M. (2005) Transnationalism or Assimilation? Journal of Social Science Education , 2005: 1

Guarnizo, L., Portes, A., and Haller, W. (2003) ‘Assimilation and Transnationalism: determinants of transnational political action among contemporary migrants’, in American Journal of Sociology , 108: 6, pp1211-1248

Levitt, P. (1998) ‘Social Remittances: Migration Driven Local-Level Forms of Cultural Diffusion’, in International Migration Review , 32:4, pp926-948

Norris, P. (2005) Radical right: voters and parties in the electoral market, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ostergaard-Nielsen, E., (2003) ‘International Migration and Sending Countries: Key Issues and Themes’, in Ostergaard-Nielsen, E. (ed.), International migration and sending countries: perceptions, policies, and transnational relations, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp3-30. Available via LEARN.

Portes, A., Escobar, C., & Arana, R. (2008) ‘Bridging the gap: transnational and ethnic organizations in the political incorporation of immigrants in the United States’, Ethnic and Racial Studies , 31:6, pp1056-1090

Sana, M. (2005) ‘Buying membership in the transnational community: migrant remittances, social status, and assimilation’, in Population Research and Policy Review, 24:3, pp231-261

Snel, E., Engbersen, G. and Leerkes, A. (2006), ‘Transnational involvement and social integration’, in Global Networks , 6:3, pp285–308

Van Bochove, M., Rusinovic, K. and Engbersen, G. (2010), ‘The multiplicity of citizenship: transnational and local practices and identifications of middle-class migrants’, in Global Networks , 10:3, pp344–364

Vertovec, S. (2004), ‘Migrant Transnationalism and Modes of Transformation’, in International Migration Review , 38:3, pp970–1001

11. Immigration and integration after the ‘crisis’: challenges to the nation-state?

This final lecture brings together the various themes of the course in the light of the global financial crisis. How has the financial crisis affected states’ policies on immigration? What are the similarities and differences in response compared with the financial crisis of the mid-1970s? What has been the effect of the crisis in the domain of integration? Have migrants become a scapegoat for high unemployment and lower wages, leading to a growth in the electoral appeal of far-right parties? Turning to countries of origin, what has been the effect on the volume of remittances transferred home? Some experts have observed increased rates of return of migrant workers, while others have noted a trend for renewed emigration from countries which were until recently major destination countries. As in earlier migration episodes studied in this course, the issue of obtaining accurate and up-to-date data is a complicating factor. More broadly, is migration one example of a broader trend where European states have been weakened by globalization? Or have nation-states shown resilience or even resurgence in the face of questions raised by neo-liberalism, financial crisis and ethnic diversity?

TUTORIAL READINGS

Cairns, D. (2012), “I Wouldn't Stay Here”: Economic Crisis and Youth Mobility in Ireland. International Migration .

Krings, T. et al. (2009) Migration and Recession: Polish Migrants in Post-Celtic Tiger Ireland, in Sociological Research Online 14:2.

Further Reading

Castles (2012) ‘Cosmopolitanism and freedom? Lessons of the global economic crisis’, in Ethnic and Racial Studies , 35:11, pp1843-52.

Castles, S. (2011) ‘Migration, Crisis, and the Global Labour Market’, in Globalizations , 8:3, pp.311-324.

Castles, S. and Vezzoli, S. (2009) ‘The global economic crisis and migration: temporary interruption or structural change’, in Paradigmes, 2009: 2, pp.68-75

Kuptsch, C. ‘The Economic Crisis and Labour Migration Policy in European Countries’, in Comparative Population Studies , 37:1-2, pp.15-32

Martin, P. (2009), ‘Recession and Migration: A New Era for Labor Migration?’, in International Migration Review , 43:   pp.671–691

Papademetriou, D. and Terrazas, A. (2009) Immigrants and the current economic crisis: research evidence, policy challenges, and implications . Washington: Migration Policy Institute.

Ruiz, I. & Vargas-Silva, C. (2010) ‘Another consequence of the economic crisis: a decrease in migrants’ remittances’, in Applied Financial Economics , 20: 1-2, pp.171- 182.