Search results

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) states in 2018 that safeguarding “civil liberties is critical” to their official duties. The Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties within DHS, as its website explains,

reviews and assesses complaints from the public in areas such as: physical or other abuse; discrimination based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability; inappropriate conditions of confinement; infringements of free speech; violation of right to due process … and any other civil rights or civil liberties violation related to a Department program or activity.

My chapter tracks the centrality of deportability in shaping the civil liberties and rights that DHS is tasked with enforcing. Over the course of the twentieth century, people on US soil saw an expanding list of civil liberties and civil rights. Important scholarship concentrates on the role of the courts, state and federal governments, advocacy groups, social movements, and foreign policy driving these constitutional and cultural changes. For instance, the scholarship illustrates that coming out of World War I, the US Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment did not protect something the Justices labeled “irresponsible speech.” The Supreme Court soon changed course, opening up an era ever since of more robust First Amendment rights. What has not been undertaken in the literature is an examination of the relationship of deportability to the sweep of civil liberties and civil rights. Starting in the second decade of the twentieth century, federal immigration policymakers began multiplying types of immigration statuses. A century later, among many others, there is the H2A status for temporary low-wage workers, the H2B for skilled labor, and permanent residents with green cards. The deportability of each status constrains access to certain liberties and rights. Thus, in 2016, when people from the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties within DHS act, they are not enforcing a uniform body of rights and liberties that applies equally to citizens and immigrants, or even within the large category of immigrants. Instead, they do so within a complicated matrix of liberties and rights attenuated by deportability, which has been shaped by the history of the twentieth century.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the level of influence that civil liberties has on the marginal effect of remittances on gross domestic investment and consumption separately and measures it across all levels of civil liberties.

The authors employ a two‐stage system generalized method of moments procedure and the civil liberties subset of the Freedom in the World Index as a proxy for civil liberty.

The findings indicate a substitution effect from investment to consumption as civil liberties deteriorate for developing south economies, though not for emerging economies. In addition, the marginal effect of remittances on investment diminishes less quickly as economies become less free than it increases for consumption indicating that the substitution is not quite one‐for‐one.

Economies with low levels of civil liberties could benefit by improving them in ways that would encourage recipients to channel remittances into investment rather than consumption.

This paper differs from previous research in that the authors evaluate investment and consumption separately rather than embedding these component parts within growth. In addition, when interactions are employed in existing literature, the inference drawn is static with regard to the varying degrees of institutional development. Third, none of the prior studies directly explores civil liberties proper; they usually aggregate civil liberties with other aspects of political or economic freedom.

This chapter explores the “Constitutional Revolution” of the 1930s, as it played out beyond the walls of the U.S. Supreme Court. It argues that a radically revised historical memory of the Constitution accompanied the ascent New Deal liberalism. Prior core values associated with the Constitution's history, such as federalism and the sanctity of private property, were dramatically downgraded, while the civil liberties embodied in the Bill of Rights dramatically rose. By so redefining their historical memory of the Constitution, Americans could enjoy the active government that most desired while still celebrating the constitutional traditions of individual freedom and limited government.

In this paper, we examine the effects of different types of political discrimination on interethnic conflict using data on over 200 ethnic groups within over 100 countries. Our results show that political restrictions, in general, significantly increase the likelihood of interethnic conflict. Additionally, our results demonstrate that restrictions on migration and voting rights, in particular, are highly salient predictors of conflict. Our findings suggest that future research on interethnic conflict should further examine the impact of political discrimination. The practical implication of our findings is that policymakers worldwide should seriously consider the potentially deadly ramifications of discriminatory policies.

The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) are due to be implemented imminently. This legislation serves as an extension of the Mental Capacity Act designed to close the ‘Bournewood Gap’ and is of particular relevance to learning disability services. This article discusses the DoLS from a legal, philosophical and ethical perspective.

The aim of this paper is to document the effect of democracy on the financing constraints faced by private firms.

This paper uses the data from the World Bank's Enterprise Surveys to test the arguments presented in this paper in a large sample of private firms from 92 developing countries.

The results show that firms headquartered in more democratic countries have better access to finance than firms headquartered in less democratic countries. The findings are robust to the comprehensive inclusion of relevant controls and to a number of sensitivity tests. The authors' findings highlight an important channel through which democracy can affect the business environment of a country.

The authors believe that this paper is an initial attempt to document the effect of democracy on the financing constraints faced by private firms.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the impacts of economic and political factors on advertising industry in the enlarging EU.

The paper employed random effect time series cross‐section (TSCS) models and cross sectional regressions to investigate the impacts of these factors on advertising industry in the enlarging EU.

It was found that marketers' advertising spending decisions in these economies are driven by consumers' income level and FDI inflow. Civil liberty related variables, on the other hand, were found to moderate the relationship between income and advertising spending.

This paper helps managers and practitioners understand the dynamics of advertising industry in the enlarging EU as well as in other parts of the world. Some fruitful avenues for future research include examination of consumers' perceptions of advertising in the rapidly changing Eastern European countries; use of qualitative methods to deepen the understanding of how consumers make sense of different forms of advertising; and in‐depth analysis of advertising industries in selected economies.

The value of this paper is two‐fold. First, it is one of the most comprehensive cross‐country advertising studies examining the drivers of advertising industries in 28 European countries. Second, it employs TSCS models which allow for differences in behavior over cross sectional units as well as the differences in behavior over time for a given cross section and hence are likely to be consistent with the way the data were generated.