Search results

United States immigration policy is one of the most dynamic and fiercely argued public policy issues today – often including questions of how many and from where. Poor economic conditions overseas, perceptions of a relative abundance of opportunity in the United States, flight from persecution and upheaval, and revolutions in communication and transportation are often cited as the major factors explaining historic and current waves of immigrants (legal and illegal) to U.S. shores (Batchelor, 2004; Borjas, 2004; Porter, 2006). U.S. immigration legislation is also a key factor in determining the numbers and composition of America's new residents. The focus of this chapter therefore consists of the costs associated with providing illegal immigrants with the benefit of free, public schooling within the context of globalization. More specifically, given the broader social, political, and economic parameters of the immigration debate and its meaning, the chapter discusses the legal and educational issues faced in the United States by those undocumented students who desire to attend public schooling, as well as the ways current state and federal laws both empower and discourage them.

This study investigates core framing techniques utilized by two anti-illegal immigration social movement organizations, the Minuteman Project, Inc. and the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, both volunteer civil border patrol groups operating along the U.S.–Mexican border. Theoretically, this paper is informed by Robert Benford and David Snow's work on collective action framing. Using a case study approach, document analysis is employed to explore how four types of framing techniques (diagnostic framing, prognostic framing, motivational action framing, and credibility framing) are implemented by each group via information presented on their websites. The findings of this investigation suggest that these groups implement each of the four framing techniques in question, with the bulk of their focus resting in the diagnostic frame. Through the examination of these groups via the framing perspective, it is also found that the groups emphasize the importance of place, that is, the U.S.–Mexican border itself. The case analyses thus further framing theory by highlighting the roles that “geographic and place framing” also play. The Minuteman Project, Inc. and the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps are relatively new groups that have mobilized within the past few years. Sociologically, relatively few scholars have studied these particular groups within the larger anti-illegal immigration movement. This paper provides an in-depth analysis of how the groups utilize framing to construct their messages, missions, and goals to the public. Doing so contributes to an interesting and emerging type of civil border patrol movement and also adds to the body of work devoted to the importance of social movement framing.

Policy strategies directed against illegal immigration have largely concentrated on border and domestic enforcement. This paper suggests that host countries could consider a more lenient approach: contributing to the deportation cost of self-reporting illegal immigrants. The increase in illegal immigration that such a reward might bring about is shown to be more than offset by the rise in the number of self-reporting illegal immigrants leaving the rich country, with a concomitant decrease in the number of remaining illegal immigrants. An added advantage of this policy is that the self-reporting immigrants would be predominantly the relatively lower socio-economic group. When adopting this policy, the rich country must choose the appropriate mix of two policy means: funds allocated to strengthening its border and domestic control; and rewards to self-reporting illegal immigrants.

This article aims to highlight the dark side of the restrictive immigration policies, undertaken both at European and national level, paying special attention to the negative effects that these policies can cause.

In particular, the article focuses on two of the main aims stated by these migration policies: the organization of legal immigration and the control of the illegal immigration.

The paper demonstrates how the repressive instruments, today put into practice, not only have not been a solution, but they have produced destructive effects, such as: the increasing of illegal immigration and the consequential increasing of the exploitation of immigrants – making the borders between smuggling and trafficking more and more transitory – the strengthening of the more and more professionalized criminal organization and finally the enlargement of the black market's borders, of which the European single market feeds itself.

The paper offers insights into the dark side of European immigration policy.

Through an ethnographic content analysis of 936 letters to the editor, op-eds, and editorials and 1,195 online comments, this chapter examines how participants in the public sphere neutralized accusations of racism leveled against Donald Trump in the early phase of his presidential campaign. The study shows that both supporters and opponents effectively (if not purposefully) neutralized racism through a number of techniques. Trump’s opponents neutralized racism by calling attention to a number of other perceived flaws in his candidacy. Trump’s supporters obscured the charges of racism by endorsing him and calling attention to positive qualities. Others neutralized racism by changing the subject or making neutral observations. Supporters neutralized charges of racism in three additional ways. Most commonly, they framed Trump’s comments as accurate. Some defensively drew a distinction between legal and illegal immigration. A relative few claimed that others were also racist or xenophobic. That there were a number of ways of defining Trump’s stance toward Mexican immigrants demonstrates the role of human agency in producing social structures. Structural factors in the discursive field such as the stock of existing conservative frames, Trump’s absurdity shield, and political partisanship also facilitated the neutralization of accusations of racism.

This chapter focuses on the anti-European stance as it unfolds in Marine Le Pen’s and Jean-Marie Le Pen’s discourses. As most far-right parties in Europe, both politicians focus on the notion of freedom and national sovereignty, asserting a strong anti-European Union stance; however, they construct their anti-European momentum by playing on different strategies and emotions. By using corpus linguistics tools, the present study examines and analyses the discourse of both politicians in interviews and debates. It concludes that if they share most issues on which they base their political agenda such as the fear of increasing immigration because of the Schengen’s agreement, they differ as regards the ways they discursively address the same issue. Marine Le Pen relies more on a constructive/rational stance, by focusing on facts and figures as well as on solutions, while moving away from the strong and negative emotions which her father constantly used mainly as provocation strategies. This may have helped her build a favourable political momentum as witnessed in the 2014 European elections.

Research on sentiment analysis were mostly conducted on product and services, resulting in scarcity of studies focusing on social issues, which may require different mechanisms due to the nature of the issue itself. This paper aims to address this gap by developing an enhanced lexicon-based approach.

An enhanced lexicon-based approach was employed using General Inquirer, incorporated with multi-level grammatical dependencies and the role of verb. Data on illegal immigration were gathered from Twitter for a period of three months, resulting in 694,141 tweets. Of these, 2,500 tweets were segregated into two datasets for evaluation purposes after filtering and pre-processing.

The enhanced approach outperformed ten online sentiment analysis tools with an overall accuracy of 81.4 and 82.3% for dataset 1 and 2, respectively as opposed to ten other sentiment analysis tools.

The study is novel in the sense that data pertaining to a social issue were used instead of products and services, which require different mechanism due to the nature of the issue itself.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of the tragic events of 9/11 on the self‐employment entry/exit decisions of native‐born Hispanics.

The paper uses the difference‐in‐differences approach with native Whites as the control group. The dynamics of entry and exit decisions are examined using data from 1999‐2003 CPS‐ORG.

The estimates reveal a negative impact of 9/11 on Hispanics' self‐employment entry decisions, which is mainly the result of less entry from the wage sector, and it has increased Hispanics' self‐employment exit, which is mainly the result of increased exit to the wage sector.

The results suggest that native Hispanics may have experienced increased job opportunities in the wake of 9/11 and hence became less likely to be “pushed” into self‐employment and more likely to be “pulled” out of self‐employment. The improved labor market opportunities stem from government increased sanctions against undocumented immigrants, which reduced the demand for illegal immigrant workers, many of whom are Hispanic immigrants, and that native‐born Hispanics are likely to be relatively close substitutes for immigrants Hispanics. A limitation of the research is that the estimates are statistically insignificant, possibly due to the relatively small sample size.

Existing studies that examine the impact of 9/11 on the Hispanic's labor market outcomes are all focused on immigrants or wage‐employment. The paper complements the literature by examining the impact of 9/11 on native‐born Hispanics and in particular their self‐employment decisions, and thus provides a more complete picture of the impact of 9/11 on Hispanics.