Monthly Archives: November 2012

MIGRANTS AT SEA

On 10 October Frontex released its FRAN (Frontex Risk Assessment Network) Quarterly Report for the Second Quarter of 2012 (April-June). As is always the case, the 70 page report contains a significant amount of information, graphs, and statistical tables regarding detections of illegal border crossings (land, air, and sea), irregular migration routes, detections of facilitators, detections of illegal stays, refusals of entry, asylum claims, returns, information regarding other illegal border activities, and more.  Here are some highlights (focusing on the sea borders):

Malta-  There was a significant increase in the number of Somalis reaching Malta. “Taking into account the professional planning of the trips, it is assumed that the modus operandi has changed and that Malta is now targeted on purpose, thereby replacing Italy as the preferred destination country for this nationality. The reason for this change has not yet been confirmed; however, in the past Malta resettled some Somali…

View original post 3,292 more words

CNN Three-Part Documentary `A Forgotten People’

CNN has recently published online a three-part documentary entitled, “A Forgotten People.”  The documentaries look at the plight of the Rohingya Muslim people of western Myanmar and neighboring Bangladesh.  The documentaries have been made available online along with an articles entitled, `Terrorized, starving and homeless: Myanmar’s Rohingya still forgotten.’

In this article, it is stated that:

We called our documentary “A Forgotten People,” and it looked at appalling incidents where boatloads of refugees fleeing poverty and persecution arrived in Thailand only to be towed back out to sea and abandoned by the Thai security forces. Hundreds died or went missing.

Part One of the documentary is available below:

http://cnn.com/video/?/video/international/2009/02/25/wus.forgotten.people.bk.a.cnn

Part Two of the documentary is available below:

http://cnn.com/video/?/video/international/2009/02/25/wus.forgotten.people.bk.b.cnn

Part Three of the documentary is available below:

http://us.cnn.com/video/?/video/international/2009/02/25/wus.forgotten.people.bk.c.cnn

Courses: Upcoming HREA E-learning Courses on Migration & Asylum

*** Apologies for Cross Posting ***

Source: Forced Migration Discussion List.

Courses:  Upcoming HREA E-learning Courses on Migration & Asylum

Dear Colleagues,

HREA will be offering two new e-learning courses “Migration and Asylum (Foundation Course)” and “EU Migration and Asylum Law and Policies” from 13 February-26 March 2013:

MIGRATION AND ASYLUM (FOUNDATION COURSE) (13 February-26 March 2013)

This course introduces the participants to the international migration system; discussing and analyzing the most commonly used categories of migration (including the migration-asylum nexus), its causes and consequences, current trends and figures, as well as the main international, regional and national policy and operational approaches and challenges.

Week 1. Introduction to Main Concepts in Migration Discourse Week 2. Global Trends in Migration Week 3. The Migration-Asylum Nexus Week 4. The Legal Framework Week 5. Policy Approaches: Migration Policies and Practice Week 6. International Migration and Social Justice

For more information and online registration, please visit:

www.hrea.org/migration-and-asylum

EU MIGRATION AND ASYLUM LAW AND POLICIES (13 February-26 March 2013)

The European Union (EU) is one of the central players of today’s international community. Composed of member states which were traditionally sending countries, they have become key destinations for migrants and refugees from all over the world in the past half century. The internal EU migration trends have also special features as older members and newer ones have different patterns for sending and receiving migrants. A number of complex policies and programmes have therefore been designed in views of addressing these phenomenons while cooperating with third countries in the areas of migration and asylum. For those living and working outside the EU, understanding its complex migration system can be a true challenge. This course aims to provide participants with a clear overview of the basic EU migration and asylum laws and policies and policy-making procedures, allowing them to focus deeper on a specific topic of their interest through assignments.

Course outline

Week 1. Introduction to EU Policy on Immigration and Asylum Week 2. Institutional Framework of European Immigration and Asylum Policies Week 3. Control of External Borders and European Visa Policy Week 4. Employment and Migration Week 5. Status and Integration of Third-Country Nationals Week 6. EU Migration and Asylum Law and Policies in the International Context

For more information and online registration, please visit:
www.hrea.org/eu-asylum-migration-law

LEARNING APPROACH

The courses involve approximately 50 hours of reading, on-line working groups, interaction among students and instructors, webinars and quizzes, and are offered over a 6-week period. The courses integrate active and participatory learning approaches within activities and assignments, with an emphasis on reflective and collaborative learning. The maximum number of course participants is 25.

WHO SHOULD APPLY

The courses are aimed at practitioners and professionals who want to gain knowledge in the field of (im)migration and asylum, government officials (local and national level) dealing with migration and migration-related issues; EU policy makers; national authorities of EU and non-EU countries dealing with migration and asylum policies; staff of inter-governmental organisations such as the IOM and UNHCR; NGO staff members and service providers; and students of law, international relations, politics and social science. Participants should have a good written command of English and have high competence and comfort with computer and Internet use. HREA aims to ensure equal gender and geographical distribution across the selected participants. The maximum number of course participants is 25. It also possible to audit the course. A Certificate of Participation will be awarded upon successful completion of the course.

COSTS

Tuition fee for participants: US$ 435 (25% discount) if paid by 15 December 2012; $ 490 (15% discount) if paid by 15 January 2013; $ 575 after 15 January 2013.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have further questions.

Best wishes,

Paula Carello
Program Director Migration & Asylum
Human Rights Education Associates (HREA)
E-mail: p.carello@hrea.org

Call for papers: Europe at the Edge of Pluralism Conference

*** Apologies for Cross Posting ***

Source: Forced Migration Discussion List.

Call for papers: Europe at the Edge of Pluralism Conference

The Faculty of Law of the University of Helsinki and the Poznan Human Rights Centre are pleased to announce a Conference ‘EUROPE AT THE EDGE OF PLURALISM: LEGAL ASPECTS OF DIVERSITY IN EUROPE’. The conference will be held in Poznan, Poland on 13-14 June 2013.

The conference seeks to address theoretical and practical responses of European legal systems to the era of diversity and includes following panels:

1.        Multiculturalism – a New Identity for Europe?

2.        Migration Law, Human Rights and Beyond

3.        National minorities in Europe – a Need to (Re)Define?

4.        Religion in a Diverse Europe – Between Identities and Freedom of Conscience?

5.        Hate Speech Dilemmas in a Diverse Europe

6.        Europe – Identities, Memory and Law

7.        Borders of Pluralism

Abstracts of maximum 300 words, including name and affiliation, should be submitted by Friday **15th of February 2013** to law-diversity-conference@helsinki.fi , with an indication of the panel to which the abstract is proposed.

Authors of selected abstracts will be notified by 15th of March 2013.

Full-length papers (max 5000 words) should be submitted by 31st of May 2013.

Details and the call for papers can be found at:

http://www.helsinki.fi/law/research/diversity_conference.html

 

Refugee Council Archive: Off Air recording Requests for the Week Beginning: 02/12/2012

The following off-air recording requests have been made for the Refugee Council Archive for the week beginning the 02/12/2012:

Sunday 02 December

2100-2200: Channel 4: (9/12). Homeland.  (Series 2 Part 9 Two Hats).  Series Recording.

2100-2200: BBC4: Storyville Why Poverty? Solar Mamas

Monday 03 December

2000-2030: Channel 4: Dispatches The Chinese are Coming.

2200-2300: BBC4: Storyville Why Poverty? The Great Land Rush.

Wednesday 05 December

2100-2200: Channel 5: (1/3) Chris Tarrant: Extreme Railways.  (Series 1 Episode 1 – Republic of Congo).  Whole Series Please.

2230-2330: BBC4: Storyville Why Poverty? China’s Ant People.

Thursday 06 December

2100-2200: ITV1:Madeley Meets the Squatters.

Friday 07 December

1930-1955: Channel 4: Unreported World – (Episode 6.  Egypt: Sex, Mobs and Revolution).  Series Recording.

 

Refugee Council Archive: Off Air Recordings for the Week Beginning 25/11/2012

The following off-air recordings have been requested for the Refugee Council Archive for the week beginning the 25/11/2012:

Sunday 25 November

1730–1830: BBC2: (6/6) Indian Ocean with Simon Reeve. (Part 6 Indonesia and Australia).

2100-2200: BBC2: Storyville Why Poverty? Give Us The Money**

2100-2200: Channel 4: (8/12). Homeland.  (Series 2 Part 7 – I’ll Fly Away).  Series Recording.

Monday 26 November

2000-2030: Channel 4: Dispatches   Where Has Your Aid Money Gone?.

2200-2300: BBC4: Storyville Why Poverty? Stealing Africa.

Tuesday 27 November

2320-0020: BBC2: Storyville – The Albino Witchcraft Murders

Wednesday 28 November

2230-2300: BBC4:Poor Us: An Animated History of Poverty

Friday 30 November.

1930-1955: Channel 4: Unreported World – (Episode 5.  Mumbai’s Party Police).  Series Recording.

 

Updated Publication: Migration and Disaster-Induced Displacement: European Policy, Practice, and Perspective – Working Paper 308

This is a follow-up to an earlier posting to give details that a newly revised edition of this working paper is now available for access and download online.  Further details are as follows:

Migration and Disaster-Induced Displacement: European Policy, Practice, and Perspective – Working Paper 308
By Michael D. Cooper

Migration and Disaster-Induced Displacement: European Policy, Practice, and Perspective - Working Paper 308Abstract taken from the Center for Global Development webpage:

Over the last decade, a series of devastating natural disasters have killed hundreds of thousands of people, displaced millions, and decimated the built environment across wide regions, shocking the public imagination and garnering unprecedented financial support for humanitarian relief efforts. Some suggest that disaster migration must be supported by the international community, first as an adaption strategy in response to climate-change, and second, as a matter of international protection.

This study surveys the current state of law as it relates to persons displaced by natural disaster, with a specific focus on the 27 member states of the European Union plus Norway and Switzerland. Its findings show that a few express provisions are on the books in Europe and that there is reason to believe that judicial and executive authorities may interpret other, more ambiguous, provisions to encompass the protection needs of disaster-displaced individuals. Few, if any, of these provisions have been engaged for this purpose, but a number of recent European developments with respect to disaster-induced displacement merit further scrutiny.

[Download Full Working Paper]
(Source: Author: Michael D. Cooper.)

 

UK Human Rights Blog

C.N. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM – 4239/08 – HEJUD [2012] ECHR 1911 – read judgment here.

The European Court of Human Rights recently held that the UK was in breach of Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights by failing to have specific legislation in place which criminalised domestic slavery. 

Thankfully Article 4 cases (involving slavery and forced labour) are rare in the UK. Indeed this is only the fifth post on this blog about Article 4, which perhaps shows just how few and far between they are, and the UK has a proud history of seeking to prevent slavery. Although British merchants and traders, to their great shame, played a major part in the trans-Atlantic slave trade throughout the 1600s and 1700s, Britain was then at the forefront of the abolition of the slave trade and slavery from 1807 onwards and the common law has always considered…

View original post 1,433 more words

Centre for Possible Studies

ImageImage

From the upcoming publication New Voices (2012)

FREE

11am – 6pm

Centre for Possible Studies
21 Gloucester Place
London W1U 8HR (on the corner of George Street)

This one-day exhibition brings together works from New Voices, a photography project run by the Migrants Resource Centre. These works were produced over a period of four months with six young people aged between 18 and 24 who were invited to produce photographic work around the themes of culture, migration and life in London using analogue photography techniques. A book of the work produced will be available to view and order from the exhibition. Also on show are works from Young Voices, an offshoot photography project by 13-15 year olds at JusB Youth Centre in Bromley, as well as works from Cultural Mosaic, a media4us photo competition.

Implicated Theatre, the theatre group in residence at the Centre for Possible Studies will be…

View original post 26 more words

CMRB – Contesting senses of belongingness in the making of a diaspora: The case of Chinese migrants’ political mobilisation in Paris

*** Apologies for Cross Posting ***

CMRB would like to invite you to the following research seminar:

Contesting senses of belongingness in the making of a diaspora: The case of Chinese migrants’ political mobilisation in Paris

Ya-Han Chuang

Time: 14:00–16:00, Wednesday 30th January 2013

Place: EB 1 40, Docklands Campus, University of East London (http://www.uel.ac.uk/campuses/docklands/)

CMRB is delighted to invite you to the following research seminar:

‘Contesting senses of belongingness in the making of a diaspora: The case of Chinese migrants’ political mobilisation in Paris’, delivered by Ya-Han Chuang.

The seminar takes place 14:00–16:00, Wednesday 30th January 2013 in EB 1 40, Docklands Campus, University of East London. (http://www.uel.ac.uk/campuses/docklands/).

More information is included in the attached flyer.

ALL WELCOME!

Best regards,

Jamie Hakim, Research Administrator, CMRB Nira Yuval-Davis, Director, CMRB

Further details:

Contemporary studies on overseas Chinese consider them to be the agent of a “Chinese transnationalism” based on a flexible labour/capital regime and a diasporic identity (Ong and Nonini 1996, Lee 2007). How does such a form of identification interact with European societies that favour the “integration” and even the return of “assimilation” of migrant communities (Brubaker 2001)? This presentation seeks to explore such an interaction by examining the case of the Chinese community in Paris. This paper will analyze two types of mobilisation: the demonstrations “against insecurity” in 2010 and 2011, and the hesitant political mobilisation during the 2012 presidential campaign in France. Although each mobilisation was organized by actors of different social status and ideologies, all of them attempted to define the “Chinese community in France” by incorporating “the value of work” and “the right to be free from insecurity”, thus creating an exclusionary distinction and strengthening the image of the Chinese as the “model minority.” The continuum and the contrast through the two mobilisations will allow an identification of three dimensions that shape the Chinese community’s politics of belonging: the attempt of re-diasporalisation from China; the desire for recognition from French society; and the interdependence and tension between transnational entrepreneurs and the precarious young migrant workers. The seminar will conclude with a reflection on the contradictory intersection of these dimensions and its implication on migration policy.

Ya-Han Chuang is PhD Candidate in Sociology at Paris-IV Sorbonne University. She is the author of “Problematizing Chinatown : Conflits and Narratives surrounding Chinese Quarter in and around Paris” (co-author with Anne-Christine Trémon), in Tan Chee-Beng, Bernard Wong (eds.) Chinatowns. Brill and several other articles in French about new Chinese migrants’ migration process and identity configuration in Paris.

ALL WELCOME

Nira Yuval-Davis, Director of CMRB

Event: Home Office Science and European Migration Network Event on Intra-EU Mobility / 12 December, 2012 @ the British Library

*** Apologies for Cross Posting ***

Intra-EU Mobility:

The Latest Evidence and Policy Perspectives

You are warmly invited to attend a meeting of the

EMN UK National Network, to be held on

Wednesday, 12th December, 2012, 12:00 to 17:00 (registration from 11:30), at:

The Bronte Room, the British Library, 96 Euston Road, London, NW1 2DB

This half-day event aims to: (1) Identify the key issues affecting intra-EU mobility; (2) compare and contrast the latest evidence and policy perspectives on intra-EU mobility in the UK; and, (3) inform ongoing and future EMN studies in these important areas of migration policy. The event will include key speakers from the Home Office and academics from leading research centres.

The event will also reintroduce the EMN UK National Network, discuss its research priorities for 2013 and outline opportunities to get involved.

The programme is currently being finalised, but confirmed speakers include:

  • Professor Louise Ackers (University of Liverpool)
  • Professor Adrian Favell (Sciences Po, Paris)
  • Dr. Eiko Thielemann (London School of Economics)
  • Dr. Martin Ruhs (University of Oxford)
  • Professor John Salt (University College London)
  • Jon Simmons (Home Office Science)

This is a European Migration Network UK event and is co-hosted by Home Office Science. As such, there is no charge for this event.

Places are strictly limited. To register, please email Magnus Gittins (Magnus.Gittins@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk) with your full contact details by Wednesday, 5th December.

For more information on the EMN please visit: http://www.emn.europa.eu

 

Podcast: Annual Harrell-Bond Lecture 2012

The podcast of the Annual Harrell-Bond Lecture 2012: The architecture of refugee protection is now available online to download from the Forced Migration Online website.  The podcast was recorded at the Refugee Studies Centre Annual Harrell-Bond Lecture on 7 November 2012. The lecture was delivered by Professor Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar, Co-Director of the Stanford Center for International Security and Cooperation.

Tens of millions of people in nearly every inhabited corner of the planet face the challenge of life as refugees or internally-displaced people. Countries and organisations throughout the world often recognise that such displaced people (and particularly refugees) have legal rights and merit considerable attention. Nonetheless, the complex structures shaping the laws, organisations, and ideas in this domain – what could be called the ‘architecture’ of refugee protection – often fails to live up to its promise.

To download the Podcast, please visit:  http://www.forcedmigration.org/podcasts-videos-photos/podcasts/annual-harrell-bond-lecture-2012

 

Call for Papers: The Public and the Politics of Immigration Policy

*** Apologies for Cross-Posting ***

Source: Forced Migration Discussion List.

CFP: The public and the politics of immigration policy

Special issue of the Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies

Editor: Dr Chris Gilligan (University of the West of Scotland, UK)

One of the key assumptions in the literature on international migration is that liberal democratic states have introduced restrictive immigration controls in response to public concern or public pressure. Hollifield, for example, states that since at least the 1970s ‘almost all of the receiving states were trying to reassert control over migration flows, often using similar policies and in response to public opinion, which was increasingly hostile to high levels of immigration’ (2008: 191). Massey et al, in their magisterial work on contemporary international migration, suggest that migrants creatively respond to state’s attempts to restrict immigration by adjusting ‘their behavior in response to changes in laws, policies, and circumstances. These shifts in immigrant behavior often provoke a hostile reaction among native voters, putting public officials in a difficult position that requires them to take some action to bring immigration back under “control”’ (1998: 287).

The assumption that restrictive immigration controls are developed in response to the public needs to be interrogated. Massey et al. indicate the speculative nature of the claim that policy is a response to public pressure when they say that migration studies lacks ‘an adequate theory to account for the motivations, interests and behavior of the political actors who employ state power to intervene’ in regulating immigration (1998: 292). Scholars (e.g.: Bonjour 2011; Boswell et al 2011) have begun to open up this issue through an examination of the policy process. Boswell et al., for example, point to the increased use of ‘expert knowledge’ rather than political ideology to inform policy on immigration, but they go on to say that a ‘large part of migration policy still involves responding to popular pressures’ (2011: 7). This public input into policy is still inadequately understood.

Public opinion polls are the most common form of evidence provided to substantiate the claim that immigration controls are a response to the public. Spencer, for example, states that ‘over a third of the public [in the United Kingdom] now regularly cite race and immigration as among the most important issues facing the country’ and despite policy changes designed to restrict immigration further ‘the public is evidently far from reassured’ (2011: 1). The evidence from surveys of public opinion, however, is not as clear-cut as scholars often seem to assume. Martin, for example, points out that although opinion polls in the United States of America (USA) persistently show that most Americans think that the numbers of immigrants should be restricted ‘these same polls also show considerable support for the admission of close family members, skilled workers and refugees: the three groups that constitute the bulk of US immigration’ (Martin 2003: 132).

The concept of public opinion also involves a particular way of imagining the public. The literature on public opinion tends to infer the public impact on immigration policy from correlations between polling data and Government legislation. Our understanding of the public and the politics of immigration controls may be different if we employ a broader range of research methods and examine other stages in the policy process. Research on Latino mobilisation in the USA in 2006 against anti-immigrant legislation, for example, highlights an example of public pressure which led to the defeat of legislation aimed at restricting immigration and immigrants. The same research, however, notes that consequently attempts to restrict immigration shifted from ‘top-down’ legislative reform to implementation ‘at the federal and local levels, through raids and anti-immigrant ordinances’ (Gonzales, 2009: 54-5). Work by Statham and Geddes (2006), which has examined ‘organised publics’ (i.e. civil society organisations) using the mass media to make claims regarding asylum-seekers, suggests that the state is a key player in attempts to BOTH restrict the rights that asylum-seekers enjoy AND to protect the rights of asylum-seekers. Research on anti-deportation campaigns suggests that the implementation of policy can generate new forms of public mobilisation (Anderson et al, 2011).

The Special Issue aims to question the key assumption that liberal states have introduced immigration controls in response to public pressure through investigating the relationship between the public and the politics of immigration policy. The Special Issue aims to do this through investigating two key questions: does the public influence immigration policy?, and; does the public favour restrictions? The editor seeks articles which engage with one, or both, of these questions.

Articles can take a single country focus, or focus on a specific migration stream or provide a comparative analysis, as long as they engage with one or both of the key questions. Much of the work in this area has been based on quantitative data, such as opinion polls. The editor welcomes approaches which employ qualitative methodologies, as long as they focus on at least one of the two key questions. The answers to the questions do not have to be in the affirmative. Articles which challenge the prevailing assumptions that the public influence immigration policy and that the public favour restrictions are particularly welcome. The purpose of the Special Issue, however, is not to simply overturn the prevailing assumptions, but rather to interrogate them and provide evidence and explanatory frameworks which are able to substantiate the relationship between the public and the politics of immigration policy. The focus will be on contemporary immigration policy, but the editor welcomes articles which locate the place of the public in contemporary immigration politics in a wider historical context.

Some of the questions which contributors might like to consider are: What are the mechanisms through which the public have an influence on immigration policy (e.g. through party membership, pressure groups, constituency surgeries, public opinion polls)? Do these mechanisms for public influence vary by country? Is public input into migration policy focused in particular ways? (e.g.  concentrated at border regions, or areas of high immigration; focused on particular migratory ‘streams’ (labour, asylum, trafficking, family reunion), or; related to electoral cycles)? What are the points of conflict where public input meets with resistance from politicians? What is the conception of the public which underpins the idea that the public influence immigration policy? Are there different kinds of public, and do they have different kinds of influence? (e.g. what role do ‘organised publics’, such as pro and anti-immigration pressure groups, play in policy-making?). If the public do not influence immigration policy why is there such a widely held perception that they do? If the public do not influence immigration policy what does shape immigration policy?

The assumption that restrictive immigration controls are a response to public pressure initially drew on data from the 1970s. Much has changed since then, particularly in relation to the public as political actors. Scholars (e.g.: Boswell 2009, 2011; Hampshire 2008) have suggested that a number of recent developments (such as ‘remote control’ immigration policy, discourses of managed migration, the securitisation of migration and the growth of expert knowledge in the policy-making process) have distanced immigration policy from public scrutiny. These shifts appear to be incompatible with the view that immigration controls are a response to public pressure. How can we make sense of this incongruity between policy-making ‘at a distance’ and public input? In an era of apparent widespread political disengagement, declining party membership and lower voter turnout has public input into immigration policy changed significantly? What theory, or theories, help to explain the relationship between the public and the politics of immigration controls?

The questions outlined here are indicative rather than prescriptive. The editor will consider any scholarly articles which engage with the two key questions: does the public influence immigration policy?, and; does the public favour restrictions?

Deadline for submissions:

Please submit full articles for consideration by **14th March 2013 ** to the editor at: chris.gilligan@uws.ac.uk

(UK based academics please note, the Special Issue will not be published in time to be included in REF 2013).

All articles will undergo a three stage review process. Initially they will be screened for fit with the call and quality control. Articles which pass this stage will then go out to peer review. At the third stage, the whole collection of articles will go to the editors of the Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies (JEMS) for final approval.

Format for submissions:

Articles should be between 5000 and 8000 words in length and should conform to JEMS house-style. For a guide to submissions see:

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=cjms20&page=instructions

All submitted articles must be original and not be under consideration by any other journal. Any articles which do not conform to JEMS style will be returned for modification before being read.

References:

Anderson, B., Gibney, M. J., & Paoletti, E., (eds), (2011), Boundaries of belonging: deportation and the constitution and contestation of citizenship. Citizenship Studies, 15(5).

Bonjour, S. (2011). The power and morals of policy makers: reassessing the control gap debate. International Migration Review, 45(1), 89–122.

Boswell, C. (2009). Knowledge, Legitimation and the Politics of Risk: The Functions of Research in Public Debates on Migration. Political Studies, 57(1), 165–186.

Boswell, C. (2011). Migration Control and Narratives of Steering. The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 13(1), 12–25.

Boswell, C., Geddes, A., & Scholten, P. (2011). The Role of Narratives in Migration Policy-Making: A Research Framework. The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 13(1), 1–11.

Gonzales, A., (2009). The 2006 Mega Marchas in Greater Los Angeles: counter-hegemonic moment and the future of El Migrante struggle. Latino Studies, 7(1), 30-59.

Hampshire, J. (2008). Regulating migration risks: the emergence of risk-based border controls in the UK. Sussex Centre for Migration Research Working Paper.

Hollifield, J. F. (2008). The politics of international migration: how can we “bring the state back in”? In C. B. Brettell & J. F. Hollifield (Eds.), Migration theory: talking across disciplines (2nd ed., pp. 183–237). London: Routledge.

Martin, S. (2003). The Politics of US Immigration Reform. The Political Quarterly, 74(s1), 132–149.

Massey, D. S., Arango, J., Hugo, G., Kouaouci, A., Pellegrino, A., & Taylor, J. E. (1998). Worlds in motion: understanding international migration at the end of the millenium. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Spencer, S. (2011). The migration debate. Bristol: Policy Press.

Statham, P., & Geddes, A. (2006). Elites and the “organised public”: Who drives British immigration politics and in which direction? West European Politics, 29(2), 248–269.