Studying Migration Governance from the Bottom-Up

  • Matthew Gravelle
  • Antje Ellermann
  • Catherine Dauvergne
Chapter

Abstract

In this chapter, we argue that the local and subnational levels are of critical importance to the study of migration governance because it is there that policies are implemented and enforced. In order to better understand bottom-up dynamics in the politics of immigration, as well as the limits to top-down migration policy making, we develop an analytical framework that identifies and critically appraises grassroots and subnational responses to migration policy in liberal democratic societies. Our aim in developing this framework is to build knowledge and theory relating to the systemic interaction between local, subnational, and national immigration policy actors across a variety of liberal societies.

References

  1. Alexander Aleinikoff, T. (2002). Semblances of sovereignty: The constitution, the State and American citizenship. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Boushey, G., & Luedtke, A. (2006). Fiscal federalism and the politics of immigration: Centralized and decentralized immigration policies in Canada and the United States. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 8(3), 207–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Castles, S., & Miller, M. (1998). The age of migration: International population movements in the modern world. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  4. Cornelius, W. A. (1998). The structural embeddedness of demand for Mexican immigrant labor: New evidence from California. In M. M. Suarez-Orozco (Ed.), Crossings: Mexican immigration in interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 114–144). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Cornelius, W. A., Martin, P. L., & Hollifield, J. F. (Eds.). (2004). Controlling immigration: A global perspective (2nd ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Dauvergne, C. (2005). Humanitarianism, identity and nation: Migration laws of Australia and Canada. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
  7. Dauvergne, C. (2008). Making people illegal: What globalization means for migration and law New York. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ellermann, A. (2005). Coercive capacity and the politics of implementation: Deportation in Germany and the United States. Comparative Political Studies, 38(10), 1219–1244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ellermann, A. (2006). Street-level democracy? How immigration Bureaucrats manage public opposition. West European Politics, 29(2), 287–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ellermann, A. (2009). States against migrants: Deportation in Germany and the United States. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Freeman, G. P. (1995). Modes of immigration politics in liberal democratic states. International Migration Review, xxix(4), 881–913.Google Scholar
  12. Gibney, M. J., & Hansen, R. (2003). Deportation and the liberal state: The involuntary return of asylum seekers and unlawful migrants in Canada, the UK, and Germany. New Issues in Refugee Research, Working Paper 77.Google Scholar
  13. Good, K. (2009). Municipalities and multiculturalism: The politics of immigration in Toronto and Vancouver. Toronto, ON: Toronto University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Guiraudon, V. (1998). Citizenship rights for non-citizens: France, Germany, and the Netherlands. In C. Joppke (Ed.), Challenge to the nation-state: Immigration in Western Europe and the United States (pp. 272–318). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hollifield, J. F. (1992). Immigrants, markets, and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hollifield, J. F. (2004). The emerging migration state. International Migration Review, 38(3), 885–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jacobson, D. (1996). Rights across borders: Immigration and the decline of citizenship. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Jacobson, D., & Ruffer, G. B. (2003). Courts across borders: The implications of judicial agency for human rights and democracy. Human Rights Quarterly, 25(1), 74–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Joppke, C. (1998a). Asylum and state sovereignty: A comparison of the United States, Germany, and Britain. In C. Joppke (Ed.), Challenge to the nation-state: Immigration in Western Europe and the United States (pp. 109–152). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Joppke, C. (1998b). Why liberal states accept unwanted immigration. World Politics, 50, 266–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lahav, G., & Guiraudon, V. (2000). Comparative perspectives on border control: Away from the border and outside the state. In P. Andreas & T. Snyder (Eds.), The wall around the west: State borders and immigration controls in North American and Europe (pp. 55–77). New York: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  22. Legomsky, S. H. (1987). Immigration and the judiciary: Law and politics in Britain and America. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  23. Meyers, E. (2002). The causes of convergence in Western immigration control. Review of International Studies, 28, 123–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Money, J. (1997). No vacancy: The political geography of immigration control in advanced industrial countries. International Organization, 51(4), 685–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Money, J. (1999). Fences and neighbors: The political geography of immigration control. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Ramakrishnan, K., & Wong, T. K. (2010). Immigration policies go local: The varying responses of local governments to low-skilled and undocumented immigration. In Varsanyi, M. (Ed.), Taking local control: Immigration policy activism in U.S. Cities and States. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Sassen, S. (1996). Losing control? Sovereignty in an age of globalization. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Soysal, Y. N. (1994). Limits of citizenship: Migrants and postnational membership in Europe. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  29. The Globe and Mail. (July 24, 2004). Refugee approval rates vary widely, p. A1.Google Scholar
  30. The New York Times. (May 31, 2007). Wide disparities found in judging of asylum cases, p. A14.Google Scholar
  31. U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2008). Report to congressional requesters: U.S. asylum systemsignificant variation existing in asylum outcomes across immigration Courts and Judges. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  32. van der Leun, J. (2003). Looking for loopholes: Processes of incorporation of illegal immigrants in the Netherlands. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Varsanyi, M. (Ed.). (2010). Taking local control: Immigration policy activism in U.S. Cities and States. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew Gravelle
    • 1
  • Antje Ellermann
    • 1
  • Catherine Dauvergne
    • 1
  1. 1.University of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations