Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Migration Management (migration + management)
Selected AbstractsBiopolitical Management, Economic Calculation and "Trafficked Women"INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION, Issue 4 2010Jacqueline Berman PhD Narratives surrounding human trafficking, especially trafficking in women for sex work, employ gendered and racialized tropes that have among their effects, a shrouding of women's economic decision-making and state collusion in benefiting from their labour. This paper explores the operation of these narratives in order to understand the ways in which they mask the economics of trafficking by sensationalizing the sexual and criminal aspects of it, which in turn allows the state to pursue political projects under the guise of a benevolent concern for trafficked women and/or protection of its own citizens. This paper will explore one national example: Article 18 of Italian Law 40 (1998). I argue that its passage has led to an increase in cooperation with criminal prosecution of traffickers largely because it approaches trafficked women as capable of making decisions about how and what they themselves want to do. This paper will also consider a more global approach to trafficking embedded in the concept of "migration management", an International Organization for Migration (IOM) framework that is now shaping EU, US and other national immigration laws and policies that impact trafficking. It will also examine the inherent limitations of both the national and global approach as an occasion to unpack how Article 18 and Migration Management function as forms of biopolitical management that participate in the production of "trafficking victims" into a massified population to be managed, rather than engender a more engaged discussion of what constitutes trafficking and how to redress it. [source] Emigration from China: A Sending Country PerspectiveINTERNATIONAL MIGRATION, Issue 3 2003Xiang Biao This paper aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the policies pursued by the People's Republic of China (PRC) regarding the emigration of Chinese nationals. Most of the available literature on migration management has focused on receiving countries. With a few exceptions, little attention has been directed at migration management policies pursued in countries of origin. In the case of the PRC, policies regarding overseas Chinese have been fairly well documented and researched, but very little has been written about how the Chinese authorities manage ongoing emigration flows. This gap becomes particularly salient as the importance of the "partnership with the countries of origin" in devising migration policies is being increasingly acknowledged by receiving countries in Europe (Commission of the European Communities, 2000). Over the last 20 years, there have been significant changes in the Chinese Government's policies and perspectives on emigration. But, just like most other governments, the Chinese authorities do not have a single blanket policy covering all categories of emigrants. Emigration is normally managed on a case-by-case basis and the Government's attitude toward the same type of emigration may vary depending on different cases and circumstances. Because of this, this article examines China's major emigration-related policy spheres one by one. Specifically, six issues will be discussed: (1) exit control; (2) diaspora policy; (3) student migration; (4) labour export; (5) regulations on emigration agencies and, finally (6) the Government's response to human smuggling. This article shows both the coherence and the fragmentation in China's policies toward emigration. The coherence is due to the fact that all the policies are inherently linked to China's overall economic and social development strategy. The emigration management regime is sometimes fragmented partly because emigration consists of different streams and is handled by different Government departments, partly because some emigration issues (such as regulations on emigration agents) are very new for the Chinese Government and the authorities are still exploring them. Overall, the Chinese authorities increasingly see emigration as a means to enhance China's integration to the world and are keen to avoid conflicts with the international community over migration issues. At the same time, China's emigration policies need to be more balanced, in particular, the emigration of unskilled labour should be given more priority. [source] Human Rights of Migrants: Challenges of the New DecadeINTERNATIONAL MIGRATION, Issue 6 2001Patrick A. Taran This review summarizes main trends, issues, debates, actors and initiatives regarding recognition and extension of protection of the human rights of migrants. Its premise is that the rule of law and universal notions of human rights are essential foundations for democratic society and social peace. Evidence demonstrates that violations of migrants' human rights are so widespread and commonplace that they are a defining feature of international migration today. About 150 million persons live outside their countries; in many States, legal application of human rights norms to non-citizens is inadequate or seriously deficient, especially regarding irregular migrants. Extensive hostility against, abuse of and violence towards migrants and other non-nationals has become much more visible worldwide in recent years. Research, documentation and analysis of the character and extent of problems and of effective remedies remain minimal. Resistance to recognition of migrants' rights is bound up in exploitation of migrants in marginal, low status, inadequately regulated or illegal sectors of economic activity. Unauthorized migrants are often treated as a reserve of flexible labour, outside the protection of labour safety, health, minimum wage and other standards, and easily deportable. Evidence on globalization points to worsening migration pressures in many parts of the world. Processes integral to globalization have intensified disruptive effects of modernization and capitalist development, contributing to economic insecurity and displacement for many. Extension of principles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights culminated in the 1990 International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. With little attention, progress in ratifications was very slow until two years ago. A global campaign revived attention; entry into force is likely in 2001. Comparative analysis notes that ILO migrant worker Conventions have generally achieved objectives but States have resisted adoption of any standards on treatment of non-nationals. A counter-offensive against human rights as universal, indivisible and inalienable underlies resistance to extension of human rights protection to migrants. A parallel trend is deliberate association of migration and migrants with criminality. Trafficking has emerged as a global theme contextualizing migration in a framework of combatting organized crime and criminality, subordinating human rights protections to control and anti-crime measures. Intergovernmental cooperation on migration "management" is expanding rapidly, with functioning regional intergovernmental consultative processes in all regions, generally focused on strengthening inter-state cooperation in controlling and preventing irregular migration through improved border controls, information sharing, return agreements and other measures. Efforts to defend human rights of migrants and combat xenophobia remain fragmented, limited in impact and starved of resources. Nonetheless, NGOs in all regions provide orientation, services and assistance to migrants, public education and advocating respect for migrants rights and dignity. Several international initiatives now highlight migrant protection concerns, notably the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights of Migrants, the Global Campaign promoting the 1990 UN Convention, UN General Assembly proclamation of International Migrants Day, the 2001 World Conference Against Racism and Xenophobia, anti-discrimination activity by ILO, and training by IOM. Suggestions to governments emphasize the need to define comprehensive, coordinated migration policy and practice based on economic, social and development concerns rather than reactive control measures to ensure beneficial migration, social harmony, and dignified treatment of nationals and non-nationals. NGOs, businesses, trade unions, and religious groups are urged to advocate respect for international standards, professionalize services and capacities, take leadership in opposing xenophobic behaviour, and join international initiatives. Need for increased attention to migrants rights initiatives and inter-agency cooperation by international organizations is also noted. [source] Governance and poverty in sub-Saharan Africa: rethinking best practices in migration managementINTERNATIONAL SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL, Issue 190 2006Thanh-Dam Truong This article explores the interface between migration and human trafficking in sub-Saharan Africa fromthe two angles of governance and poverty. A salient feature in the emerging frameworks of migration management is its implicit bifurcated vision of mobility. Trade-connected mobility is well protected by government rules whereas mobility to sustain livelihoods is subject to a punitive regime with a limited scope for resolving the discrepancy between the legal and social interpretations of human rights and well-being. The rise of migration by women, children and young people within and outside traditional practices under risky conditions may reflect deeper structural transformations than are commonly acknowledged by policy-makers. Reactions based on human rights concerns have contributed to new international, regional and national legislative frameworks for preventing abusive and exploitative practices in migration. The prevalence of glaring differences of interests in the variant policy approaches to all these issues , migration management, crime control, labour standards, poverty reduction and the particular needs of communities at risk , requires the concept of best practices to address the relationship between dominant forms of social knowledge and the policy field to situate and tackle issues of rights violation in different scales of governance and their interrelationships. [source] Rules, Red Tape, and Paperwork: The Archeology of State Control over MigrantsJOURNAL OF HISTORICAL SOCIOLOGY, Issue 1 2008DAVID COOK MARTÍN How and with what consequences did state control over migration become acceptable and possible after the Great War? Existing studies have centered on core countries of immigration and thus underestimate the degree to which legitimate state capacities have developed in a political field spanning sending and receiving countries with similar designs on the same international migrants. Relying on archival research, and an examination of the migratory field constituted by two quintessential emigration countries (Italy and Spain), and a traditional immigration country (Argentina) since the mid-nineteenth century, this article argues that widespread acceptance of migration control as an administrative domain rightfully under states' purview, and the development of attendant capacities have derived from legal, organizational, and administrative mechanisms crafted by state actors in response to the challenges posed by mass migration. Concretely, these countries codified migration and nationality laws, built, took over, and revamped migration-related organizations, and administratively encaged mobile people through official paperwork. The nature of efforts to evade official checks on mobility implicitly signaled the acceptance of migration control as a bona fide administrative domain. In more routine migration management, states legitimate capacity has had unforeseen intermediate- and long-term consequences such as the subjection of migrants (and, because of ius sanguinis nationality laws, sometimes their descendants) to other states' administrative influence and the generation of conditions for dual citizenship. Study findings challenge scholarship that implicitly views states as constant factors conditioning migration flows, rather than as developing institutions with historically variable regulatory abilities and legitimacy. It extends current work by specifying mechanism used by state actors to establish migration as an accepted administrative domain. [source] | ||||||||||