Suchergebnisse

Taking into consideration three levels of government (regional, national, and sub-national) that potentially offer protection to refugees, this paper is concerned with changes initiated by the 2016 Presidential Regulation on Handling Foreign Refugees. This regulation has delegated more responsibility for managing refugees to the sub-national levels of administration in Indonesia, which, like other nations in the Southeast Asia, has been reluctant to provide protection for refugees or any options for their integration into society. The reason for this is that, despite many vociferous demands in favor of a 'regional solution' in the aftermath of the 2015 Andaman Sea Crisis, most attempts ended up in abeyance. Following suit with the so-called 'local turn' in migration studies, which increased attention to the local dimensions of refugee protection due to the receding capacities in the major actors involved both in global refugee protection and international migration management, we direct attention to the sub-national level of refugee management in Indonesia using as a case study the city of Makassar, which has hitherto enjoyed a fairly positive reputation for welcoming refugees. By examining the current living conditions of asylum seekers and refugees in Makassar and comparing them to other places in Indonesia, we ask whether the concept of 'sanctuary city' is applicable to a non-Western context and, in doing so, hope to enhance current discussions of creating alternative models for refugee protection beyond the national and regional level.

Cities have become important sites of sanctuary for migrants with a precarious legal status. While many national governments in Europe have adopted restrictive immigration policies, urban governments have undertaken measures to safeguard undocumented residents' rights. Existing scholarship on sanctuary cities has mostly focused on how cities' stance against federal immigration policies can be interpreted as urban citizenship. What is largely missing in these debates, however, is a better insight into the role that local civil society actors play in pushing for sanctuary and negotiating the terms of social in-and exclusion. In this article, we rely on a qualitative study of the 2017 Sanctuary City campaign in Liège, Belgium, to argue that power relations between (and among) civil society actors and city officials help to explain why the meaning and inclusiveness of 'sanctuary' shifted over time. Initially, radical activists were able to politicize the issue by demanding the social inclusion of the 'sans-papiers' through grassroots mobilization. However, the cooptation of the campaign by immigrant rights organizations led to the adoption of a motion wherein the local government depicted the city as a 'wel-coming' instead of a 'sanctuary' city. By showing how immigrant rights professionals sidelined radical activists during the campaign, we highlight the risk of depoliticization when civil society actors decide to cooperate with local governments to extend immigrant rights. We also underline the potential representational gap that emerges when those who are directly implicated, namely undocumented migrants, are not actively involved in campaigns that aim to improve their inclusion. © 2019 by the authors; licensee Cogitatio (Lisbon, Portugal). ; Peer reviewed

The debate on immigration policy and enforcement in the United States often revolves around the phenomenon of sanctuary cities. While past research accounts for Americans' attitudes toward sanctuary cities and the effects of sanctuary policies on immigrant and Latino communities, less is known about how potential migrants factor sanctuary status into moving choices. We implement a conjoint survey experiment in Mexico, in which we ask respondents to rate the attractiveness of hypothetical localities in the United States described in terms of several attributes, including immigration enforcement policies. Results show that sanctuary status increases the attractiveness of potential immigration destinations in the United States. However, its effect is overshadowed by preferences for localities with many jobs and low crime rates, as well as ones that voted for Biden in 2020. Despite emphasis on sanctuary cities in U.S. political rhetoric, sanctuary policies only modestly increase the attractiveness of destinations for potential migrants.

Cities have become important sites of sanctuary for migrants with a precarious legal status. While many national governments in Europe have adopted restrictive immigration policies, urban governments have undertaken measures to safeguard undocumented residents' rights. Existing scholarship on sanctuary cities has mostly focused on how cities' stance against federal immigration policies can be interpreted as urban citizenship. What is largely missing in these debates, however, is a better insight into the role that local civil society actors play in pushing for sanctuary and negotiating the terms of social in- and exclusion. In this article, we rely on a qualitative study of the 2017 Sanctuary City campaign in Liège, Belgium, to argue that power relations between (and among) civil society actors and city officials help to explain why the meaning and inclusiveness of 'sanctuary' shifted over time. Initially, radical activists were able to politicize the issue by demanding the social inclusion of the 'sans-papiers' through grassroots mobilization. However, the cooptation of the campaign by immigrant rights organizations led to the adoption of a motion wherein the local government depicted the city as a 'welcoming' instead of a 'sanctuary' city. By showing how immigrant rights professionals sidelined radical activists during the campaign, we highlight the risk of depoliticization when civil society actors decide to cooperate with local governments to extend immigrant rights. We also underline the potential representational gap that emerges when those who are directly implicated, namely undocumented migrants, are not actively involved in campaigns that aim to improve their inclusion.

Cities have become important sites of sanctuary for migrants with a precarious legal status. While many national governments in Europe have adopted restrictive immigration policies, urban governments have undertaken measures to safeguard undocumented residents' rights. Existing scholarship on sanctuary cities has mostly focused on how cities' stance against federal immigration policies can be interpreted as urban citizenship. What is largely missing in these debates, however, is a better insight into the role that local civil society actors play in pushing for sanctuary and negotiating the terms of social in-and exclusion. In this article, we rely on a qualitative study of the 2017 Sanctuary City campaign in Liège, Belgium, to argue that power relations between (and among) civil society actors and city officials help to explain why the meaning and inclusiveness of 'sanctuary' shifted over time. Initially, radical activists were able to politicize the issue by demanding the social inclusion of the 'sans-papiers' through grassroots mobilization. However, the cooptation of the campaign by immigrant rights organizations led to the adoption of a motion wherein the local government depicted the city as a 'wel-coming' instead of a 'sanctuary' city. By showing how immigrant rights professionals sidelined radical activists during the campaign, we highlight the risk of depoliticization when civil society actors decide to cooperate with local governments to extend immigrant rights. We also underline the potential representational gap that emerges when those who are directly implicated, namely undocumented migrants, are not actively involved in campaigns that aim to improve their inclusion.

Cities have become important sites of sanctuary for migrants with a precarious legal status. While many national governments in Europe have adopted restrictive immigration policies, urban governments have undertaken measures to safeguard undocumented residents' rights. Existing scholarship on sanctuary cities has mostly focused on how cities' stance against federal immigration policies can be interpreted as urban citizenship. What is largely missing in these debates, however, is a better insight into the role that local civil society actors play in pushing for sanctuary and negotiating the terms of social in- and exclusion. In this article, we rely on a qualitative study of the 2017 Sanctuary City campaign in Liège, Belgium, to argue that power relations between (and among) civil society actors and city officials help to explain why the meaning and inclusiveness of 'sanctuary' shifted over time. Initially, radical activists were able to politicize the issue by demanding the social inclusion of the "sans-papiers" through grassroots mobilization. However, the cooptation of the campaign by immigrant rights organizations led to the adoption of a motion wherein the local government depicted the city as a 'welcoming' instead of a "sanctuary" city. By showing how immigrant rights professionals sidelined radical activists during the campaign, we highlight the risk of depoliticization when civil society actors decide to cooperate with local governments to extend immigrant rights. We also underline the potential representational gap that emerges when those who are directly implicated, namely undocumented migrants, are not actively involved in campaigns that aim to improve their inclusion.

This brief narrative captures the second wave of "immigrant sanctuary"—a term used to describe the state and local government practice of restricting police departments from participation in immigration enforcement. The immigrant sanctuaries of the Homeland Security era are of unique significance given the ongoing dialogue among legal scholars regarding the significance of local law enforcement participation in national and domestic security administration after 2001, as well as the legal framework structuring cooperative security governance. Despite the broad powers wielded by the federal government in security administration, the Supreme Court's holding in Printz v. United States serves as a substantial check against federal overreach. Hand wringing by legal scholars over the Court's reasoning in Printz and the rigid rules against commandeering attached to this reasoning have obscured the fact that the case now stands as a bulwark against the expansion of federal authority over state, county, and local police. Given the holding in Printz, ICE cannot require the active participation of subnational police in immigration enforcement and must instead—despite its previous assertions to the contrary—solicit this support through state and local governments who may, in turn, participate in immigration enforcement of their own volition. In the empirical portion of this article, I present the case of immigrant sanctuary as a platform from which to consider the promise and peril of anti-commandeering jurisprudence in the Homeland Security era. My empirical analysis of immigrant sanctuary is based on an original dataset I created, made up of coded data from seventy-five immigrant sanctuary laws and policies and basic demographic information from the associated jurisdictions. I build a backdrop upon which to consider the data analysis in Part I, by explicating the anti-commandeering rule and outlining the legal debate over its costs, benefits, and constitutionality in the Homeland Security era. In Part II, I provide an ...

In recent years, many local governments in the United States have declared themselves to be sanctuaries, welcoming jurisdictions, safe cities, or cities of refuge for immigrants. At the same time, federal rhetoric and associated national laws—which have legal precedence over local immigration policies—have shifted in anti-immigrant directions. These developments raise questions about whether and how local sanctuary policies affect immigrants' lives, including their feelings of fear, their access to local services, and their interactions with law enforcement. This article draws on existing studies and new interview data from a pilot study of two sanctuary cities, Boston and Seattle, to evaluate the impacts of municipal sanctuary policies for immigrants, including their potential influences on immigrant and refugee integration. I also explore policy approaches that might enhance these policies' effectiveness in achieving their supporters' stated goals.

This study seeks to define and compare the actions proposed by the local councils of Valencia and Zaragoza, two Spanish cities nominated as 'refuge city'. The analysis period for this case study starts from 2015, a key year in the refugee crisis in the Mediterranean, and in which both cities experienced a political change following the municipal elections. From that year, the city councils have included budgetary items for refugee aid. In addition, they make institutional statements, perform awareness campaigns, collaborate with NGOs, integrate in networks of municipalities in solidarity with refugees and participate in international meetings and conferences. However, analysis of the results suggests that these initiatives are dependent on political party strategies rather than a true sense of the city. Despite assuming an effective tactic to position cities in the world by using an autonomous discourse, its implementation is subject to local political dynamics, which renders the proposals fragile. ; Ciudades de todo el mundo se han declarado santuario para refugiados o desplazados, adoptando un posicionamiento rebelde con respecto a las políticas migratorias de administraciones estatales o supranacionales. La presente investigación analiza, a través de la metodología del estudio de caso, las acciones en apoyo a los refugiados planteadas por dos ciudades españolas proclamadas ciudades santuario por sus ayuntamientos: València y Zaragoza, que compartieron cambio político en 2015. Los resultados muestran que estas apuestas dependen de estrategias de partido más que de un verdadero sentido de ciudad. Se ponen en marcha cuando gobiernan partidos políticos con mayor sensibilidad por estas cuestiones, pasando a un segundo plano cuando se producen cambios políticos. A pesar de suponer una táctica eficaz para situar a las ciudades en el mundo, con un discurso autónomo, su implementación se encuentra sometida a las dinámicas políticas locales, lo que las convierte en apuestas políticas frágiles y dificulta que puedan ...

In the months following Trump's 2016 election as U.S. president, scores of cities across the United States instituted or reaffirmed "sanctuary" measures that impede federal immigration enforcement actions in their midst. Yet in the heart of these "sanctuary" cities, many immigrants remain vulnerable to deportation. This article describes one community campaign to identify, track, and stop a mechanism through which urban immigrants are detained and deported: data sharing between local police agencies and federal immigration officials. We draw on Kyle Walker's (2015) framework of place, scale, and networks of local immigration politics to show how overlapping scales of immigrant policing ultimately jeopardized Chicago's promise to be a place of immigrant sanctuary. We then describe how community organizers exploited this tension as they exposed the effects of Chicago police data sharing practices on black and Latinx Chicagoans and campaigned for a stronger city sanctuary policy.