Immigrants and civil rights in cross-national perspective: Lessons from North America

Abstract

The degree to which a nation envisions civil rights as applying to all residents offers insight into its commitment to and capacity for immigrant inclusion. A much-debated question is whether there is a trend toward convergence in national policies around immigrant inclusion, given globalization and the rise in human rights norms. Or do institutional legacies and domestic politics tend to preserve old approaches? This issue has been investigated most thoroughly in European contexts. Here we examine the cases of Canada and the United States. We find that while Canada and the United States, both settler societies, have much in common, they differ significantly in their historical experience with civil rights, which helps explain differences in how they approach the inclusion of immigrants in their societies. While civil rights has more potential for advancing immigrant concerns in the United States, neither country readily envisions immigrant inclusion as a civil rights issue.

Education, Skills, and Wage Gaps in Canada and the United States

“…The proportion is even higher for OECD immigrants with tertiary educationapproximately two-thirds choose to live in Canada or the United States (Grogger and Hanson, 2011). Although Canadian and American policies yield two different groups of workers in terms of education and skills, immigrants in both countries tend to earn less than their native-born peers (Aydemir and Sweetman, 2006;Bloemraad and Provine, 2013;Chiswick and Miller, 1990;Coulombe et al, 2012;Nadeau and Seckin, 2010;Oreopoulos, 2011;Papademetriou and Sumption, 2011). This study compares two countries that are otherwise similar (except in the ways they admit immigrant workers) to tease out the structural and individual reasons underlying immigrant wage gaps.…”

“…Canada and the United States have immigration policies that admit two very different pools of workers, yet in both countries immigrants consistently earn less than native-born employees (Aydemir and Sweetman, 2006;Batalova and Fix, 2015;Bloemraad and Provine, 2013;Coulombe et al, 2012;Nadeau and Seckin, 2010;Oreopoulos, 2011;Papademetriou and Sumption, 2011). Policymakers argue that persistent immigrant wage gaps demonstrate that immigrants are not being fully or equitablyintegrated into national labour markets.…”

Investir la rue alors qu’on n’en a pas le droit

“…L'attention portée à ces revendications a donné lieu à son tour à une vaste littérature scientifique sur les mouvements sociaux des migrants (pour l'Europe : Anderson, 2010 ;Koopmans, 2005 ;Giugni et Passy, 2004 ;Soysal, 1997 ;McGregor, 2011 ;pour les USA : Coutin, 2003 ;Bloemraad et Provine 2013, McNevin 2012 ; pour le Canada : Nyers 2011 ; pour l'Australie : McNevin, 2011 ;Neilson, 2009). Dans cette documentation scientifique, les migrants, y compris sans statut, s'adressent au gouvernement de leur pays de résidence et plus largement à la société d'accueil pour discuter des critères pour y appartenir et réclamer un élargissement des droits dont ils sont titulaires.…”

Mobilizing Migrant Workers’ Rights in “Non-immigration” Countries: The Politics of Resonance and Migrants’ Rights Activism in Israel and Singapore

“…Recent comparative studies on migrant workers’ rights shed light on how national fields of power shape and are shaped by legal mobilizations (Bloemraad ; Bloemraad and Provine ; Kawar 2011a, 2012). Bridging the comparative migration studies’ interest in national settings and sociolegal mobilization perspectives, this scholarship underscores the complex dynamics of rights making when activists engage in settings with varying institutional configurations and cultural repertoires.…”