The Negotiated Expansions of Immigration Control

Longazel, Jamie; Woude, Maartje van der

doi:10.1111/lsi.12077

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Such questions speak directly to issues of immigration governance, as well. Scholars have been noticing how contemporary immigration control tends to expand not with brute force but rather through a process of “negotiation” (Longazel and van der Woude ). In her study of the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) the U.S. Government grants to immigrants from El Salvador, for example, Miranda Hallett (, 633) describes how while state discourse framed the TPS program as a gift , the policy – “tainted by the self‐interest of the giver” – turned out to be more akin to grift .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relieving the Tension: Lay Immigration Lawyering and the Management of Legal Violence

Longazel¹

2018

Law Soc Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Recognition and Accreditation Program (R&A Program) authorizes certain non‐lawyers, or “Accredited Representatives” (ARs), to practice immigration law out of non‐profit or faith‐based organizations. Drawing on interviews with practicing ARs, I describe how, at the center of this group's approach to legal practice, is a firm commitment to their clients. ARs report being particularly attuned – thanks to their social position and life experiences – to the hardships many of their clients confront at the hands of a punitive U.S. immigration system. I find this translates, on one hand, into an anti‐formalist legal practice: ARs describe performing emotional labor in order to take the edge off of formalism's rigidity for their clients. Yet at other times, cognizant of the high costs associated with a legal error, ARs describe being much more formalistic, prioritizing legal tedium. The picture becomes more complex when considered in the context of devolution and immigration governance, where it seems the emotional and bureaucratic work ARs do to protect their clients may also be providing ancillary benefits to the state. I conclude by reflecting on the implications this research has for scholarship on the legal profession, for research on “access to justice,” and for understandings of immigration governance.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relieving the Tension: Lay Immigration Lawyering and the Management of Legal Violence

Longazel¹

2018

Law Soc Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Immigrant communities and their alliances have challenged official references to immigrants as illegal aliens and contested the notion of immigrant criminality (Tichenor, 2015). Immigrant advocates, human rights groups, and other alliances became transformative agents as they mobilized to combat, negotiate, and ward off the expansion of immigration control (J. G. Longazel & Woude, 2014). Salvadoran immigrants, for instance, questioned the legitimacy of U.S. immigration policies that define them as deportable illegal aliens by claiming that "their long-term lives in U.S. warranted a grant of legal permanent residence" due to the "U.S. complicity in the conditions that drove them from their country of origin" (Coutin, 2005, pp.…”

Section: Contesting Crimmigration Field: the Backlash Against Legal Vmentioning

confidence: 99%

Immigrants as Symbolic Assailants

Jiang

Erez

2017

International Criminal Justice Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite little evidence of an immigration-crime nexus, many American jurisdictions have adopted a punitive approach to undocumented immigrants and an increasingly restrictive and exclusive system of immigration control. The extensive deployment of criminal justice measures to address the immigration “problem” led to the growth of a crimmigration apparatus—a mesh of immigration and criminal justice systems. Drawing on extant literature and applying the framework of the penal field, the article examines the social dynamics, processes, and consequences of crimmigration. It is argued that the portrayal of immigrants as “symbolic assailants” has facilitated the creation and operation of crimmigration under the guise of crime prevention rather than for addressing terrorism and national security—the presumed purpose of utilizing crimmigration practices. The current configuration of crimmigration across the United States is the interactive product of minority threat, partisan politics, and federalism of the American government system, which have jointly formed a “multilayered patchwork” of immigration control. The article first outlines the analytical framework; reviews the social construction of immigrant “criminality”; and describes the punitive and exclusive laws, policies, and enforcement practices established as responses to this “threat.” The dilemmas, contradictions, and contestations associated with crimmigration, including collateral impacts on immigrants, their families and communities, and the criminal justice system, are analyzed; and policy implications are drawn and discussed.

show abstract

“…In fact, the state, as the sole enforcer of rights, may gain new flexibility with its ability to differentiate what rights would be made available to what groups of immigrants (Aneesh ). State‐sanctioned practices of targeting particular immigrant groups are on the rise, suggesting a broader punitive turn in the regulation of immigration in the west (Angel‐Ajani, ; Bosworth, ; De Giorgi, ; Longazel & Woude, ). If rights‐based framework of citizenship is being adopted by countries, it does not necessarily signal the weakening of the state.…”

Section: Citizenship and Equal Rights In The Global Agementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, one must not exaggerate the scope of postnationalism by constructing it as a challenge to the nation-state system itself, which remains a particularly consequential force (Bloemraad, 2004;Brubaker, 2010;Portes, Guarnizo, & Landolt, 1999 (Aneesh 2016). Statesanctioned practices of targeting particular immigrant groups are on the rise, suggesting a broader punitive turn in the regulation of immigration in the west (Angel-Ajani, 2003;Bosworth, 2012;De Giorgi, 2010;Longazel & Woude, 2014). If rights-based framework of citizenship is being adopted by countries, it does not necessarily signal the weakening of the state.…”

Section: Inequality Within the Nation-statementioning

confidence: 99%

Citizenship and inequality in a global age

Aneesh

Wolover

2017

Sociology Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the notion of national citizenship has long held the promise of equal membership, it has proved less useful in a world of circulating cultures, people, and loyalties through money, media, and migration. The increasing mobility of capital and people across national borders compels us to conceptualize welfare and inequality at the global level. Although the enforcement of citizen rights remains within the purview of the nation‐state, the source of these rights can no longer be firmly placed within the national framework. From cosmopolitan imaginations to postnational research, contemporary configurations of citizenship trace their legitimacy to global discourses that increasingly challenge the national order of citizenship. Yet current transformations in citizenship also point to the possibility of new inequalities, particularly, when nation‐states are increasingly able to modulate the rights they make available to immigrants, and differentiate among refugees, professionals, and investors among many other categories of people.

show abstract

The Negotiated Expansions of Immigration Control

Cited by 7 publications

References 10 publications

Relieving the Tension: Lay Immigration Lawyering and the Management of Legal Violence

Relieving the Tension: Lay Immigration Lawyering and the Management of Legal Violence

Immigrants as Symbolic Assailants

Citizenship and inequality in a global age

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About