By Christina Asencio and Rebecca Gendelman

Five months after the Biden administration initiated its new bar on asylum, the policy continues to strand vulnerable people in places where they are targets of widespread kidnapping, torture, and violent assaults. People seeking asylum are forced to risk their lives waiting in danger in Mexico for one of the limited CBP One appointments or risk suffering the ban’s punitive asylum denials or wrongful returns to harm and persecution if they attempt to seek protection at a port of entry or cross outside ports of entry without a CBP One appointment. The targeting of migrants and asylum seekers waiting for these appointments has risen sharply recently, driving many people to cross the border in urgent search of safety. Humanitarian workers assisting asylum seekers forced to wait in Mexico are also facing alarming—and increasing—risks as well.

This harmful bar on asylum (the “asylum ban”) is a new iteration of similar transit and entry bans promulgated by the Trump administration that federal courts repeatedly struck down because they violated U.S. law. A federal district court ruled in July that the Biden asylum ban is unlawful, but it remains in place while on appeal. The asylum ban renders nearly all asylum seekers who traveled through another country on their way to the U.S. southern border ineligible for asylum due to their transit routes and/or manner of entry unless they (1) applied for and were denied asylum in one of those countries (regardless of their safety there), or (2) managed to secure one of the asylum ban’s limited “pre-scheduled” appointments to enter at an official port of entry. To try to get a U.S. port of entry appointment, people seeking asylum (as well as other migrants who are not seeking asylum) are left to struggle to obtain an appointment via CBP One, a smartphone app that operates much like a daily lottery and is plagued by deficiencies that impede equitable access.

Not only does the asylum ban violate both U.S. and international law, but it has generated strong and diverse opposition from faith groups, Holocaust survivors, major unions, civil rights organizations, members of the president’s political party and other key Biden administration allies. President Biden should honor his campaign promise to end such restrictions by bringing this harmful policy—which his administration has pledged is only temporary—to its end now. Every day that it is left in place, it endangers refugees’ lives and subverts refugee law.

Instead, the Biden administration should double down on some of the effective, humane, and legal policies that it has already initiated or announced, and reject those that punish, ban, and block people seeking asylum, contrary to core tenets of international refugee protection. Key steps include to: quickly ramp up plans to expand regional refugee resettlement, strengthen the administration’s pivotal parole initiatives, increase critical aid to address regional protection gaps driving many to flee north, urgently increase support for safe shelter and other dire needs of people waiting in Mexico, uphold fundamental human rights in regional migration coordination, maximize access to asylum at ports of entry, properly staff asylum and immigration court adjudications, and improve and restart use of the Biden administration’s new asylum processing rule to help adjudicate a greater number of asylum cases more efficiently.

New York: Human Rights First, 2023. 67p.

By Ariel G. Ruiz Soto, Rodrigo Dominguez-Villegas, Luis Argueta and Randy Capps

As U.S. deportations to Mexico continue at substantial levels and the numbers returned by both the U.S. and Mexican governments to El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras are increasing, it has become more urgent for countries in the region to develop successful reception and reintegration programs that meet the diverse needs of returning migrants.

Between fiscal years 2012-18, the United States carried out approximately 1.8 million repatriations of Mexican migrants, and the United States and Mexico together accomplished 1.4 million returns of migrants from the three Northern Triangle countries.

Drawing on fieldwork and interviews with government officials, researchers, representatives of civil-society and international organizations, as well as returning migrants, this report highlights promising reintegration strategies and pressing challenges. Mexico and the three Northern Triangle countries exhibit different levels of capacity and degrees of implementation in their reception and reintegration programs. While most deported migrants now receive basic reception services, their access to reintegration services is somewhat more mixed. Among the challenges: Difficulty obtaining the official ID that allows returning migrants to access these services, limited awareness and geographic distribution of services, difficulty matching returning migrants’ skills with labor-market needs, and barriers to reintegration posed by social stigmatization and employment discrimination.

The report offers a range of recommendations to governments and others, including: Prepare migrants for reintegration prior to their return, even before deportation; issue primary ID documents from abroad or upon reception; and ensure reintegration services tap into returning migrants' cultural roots. Improving reception and reintegration services represents a long-term investment for both destination and origin countries, the authors conclude, holding the potential to reduce re-migration while enabling countries of origin to benefit from the skills and assets migrants have acquired abroad.

Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2019. 43p.

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/MPI-ReceptionReintegration-FinalWeb.pdf

At the Breaking Point: Rethinking the U.S. Immigration Court System

By Muzaffar Chishti, Doris Meissner, Stephen Yale-Loehr, Kathleen Bush-Joseph and Christopher Levesque

With a backlog of nearly 2 million cases, the U.S. immigration court system is in crisis. Many cases now take years to adjudicate, with asylum seekers, for example, waiting four years on average for their initial hearing and longer for a final decision. Serious concerns have also been raised about the quality of court decisions.

These twin issues of caseload quantity and decision quality have wide-ranging roots, from long-standing operational challenges in the courts to new crises in the Americas that have intensified humanitarian protection needs and other migration pressures. The courts' dysfunction has had severe knock-on effects for other parts of the nation’s immigration infrastructure, including notably the immigration enforcement and asylum systems.

This report takes stock of the many challenges facing the immigration courts and outlines recommendations that would advance the goal of delivering decisions that are both timely and fair. It explores issues including court caseload and personnel levels, docket management strategies, the use of technology in the courts, and access to representation. Importantly, the report focuses on changes that can be accomplished administratively—a necessity in a time when Congress has proven itself unlikely to tackle significant immigration matters.

Washington, DC:Migration Policy Institute, 2023. 51p.

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/mpi-courts-report-2023_final.pdf

Betting on Legality: Latin American and Caribbean Responses to the Venezuelan Displacement Crisis

By Luciana Gandini and Andrew Selee

More than half, and as many as two-thirds, of the estimated 6.4 million displaced Venezuelans who have settled in Latin America and the Caribbean since 2016 have been granted legal status in their host country. Most of the receiving countries in the region have responded with pragmatic measures that offer some form of legal status as well as the right to access the labor market, basic education, and emergency health care. The measures implemented are uneven and often not fully institutionalized, but they have been surprisingly generalized for a region with limited experience with large-scale immigration.

This report explores the response to Venezuelan displacement in the 15 principal host countries in Latin America and the Caribbean between 2016 and 2022. It examines the reach of different mechanisms for providing legal status and humanitarian protection—asylum systems, mobility and residence agreements, regular visas, and regularization campaigns that offer temporary status—and offers estimates of the share of Venezuelans in each country who have obtained legal status.

The report also considers the trend of governments coupling measures to provide legal status with new visa requirements that have made it increasingly difficult for more Venezuelans to arrive, pushing some into irregular migration channels. Finally, the report looks at variations in Venezuelans’ access to education and health care across the 15 countries.

Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2023. 55p.

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/mpi-venezuelans-legal-status-2023_eng_final.pdf

Migration Narratives in Northern Central America: How Competing Stories Shape Policy and Public Opinion in Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador

By Ariel G. Ruiz Soto, Natalia Banulescu-Bogdan, Aaron Clark-Ginsberg, Alejandra Lopez and Alejandro Vélez Salas

The stories told within a society about migration and migrants paint a rich picture of how its members view the opportunities and challenges associated with the movement of people, and through what lenses. These migration narratives both inform policymaking and shape the public’s reaction to government policy, affecting the policies’ chances of achieving their goals.

While El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras are primarily known for emigration to the United States and Mexico, these northern Central American countries have seen notable changes in migration trends in recent years. The number of migrants from South America and the Caribbean who transit through these countries on their way north has increased, as has the number of Central Americans returning to their countries of origin.

This report presents the findings of research conducted by the Migration Policy Institute, RAND Corporation, Metropolitan Group, and National Immigration Forum, comparing migration narratives within El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras—as well as a selection of migration narratives from Mexico and the United States that relate to Central America—over the 2018–22 period. The study explores how these narratives about emigration, transit migration, return, and other issues intersect, how they contradict or compound each other, and how they influence critical policy debates and decisions in the region.

Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2023. 49p.

By Luciana Gandini and Andrew Selee

More than half, and as many as two-thirds, of the estimated 6.4 million displaced Venezuelans who have settled in Latin America and the Caribbean since 2016 have been granted legal status in their host country. Most of the receiving countries in the region have responded with pragmatic measures that offer some form of legal status as well as the right to access the labor market, basic education, and emergency health care. The measures implemented are uneven and often not fully institutionalized, but they have been surprisingly generalized for a region with limited experience with large-scale immigration.

This report explores the response to Venezuelan displacement in the 15 principal host countries in Latin America and the Caribbean between 2016 and 2022. It examines the reach of different mechanisms for providing legal status and humanitarian protection—asylum systems, mobility and residence agreements, regular visas, and regularization campaigns that offer temporary status—and offers estimates of the share of Venezuelans in each country who have obtained legal status.

The report also considers the trend of governments coupling measures to provide legal status with new visa requirements that have made it increasingly difficult for more Venezuelans to arrive, pushing some into irregular migration channels. Finally, the report looks at variations in Venezuelans’ access to education and health care across the 15 countries.

Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2023. 55p.

By Muzaffar Chishti, Doris Meissner, Stephen Yale-Loehr, Kathleen Bush-Joseph and Christopher Levesque

With a backlog of nearly 2 million cases, the U.S. immigration court system is in crisis. Many cases now take years to adjudicate, with asylum seekers, for example, waiting four years on average for their initial hearing and longer for a final decision. Serious concerns have also been raised about the quality of court decisions.

These twin issues of caseload quantity and decision quality have wide-ranging roots, from long-standing operational challenges in the courts to new crises in the Americas that have intensified humanitarian protection needs and other migration pressures. The courts' dysfunction has had severe knock-on effects for other parts of the nation’s immigration infrastructure, including notably the immigration enforcement and asylum systems.

This report takes stock of the many challenges facing the immigration courts and outlines recommendations that would advance the goal of delivering decisions that are both timely and fair. It explores issues including court caseload and personnel levels, docket management strategies, the use of technology in the courts, and access to representation. Importantly, the report focuses on changes that can be accomplished administratively—a necessity in a time when Congress has proven itself unlikely to tackle significant immigration matters.

Washington, DC:Migration Policy Institute, 2023. 51p.

By Ariel G. Ruiz Soto, Rodrigo Dominguez-Villegas, Luis Argueta and Randy Capps

As U.S. deportations to Mexico continue at substantial levels and the numbers returned by both the U.S. and Mexican governments to El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras are increasing, it has become more urgent for countries in the region to develop successful reception and reintegration programs that meet the diverse needs of returning migrants.

Between fiscal years 2012-18, the United States carried out approximately 1.8 million repatriations of Mexican migrants, and the United States and Mexico together accomplished 1.4 million returns of migrants from the three Northern Triangle countries.

Drawing on fieldwork and interviews with government officials, researchers, representatives of civil-society and international organizations, as well as returning migrants, this report highlights promising reintegration strategies and pressing challenges. Mexico and the three Northern Triangle countries exhibit different levels of capacity and degrees of implementation in their reception and reintegration programs. While most deported migrants now receive basic reception services, their access to reintegration services is somewhat more mixed. Among the challenges: Difficulty obtaining the official ID that allows returning migrants to access these services, limited awareness and geographic distribution of services, difficulty matching returning migrants’ skills with labor-market needs, and barriers to reintegration posed by social stigmatization and employment discrimination.

The report offers a range of recommendations to governments and others, including: Prepare migrants for reintegration prior to their return, even before deportation; issue primary ID documents from abroad or upon reception; and ensure reintegration services tap into returning migrants' cultural roots. Improving reception and reintegration services represents a long-term investment for both destination and origin countries, the authors conclude, holding the potential to reduce re-migration while enabling countries of origin to benefit from the skills and assets migrants have acquired abroad.

Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2019. 43p.

By Andrew Selee, Ariel G. Ruiz Soto, Andrea Tanco, Luis Argueta and Jessica Bolter

The region that stretches from Panama northward to the United States is a major corridor for unauthorized migration. In recent years, most people on the move have come from Guatemala, Honduras, and, to a lesser extent, El Salvador. But there has also been an increasing number of migrants from outside the region who pass through Central America on their way to the U.S.-Mexico border. Amid these changing migration patterns, countries in this region have an unprecedented opportunity to work together to lay the foundation for a regional migration system that privileges safe, orderly, and legal movement.A critical first step to capitalizing on this opportunity is understanding these countries’ institutional capacities, legal frameworks, and migration and asylum policies. This report takes stock of these elements of migration-management systems in Mexico and Central America, drawing insights in part from interviews with more than 75 policymakers, civil-society leaders, and other stakeholders.

In recent years, the analysis finds, Mexico and Costa Rica have taken steps to leverage their existing migration institutions to improve operational capacity, though notable challenges remain. Meanwhile, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Panama are at earlier stages in this process. Across the region, international organizations play an important role in supporting these efforts, while civil society is vital to expanding migrants’ access to protection mechanisms and reintegration supports. Among the major areas the report identifies as important for capacity-building efforts are: developing clear migration policymaking processes; professionalizing border and immigration enforcement efforts, with an emphasis on transparency and sensitivity to the circumstances of families, children, and other vulnerable migrants; and investing in asylum systems, protection mechanisms for people displaced within countries, and reintegration programs for returning migrants. Such efforts, the authors note, would not only help governments in the region more effectively address current migration issues, they also promise to better equip them to proactively respond to future challenges.

Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2021. 65p.

By Rhoda Margesson, Kristin Finklea

Migrant smuggling, also known as human smuggling, refers to the voluntary transportation of an individual across international borders, in violation of one or more countries’ laws. Smugglers facilitate migrant travel, typically in exchange for payment, sometimes using fraudulent identity documents and covert transit. While smuggled migrants agree to be smuggled—a condition that distinguishes the practice from human trafficking—they may be vulnerable to abuse by their smuggler or later become a trafficking victim. Various United Nations (U.N.) sources cite estimates that globally, migrant smuggling totals $7-$10 billion a year or more, but the full extent of the problem is not known. Through oversight hearings and proposed legislation, Congress has sought more information on migrant smuggling and on ways to deter and punish smugglers

Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2021. 3p.

Edited by Jussi P. Laine , Daniel Rauhut , and Marika Gruber

Focusing on the social impact of migration, this book explores migration as an inevitable part of rural development and transition in light of the sharp political divides in European and national political arenas on the topic. It provides an innovative immigration impact assessment based on recently conducted empirical work to enhance local development in European rural and remote regions, looking to promote change in the perception of migration and related policies and practices.

Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 2023. 274p.

Edited by Christian Larsen

This timely book explores how Northern European countries have sought to balance their welfare states with increased levels of migration from low-income countries outside the EU. Using case studies of the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, and Sweden, leading scholars analyse the varying approaches to this so-called ‘progressive dilemma’.

Cheltenham, UK: Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 2022. 228p.

By Alia Fakhry

Since 2015, European partners have funded interventions in the Sahel to help countries like Niger, Burkina Faso and Mali increase their capacity to regulate and control migration. Through these interventions, the European Union has set precedents and encouraged securitised policies that reinforce the security interests of governments in the Sahel, and undermine the capacity of regional and continental organisations to establish comprehensive migration frameworks.

Pretoria: Institute for Security Studies, 2023. 24p.

By United States Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations - Minority Report

INTRODUCTION The illegal migration crisis at the U.S. southern border presents a grave security threat to the United States and a humanitarian catastrophe for the vulnerable people involved. Illegal migration to the United States has reached astronomical levels since the Biden Administration entered office in January 2021.1 The sheer number of illegal migrants, combined with the evolving tactics that transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) employ to smuggle and traffic individuals, presents an untenable security and humanitarian situation. Weak U.S. border security and enforcement of immigration laws undermines U.S. efforts to improve the rule of law and humanitarian conditions in the region, takes a mental and physical toll on U.S. law enforcement personnel, and challenges their ability to defend our nation’s borders. The prevailing conditions benefit dangerous criminals and expose vulnerable populations to unspeakable dangers and abuse. The Biden Administration’s failure to secure our nation’s borders is worsening this crisis. Further, it undermines efforts to address inadequate law enforcement as well as asylum processing policies and capabilities in Mexico and the northern Central American countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. This report puts forward concrete ideas to: • Establish effective migration controls in the United States; • Strengthen border security and migration management capacities in the region; and • Target TCOs smuggling and trafficking migrants.

Washington, DC: The Committee, 2023. 56p.

By Mary Holper

Immigration detainees challenging immigration judges’ bond decisions are hitting a jurisdictional wall — federal courts are given license to ignore errors that immigration judges make in determining dangerousness and flight risk, because such decisions can be categorized as “discretionary.” This license comes from a 1996 amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act, which removed federal courts’ jurisdiction over discretionary decision to detain for immigration purposes. Detainees’ important liberty interests are left to the whims of a single immigration judge, who determines bond under conditions representing an implicit bias minefield. This article explores justifications for unreviewable discretion and for stripping federal courts over immigration decisions and argues that none of these justifications are applicable when an immigration judge decides whether to detain a person pending their removal proceedings. The article explores manners in which the judiciary can limit the reach of this jurisdiction-stripping statute, and in order to ensure that immigration detainees will not face an unclimbable wall when seeking federal court review of their bond decisions.

Boston College Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 607 2023.

By The International Detention Coalition

The arbitrary and indefinite immigration detention of Rohingya is harmful to refugees and their families. As Rohingya flee ongoing persecution in Myanmar and deteriorating security conditions in camps in Bangladesh, punitive immigration detention has not and will not deter them from coming to Malaysia for safety. Immigration detention is expensive, harmful and must be reformed.

A new joint report from the Protecting Rohingya Refugees in Asia (PRRiA) project demonstrates the far-reaching impact and trauma inflicted upon Rohingya refugees because of immigration detention. Rohingya in detention experience physical and psychological abuse that can compound pre-existing trauma. For detained children especially, the impact has long-term effects on their well-being.

The report also speaks to the incompatibility of detention practices with Malaysia’s desire to offer a protection-centred environment for persons in need.

International Detention Coalition, 2023. 32p,

By Peter J. Meyer

U.S. policy toward Central America has been a subject of significant debate and oversight over the past decade as Congress has sought to address the underlying factors driving migration from the region to the United States. Recent Trends According to a model developed at the University of Texas at Austin, an estimated 377,000 people, on average, left Northern Central America (see Figure 1) annually from FY2018 to FY2021, with the majority bound for the United States. Flows have varied from year to year, with an estimated 651,000 people leaving the region in FY2019, followed by 92,000 in FY2020, and 487,000 in FY2021. Surveys conducted in 2020 found many potential migrants had postponed their plans in the midst of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic but intended to undertake their journeys once governments lifted crossborder travel restrictions.

In FY2022, U.S. Border Patrol encountered nearly 521,000 foreign nationals from Northern Central America at the U.S. Southwest border, including 199,000 Hondurans, 228,000 Guatemalans, and 93,000 Salvadorans (see Figure 2). The Border Patrol apprehended 177,000 of those individuals under Title 8 of the U.S. Code (immigration) and expelled nearly 344,000 under Title 42 of the U.S. Code (public health). According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the use of Title 42 corresponded with an increase in recidivism, with repeat encounters accounting for 26.5% of total encounters in FY2020 and FY2021, up from an average of 11.8% in FY2015-FY2019. Of those encountered from Northern Central America in FY2022, about 22% were unaccompanied minors, 24% were traveling with family members, and 54% were single adults.

Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2023. 3p.

By Andrés Dae Keun Kwon

Los Angeles County has a proud history of providing public defenders to people who cannot afford a lawyer to defend them in criminal court. On January 9, 1914, the county opened the first public defender office in the United States. In addition to being first, this office is the biggest in the nation. The Los Angeles County Public Defender’s Office (LACPD) currently employs about 700 public defenders, who handle approximately 300,000 criminal cases a year. And yet there is a crisis today in our county’s public defender system. In particular, LACPD has been grossly under-resourced as measured against recommended staffing ratios and compared to other California public defender offices. As a result, LACPD underserves a large and vital segment of the Los Angeles population: the immigrant community. This report, Defend L.A., examines the failures of the county’s public defender system and demands legal representation that, at a minimum, meets the standards of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S Constitution for all Los Angeles community members— including immigrants. The report documents many cases in which LACPD’s noncitizen clients pleaded to criminal dispositions triggering severe immigration consequences when more immigration-favorable alternative dispositions were available. Uninformed and unaware, LACPD’s noncitizen clients have pleaded guilty only to face mandatory deportation and permanent separation from family, community, and home—the loss “of all that makes life worth living.

Los Angeles: American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, 2018. 80p.

By The United States Government Accountability Office; Rebecca Gambler, et al.

Within the Department of Homeland Security, ICE is responsible for providing safe, secure, and humane confinement for detained noncitizens in the United States. In that capacity, ICE oversees and at some detention facilities provides on-site medical care services. ICE also oversees referrals and pays for off-site medical care when services are not available at detention facilities. GAO was asked to review issues related to informed consent for medical care for noncitizens in immigration detention facilities. Among other things, GAO examined the extent to which ICE has policies for obtaining informed consent for medical care, and how selected facilities implemented the policies; and oversees implementation of policies related to informed consent to help ensure compliance. GAO interviewed ICE officials and medical staff from six facilities selected, in part, based on whether ICE staff provided on-site medical care. GAO also reviewed 48 medical files from these facilities. Further, GAO analyzed oversight results for fiscal years 2019 through 2021, and reviewed ICE documentation in light of federal internal control standards. What GAO Recommends GAO is making three recommendations, including that ICE require detention facilities to collect informed consent documentation from off-site providers, and then require a review of this documentation as part of its oversight mechanisms for detention facilities. The Department of Homeland Security concurred with each of the recommendations.

Washington, DC: GAO, 2022. 53p.

By The United States Government Accountability Office; Rebecca Gambler, et al.

In fiscal year 2021, Border Patrol reported about 1.7 million apprehensions of noncitizens between ports of entry—a 300 percent increase over fiscal year 2020. This included approximately 451,000 apprehensions of family unit members. Compounding this increase were continued concerns related to COVID-19 and physical distancing protocols that imposed space limitations on facilities. To address these concerns and reduce time in custody, Border Patrol and ICE initiated two new processes in 2021, referred to as NTR and parole plus ATD. Border Patrol released family units into the U.S. without first issuing them a charging document—generally a Notice to Appear—which places them into immigration court removal proceedings. Instead, Border Patrol instructed them to report to an ICE field office. ICE officials are to further process family unit members who report to field offices, such as issuing them a Notice to Appear. GAO was asked to review Border Patrol’s and ICE’s implementation of the NTR and parole plus ATD processes. This report describes (1) Border Patrol and ICE implementation of the NTR and parole plus ATD processes, and (2) ICE’s efforts to initiate removal proceedings for family unit members processed with NTRs or under parole plus ATD. GAO analyzed Border Patrol and ICE policies, guidance, and data on individuals processed with an NTR or under parole plus ATD and who reported to ICE as required. GAO also interviewed officials in Border Patrol and ICE headquarters and selected field locations.

Washington, DC: GAO, 2022. 58p.

By Rustamjon Urinboyev

While migration has become a vital issue worldwide, mainstream literature on migrants’ legal adaptation and integration has focused on cases in Western-style democracies. We know relatively little about how migrants adapt in the ever-growing hybrid political regimes that are neither clearly democratic nor conventionally authoritarian. This book takes up the case of Russia—the third largest recipient of migrants worldwide—and investigates how Central Asian migrant workers produce new forms of informal governance and legal order. Migrants use the opportunities provided by a weak rule of law and a corrupt political system to navigate the repressive legal landscape and to negotiate, using informal channels, access to employment and other opportunities that are hard to obtain through the official legal framework of their host country. This lively ethnography presents new theoretical perspectives for studying legal incorporation of immigrants in similar political contexts.

Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 2020. 186p.

By Manlio Cinalli, Hans-Jörg Trenz, Verena K. Brändle, Olga Eisele and Christian Lahusen

This book examines the ‘European refugee crisis’, offering an in-depth comparative analysis of how public attitudes towards refugees and humanitarian dispositions are shaped by political news coverage.

An international team of authors address the role of the media in contesting solidarity towards refugees from a variety of disciplinary perspectives. Focusing on the public sphere, the book follows the assumption that solidarity is a social value, political concept and legal principle that is discursively constructed in public contentions. The analysis refers systematically and comparatively to eight European countries, namely, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Poland, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Treatment of data is also original in the way it deals with variations of public spheres by combining a news media claims-making analysis with a social media reception analysis. In particular, the book highlights the prominent role of the mass media in shaping national and transnational solidarity, while exploring the readiness of the mass media to extend thick conceptions of solidarity to non-members. It proposes a research design for the comparative analysis of online news reception and considers the innovative potential of this method in relation to established public opinion research.

The book is of particular interest for scholars who are interested in the fields of European solidarity, migration and refugees, contentious politics, while providing an approach that talks to scholars of journalism and political communication studies, as well as digital journalism and online news reception.

London; New York: Routledge, 2021. 220p.

Edited by Peter Scholten Han Entzinger Rinus Penninx Stijn Verbeek

This book is the outcome of a truly European exercise. It all started in May 2008 with a conference called ‘Research-Policy Dialogues on Migration and Integration in Europe’, held at the University of Twente, organised by Peter Scholten, the first editor of this book, who was based at Twente at the time, and Rinus Penninx. This conference was co-sponsored by the IMISCOE Research Network, and some of its contributors decided to continue their joint activities in this field in a special research group under the IMISCOE umbrella. They were all intrigued by the vast differences between European countries in the use of scientific knowledge in policymaking and in the patterns of communication between academic researchers and policymakers when it comes to analysing the impact of immigration and migrant integration. Peter Scholten and Rinus Penninx invited several speakers at the Twente conference to transform their paper into a book chapter. Updated versions of these chapters are included in the present volume. In addition to this, a research proposal was developed by some of the members of the research group. The proposal primarily aimed at gathering more empirical evidence on the functioning of the research-policy nexus in the field of immigrant integration in several EU countries as well as in the EU as such. The proposal was called ‘Science-Society Dialogues on Migration and Integration in Europe’, abbreviated DIAMINT. It was accepted for funding by the Volkswagen Foundation in Hanover under its programme ‘Science, the Public and Society’. The DIAMINT project was carried out between September 2011 and September 2013, under the supervision of Han Entzinger of Erasmus University Rotterdam, and Peter Scholten, who had moved meanwhile to that university. Stijn Verbeek, also at Erasmus University, contributed significantly to both the contents and the organisation of the project. The theoretical design of the present volume as well as most of its chapters constitutes the final report of the DIAMINT project. The project, and the IMISCOE Standing Committee of which the project was part, has also produced a considerable number of journal articles and other output, of which a list appears elsewhere in this book..

IMISCOE Research Series . Cham, SWIT: Springer Nature, 2015 341p.