Emigrants can vote from abroad for about 120 territories and immigrants can vote in about 50 countries. Many international migrants can vote or abstain in both the origin and residence countries,... Show moreEmigrants can vote from abroad for about 120 territories and immigrants can vote in about 50 countries. Many international migrants can vote or abstain in both the origin and residence countries, making four distinct types of migrant electoral behavior: immigrant, emigrant, and dual transnational voting, as well as abstention. Migrant political participation affects democratic decision-making and electoral outcomes in two polities, reasons for which both migrant enfranchisement and migrant voting merit scholarly research. My goal is to unpack why migrants decide to vote or abstain in either the origin or residence country, in both, or in neither. I conducted surveys and interviews in Chile and Ecuador, likely cases in which to find individuals with national-level voting rights in two countries. I argue that political resocialization helps to explain individual-level migrant voter turnout. I posit resources combined with ties to people or places in one or both countries constitute a necessary condition and resources with a motive to vote serves as a sufficient condition for migrant voting. Rather than a trade-off of replacement, over time migrants change their positioning and motives to vote in one country or both countries.The case studies shed light on the legal and normative origins of migrant enfranchisement over the last century, differences among migrant voting variants, and how political (re)socialization processes help explain why migrants vote and change voting behavior over time. Show less
Regional Consultative Processes (RCPs) have become a central component of migration governance; these are the loci of interstate migration policy discussions. Currently 15 RCPs meet worldwide in... Show moreRegional Consultative Processes (RCPs) have become a central component of migration governance; these are the loci of interstate migration policy discussions. Currently 15 RCPs meet worldwide in every region, except the Caribbean, to form non-binding agreements and to coordinate migration policy approaches. Building on previous reports, migration governance literature, and existent thematic analyses specific to the region, we evaluate RCPs’ multilevel migration policy coordination by comparing national laws to regional topics and accords. We compare two decades of national legislation in all 12 South American countries to regional discussion at the South American Conference on Migration (SACM) since its first annual meeting in 2000. We find synergies and discrepancies between translating regional migration governance strategies from the RCP into national-level migration management. The SACM has reinforced the member states’ focus on regional integration and provided a space for dialog to agree on approaches and best practices. Yet, countries have not uniformly incorporated these into national legislation. Our multilevel analysis reveals the complexities that RCPs face in overcoming regional-national discrepancies in immigration policy coordination. Show less
Vásquez, J.; Finn, V.J.; Umpierrez de Reguero, S.A. 2021
Objetivo/contexto: las democracias latinoamericanas del siglo XXI enfrentan una tensión entre “proteger” la soberanía estatal con políticas inmigratorias más restrictivas y adscribirse a los... Show moreObjetivo/contexto: las democracias latinoamericanas del siglo XXI enfrentan una tensión entre “proteger” la soberanía estatal con políticas inmigratorias más restrictivas y adscribirse a los diálogos y acuerdos internacionales más liberales, que promocionan los derechos y la movilidad humana. Una mayor migración intrarregional, especialmente desde Venezuela, ha llevado a varios países a restringir derechos y libertades previamente reconocidos. Nuestro objetivo es profundizar en este giro hacia la restrictividad mediante un análisis empírico de las tendencias e intenciones legislativas de inmigración en Chile. Metodología: desde 2018, el Gobierno de Chile ha promovido medidas para “ordenar” y “regular” la inmigración. Entre estas, modificar la Ley de Migraciones de 1975. Empleamos el índice de políticas de inmigración en comparación (IMPIC), utilizando el proyecto de Ley 8970-06 y la Ley 20430 de refugiados. Conclusión: la administración chilena presenta intenciones legislativas de una mayor restrictividad frente a la inmigración económica y la reunificación familiar, que se direccionan a constreñir la movilidad humana. Originalidad: el artículo extiende el uso de IMPIC en 2010 a 2019, y lo aplica por primera vez en las intenciones legislativas de un gobierno incumbente para comprender mejor los cambios en las estrategias del país como un Estado migratorio. Show less
During the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, (im)mobility policies affected individuals’ citizenship rights and movement within countries and across international borders. Prior to the pandemic, the... Show moreDuring the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, (im)mobility policies affected individuals’ citizenship rights and movement within countries and across international borders. Prior to the pandemic, the mobility regime in South America was relatively open for regional migrants, bolstered on free residence and equal rights. In this analysis, we focus on human mobility and citizenship rights in South America by examining local and national government responses to Covid-19 between March and August 2020. Using databases, newspaper columns, government websites, and legislation, we outline the region’s travel restrictions and exceptions, closures and militarization of borders, internal movement procedures, and economic subsidies to ease Covid-19’s impact. While the regional mobility regime had already been under stress since 2015, exceptions to border closures and internal mobility further stratified people based on legal and economic statuses. Deeply affecting individual-state relations, access to mobility and citizenship rights such as labor, housing, and healthcare varied between nationals and non-nationals and between regular and irregular migrants. Reactions may have longer term effects, especially for Venezuelans, since the crisis created new inequalities and contradictions within the regional mobility regime, originally aimed at reducing them. Show less
During the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, governments implemented travel restrictions and self-isolation, decreasing mobility for most individuals, but also permitted repatriation and ‘essential’... Show moreDuring the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, governments implemented travel restrictions and self-isolation, decreasing mobility for most individuals, but also permitted repatriation and ‘essential’ work, increasing mobility for others. How has the governance of human mobility from March to August 2020 affected the concepts of borders and citizenship? Drawing on evidence from countries in the European Union and South America—regions with more fluid intraregional mobility pre-pandemic—we compare states’ reactions to evaluate moving borders and citizenship. We find fluctuating internal borders and external borders pushing further into other territories. By differentiating between people and essential work, governments deteriorated the rule of law since the frequently changed measures undermined individuals’ ability to predict mobility and income. Migrants were additionally affected because of legal statuses of being a resident national, emigrant, dual national, temporary or permanent immigrant, or having an irregular status. Short-term policy reactions may lead to long-term consequences; we foresee exceptions and control mechanisms under expanded Leviathan-style approaches could continue to affect individual mobility in and between countries. Show less
Moving past the literature on states granting migrant voting rights, in this article I focus on individuals exercising these rights in order to question the connections between (non)citizenship,... Show moreMoving past the literature on states granting migrant voting rights, in this article I focus on individuals exercising these rights in order to question the connections between (non)citizenship, political membership, and participation in contemporary societies. With over 120 countries worldwide having enfranchised migrants in some form, the binary of ‘here’ and ‘there’ is insufficient to categorize and study migrant political engagement. This article contains a new typology to classify the four options of migrant voting: immigrant (only in the destination country), emigrant (only in the origin country), dual transnational (in both), and abstention (in neither). While emigrant voting requires citizenship, immigrant noncitizen voting does not, so active noncitizen voting weakens the defining dimensions of citizenship as a concept. As a first application, I analyze differences between individuals pertaining to each of the four types, based on a 2017 survey of 680 migrants in Chile since this country grants extensive migrant suffrage rights. Show less
This article analyses democracy in post-communist Croatia 1990-1999 and 2000-2011. During the first decade, political stagnation occurred under a competitive authoritarian regime. This ended... Show moreThis article analyses democracy in post-communist Croatia 1990-1999 and 2000-2011. During the first decade, political stagnation occurred under a competitive authoritarian regime. This ended abruptly and there was a critical juncture, during which a free and fair election marked the start of Croatian democracy in 2000. I first propose a causal chain to explain the election results, suggesting that the occurrence of the election, combined with other necessary factors, revealed the population's underlying preference for democracy. Internally, this preference then served as a positive feedback mechanism throughout Croatia's rapid increase in democracy as it became a candidate for European Union membership and finalized accession negotiations. Externally, the European Union influenced democratic progress, particularly via conditionality policies. This historical comparative analysis aims to explain which factors allowed for a rapid increase in democratic quality, positioning the 2000 election results as the main influence. Show less
(English below)Mientras algunos estudios migratorios proponen un rol estatal preponderante, otros declaran que la globalización y el transnacionalismo tienen un poder estatal reducido. Existe una... Show more(English below)Mientras algunos estudios migratorios proponen un rol estatal preponderante, otros declaran que la globalización y el transnacionalismo tienen un poder estatal reducido. Existe una ambigüedad acerca de cuán influyente es el Estado de destino, particularmente en relación a los individuos, en materia de decisiones migratorias. En este artículo, se plantea una aproximación teórica-conceptual para analizar la relación entre el migrante (emigrante e inmigrante) como unidad individual y el Estado en regímenes democráticos contemporáneos en términos de control migratorio. Desde una perspectiva de la economía política, se clarifica cuáles son las condiciones políticas y legales necesarias y suficientes durante la trayectoria migratoria. Las decisiones estatales circunscriben quién migra e indican cuáles países de destino continúan intentando ejercer el control mediante lo que se conceptualiza en este análisis como “burocracia post-migratoria”. El examinar cómo estas barreras estatales afectan la agencia de los individuos permite luego investigar la integración de los inmigrantes.Some migration literature present a predominant state role, whilst others convey that globalization and transnationalism have resulted in reduced state power. There is ambiguity regarding the destination state’s influence, as compared to individuals, in migration decisions. To fill this gap, I suggest a conceptual theoretical approach for analyzing the relationship between a migrant (emigrant and immigrant) and the state within contemporary democratic regimes of migratory control. Through a political economy lens, I define which political and legal aspects are necessary and sufficient conditions during the migrant trajectory. State decisions dictate who migrates and show which destination countries continue to attempt to control migration, through what I define as ‘post-migration bureaucracy.’ Examining how state limits affect individuals’ agency allows for supplementary research on immigrants’ integration. Show less
Analyzing over 200 years of migration and citizenship laws, Dr. Acosta explains how ten South American states have constructed the categories of the “national” and “foreigner”. Fear not! Acosta’s... Show moreAnalyzing over 200 years of migration and citizenship laws, Dr. Acosta explains how ten South American states have constructed the categories of the “national” and “foreigner”. Fear not! Acosta’s captive writing style holds readers’ attention from start to finish, leaving the legal sources in detailed footnotes. The book evidences constitutional and democratic lessons South America can offer other South-South migration regions as well as the European Union (EU) and United States (US). It appeals to scholars interested in migration, law, politics, history, human rights, racial studies, and nation-building processes. Show less
