IPJ19F MIDTERM
11""Days before the midterm [...] He fomented fears of a caravan headed to the United States and created hysteria when he said, 'Look, look at what's marching up. This is an invasion.' He asserted that immigrants would quote, 'carve you up with a knife'." What public figure is being quoted here? Who is the public speaker quoting? This quote is being published in a piece we read. Who published that piece and what the author was doing? What was the author's judgment? What was the reasoning?
-Public figure being quoted: Joe Biden, a former Vice President is being quoted Biden believes that presidents "can encourage us to appeal to our better angels, our better nature." -Who the public speaker quoting: Biden is quoting President Donald Trump Biden feels that Trump created fears of immigrants invading the United States by what he said: immigrants will "carve you up with a knife." However, there was a fact check done on whether Trump has said that immigrants will "carve you up with a knife" and he did not. (Greenberg 1) This assumption came from a rally in Texas of October 2018. At this rally, Trump talked about Beto O'Rourke, who was the U.S. Senate. O'Rourke is polar opposite of Trump. Trump said that "O'Rourke even voted to shield MS-13 gang members from deportation. He doesn't want to deport them. He says they're people. They're people. They carve you up with a knife, but they're people." (Greenberg 2) The truth is that O'Rourke did not vote to protect MS-13 members from deportation. However, Biden took part of Trump's words and changed the context. Trump was talking about MS-13 gang, not immigrants.
42. Irregular migrants
Caren uses this phrase to describe immigrants that are out of status in a state "Irregular migrants, are people who have lived here peacefully and productively for many years and have American spouses and children
38. What is Swaine's criticism of Carens and Carens' response? (What group/person is invoked by Carens? How does Carens respond? Why is he passionate about not liking Swaine's invocation of this group?)
...Carens states his belief that if illegal immigrants are not caught for a certain amount of time in the place that they migrated to, they should gain automatic status. However, Swain disagrees because they are taking the jobs of the people who do labor work in the south, such as african americans, hispanics, and working-class whites. This includes the people who do not have the book smarts and so they are using their labor work to survive. Swain believes that those who are legally here and who are citizens should be looked after first instead of illegal immigrants who are taking their jobs because they are willing to work for less. Carens responds to this by saying that it would still be good to have illegal immigrants in the work force because then they could join the unions and make these disadvantaged citizens less vulnerable to exploitation. Carens is passionate about this response because he sees the illegal immigrants as part of the community and society that also has to be protected.
36. What does CRAAP stand for?
Currency Relevance Accuracy Authority Purpose
41. Remittances (Define. Who talks about them? What argument does Mehta use when invoking them?)
Remittances are a sum of money sent, especially by mail, in payment for goods or services or as a gift. "A world with more open borders would have a brief spasm of mass movement, and then migration might actually decrease, because money and happiness would be more equitably spread around, and more people would stay home" (Mehta, 2). "History is what has happened and can never un-happen; history is happening right now. Attention needs to be paid. So does the bill" (Mehta, 2).
1. Miller says that other people (not him) often give three arguments for an absolute right to cross borders (see page 194). Explain in detail these three arguments. Explain in detail how Miller counters them.
general right to freedom of movement, and claims that this must include the freedom to move into, and take up residence in, states other than one's own. begins with a person's right to exit from her current state and claims that a right of exit is pointless unless it is matched by a right of entry into other states. appeals to international distributive justice. Given the huge inequalities in living standards that currently exist between rich and poor states, it is said, people who live in poor states have a claim of justice that can only be met by allowing them to migrate and take advantage of the opportunities that rich states provide.
29. Dreamers
The DREAM Act is an American legislative proposal for a process for granting residency status to qualifying immigrants who entered the United States as minors.
14. Briefly explain Carens' position on amnesty and how someone can acquire social membership without legal status. ("Briefly" = Explain only as much as is necessary to make the criticisms of Carens make sense). Explain one criticism from Neuman, one criticism from Rosenblum, one criticism from Swaine, and one criticism from Addington (You only give one criticism from each author.). Explain how Carens actually responds to each of these criticisms by these authors or (if he doesn't actually respond) how he could respond to each of these criticisms by these authors. (You should, as much as possible, pick criticisms he does respond to.)
"After all, the ten years from six to sixteen (or from eight to eighteen) are even more important in creating a substantial connection to the country where one lives than the first ten years of life." (Carens p. 5) According to Caren, from a society's perspective the most important years of childhood are the last ten years of childhood before they reach the age eighteen, which makes them an adult. During these last years, children receive most of their education. They also obtain knowledge and become accustomed to where they are living and that location's culture. Caren explains this thought by saying "[h]human beings who have been raised in a society become members of that society." (Carens p. 5) If one is raised the way a member of the society is, it is wrong for them not to be a member as well. Some feel that it is cruel, unjust, and morally wrong as well. They also feel that it is not okay for someone to have to leave the place where one grew up and was raised to that culture due to the fact that their parents brought them somewhere illegally. (Caren p. 5) Carens argues that irregular migrants make deep connections and contributions to the society in which they are living over the years and as a result these people should be granted amnesty and should not be subject to deportation. Criticism From Addington: In sum, the Court finds that when this country allowed petitioner to become a part of our community fabric, allowed him to build a life with and among us and to enjoy the liberties and freedom that come with that, it committed itself to allowance of an orderly departure when the time came, and it committed itself to avoidance of unnecessary cruelty when the time came.
Describe the private club analogy, as discussed by Miller. What does the analogy compare private clubs to? Does Miller agree with the analogy? Why or why not? (p. 198)
A tennis club can stop accepting accepting people after reaching a 100 people. They don't have to justify this. If someone cannot gain a membership in this club, they can always join another club. It compares to whether or not states have the right to choose who to admit. So in order to show that states are entitled to close their borders to immigrants, we have to do more than show that the latter lack the human right to migrate. Poten- tial immigrants have a claim to be let in - if nothing else they usually have a strong desire to enter - and so any state that wants to control immigration must have good reasons for doing so
7. What is a cost benefit calculation? What conclusion does Nowrasteh make when comparing the cost of terrorism with the cost of proposed policy solutions such an immigration moratorium? (Alternative wording: Explain the approach Alex Nowrasteh (in a Cato Institute report) uses in assessing the risks posed by possible terrorism through immigration. What are some striking statistics he uses? What is the risk of being murdered in a terrorist attack by a foreign born refugee? By an illegal immigrant? What conclusions does he reach? Are the risks posed by foreign-born terrorists large enough, in his view, to have measures like a moratorium on all immigration and tourism? What does he mean by "cost-benefit calculation"?)
Alex Nowrasteh's approach in assessing the risks posed by possible terrorism through immigration: Alex Nowrasteh (in a Cato Institute report) uses a policy analysis that provides a quantification of the risks of foreign born terrorists enetering the US in each visa category and then compares the cost of terrorism with the cost of proposed solutions such as an immigration moratorium (cost benefit analysis). Striking statistics: (know at least one of these) 26.5 million illegal immigrants entered the US for each one who ended up being a terrorist. Foreign born terrorists on tourist visas have killed more Americans in attacks than those on any other type of visa, followed distantly by those who entered on student visas. The chance of being murdered in a terrorist attack caused by a refuge is greater than the chance of being murdered in an attack committed by an illegal immigrant Risk of being murdered in a terrorist attack by a foreign born refugee: The chance of being murdered in an attack committed by refuge is 1 in 3.64 billion per year Refugees were not very successful at killing Americans in terrorist attacks
Explain the policy that Carens argues for and explain his justifications for it in detail.
Carens argues for amnesty. People should have the right to remain in a country if they've been there for a certain amount of time. They have adapted to that society so it would be wrong to remove them. this is what she calls social membership She also compares irregular immigrants to someone who has received a speeding ticket. We wouldn't label them as criminals so he says illegal immigrants shouldnt be perceived as criminals.
8. Explain Rosenblum's three disagreements with Carens. What does he agree with Carens about? If Carens doesn't respond, how might he have responded if he had?
Carens argues that the overwhelmingly important issue is the amount of time an undocumeted immigrant has spent in the United States, and he warns against "subjectively" weighing other mitigating factors like family and community connections to the United States. Yet to ignore these factors also represents a value judgment, and in fact the citizen families (and employers) of undocumented immigrants are among the biggest losers from an enforcement-only policy. The distribution of scarce visas or scarce opportunities for legalization must account for the claims of these citizens (Rosenblum, 1). Carens argues against a penalty to legalization (he favors amnesty over "earned legalization" on the grounds that illegal migration is not a serious crime. Rosenblum says that if undocumented immigrants are similar to speeders, then requiring them to pay a fee or perform community service is an appropriate part of the legalization process. The legalization process also must be burdensome so as not to encourage future undocumented immigrants (Rosenblum, 1). If Carens is too forgiving of immigrants' culpability in arguing for a penalty-free amnesty, he is also too lenient toward US policies and their promotion of illegal inflows. The underlying structure of migration flows- pushes, pulls, and social networks that overwhelm visa restrictions- are themselves the product of policy choices.
5. Explain the policy that Carens argues for and explain his justifications for it in detail.
Carens brings into view the moral and policy norms that should govern how liberal democratic states treat people who have settled without official authorization. Most people think that the state has the right to determine whom it will admit and to apprehend and deport migrants who settle without official authorization. Carens explores the question of whether a state nonetheless may sometimes be morally obliged to grant legal-resident status to irregular migrants. Carens argues that the moral right of states to apprehend and deport irregular migrants erodes with the passage of time.
43. What did the Immigration Act of 1924 do? (see Elving)
Congress passed an emergency ceiling on annual immigration levels and lowered it by half again in the Immigration Act of 1924. The law set quotas by country of origin and explicit preferred Northern Europeans over all others
12. Sarah Fine asks in her podcast whether a state has a moral right to generally exclude people who want to come into their country and potentially settle in the country. She discusses several possible justifications for such a moral right. Of these justifications, choose three. For each of the three, explain the arguments she says can be given in favor of each of these justifications and explain the reasons she discusses for being skeptical of these justifications.
DEMOCRACY In a democracy, democratic people have the right to decide who gets to come in and who gets to become a member. In this case, it may mean to decide if a certain group of people are allowed to come into an area or not based on their values, a vote may take place. The idea of democracy is that those who govern, or have the right to participation, are governed. This idea is challenged though because in the past some people have been excluded from voting but were still governed. For example, women and minority groups were not allowed to vote. However, they really do have the right because they are living in an area where people govern themselves. A question Sarah Fine brought up is who gets to make the decisions of who gets to vote and who doesn't and who is allowed in an area? Fine brings up this question because some people who are outside of the borders are governed by a state that they are not in due to their immigration policy, which is unfair, and their lives are affected because they are not governing themselves and are governed. Sarah Fine asks if a state has the right to govern those not in the area? According to Kukathas, immigration is an issue in liberal democratic states because the states are turning into welfare states. "Immigrants are potential recipients of these services and benefits, and any state considering the level of immigration it will accept will have to consider how likely immigrants are to consume these benefits, how much they might consume..." (Kukathas 209). CULTURE Sarah Fine brings up a question: do states have the right to protect their cultures? Fine believes it is questionable if a state has one culture from border to border anyways. Plus, cultures changes on their own. Some people are invested in the national culture of the state and they don't want them to change too quickly. However, those that want to migrate have a similar interest. Kukathas believes that there are positive effects to immigration, but they should not be overestimated. It is possible that if immigrants want to move to a wealthy country, they may want to take advantage of the opportunities that the country offers. Although, this may be their goal, they might not pursue it. Anyhow, if people are interested in a wealth-creation, it is more likely that the skill will be learned from entering a rich country rather than trying to bring it to a poor country. (Kukathas 215)
Brain Drain
Definition: The large-scale emigration of educated individuals from the countries of their birth The sentiment among policy makers are wanting doctors and engineers not landscapers and dishwashers The government issues H-1B visas to foreign workers with specialized skills in science, technology and medicine, among many other fields, allowing them to legally reside and work in the United States. The increase of available H-1B visas allows for highly educated foreigners to pursue a more prosperous career in the United States Problem with Brain Drain: In India, home to the large majority of H-1B visa recipients, many medical students opt to study abroad because of rising costs and limited capacity at their public institutions. The medical brain drain in India not only reduces the number of doctors available for care, but it also removes the people needed to push for healthcare reforms
31. What is the ICRA? What year? Addington says that the experience of the ICRA shows that future amnesties will encourage ______ to happen?
ICRA stands for Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 which was to deal with the large numbers of aliens unlawfully in the US all the time. Congress included two broad amnesty programs The first IRCA amnesty program generally required the Attorney General to adjust to the status of lawful temporary permanent residence aliens unlawfully in the U.S. who had been in the U.S since January 1, 1982, with subsequent adjustment to lawful permanent residence. The second IRCA amnesty program generally required the Attorney General to adjust to the status of lawful "special agricultural workers" aliens unlawfully in the U.S. who performed 90 days of qualifying agricultural work during the 12 months preceding May 1, 1986, and who could qualify for immigrant status, with subsequent adjustment of their status to that of lawful permanent residence Future amnesties will encourage unlawful immigration to happen
47. What is (Immanuel Kant's) "universal right of hospitality"? (see Benhabib)
If conditions in a person's native country so endanger his life and well-being and he becomes willing to risk illegality in order to survive, his right to survival, from a moral point of view, carries as much weight as does the new country's claim to control borders against migrants. Immanuel Kant, therefore, called the moral claim to seek refuge or respite in the lands of another, a "universal right of hospitality," provided that the intentions of the foreigner upon arriving on foreign lands were peaceful. Such a right, he argued, belonged to each human being placed on this planet who had to share the earth with others. Even though morally the right to hospitality is an individual right, the socioeconomic and cultural causes of migrations are for the most part collective.
37. Congress passed a law in 1965 reforming immigration. What was its biggest effect? Was this intentional? (see Elving)
Immigration law in 1965: In 1965 Congress passed a more liberal immigration law that eliminated quotas based on nation of origin. The law sought to reunite families and level the playing field for prospective immigrants around the world Biggest Effect/ Was it intentional: Its impact went far beyond what its sponsors might have imagined The proportion of foregin born in the US population rose from 5% in 1965 to 14% in the next half century. These new waves of arrivals would be far more diverse than their predecessors were.
24. Contrast the different views of the rule of law in Ragbir vs. Sessions and in the piece by David Addington
In RAGBIR vs. SESSIONS, the government acted wrongly when trying to deport an irregular immigrant. They violated his constitutional rights. Allowed him to become a member of the community, but eventually deported him. Addington says that Amnesty comes in many forms, but in all its variations, it discourages respect for the law, treats law-breaking aliens better than law-following aliens, and encourages future unlawful immigration into the United States.
22. "If we are considering labor markets, there is no good reason to exclude outsiders from offering their labor in competition with locals." Who says this? In what context? What is the argument? (Kukathas 212)
It may disadvantage locals to have to compete, it is equally true that outsiders will be disadvantaged if they are forbidden to do so. Restricting access to markets benefits some people, but at the expense of others, and generally is a disadvantage of all. Excluding one group of people specifically is wrong.
"Social membership does not depend upon official permission or legal status" Who said this quote? What is the context? Explain.
Joseph Carens says this quote when speaking about people that come into the country at a young age and stay despite the fact that they are here illegally. there is something deeply wrong in forcing people to leave a place where they have lived for a long time. Most people form their deepest human connections where they live. It becomes home. Even if someone has arrived only as an adult, it seems cruel and inhumane to uproot a person who has spent fifteen or twenty years as a contributing member of society in the name ofen forcing immigration restrictions.
23. Principle of humanity
Kukasthas says this The principle of humanity points out that there is a huge number of people who live in poverty in the world and for most of them a promising way to improve their condition is to move. According to the principle of humanity, the poor and disadvantaged should be provided with assistance and given the opportunity to help themselves
3. "The most challenging argument against open immigration, however, is that institutions of social justice can only be built if social solidarity is preserved - and that immigration may undermine that solidarity if it is not appropriately restricted." (Kukathas, 216) [Kukathas here is describing an argument made by Miller (this argument is not discussed at length in the Miller's piece we read). What is the argument Kukathas describes and attributes to Miller? What does Kukathas himself say about social solidarity and the compatibility of large amounts of immigration with a welfare state that upholds principles of distributive justice? Does Kukathas think that large amounts of immigration and a generous welfare state are compatible? Why or why not? If they are not compatible, does he indicate which one should go? This requires reading all of Kukathas' article, not just page 216. For example, you would need to read the conclusion of Kukathas. You don't need to read Miller's own article for this prompt]
Kukathas is talking about the relationship between social justice and cultural integrity. He might not care about either of these things but he is describing Miller's argument that the two are connected and we have to find out what that argument is. Even if he thinks Miller is right, that doesn't mean that he is in favor of limiting immgiration because it is not clear that he cares that much about social justice. He is a libertarian who agrees that social justice in terms of the welfare state may conflict with open borders. Whereas Miller would choose to close those borders for that reason, Kukathas would stick with open borders for that reason. Describe the argument that Kukathas is making and say whether or not Kukathas thinks Miller is right that there is a connection between the two factors and explain that those who arguemtns are and if there is a connection we should choose. Social solidarity, distributive justice, etc...
25. Principle of freedom
Kukathas says this Closed borders restrict the freedom of movement and confines people within certain boundaries. Closed borders deny people the freedom to sell their labor and others the freedom to buy it. Keeping the borders closed also restricts people's freedom to associate with other people.
18. What does Kukathas argue about immigration and security?
Kukathas suggests that security concerns do not do much to diminish the case for open borders First, while it is easy to restrict legal immigration, it is another matter to control illegal immigration. Limiting legal immigration is unlikely to deter either criminals from moving between states. Second, limiting immigration seldom means limiting the movement of people more generally, since many more people move as tourists etc than they do as immigrants. If security is a concern, tourism should be more severely limited. This requires a state's own citizens to be under surveillance which can be seens as a burden
6. Explain, compare, and contrast Kukathas' and Miller's arguments about culture and immigration.
Kukathas: Believes that immigrants have the right to open borders due to (1) principle of freedom, (2) principle of humanity, (3) principle of security, (4) economy, (5) social and cultural change. Kukathas believes that cultural change is good and introducing new cultures will only better the economy and society. Miller: Believes that there should be closed borders because (1) the principle of freedom doesn't mean that they have a right to move to wherever they want, just to the places that support their needs; (2) states should focus on their people first and they are not obligated to let anyone in that they don't want to let in; (3) security reasons; (4) bad effect on the economy since they are willing to work for less and so people will hire them instead of citizens; (5) no solidified culture since there are so many immigrants coming in
20. "This year we should recognize this holiday by demanding justice for Native people at the U.S. border." Who said this? What holiday is being talked about? What should Native people be allowed to do, according to the author? What does this have to do with this holiday? (see Ellis)
Liz Ellis said this, and she is speaking about columbus day. Turn it into indegineous people day. Who said it Liz Ellis said this quote What holiday is being talked about Christopher Columbus Day is being talked about. The celebration of Indigenous Peoples' Day rather than Columbus Day has been decades in the making. The importance of Indigenous Peoples' Day has always been rooted in the concept of visibility: reclaiming Native history and exposing historical injustices. They advocated an end to the commemoration of Columbus's arrival and atrocities that his expedition committed against Caribbean Indigenous peoples, and instead for recognition of the cultural and historical contributions of America's Native people. What should Native people be allowed to do? To truly honor contemporary indigenous people and dismantle the imperial legacy of Columbus, we should recognize people's human right to migrate and to move across borders they historically crossed.
48. "Immigration quotas should be based on how much the host country has ruined other countries. Britain should have quotas for Indians and Nigerians; France for Malians and Tunisians; Belgium for very large numbers of Congolese." Who said this? What is the context? What argument is being made? (see Mehta, 3)
Mehta stated this quote There is this debate about whether the United States and other countries owe reparations to other countries for their colonial adventures, for the wars they imposed on them, for the inequality they have built into the world order etc. Their people are asking for fairness: for the borders of the rich countries to be opened to goods and people In seeking to move, they are asking for immigration as reparations. Today, a quarter of a billion people are migrants. They are moving because the rich countries have stolen the future of the poor countries. A vast majority of migrants move from a poor to a less poor country, not a rich one. Immigration quotas should be based on how much the host country has ruined other countries. And when they come, they should be allowed to bring their families and stay
32. "The point here is that liberal societies in general offer their members sufficient freedom of movement to protect the interests that the human right to free movement is intended to protect, even though the extent of free movement is very far from absolute." Who said this? What is important about this contrast between sufficient and absolute? [Miller 195]
Miller says this When it's sufficient, Members have enough to protect their interests but it is not absolute meaning that the freedom they have has some restrictions
STARTS PART B Basic freedoms v. bare freedoms
Miller says this, as a matter of right We are not given bare freedoms automatically like we are given basic freedoms and therefore immigration is not a human right The right to freedom is a basic right Bare rights, do not warrant that kind of protection as basic rights do There is a bare freedom right to drive an expensive car but this is not a basic right.
40. "But his own analogy implies the opposite conclusion: if undocumented immigrants are similar to speeders, then requiring them to pay a fee or to perform community service is an appropriate part of the legalization process. A speeder should not have her car taken away for a first violation, but there is no moral claim against paying a speeding ticket." Who said this? What is the context?
Rosenblum says this He is responding to Carens claim comparing irregular immigrants to people who receive a speeding ticket.
49. "those who are governed get to govern... then it looks as though those who are governed get to have rights of participation." Who said this? What context? What arguments are being made? (see Fine)
She says: if "those who are governed get to govern... then it looks as though those who are governed get to have rights of participation," however in the past some people were excluded from participating even though they were members of their state (such as women and minorities) (8:35)This raises the question of who the people that are being governed are (9:27) Fine states that "some people who are outside of the borders of the state are also in some sense governed by the immigration rules" and decisions and "their lives are affected by this... and so we might think of them as governed and we might think that that gives rise to some participatory rights..." (9:45) She is saying that those who are not within the state are, in a sense, governed by the immigration laws (such as the ones that are laws to exclude them out of the state) and so they should have some sort of say
4. What are the arguments Kukathas discusses regarding immigration and the economy/jobs? Include not only his conclusions but the (two) kinds of concerns he addresses. (Be sure to discuss how the costs of immigration might fall on different people.) Does he think that workers have a right to be protected against competition?
The first economic arguments for limiting immigration is about the impact of migrants on the local market economy: The second is about the impact of migrants on the cost and availability of goods and services supplied through the state: education, healthcare, welfare. Kukathas points out that although the burdens and benefits of immigration do not fall evenly on all members of a society this doesn't justify closing the borders. Kukathas says that if the concern is to preserve the integrity of the welfare state, the most that could be justified is restricting membership of the welfare system.
35. What are the two conditions Miller gives for an ethical immigration policy?
The first is the issue of refugees, usually defined as people who have fled their home country as a result of a well-founded fear of persecution or violence. The second issue is discrimination among migrants who are not refugees. Currently, states do discriminate on a variety of different grounds, effectively selecting the migrants they want to take in
2. Explain David Miller's argument regarding culture and whether a country has a right to limit immigration. (Discuss: What does Miller mean by a common political culture? How does it relate to the political identity of members? What relationship does he argue it serves with regard to democracy? How does it relate to physical space? Continuity over time? Does a culture need to be static and rigid? Why isn't it fine to have the culture change freely over time without any control over the change, according to him?)
The first reason assumes that the states require a common public culture that in part constitutes the political identity of their members, and that serves valuable functions in supporting democracy and other social goals Immigrants will enter with cultural and political values that are different from the public culture Public cultures change over time, as a result of social factors that are independent of immigration it doesn't seem that states have any good reason to restrict immigration on that basis.
27. What is "immigration as reparations"? (see Mehta)
Today, a quarter of a billion people are migrants. They are moving because the rich countries have stolen the future for the poor countries As vast majority move from a poor to a less poor country, not a rich one. "Immigration as reparations" means that Immigration quotas should be based on how much they host country has ruined other countries Their people are asking for fairness: for the borders of the rich countries to be opened to goods and people In seeking to move, they are asking for immigration as reparations. When the immigrants come, they should be allowed to bring their families
26. Was the terrorist attack on 9/11 an outlier in determining the murder rates by foreign-born terrorists? Why or why not? (Nowrasteh)
Was the attack on 9/11 an outlier? Yes The attacks were a horrendous crime and was a dramatic outlier. The 9/11 attacks killed 2,983 people (not counting the 19 hijackers). Why? The number of victims from the 9/11 attacks is more than two orders of magnitude greater than the next deadliest foreign-born terror attack on U.S. soil. That scale of attack is unlikely to be repeated, whereas other attacks on a smaller and less deadly scale will certainly occur in the future.
39. "Terrorism is a hazard to human life and material prosperity that should be addressed in a sensible manner whereby the benefits of actions to contain it outweigh the costs." Who said this? What context? For what purposes? (Nowrasteh)
Who said it? Alex Nowrasteh said this quote in the risk analysis of terrorism and immigration Context of the quote The first part of Nowrasteh policy analysis provides a quantification of the risks of foreign-born terrorists entering the United States in each U.S. visa category. It does so by identifying known foreign-born terrorists, counting how many people they murdered in terrorist attacks, and estimating the costs of those attacks. The second part of this policy analysis compares the costs of terrorism with the costs of proposed policy solutions such as an immigration moratorium. This quote describes the cost-benefit analysis
44. "The rights of indigenous people whose nations are currently encompassed by Canada (First Nations) actually have explicit rights to cross this border to work, visit or live in the United States. However, there is no comparable law or treaty that recognizes similar rights for southern indigenous migrants." Who said this? In what context? What argument was being made?
Who said it? Liz Ellis said this in "Celebrating Indigenous Peoples' Day should mean honoring migrants' rights" Context/ arguments made : Many Native nations have refused to recognize the US northern and southern borders, however, and have argued that they split existing nations apart and ignore land claims that pre existed the US Despite U.S. claims to have completely conquered indigenous lands, the continued existence of Native nations along the southern border and their persistence as Native nations on their original homeland challenges federal claims to exclusive territory and jurisdiction. Southern Native nations continue to challenge the southern border and migration policies.
30. "What a person can legitimately demand access to is an adequate range of options to choose between..." (Miller 195) Who said this? What context? What is it meant to oppose?
Who stated this quote: Miller stated this quote on page 196 Context of the quote and what it is meant to oppose: This quote challenges the idea that there should be an unlimited right of migration between states. One reason a person may want to migrate is in order to participate in a culture that does not exist in his native land But does this ground a right to free movement across borders? It seems to Miller that it does not.