A Comparative Study of Chicago and Madrid
Edited By Francisco Velasco Caballero and María de los Angeles Torres
Globalization has accelerated the movement of people across political borders, as economic restructuring has made cities and their metro areas into depositories of the majority of these global migrant groups. In many cities, including ours, immigrants are the motor of economic development and civic rejuvenation—even as they are politically shunned and denied legal citizenship and its protections across the globe and the nation. Indeed, immigration has provoked heated debates across the world as nations are also facing economic decline and political crises. Intellectually, many of the ideas that frame the debate around immigration predate globalization to a time when nation-states defined economies, politics, and, in many cases, culture.
One articulation of this debate—contested by the case studies in this book—is that federal governments should control immigration matters. The claim is that enforcement policies are the right of federal governments and a consequence of dividing humanity along nation-states. Deportation law and policy are performances of sovereign authority, meaning that they are vast spectacles through which authority establishes its reign (De Genova & Peutz, 2010). In the United States alone, over 1.3 million undocumented immigrants have been deported in the last two years. Certainly, these large numbers of transnational migrants bring into sharp conflict questions of national border security, as well as the rights of people on the move. In many cases, national policies have responded more to security concerns than the rights of immigrants—even when their policies have ← 1 | 2 → run...
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.
Do you have any questions? Contact us.Or login to access all content.