International migration is often considered a relatively new development in world history. Yet, while there has been a surge in migration since World War II, the worldwide movement of peoples is a longstanding phenomenon. So, too, are the fundamental issues raised by immigration. How do immigrants fit into and affect the polity and society of the country they enter? What changes can or must the receiving state make to accomodate them? What changes in culture and ethnic indentity do immigrants undergo in their new environment? How do they relate to the mix of peoples already present in their new homeland What determines the policies that govern their reception and treatment? In this volume, expertly edited by a leading American political scientist-lawyer and a leading French historian, twenty-one renowned experts on immigration address these questions and a variety of other issues involving the experiences of immigrants in the city, at the workplace, and in schools and churches. Their essays examine the issues of nationality, citizenship, law, and politics that define the life of an immigrant population. Focusing on the United States and France, this voluem is a social history and a legal and public policy study that comprehensively portrays the dilemmas immigrants present and face. Contributors include Sophie Body-Gendrot, Danielle Boyzon-Frader, Andre-Clement Decoufle, Veronique de Rudder, Lawrence H. Fuchs, Nathan Glazer, Philip Gleason, Stanley Lieberson, Lance Liebman, Daniele Lochak, Michel Oriol, Martin A. Schain, Peter H. Schuck, Roxane Silberman, Werner Sollors, Stephan Thernstrom, Maryse Tripier, Maris A. Vinovskis, and Myron Weiner.

Although ambivalence characterizes the stance of scholars toward the desirability of close opinion-policy linkages in general, it is especially evident with regard to immigration. The controversy and disagreement about whether public opinion should drive immigration policy are among the factors making immigration one of the most difficult political debates across the West. Leading international experts and aspiring researchers from the fields of political science and sociology use a range of case studies from North America, Europe and Australia to guide the reader through the complexities of this debate offering an unprecedented comparative examination of public opinion and immigration. part one discusses the socio-economic and contextual determinants of immigration attitudes across multiple nations part two explores how the economy can affect public opinion part three presents different perspectives on the issue of causality – do attitudes about immigration drive politics, or do politics drive attitudes? part four investigates how several types of framing are critical to understanding public opinion and how a wide range of political factors can mould public opinion, and often in ways that work against immigration and immigrants part five examines the views of the largest immigrant group in the U.S. – Latinos – as well as how opinions are shaped by contact with and opinions about immigrants in the U.S. and Canada. An essential read to all who wish to understand the nature of immigration research from a theoretical as well as practical point of view.

Comparing three Northeast Asian countries, this book examines how past struggles for democracy shape current movements for immigrant rights.

Examining Germany and the United States, this book argues that immigration policy in Western democracies is unjust and undemocratic.

Culling the Masses questions the widely held view that in the long run democracy and racism cannot coexist. David Scott FitzGerald and David Cook-Martín show that democracies were the first countries in the Americas to select immigrants by race, and undemocratic states the first to outlaw discrimination. Through analysis of legal records from twenty-two countries between 1790 and 2010, the authors present a history of the rise and fall of racial selection in the Western Hemisphere. The United States led the way in using legal means to exclude “inferior” ethnic groups. Starting in 1790, Congress began passing nationality and immigration laws that prevented Africans and Asians from becoming citizens, on the grounds that they were inherently incapable of self-government. Similar policies were soon adopted by the self-governing colonies and dominions of the British Empire, eventually spreading across Latin America as well. Undemocratic regimes in Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Cuba reversed their discriminatory laws in the 1930s and 1940s, decades ahead of the United States and Canada. The conventional claim that racism and democracy are antithetical—because democracy depends on ideals of equality and fairness, which are incompatible with the notion of racial inferiority—cannot explain why liberal democracies were leaders in promoting racist policies and laggards in eliminating them. Ultimately, the authors argue, the changed racial geopolitics of World War II and the Cold War was necessary to convince North American countries to reform their immigration and citizenship laws.

How should we think about immigration and what policies should democratic societies pursue? Sarah Song offers a political theory of immigration that takes seriously both the claims of receiving countries and the claims of prospective migrants. What is required, she argues, is not a policy of open or closed borders but open doors.

Shifting power balances in the world are shaking the foundations of the liberal international order and revealing new fault lines at the intersection of human rights and international security. Will these new global trends help or hinder the world's long struggle for human rights and democracy? The answer depends on the role of five rising democracies—India, Brazil, South Africa, Turkey, and Indonesia—as both examples and supporters of liberal ideas and practices. Ted Piccone analyzes the transitions of these five democracies as their stars rise on the international stage. While they offer important and mainly positive examples of the compatibility of political liberties, economic growth, and human development, their foreign policies swing between interest-based strategic autonomy and a principled concern for democratic progress and human rights. In a multipolar world, the fate of the liberal international order depends on how they reconcile these tendencies.