This article was downloaded by: [Universite De Paris 1]On: 03 September 2013, At: 20:43Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Human Behavior in the SocialEnvironmentPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/whum20

The Political Science of ImmigrationPoliciesColleen Henry aa School of Social Welfare, University of California, Berkeley,Berkeley, CaliforniaPublished online: 08 Sep 2009.

To cite this article: Colleen Henry (2009) The Political Science of Immigration Policies, Journal ofHuman Behavior in the Social Environment, 19:6, 690-701, DOI: 10.1080/10911350902910864

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10911350902910864

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 19:690–701, 2009

Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1091-1359 print/1540-3556 online

DOI: 10.1080/10911350902910864

The Political Science of Immigration Policies

COLLEEN HENRYSchool of Social Welfare, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California

Understanding the political, ideological, and institutional forces

that shape immigration and immigration policy is of increasing

importance to social service providers and their clients. Though still

in its infancy, political science literature provides a unique lens

through which immigration policy can be better understood. Lit-

erature on the theories and concepts that political scientists use to

explain immigration and resulting public policies was examined.

Specific attention was given to normative, critical, post-modern,

and political geographic theories used by political scientists to

analyze immigration policy.

KEYWORDS Immigration, political science, political theory, pub-

lic policy, social services

POLITICAL SCIENCE THEORY IN EXPLAINING

IMMIGRATION POLICIES

The rights and privileges of immigrants have been hotly debated throughoutAmerica’s history. In recent times this history is reflected in the 1994 passage(59%) of California Proposition 187, called the ‘‘Save Our State’’ initiative,designed to bar undocumented immigrants and their children from publicschools, health clinics, and social service agencies (Alvarez & Butterfield,2000). Within days of passage, a federal district court declared the measureunconstitutional, and the provisions of Proposition 187 were never imple-mented. However, the initiative and its overwhelming support raises manyquestions about how immigration policy is made and the nature of therights to be extended to immigrant populations. Social service providers,especially those working with immigrant populations, need to develop anunderstanding of how political thought shapes immigration policy and howthat policy affects the human behavior of both documented and undocu-mented immigrants.

Address correspondence to Colleen Henry, School of Social Welfare, University of

California, Berkeley, 120 Haviland Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720. E-mail: chenry@berkeley.edu

690

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 20:

43 0

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Political Science of Immigration Policies 691

This brief literature review focuses on the theories and concepts thatpolitical scientists use to explain immigration and resulting public policies.It begins with an overview of the methodology used to conduct the searchand is followed by a description of the key factors that political scientistsconsider in their study of immigration. The next section examines politicaltheories as they relate to the economy, social values and ideology, and stateinstitutions. The review concludes with a conceptual map of key conceptsalong with implications for research and practice.

METHODOLOGY

An initial review of political science theory indicated that political theories ofimmigration were limited (Young, 1996). A keyword search of major socialscience electronic databases, including Public Affairs Information Services In-ternational, Expanded Academic Index, Social Science Citations, and GoogleScholar, was used to search for literature pertaining to political theories ofimmigration. The search was limited to peer-reviewed journal articles inEnglish and included the keywords ‘‘political,’’ ‘‘political science,’’ ‘‘theory,’’‘‘immigration,’’ ‘‘migration’’ and ‘‘policy’’ and related truncated keywords‘‘politic*,’’ ‘‘theor*,’’ ‘‘immi*,’’ ‘‘migr,*’’ and ‘‘polic*.’’ As the search yielded veryfew relevant articles, it was expanded to include the following major politicaltheories: ‘‘Marxism,’’ ‘‘Neo-Marxism,’’ ‘‘Theories of Justice,’’ ‘‘Feminist PoliticalTheory,’’ ‘‘Feminist Theory,’’ ‘‘Welfare Rights Theory,’’ ‘‘Liberalism,’’ ‘‘Norma-tive,’’ ‘‘Communitarian,’’ ‘‘Political Geography,’’ ‘‘Rational Choice,’’ ‘‘Global-ization,’’ ‘‘Post-Modernism,’’ and ‘‘Political Economy.’’ Because immigrationis an interdisciplinary topic, articles often reflected a theoretical lens otherthan political science. For example, much of political science theory has beeninterpreted with concepts from economics, sociology, and philosophy (e.g.,Marxism, globalism, post-modernism, or feminism). The fluid boundaries ofthe social sciences often serve as one of their strengths, but these looselydefined parameters made it difficult to limit a literature review to a singleschool of thought or discipline. As a result, this literature review of politicaltheories of immigration benefited from the use of such inter-disciplinaryjournals as the International Migration Review.

After conducting a thorough database search, a snowball search tech-nique (e.g., a review of cited references in found journals) proved to beuseful in identifying relevant journal articles and texts.

In addition, scholars in the fields of political science, public policy, law,and geography identified in the literature or located through a search ofuniversity department Web sites were contacted via e-mail and were askedto suggest classic or emerging political theories pertaining to immigration.Though more than half of the scholars contacted responded to the request,few had expertise in the field of immigration.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 20:

43 0

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013

692 C. Henry

The major limitation of this literature review is the interdisciplinarynature of the study of both immigration and political theory. Further, theliterature review was limited to journal articles available in electronic form;thus, relevant articles that have not been made available in electronic formmay have been inadvertently excluded. Moreover, because this review waslimited to the English language, much of the work done by non-English-speaking political theorists may have been overlooked. This is of particularimportance because much of the theoretical work on immigration that hasemerged in recent years is from scholars in the European Union, many ofwhom may not publish in English. A review of cited references confirmed thisassumption. Finally, it was difficult to capture literature on immigration thatwas either pure in its political theoretical perspective or written by politicalscientists. In light of these limitations, relevant literature may have beenexcluded from this review.

POLITICAL THEORIES OF IMMIGRATION POLICY

Understanding the politics of immigration is of increasing importance inthis era of economic globalization and mass migration. Immigration policydetermines the openness or closure of societies (Hollifield, 2000). Howpolitical scientists come to understand immigration policy is often influencedby the theoretical perspectives of various schools of thought (Hollifield).Though still in its infancy, the political science literature on immigration hasgrown considerably over the last decade (Hollifield; Meyers, 2000; Money,1999). The influence of economic theories related to immigration policy, thesocial and ideological forces that affect how rights are allocated to membersand non-members of societies, and the role of groups and state institutionsin shaping immigration policy is described in the next section.

Economic Conditions

Political theorists often utilize economic theory to explain the developmentof immigration policy in industrialized or liberal nation-states. (Hollifield,2000; Meyers, 2000). Political economic theory maintains that economic fac-tors, rather than political or cultural factors, drive migration patterns anddetermine immigration policy among receiving states (Castles & Kosak, 1985;Hollifield, 2000; Meyers, 2000). As a result, the state plays only a limited rolein shaping immigration policy and migration patterns.

Political scientists also use Marxist theory as a way to explain the devel-opment of public policies: namely, that economic class conflict, specificallybetween those who control property and those who provide the means ofproduction, significantly shapes the actions or inactions of the state (Tucker,1978, Young 1996). In his comparative analysis of immigration policies among

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 20:

43 0

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Political Science of Immigration Policies 693

industrialized societies, Meyers (2000) identifies the following four elementsof Marxist theory that impact the development of specific immigration poli-cies in the industrialized world: (a) demand for cheap labor, (b) threat ofeconomic crisis, (c) unstable markets, and (d) ongoing tensions betweenthe working and capitalist classes. Meyers first notes that capitalist soci-eties require an endless supply of cheap labor to maintain and increasethe production of market goods. Thus, the capitalist’s demand for cheaplabor encourages the movement of job-seeking people from poor to affluentnations. Migration becomes fundamental to meeting capitalism’s insatiableneed for labor and is often reflected in immigration policy. For example, theU.S. Bracero migrant worker program (1942–1964) was created to meet thelabor needs of U.S. businesses that were unable to find domestic workers(or were unwilling to sufficiently pay domestic workers; Santamaria Gomez& Zackrison, 2003).

During times of economic recession, states will alter their immigrationpolicy to avoid what Meyers (2000) terms a ‘‘crises of capitalism’’ (p. 1248).This may include tightening borders, reversing or expanding immigrationpolicy, or restricting the rights of immigrants. The fiscal crisis in the state ofCalifornia and the subsequent enactment of Proposition 187 in 1994 serves asan excellent example of an immigration policy response to economic events(Alvarez & Butterfield, 2000). In the early 1990s, California lost approximately1 million jobs, and the state experienced its worst recession since the GreatDepression (Alvarez & Butterfield). Though California’s financial crisis couldhave been attributed to many economic factors, including a decline in de-fense spending in the state, by passing Proposition 187, the state’s financialdifficulties were instead attributed to the high cost of immigration.

Though a Marxist analysis of immigration offers some insights intobehaviors of industrialized nation-states (e.g., correctly predicting positiverelationships between short-term economic fluctuations and immigration pol-icy), it does not account for immigration trends in the long term. For example,the Marxist analysis would assume that immigration to industrialized nationswould continue to expand to meet capitalist demands, but as Meyers (2000)notes, the United States has experienced a per capita decline in immigrationin recent years. Further, he points out that the Marxist analysis does notaccount for the international pressures reflected in the formation of refugeepolicies of industrialized nations.

Influenced by Marxist and neo-Marxist ideas, political science contributedto the emergence of feminist political theory at the end of the twentieth cen-tury (Young, 1996). Central to feminist political theory is the deconstructionof the generally accepted dichotomy between the public sphere (the marketand government) and the private sphere (the home; Young, 1996). Feministpolitical theorists argue that the functionality of the public sphere is depen-dent on the domestic care work that takes place in the private sphere of thehome. Therefore, the public and private spheres are integral to one another.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 20:

43 0

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013

694 C. Henry

As political theorists have given little attention to the intersection ofimmigration policy and feminist political thought, examples of scholarlywork in this area are often found outside the discipline. For example, inrecent years, sociologists Hochschild (Ehrenreich & Hochschild, 2004) andHondagneu-Sotelo (2000) have done significant work on the feminizationof migration. Studies of migration and immigration traditionally focused onthe movement of men, but today it is known that both men and womenmigrate at equal rates. In fact, it is estimated that nearly half of the world’s120 million migrants are women (Ehrenreich & Hochschild). Hondagneu-Sotelo describes the following three stages of feminist scholarship relatedto immigration: (a) the inclusion of women in migration studies (1970s and1980s) with an emphasis on the movement of women across internationalboundaries independent of men’s movement; (b) the shift from examiningwomen and migration to gender and migration (1980s and 1990s); and (c)feminist examination of migration that highlights the centrality of gender.

Much of the work done in the area of feminism and immigration fo-cuses on the traditional dichotomies of women’s work and men’s work(Hondagneu-Sotelo, 2000). In examining the experience of migrant womenin the new economy, Ehrenreich and Hochschild (2004) focus on migra-tion of women from developing economies to highly developed marketeconomies to takeover the care work (e.g., childcare, eldercare, homemakerservices) traditionally done by women now entering the labor market. Themovement of women from the developing world to highly developed marketeconomies results in what Ehrenreich and Hochschild call the ‘‘care drain’’as developing economies are left with fewer people to carry out needed carework. Just as empires once pilfered raw materials from the developing world,nations with advanced market economies are now seen as pilfering humancapital. In their analysis of female migration, Ehrenreich and Hochschild offerexamples of both push factors (e.g., faltering economies in the developingworld) and pull factors (e.g., work opportunities in industrialized nations)that are often used to explain migration patterns.

Feminist theory highlights the particular vulnerabilities of migrant women.For example, documented and undocumented female immigrants experiencevery few legal protections in the United States (Zarembka, 2004). Like victimsof domestic violence who are often more vulnerable owing to their isolationfrom the public sphere, immigrant women working in the domestic tradesas maids and nannies are more vulnerable to abuse because they, too, arekept from the public and often live with their abusers. Though all victimsof domestic violence face barriers to safety, immigrant women are even lessable to access help owing to the precarious legal status of their employmentand their lack of understanding of local laws and language. It is clear thatprotecting the rights of such immigrants needs further attention.

Though immigration reforms and policy are often presented in gender-neutral terms, feminist scholars point out that in reality they affect men and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 20:

43 0

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Political Science of Immigration Policies 695

women differently (Bose, 2006). There is a continuing need for feministscholars to document the ways in which immigration policy creates genderinequality and how policy inadvertently or intentionally affects the gendersdifferently (Bose, 2006; Hondagneu-Sotelo, 2000).

Social Values and Ideology

In his examination of migration, Hollifield (2000) notes that the politicaldebates surrounding immigration policy are driven by political, cultural, andideological arguments. Though immigration policy may reflect economicdemands, the ideas about citizenship, membership, and basic rights dominatethe political debate (Hollifield). Political theory has long focused on therights of the citizen, the limits of governmental power, and the physical andphilosophical boundaries of the nation-state (Young, 1996). The applicationof political theory to migration and immigration policy has received increasedattention in recent years (Hollifield; Meyers, 2000; Money, 1999).

In liberal nation-states such as the United States, the attention given toindividual rights reflects the balance between the rights of the individual andthe rights of the group and the rights of the non-citizen in relationship tothe rights of the citizen in the search for just social policies. Today, muchof the work addressing immigration policy can be traced back to Rawls(1971) and his book, A Theory of Justice, wherein he argues that to createa just society the government must promote both equal liberty and equalopportunity. Though he argued that government control over individualsand their property should be kept to a minimum, he also noted that thegovernment must act to relieve social problems and ease the plight of themost disadvantaged so that equal liberty and opportunity can be realized(Young, 1996).

In response to Rawls, Nozick (1974) and Walzer (1983) argued againsthis public interventionist strategies. Instead, Nozick argued that any in-equitable distributions of wealth were legitimate if that wealth were acquiredthrough legitimate means. In contrast, Walzer (1983) envisions a societywherein justice is determined by the shared meaning of social goods anda common understanding of the social group (Van Der Veen, 1999). Teuber(1984) noted Walzer’s notion of justice is tied to an understanding of separatespheres catering to separate needs and that it is only when one sphere crossesinto another that injustice occurs. Thus, whereas Rawls and Nozick offer atheory of social justice with defined attributes, Walzer offers a more flexibletheory of social justice; a theory of social justice that is determined by thegroup and is group-specific. These differing perspectives have been appliedby political scientists to immigration policy today (Carens, 1987; Hollifield,2000; Meilaender, 1999; and Scaperlanda, 1999). For example, Carens (1987)argues that theories of justice limit the state’s ability to control immigration;in essence, the principle role of the state is to protect the rights of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 20:

43 0

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013

696 C. Henry

individual, not the group, and if individual movement across the border ofa nation-state does not harm the individual, it should not be limited. In theefforts of the nation-state to protect its own interests, the right of individualsto pursue equal liberty and equal opportunity should not be restricted and,therefore, borders between states should remain open.

In his argument for limited immigration policy, Carens (1987) considersWalzer’s case for closed borders but rejects Walzer’s reasoning about restrict-ing the rights and self-determination of existing social groups. However,Carens questions Walzer’s definition of a social group, ultimately decid-ing that the defining boundaries of Walzer’s social group are too vague.Carens notes that Walzer’s theoretical framework provides little distinctionbetween a neighborhood as social group and the nation-state. As a result, ifWalzer’s theory is applied to immigration, the individual movement betweentownships should be just as restricted as movements between nation-states.Carens concludes that controls on individual movement should be minimal;thus immigration policy should loosen rather than tighten national borders(Carens, 1987, 1999; Meilaender, 1999).

In the search for global justice, scholars of political science have arguedthat normative theory related to the rights of citizens and limits of governmentcontrols can also be used to critique the inequality between developingand highly developed market economies (Beitz, 1979; Pogge, 1989; citedin Young, 1996, p. 483). As scholars assess distributive justice within andbetween nation-states, the application of normative models of justice (e.g., in-dividual rights, universal rights, and communal rights) can be applied increas-ingly to global citizens rather than national citizens (Barbieri, 1998; Soysal,1994). As nation-states become more dependent on the global economy andpeople migrate between nation-states, the traditional concept of citizenshipand the rights of full membership in a society are being reexamined.

Political scientists and others are using the post-modern philosophies ofMichel Foucault (1973; 1979; 1980) to further explain the changing conceptof citizenship and the existence of the nation-state (Barbieri, 1998; Soysal,1994). Post-modern theory challenges the very existence of the citizen andthe non-citizen. Post-modernism’s deconstruction of dichotomous categoriesallows for the creation of a global citizenship with rights tied to humanityrather than nationality.

In her work on the limits of citizenship, Soysal (1994) argues that theconcept of citizenship has shifted from a status based on place to universal

personhood. She presents evidence of this shift by examining the expansionof rights, formerly reserved for full citizens, to non-citizens. Soysal cites theexperience of guest workers in the European Union who have achievedmany of the rights of citizenship without full membership. A similar expan-sion of rights in the United States can be seen in the guest worker programsand the extension of rights to undocumented immigrants (Santamaria Gomez& Zackrison, 2003).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 20:

43 0

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Political Science of Immigration Policies 697

Barbieri (1998) argues that the ethics of normative values should en-courage states to safeguard the rights of humanity, not simply its citizenry.As a result, the civil rights granted to citizens should expand to includehuman rights for all members of society (citizens and non-citizens alike).Barbieri (1998) maintains that ‘‘it is the impartial criterion of the place wherepeople have made their lives, and not anything that states deem importantabout them—their personal credentials or ethnic character or allegiances—that ought to determine their eligibility for political membership (p. 127).’’

In Santamaria Gomez and Zackrison’s (2003) examination of Mexicanimmigration to the United States, Mexicans have been required to repro-duce their national identities time and again, especially when the land theylived on was annexed from one nation-state to another (e.g., citizenshipwas granted and then taken or rights were expanded, constricted, or re-turned). Further, they found that Mexican immigrants fulfilled obligationsof citizenship in both the United States and in Mexico by paying taxes,contracting their labor, and contributing to both economies. As a result,Mexican immigrants occupy a type of post-modern citizenship that extendsbeyond the boundaries of the nation-state.

Sassen (1996) believes that the concept of the nation-state and the rightsof citizenship based on birth or parentage or nationalization are outmodedin the context of a global economy. As people increasingly participate ascitizens within multiple nation-states, the importance of the nation-state andits sovereignty can be challenged (Hollifield, 2000; Meyers, 2000; Sassen,1996). Though such arguments are widely accepted in the world of post-modern thought, their apolitical nature are unappealing to many scholars ofpolitical science (Hollifield, 2000).

Political Economy and Liberal State Institutions

Scholars of immigration believe that the state plays a marginal role in shapingimmigration policy. Freeman (1995) maintains that the immigration policiesadopted by liberal states are determined by the power of organized intereststhat operate as rational actors weighing the costs and benefits before movingto protect their interests. In his thesis, Freeman minimizes the role of thenation-state by describing policy makers as mere agents acting on behalf oforganized interests.

As domestic interest groups (e.g., business, ethnic, and advocacy or-ganizations) become increasingly dependent on the international economy,they work to create regulating bodies (e.g., World Bank and InternationalMonetary Fund) to influence the immigration policies of nation-states. Inter-est groups can utilize these regulatory organizations to control the flow ofmigrants to and from their own countries or countries of interest (Hollifield,2000).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 20:

43 0

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013

698 C. Henry

Freeman (1995) maintains that a country’s immigration history accountsfor much of its existing immigration policy. Freeman identified three differentmodels of society: (1) the English-speaking settler societies (e.g., Australia,United States), (2) European states with post-colonial and guestworker mi-grations (e.g., Great Britain, France, Germany, and Belgium), and (3) newcountries of immigration (e.g., Spain, Italy, and Greece). He notes that theimmigration policies in each of the three models is significantly influencedby the timing of mass immigration in each country and the level at whichimmigration policy making is institutionalized.

In settler societies, as in the United States, immigration policies tend tobe opaque in that they are developed by a complex network of employers,ethnic organizations, and human rights groups (Freeman, 1995). Freemanfinds that in settler societies, the role of the state in creating immigrationpolicy is minimal.

In contrast, Bosewell (2007) argues that there are little empirical data tosupport Freeman’s description of organized groups as rational actors and thathe significantly underestimates the role of the state in shaping immigrationpolicy. Though Freeman’s arguments may apply to pluralistic societies, suchas the United States, where diverse interest groups have a larger influenceover policy, Bosewell notes that this argument is less applicable to more-corporatist nations where the state maintains a significant role in shapingpolicy.

Liberal institutionalists believe that the state derives its power fromthe constitution. Though constitutions may require a division of power,with some power delegated to interest groups, it is within the institutionalframework of the state that policy is determined (Bosewell, 2007; Hollifield,2000). Liberal institutionalists recognize the importance of interest groupsin shaping policy debates but do not discount the powers of the state incrafting immigration policy and defining the parameters of citizenship (Hol-lifield, 2000). Hollifield and Bosewell both note that the power of organizedinterests vary (e.g., coalitions form and fall apart), but the rights that thesegroups achieve and get instituted by the state are not easily dissolved. Aspower is allocated among various institutions in liberal democracies, someinstitutions are less influenced by the current political landscape than others.For example, in the United States, a system of checks and balances allowsthe federal court to expand or maintain the rights of immigrants even in theface of political backlash (Bosewell).

Political geographers add support to both theories of political economyand liberal institutions in their analysis of how spatial concentrations ofimmigrants in communities and regions influence the politics of immigration(Money, 1997; 1999). In her analysis of immigration in the United Kingdom,Money (1997) finds that public demand for restricting immigration increaseswhen (a) the proportion of non-citizens to citizens in a geographic region

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 20:

43 0

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Political Science of Immigration Policies 699

begins to shift, (b) such areas experience economic downturn, or (c) thepublic perceives abuse of social services by immigrant communities.

SYNTHESIS AND IMPLICATIONS

To highlight the relationship between the various concepts presented in thisreview, the conceptual map in Figure 1 has been developed to illustratehow political science theories and concepts can be utilized to understandimmigration policy. The map begins by reviewing the phenomenon of im-migration through the lens of political science. To capture the differentsocial, economic, and political factors that shape immigration policy, the

FIGURE 1 Viewing immigration policies through the lens of political science theories.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 20:

43 0

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013

700 C. Henry

map divides political theory into the following three categories: Economic

Conditions, Social Values and Ideology, and Political Economy and Liberal

State Institutions. Each category contains the political theories and conceptsthat contribute to an understanding of policy development. Because no onetheory or concept adequately explains the phenomenon of immigration andthe role of public policy, the use of all of these theories can lead to a betterunderstanding of immigration policy.

For example, Marxist and feminist political theory help to further our un-derstanding of how class conflict, gender inequality, and inequities betweennation-states pull and push migrants toward new economies. Further, theseeconomic theories highlight the vulnerabilities of immigrant and minoritygroups in advanced markets and developing economies and demonstratethe need for additional protections and services for these groups. Normativetheories of justice provide another yardstick for evaluating the fairness ofimmigration policy and the possible limits of citizenship. Finally, a betterunderstanding of how liberal institutions and political economy are used toform immigration policy can help to mobilize citizens to meet the needs ofimmigrant populations.

Understanding the social environment explained by political theory canincrease our understanding of the human behaviors of citizens and non-citizens as we seek to improve services to populations in need. More at-tention is needed to increase our understanding of how social, economic,and political forces impact the lives of immigrant populations in receivingsocieties.

REFERENCES

Alvarez, M. R., & Butterfield, T. L. (2000). The resurgence of nativism in California?The case of Proposition 187 and illegal immigration. Social Science Quarterly,81(1), 167–179.

Barbieri. W. A. (1998). Ethics of citizenship. Immigration and groups rights in

Germany. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Beitz, C. (1979). Political theory and international relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press.Bose, C. (2006). Immigration ‘‘reform’’: Gender, migration, citizenship, and SWS.

Gender Society, 205, 69–75.Bosewell, C. (2007). Theorizing migration policy: Is there a third way? International

Migration Review, 41(1), 75–100.Carens, J. H. (1987). Aliens and citizens: The case for open borders. The Review of

Politics, 49(2), 251–273.Carens, J. H. (1999). A reply to Meilaender: Reconsidering open borders. Interna-

tional Migration Review, 33(4), 1082–1097.Castles, S., & Kosack G. (1985). Immigrant workers and class structure in Western

Europe. New York: Oxford University Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 20:

43 0

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Political Science of Immigration Policies 701

Ehrenreich, B., & Hochschild, A. R. (2004). Global women: Nannies, maids, and sex

workers in the new economy. New York: Metropolitan/Owl Book.Foucault, M. (1973). The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences.

New York: Vintage Books.Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish: The birth of a prison. New York: Vintage

Books.Foucault, M. (1980). The history of sexuality (Vol. 1). New York: Vintage Books.Freeman, G. P. (1995). Modes of immigration politics in liberal democratic states.

International Migration Review, 24(4), 881–902.Hollifield, J. F. (2000). The politics of international migration: How we can bring the

state back in. In C. B. Brettell & J. F. Hollified (Eds.), Migration theory: Talking

across disciplines (pp. 137–185). New York: RoutledgeHondagneu-Sotelo, P. (2000). Feminism and migration. The ANNALS of the American

Academy of Political and Social Science, 571, 107–112.Meyers, E. (2000). Theories of international immigration policy—a comparative anal-

ysis. International Migration Review, 34(4), 1245–1282Meilaender, P. (1999, Winter). Liberalism and open borders: The argument of Joseph

Carens. International Migration Review, 33(4), 1062–1081.Money, J. (1997). No vacancy: The political geography of immigration control in

advanced industrial countries. International Organization, 51(4), 685–720.Money. J. (1999). Fences and neighbors. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, state, and utopia. New York: Basic Books.Pogge, T. W. (1989). Realizing Rawls. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University PressRawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Santamaria Gomez, A., & Zackrison, J. (2003, March). Politics without borders or

postmodern nationality: Mexican immigration to the United States. Latin Amer-

ican Perspectives, 30(2), 66–86.Sassen, S. (1996). Beyond sovereignty: Immigration policy making today. Social

Justice, 23(3), 9–20.Scaperlanda, M. A. (1999). Immigration justice: Beyond liberal egalitarian and com-

munitarian perspectives. Review of Social Economy, 57(4), 523–541.Soysal, Y. N. (1994). Limits of citizenship: Migrants and postnational membership

in Europe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Teuber, A. (1984). Review of the book Spheres of justice. Political Theory, 12(1),

118–123.Tucker, R. C. (1978). The Marx-Engels reader. New York: W. W. Norton & Company,

Inc.Van Der Veen, R. J. (1999). The adjudicating citizen: On equal membership in

Walzer’s theory of justice. British Journal of Political Science, 29, 225–258.Walzer, M. (1983). Spheres of justice. New York: Basic Books.Young, I. M. (1996). Political theory: An overview. In R. E. Goodin & H. Klingemann

(Eds.), A new handbook of political science (pp. 470–502). New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Zarembka, J. M. (2004). America’s dirty work: Migrant maids and modern-day slavery.In B. Ehrenreich & A. R. Hochschild (Eds.), Global women (pp. 142–153). NewYork: Metropolitan/Owl Book.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 20:

43 0

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013