Over the past decade, a global convergence in migration policies has emerged, and with it a new, mean-spirited politics of immigration. It is now evident that the idea of a settler society, previously an important landmark in understanding migration, is a thing of the past. What are the consequences of this shift for how we imagine immigration? And for how we regulate it? This book analyzes the dramatic shift away from the settler society paradigm in light of the crisis of asylum, the fear of Islamic fundamentalism, and the demise of multiculturalism. What emerges is a radically original take on the new global politics of immigration that can explain policy paralysis in the face of rising death tolls, failing human rights arguments, and persistent state desires to treat migration as an economic calculus.

No abstract

This article argues that in the present era of globalisation, control over the movement of people has become the last bastion of sovereignty. This is important both to theoretical accounts of globalisation and to policy decisions by governments. Nation states threatened with loss of control in other realms are implementing a variety of 'crackdown'measures in questions of immigration. Issues of refugee law, illegal migration and skilled migration each challenge sovereignty in speci¢c ways.While international human rights standards have made few inroads in questions of migration, recent decisions in England and Australia suggest that the rule of law may be emerging as a counter to traditional executive free reign in matters of migration law.There is an international moral panic afoot about migration. Newspapers around the world report daily on illegal migrants arriving in boats, trucks, planes and trains. There are calls in Britain, Australia, Canada and elsewhere to alter the way refugees are treated, or even de¢ned. The worldwide fear of terror has overlapped and intertwined with the fear of illegal migration. The prosperous West is under siege, this popular refrain tells us; the hordes are ascending. This paper argues that the contemporary public and political discourse about migration can be accounted for by considering how the traditional relationship of migration law and the nation is challenged by the advance of globalisation. For both the migration law^nation coupling and for theorisation of globalisation, sovereignty is a core concept. As globalising forces challenge and transform sovereignty, so too is the place of migration law in the nation altered. The response to this challenge among prosperous and powerful nations is to imprint even more strongly than before a sense of self^of identity and of essential 'nation-ness'^onto the text of their migration laws. Migration law is transformed into the new last bastion of sovereignty. This has important implications for the shape these laws take in domestic settings, but also for how international in£uences on these laws will be interpreted and absorbed. Finally, it calls to our attention the way sovereignty, the rule of law, and nation are intertwined. Examining this matrix leads me to conclude that the rule of law may indicate one direction forward for migration law at this juncture, but the path it marks is fraught with theoretical and political challenges.My argument about the place of sovereignty in twenty-¢rst century migration laws has four parts. First, I outline the traditional relationship between migration

No abstract

This article reports on our analysis of 120 refugee cases from Australia, Canada, and Britain where an actual or threatened forced marriage was part of the claim for protection.We found that forced marriage was rarely considered by refugee decision makers to be a harm in and of itself. This ¢nding contributes to understanding how gender and sexuality are analysed within refugee law, because the harm of forced marriage is experienced di¡erently by lesbians, gay men and heterosexual women.We contrast our ¢ndings in the refugee case law with domestic initiatives in Europe aimed at protecting nationals from forced marriages both within Europe and elsewhere. We pay particular attention to British initiatives because they are in many ways the most farreaching and innovative, and thus the contrast with the response of British refugee law is all the more stark.