The Politics of Immigration, Race and Demographic Governance

Hampshire, James

doi:10.1057/9780230510524_1

Cited by 7 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In general, it can be argued that immigration policy in Britain has been fundamentally driven by conflicting notions of citizenship: those related to the notion of Commonwealth membership and those related to race (see Hampshire, 2005; Paul, 1997; see also Joppke, 1997; 1999). 5 For instance, the British Nationality Act of 1948 contained an extraordinarily inclusive citizenship norm which was maintained until it was finally completely discredited and dismantled by the British Nationality Act of 1981.…”

Section: Post-war Immigration To Britain: the Historical Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Resources, Group Conflict and Symbols: Explaining Anti-Immigration Hostility in Britain

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article analyses the causes of variation in attitudes to immigration policy in the UK. The key theoretical approaches emphasised are: the role of self‐interest; group conflict over resources; and group conflict over important symbols of Britishness. The connection between perceptions of immigration and crime is also investigated. Based on the 2003 British Social Attitudes Survey, the findings indicate that self‐interest has very little bearing on opposition to immigration and that British citizens instead appear to be most concerned with threats to ingroup resources posed by immigration, threats to the shared customs and traditions of British society (particularly those posed by Muslims) and – to a lesser extent – the potential for increased crime that may result from immigration.

show abstract

Section: Post-war Immigration To Britain: the Historical Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Due to the importance of race to the immigration debate in Britain (Hampshire, 2005; Lewis, 2005; Spencer, 1997), we have also included an item that taps into generalised attitudes to race:…”

Section: Data and Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Resources, Group Conflict and Symbols: Explaining Anti-Immigration Hostility in Britain

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, looking at the migration literature this particular modulation of insecurity as unease has significantly permeated migration policy and debates (e.g. Hampshire, 2005; Schuster, 2003). Focusing on the politics of exception, which has been central to debates on counter-terrorism policy, thus runs the risk of ignoring a key method of modulating insecurity in relation to migration and asylum.…”

Section: The Politics Of Uneasementioning

confidence: 99%

Politics of Exception and Unease: Immigration, Asylum and Terrorism in Parliamentary Debates in the UK

Huysmans

Buonfino²

2008

Political Studies

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article analyses how the British political elite has securitised migration and asylum since 9/11 by looking at when and how parliamentary debates linked counter-terrorism to immigration and/or asylum. The findings suggest that there is considerable reluctance within the political elite to introduce or especially sustain the connection between migration and terrorism too intensely in public debate. The parliamentary debates also show that for understanding the securitising of migration and asylum one cannot focus exclusively on the main security framing that is found in counter-terrorism debates, which we name 'the politics of exception'. There is at least one other format, which we call 'the politics of unease', that is central to how the British political elite securitises migration and asylum, and contests it, in the public realm.Since 11 September 2001 terrorism has become a priority for governments around the world. More often than not, this priority has involved rhetoric of exclusion and fear of foreigners combined with a political demand for intensifying control of the cross-border movement of people. Analyses of migration and asylum policy largely affirm this intensified securitisation of migration, especially of asylum seekers, since the autumn of Less clear, however, is how the connection between terrorism and migration or asylum has been politically sustained since 2001 and what this tells us about how the political elite renders insecurities in relation to migration and asylum. This article researches how and in what instancesBritish professional politicians drew on references to migration or asylum and (counter-)terrorism in their strategies of defending and challenging various policy measures. It does so by specifically analysing parliamentary debates in which politicians related migration or asylum to (counter-)terrorism. We are aware of the limitations of using parliamentary debates as the key entry point into the political framing of policy questions in an age of mass media, blogs, focus groups, campaigning and opinion polling. However, parliamentary debates continue to provide a strong institutional locus for researching political positioning among the political elite over time.We are also aware of the limitations of focusing on the political elite in order to grasp fully the institutional and wider societal renditions of a relation between

show abstract

“…The creation of this single status sounds inclusive but was not intended to promote movement into the UK. It was in fact a response to the Canadian Government's decision to create Canadian citizenship (Hampshire, 2005). By obtaining Canadian citizenship, people could become British subjects at the same time without the British Government controlling the process.…”

Section: Background and Statutory Developmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coloniality, Belonging and Citizenship Deprivation in the UK: Exploring Judicial Responses

Naqvi

2021

Social & Legal Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, I interrogate the English case law on citizenship deprivation and its effects on the migrant and diasporic communities most affected by it from a critical postcolonial perspective. I explore how it forms part of state responses to national security that are rooted in racist imperialist ideologies. These underpinnings are ignored in law because such responses are supposedly reserved for exceptional circumstances. This has led to a lack of critical awareness of the wider damage they cause. The damage caused is compounded by the ways that citizenship deprivation constitutes a technology of the politics of belonging. It orientalises people, “othering” and dividing them into those who belong and those who do not based on their differences. This approach leaves racialised and minoritised citizens more vulnerable to losing their citizenship which is a deliberate form of control reminiscent of the longstanding behaviour of colonialist imperialists.

show abstract

The Politics of Immigration, Race and Demographic Governance

Cited by 7 publications

References 0 publications

Resources, Group Conflict and Symbols: Explaining Anti-Immigration Hostility in Britain

Resources, Group Conflict and Symbols: Explaining Anti-Immigration Hostility in Britain

Politics of Exception and Unease: Immigration, Asylum and Terrorism in Parliamentary Debates in the UK

Coloniality, Belonging and Citizenship Deprivation in the UK: Exploring Judicial Responses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About