▪ Abstract This article strives to meet two challenges. As a review, it provides a critical discussion of the scholarship concerning undocumented migration, with a special emphasis on ethnographically informed works that foreground significant aspects of the everyday life of undocumented migrants. But another key concern here is to formulate more precisely the theoretical status of migrant “illegality” and deportability in order that further research related to undocumented migration may be conceptualized more rigorously. This review considers the study of migrant “illegality” as an epistemological, methodological, and political problem, in order to then formulate it as a theoretical problem. The article argues that it is insufficient to examine the “illegality” of undocumented migration only in terms of its consequences and that it is necessary also to produce historically informed accounts of the sociopolitical processes of “illegalization” themselves, which can be characterized as the legal production ...

/pdf/migrant-illegality-and-deportability-in-everyday-life-5yqno3o04s.pdf

Migrant “Illegality” and Deportability in Everyday Life

Critical Race Theory and Education: History, Theory, and Implications

Preface and acknowledgments Introduction 1. Explanation and dialectics Part I. Philosophy and Economics: 2. Philosophical anthropology 3. Economics 4. Exploitation, freedom and justice Part II. Theory of History: 5. Modes of production 6. Classes 7. Politics and the state 8. Ideologies 9. Capitalism, communism and revolution Conclusion references Index of names index of subjects.

Making Sense of Marx

This article argues that, instead of diverging in terms of national models, Western European states' policies on immigrant integration are increasingly converging. One convergent trend is examined in detail, obligatory civic integration courses and tests for newcomers. While a comparison of the Netherlands, France and Germany reveals considerable national variation in implementing civic integration, this variation tends to be incompatible with traditional national model assumptions. Moreover, more noteworthy than variation is the shared feature of civic integration that liberal goals are pursued with illiberal means, making it an instance of repressive liberalism.

Beyond national models: Civic integration policies for immigrants in Western Europe

This paper deals with the new policy concept of flexicurity in view of the emerging flexibility-security nexus that the European Union, national governments, sectors of industry, individual companies and workers are currently facing. On the one hand there is a strong demand for further flexibilisation of labour markets, employment and the work organisation. At same time, an equally strong demand exists for providing security to employees - especially vulnerable groups - and for preserving social cohesion in our societies. This paper discusses the origins, conditions en potential of flexicurity as policy or strategy at various levels of industrial relations that explicitly addresses this nexus. Besides the paper outlines a research agenda with respect to the flexicurity phenomenon.

The Concept of Flexicurity: A New Approach to Regulating Employment and Labour Markets

During most of this century industrial organization has tended toward vertical integration of production.' Although sectors of the economy differ considerably in their degree of concentration into large firms,2 the general pattern unfurling has been the replacement of small businesses linked by commercial contracts by organizations which direct production through bureaucratic controls. Since the recession at the beginning of the 1980s, however, this trend has been reversed. As well as the decomposition of capital into separate corporate entities in an endeavour to replicate efficient capital markets,3 managers of large firms have exhibited a greater interest in disintegration, by arranging aspects of production through subcontracting, franchising, concessions, and outsourcing.4 Similar developments have occurred in the public sector as one aspect of the policy of privatization.5 Legal regulation of the employment relationship has hitherto matured alongside the growth in vertical integration of production. This coincidence explains in part the limited scope of legal protection for employees. Employment protection rights such as the right to claim unfair dismissal or a redundancy payment typically vest only in employees whose jobs fit into the complementary paradigm form of employment in vertically integrated production: employment which is full-time, stable, and for an indefinite duration. The recent trend towards vertical disintegration of production places many workers outside this paradigm and therefore beyond the range of employment protection laws.

Independent Contractors and the Challenge of Vertical Disintegration to Employment Protection Laws

In this introduction to Marxism and the law, Hugh Collins presents a unified and coherent view of Marxism, which he uses to examine the specific characteristics of legal institutions, rules, and ideals. He pays particular attention to the place of ideology in law, the distinction between base and superstructure, and the destiny of law in a Communist society. His principal theme is the Marxist critique of the ideal of the Rule of Law. He argues that the main purpose of a Marxist theory of law is to expose the belief in the Rule of Law as being a subtle and pervasive ideology which serves to obscure the structures of class domination within the State. The author frequently subjects the Marxist approach to criticism and he shows that many of the Marxist claims about law are unproven or misconceived. The book is written in straightforward non-technical language which requires no knowledge of either Marxism or law.

Marxism and law

Although laws against discrimination have conventionally been justified and articulated according to various conceptions of equality, tensions between different notions of equality undermine the coherence of these explanations. The aim of social inclusion is proposed as part of an alternative justification for discrimination laws. As well as exploring the meaning and implications of the policy of social inclusion for discrimination laws, the extent to which the law already embodies this idea is assessed with particular reference to the scope of anti-discrimination laws, proof of discrimination, justification defences, and positive discrimination. It is concluded that the goal of social inclusion has the potential to provide a vital ingredient in a more coherent, though not uncritical, account of the aims of anti-discrimination legislation.

Discrimination, Equality and Social Inclusion

When am I responsible for the acts of another? As a general rule, never: I arn not responsible for the deeds of others and deeds that are not my own. Even though these others may be intimates rather than strangers members of my family, club, union, or community -the common law will not ascribe responsibility for their actions to me. The law constructs an atomistic conception of social relations, delimiting our legal responsibilities to our own acts and omissions, absolving us from blame for our brother's wrongs. This principle of personal responsibility sometimes appears to admit exceptions. Ownership or control of land may expand my responsibilities to include actions of others on my land, even trespassers and God.' Sometimes the common law imposes a duty to control others, such as a teacher's duty to keep a toddler out of the road or a prison authority's duty to keep the prisoners incarcerated, and failure to perform this duty with care renders teacher and warder liable for the damage caused.2 And then again, I can be responsible for the actions of my chattels: my cows eating the neighbour's corn. Yet these do not count as proper exceptions to the principle of personal responsibility in the homocentric eyes of lawyers. My responsibility remains personal; my liability arises from an omission to act in breach of a personal duty, from a failure to control trespassers, to restrain the child, to douse the fire staxted by a celestial thunderbolt; only the measure of my liability depends upon the acts of others. And as for my cows, why, not even Puss counts as a person in (modern) law, so the issue of responsibility for the acts of others does not arise. But this simple picture described by the principle of personal responsibility must be coloured by one significant exception, which we may call the principle of group responsibility. Here we enter the realm of the firm: the organisation of productive relations. A group of individuals work together to produce commodities and services for sale in the market. Under the division of labour, each person's actions contribute towards a common goal. The team acts as one, though like any team, there are captains exercising authority and squabbles about the distribution of rewards. But in these circumstances of collaboration and economic integration, to hold each person responsible for only his own actions, as the principle of personal responsibility requires, makes little sense. The defective product is the product of the team, and though the defect may spring from one individual7s carelessness, either in design or execution, it should be the responsibility of the group to establish an organisation which prevents such defects. Accordingly, in the context of economic relations involving a division of labour and vertical integration of production, the common law frames legal responsibility in terms of the group. If e workers are business partners, en e law holds each partner responsible for the acts and omissions of the others. Similarly, one person, the owner of the means of production, often in a corporate form, will be identified as an employer and held responsible under the principles of vicarious liability for the actions of other workers, the employees, which cause harm to others. Instead of purely personal responsibility, the legal principle in the context of productive relations becomes one of the responsibility of the group, the capital unit, the business, or the firrn.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1990.tb01838.x

Hugh Collins

Papers

Independent Contractors and the Challenge of Vertical Disintegration to Employment Protection Laws

Marxism and law

Discrimination, Equality and Social Inclusion

Ascription of Legal Responsibility to Groups in Complex Patterns of Economic Integration

Legal regulation of the employment relation