scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question

Showing papers by "Migration Policy Institute published in 2002"


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In the aftermath of the attacks in New York and Washington on September 11, the categories of "good" and "evil" have come to dominate the rhetorical response of the U.S. government.
Abstract: In the aftermath of the attacks in New York and Washington on September 11, the categories of “good” and “evil” have come to dominate the rhetorical response of the U.S. government. This article investigates the implications of using the concept of “evil” as a major public policy rationale. The article focuses on the Bush Administration's attempts to frame its policy around this term in the current campaign against terrorism, but also considers recent uses of the term in the growing literature on war crimes, genocide, and domestic repression. Because the concept of evil has deep roots in various theological understandings, we examine its religious meanings (largely within the Christian tradition) and the problems that arise when applying it in the secular context of government policy. In assessing these problems, we focus on Hannah Arendt's efforts to comprehend the evils of totalitarianism within a secular perspective.We argue that in contemporary policy discourse, “evil” is mostly invoked as a term of condemnation rather than an analytical concept, and that this usage tends to inhibit rather than encourage the search for explanation. It facilitates evasion of accountability within a secular framework of justice based on positive law. The alternative is to approach terrorism in the language of secular law, which rests on fixed criteria to regulate the use of force (in situations of war) and to prosecute and punish (in matters of crime). Such an approach complements and should encourage parallel efforts to comprehend events by examining their causes and historical context.

13 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors used bridging methods to assign more than one race respondents to single race categories to maximize the comparability of Census 2000 race data with earlier censuses, and analyzed the variability in those estimates across six single race groups.
Abstract: The question on race from Census 2000 was different from previous censuses because it allowed respondents to select one or more races to indicate their racial identities. Because of this change, the race data from Census 2000 are not directly comparable with data from earlier censuses. Researchers can use `bridging' methods to assign more than one race respondents to single race categories to maximize the comparability of Census 2000 race data with earlier censuses. This paper uses several bridging methods to generate race population estimates and analyzes the variability in those estimates across six single race groups.

11 citations