Migration Policy Institute

About: Migration Policy Institute is a nonprofit organization based out in Washington D.C., District of Columbia, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Immigration. The organization has 43 authors who have published 68 publications receiving 1131 citations. The organization is also known as: MPI.

Does “Smarter” Lead to Safer? An Assessment of the US Border Accords with Canada and Mexico

Abstract: The terrorist attacks of September 11 and their immediate aftermath along the US-Canadian and US-Mexican borders focused attention on border management strategies in ways previously unimaginable. Suddenly confronted by the fact that existing systems and processes were not particularly effective either at protecting security or facilitating legitimate traffic, the United States, in conjunction with the Canadian and Mexican Governments, demonstrated an uncharacteristic willingness to reconceptualize its approach to physical borders. While initiating a series of internal policy adjustments to secure themselves against terrorist threats, the US, Canadian, and Mexican Governments also signed two bilateral agreements — the 12 December 2001 United States-Canada Smart Border Declaration and the 22 March 2002 United States-Mexico Border Partnership Agreement. These agreements represent an important development in the US's relationship with each of its North American neighbours, acknowledging not only the deep economic, social, and cultural ties, but also the new reality that the United States cannot attain the additional security it desires through unilateral actions alone. Thus, while September 11 forced a reassessment of vulnerabilities, it simultaneously provided the United States an opportunity to work more systematically with its contiguous neighbours for security benefits, a realization likely to flow into other areas where the benefits of cooperation eclipse those of unilateralism. This paper analyses the first year of the two border accords, tracking their implementation and evaluating their successes and failures. Most importantly, the paper outlines outstanding challenges, highlights steps that the governments should take to achieve additional border security and efficiency, and draws conclusions regarding factors likely to make their efforts more, or less, successful.

Family Unity and Refugee Protection

Abstract: This chapter, after introducing the issues that arise in discussions of family unity and examining the role of the family in refugee protection, reviews the position of the refugee family in international law, both in relation to the right to family unity and the issue of family reunification. It then examines how these legal norms have been reflected in State practice, through the legal framework on the one hand, and policy and practice on the other hand. The chapter concludes by reviewing the emerging consensus on family reunification as a right of refugees.

The problem of denizenship: a non-domination framework

Abstract: The status of being a non-citizen or ‘denizen’ has been described as second-class citizenship. But many instances of denizenship are not morally troubling, e.g. highly skilled temporary workers. This paper examines the conditions under which denizenship is problematic by developing a framework for addressing the problem of denizenship, structured around the republican ideal of non-domination. Denizens are subject to the coercive power of the state like citizens, but lack many of the accountability mechanisms citizens enjoy. Whether this matters, I argue, depends on their exit costs of leaving the state of denizenship: either by leaving the country or by acquiring citizenship. This model could inform policies in three areas: improving the accountability of countries to their non-citizen population, empowering denizens in private relationships and reducing arbitrariness in citizenship acquisition. Although republicanism provides the conceptual architecture for this study, the concept of ‘exit costs’ has wid...

The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration: An Unlikely Achievement

Abstract: The most remarkable thing about the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (Migration Compact) is that it exists at all. Two years ago, when the Compact process began, many observers doubted that negotiations among all 193 members of the United Nations (UN) would produce anything other than a bland, least-commondenominator document. Although the United States dropped out of the negotiation process in December 2017, the other 192 UN Member States agreed on a substantive and fairly comprehensive text. It was adopted in December 2018 (although several other countries announced after negotiations were concluded that they would not endorse the Compact). That the Compact is not legally binding undoubtedly helped to reach this degree of consensus, but it is still a notable achievement. What characteristics of the negotiations and the final text made this outcome possible? Part of the explanation lies in the process itself. Although the negotiations were among all 193 UN Member States (until the US dropped out), the two co-facilitators of the process, the ambassadors to the UN in New York of Mexico and Switzerland, kept a tight grip on the text. During a year of wide-ranging consultations culminating in a stocktaking meeting in December 2017, no drafts were circulated publicly. When the first draft appeared, many States complained that their views on particular issues had not been taken into account. But the draft demonstrated an understanding of the ‘red lines’ that could not be crossed without losing additional States. European States, for example, required a strong statement about the obligation of States to take back their nationals who had no legal right to remain in another country, while countries of origin insisted on a more robust commitment to reintegration assistance. Both appeared in the Compact’s Objective 21. Late in the negotiations, the African bloc demanded a commitment to increased international cooperation, which was added as Objective 23. Such trade-offs and compromises characterize the Compact as a whole. All participating States got something they wanted; none got everything. The Compact’s 23 objectives can be thought of as falling into three baskets:

A Profile of Limited English Proficient Adult Immigrants

Abstract: This article examines the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL) to develop a profile of immigrant adults with varying levels of oral English proficiency The NAAL data on adult limited English proficient (LEP) immigrants are used here to examine their education levels, workforce involvement, incomes, use of public benefits, participation in English as a Second Language instruction, and English literacy levels The purpose of this article is to contribute to the body of research and policy literature on importance of English skills and literacy for adults’ education and workforce development The authors conclude that adults with low and medium oral English proficiency differ significantly along a number of dimensions that should be considered by policymakers and educators as instructional services are developed and program funds allocated for LEP adults