Explore the vast range of titles available.

The border is one of the most urgent issues of our times. We tend to think of a border as a static line, but recent bordering techniques have broken away from the map, as governments have developed legal tools to limit the rights of migrants before and after they enter a country’s territory. The consequent detachment of state power from any fixed geographical marker has created a new paradigm: the shifting border, an adjustable legal construct untethered in space. This transformation upsets our assumptions about waning sovereignty, while also revealing the limits of the populist push toward border-fortification. At the same time, it presents a tremendous opportunity to rethink states’ responsibilities to migrants. This book proposes a new, functional approach to human mobility and access to membership in a world where borders, like people, have the capacity to move.The border is one of the most urgent issues of our times. We tend to think of a border as a static line, but recent bordering techniques have broken away from the map, as governments have developed legal tools to limit the rights of migrants before and after they enter a country’s territory. The consequent detachment of state power from any fixed geographical marker has created a new paradigm: the shifting border, an adjustable legal construct untethered in space. This transformation upsets our assumptions about waning sovereignty, while also revealing the limits of the populist push toward border-fortification. At the same time, it presents a tremendous opportunity to rethink states’ responsibilities to migrants. This book proposes a new, functional approach to human mobility and access to membership in a world where borders, like people, have the capacity to move.

Volpp comments on Trump's Executive Order No. 13768, \"Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States,\" directed at immigration enforcement in the interior, and Executive Order No. 13767, \"Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements,\" directed at immigration enforcement at the border. The order invoked the terrorist attacks of Sep 11, 2011, stated that \"[n]umerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since Sep 11, 2011,\" and indicated that it is the policy of the US \"to prevent the admission of foreign nationals who intend to exploit United States immigration laws for malevolent purposes.\" In order to accomplish this goal, the order suspended the entry of immigrants and nonimmigrants (temporary visitors) from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for a period of ninety days, with an invitation to the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to submit \"names of additional countries recommended for similar treatment

Exploring law's articulation in everything from road signs and billboards to Supreme Court opinions, this volume opens up the possibilities of legal study beyond doctrine and official behavior.This broadly ranging volume shows the possibilities of studying law from many different angles: not only as rule or behavior, but as text, image, or culture, and in relation to religion, place, family, ritual, and performance. For many, the right place to look for law is in constitutions, statutes, and judicial opinions. This book looks for law in the \"wrong places\"-sites and spaces where no formal law appears. These may be geographic regions beyond the reach of law, everyday practices ungoverned or ungovernable by law, or works of art that have escaped law's constraints. InLooking for Law in All the Wrong Places, leading scholars of anthropology, cultural studies, history, law, literature, political science, race and ethnic studies, religion, and rhetoric look at law from the standpoint of the humanities. Beyond showing law to be determined by or determinative of distinct cultural phenomena, they show how law is itself interwoven with language, text, image, and culture. Many contributors examine places where there appears to be no law, fi nding not only refl ections and remains of law but also rules and practices that seem indistinguishable from law and raise challenging questions about the locations of law and about law's meaning and function. Other essays look in the more common places- statute books and courtrooms-but from perspectives that are usually presumed to have nothing to say about law. Looking at law sideways, upside-down, or inside-out de-familiarizes law. These essays show what legal understanding can gain when law is denied its ostensibly proper domain. Contributors: Kathryn Abrams, Daniel Boyarin, Wendy Brown, Marianne Constable, Samera Esmeir, Daniel Fisher, Sara Ludin, Saba Mahmood, Rebecca McLennan, Ramona Naddaff , Beth Piatote, Sarah Song, Christopher Tomlins, Leti Volpp, Bryan Wagner An impressive line-up of leading scholars from a wide range of disciplines - law, but also anthropology, rhetoric, literature, history, geography, and race and ethnic studies.

The border is one of the most urgent issues of our times. We tend to think of a border as a static line, but recent bordering techniques have broken away from the map, as governments have developed legal tools to limit the rights of migrants before and after they enter a country’s territory. The consequent detachment of state power from any fixed geographical marker has created a new paradigm: the shifting border, an adjustable legal construct untethered in space. This transformation upsets our assumptions about waning sovereignty, while also revealing the limits of the populist push toward border-fortification. At the same time, it presents a tremendous opportunity to rethink states’ responsibilities to migrants. This book proposes a new, functional approach to human mobility and access to membership in a world where borders, like people, have the capacity to move.

In June 2012, President Barack Obama announced the creation of DACA, a program which instructed executive branch officials to exercise their administrative discretion to defer the deportation of eligible applicants. Two years later, in November 2014, President Obama announced the DAPA program, which expanded DACA and extended this exercise of discretion to parents of U.S. citizens or permanent residents. Both announcements were met by controversy. Critics charged that, by altering the legal regime from one in which undocumented immigrants were to be deported to one of \"executive amnesty,\" President Obama exceeded his authority, turning him into an emperor or a king. The President's supporters insisted, rather, that President Obama was acting fully within his executive authority. Understanding this debate requires one both to delve into the complicated legal context, and to look beyond legal doctrine. The controversy reflected broader concerns about discretionary executive power and the law, linked to anxiety regarding the sovereign's head of state as \"he who decides on the state of exception. It also de-rived from specific concerns about President Obama as the embodiment of the sovereign: his racialized body, depicted as illegitimate and foreign, furthered the perception of his policies as illegal. Lastly, the fact that undocumented immigrants are not perceived as members of the body politic helped to produce this vision of DACA and DAPA as lawless action. In this telling, the sovereign actor, the beneficiaries of his action, and the act itself were all cast as illegitimate through a mutually reinforcing logic; all were exceptions that stood \"outside the law.\"

The law of immigration rests upon the space of the nation-state and on how the movement of bodies in and out of that space is legally imagined. Whether formal legal doctrine recognizes a human body as inside or outside a nation’s territory is deeply consequential. Yet this formal doctrine presumes the nation-state to be a natural and innocent space absent of systems of domination. Case studies of concrete spatial locations demonstrate the social production of space. The case of a Danish reform coupling restrictions on forced marriage with a minimum habitat requirement indicates how space and immigration are produced in relation to gendered notions of race, linking the micro-space of the home with the macro-space of the homeland. The case of African Americans and poor relief in late eighteenth century Massachusetts, whereby immigrant origins were invented to evade town fiscal responsibility, shows how governmental space and immigration are produced as legal fictions. The Commentary concludes with a discussion of cosmopolitanism’s yearning for an ethical place-lessness, and of the challenge posed to nation-state sovereignty and legal imaginings of space by noncitizens whom the state seeks to cast out.

To posit feminism and multiculturalism as oppositional is to assume that minority women are victims of their cultures. This assumption, as Professor Volpp illustrates in this Essay, is achieved by a discursive strategy that constructs gender subordination as integral only to certain cultures. She traces the origins of the ubiquitous claim that minority and Third World cultures are more subordinating than culture in the West to the history of colonialism, the origins of liberalism, depictions of the feminist subject, and the use of binary logic. Pitting feminism against multiculturalism has certain consequences: It obscures the influences that in fact shape cultural practices, hides the forces besides culture that affect women's lives, elides the way women exercise agency within patriarchy, and masks the level of violence within the United States. Professor Volpp concludes by suggesting a basis for a constructive dialogue beyond the discourse of feminism versus multiculturalism.

ALONG THE SOUTHERN portion of the I-5 freeway, near the U.S.-Mexico border crossing at San Ysidro, California, stands a rectangular yellow road sign depicting the silhouette of a man, woman, and female child in flight, captioned with text in black stating, “Caution” (figure 1). It is the last of ten similar signs erected along the I-5 by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) beginning in 1990.¹ The road sign seems a deceptively ordinary and straightforward expression of the law. It serves as a regulatory apparatus of the state, using text and symbols to instruct road users what to do. Yet

“Human rights” is now a technique deployed to measure the progress of states. In the last two decades it has become both the normative language of how injustice is evaluated and a means through which powerful states discipline the new world order (Grewal 121). This disciplining often relies on a relation posed between gendered violence and human rights violations, whereby the denial of women's human rights represents the pathological cultures of repressive states. But this representation—commonly assumed by states, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and the public—is founded on the ignoring or effacing of political violence. Discourses about human rights attribute responsibility for gendered violations to purportedly pathological cultures, rather than to political sources. This tendency becomes apparent in the narrative told of why violations occur, as well as in the solutions proposed to these violations. What lurks beneath this disappearing act is a presumption that the world is made up of two kinds of states. One kind, described as rogue states or failed states, has a pathological culture in the place of a civil society. The other kind of state enjoys both a civil society and a monopoly on legitimate violence.

From anxiety about Muslim immigrants in Western Europe to concerns about undocumented workers and cross-border security threats in the United States, disputes over immigration have proliferated and intensified in recent years. These debates are among the most contentious facing constitutional democracies, and they show little sign of fading away. Edited and with an introduction by political scientist Rogers M. Smith,Citizenship, Borders, and Human Needsbrings together essays by leading international scholars from a wide range of disciplines to explore the economic, cultural, political, and normative aspects of comparative immigration policies. In the first section, contributors go beyond familiar explanations of immigration's economic effects to explore whose needs are truly helped and harmed by current migration patterns. The concerns of receiving countries include but are not limited to their economic interests, and several essays weigh different models of managing cultural identity and conflict in democracies with large immigrant populations. Other essays consider the implications of immigration for politics and citizenship. In many nations, large-scale immigration challenges existing political institutions, which must struggle to foster political inclusion and accommodate changing ways of belonging to the polity. The volume concludes with contrasting reflections on the normative standards that should guide immigration policies in modern constitutional democracies.Citizenship, Borders, and Human Needsdevelops connections between thoughtful scholarship and public policy, thereby advancing public debate on these complex and divisive issues. Though most attention in the collection is devoted to the dilemmas facing immigrant-receiving countries in the West, the volume also explores policies and outcomes in immigrant-sending countries, as well as the situation of developing nations-such as India-that are net receivers of migrants.