Visiting Fellows Autumn 2005:

• Lene Arnett Jensen
• Sara Kalm

		Name:	Lene Arnett Jensen
		Academic Title:	Associate Professor
		Affiliation	Dept. of Psychology, Clark University, USA
		Duration of Stay	1 September 2005 - 30 June 2006
		Office:	Room 46
		Address:	Fibigerstraede 2, Aalborg University, DK-9220 Aalborg East.
		Phone:	+45 9635 9202
		Email:	g05lj@ihis.aau.dk
		Fax:	+ 45 9815 1126

Ongoing Research Project

Title
Identity and civic engagement in immigrant youth (second generation) and their parents (first generation)

Aims
The primary aims for the AMID fellowship are twofold:

1. To analyze data and write up results from a dataset collected by the PI (principle investigator) with immigrant adolescents and parents in the United States.
2. To initiate conversations and possible collaborations with researchers who are part of AMID in order to extend the work of these AMID researchers and the PI in new and potentially cross-cultural directions.

Aim 1: Analysis and Write-Up
The PI has completed the data collection of in-depth interviews and questionnaires with adolescent-parent pairs who are immigrants to the United States. The interviews pertained to: 1) Immigrants’ cultural self-identifications (i.e., the terms they use to describe their cultural identities); 2) The meaning of the self-identifications to immigrants (i.e., the values and behaviors to which the self-identifications are tied); and 3) Connections between immigrants’ cultural identities and psychological and social outcomes pertaining to: a) civic engagement, b) education, and c) the adolescent-parent relationship.

The participants were a total of 80 immigrants residing in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. The sample consisted of two immigrant groups: Catholic Salvadorans (n = 40) and Hindu Indians (n = 40). Within each of these two immigrant groups, there were 20 adolescents ages 14-18 who were paired with a mother or father (n = 20). All 40 adolescents were second generation immigrants (i.e., they were born in the U.S. or arrived prior to starting elementary school) and all 40 parents were first generation immigrants (i.e., they arrived in the U.S. in their late teens or after). All participants took part in a one-on-one semi-structured interview (lasting 70 to 150 minutes, conducted at the participants’ homes).

During the period of the AMID fellowship, my focus will be on analyzing and writing up the sections of the interviews addressing self-identifications and civic engagement. With respect to civic engagement, it is important to understand the engagement of youth, including engagement in immigrant youth (e. g., Flanagan & Faison, 2001; Flanagan & Sherrod, 1998; Flanagan & Tucker, 1999; Jennings, 2002; Youniss, McLellan, & Yates, 1997; Youniss & Yates, 1997). About 20% of children and adolescents in the United States are first or second generation immigrants, and this number is predicted to continue to rise (Portes & Rumbaut, 1996; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001; Suarez-Orozco & Suarez-Orozco, 2001). Recently, Stepick and Stepick (2002) surveyed the literature on the civic engagement of immigrant youth. They repeatedly noted that very little research is available, concluding that “to this point, few researchers have focused on immigrant youth and even fewer have examined issues of civic engagement for immigrant youth” (p. 247). Given the fact that immigrant youth constitute a significant section of the population of American youth and given the importance of encouraging civic engagement among immigrant youth more generally, there is an urgent need for research on this topic.

There are many questions to be asked about immigrant youth’s civic engagement, including: To what extent are they engaged? In what kinds of civic activities are they engaged? And, perhaps most importantly, what are their reasons for being engaged or for not being engaged? We cannot assume that the answers to these questions are the same for immigrant youth as for non-immigrant youth (for non-immigrants, see Andersen, 1998).

As noted, we know next to nothing about the reasons that immigrant youth have for being (or not being) civically engaged. Stepick and Stepick (2002) suggested that the reasons why immigrant youth engage in civic activity may include their sense of connection with religious institutions and their commitment to their cultural groups. For example, they argued that discrimination against immigrant groups may motivate political activity. Stepick and Stepick (2002) also raised the question as to whether immigrant youth’s reasons for civic engagement are the same as those of their parents, and hence whether immigrant parents in part socialize civic engagement in their children.

Analyses of the qualitative interview data collected with the 80 immigrant adolescents and parents will:

1. Provide a systematic and thorough description of the nature of the immigrant adolescents’ civic engagement, and of the reasons that they state for their engagement (or lack thereof) in civil society.
2. Examine the connections that the immigrant adolescents’ see between their civic engagement and other aspects of their lives, including their sense of connection to religious institutions and their cultural group.
3. Examine the extent to which the reasons immigrant adolescents state for their engagement (or lack thereof) in civil society are similar to those stated by their parents.

Since there is limited research with immigrants on the present topic, a deliberate decision was made to obtain qualitative interview data that would provide insight into immigrants’ own conceptions of their civic engagement. One of the times when qualitative research is particularly helpful is precisely when we need to understand the categories emerging in new situations and the indigenous meanings associated with those categories (such as immigrant youth’s reasons for civic engagement). Furthermore, qualitative research is particularly helpful when connections among different phenomena are not well understood (such as the relation between civic engagement and cultural identity) (Fisher et al., 2002; Jensen, 2003; Jessor, Colby, & Shweder, 1996).

Aim 2: Cross-Cultural Conversations and Collaborations
The second key aim of the PI’s AMID fellowship is to build the basis for cross-cultural exchanges and potential collaborations. Such conversation have already begun, including at the 13th Nordic Migration Conference hosted by AMID in November of 2004 where the PI took part in a symposium centered on civic engagement.

For a cross-national study, Denmark should provide a very useful comparison to the U.S. Like the U.S., Denmark has experienced an influx of immigrants since the mid-1960s. For example, in 1980 first and second generation immigrants accounted for 3% of the Danish population, and by now this number had about tripled. Also, the immigrant population is expected to continue to rise (Danmarks Statistik). Yet, Denmark differs from the U.S. in a number of potentially key respects. Compared to the U.S., Denmark is less autonomy oriented, more community oriented, and lower in religiosity (Arnett & Balle-Jensen, 1993; Arnett & Jensen, 1994; Gallup & Castelli, 1989). A comparison of immigrants in the two countries may thus allow for an assessment of ways that psychological and social outcomes are mediated by overarching national beliefs (such as those surrounding Ethics of Autonomy, Community, and Divinity), and by the prevalence and functions of institutions within nations (such as religious institutions and schools). For example, given the difference between the U.S. and Denmark on religiosity and consequently the prevalence of active religious institutions, do immigrants’ cultural identities in the two countries end up differing in the extent to which they incorporate religious beliefs and practices? And if so, does this make a difference in terms engagement in civic institutions?

In summary, the AMID fellowship will allow for an extension of my research with immigrants, particularly on identity and civic engagement, in the context of new cross-cultural liaisons with AMID researchers.

Brief Curriculum Vitae

Education

Employment Record

		Name:	Sara Kalm
		Academic Title:	PhD Candidate
		Affiliation	Lund University, Sweden
		Duration of Stay	1 September 2005 - 31 January 2006
		Office:	Room 13
		Address:	Aalborg University, Fibigerstraede 2, DK-92220 Aalborg East
		Phone:	+45 9635 9214
		Email:	g05sk@ihis.aau.dk
		Fax:	+45 9815 1126

Ongoing Research Project

Managing Migration – the development of a global migration regime?

In a world that is generally described as “globalizing”, migration control stands out as an apparent contradiction. While barriers against the free movement of capital, finance and traded goods are being torn down, and while the development of communication technology and cheaper and faster means of transport are increasingly making the world into “one place”, barriers against the free movement of people are persisting and even reinforced. This is especially conspicuous in the various measures adopted by the wealthier nations against citizens of the South and the East. Critics of the more restrictive migration control practices, often talk about “Fortress Europe” and “Tortilla Curtain” concerning the cases of Europe and the U.S. respectively, about a “Wall” being erected around the West (Andreas – Snyder et al: 2000), and even of an emerging “global apartheid” (cf. Dalby 1999; Richmond 1994; Alexander 1996; Tesfahuney 2001).

According to Bauman (1998:2), access to mobility is becoming “the main stratifying factor of our late-modern or postmodern times”. If this is true, then it becomes vital to try and find out about who is accorded access to mobility, and on what grounds. To state it differently: how are different categories of movement produced? At a quite general level, it is commonly noted that we see “two worlds of movement”, where citizens of the industrialized North enjoy mobility whereas citizens of the developing world are much more restricted in their movement (Salter 2003: 2). Another asymmetry in mobility rights that is sometimes noted is between capital and labour, “[o]ne of the most notable, yet least noticed characteristics of the inequality within the current type of globalization (Massey 1999: 37)”. As an indicator of this asymmetry, critics often point to the absence of an international regime dealing with questions concerning labour migration. Whereas the free trade regime is institutionally manifest in the WTO, and there have also at least been attempts at establishing a multilateral forum to deregulate investments through the MAI-treaty, a multilateral forum for labour migration has so far not been established. Labour, it is often claimed, is still supposed to be fixed. People are, of course, still moving in search for better opportunities, but since their movement is regulated and controlled they are often obliged to do it illegally and take on the considerable risks associated with this type of movement (Massey 1999, 1994; Bauman 1998; Haynes 2001; Rodrik 2002; Harris 2002). The need for a renewed and globally based system for migration control has been recognized for some time, and at occasions a General Agreement on the Movement of People, similar to that of Tariffs and Trade (GATT) has been called for (see for instance Ghosh 2000; Bhagwati 1999; Harris 2002).

An interesting development is that there now seems to be an embryo of precisely an international regime dealing with migration issues. Although very far from being formally established, important steps are now taken towards a greater cooperation in this area. The idea is that as global movement increases and borders are becoming more porous, the traditional forms of control at the state border have become increasingly inadequate. What is called for instead is a comprehensive system to “manage” migration – that is, being in charge of the whole migratory process from countries of origin, through transit countries and to final destination. In an era of faster communication and more accessible means of transportation, this is beyond the scope of the nation states, which is why the need for greater international cooperation has been called for at international conferences (ICPD 1994; ILO 2004) and in UN reports (UNGCHS 2003; UNWCSDG 2004). However, it is not until in later years that various international initiatives with the explicit and implicit goal to develop an international regime for migration have been launched. Although different in scope, the work of the UN Global Commission on International Migration (GCIM), the “Mode 4” of the WTO GATS-treaty, and the Berne Initiative deserve special mentioning here. States have also identified the need for supranational and transnational organizations, which are implicated in these processes. These organizations include the International Organization for Migration (IOM), the Intergovernmental Consultations on Asylum, Refugee and Migration Policies (IGC), the International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD) and to some extent the International Labour Organization (ILO). These organizations have grown in importance and influence in later years, they are based on economic considerations rather than humanitarian ones (as contrast to UNHCR), and they share the same goal of migration management: their goal is not primarily to tear down the barriers to the movement of labour, neither is it to contain migration in absolute numbers. Instead, they want to “manage” migration in an informed and responsible manner. That is, adopting migration flows to the needs and demands of governments in sending and receiving countries, containing migrations that are not wanted and encouraging migrations that are (for example, to compensate for the future pension crisis in the EU). The work that these organizations do seems to show that immigration politics is not primarily about numbers as it used to be, but instead of controlling the composition of the migrations – that is, in Fleischer’s terms, social engineering or biopolitics on a global level. (Fleischer 2003; cf. Düvell 2003) Furthermore, some organizations provide “expert knowledge” on migration management to the states that support them and, following up the Foucauldian terminology, wherever there is an expert knowledge area, there is power. This would mean that the apparently neutral, apolitical and rational goal of “migration management” is covering relations of power, upon which the migration management practices are also based.

These developments within the area of migration control are practically unexplored by academics (with the small but notable exception by Düvell 2003) which is why I find it an interesting topic for my dissertation. Moreover, I believe that these developments can tell us something about current as well as future discourses and practices in the migration control field.

The main questions guiding the study are: who is awarded mobility rights in the international migration management schemes? On what grounds are people selected as eligible/non-eligible for international movement? How are the different categories of migrants being discursively produced? And how are these discourses translated into practice?

In the empirical analysis I firstly I turn to migration management as a power/knowledge area. Here, will do a textual analysis, guided by discourse theory, of the representations of migrants and migration problems. This work is based on conference reports, commission reports, policy papers, recommendations etc., as well as the “expert knowledge” on which these recommendations are based (i.e. academic reports of various kinds). This expert knowledge is primarily economic and demographic, and I believe it to be important to critically examine it. In the second part, I turn to a specific case of migration management practice. I have chosen to study the actions taken by the IOM and the ICMPD to manage migration from the Maghreb countries to Spain and hence the EU. The Maghreb is an important point of departure not only for the citizens of the region but also for people originating in sub-Saharan African countries, and the dangerous passage between Morocco and Spain have caused hundreds of deaths in later years. This case study is also of particular importance since limiting African migration is among the top issues on the migration management agenda (Fleischer 2003). However, the case study should only be considered illustrative of the larger developments to international migration management. The material for this part consists of various publications from these organizations as well as interviews with officials working for these organizations (planned early 2006).

Brief Curriculum Vitae

Education