not focused on one issue, but more of a general discussion
The research problem here is slightly different, viz., how do states conceal human rights abuses against irregular migrants? The problem arises from within an understanding of human rights politics proposed by Risse, Ropp and Sikkink but no further engagement with the theory is offered. (From the theory, they derive the point that (host and transit) states have an interest in concealing human rights violations. Risse, et.al.'s own term is "denial" or non-acknowledgment, either of the norm itself or of the fact of violation. Cohen, as pointed out by Shor, has explored the varieties of "denial", including interpretative denial besides outright denial. Is "concealment" different from "denial"?) It seems that the word "conceal" implies that states know what norms have been violated which goes against the fact that states in fact do not acknowledge that human rights norms apply fully to irregular migrants
The authors discuss two specific ways of concealment: (1) through discourse; (2) through out-sourcing to other states.
Interesting discussion of the term "alien" in the law of English-speaking countries; also, "illegal alien".
p. 136 (should I need a quick enumeration of violations)
"A variety of actors take part in infringing on the rights of migrants, including state agents, employers, common criminals, traffickers and smugglers in human beings, and even the general population. Violations include the lack of due process in criminal and immigration proceedings, unfair and substantial working conditions, limited or no access to basic social services (e.g., housing, health and pensions), denial of political rights (e.g., the right to vote in the country of origin and the possibility of obtaining citizenship in the receiving country), harassment and discrimination on the part of authorities and the population, harsh or degrading detention conditions, and the impossibility of using the legal system to seek protection of their rights. ..."
(See also: Taran, Patrick. 2000. "Human Rights of Migrants: Challenges of a New Decade," International Migration 38(6).
p. 137 (should I need a quick evidence of recognition of vulnerability of migrants by UN)
"migrants constitute an especially vulnerable population prone to suffer human rights abuse" (See: UN Social and Economic Council, 1998. Specific Groups and Individuals: Human Rights of Migrants, Report of the Working Group of Inter-Governmental Experts on the Human Rights of Migrants, Report E/CN.4/AC.46/1998/5.)
2. Megan, Hugh. April 1997. "The Discourse of the Illegal Immigration Debate: A Case Study in the Politics of Representation," Discourse & Society, 8 (2): 249-270
analysis of "discourse strategies that fabricated the (irregular) immigrant as the enemy" in the Proposition 187 debate in California in 1994
"self-interest won over human rights"
this is a negative example (just like no. 1): how discourse was used against irregular migrants, i.e., to deny them rights or to exclude them from the coverage of rights
3. Sagunta Vas Dev. 2009. "Accounting for State Approaches to Asylum Seekers in Australia and Malaysia: the Significance of 'National' Identity and 'Exclusive' Citizenship in the Struggle Against 'Irregular' Mobility", Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power 16(1):33–60.
yet another negative example, this time from the Asia-Pacific region; identify the specific "campaigns"
again the analysis seems to focus on the discourse of "illegality" and "nationalism"
4. Ansley, Fran, "Constructing citizenship without a license: the struggle of undocumented immigrants in the USA for livelihoods and recognition," pp. 199-215.
not a discourse analysis BUT a positive example I have come accross, i.e., an analysis of how a campaign succeeded; paradoxically, author says campaign succeeded because rights language was avoided, instead, campaigners appealed to citizens' self-interest (note again the term "self interest" which reverberates with Jordan and Duvell's clash of two self interests, and the idea of "human rights" as a "higher morality": focuses on the "persuasive" function of human rights talk)
also refers to the example of the abolition of racial discrimination in US immigration law as long battle that was won apparently permanently in favor of people on the move (labor migrants)
see also: "License to Drive: Pioneering A Compromise to Allow Undocumented Immigrants Access to the Roads"
5. "Emergence of Pro-regularization Movements in Europe"
framing strategies
6. Schwenken, Helen. 2003. "Sangatte-A case study about the political self-organization of refugees and migrants in the European Union" available at
gives an analysis of two "framing strategies"
7. Schenken, Helen. 2003. "Domestic slavery" versus "workers rights": political self-mobilization of migrant domestic workers in the European Union, Center for Comparative Immigration Studies, University of California San Diego, available at
the research question: "the overall research question is how undocumented migrants and pro-migrant-organizations argue and mobilize, although the EU member states agree widely on combating irregular migration"
firstly, there is the "modern day slavery" discourse which frames abused migrant domestic workers as victims of human trafficking. RESPECT avoided this because the discourse did not fit the reality of the undocumented domestic workers who mostly came through legal means and also because it supported states' interest in curbing irregular migration more than in improving the women's situations in their host countries
secondly, “The European Commission is relatively progressive on the rights of women, more progressive than they are on the rights of migrant workers, and we should try and use that” (B. Anderson, in: SOLIDAR and Kalayaan, 1996: 14)
thirdly, the framing of domestic workers as "workers" or the use of workers' rights framework has advantages: (1) its empowering effect specifically on Filipinos (as opposed to Polish, for example); (2) unions are drawn in.
"the aim is to conceive domestic work as “real work” which was considered more important than struggling for the unrealistic aim of overseas professional employment"
9. McNevin's work on the sans papier movement and the Unpaid Wages Act
10. Guiraudon, Virginie. "Weak Weapons of the Weak?: Transnational Mobilization around Migration in the European Union"
11. Shindo, Reiko. June 2009. "Struggle for citizenship: interaction between political society and civil society at a Kurd refugee protest in Tokyo", Citizenship Studies 13(3): 219–237
not exactly discourse analysis but analysis of a sit-in protest stage in front of the United Nations offices in Tokyo in 2004
what he does here is exemplify a paradox about political representation of irregular migrants (I think someone called this the problem of "alterity") in which non-citizens need citizens to speak to the state
this is a problem that you can be sensitized to coming from post-colonial /subaltern studies perspective
here the author is using Partha Chatterjee
No comments:
Post a Comment